Confessional Christianity with Rev. Charles St-Onge

Court Tackles Church / State Separation


Yesterday the highest court in the land weighed in once more on the question of the separation of church and state.  In the case of a Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod teacher, the court decided that church rules trump federal law, a decision already being hotly debated:

It was a banner day for religious freedom yesterday as the Supreme Court ruled that government can’t tell religious institutions whom they can hire and fire as “ministers.” (Wall Street Journal)

Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision holding that ministers cannot sue their churches for employment discrimination was a huge win for religious liberty. It was unanimous, it was sweeping and it was unqualified. (Douglas Laycock, CNN)

Blatant discrimination is a social evil we have worked hard to eradicate in the United States.  I’m afraid the court’s ruling today will make it harder to combat. (Rev. Barry Linn, Americans United for Separation of Church and State (sic))

It’s good to be a religious institution in America, where the right to enjoy public funds may be unaccompanied by the responsibility to comply with generally applicable public laws. (Wendy Kaminer, The Atlantic)

The case involved an LCMS “Minister of Religion – Commissioned” who taught elementary school for a church school in Michigan.  I wrote about the case a couple  of months ago, and you can read more of the details there.  The case was never really about whether a church can fire someone who would otherwise be protected under a federal non-discrimination law.  The case was really about whether a church could institute its own dispute resolution mechanisms outside the secular courts.

The apostle Paul was the one who laid down in a specific case in Corinth, Greece the idea that Christians ought to be able to resolve disputes among themselves.  In his first letter to the congregation, now known as “1st Corinthians,” he said:

As a minister of The LCMS I have bound myself to the constitution of our church body.  The only reason I can be dismissed from my position is for 1) persistent teaching of false doctrine, 2) scandalous living, or 3) inability to perform the duties of my office.  If I were to be dismissed for any of those reasons, I have committed to seek resolution through the resolution process put in place by our church body.  Every commissioned minister of our church body knows the rules when they sign on.  If we don’t like them, we are always free to resign our calls.  What the Supreme Court did is acknowledge that a church body has the authority to designate whom it considers its ministers, and choose ways of resolving disputes consistent with its beliefs.

There are of course many ironies in this case.  One is that a group like “Americans United for Separation of Church and State” would be advocating for the interference of the state with the church.  A second is that the case would be construed as a “disabilities” issue, when from an internal LCMS perspective it is clearly about following process.  A third is that some in our church body who have, in the past, argued that “you just need to sue sometimes” have changed their tune in this case.

But in the end, this case gives all of us another opportunity to consider the American experiment.  It reveals once more how difficult a thing it is to uphold freedom of religion while also upholding the values our society has enshrined in law.  So long as the US Constitution stands, cases like this will never go away.

13 Responses

  1. M4 says:

    Thank you, Charles, for this thoughtful post and discussion. Perhaps another take on the Supreme Court decision, which some persons may approve regardless of their religious stance, is it actually helps to limit the power of the state. There are those who out of principle or in response to harms done by state overreach and hubris, would consider reasonable limitations on the power of the state to be a *good* thing in and of itself. Many such individuals might even reasonably presume that modern state power merits limitation until proven otherwise. From a faith perspective, Charles, I was also struck by your use of the word “enshrined” to describe secular law. That sounds somewhat idolatrous to me – and so it should. Many so-called “secular” individuals appear to me to place a level of trust in the state that seems almost religious in its intensity. Which, then, is the religion?

    • If you follow my discussions with PayAttention, I think the subtext was the question of limiting the government’s ability to interfere. But the government’s responsibilities are ‘enshrined’ so to speak in natural law and outlined nicely in Romans 13.

