The Iowa Civil Rights Commission plans to revise guidance on how Iowans can comply with the 2007 Iowa amendment adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the state’s non-discrimination law. Recently, the Alliance Defending Freedom legal group has challenged 2008 wording from the Commission which gives the false impression that churches must comply with the non-discrimination law in their religious activities and worship services.
The wording from the 2008 brochure refers to church services as if this means worship services. See below:
“A church service open to the public” is the problematic phrase. This wording sounds like the Sunday worship service which for nearly all Christian churches are open to the public. However, Iowa Civil Rights Commission executive director Kristin Johnson told me that the word “services” was drawn from the Iowa statute and refers to economic goods and services and not worship meetings.
In response to public concern over the meaning of the phrase, Johnson told me today that the guidance from the Commission will be revised saying, “We are in the process of revising our publication and appreciate the fact that it was brought to our attention. It has not been the intention of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission to mislead anyone with respect to the Commission’s enforcement of the law.”
Johnson also clarified that the guidance brochure published by the Commission has been around since 2008. Earlier, I reported that the brochure was from 2012. However, Johnson said the guidance was written and published in 2008 but had a 2012 date because the brochure was migrated to new digital storage in 2012.
Even with the change in language, Erik Stanley of Alliance Defending Freedom told me today that the lawsuit will continue. He said he believes Iowa’s law is unconstitutional and should be challenged. The churches involved wanted to create facility use policies and ADF believes a lawsuit will help get certainty for them.
Category: Religion
Church Files Suit Against Iowa Civil Rights Commission Over 2007 Law Change
Twitter was abuzz a couple of days ago with outrage over a brochure from the Iowa Civil Right Commission which provided guidance on how to comply with a 2007 change in Iowa law to forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. At first, I thought the law had recently been changed but later learned that the law was changed in 2007 and the brochure was first published in 2012. Here is some of the reaction. Clearly the tweeters also thought the change was recent.
“Conservatives” who supported, abetted or acquiesced to redefining marriage, please see what you helped unleash. https://t.co/IkuYHpFugI
— Robert P. George (@McCormickProf) July 5, 2016
Let me repeat, the Iowa law went into effect in 2007 and the guidance was issued in 2012. The Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision had nothing to do with Iowa’s non-discrimination law.
Here is another revelation. In the nine years the law has been on the books, not one complaint has been filed against a church. Kristin Johnson, Executive Director of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission told me, “We’ve never considered any complaint on this issue in the 9 years since the statute was amended.”
Given the urgency of the stories about the Iowa brochure, I thought the document had been recently published and the issue was new.
As it turns out, Ms. Johnson is confused about why the Alliance Defending Freedom brought a suit now. ADF did not reply to an email I sent yesterday evening. Johnson said:
We don’t know what raised this issue. This statute was amended to add these protected classes (sexual orientation and gender identity) in 2007 and has been in effect since then. The Iowa Civil Rights Commission has not done anything to suggest it would be enforcing these laws against ministers in the pulpit, and there has been no new publication or statement from the ICRC raising the issue.
As to the language in the 2012 brochure, Ms. Johnson did acknowledge ambiguity. Here is the section about churches:
The portion that is unclear is the sentence: “Where qualifications are not related to a bona fide religious purpose, churches are still subject to the law’s provisions. (e.g. a child care facility operated at a church or a church service open to the public). (emphasis added)” This makes it sound as if the Commission will enforce the law during a public church service, i.e., during Sunday or other worship services. However, Ms. Johnson told me that is not what the phrasing means. She said:
The term “Services” comes from the statute and is not intended to refer to worship or religious services. It was intended to be used in the general sense as provided in Iowa Code Chapter 216. The brochure was apparently intended to be a “FAQ” of sorts and an attempt to explain some of the legal terms. A less ambiguous way to word this might have been “services provided by a church to the public.”
“Public accommodation” means each and every place, establishment, or facility of whatever kind, nature, or class that caters or offers services, facilities, or goods for a fee or charge to nonmembers of any organization or association utilizing the place, establishment, or facility, provided that any place, establishment, or facility that caters or offers services, facilities, or goods to the nonmembers gratuitously shall be deemed a public accommodation if the accommodation receives governmental support or subsidy
The word “services” doesn’t mean worship services as is being commonly reported in press accounts of the Iowa guidance. Instead, it refers to the provision of a good or service in the economic sense. If a church allows a non-religious group to hold a bake sale or rents out a part of the building to a group that offers goods or services, the law would apply. However, using the example of a day care ministry, Ms. Johnson told me that “the question there would be whether that day care was provided by a bona fide religious institution and served a bona fide religious purpose.” On the other hand, the commission might look at the situation if a church leased their building to a day care business which operated without a bona fide religious purpose.
