Pastors, your church needs you to be engaged—fully engaged—in the issues people are facing every day. Maybe you are not personally facing these issues, but they might be. If congregants come to you for help and advice and all you say is, “Sorry to hear about this,” then you’ve failed them.

Elaine Hugenin, owner of Elane Photography, chose not to photograph a same-sex ceremony. Her religious convictions prevent her from using her talents to celebrate same-sex unions. When she declined to photograph the ceremony, the same-sex couple, ignoring Elaine’s right to freely exercise her faith, brought a case against Elane Photography and the New Mexico Supreme Court unjustly found her guilty of discrimination, even though the same-sex couple easily found and used another photographer to capture the ceremony.

I can’t help but wonder what counsel her pastor provided, if any?

In a similar situation, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Washington State declined to offer her floral services for a homosexual couple’s same-sex “marriage” ceremony. The state attorney general has filed a lawsuit against the flower company. Barronelle Stutzman believes her Christian convictions prevent her from supporting the same-sex “marriage” and does not want to violate her convictions. She is still being sued, even though dozens of flower shops can provide flowers for their ceremony.

What insights did her pastor offer during this troubling time?

When the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop said he would rather close his business than violate his religious convictions by baking a cake for a same-sex ceremony, he was sued for discrimination. He is doing his best to stand firm and adhere to his faith but he is being attacked by locals within the community and the media. The same-sex couple, along with the ACLU, have filed a suit against Masterpiece Cakeshop, even though other bakeries could provide a cake for the ceremony.

What words of wisdom did his pastor offer during his hour of need?

Pastors often talk about controversial issues in a detached manner saying they are outside of the church and her scope. But these are real Christians—members of real churches—whose livelihoods, reputations, and lives are being attacked in a very public way. These issues are not outside the church, but within, and must be addressed so that these Christians can live their faith fully and carry their cross with the strength and support their church provides.

Pastors, congregants need you to be informed, engaged, and buttressed by your support and wisdom. If all you offer them during a difficult time is an obscure Bible verse, you might appear indifferent and uncaring. A shepherd needs to care for the needs of his flock, especially when their livelihood is at stake because of their Christian beliefs.

Pastors must be a solid rock for Christians during trying times when they are being assailed by our enemies.  They must be a counselor, friend, and inspirational resource. Make sure congregants know that they can come to you and count on your support. Here are two ways you can show your congregation your support during difficult times.

1.     Skip the rhetoric. Don’t recite sermons, prepared statements, or doxologies from books. Be a real friend, one who cries with them (Rom. 12:15), and is willing to walk by their side through this valley of darkness. I love sermons, Proverbs, Psalm and great quotes from men of God, but sometimes people just need a shoulder to cry on. Be that shoulder.

2.     Become a resource. (Ecc. 4:12) When a person’s character is being assaulted publicly and their livelihood is threatened, inspiring words only go so far. Become a resource for people in your congregation by making sure you are up-to-date on their situation, aware of laws and people and organizations that can help. Familiarize yourself with groups like Alliance Defending Freedom, the Family Research Council, and your local state family policy council that can provide legal and public policy resources.

Difficult times are opportunities for pastors to minister to the needs of their congregants. You will only be able to minister effectively if you are prepared. As ministers of the Gospel, we should endeavor to be “instant in season and out” (2 Tim. 4:2). When people need us, let’s be ready with God’s Word and the necessary resources to stand with those God has entrusted to our care.

This article by Pastor Nathan Cherry first appeared at the Alliance Defending Freedom’s Speak Up blog. You can see the original article and comments HERE. 

A Christian counseling student who was the subject of religious discrimination has won a major settlement against Eastern Michigan University. 

University officials have agreed to pay Julea Ward $75,000, after having expelled her from the school’s graduate counseling program. 

As part of her studies, Ward had been asked to counsel a homosexual client.  Ward sought to transfer the client to another counselor, saying she could not affirm the client’s behavior because of her religious beliefs.    

