All my life, pastors have been telling me that the ways of Christ are not the ways of man.  The Bible says that if you follow Christ, you are called to act in ways that are contrary to the ways of this world.  Deny yourself. Pray for your enemies.  And if someone slaps you on the right cheek, then turn to him the left as well. 

But what if following the ways of this world could save your church from closing its doors, while doing the “right” thing could shut you down?  For a church in Vienna, Virginia, this admonition was more than just an abstract hypothetical.   And their response is a good reminder to all of us what the church should be about.

The USA Today reported that for several years, a youth ministries director for the Vienna Presbyterian Church was allegedly engaging in improper sexual relations with students.  The Church’s lawyers, hired by its insurance company and acting like most lawyers would, wanted to minimize the Church’s liability.  That is the way of the world.  On March 23, 2011 the lawyers told the Church:

 “Do not make any statements, orally, in writing or in any manner, to acknowledge, admit to or apologize for anything that may be evidence of or interpreted as (a suggestion that) the actions of Vienna Presbyterian Church … caused or contributed to any damages arising from the intentional acts/abuse/misconduct” by the youth director.” 

This is not uncommon in the legal world.  We as attorneys never want our clients talking about matters that could be litigated.  Statements might be taken out of context.  Words can get confused.  It is just prudent to not have your clients comment at all about litigious matters.

But what about the truth?  What about ministering to the needs of a hurting congregation?  Does the church simply allow the legal process to play out to determine the truth and then to help the congregation heal? 

It is not as if telling the truth in this case would be without cost to the Church.  Under our legal system, if the Church erred in reporting sexual abuse by its pastors, and thereby caused more abuse to occur, it could be liable for millions.  Such a verdict could shut a church down.  Since 2002, dozens of lawsuits have been filed against churches by people alleging sexual abuse by clergy or church employees.  Jury awards and settlements have ranged from tens of thousands of dollars to many millions. In a 2007 case, the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles agreed to pay $660 million to 500 people who alleged they were sexually abused by clergy.

So how did the Church in Virginia respond to the lawyer’s demand?  The very next day, the church sent a letter to its congregants saying, “Members of Staff and of [the Church Board] are profoundly sorry that [the Church’s] response after the abuse was discovered was not always helpful to those entrusted to our care…”

And in a sermon on the following Sunday, Pastor Peter James went further.  ”We won’t hide behind lawyers. … Jesus said the truth will set us free.”

Then, turning to a group of young women in the audience, he said:

“Let me speak for a moment to our survivors.  We, as church leaders, were part of the harm in failing to extend the compassion and mercy that you needed. Some of you felt uncared for, neglected and even blamed in this church. I am truly sorry … I regret the harm this neglect has caused you.”

We, as members of the Church, should never forget our true calling – to be obedient and faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ – even if this comes at a cost.  And as an attorney with ADF’s Church Project, I’m committed to helping churches make difficult choices when that cost may come in the form of a lawsuit.

________________________

If you or your church are in need of legal assistance, simply fill out this form and we will review your situation.

April 1 wasn’t a Fool’s Day for religious freedom in Kentucky.  In Nelson v. Baker, the Court of Appeals soundly rejected a claim by former members of First Baptist Church of Jeffersontown, Kentucky who sued for the right to access the church’s financial information.  It is foolish for believers to sue one another despite the Bible’s clear admonition not to in I Cor. 6:7. But that’s a different, more fundamental, matter I’ll get to in a second. 

The good news is the court wasn’t fooled by an attempt to characterize access to church financial information as a completely secular matter. Courts have long held that the First Amendment protects churches from interference from government officials in the areas of doctrine, membership, policy, and interaction with its pastors.  You can find a detailed analysis of this area of the law - often referred to as “Church Autonomy” – on our resource page in a document titled  Church Autonomy White Paper – Protecting Churches From Government Interference.

The Kentucky Court of Appeals rightly applied this law and found that determining who gets access to financial documents is one of  the things churches can decide for themselves. It held: ”The Church’s financial records and method of presentation to the congregation are clearly matters of internal governance and organization, and are, therefore, not subject to interference by the court.” The court’s refusal to encroach upon church autonomy is a reminder that the best way for the government to avoid establishing a religion in violation of the First Amendment is to leave churches alone.

The court’s decision also reminds us that church members should stop foolishly attempting to drag courts into the realm of religion by filing lawsuits against their own church body.  The Apostle Paul wisely advised in I Cor. 6:1-6, “If any of you has  a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? …[I]f you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church!  I say this to shame you.  Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another – and this in front of unbelievers!” 

Lawsuits like this make the whole Body of Christ look foolish.

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

 ADF Senior VP; Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb writes:

One recent big event on the homosexual agenda has been the so-called “repeal” of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.  It’s the key element in President Obama’s plan to force bisexual and homosexual behavior on our troops in the midst of wars in Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq.

And it is a fast track agenda:  legislation authorizing the repeal was passed last December by a lame duck Congress—before the House Armed Services Committee even had one hearing on this plan to gut the military’s code regulating sexual behavior—a code that consistently rejected homosexual behavior ever since George Washington was leading America’s army.

But even though the lame ducks passed a law, the deal is not done until sixty days after the President, Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff formally certify that imposing open bisexual and homosexual behavior on the military will be “consistent” with military readiness, recruiting, and retention.  Until then, the sensible and sound policy that has made America’s military the mightiest in the world will remain effective.

