It depends on how you read the data.  In April, 2010, Lifeway Christian Resources surveyed the beliefs of millenials – those born between 1980 and 1991.  Surprisingly, they found that “70 percent agree (strongly or somewhat) that Christian churches are still relevant in America today.”  Of course, other data indicate these 18-29 year olds really don’t think churches are relevant to them personally – only one in four attends weekly worship services and two of three rarely, if ever, attend a church or other religious meeting.

Nevertheless, it is encouraging that a clear majority of them believe the Church is an important contributor to our society – despite years of being steeped in Darwinist teaching.  And though some people think Darwinism isn’t necessarily anti-church, the Atheists are not in that camp.  Just look at the billboards Atheist organizations are throwing up around the country, spouting phrases like “Praise Darwin – evolve beyond belief.”

But apparently young people have not bought that lie just yet, and  most of them might even agree with George Washington, who said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”   It is a mistake to believe “that morality can be maintained without religion.”

Yes, the Church is still relevant for young people, and will continue to be - so long as she stands strong for biblical truth, and fulfills her role as the moral compass of society.  For instance, we should be encouraged by what some brave young college students are doing today to stand up for religious liberty and God’s word. View Julea Ward’s story here.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

Last week, 41 veteran chaplains released a letter enumerating the many and serious religious liberty concerns with the Obama Administration’s plans to normalize homosexual behavior in the armed forces.  Almost immediately, a chorus of  critics responded, branding the carefully crafted letter of the chaplains—who have a long and distinguished record of service in the all branches of the armed forces—as “insulting” and “illogical.”

Perhaps such criticisms were made before the critics had taken the time to read the prayerfully considered and carefully researched letter that the chaplains released.  Or the three accompanying personal letters written by a few of the signatories briefly outlining what it said.  More charitably, perhaps the critics simply don’t understand the chaplains’ letter.  Either way, it’s important to ensure no one is misled by the criticisms.

For starters, the letter is not an attempt to protect squeamish Christians from having to deal with people who disagree with them on sexual morality.  That should have been clear just by reading the biographies of the signatories included at the end of the letter.  These are men who have defended American liberties in almost every major modern conflict, from Vietnam to Afghanistan.  They’ve faced sniper’s bullets and terrorist IED’s, so they’re not afraid of ministering to people with whom they disagree.  The chaplains said as much in their letter:

“To clarify, we are not saying that active-duty chaplains who share our beliefs would be unwilling to minister to those who engage in homosexual behavior.  To the contrary, we believe that God loves everyone, that He desires that everyone should hear of and receive the Truth, and that He calls us to speak that Truth.”

The chaplains, and those who share their beliefs, are willing to minister to whoever needs their ministry, including individuals who engage in homosexual conduct.  They’re just not willing to allow political correctness to dictate the terms of their ministry.  Politicizing the military may be acceptable to those who are willing to place their agenda over the First Amendment, but chaplains will not allow the Good News to become a politically-correct gospel.

Second, some have suggested that normalizing homosexual behavior won’t hurt religious liberty because the military hasn’t forced chaplains to accept an official doctrine on moral issues like abortion, spousal abuse, or gambling.  This rejoinder, though, lacks both factual accuracy and logical coherence.  Factually, the military did try to censor chaplains on one side of the abortion debate during the partial-birth abortion battle at the behest of the Clinton administration.  (The letter addressed exactly this troubling bit of history in footnotes 7 and 16.)  And logically, the current push to normalize homosexual behavior will make it a special issue set apart from the concerns like domestic violence in at least two ways. 

First, the military currently agrees with the chaplaincy that domestic abuse is bad; in fact, the Uniform Code of Military Justice outlaws such assault.  But in the case of normalizing homosexual behavior, the military’s moral code will be at direct odds with that of many of its chaplains.  Second, no one is attempting to make domestic abuse a special class of protected behavior against which discrimination is banned.  But as the chaplains point out in the first paragraph of their letter, the current push to repeal the military prohibition on open homosexual conduct will give such conduct the protections enjoyed for race and gender - that is, discriminating on the basis of homosexual behavior will be forbidden.

While proponents of these special protections (and they are many, since the pending legislation in both the House and Senate is well-supported by the Left) may want to hide their harm to religious liberty, the carnage is obvious from how similar laws have been enforced in civil society.  The chaplains made that clear on page 4 of their letter, citing example after example of how such “non-discrimination” laws have been used to attack religious liberty. 