Even though referrals are an accepted practice under the counseling profession’s code of ethics and had been recommended by her supervisor, academic officials fiercely attacked Ward’s position. 

They informed Ward she would have to undergo a “remediation” program where she could “see the error of her ways” and alter her “belief system.”  When Ward held her ground, she was booted from the program. 

“Public universities shouldn’t force students to violate their religious beliefs to get a degree,” says Jeremey Tedesco of Alliance Defending Freedom.  “We are pleased that Julea and her constitutionally protected rights have been vindicated.” 

Ward had taken her case to federal court, where the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that she was entitled to a trial.  “Tolerance is a two-way street.  A reasonable jury could conclude that Ward’s professors ejected her from the program because of hostility to her speech and her faith,” the judges wrote.     

You can read more about Julea Ward’s case HERE.

In an overt act of religious discrimination, a Kentucky T-shirt manufacturer has been found guilty of “sexual orientation” discrimination for refusing to print T-shirts for a community  homosexual festival. 

Organizers of the Lexington, Kentucky “gay pride” event had filed the complaint against Hands On Originals, a Christian outfitter.  The company declined to print T-shirts promoting the 5th annual “Lexington Pride Festival,” citing a conflict with their religious beliefs. 

The Lexington-Fayette Human Rights Commission has found that Hands On Originals violated the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance.  Attorneys for the company plan to appeal the decision to an independent hearing examiner, and if necessary to a court of law. 

“Hands On Originals declined this order because it did not want to communicate the message of the requested shirt–that people should be ‘proud’ about engaging in homosexual behavior–nor did they want to promote the ideology of the Pride Festival,” says Jim Campbell, staff counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom.   

“The Constitution prohibits the government from forcing business owners to promote messages they disagree with,” Campbell adds.  “This kind of bullying may be practiced in a dictatorship, but violations of conscience have no place in the United States.” 

Blaine Adamson, the owners of Hands on Originals, says the company treats its customers fairly.  “We don’t have a sign on the door that says ‘No Gays Allowed.’  We’ll work with anybody.  But if there’s a specific message that conflicts with my convictions, then I can’t promote that.” 

You can watch a video providing more information about this controversy by clicking HERE.

Three of Illinois’ Catholic dioceses have decided to drop their lawsuits against the State of Illinois regarding the termination of foster care and adoption services contracts with their Catholic Charities affiliates.

The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services announced that it was revoking its contracts with the Catholic agencies because they refused to place children with same-sex and cohabiting “couples.”  The state action followed passage by the Illinois Legislature of a new law legalizing same-sex “civil unions.”

The bishops of the Springfield, Joliet, and Belleville dioceses announced they were abandoning their legal action against the state because of the financial toll involved.

“The decision not to pursue further appeals was reached with great reluctance, but was necessitated by the fact that the State of Illinois has made it financially impossible for our agencies to continue to provide these services,” says Belleville Bishop Edward Braxton.  “Since we now need to close offices and lay off employees, further appeals would be moot.”

Catholic officials estimate that the state’s decision will affect approximately 1500 foster children.  “While the State has forced the Catholic Church out of state-supported foster care and adoption services, the losers will be the children, foster care families, and adoptive parents who will no longer have the option of Catholic, faith-based services,” the bishops said in a joint statement.

However, the bishops also noted:  “The silver lining of this decision is that our Catholic Charities agencies going forward will be able to focus on being more Catholic and more charitable, while less dependent on government funding and intrusive state policies.”

The public has likely heard that the ironically — or deceptively — named “Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act” has resulted in the state of Illinois engaging in religious discrimination by refusing to renew its contract with Catholic Charities adoption agencies. The reason for this travesty is that Catholic Charities refuses to capitulate to homosexual tyrants who seek to compel them to contravene their religious beliefs by placing children in the homes of men and women who affirm homosexual “identities.”