Since the 2010 elections plucked many lame ducks out of Congress, the House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee began asking some hard questions about how open bisexual and homosexual behavior hurts the military in an April 1 hearing.  Representative Vicky Hartzler from Missouri was particularly aggressive in her questioning, so that the generals began to dance and dodge rather than squarely answer questions.  But dodging Congressional questions only leads to more questions—so now a House Armed Services Committee hearing has been scheduled for April 7, and more should follow that.

I don’t know all the questions that will be asked, but I know one question that should be asked:  “General, we have seen some startling and disturbing images from Holland—one of the countries that has been held up as a good model of accepting homosexual behavior in its military.  Can you certify that we will not see American soldiers, sailors, airmen, or Marines behaving the same way if we follow Holland and sexualize our military?”

The answer has to be “no, I cannot,” for military service members still have profound First Amendment protections, and that Amendment will protect even the vulgar, overtly offensive conduct exhibited by many advocates of homosexual behavior. 

Of course, just one “no” probably won’t inspire government officials to tell their boss—the President of the United States—the truth, that imposing homosexual behavior on the military will damage military readiness.  But if Congress now gets serious about this issue, the result should be an official chorus singing the same verse over and over:  “I cannot certify that imposing bisexual and homosexual behavior on the military will have no adverse effect on military readiness.”

After all, dozens of veteran military chaplains already raised serious questions about the adverse impacts on the religious freedom of chaplains and those under their pastoral care.  And those concerns are already being realized, with military trainers telling chaplains to leave the military if they cannot reconcile Christian moral teaching with official endorsement of bisexual and homosexual behavior.

And the respected Center for Military Readiness submitted twenty-five pages of questions to government officials—most of which have so far simply been ignored—but are ripe to be asked by Congressmen who care about American troops.

What to do?  For Christians, it is time to support our troops and chaplains by telling our Senators and Representatives today that it is time to ask the hard questions about how sexualizing America’s military will improve it—before we find American Marines acting as if they were in Amsterdam.

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

ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman writes:

No one likes bullying (except maybe the bully).  It should not be tolerated–regardless of the reason for it.  So is one type of bullying worse than any other?  Does the student that is being bullied feel any better if he is being bullied for certain, more politically correct reasons, but not others?  Don’t think so.  So why does the left play the bullying card so much when it comes to promoting the homosexual agenda in public schools?  And why does the left so quickly accuse Christians of bullying merely because they believe that the Bible teaches against homosexual behavior?  It seems to me that there is a tremendous difference between refusing to condone or approve such behavior and advocating violence.  It’s the old admonition to “love the sinner, hate the sin.” 

I believe that one of the reasons that groups on the left come out so hard against individuals or organizations that stand up for such biblical truths is in part because they don’t like it when the behavior that they are advocating is referred to as “sin.”  They want it to be accepted as “normal.”  They want it legitimized and taught to our children as an acceptable option.  But this is not limited to the homosexual agenda, it is a societal problem.  We all like to make sin more palatable by rebranding the particular practice.  For example, we remove the focus from the taking of an innocent life by claiming a woman’s “right to choose.”  It doesn’t sound quite so bad that way.    

 So how does the left sell the harmful practice of engaging in homosexual behavior to our children?  Groups on the left, such as GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network), reframe the issue by hosting an annual “Day of Silence” that plays the bullying card.  Because, after all, what reasonable and responsible person would have a problem with putting an end to bullying?  It’s marketing genius.  It removes the focus from the promotion of an unhealthy lifestyle aimed at our questioning and impressionable youth, and puts it on stopping the reprehensible behavior of bullying.  Again, it’s shear genius.  But it’s also a sleight of hand.

No question that all bullying is wrong, period.  But opposition to bullying should not be used to advance the left’s agenda by singling out special behaviors or “characteristics” for punishment.  Any anti-bullying effort or policy should prohibit bullying for any reason.  But this tactic of singling out homosexual behavior for special treatment should be familiar as it’s the same one used to promote “hate crimes” legislation.  I often wonder, is there a new “love crime” murder that’s not quite as bad?   And why is murder of one person any worse than murder of another?  Shouldn’t murder be treated the same regardless of who is killed?  Are certain people more important or is their life worth more than the rest of us?             

And since when is a religious or moral disagreement with sexual behavior automatically deemed bullying (especially when it pertains to teens or even younger students)?  Are we no longer tolerant of differing opinions?  Are we no longer free to debate controversial issues and offer opinions based on biblical teachings?  Does the left really stand for tolerance and free speech, or do they just want Christian students to be quiet and not become involved in the issues of our day?  It appears that those on the left who are playing the bullying card are often the ones who are doing the bullying.

____________________________________

Visit the Alliance Defense Fund Public Schools webpage to learn more about how ADF protects religious liberty for students.

Focus on the Family will host Day of Dialogue this April. Find out how students can make a difference and speak the Truth.

We’ve summarized the situations when ADF can assist your church in a new resource appropriately titled, “When Should My Church Contact ADF?”  The short answer is whenever your church’s attempts to further the Gospel are being restricted by a legal roadblock.  These roadblocks arise in many contexts such as land use, access to government forums, employment decisions, and speaking about political issues.

While the above list of situations where ADF can assist your church, free of charge, is not comprehensive, it is a good summary.  If you’re unsure if ADF may be able help, the best thing to do is contact us at 1-800-TellADF, or visit us on our website – speakupmovement.org/church, click on “Take Action,” and then “Request Legal Help.”

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