The Church of Jesus Christ (speaking broadly) has had its share of challenges in its roughly two millennia existence. At various times and places it has confronted existential threats because some in the Church believed and stood for something permanent and wonderful – something (if I may put it this way) out of this world. That’s the way it has gone for centuries because cultures do not look kindly on those who will not conform. The Roman Empire took that view for about three centuries after the birth of the Church, and in periodic persecutions martyred perhaps as many as three million Christians. The consistent message has been play the game, or pay the price.

In contrast, it is a fundamental Christian belief that the teachings of Christ are true no matter what the surrounding culture believes. A frequent metaphor for this is the Church as light; and as darkness increases (in the culture) the light shines brighter. But, brighter light also angers those who don’t want its illumination. As Jesus himself noted, “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.  Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.”

This sheds light (no pun intended) on a point of contention in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulation debate over the government’s mandate that certain religious organizations pay for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization procedures – even when their religious beliefs forbid them. Rather than having their religious and moral beliefs respected, these organizations are being told they need to get with the times and change centuries of beliefs the way the culture changes clothing styles. The problem is the Church does not work that way, and the demand misses the point of what the Church believes God intended it to be. The Church is the measuring rod for culture, and its role is to speak on eternal truths that transcend cultures; it is there to shape the culture, and not vice-versa. In fact, much of the Church believes this is its mandate, and the failure to do so means it has ceased acting as the Church.

Let’s add an obvious here as well; while there are central beliefs to Christian orthodoxy, parts of the Church disagree on various points of practice. This is expected – even anticipated in the Bible – where the Church is told to exercise Christian liberty in certain debatable points. We respect individual conscience within an established framework – so one sect’s view of contraception does not prevent it from fighting for the religious liberty of another that holds a different view. The issue is bigger than contraception or abortifacients; it is whether the state may order people to violate their deepest religious and moral convictions for pretty much any reason government bureaucrats wish.

Those following the issue have likely heard the most common justifications of government officials for imposing such a mandate. I’ve heard and read the arguments from pundits and talking heads on the evening news. In one approach, bureaucrats wag a finger in the face of a church and scold about how many people are doing something despite church teaching. The message is clear; you are out-of-touch and need to conform to what many people are doing. (The more odious form of this asserts a church needs to become relevant – whatever that means –- as if relevance is the ultimate moral good.)

The source behind many of these comments is a study by Guttmacher Institute, which is an affiliate of Planned Parenthood. (Their website says they are dedicated to “(a)dvancing sexual and reproductive health worldwide…”

Their website contains the following summary:

“Contraceptive use by Catholics and Evangelicals—including those who attend religious services most frequently—is the norm, according to a new Guttmacher report. This finding confirms that policies making contraceptives more affordable and easier to use reflect the needs and desires of the vast majority of U.S. women and their partners, regardless of their religious beliefs. ‘In real-life America, contraceptive use and strong religious beliefs are highly compatible,’ says Rachel K. Jones, the report’s lead author. ‘Most sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant practice contraception, and most use highly effective methods like sterilization, the pill, or the IUD. This is true for Evangelicals and Mainline Protestants, and it is true for Catholics, despite the Catholic hierarchy’s strenuous opposition to contraception.’”

Now, groups like Planned Parenthood citing the practices of Christians to justify coercing people of faith is laughable, with the ludicrous quality of the fox guarding the henhouse. But the troublesome point is not the obvious lack of credibility – rather it is the strategy. Churches are told they had better discard their antiquated views and go with the majority, or the majority view will be forced back on them.  And if a lot of practicing Christians become vegetarians some day, I suppose the churches can be compelled to add veganism to their catechisms to remain relevant.

The entire notion is absurd and deeply offensive to how a society understands the role of its churches. When cultural pressures in Germany in the 1930s led most churches away from traditional Christian beliefs and into support for the Nazi party’s concept of what religion ought to be, it was hardly their finest hour. With few notable exceptions, the churches in Germany fell into the trap of conforming to the culture rather than acting as its conscience.

The scorecard for a culture in any particular generation is irrelevant; the Church has a role to play in society, and the facile assumption it should change its essential beliefs to conform to the times reveals an appalling lack of understanding of its role. The Church, for all its human failures and struggles, still bears the message of a greater transcendent truth.  Light is never needed more than in the darkest of times.

It’s seems almost daily we’re reminded of the relentless attack on religious freedom. But we must keep in mind that there are small, but meaningful victories occurring along the way, as well. Recently, a positive trend has developed in case law under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.  This positive trend recognizes and affirms important constitutionally protected freedoms for churches and para-church ministries, such as Christian schools or substance abuse programs.

A group of recent, seemingly disparate cases illustrate this encouraging theme in the law.  In one case, a Christian school prevailed against a teacher’s discrimination claim after she was not rehired.  In another, a student at a Michigan University was allowed to proceed with her claim against the University after being expelled from its counseling program because of her personal moral beliefs.  Finally, a church in New York City was told it will be allowed to rent a school building for now to hold worship services on Sundays. The common theme is that all of these wins were based (in whole or part) on a vibrant understanding of free exercise of religion protections.

These significantly different factual scenarios – a religious school’s right to hire and fire employees, a student’s right to live out her faith at a public university, and a church’s right to rent a school building – show how broadly free exercise protections extend. Courts appear to be receptive to extending the protections recognized by the First Amendment in ways the framers of the Constitution took for granted. As those in the religious liberty community know, the Free Exercise Clause has taken a beating in recent years.  But that trend seems to be reversing itself.

While space does not allow for a detailed analysis, we do want to point out a few common considerations that may position you, as a ministry leader, and your church to take advantage of this positive trend in the law. First, protections for religious exercise extend to churches and organizations that clearly explain and practice their religious beliefs. Courts will not always take for granted that an organization has a religious mission when it is not clearly and consistently expressed. Thus, churches that take proactive steps, such as updating their bylaws or statement of faith, gain an advantage under the Free Exercise Clause.  We have resources that will help you understand how best to update your bylaws and governing documents.

Second, churches and para-church ministries need to stand firm in their religious beliefs.  No church should ever be afraid to confront unrighteousness in the community or to stand in accordance with its religious beliefs when hiring or firing staff or ministers, or in any other exercise of its faith.  Churches should also have equal access to community benefits, such as the use of public facilities, and should not be afraid to press a Free Exercise claim when treated unfairly.

Third, churches and para-church ministries need to seek legal advice – and do so quickly – when faced with what appears to be religious discrimination or government intrusion into their religious beliefs or operational functions.  Contact ADF if you think your church or ministry is being unfairly targeted based on your religious belief or mission.

At ADF, we watch the legal horizon so you can shepherd your flock. It’s pleasing to report a ray of light up ahead that will aid the Church in flourishing in America.  When the Church flourishes, society benefits immensely. But when the Church is silenced, society suffers and declines correspondingly.  Please contact ADF if we can ever be of assistance.

There are rare moments in life when a cause ignites souls in a deeply and viscerally understood truth. These are moments of mental and moral clarity; moments when we see great opportunity or approaching calamity.  They come at times when conscience will not allow us to be silent, and we determine to face whatever consequences attend our choices, because such moments demand action and not mere reflection.

They are times when a man like the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King sat in a Birmingham jail and penned his explanation for violating “unjust laws” that violated the “moral law, or the law of God.” Or times such as when Dietrich Bonheoffer drew a metaphorical line in the sand – a line that cost him his life – because the moral law compelled him to deny Nazi dogma.

And now we see the budding of another such moment – a time of moral clarity that compels action. It is a spontaneous response to a government policy of outright contempt for religious freedom and freedom of conscience, which comes to us in the form of an administration mandate. The mandate from the White House orders all employers (except – so far – for a narrow church exemption) to provide (and pay for) abortion-inducing drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives. This mandate includes religious organizations – even those directly set up to promote pro-life causes. In other words, employees have the right to these “services” and employers with religious objections must directly subsidize them. The recent backpedaling from the White House is wholly unpersuasive. For example, shell-game type tactics announcing that insurers can be made to provide the services “free” are ludicrous. As everyone knows, calculations for insurance premiums are based on an insurer’s actual costs; add the services and every insured ends up paying for them.

That’s why there will be rallies in over one hundred cities this Friday, March 23^rd, all organized on the theme: Stand Up for Religious Freedom. Speakers at each rally will be pledging to resist and, if necessary, disobey this unjust government mandate. This government bullying and trampling on religious freedom and conscience should make us all shudder. More importantly, it should make us stand together in resistance, regardless of our feelings on the subjects behind the mandate.

Don’t miss the key point behind all this outrage. It is not whether abortifacients, sterilization procedures, or contraception violate our personal beliefs. Rather, it is whether the administration can compel people with religious views to pay for these services or for their employees. As best-selling author Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church noted: “I’m not a Catholic, but I stand in 100 percent solidarity with my brothers and sisters to practice their belief against government pressure. I’d go to jail rather than cave into a government mandate that violates what God commands us to do…”

Cynical political calculations on issues like how many “religious” persons use contraception totally miss the mark. For an administration that often blurs religious concerns and political expediency there may be genuine bewilderment over the extent of the reaction. But only a contemptuous understanding of people who “…cling to their guns or religion…” could miss the significance of the mandate for people of faith. The White House would do well to observe and learn from the coming rallies. A movement, once ignited, spreads more quickly and intensely than political calculations foresee.

___________
Here is a listing of the rally sites. http://standupforreligiousfreedom.com/locations/

When a handful of atheists recently sued over the display of a memorial cross in the 9-11 memorial, I wasn’t expecting much different in their legal complaint. Their papers trotted out the customary tedious distortions about the so-called “separation of church and state,” claims of deep offense -  in short, what Claude Rains’ police captain role in Casablanca called “the usual suspects.”

