Churches Continue to be Hauled in Front of Commissions

Think the British government’s campaign to force churches to hire unbelievers won’t happen here in Canada?

Think again.

Barbara Hoekstra complained she was discriminated when she was not considered for a job for which she applied at a Christian Reformed church in Hamilton. She claims that the reason she was not considered is that her request for membership in the church was denied a year earlier, upon concerns that she was going through a divorce and living with another man.

The fact that the Tribunal even heard the case sends the message loud and clear that the hiring practices of churches are going to be scrutinized. The decision states:

The applicant’s belief that the ad hoc hiring committee was influenced by her life circumstances was not unreasonable.

Members of the church’s hiring committee and council were called in front of the Tribunal to testify. There were, undoubtedly, legal costs incurred by the defendents. In addition, there will undoubtedly be a “chill” placed on the council when considering other requests for membership and applications for employment. It is interesting to note that the church still has two vacant positions that have not been filled since the complaint was filed.

Hoekstra’s opinion of the conduct of the church council is recorded in public legal record:

She accepted that she may not have described all the above circumstances with Pastor Zantingh in their spring 2005 meeting, but she believed that the Pastor should not have made the criticizing comments without having further investigated her circumstances. She also criticized the Elders’ failure to investigate her circumstances before making a judgement about her.

Criticisms to which, of course, the Church could not respond without filing a libel suit.

Here’s where they say, “Quit whining, Scary Fundie! They ultimately dismissed the complaint, so look! The system works!”

Besides the above points on the punishment of the process, one must ask the question: On what grounds was the complaint dismissed? The tribunal let the church go only because it was convinced that the defendants did not take Hoekstra’s “life situation” into account. In other words, if a church does consider a person’s walk before the Lord in their hiring decisions, they would may yet be found in contravention of the Code.

I guess we’d better add a sixty-seventh book.

Advertisements

3 Responses to Churches Continue to be Hauled in Front of Commissions

  1. The “progressives” work to make their system more complex, onerous, expensive and scary. They are bent on tuning up the chill factor and currently a major source of bureaucratic power.

    I read a comment recently to effect of “get the leftist’s of the levers of power, fast!”

  2. Kevin Kindred says:

    The conclusion in your last paragraph isn’t quite right. The Church argued two points. (1) They didn’t take her person situation into account, and (2) even if they did, as a church they are specifically protected under the Code.

    The Tribunal found that their first argument was valid, so there was no need to deal with their second argument. Not that they lost the argument, it just wasn’t addressed.

  3. Kevin:

    Understood (Post updated), thanks.

    The first quotation in my post indicates that the “argument was not unreasonable”, therefore the Tribunal would consider the argument if it came to that. I would think that if a Tribunal considers an argument reasonable, then there would exist some circumstances by which the Tribunal could find the church in contravention of the Code.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: