This week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that has far reaching implications for Christians, and especially universities like Belhaven as well as other ministries.
While the case focuses on the rights of religious organizations at state universities, legal scholars predict that a loss in this case could, eventually, over time, open the door for religious based institutions like ours to be challenged over our ability to hire based on our faith standards.
Leading up to the oral arguments there have been several key editorials in support of the position supported by Belhaven University and the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities.
We expect to hear the court’s ruling in June. I trust you’ll be praying for this important decision.
Below is an editorial from Christianity Today which summarizes the issue and is a wonderful reminder that God has always provided protection as the Christian faith has been threatened through the centuries.
The End of Religious Freedom?
The nightmare scenarios could very well unfold, but they are not the last word.
A Christianity Today editorial | posted 4/19/2010 09:52AM
The U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t taken on many significant religion cases lately. Perhaps the justices were resting up for what could be one of the biggest rulings yet: Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, which went before the court April 19, is in some eyes the title fight between anti-discrimination laws and religious identity. It’s a case that both sides have long been waiting for.
At issue is an anti-discrimination rule at Hastings College of the Law (part of the University of California). Hastings says the rule means that the Christian Legal Society’s (CLS) on-campus chapter cannot make its leaders sign a statement of faith and abstain from “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle.” The school said student group leadership positions must be open to all students—even to those who would seek such positions precisely in order to destroy the purpose of the group.
If CLS loses the case, in time it would mean that “religious and other groups that adhere to traditional moral views could be driven from the public square in the name of enforcing nondiscrimination,” CLS told the court.
A loss could “effectively remove evangelical organizations from state college and university campuses throughout the United States,” according to a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the National Association of Evangelicals and other evangelical groups.
Even more than that, “It is not hyperbole to argue that … this case ultimately threatens the future of public education as we know it,” said a friend-of-the-court brief from the Rutherford Institute. Hastings is subjecting the freedom of association on campus “to state censorship grounded in political ideology,” the organization said.
The American Civil Liberties Union, on the other hand, argued that a CLS win would “considerably weaken our civil rights protections” and set civil rights law back to the days of state-funded racism.
Other friend-of-the-court briefs referenced a related debate that’s even more core to the debate on anti-discrimination laws and religious identity: hiring at faith-based institutions.
“If this court determines that CLS does not have any constitutional right to religious association in the context of this case, then there will be little constitutional protection for religious employers, particularly if they receive any kind of government benefit, use government buildings such as schools and convention centers, and/or participate in government-funded programs,” said a brief from World Vision, Compassion International, Prison Fellowship, Samaritan’s Purse, the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, and others. “[H]ow this court characterizes the religious associational policies and rights of religious organizations … will likely establish the framework for future deliberations within all branches of government on questions of religious hiring.”
The CLS v. Martinez decision will be widely cited, no matter the outcome. But as CLS made clear in its own briefs, it’s very much a separate battle. (The CLS case is mostly about speech at a university forum, and money is not central.) If CLS loses, it is far from a foregone conclusion that religious groups that partner with the government will lose their ability to consider faith commitments when hiring. And it’s a far journey from that step to the much-discussed scenario of protesters joining organizations en masse to nullify the groups’ religious identity or ethical commitments.
Defenders of religious identity safeguards are not scaremongers. The scenarios they propose are actually quite likely if government entities like Hastings or the Supreme Court treat biblical principles as invidious discrimination and then shun organizations with faith commitments.
But none of these scenarios represent the end of the story. In our 2,000 years of history, this would not be the first time Christian behavior has been treated as bigotry. We have seen states take control of religious organizations and churches. And we have seen restrictions on assembly, speech, and free exercise of religion lead to human suffering. We have also been reminded time and again of God’s sovereign rule.
Hastings’s lawyers say CLS attendance has actually doubled since it was denied recognition as a campus organization. All’s well that ends well? No: justice and legal precedent should prompt a ruling for CLS regardless.
CLS says, to the contrary, that “non-recognition has nearly destroyed the CLS chapter.” The light of the gospel that CLS proclaims is in no danger of being extinguished. Some evangelical organizations will meet off campus if they have to—in the catacombs, if it comes to that.
Meanwhile, we will work for justice in the courts, and pray for a day when those who conspire to infiltrate Christian organizations would find the Leader whom our leadership requirements point to, and enter into the relationship that our sexual standards model. Ours is a God whose stories end in redemption and reconciliation, not nightmare scenarios.