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.

In a recent article on the Christian Post website, Piero A. Tozzi, Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel, referenced a major policy address made by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton late last year to delegates of the United Nations, in which she attempted to clarify what exactly is keeping the homosexual political agenda from gaining the kind of enthusiastic embrace in America that it’s received in Europe.

The problem, Mrs. Clinton assured them, lies with the “deeply-held … religious beliefs” of certain confused Christians, who can’t (or won’t) understand that “religious traditions” support the “human rights” of those who would practice homosexual behavior.

Clinton’s remarks followed an executive order from the Obama White House making “combating criminalization of LGBT status or conduct” by foreign governments “central” to U.S. foreign policy. Strange as it may seem to make the international embrace of human depravity the centerpiece of U.S. global policy, it’s an order being taken seriously by American ambassadors like, say, Pamela Bridgewater who has justified her own intervention in Jamaican debates over the penalization of sodomy by declaring that “the gospel of love … convinces me that tolerance is in accordance with the Christian faith and practice.”

That’s a hard position to justify with Romans, Chapter 1, which characterizes those who practice homosexual behavior and sodomy – and those who approve of such practices (v. 32) as worthy of God’s wrath, destined for delusion and (barring repentance) destruction. The sin, Paul says, lies not only in the physical acts themselves, but in the determination of those embracing these sins (personally or vicariously) to deny God His godliness: His wisdom, purity, and holiness. “They did not like to retain God in their knowledge,” he writes (v. 28), preferring to remold Him to a form more pleasing to their own sensibilities (v. 23).

This from the same writer, and in the same book, wherein the sacrificial love and salvation plan of God for all people is explained most eloquently and explicitly.

Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Bridgewater – like so many in this administration, like so many in the general population, like so many in the congregations and, indeed, pulpits of our nation – have fallen prey to what is quite possibly the most fundamental error infesting the church and a once-Christian culture today: the notion that because “God is love,” it follows that “Love is God.”  I.e., my understanding of who God is has evolved out of my understanding of what love is. And my understanding is that love is, above all things, tolerant.

The Bible clearly teaches, though, that our understanding of love must come from an understanding of the true character of God (“In this is love, not that we loved God, but that God loved us” – 1 John 4:10; “This is love, that we walk according to His commandments” – 2 John 1:6). Love is not the definition of who God is; God is the definition of what love is. And in both Testaments and all four Gospels, God defines love as pure, holy; and – in the sexual sense – as something created for one man and one woman to share within the bonds of marriage.

To a great many people, in and out of the church, that simplicity seems not only intolerant, but intolerable. But then, as Paul warns us, that kind of futile thinking and foolish feeling is to be expected in lives (and churches, and political administrations) where God is not glorified as God.

A bill was recently introduced in the House of Representatives to repeal the portion of the Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) popularly referred to as the Johnson Amendment.  The bill is H.R. 3600 and, in its preamble, states that its purpose is to “restore the Free Speech and First Amendment rights of churches and exempt organizations by repealing the 1954 Johnson Amendment.”

It is no secret that ADF believes the Johnson Amendment is blatantly unconstitutional.  It violates the First Amendment in numerous ways.  It was also passed hastily with no forethought given to its effect on the constitutional rights of churches and pastors.  If you are interested, one scholar has done an in-depth study of the history of the Johnson Amendment and its dubious beginnings. This scholar concluded that the Johnson Amendment had nothing to do with the so-called “separation of church and state” and was not intended to enforce any perceived proper role of the church in relation to politics.  Rather, the Johnson Amendment was a bill passed to silence Johnson’s political opponents who were hurting his reelection chances.

It would be a great day for America’s clergy if Congress were to repeal the Johnson Amendment.  The bill, H.R. 3600 has been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee and is pending further action.

Pastors should capitalize on this momentum by doing two things.  First, remain informed of the progress of H.R. 3600.  We will do our best to keep you updated on its status.  Second, sign up to participate in Pulpit Freedom Sunday to be held on October 7, 2012.  If you are not a pastor, send every pastor you know to www.pulpitfreedom.org and encourage them to sign up to stand together with hundreds of other pastors who are exercising their constitutional rights to speak freely from their pulpits.  This year’s Pulpit Freedom Sunday promises to be the biggest yet.  Please sign up now to participate.

The Bible teaches that government gets its authority directly from God. Yet, it often seems like government wants to replace God and expand to fill a role that only the church should fill. Government can’t be its own conscience. Government can’t minister to people. And government shouldn’t force people of faith to violate their sincerely held beliefs. Watch Pastor Chris Clark as he stands up for religious liberty at a recent rally in San Diego.

Some people have no shame.  The situation involving the demand to remove the crosses at Camp Pendleton is just such a situation.

About nine years ago, seven Marines erected two crosses in a remote part of the camp, on a hill overlooking the Pacific Ocean.  They did this to help them cope with the gruesome reality of their jobs.  Marines are willing to die so that Americans can enjoy freedom.  But they must not only be willing to sacrifice their lives, but also the emotional well being of their children as well.  When a parent dies, a child suffers.

The job of protecting our freedoms is alone amongst occupations in the magnitude of sacrifice required.

And so when a Marine is preparing him or herself to possibly die for others, he or she must come to grips with their emotional and spiritual self.  That is why militaries have chaplains.  It is simply a requirement of military readiness that Marines and other soldiers be able to deal with the heavy toll that comes with sacrificial employment.

Seven Marines went up that hill to erect the crosses to help them deal with the fact that others had given their lives before them.  Karen Mendoza, a wife of one of the Marines who erected the cross said, “It’s not a religious spot at all, it’s a place for the Marines to grieve and to grow to let go of their burdens of what they had in their soul, so they can go back down that hill and back into battle and put their own lives on the line.”

These crosses were not erected by the military, they were erected by individual Marines.  The government does not maintain these crosses.  Individuals who are ready to die for others are maintaining these crosses.  This is not about the government establishing religion.  This is about Marines personally coming to grips with a job that requires the ultimate sacrifice.

Seven Marines went up to erect this memorial in honor of those who died in service to their country. Four of those seven, Maj. Douglas Zembiec, Maj. Ray Mendoza, Lance Cpl. Aaron Austin and Lance Cpl. Robert Zurheide, have since paid the ultimate price for their country. Austin and Zurheide were killed in Fallujah in 2004. Mendoza was killed in 2005 while leading Marines into combat near the Syrian border. Zembiec was killed in 2007 while leading a raid on insurgents in Baghdad.

But some people know no shame.  The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (MAAF) want the crosses moved and have threatened to sue the Camp if they do not get their way. According to their president Jason Torpy,  ”These Marines were abusing their access to the installation when they went on to it and start[ed] building things”

We, at the Alliance Defense Fund, are offering our services free of charge to the Camp to defend the rights of its Marines to prepare themselves mentally, emotionally, and spiritually, as they prepare themselves to make the ultimate sacrifice.

These Marines died for our freedoms, including the freedom to worship.  Shouldn’t they have those same freedoms?