This talk was given on Friday, September 4, 2015 at the Ohio Judicial Conference.
Good morning. My name is Rich Nathan. I’m pastor of Vineyard Columbus which is a large multi-ethnic church on the eastside of Columbus in Westerville. The church averages about 8000 attendees each weekend. I’ve been the pastor of Vineyard Columbus from the beginning, so I’ve been pastoring for 28 years.
However, my background is in law. I graduated from The Ohio State University College of Law in 1980. I then taught at OSU through the decade of the 80’s mainly in the MBA program in the areas of Government Regulation of Business and International Business Transactions.
As I said, the church that I pastor is incredibly multi-cultural. On any given weekend, we have people in the church who were born in over 120 different countries. If you entered Vineyard Columbus’ lobby on a weekend, you would feel like you were walking through the United Nations.
What I would like to do this morning is speak to you as a representative of the faith community concerning areas of potential conflict between religious institutions and non-discrimination policies concerning those in same-sex relationships. I assume that I’m not speaking to a room filled with theologians, nor am I speaking to a room filled with people who are necessarily actively engaged in a faith community. So I thought as a foundational matter, I might begin by offering a brief summary of the religious landscape of America in 2015.
SLIDE
The Religious Landscape of America in 2015
According to the very best contemporary study of American religion which is Robert Putnam and David Campbell’s 700+-page volume titled American Grace, American religion currently has two characteristics. First, we are a highly devout nation; and, second, we are a highly diverse nation. We are highly devout, at least compared to other economically advanced liberal democracies. Certainly, America’s overall level of religiosity pales in comparison to nations such as Indonesia or Jordan. But the United States is a far more religious nation than its international peers.
So, for example,
SLIDE
We are a highly devout nation
In terms of religious observance,
SLIDE
SLIDE
SLIDE
We are highly devout compared to other economically advanced liberal democracies. As I said 40% of Americans report attending religious service once a week. This compares to a weekly attendance rate of 7% in France, 8% in Germany, 12% in Holland, 14% in Australia, and 17% in Great Britain.
We are not only highly devout, we are also highly diverse religiously.
SLIDE
We are a highly diverse nation
Within the United States there are staggering numbers of religious denominations and a growing number of congregations that do not identify with a denomination at all. While most Americans identify themselves within some form of Christianity, Christianity comes in varying types from Pentecostalism to Roman Catholicism. According to a very recent survey, our religious diversity has not prevented most Americans from getting along with people of other religions.
SLIDE
There has been a recent spate of articles about the rise of the so-called NONES that is the growth in the percentage of people who report no religious affiliation. But even concerning NONES,
SLIDE
SLIDE
So, American religion is highly devout and highly diverse.
Concerning same-sex marriage, I know of no significant American religious group that teaches discrimination against gay persons, as such. But there is a diversity of opinion concerning where major faith communities stand on the issue of same-sex marriage.
SLIDE
SLIDE
The Episcopal Church’s stand drew a reaction of “deep concern” from the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose Church of England does not sanction same-sex marriage.
There is controversy within Buddhism and Hinduism concerning whether same-sex marriage is permitted or not within their traditions. Some in those communities say that their tradition is opposed to same-sex marriage. Others say that such marriages are permitted.
But if we understand that America is at once a highly devout and highly diverse nation religiously, what do we mean by religion? What is religion?
SLIDE
What is Religion?
According to the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, one definition of religion is
SLIDE
Merriam-Webster defines religion as
SLIDE
Now, if we take the Oxford Dictionary of the English Languages view of religion, religion is reduced to the worship of a God or gods. Under that definition, the Soviet Union had freedom of religion.
A few months ago there was a report of an interview with Francis Cardinal George of Chicago discussing the impact of President Obama’s contraceptive mandate on Roman Catholic hospitals. Cardinal George made an astute comment related to the shift in the current administration’s rhetoric in which the administration has more and more been speaking about
SLIDE
“Freedom of Worship” rather than “Freedom of Religion”
Here is what Francis Cardinal George of Chicago said:
SLIDE
“Freedom of Worship” was guaranteed in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union. You could go to church, if you could find one. The church, however, could do nothing except conduct religious rites in places of worship – no schools, religious publications, healthcare institutions, organized charity, ministry for justice and the works of mercy that flow naturally from a living faith. All of these were co-opted by the government. We fought a long Cold War to defeat that vision of society.