What many do not yet know but should have expected is that the state is discriminating against another religious foster care agency, refusing to renew its contract with the Evangelical Child and Family Agency (ECFA), which has done commendable work for children since 1950, for the same reason.

Homosexuals and their ideological allies are feebly trying to assert that the central problem is that these agencies receive state funds. Somehow that wasn’t a problem in 1965 when the state first asked ECFA to partner with the Department of Children and Family Services to help place needy children in good homes.

Nor was it a problem every year thereafter — at least not until the civil union law was passed. This is the law that during the floor debate in Springfield, State Senator David Koehler (D-Peoria), the bill’s sponsor, stated would not affect child welfare agencies. Homosexual activists have made a liar out of him.

Like Catholic Charities, ECFA is steadfastly adhering to its religious commitments. Unlike Catholic Charities, however, ECFA has chosen not to oppose the outrageous DCFS decision, thus allowing the state to abrogate religious freedom.

ECFA’s decision not to oppose this assault on religious freedom may reflect their troublingly evasive approach to the entire imbroglio. During sixty minutes of discussion over the course of a two-day interview with ECFA director Ken Withrow, he carefully parsed his words in response to all direct questions regarding ECFA’s obvious position that they will not place children in the homes of homosexuals because ECFA believes homosexuality is sinful.

When asked if he thought the civil union law is connected to DCFS’s decision to sever relations with ECFS, he paused and then said “yes.” When asked specifically how it was connected, he said “DCFS needed to look at policies and practices to make sure all organizations that they partner with are in compliance.”

When asked, “In what specific way does ECFA fail to be in compliance with DCFS practices and policies?” Withrow said “ECFA’s policy is to recruit, license, and place with Evangelical families, and DCFS wants anyone who fulfills DCFS requirements to be considered.”

Multiple times in multiple ways I attempted to engage Withrow directly on the salient issue of homosexuality, but he studiously evaded any discussions of the rainbow-colored elephant in the room. In fact, it was clear that he became annoyed with the questions. When asked directly about placing children in the homes of homosexuals, Withrow responded repeatedly with the well-rehearsed talking point: “We recruit, license and place only with evangelical families.”

And this folks is one of the reasons we are in the cultural mess we’re in today. When leaders in distinctly Christian organizations and churches steadfastly refuse to courageously, unambiguously, and publicly affirm truth on the issue of homosexuality, they become part of the problem.

Withrow explained that ECFA offered to refer people in whose care ECFA would not place children (e.g. homosexuals) to other adoption agencies. But is this something that any Christian organization should do? If a group of polyamorists were to seek to adopt, would it be morally permissible for any Christian to direct them to an agency that would place children in such a household?

Or imagine a Christian crisis pregnancy center telling a woman who seeks an abortion, “We don’t perform abortions because they offend God, but we can tell you where you can get one.”

We either believe homosexuality is a grave moral offense against a righteous, holy God — or we don’t. And if it is, we have no business facilitating it in any way.

When I asked Mr. Withrow why ECFA is not fighting DCFS’s decision, he stated that “DCFS has the right to determine the practices and policies of the agencies with which they contract.” But, I asked, “Should the state be permitted to engage in religious discrimination?”

In a recent CNN debate among candidates running in the Republican primary, Princeton law professor, Robert George asked the following important and illuminating question and in so doing, told Illinois Congressmen and women what they should do:

In Illinois, after passing a civil union bill, the state government decided to exclude certain religiously affiliated foster care and adoption agencies, including Catholic and Protestant agencies, because the agencies, in line with the teachings of their faith, cannot in conscience place children with same-sex partners.

Now, at least half of Illinois’ foster and adoption funds come from the federal government. Should the federal government be subsidizing states that discriminate against Catholic and other religious adoption agencies? If a state legislature refuses to make funding available on equal terms to those providers who as a matter of conscience will not place children in same-sex homes, should federal legislation come in to protect the freedom of conscience of those religious providers?

Now, that didn’t seem so hard to say. Quite publicly and with apparent ease, Professor George managed to say exactly what Mr. Withrow refused to say: ECFA lost their contract with the state because they will not place children with homosexual couples.

IFI’s hope is that some courageous Illinois Congressman or Congresswoman will propose such federal legislation. Such legislation may help stop federal legislation proposed by far left U.S. Congressman, Pete Stark (D-CA) that calls for prohibiting “discrimination in adoption or foster care placements based on the sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status of any prospective adoptive or foster parent.” Stark’s bill, the “Every Child Deserves a Family Act,” would prohibit federal funds from going to any states that allow adoption/foster care agencies — including religious agencies — to refuse to place children in the homes of homosexuals or cross-dressers.

It’s remarkable that homosexuals who constitute less than 3 percent of the population are capturing virtually all of our cultural institutions. They couldn’t do it without the complicity of conservatives who only rarely, awkwardly, and self-consciously defend their beliefs in the public square. If we would proclaim our beliefs with the conviction, boldness, and tenacity that homosexuals proclaim theirs, we could protect our religious liberty and help create a better culture for the next generation.

TAKE ACTION: Contact your U.S. Representative and ask him/her to sponsor legislation to prohibit federal funding to state agencies that engage in religious discrimination, like Illinois’ DCFS. Tell him/her that state sponsored discrimination against people of faith, or faith-based organizations should not be subsidized by federal tax dollars.

Responding to a letter-to-the-editor I sent in earlier this month in which I accuse the state of Illinois of being guilty of religious discrimination in shutting down Catholic Charities’ vital and laudable foster care and adoption work, the editors of The Daily Herald opined:

When we wrote in this space that it was time for Illinois to have civil unions, we quoted Gov. Pat Quinn, who said we “need to encourage tolerance in this state.” And that’s just what the legislature did when it passed the law allowing for civil unions and what Quinn did when he signed it. However, with that law (effective on June 1) came another issue. Again, we side with Quinn.

Catholic Charities in five Illinois dioceses, including those covering DuPage, Kane and McHenry counties in the Daily Herald circulation area, are suing the state so the agencies would not have to accept civil union and unmarried couples as foster parents. At issue is the state money used by Catholic Charities to run their programs for about 2,000 children. Illinois now requires that foster and adoptive care agencies treat same-sex couples in civil unions the same as married couples if they want to use state dollars.

“If an organization … decides they don’t want to voluntarily participate with the state, they have that choice and we honor that choice,” Quinn said last month, as quoted by the Capitol Fax Blog. “We have other entities that are involved in foster care that are willing to assume that duty.”

And therein lies the crux of the debate: Faith-based agencies like Catholic Charities are not forced to accept state money and therefore are not forced to change long-held beliefs. This is not a freedom of religion issue.

We believe, however, that there are many same-sex couples who would make excellent foster or adoptive parents if given the chance. Loving families and good parenting skills are not limited to straight couples or single people.

And yet that is exactly what opponents of the civil union law believe and espouse. David E. Smith, executive director of the Illinois Family Institute in Carol Stream, said as much in a letter to the editor on this page on Monday.

” … In upholding traditional religious teachings, and in the best interests of children, (Catholic Charities) will not place foster children in nonmarried or homosexual homes,” Smith wrote. A person’s sexual orientation on its own should not be a disqualifier. That’s a form of discrimination the state won’t and shouldn’t accept.

We hope the Illinois judicial system affirms the state’s point in this matter. All they need to do is look to Rockford to see that there are alternatives. About 300 foster-care cases once handled by the Rockford Diocese were transferred to the Youth Services Bureau of Illinois Valley when the diocese shut its program down. In 2007, when the Chicago Archdiocese halted its foster-care services because of insurance issues, the state also was able to transfer cases to other agencies.

“We will explore every option to prevent disruption to these children,” said Ken Marlowe, spokesman for the Department of Children and Family Services. “Discrimination has no place in child welfare.”

