By L.A. Williams, Correspondent
Christian Action League
December 4, 2013
WILMINGTON — Controversy continues over Myrtle Grove Christian School’s Biblical Morality Policy, which allows the school to refuse to admit or discontinue enrollment of a student whose home life counters the school’s teachings.
Gay activists are leading protests against the Wilmington private school, zeroing in on the policy’s mention of homosexual activity and bisexual activity among a list of unacceptable lifestyles.
But the Rev. Mark Creech, executive director of the Christian Action League, said the school is perfectly within its rights.
“The school is private and doesn’t receive state funding, but even if they did, they would still be within their rights because North Carolina law doesn’t recognize gay relationships as deserving equal status with heterosexual marriage, nor should it,” he said.
Although the mainstream media has highlighted the homosexual angle, in truth the policy cuts a broader swath, allowing the school to deny a student admission if his activities or the conduct in his home runs counter to a biblical lifestyle, including, but not limited to “affirming sexual immorality, homosexual activity, or bisexual activity; promoting such practices; or being unable to support the moral principles of the school.”
To explain Myrtle Grove’s requirement that families sign the policy when applying for the 2014-2015 school year, Head of School J. Stacey Miller wrote a letter shedding light on the school’s philosophy of partnering with like-minded families to provide not only education but to foster spiritual development and help students adopt a biblical worldview.
In his Nov. 13 missive, Miller asks parents to remember the game of Duck, Duck, Goose and how players formed a circle, grasped hands and then moved away from the center until their arms were fully extended and their hands pulled apart.
“This picture illustrates a simple but profound truth: If we move too far away from the center, we can no longer hold hands,” the letter states, applying the principle figuratively to the relationship between the school and the families it serves.
“The question is, at what point are a family’s moral affirmations or lifestyles far enough away from the biblical center that we cannot hold hands in partnership?” Miller asks.
“That’s a fair question and truly, we believe, an effort to be transparent,” Dr. Creech said. “The school is simply establishing some boundaries for forming partnerships with the families they seek to serve.”
He said the fact that the policy calls for both the school and the home to “come under the authority of God for the benefit of the student” is not only Biblical but practical. Otherwise, students could be taught one worldview at school and a totally different one at home.
“I think the standard by the school is right,” Dr. Creech added. “I believe the Scriptural admonition that ‘a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump,’ Gal. 5:9 fits here. Parents or students unwilling to bring themselves in compliance with the moral code advocated by the school may diminish Myrtle Grove’s ability to achieve its mission.”
Homosexual backlash against the policy has been fueled by the fact that the school could be chosen by families awarded Opportunity Scholarships next year, scholarships funded by state taxpayers.
Under the Opportunity Scholarship program, students awarded scholarships can choose to use them at the school that best suits their needs.
“The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld opportunity scholarship programs like North Carolina’s, and we are confident that allowing students to use their scholarships to attend schools like Myrtle Grove is both lawful and appropriate,” wrote Tami Fitzgerald, executive director of the N.C. Values Coalition, in a recent press release on the matter. “Gay rights radicals have no right to impose their views on sexuality on private school students and their parents.”
With some humor Dr. Creech said, “For the gay community to fault Myrtle Grove Christian School for their policy is similar to hog farmer families being upset their kids might be excluded or out of place in a rabbinical school. Give me a break. Their complaints are absurd and another demonstration of the way they would violate religious liberty, while hypocritically calling for tolerance.”