There has been a great deal of criticism from the faith community concerning the current administration’s narrowing of the definition of religious freedom. Many religious groups were very concerned when the administration argued in support of a teacher at the Hosanna-Tabor Church that was part of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. In Hosanna-Tabor v EEOC the Obama administration argued that a church or religious school should be given no special protection under the 1st Amendment any more than a labor union, a social club, or any other group with free association rights under the 1st Amendment.
That position was soundly rejected by the United States Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts wrote:
SLIDE
That result is hard to square with the text of the 1st Amendment itself, which gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations. We cannot accept the remarkable view that the religion clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers.
Almost every faith community would insist by its own self-definition that their understanding of their own faith goes beyond merely worship of God, or the gods—in other words, Freedom of Worship--and extends to the practice of their faith, particularly with respect to the poor and the marginalized.
SLIDE
The Practice of Faith
To cite just a few examples, first from Christianity, Jesus said that on the Day of Judgment people will be separated based upon how they treated the hungry, the naked, prisoners, immigrants, and so on. So we read this often-cited text in the Gospel of Matthew:
SLIDE Matthew 25:37–40 (NIV)
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
And in the New Testament Book of James, we read
SLIDE
Faith without works is dead!
To give a second example from Judaism, we read this in the Hebrew Bible, from the Prophet Isaiah:
SLIDE Isaiah 1:14–17 (NIV)
14 Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals
I hate with all my being.
They have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I hide my eyes from you;
even when you offer many prayers,
I am not listening.
17 Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.
And to take one example from Islam,
SLIDE
But it is righteousness to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers, to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves (Surat 2:177).
So, according to Faith Communities’ own self-understanding, it would be inconceivable for a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim to restrict the definition of their faith to religious rites, or religious worship conducted in a church, synagogue, or mosque. That’s why there are so many Religiously Affiliated Organizations in the United States which represents a very large share of American social capital. Across America RAO’s educate children, feed the hungry, care for the sick, shelter the homeless and promote social justice.
To cite just a few examples of Faith Communities moving beyond religious rites, Partnerships between public agencies and faith communities have addressed issues from health and hunger to natural and man-made disasters. Back in the summer and fall of 2009 when the H1N1 Swine Flu virus swept across the United States reaching pandemic proportions, the government identified religious leaders as playing a key role in spreading information about the virus and how to avoid infection. Faith communities were identified as key distribution points for the vaccination.
Government partnership with Faith Communities involves the Department of Agriculture summer food services program which works with faith communities to distribute summer lunches to children in need. The Department of Homeland Security has successfully partnered with faith communities in six major U.S. cities to help citizens prepare for, respond to, and recover from disaster.
The church that I pastor, Vineyard Columbus, has a number of partnerships with various government agencies. For example, the Vineyard Community Center has entered a partnership with the State of Ohio, with the Columbus Public Schools and a local business for our church to supply several hundred mentors to 5 Columbus elementary schools to tutor at-risk kids.
I just want to briefly cite a few other activities that the church I pastor is involved in. But you can find many similar activities in faith communities across our state. My point in citing these is that the meaning of Religious Freedom must necessarily be a broad one because religion involves not only beliefs, but practices.
It is because of our faith that Vineyard Columbus runs:
SLIDE
Programs of Vineyard Columbus
All of this is done by volunteers with attendance averaging 3500 people a month. Our church runs
SLIDE
We feed several hundred families each week. We work do:
SLIDE
Last year we came alongside of and assisted:
SLIDE
Vineyard Columbus offers women facing unintended pregnancies practical, emotional and spiritual support. We provide diapers, baby clothes, car seats, 100’s of Pack-and-Plays for safekeeping, baby food, rides to prenatal care, furniture, counseling and friendship.
In 2006 then Senator Barak Obama spoke on faith in the public square. He said:
SLIDE
Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King – indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history – were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into public policy debates is a practical absurdity.
SLIDE
The Growth of Conflicts Between Faith Communities and the Government
So why does there seem to be more conflict now between faith communities and the government? For one reason, many of the questions we’re facing today were not in play very long ago. For example, government regulations have a far wider reach than they did even 30 years ago. And many local and state agencies have added non-discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender identity to their state laws.
For example, in 2006 Catholic Charities of Boston which had been one of the nation’s oldest adoptions agencies faced a very difficult choice: violate its conscience, or close its doors. In order to be licensed by the state, Catholic Charities of Boston would have to obey state laws banning “sexual orientation discrimination” in its placement of children. Because marriage had been redefined in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities could not simply limit its placement to heterosexual couples. Roman Catholic leaders asked the State Legislature for a religious exemption, but were refused. As a result, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to shut-down its adoption services.
In the same year, Catholic Charities of San Francisco faced the similar choice and was forced to end its adoption services as well. In Washington DC Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington which had provided support to children and families for over 80 years had a partnership with the District of Columbia for its foster care and public adoption services. But in 2010 a law redefining marriage to include two people of the same sex took effect in the District. The District then informed Catholic Charities that it would no longer be an eligible foster or adoption partner. In the name of tolerance, Catholic Charities are not being tolerated in many states and municipalities.
A year ago, President Obama, by Executive Order, amended a 1965 order that prohibited various forms of discrimination by federal contractors. The old text forbade contractors from discriminating
SLIDE
[Federal Contractors are prohibited from discriminating]…against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
The President’s revision added:
SLIDE
“Sexual orientation” and “gender identity” between sex and national origin.
Religious organizations such as World Vision—which is America’s largest global relief agency--lobbied the administration for a religious exemption from this Executive Order, but they were rebuffed. Several federal courts have held that:
SLIDE
Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act religious organizations can have moral standards concerning their employees’ conduct, even if those moral standards stem from the organizations’ religious beliefs.
While grants were not affected by the Executive Order of the administration, there is concern on the part of many in the faith community that the government increasingly weighs sexual identity and sexual practice as having greater weight than religious liberty.
Religious higher education is facing a number of threats for those schools that oppose same-sex marriage. Among the religious liberty threats for religious schools, we might list the following:
SLIDE
Accreditation issues
Gordon College in Massachusetts faced a probe from their accrediting agency because of their opposition to same-sex marriage.
SLIDE
Tax issues
Religious schools have become ground zero for controversies over whether religious institutions should be able to retain tax exemption status. The property tax consequences, alone, of sprawling university campuses could be devastating.
SLIDE
Financial issues
If one defines religion in a very narrow way and also considers sexual orientation, sexual practice, or gender identity to have greater weight than religious liberty, it is not inconceivable that religious schools might face the withdrawal of various kinds of federal and state funding.
The most commonly cited financial risk is the potential elimination of federal funding such as Pell Grants. But research grant writing and other revenue services could also be at risk. Access to federal student loans could be in danger.
SLIDE
The de-recognition of religious groups at state universities
InterVarsity Christian Fellowship has been de-recognized by the 23-member colleges of the California State University because they require their leaders to have Christian beliefs and to refrain from sexual practices outside of heterosexual marriage. The group is not banned from the university, but they do lose free access to university rooms which will cost each chapter between $13,000-30,000 a year. They also lose access to student activity programming including new student fairs. As a result, they’ve lost status and standing with faculty, students and administrators.
The same thing has happened at many other universities including Bowdoin College in Maine, Vanderbilt University and so on.
Just last year a petition was filed with the US Department of Education against George Fox University, a Quaker school, in the northwest. A transgendered student who goes by the name of Jayce and who identifies as a man, wanted to move from female only housing to male housing. The university offered him a single apartment, or off campus housing instead. The case gained national attention last year when the student’s mother started an online petition which has garnered more than 21,000 signatures. The Department of Education rejected the student’s petition, but issues regarding transgendered students including access to sports teams could raise significant Title IX issues.