For some, this enforcement will still be unacceptable. In any case, the narrative that Iowa has recently initiated a move against worship services and religious freedom in church just doesn’t match up with the facts.
In His New Book, Eric Metaxas Whitewashes George Whitefield on Slavery
In his new book If You Can Keep It, Eric Metaxas provides an overview of early American history in order to remind us what is special about America. In the process, he provides a pithy formula for national success, but he makes significant historical errors and glosses over important facts. One such fact is the involvement of evangelist George Whitefield in introducing slavery to Georgia.
In his chapter on Whitefield (which appears to be summarized without attribution from Thomas Kidd’s excellent book on Whitefield), Metaxas asserts that Whitefield’s preaching was a great equalizer among American social classes. On page 111, he adds:
The egalitarian strains of the Gospel extended to women and blacks as well. Many female preachers were spawned by the revival of the Great Awakening and many African American preachers too. Unlike most of the mainline ministers of his day, Whitefield often spoke to “Negroes” and once remarked that he was especially touched when one of them came to faith. One of them even asked Whitefield, “Have I a soul?” That Whitefield believed he did meant that the Negro was in this most important respect perfectly equal to whites.
Metaxas, Eric (2016-06-14). If You Can Keep It: The Forgotten Promise of American Liberty (p. 111). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
This is a disturbing whitewash of Whitefield’s views and actions relating to African slaves. As Kidd documents in his book (see also this post), Whitefield was “convinced that introducing slavery into Georgia was essential to the colony’s economic prospects…” Prior to Whitefield’s advocacy for slavery, Georgia had banned it. Whitefield himself owned slaves. On March 22, 1751, Whitefield wrote about the need for slavery in Georgia:
As for the lawfulness of keeping slaves, I have no doubt, since I hear of some that were bought with Abraham’s money, and some that were born in his house.—And I cannot help thinking, that some of those servants mentioned by the Apostles in their epistles, were or had been slaves. It is plain, that the Gibeonites were doomed to perpetual slavery, and though liberty is a sweet thing to such as are born free, yet to those who never knew the sweets of it, slavery perhaps may not be so irksome. However this be, it is plain to a demonstration, that hot countries cannot be cultivated without negroes. What a flourishing country might Georgia have been, had the use of them been permitted years ago? How many white people have been destroyed for want of them, and how many thousands of pounds spent to no purpose at all?
Africans are expendable and whites are not.
Yes, Whitefield preached to slaves and expressed pleasure when they converted. However, he also resisted the urging of at least one of this colleagues to reject slavery. Not only did he own slaves, but he used his considerable influence to change the attitudes of Georgia decision makers to allow slavery in the colony.
Whitefield biographer James Gledstone commented in 1871 on Whitefield’s efforts to bring slavery to Georgia:
How complete and miserable a failure was the attempt to unite slavery and Christianity will be seen by and by. Meanwhile we think of the orphans being habituated to look upon Negroes as a servile race, of their growing to manhood and womanhood educated in the ideas of slaveholders, and of their being able to throw over all the abominations of the system, the reputation of a philanthropist so humane and a saint so sincere and so holy as was George Whitefield; neither can we forget that every man who owned a slave would be able to justify it by Whitefield’s example.
This reminds me of David Barton’s whitewash of Thomas Jefferson on slavery.
It is beyond absurd for Metaxas to write, “The egalitarian strains of the Gospel extended to women and blacks as well.” In what universe can Whitefield’s approach to Africans be construed as regarding them as “perfectly equal to whites?”
Apparently, Whitefield worship is a matter of great importance to Metaxas. He needs Whitefield to fill the role of the great Christian reason we had the revolution. About Whitefield, Metaxas says:
We might also say that providence brought them [unity and self-government] into existence through the life and work of a single man, very little known to us today. We are talking about the life and work of the man named George Whitefield, without whom the United States simply could not have come into being.
Metaxas, Eric (2016-06-14). If You Can Keep It: The Forgotten Promise of American Liberty (p. 77). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Did providence also bring about slavery in Georgia?
Apparently, Metaxas needs Whitefield to be larger than life in order to bring God into the founding. At the close of the chapter on Whitefield, Metaxas says:
When we take the full measure of Whitefield’s role in creating what would become the United States, who can help but wonder whether our history is one in which God himself— and if not God, then at least those who are motivated by the idea of God and all it portends— has played a central role?
Metaxas, Eric (2016-06-14). If You Can Keep It: The Forgotten Promise of American Liberty (p. 114). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
If you want a book to delight you with pleasantries and clever phrasing, this one could work. However, if you want accurate and honest history throughout, this is not the book for you.