IFI’s Laurie Higgins submitted a response to their editorial, which the Daily Herald declined to publish.

Take ACTION: Help us expose the fallacious and destructive ideas promoted by the Daily Herald by forwarding this email to friends and by posting it to Facebook and Twitter.

Here is Laurie’s fantastic response:

The Daily Herald reveals a profound lack of understanding when it argues that homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children because in the Daily Herald’s view “Loving families and good parenting skills are not limited to straight couples or single people.”

If those are the only criteria necessary for parental fitness, then the Daily Herald must support adoption by polyamorists or incestuous couples, for surely there are polyamorists and brother-sister couples who are capable of “loving and parenting” children.

Historically, however, criteria for adoptive fitness have included not merely the capacity of those adopting to love and parent children. Criteria for adoptive fitness included an evaluation of the moral nature of the relationship between adopting parents. Types of relationships considered inherently morally flawed would be excluded from adoptive consideration.

Of course, in a wiser, less relativistic culture, this criterion did not need to be explicitly articulated. It would go without saying that society would not place children in environments defined by inherently morally flawed relationships — like polygamous, incestuous, or homosexual relationships — regardless of the ability of the partners to love, parent, and provide for children.

Despite specious arguments to the contrary, subjective homosexual attraction and volitional homosexual acts do not constitute a condition analogous to race, and disapproval of homosexuality is not analogous to racism. Making judgments about the morality of homosexuality is no more unethically discriminatory than is making judgments about the morality of polyamory or adult consensual incest. Once society jettisons an evaluation of the inherent morality of the relationships between (or among) adopting parents, there is no rational reason to prohibit polyamorists or incestuous couples from adopting.

Religious — and non-religious — adoption agencies do have the right and should have the freedom to make distinctions about what types of relationships constitute moral relationships. The government is overstepping its bounds when it attempts to impose the subjective moral assumptions of homosexual activists and their ideological allies on all child welfare organizations.

Two controversies recently highlighted by the mainstream media underscore the urgent need for people of faith and moral conscience to vigorously oppose the homosexual political agenda. Twenty years ago, these stories would never have been reported, but today, activists within the liberal media are doing their level best to fabricate, mold and promote emotionally manipulative storylines designed to demonize traditional Judeo-Christian teaching and practices.

Christian Adoption Organizations
The first story is about a Christian adoption and family agency that denied an adoption request by homosexual partners from Chicago. Lutheran Child and Family Services of Illinois (LCFS) — which is affiliated with the conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod — has a policy that forbids applicants who self-identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or questioning from adopting or fostering.

No one should expect a Christian adoption agency to place a child into a home of adults who openly and proudly practice what the Bible clearly identifies as sin.

Fox Chicago News ran an “investigation” story this past Monday (Nov. 8, 2010) regarding this issue, asking if this is “a case of blatant discrimination, or religious freedom?” By their own admission, their “investigation” has “both government and civil rights leaders scrambling to settle the law.”

In their story, Fox Chicago reported that the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) confirmed that the Illinois Human Rights Act exempts religious-based adoption agencies from the anti-discrimination rules that non-religious agencies and organizations must follow.

Camilla Taylor, the senior staff attorney for Lambda Legal (a pro-homosexual legal organization with a $20+ million annual budget), disagreed. Taylor told FOX Chicago News that state contractors are prohibited by law from discrimination, and suggested that several similar state and federal court rulings set a clear precedent. So I guess the religious exemption in the Illinois Human Rights Act is worthless. This simply means that the LCFS and other conservative faith-based organizations (and businesses) cannot make biblically based decisions about the morality of homosexuality and must abide by the godless anti-discrimination doctrine of the government — First Amendment notwithstanding.