Then my eyes fell on a paragraph with something new! The plaintiffs were claiming they suffered from a variety of physical ailments (the symptoms of their distress), the first of which was “dyspepsia.”  Naturally, I was intrigued. I had a faint memory of the word from something like a Pepto Bismol commercial, but what exactly was this malady?  I rushed to an unimpeachable source for further insights (Dictionary.com) and found this enlightening definition: “deranged or impaired digestion.”

Now, any lawyer understands the concept of damages – that in order to sue, one must have some sort of actual (as opposed to hypothetical) harm.  Generally, the people behind these suits stick to their preferred script in which their harm is that they were … well … offended. It has always struck me that the “offended” approach is a public relations difficulty for them. It sounds a little whiny and self-absorbed, since all of us are routinely offended by things in life, and almost never make a federal case out of it. In fact, these same people often wax eloquent about “diversity” and the need to get along with others who are different. This magnanimous sentiment fails, however, when it is their offense; so diversity is apparently a one way street.

Perhaps in recognition of this public relations problem, the plaintiffs in this memorial cross case have elevated the claims of harm. Rather than mere offense, they also suffer from deranged or impaired digestion. Saying “I can’t digest my pate de fois gras” certainly sounds less shrill than “I am offended,” and might garner some sympathy.

But let’s explore this line of thinking further. If some kind of physical ailment should be taken seriously, I would like to point to another group – our clients in the United Retired Firefighters Association, which speaks for about 7,000 retired NY City firefighters.  We have the great honor of representing this group to express their indignation against the memorial cross lawsuit. The members of this organization went to scores of funerals following 9-11, often for the children of fellow members. As well, many members were active firefighters that day and suffered serious ailments, such as burns and respitory problems.  If the combination of “offense” and impaired digestion is sufficient harm for a constitutional claim, how should we view the feelings and injuries of New York’s bravest? Consider as well, these plaintiffs focus on their personal offense, and not the wounds of thousands who find comfort in that memorial cross. How different are these firefighters, who forgot personal safety to save, and perhaps even die for, others in need? The two motivations could not be more dissimilar.

Which side in this cultural debate deserves to be heard and heeded? With all due respect to impaired digestion, I think I know where most Americans line up.

The lawsuit brought by a few offended atheists over a memorial cross in the 9-11 memorial and museum both misunderstands and misapplies the First Amendment. The lawsuit is another effort to shoehorn hostility toward religion into the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment, which most people have heard of, but few could quote. The words of the First Amendment that touch on “establishing” a religion are remarkably simple and direct: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” The prohibition is, by design, straight-forward, and lest anyone mistake the meaning for some kind of mandated hostility, the amendment continues “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In modern language we might paraphrase it this way: Congress, don’t set up an official national religion, like the Church of England, and don’t pass any laws that will interfere with how people worship God according to the dictates of their conscience.

Precisely because the words are so clear – we do not want an “established” national religion – the proponents of religious cleansing almost never quote them. Instead, they look to Jefferson’s metaphor of a “wall of separation” between church and state, and twist its meaning out of context. The wall metaphor was penned in a letter to a Baptist Church in Connecticut to reassure the congregation that the First Amendment acted as a shield for the church against hostility from a state established religion. In other words, the wall of “separation” existed to protect the church.

People like the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, however, use the wall metaphor not as a shield, but rather as a sword to attack religious expression or accommodation. Their argument misconstrues language, and for that matter, language not even found in the First Amendment; they must avoid the actual text or people will see the emperor had no clothes. There is, however, one notable consistency to their claims, or rather their tactics; repeat your tiresome mantra often enough and supply your own meaning, and people will gradually assume it is in the Constitution.

That’s why it’s worth asking what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment: What exactly is an “establishment” of religion?

Historically, it is easy to see the kinds of activities that did not run afoul of “establishment” concerns. The founders, including Jefferson himself (the author of the wall metaphor) had no problem holding Christian worship services … in the U.S. Capitol. Oh yes, and for good measure Jefferson ordered the Marine Corps band to play worship at the services. The founders had no aversion to legislative prayer, issuing proclamations for national prayer, designating ministers to deliver sermons to Congress, and other activities that regularly invite lawsuits today. If you had posed the question to them whether a memorial cross was an establishment of religion, they likely would have thought you were joking.

For the founders, establishing a religion had to do with compulsion. An established religion dictates belief and demands compromise with one’s conscience. On the other hand, the claim that a memorial cross demands that people worship a certain way is simply preposterous. It could not be clearer that a passive symbol that brought hope and comfort to many does not establish a religion. Rather, this is a clear case of accommodation of religious beliefs – which the founders (including Jefferson) routinely encouraged. Allowing the display of a symbol that brought hope and strength to many in one of the darkest chapters of America’s history is exactly in line with our Constitution and heritage.