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.

If you’ve ever watched “Leave it to Beaver” re-reruns, you know that Beaver, the young star of the show, was always getting hassled by his older brother’s friend, Eddie Haskell.  Eddie was the neighborhood smart-mouth.  When the abuse became unbearable, the Beaver would say something like this, “Gee Dad, Eddie’s giving me the business again.”

That’s exactly what the Sixth Circuit did to a church’s religious school in the EEOC v. Hosanna-Tabor case last year.  It didn’t just give churches the business, it got the government involved in their business when it ruled the school could not fire one of its teachers for threatening to sue them.  The teacher was a commissioned minister in the church and tasked with teaching church doctrine to students, not only by leading daily devotions, but also by infusing every subject with a biblical worldview.  When she threatened to sue the religious school over an employment dispute, the church revoked her status as a minister and let her go.  The church and its school observe the New Testament admonition that Christians should not bring their disputes before secular judges. (As I demonstrated in a recent blog,such suits among believers are not only unbiblical, they are foolish).  More details on the Hosanna-Tabor case and a copy of the Sixth Circuit opinion are available here.

Courts have long kept out of employment decisions made by religious organizations regarding their ministers.  The doctrine is called the “ministerial exception” and it’s rooted in the idea that a secular court isn’t equipped to review a spiritual decision by a religious organization regarding individuals charged with communicating theology to others.  One of the clear reasons for the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause is to keep the government from entangling itself in church affairs.  As Professor Carl Esbeck often says, “the government doesn’t establish religion by leaving it alone.”  But the Sixth Circuit ignored these well-established principles when it determined that, even though the teacher was tasked with inculcating religious principles into students throughout the day, she also taught secular subjects like history and science.  ”Everyone” knows a biblical worldview is not important in these types of subjects, and there are no religious principles to be learned!

The good news is the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the Sixth Circuit’s decision this year.  It will be the first time the Court has directly ruled on the ministerial exception, which is widely recognized by lower courts.  This will likely have significant ramifications for all churches so please be in prayer for this case.  ADF recently became involved in this case at the trial level, and one of our allies, the Beckett Fund, is representing the school before the U.S. Supreme Court.  We will continue to work to help the Court come to a decision that protects religious freedom and keeps the government out of the business of churches.

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

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

Many were shocked on March 2, 2011 when the Supreme Court, in an 8-1 opinion, protected the right of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church to engage in hate speech at a soldier’s funeral.  The case, known as Snyder v. Phelps, addressed the heartbreak a father experienced when Phelps’s church picketed his son’s military funeral at a Catholic Church in Westminster, Maryland.  Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder was killed in Iraq in the line of duty.  As they’ve done many times before, Westboro Baptist held signs along the street not far from the Catholic Church.  The signs said things like “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “Pope in Hell,” “Priests Rape Boys,” “God Hates Fags.”  And just in case you weren’t offended by any of these, they added the all-inclusive sign, “God Hates You.”

This case provided an excellent opportunity for the Court to adopt the legal strategy of European and Canadian courts which have refused to protect much more benign speech that is critical of homosexual behavior.  We at the ADF Church Project have been watching these foreign legal developments carefully.  Some of them include a preacher arrested for saying homosexual behavior is sinful, numerous reports of Christians persecuted because they believe homosexual behavior is immoral, and a Canadian church threatened with revocation of its tax exemption because it teaches biblical truth about homosexual behavior.  Based on this foreign trend, and attempts by courts to normalize homosexual behavior here at home, I’ve even warned that it’s just a matter of time before similar limits on speech are customary in the United States.

I was wrong (my wife and kids will be glad to see me admit it).

In the Westboro Baptist case, the Supreme Court held that even speech that may fairly be characterized as “hate speech” is protected by the First Amendment.  It said, “Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to ‘special protection’ under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt.  … Indeed, the point of all speech protection … is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.”

In one fell blow, the Supreme Court dashed any hopes of the liberal establishment, and calmed any fears of folks like me, that European style censorship of speech criticizing homosexual behavior will take place in the U.S. any time soon. If Westboro Baptist can stand just outside a church and openly condemn homosexuality (and all those who share U.S. citizenship with those who engage in it), a pastor inside a church can talk about God’s willingness to forgive those caught up in this sin.  And if Fred Phelps’s hate-filled view of the Bible’s teachings on homosexual behavior is protected speech on the street corner, a ministry is free to proclaim God’s forgiveness and loving admonition to go and sin no more, whether that be in the media, over the airwaves, or on the internet.

As much as I disagree with the folks at Westboro Baptist – God doesn’t hate anyone, but “wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth” – their victory at the Supreme Court was good for speech and good for religious freedom.  A Christian’s proper response to misrepresentations of the Gospel is to work harder to get the true message of God’s love and forgiveness out.  All of us have sinned in one way or another, but even the sexually immoral can be justified through Christ.  I Cor. 6:9-11.

The Supreme Court got it right in Snyder v. Phelps.  The answer to hate speech is not censorship, it’s more speech.

Of course, this setback won’t stop advocates of political correctness from continuing to attack religious speech they find objectionable.  These attacks are often indirect.  For instance, in 2009, President Obama signed the “Mathew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.”  This law limits itself to physical attacks and doesn’t apply to speech.  But there is a danger that it could be interpreted by an activist judge to prohibit speech that might cause someone to be physically ill.  You can find out more about this law in a resource we’ve put together here.

More importantly, virtually everywhere that hate crimes laws have been enacted, “hate speech” regulations follow. This is not surprising, considering the fact that “hate crimes” are enacted solely to send a governmental message of disapproval of certain beliefs. It is only a small step from the philosophical basis underlying “hate crimes” laws to the enactment of a “hate speech” regulation. “Hate speech” regulations have followed the enactment of “hate crimes” laws in places like Canada, Europe, and Australia, and those “hate speech” laws have been used to try to silence Christians and others who speak out against same-sex “marriage,” homosexual behavior, and other things that conflict with deeply-held religious beliefs.

The Snyder case is an important victory for religious speech, but we cannot let our guard down because the assault on the teaching of biblical morality will continue.

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

Find legal resources to protect your church on the Church Resources page. 

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