    • M4 says:

      I posted the previous comment with your discussion with PayAttention in mind. The alternate goal I wished to have considered was limiting the government’s ability, *period* – not just as it applies to state interference with religion. The obedience to governing authorities commanded in Romans 13 is not a Scriptural warrant for unlimited government expansion. Furthermore, if said government violates the expectation of Romans 13:3 by enabling the guilty and condemning the innocent, breaking trust with its people, inducing unwarranted fear, and so on, are citizen believers to stand mute? I concede that the Roman government of which Paul spoke was more brutal than ours – but even so, there is much in our present government that expressly contradicts Romans 13:3. Also, as citizens of the U.S. republic, the “governing authorities” are ultimately subject to the consent of the people, so there is warrant to take action if growth of state power becomes a danger. Voting, exercise of free speech, protest, investigation & disclosure, nullification, tax avoidance (not evasion, which is unlawful), and similar measures are principled and lawful means of restricting government. I return then to my previous post, and ask: Might not some people reasonably conclude that modern state power merits limitation until proven otherwise? “Servants of God” the governing authorities may be, according to Paul, but that does not make them good, it only makes them instruments. Back to you, Rev. St.-Onge.

    • No disagreement from me!

  2. Jar says:

    First churches sere exempt from paying taxes. Now they are exempt from due process in employee rights.
    What do you expect?

    • cfreyja23 says:

      As a non-Christian, I actually agree with the result of this case. This woman was employed in a ministerial position paid for by church funds. A church should not be forced by the federal government to employ someone in a ministerial position who does not follow the policies of the church or the ideal of what the church wants its minister to be.
      On the other hand, if this had been an employee involved in a more secular role in the church (for example, working in the payroll department of a church-based nonprofit), I think the Court would’ve found a violation of federal law.

    • PayAttention says:

      Actually, not all chuches are exempt from taxes, and it is not the fact that they are a church that makes them tax-exempt. Many of the churches themselves forget this, and make a lot of incorrect implications because of it. 503(c)(3) not-for-profit corporations are tax exempt. These organizations include churches and secular charities, and some groups that are neither also qualify. One of the stipulations for this filing status is that they do not involve themselves in elections of individuals by attacking candidates or parties. If they wish to apply for a different filing status, they can do so, and may have to pay taxes like other corporations. In practice, if they are attacking the left, they can get away with it. They only get threatenned with losing their status if they attack the right. Some evangelicals ignorantly claim that the restrictions on political speech violate their First Amendment rights, but tht is because they forgot that they sold some of those rights to the state and got a lot of money in tax exemption in return. They could have filed as a PAC instead if that is what they wanted, or they could do like a church I belong to does, and just pay the taxes and tell the State to butt out. Of course, this church is not a multi-million dollar concern.

      But in this case, the decision only applies to ministers. It would be really stupid if a Baptist Church had to keep a minister on the payroll that converted to Islam, or started teaching an Evolution class, or took a second job at Planned Parenthood. The plaintiff was a religious education instructor whose qualifications included her religious credentials. The Court found that even if the reason for firing her was not religious, the fact that she was employed for the purpose of ministering that religion, they had total freedom to choose who would work as a minister without justifying that to the state, as a fundamental matter of church-state separation and freedom of religion.

      So your concerns about the runaway power of churches is not althogether warranted.

  3. martytroyer says:

    Thanks Charles. I appreciated your insiders look at this issue.

  4. PayAttention says:


    Actually, in this case you would be simply hyping misunderstanding. I am not aware of any action by such groups to dictate who the ministers of a church are. This decision does not support the unfettered right of a church to simply define all of their employees as ministers, and thereby be given special treatment with regard to equal opportunity in the employment of non-ministerial staff. A small church may define the office secretary as a lay minister, empowered to sort out who needs a pastor and who needs records, etc, but clearly this does not mean that the crew mowing the lawn would, but religious groups are still fighting to claim that Religious Freedom means that they can discriminate in who can sweep the floor at the for-profit bookstore they church owns, or the hardware store they wish to boycott.