*In my Kindle copy, there are only 7 end notes. I could be wrong but it seems like Metaxas owes a large debt to Kidd’s book on Whitefield.
Hispanic Southern Baptist Pastors Criticize Trump's Evangelical Advisory Board
Donald Trump told evangelical leaders on Tuesday that he believes he will do well among Hispanic voters. These Hispanic Southern Baptist pastors see things differently. They lament the joining of evangelicals (especially Southern Baptists) and prosperity gospel preachers and they consider Trump’s rhetoric about Hispanics to fuel racism. Here is their statement:
Our Response to the “Trump Evangelical Advisory Board”
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK – As Christian pastors, and Hispanic Baptist leaders, we have witnessed with sadness and concern the joining of the “Trump Evangelical Advisory Board” by several respected brothers and leaders, including some pastors in our Southern Baptist Convention. Let us be clear, they all have the right to join any political body, and they have done so on a personal level.
Nevertheless, we think that is not the wisest move by those we call brothers to join this particular board. We understand we need to be of “influence” or salt and light in a very dark world, but joining this board is not the wisest way to be salt and light. Upon occasion, we can influence more by holding forth the unquenchable light of the Gospel outside the camp, rather than jumping into a crowded office where the weed and wheat are undistinguishable.
It is not only Mr. Trump’s questionable character; the boasting about his fornications and his lack of repentance, and the use of an outrageous and disrespectful language to refer to the Hispanic community, igniting the hidden racism still imbedded in parts of our society. it is the joining as evangelicals with people who profane the evangelio.
This is our greatest concern. It is heart breaking to see brothers joining an “evangelical board” with false teachers like Kenneth Copeland and Paula White. These people have profaned the gospel of Christ. They teach a different gospel –i.e. the so-called prosperity gospel. They have deceived many in our Hispanic communities. In our churches, we have received many who have been victims of their fairy tales and false promises. The truth of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is too precious for us to be silent. By being part of a board with people like Copeland and White we send the wrong message to our churches and to our society, as if they are “evangelicals” as we are. Our main concern is not “political correctness”, it is about the testimony of the Gospel that has saved us and the Gospel that we proclaim.
Council Hispanic Baptist Pastors Alliance
Evangelicals Meeting with Trump: Brothers and Sisters, What Else Do You Need to Know?
I will admit, I am very disappointed with evangelical so-called leaders who are going to meet with Donald Trump tomorrow. I just can’t imagine what else they need to hear from Trump. His statements and actions aren’t subtle and he has subjected us to them for over a year.
At the top of the disappointment list is Eric Metaxas who just released a book calling for public virtue to help save the nation. He also has declared Donald Trump the only hope for the nation. Today’s Washington Post previews the meeting with quotes from several evangelicals including a lengthy interview of Metaxas. According to the Post reporter, Metaxas wants “a glimpse of Trump’s soul.”
But really, Eric Metaxas, what else do you need to see?
Trump has said he doesn’t ask forgiveness (Metaxas already knows that), judged a judge on his heritage, said he plans to deport 11 million people, he sadistically mocked a disabled reporter (fact checked here), he said war crimes and torture should be permitted, he claimed service members should engage in war crimes and torture to follow his orders, he has limited the freedom of the press while giving press credentials to white supremacists, ridiculed John McCain for being a prisoner of war, and he has mocked women, his opponents and anybody else who gets in his way. We had to deal with nicknames like “Lying Ted” and “Little Marco” during the primaries. Tattooed on Donald Trump’s soul is the phrase: “Win at all costs.” I haven’t even covered the falsehoods and business dealings. Just spend some time reading through Trump University sales manuals. Honesty and respect for customers are not high on the list of virtues.
Instead of speaking truth to power, I think many of my evangelical brethren just want to be close to power. However, at least one evangelical who got an invitation isn’t going — Robert George — and his response to it is worth reading.
I respectfully decline. I have been a severe critic of Mr. Trump and there is nothing he could say at a meeting in which he is courting conservatives that would alter my low opinion of him. I trust that I do not need to go into detail about the words and actions that have caused me to form that opinion. Perhaps the only politician in America of whom I have an even lower opinion is Hillary Clinton, so I certainly understand why some are urging us to hold our noses and support for Mr. Trump. But I fear that he will, in the end, bring disgrace upon those individuals and organizations who publicly embrace him. For those of us who believe in limited government, the Rule of Law, flourishing institutions of civil society, and traditional Judeo-Christian moral principles, and who believe that our leaders must be persons of integrity and good character, this election is presenting a horrible choice. May God help us.
Like George, I don’t think there is anything Trump could say in a meeting that could undo what he has already done and said. Here’s hoping that these evangelicals will become the leaders they are portrayed to be and respond to Trump on principle not pragmatism after their meeting tomorrow.