SLIDE: Principled Pluralism and Religious Freedom
How might these issues be sorted in our society that is at once both highly devout as well as highly diverse? In our society how might conflicts be reduced where Faith Communities engage in a wide range of activities and in which there is an ever-increasing reach non-discrimination policies regarding sexual orientation and gender identity?
In resolving these conflicts there a doctrine that can offer a way forward – Principled Pluralism. In 2013 the Aspen Institute addressed many of the concerns and conflicts that I’ve addressed this morning in a report titled “Principled Pluralism.” Co-chaired by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Presidential Advisor David Gergen, the 25-member “Inclusive America Project” included university and seminary presidents, media thought leaders, professors and social service providers. It also included senior religious leaders from various faith communities including Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Humanist and Christian groups.
The report of the Inclusive America Project began this way:
SLIDE
The American idea is rooted in a belief that people from varied religious and ethnic backgrounds can unite to create a single nation: e Pluribus Unum.
So this 25-member Inclusive America Project together coined the phrase “Principled Pluralism” to articulate two big ideas.
SLIDE
The first point distinguished the project from those who seek to blur or to diminish religious difference so that the only people who are welcome in the public square are folks who don’t really believe very much or very strongly – non-Jewish Jews, non-Muslim Muslims, non-Christian Christians.
The second point protects Faith Communities from those who seek to foster friction between communities and the larger society.
Principled pluralism is a way to deal with the twin characteristics of American society. We are highly devout and highly diverse.
One of the participants in the Aspen Project said this:
SLIDE
Government should respect the centrality of faith in the lives of many Americans and recognize that whether in a crisis or in the face of ongoing challenges, our religious institutions have the power to educate, engage, and reach out. A more resilient America, which recognizes its faith institutions as assets and not adversaries can band together in times of crisis and declare its unity in the face of violence, intolerance and bigotry.
In other words, society is healthier when it includes the rich diversity of devout people in America and refuses to blunt these folks’ religious devotion which is often the mainspring for the starting of charities, schools, food pantries, medical clinics, adoption agencies, immigration and refugee services, and so on. Principled Pluralism encourages the engagement of all groups in order to create a common society, but it respects the desires of some groups to graciously limit certain kinds of participation in harmony with those communities’ deeply held views on matters of faith.
To illustrate the opposite of Principled Pluralism, the city of Philadelphia was recently sued by a Muslim female police officer whose requests to wear a khima or head covering was denied by her supervisors. Ms. Webb, the female officer sued but was denied relief by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania who said:
SLIDE
“Prohibiting religious symbols and attire helps to prevent any divisiveness on the basis of religion both within the force itself and when it encounters the diverse population of
Philadelphia.” -Webb v. City of Philadelphia
In fact, what social scientists such as Harvard’s professor Robert Putnam have found is that
SLIDE
“accommodating religious difference actually leads to greater cohesiveness in groups. The suppression of all difference leads to greater suspicion by the majority and greater alienation by the suppressed minority.”
It may seem slightly counterintuitive but greater tolerance of religious diversity leads to greater social cohesion and less social conflict.
In contrast to the California State University system which de-recognized various religious groups because they failed to omit faith statements from their student leadership requirements, the Ohio State University in the great State of Ohio has crafted an exemption for religious student organizations in their non-discrimination policies. So at the Ohio State University, the student handbook reads:
SLIDE
A student organization formed to foster or affirm sincerely held religious beliefs of its members may adopt eligibility criteria for its student officers that are consistent with those beliefs.
That is a great statement of Principled Pluralism.
The University of Texas at Austin has a similar policy in which their student handbook reads:
SLIDE
An organization created primarily for religious purposes may restrict the right to vote or hold office to persons who subscribe to the organizations’ statement of faith.
Principled pluralism calls upon the government in all of its various agencies to develop policies which protect people against discrimination and protects the diversity-enhancing distinctiveness of Faith Communities. Truly inclusive universities and government agencies will reject anti-discrimination policies that flatten differences and reduce true diversity.
America will be healthiest when it protects both the devotion of its citizens as well as our diversity.