As a result of this “investigation,” the DCFS provided Fox Chicago with this statement:

DCFS and the Illinois child welfare system have a proud history of tolerance and inclusiveness. We have licensed tens of thousands of foster and adoptive parents without regard for sexual orientation, and we know from experience and research that sexual orientation does not affect parents’ abilities to provide a safe, loving home for children. DCFS met last week with Lambda Legal, along with the Governor’s Office and Attorney General’s office, to begin to resolve these very complex legal issues. We all share a commitment to shape Illinois law and policy to respect the rights of all Illinoisans, and we will continue working together toward that goal.

For good measure, Fox Chicago pointed out that LCFS, Catholic Charities and Evangelical Child — all of which uphold the biblical ideal of family — received more than $23 million in state funding in fiscal year 2010. This constitutes a not-so-subtle hint to policy-makers to defund these religious groups.

Open Lesbian Fired at Catholic University
The second story is about Springfield, Illinois’ Benedictine University. This Catholic school recently fired school administrator Laine Tadlock after her Iowa “marriage” announcement was published in the State Journal-Register.

In a Sept. 30 letter to Ms. Tadlock’s attorney, Benedictine President William Carroll wrote

…By publicizing the marriage ceremony in which she participated in Iowa she has significantly disregarded and flouted core religious beliefs which, as a Catholic institution, it is our mission to uphold.

Ms. Tadlock was offered early retirement Aug. 27. According to published reports, Ms. Tadlock met that day with Carroll and Mike Bromberg, dean of academic affairs. Ms. Tadlock said Carroll told her he had consulted three Catholic bishops about the situation, including Bishop Thomas Paprocki of the Springfield diocese. The Chicago Sun-Times reports that Paprocki said the school “is to be commended for its fidelity to the truth in upholding the faith and morals as taught by the Catholic Church.”

Bottom Line
What is at stake here is the freedom for people and organizations of faith to be able to operate by the dictates of the faith they profess — free of governmental coercion and/or direction. Homosexual activists groups, the biased dominant media and liberal lawmakers (including many so-called “moderate” policy makers) are willing to sacrifice our First Amendment’s guarantees in favor of unofficial state beliefs — including unproven humanistic beliefs about sexual orientation.

IFI’s Laurie Higgins has pointed out in a number of her articles that Georgetown University lesbian law professor and current member of the EEOC Chai Feldblum publicly stated that when same-sex “marriage” is legalized, conservative people of faith will lose religious rights.

This is not a theory. It’s happening right before our eyes. Increasingly we are seeing this play out. Traditional Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims are not able to make faith-based decisions about the morality of homosexuality and are being forced to abide by the godless anti-discrimination doctrines imposed by legislators and activist judges.

It is only a matter of time before these government-imposed mores are imposed on pastors, priests, rabbis, and imams. When will they be forced either to perform homosexual weddings and hire homosexuals or face costly legal action and fines for making legitimate judgments based on their moral views of sexual behavior?

Illinois citizens and Americans across the nation must begin to understand what is happening and oppose this radical political agenda that seeks to force all of us to set aside our faith, traditions and beliefs in order to honor immoral sexual behavior.

People of faith and people of moral conscience must speak up in the public square about this dangerous political agenda. A good place to start would be with the current push for same-sex “civil unions” in Illinois. This legislation (SB 1716) is everything that homosexual “marriage” is, except for the name.

SB 1716 gives all the rights, benefits and privileges of marriage. This will be the basis for many lawsuits against religious organizations, churches and people of faith.

In Massachusetts and California, the public schools have used the “legalization” of “same-sex marriage” as a mandate to teach children as young as kindergarten to affirm homosexual acts, homosexual relationships and “diverse family structures” as morally equivalent to heterosexuality, heterosexual relationships and the traditional family structure.

The bottom line is that we can’t have both government protections for religious liberty and government protections for homosexual behavior, and, therefore, which will it be?

Do you think that homosexual activists will be content with getting same-sex “civil unions?” 

Listen to two leading gay activists:

More Great IFI Resources:

• IFI Position Paper
• IFI Talking Points
• Eroding Religious Liberties