Beckett Fund For Religious Liberty

On Monday, Intervarsity Christian Fellowship filed a discrimination lawsuit against the University of Iowa following that institution's mass deregistration of 38 student groups last month. The university first targeted Intervarsity because it requires leaders to sign a Christian statement of faith. This requirement is essential for freedom of association, and the university acted unjustly in singling out Intervarsity and these 38 groups, the lawsuit claims. Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing Intervarsity, announced in a press release Monday. The battle began last year, when the university exiled Business Leaders in Christ (BLinC), a Christian group that required leadership to embrace Christian beliefs, including the idea that marriage is between one man and one woman. BLinC sued the university, claiming that the school cannot treat BLinC differently from other, non-religious groups. Katie Glenn, policy council at the 1st Amendment Partnership (1AP), told PJ Media. The policy also arguably violates the plain text of the First Amendment to the U.S. Furthermore, the university showed its discriminatory purpose by not kicking out various other clubs that are allowed to choose leaders based on shared identity and mission.


If your friends of color do not share with you their experiences of discrimination, it does not mean that such experiences have never happened to them. There are many reasons why persons of color may choose not to share such stories with others. Even if your friends of color tell you racism does not impact them, there are still many others for whom racism is a daily threat to their well-being. A related sentiment is that people of color benefit from talking about racism—that they have a "race card" they can play to their advantage. Anne Cheng has written about the race card and its meaning for persons of color. " She points out the irony that the liability of race has come to stand for an asset: a special card.


Myth 10: Racial discrimination is against the law; what else can we do? While overt racial discrimination is outlawed, there are ways in which laws continue to enable such discrimination to take place. There are some state and federal laws that have been (or should be) put into legislation requiring greater accountability for police officers’ use of deadly force. There are laws that can address the unequal sentencing practices and the detrimental effect of over-policing poor neighborhoods. More laws are certainly still needed, but laws will not be enough. The relationship between legislation and racism is always complex and yet interrelated.


We need to advocate for greater racial justice in every area of our society and at all levels of government. This exercise of naming ten myths and misperceptions about racism may help us better prepare for the challenges of talking about racism in white contexts. Of course, the answer to these myths is not simply telling another person, "What you are saying is a myth." The solution is more difficult and more relational. It involves conversation, listening, and respect. The more we can help one another understand the complexity of the problem, the closer we can get to addressing it. Awareness of these myths helps us paint a more nuanced picture, inviting listeners to see more deeply the many facets of racism that contribute to the fissures in our community and inspiring change in congregations. Read the author's list of ten strategies for preaching about racism in mostly white churches. A version of this article appears in the print edition under the title "Ten myths about racism." It was adapted from Carolyn B. Helsel's forthcoming book, Preaching about Racism: A Guide for Faith Leaders, just published by Chalice Press.


— Change is part of the journey into young adulthood, the years in which Americans are most likely to move, attend college and change jobs. For the past 12 years, LifeWay Research, an evangelical firm that conducts research on the intersection of faith and culture, where I am executive director, has been studying how these changes affect the faith of young Protestant Christians. The results of our new survey are being released today. It turns out, perhaps not surprisingly, that as they grow, today’s youth are also rethinking where church falls in their lives. What may surprise many church leaders, however, is the increase in those who say politics played a role in their walking away. "Did you stop attending church regularly (twice a month or more) for at least a year between the ages of 18 and 22?


In the new study, a follow-up to one released in 2007, LifeWay Research surveyed online 2,002 young adults about why they stayed or why they stopped attending church regularly. Those who left were given a list of possible reasons from which to choose, and they could choose as many as they liked. The top 10 reasons look similar in many ways to the 2007 study. Moving to college, work responsibilities, and judgmental or hypocritical church members all made the top five reasons in both surveys. In 2007, 15 percent of church dropouts gave this as a reason. Today, 25 percent say it played a role. The proportion of young adults leaving Protestant churches is statistically unchanged, so we cannot conclude that politics is causing a new segment of people to leave the church.


We can say, however, that political views expressed in churches are having more influence on people who are leaving. This research should cause reflection on what has changed in the last 10 years and what needs to change today. Inevitably, many outside and some inside the church will say the solution is to never mix religion and politics. A majority of Americans, our previous research has found, think the church should be silent on politics. It could be easier for church leaders to not talk about politics at all. In fact, 30 percent of Protestant churchgoers don’t know if their political views match the majority of those around them in their congregation.


But this misses the opportunity to show how God cares about the ills of our society. Indeed, the conflict between religion and politics didn’t arise in the last presidential election campaign. Among Jesus’ own disciples, there were at least two who had conflicting political persuasions. Little is written in the Bible about Simon the Zealot, but his nickname indicates he had been actively involved in the opposition to the Roman government. Matthew, another disciple, known as a tax collector, had aligned himself with the Roman occupiers. We don’t know if those two ever agreed on politics, but we do know they worked together to build the church.


Since then, people from vastly different political viewpoints have followed Jesus together. Christians simply cannot ignore politics and follow Christ’s example. Church leaders today can find room for political involvement that will not alienate the next generation. Students and young adults want a faith that is relevant to their entire lives, including their political lives. Telling teenagers that faith is irrelevant to real life will not keep them from leaving the church. It may hasten their exits. Nor must churches shy away from biblical truths on controversial issues. Instead, church leaders should explore these truths further with teens. Talk together more, not less. For churches today, however, the end game cannot be winning elections, passing laws or securing Supreme Court seats.


It’s that kind of shortsighted perspective that led Jesus’ disciples to look for a political savior. Jesus demonstrated he was a different kind of savior; Christians must be a different kind of people. Part of being different in this age of perpetual political battles is recognizing that not all political issues are created the same. What tends to divide us is not the goals we want to achieve, but how we want to achieve them. Virtually everyone wants to help the middle class, for instance, or to keep the country safe, but parties and politicians disagree on the best way to get there. Churches must discover which political distinctions are essential for Christians and which allow for disagreement.


This is important to keep in mind as church leaders think about those leaving the church. Teenagers and young adults are exploring, trying new things and pushing on social standards — just as previous generations did. They are forming opinions on immigration, guns, the environment, global intervention and numerous other topics. Not all of their views will be shared by their elders. But as students explore, they are watching to see how older followers of Jesus Christ respond. Teenagers are highly attuned to inconsistencies and an unwillingness to listen to different political views. Both imply to them that God’s kingdom is not our primary allegiance.


Listening to them, on the other hand, demonstrates to teenagers that God is bigger than political differences and that a serious faith can handle all of life’s questions. Listening can be hard when young adults take idealistic stands or think that the church should learn from them, but not vice versa. Churches have a choice, however: Either relentlessly toe a specific political party line, or make sure young adults know they are valued. Almost 3 in 10 young adults who stop attending regularly attribute this to not feeling connected to people in their church. Teenagers aren’t likely to be fazed when others in church disagree with them, but they listen closely to see if their fellow church members will demean them or their position. If so, the student will feel judged and less connected to the congregation.