In an attempt to hide the coming danger, Interfaith Alliance suggests that the chaplains’ concerns are overblown because “people can disagree on issues and still serve together.”  But such rosy predictions—which weren’t backed by a shred of evidence—simply ignores the predicament of people like Julea Ward, a top-level graduate student, represented by the Alliance Defense Fund in a lawsuit, who was kicked out of her counseling program at a government school just a month from graduation because her religious beliefs prevented her from affirming homosexual behavior.  Or of Marcia Walden, also represented by ADF, who was fired at the behest of a federal government entity for simply referring a client requesting counsel on a same-sex sexual relationship to another counselor.   Or people like William Akridge, a prison chaplain who was formally reprimanded because he wouldn’t allow an inmate who openly claimed to be “gay” to lead the choir. Or of innumerable other situations where religious liberty has been assaulted in order to protect homosexual conduct. 

And in the context of the military, where discipline is absolutely necessary and dissent is rarely allowed, these types of “government policy versus religious freedom” battles are going to be brutal.  Those who make the “live and let live” argument, then, are either not paying attention or are purposefully hiding the truth.

Of course, that a conflict exists is no surprise to those who are really paying attention on either side of the issue.  As a senior Obama administration official has said, the conflict between religious liberty and homosexual conduct is a “zero sum game” where one side must lose.  (Yes, this is in the letter, too.  Check out footnote 14.  She went on to say that “we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity.”) Based on this, it’s a serious question whether this administration prefers homosexual conduct to time-honored First Amendment rights.  Unfortunately, the answer isn’t as obvious as it should be, especially given the administration’s weak record defending religious liberty elsewhere.

If an argument is strong, critics will often reframe the issue as something that can be attacked more easily. Here, that’s what critics of the 41 chaplains have done. And that says a lot about how right the 41 chaplains are.

________________________________________________________________________

This post also appears on townhall.com.

If you’re a military chaplain, active or retired, and are interested in becoming involved in this issue or signing the Chaplains Letter, please contact us with your information.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

On April 15, 2010, United States District Court Judge Barbara Crabb, for the Western District of Wisconsin, struck down the National Day of Prayer statute, 36 U.S.C. § 119. This opinion usurped hundreds of years of American history and tradition and must be overturned. It was on November 26, 1789, that George Washington issued the first Thanksgiving Day prayer proclamation, calling this nation to a day of prayer and giving thanks. But if this decision is not overturned, future prayer proclamations like our first president’s will be jeopardized. Be assured, though, that the Alliance Defense Fund is prepared to devote its resources and manpower to protecting our American heritage and religious freedom.

In striking down the statute, the court ruled it serves no secular purpose, but rather calls the nation to engage in a religious exercise – prayer. The court also ruled that the NDP statute violated the endorsement test because a reasonable observer, upon reviewing the statute, would conclude that the government endorses religion. And according to this court, even the endorsement of religion generally is a violation of the establishment clause. The court concluded, “[b]ecause the National Day of Prayer does not have a secular purpose or effect, it cannot survive scrutiny under Lemon and the endorsement test.”
We at the Alliance Defense Fund believe this court’s decision will be overturned as the Supreme Court has already upheld the very similar practice of legislative prayer. In Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), the Supreme Court upheld the practice of opening a legislative session with prayer because it dates back to the founding fathers.

But the Wisconsin federal judge ruled that Marsh is a limited opinion that should not be applied in this case. The court stated that while the NDP statute encourages national prayer, the legislative prayers in Marsh were just examples of ceremonial deism. In addition, the court said that just because prayer proclamations have been going on since our nation’s inception, that does not make the practice right.

The good news is that the court’s ruling specifically does not apply to the 2010 National Day of Prayer, or to any other future National Days of Prayer until this case has been fully appealed, which could include an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. We will continue to fight in this case through all appeals to protect our religious heritage. It is vitally important that decisions like this attempt to minimize America’s religious historical roots are not allowed to stand.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

We just received word that Bishop Rick Painter’s criminal conviction for ringing his Church’s bells was overturned.  Many of you have been following the story of churches in Phoenix that have been punished or threatened with punishment for ringing their churches’ bells.  The case started when Bishop Painter of Cathedral of Christ the King in Phoenix was convicted of violating the City’s noise ordinance and was sentenced to 10 days in jail (suspended) and 3 years of probation.  You can read the story in my past blog posts here and here.

But did you catch what I just said?  A Phoenix pastor was sentenced to jail for ringing his Church’s bells.  I have litigated this case for almost a year now and I still get chills down my spine whenever I realize what happened in this case and how far the City of Phoenix was willing to go to silence this one church.  In all my legal and historical research for this case, I was never able to uncover a single instance in the United States where a pastor had been sentenced to jail and branded a criminal for simply ringing church bells.

No pastor should ever have to fear criminal prosecution or jail time for peacefully exercising their religion.  The very idea that the government has taken the step of sentencing a pastor to jail for ringing church bells should awaken the revolutionary spirit inside every American citizen.  This country is, after all, the land of the free and our founders made sure to enshrine the freedom of religion in the First Amendment, thus making it our first freedom.  Yet how can we claim as a nation to value and uphold religious freedom when a pastor has his freedom taken away by a criminal court for ringing church bells?  This is something that churches across the world have been doing for centuries.

I am thankful to God that this case was successfully resolved.  After all, it is cases like this that ADF exists for.  As one of our founders Bill Bright stated, ADF’s mission is to “keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel.”  We are thankful that the door remains open in Phoenix after this litigation.  But let this case stand as a reminder that as the attacks on the Church in America intensify in the coming days, we must be prepared to meet the attacks head-on.  The attacks may come from a variety of sources.  In fact, if someone had told me a year ago that a pastor in America would be sentenced to jail for ringing church bells, I would have found the idea amusing to say the least.  But the Church can come under attack from almost any conceivable location.  And it is our duty to stand ready at the watch for the first signs of those attacks.

Bishop Painter is a free man today, thank God.  But let his brush with jail time cause us to remember how fragile freedom is in an increasingly secular and authoritarian society.  And let us commit ourselves anew to continue the fight to keep the Church free.  Stand with ADF today.  Let us know of any attacks in your area and sign up to receive our updates so you can stay informed.  Together, through God’s grace and in His strength, we can fulfill the vision of Dr. Bright and keep the doors of the Church open for the spread of the life-changing message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

Justice John Paul Stevens recently announced his retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court after serving on the Court for 34 years. Stevens, who turned 90 in April, is a World War II veteran—the only veteran currently on the Court—and by all accounts is a truly warm and gracious man. Appointed by President Ford in 1975, Justice Stevens is known for his collegial nature and his respectful demeanor from the bench, along with his preference for bow ties (it’s hard to picture him without one) and his love for the game of tennis (even at 90, he still reportedly plays on a routine basis).

But, above all else, he will be remembered as the intellectual leader of the Court’s left wing. And in that role, he was consistently a staunch advocate for erecting a “high and impregnable wall between church and state” and has issued numerous opinions that have diminished our religious freedoms.

He repeatedly voted against any public recognition of religion. He wrote dissenting opinions in Van Orden v. Perry and County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, which upheld the constitutionality of certain religious displays on public property. Van Orden considered a Ten Commandments display, while County of Allegheny considered a display that included a nativity scene and a menorah. In Justice Stevens’ view, the First Amendment creates “a strong presumption against the display of religious symbols on public property.” He also dissented in Marsh v. Chambers, which upheld the 200 year old practice of opening sessions of Congress in prayer.

His views were particularly strong in the area of religion and schools. Justice Stevens was the lone dissenter in Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, which upheld the constitutionality of a federal statute that protected the right of public secondary students to form religious student groups on campus.  He wrote the decision in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, striking down the practice of student-led, student-initiated prayer before football games at a Texas high school. And he wrote the decision in Wallace v. Jaffee, striking down an Alabama law that authorized a daily period of silence in public schools for meditation or voluntary prayer. And in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, he voted to strike down an Ohio school voucher program that parents could use to send their children to private schools, including religious ones.

Perhaps most significantly, however, was Justice Stevens’ deciding vote in Employment Division v. Smith, which concluded that the Free Exercise Clause does not protect against government regulations that are neutral toward religion and are generally applicable—even if the regulations substantially burden religious exercise. Commentators have described this case as a “constitutional bombshell that blew apart the Free Exercise Clause and gutted it of any meaningful protections.”

The last religious freedom case that Justice Stevens will help decide is Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. In that case, ADF attorneys represent a Christian student group that is challenging a public law school’s refusal to recognize simply because it requires its leaders and voting members to share its Christian beliefs. As I discussed in a previous post, this case could have significant ramifications for Christian student groups and churches around the country.

These cases reveal how crucially important Supreme Court nominees are. Please be praying that President Obama will select a replacement for Justice Stevens who will be a strong advocate for our first liberty—religious freedom.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch