The Supreme Court has always enamored me, at times more so than the ministry. As a child I often said I wanted to be a judge, though admittedly as a child I thought judges had the power to decide when it would rain, and as a young girl, I wanted that power (little did I know that power actually resides with rappers Lil Wayne and Fat Joe). As I grew up and learned about Lady Justice and her place in American history, my infatuation grew. So you can imagine my delight when two of my nerdy worlds crossed paths –following Supreme Court rulings and Church politics.
Enter Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C.
Those of you who didn’t brew a special pot of coffee to cozy up to this court opinion, here is my synopsis: Cheryl Perich was a teacher/minister at a Christian school and was fired for pursuing retaliation against the church/School for alleged discriminatory practices regarding her narcolepsy disability. The issue at hand was whether the church was exempt from providing her reinstatement and damages because of the First Amendment. The Court ruled that the church was in fact, exempt, when it comes to hiring ministers.
Though I pretend to know something about legal matters, I am not a lawyer, and do not have a legal back ground so I will withhold my thoughts about the legality of this case. But there is the issue of right and wrong. Is it right that the church is able to effectively discriminate when it comes to hiring? At face value, I would say no, definitely not. Reading this ruling I was immediately reminded of all of the fabulous openly gay ministers who have lost their jobs due to their church’s position on homosexuality and this case enraged me. I know how precedent works and this case easily become fuel for the homophobic fire. But the more I thought about this ruling the more I realized, I was not having trouble with the ruling or its potentially negative ramifications, I had a problem with the church. Which, in this country, the government has nothing to do with.
“The Establishment Clause prevents the government from appointing ministers…and the Free Exercise Clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own.” — Justice Roberts
It is not often that I agree with Chief Justice Roberts, but today I do, and here is why. I have said time and time again, that religious freedom does not work if there is not space for those beliefs which are unpopular or controversial. As an interfaith activist, I think it is just as important that this Church be able to determine who should serve as spiritual leaders, whether or not I agree with their decision. Let me be clear, I do not stand by the choice this church made, I stand by its ability to make that choice.
Let us entertain for a second what the opposite ruling would mean for the faith community. If the First Amendment did not apply in this case, that would mean that the government would be able to tell the church to reinstate a minister they have deemed no longer fit for the call. While this could help keep the jobs of good ministers, it could also be used to protect the jobs of those who do not have the support of their leaders and congregation. The latter is the risk that scares me into siding with the court.
Religious freedom is often thought of as an individual right but the truth is religious organizations have this right as well. I certainly do not want the government telling me what I should or should not believe in. Which I now realize also means I do not want the government telling organizations which they should or should not believe in.
Interesting case, but there is nothing to celebrate here. I think it is a mistake to interpret this in ideological terms . It’s not about the government telling anyone what to believe or the freedom of the Church/School to choose its own ministers. The underlying case was about the reach of the Americans With Disabilities Act and it’s too bad that the PLAINTIFF and the EEOC framed it the way they did around the “ministerial exemption.” In that context SCOTUS did the only thing they could — dismiss it. ‘
Couple things bother me and are prevalent enough in churches to be worrisome. Most churches these days have policies on non-discrimination – homosexuality notwithstanding — and pride themselves on their diversity and inclusiveness and access for the disabled. I’ll bet the Lutheran School in question has such a policy. But in this instance they chose to exercise their sovereign right under the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses to do whatever the hell they wanted – namely it seems — putting the interests of the “new hire” before the interests of the “recapaciitated.” OK, judgment call. Reasonable people can disagree. But what does the A.D.A. and why should the church, of all institutions, be exempt from it.
Where the Church/School really lose me is when they then vilify the teacher for expressing her dismay and contending that she has “rights” that they are trampling on, bringing her up on insubordination charges, and decommissioning her through congregational action — to exactly what noble end? Where’s the grace?
The only thing this case does is to show thin-skinned church leaders and government bureaucrats at their worst and that “shunning” is alive and well in Christendom.
Scott,
Thanks for your comment. Despite the post, I definitely agree that the real issue was about the reach of ADA and also had a problem with the way the Lutheran Church in question conducted itself. It is appalling to see that they would put one of their employees through this process. Not sure if you’re a fan of The Daily Show, but Aasif Mandvi, illustrates one of the potential positive (in terms of equality and pluralism) outcomes of this ruling, albeit in a hilarious and satirical way.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-26-2012/a-love-supreme—religious-freedom-vs–americans-with-disabilities-act
I’d love to hear your thoughts!
Best,
Nikole