    • Your understanding of the decision agrees with mine, but I do not believe the AU sees it that way. Its director’s statement seems to make it clear that, minister or not, a religious group may not claim that its religious beliefs dictate how it resolves disputes or whom it lets go and for what reason.

      But you raise another interesting point. This case involved a very old church body (+150 years) with an even longer theological pedigree (close to 500 years). It includes over 2 million members and a few thousand congregations and schools including 10 colleges and 2 seminaries. The rules regarding “who is a minister” are very clear and are applied identically across the nation. But what of the case of the local congregation who insists that its gardener is a minister? But then, who am I from my theological perspective to say what another religious group can and cannot say is a minister? The State has a right to protect other religious groups from my – and your – theological perspective, does it not?

    • PayAttention says:

      The slippery slope in the separation of church and state is that where they appear to be in conflict, there must be a justification for deciding where to draw the line. There are obvious lines, such as “this is our church and we pick the pastor” and less obvious lines such as “we demonstrate our faith in how we choose to live”. The Court has found that while belief is protected, practice is not. Therefore, a Voodon practicioner is free to believe that torturing chickens will please the spirits, but can be restricted from actually torturing chickens. You may not believe in medicine, but the Court can compell you to have your child’s condition treated, etc.
      What the AU wants is to make sure that a Church cannot simply sidestep anti-discrimination law as it pertains to practices such that they are less accountable for employment practices than other corporations should be, as if Religion provides exemption from from secular law, which in most cases, it does not and with few exceptions should not. The reason why a church should be able to make decisions about the ministry is effectively the same reason that a casting agent for a movie should be able to choose from only asians for the role of an asian character. The Religion is the primary qualification for the job to be done, and the opinion of the congregation is the sole measure of the religious merit of the minister, and they are free to hold those beliefs. What if they believe that the hospital they founded and control the Board of, that makes $500 million a year that goes, in part, into their coffers, is actually a ministry they provide? Are they now exempt from Equal Opportunity Employment claims? Some would claim yes, but I think it is reasonable to say no.

    • With regards to your phrase, “as if Religion provides exemption from secular law”…

      And the slippery slope slides both ways. The AU’s concerns seem very reasonable, but then I can find all sort of “what ifs” that bring it into question. Suppose the government passes a law that says no food shall be served in any building designated specifically for a religious purpose. That strikes at the heart of our church’s theology, that we proclaim ourselves to be Christians in the sharing of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper. It prohibits the free exercise of our religion. Or, to strike even closer to our day and age, suppose the government insists that all people, even those practicing homosexuality, polygamy or polyandry must be permitted to serve as a church’s minister or be liable to lawsuit for discrimination. Of course you could argue that the law would be struck down as unconstitutional unless it provided for the free exercise of religion. But wouldn’t that be tantamount to openly saying they are “less accountable for employment practices than other corporations should be”? The value of the 1st Amendment is that it protects expressions of religion that others, even a majority, may not like. Otherwise it has no value at all.

      I should state while we’re having this discussion that even within my own church body there are mixed feelings about the decision. The debate rages on, especially for Christians who are called to be “in the world” and yet at the same time “not of the world.”

    • PayAttention says:

      But your What-if is a false one. If religion was the motivation for the law, it would not satisfy freedom of religion. The law bends now to satisfy freedom where it is reasonable. Children can drink a sip of the wine despite prevailing alcohol laws to the contrary, but children cannot be allowed to suffer poisonous snakebites because that represents unreasonable harm.
      No, if you want a slippery slope, you can’t make up a new slope that does not apply. People can gather for religious reasons to express their faith, and people can proclaim that faith, but what we have to be mindful of is when that becomes a case where they can impose that faith. That is what the Separation Groups are fighting about. Nobody is trying to come into your church and dictate what your faith will be. They merely try to hold the line when folks who do not think about what they are saying try to call the imposition of their faith upon others part of their Religious Freedom. This backward notion is considered “common sense” by the better part of the country, to the extent that they see any attempt to push back as an attack on their faith.