GROWING THREATS TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS

One of the themes that has defined America is religious liberty. In the early colonies such freedom was rare. Until the birth of America, State churches were the norm. The first amendmentwas disigned to protect the people from a national church. Even as the first amendment was drafted there were still state churches in existence. Eventually state churches disappeared as state constitutions followed the lead of the national government. The first amendment was intended to free the conscience from government dictate. We can argue about whether denominations are good or bad, but we can agree that without a first amendment, such would be virtually impossible.

Today religious liberty is under attack from a variety of sources. Churches that choose to follow the Bible rather than cultural trends often find themselves on the wrong side of political correctness. Churches may object to women in the pulpit and may consider homosexuality a sin. Such views produce scorn from those who are feminists and gay activists. However, efforts to limit religious freedom have been around for decades, we just have not always noticed because churches and christians have often accepted the limitations without so much as a whimper. After all, we don't want to be viewed by the "in group" as fanatics who define the "out group".

For 28 years I served as a faculty member and an administrator of the Center for Christian Education. Our purpose was to equip men and women for ministry primarily in churches of Christ. Even though we were a private school, we were required to follow government regulations. We couldn't call ourselves a college nor could we compare ourselves in any way to a college. To use the word "college" in any of our promotional material was forbidden. For instance, even though all of our professors possessed doctorates, except for myself, we could not say that our classes were taught on a college level, nor could we say that graduates who had attended both our school and an accredited college often said that our courses compared favorably with courses offered at accredited institutions. As a result we could never attain the cultural credibility that we believed our program deserved. Because of this fact, the President and the Board decided that we should seek accreditation.

We had two obviouse problems from the start of our efforts to seek accreditation. We had limited financial resources and a small student population. As we got into the process, it became evident that we were a David and the state was a Goliath. The state said for us to continue the process we would have to employ a full time librarian and Registrar. Two new positions and two salaries that we had not anticipated. Our annual budget increased by $300,000.00 while our student population remained quite low. The point man for the state wrote and said that I needed to be assigned to the classroom and that the Center would have to employ a new Dean of
Academics who possessed a Doctorate. I only had a Masters Degree and though I had been responsible for the fact that all of the staff apart from me possessed Doctorates, it was thought that my lack of experience in administration at a REAL college would prohibit me from being able to serve as Dean. We made the hire and continued forward. Our employee/student ratio was not what a prospective donor would want to see. As a result fund raising became harder and harder. The conclusion to this story is that we were forced to close our doors in June of 2005. One could argue, and I would agree, that we should have counted the cost in advance and not began the process until we were better funded. The point is that at the moment it is just history, but the story serves to illustrate that religious freedom is sometimes more of an illusion than reality. It didn't matter what those who had spent their lives in churches of Christ thought should be essential to preparing ministers for churches of Christ, what mattered was what the bureaucrats in Austin thought.

The government categorized us as a vocational school. Therefore until we became accredited, we would have to have students in class for something like 27 hours per week, if we wanted students to be eligible for certain government funds available to veterans. It didn't matter that we were providing education somewhat like colleges ( I hope the statute of limitations has expired).

What churches of Christ believed or what the school's board and faculty believed was quality education appropriate to our religious context meant nothing, only the government could make such determinations. Now I realize that the public needs to be protected from degree mills, but such protection does not require government dictates invading our freedom to educate potential ministers in a way consistent with the expectations of Christians who compose the church.

About three years ago the state board tried to close down a small school similiar to the Center who were so bold as to use the word college to describe their program. The state said only state approved colleges could use the term. The school filed suit and the case was taken before the Supreme Court of Texas. The court ruled in favor of the school and concluded that the state has no right to determine how churches educate their ministers. Therefore were we seeking accreditation today it would be a different story. Trust me when I say that many accredited institutions were probably embarassed by our State Court's ruling. The churches may not realize it, but there is a growing distance between higher education and the churches. What matters to many universities is what other universities think about them. The applause from their peers means more than the endorsement of the churches. Don't interpret my words as a blanket indictment of all Christian universities and professors. What I am saying is that academic freedom means much more than religious freedom to many in the field of academia.

Most Court rulings are not as friendly to churches as the Texas Supreme Court's above decision.

Recently Dr. William Thierfelder, President of BELMONT ABBEY COLLEGE received correspondence from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission informing him that the school was under investigation because of a charge of sexual discrimination filed by eight faculty members. The charge was that because the school did not provide medical coverage for abortions, sterilizations, and contraceptives, they were discriminating against women. The college is Roman Catholic and views these practices as immoral.

The EEOC first dismissed the charges, but apparently when the decision reached the Washington office, there was a reversal of the decision and the case was re-opened.

Dr. Thierfelder offered the following observations:

"From a religious freedom standpoint, you don't have religious freedom...(the college) has gotten a lot of support from people who are not Catholic, and who may not share our beliefs on abortion, sterilization, contraception...they see the principle and what they're saying is, if you're a Catholic, or if you are of any faith, it doesn't mean anything. You're going to do what the government tells you to do....All of us need to have moral courage in today's world. We are so resolute in our commitment to the teachings of the Catholic Church that there is no possible way we would ever deviate from it, and if it came down to it...we would close the school rather than give in...So it is absolute, unequivocal, impossible for us to go against the teachings of the Catholic Church in any way. There is no form of compromise that is possible." (quote from w.w.w.lifesitenews.com)

It will be interesting to follow the progress of this case. While I have serious disagreement with various views of Roman Catholicism, I applaud Dr. Thierfelder for his courageous stand. I fear that not all of our college presidents would take such a courageous stand on abortion or other isssues such as the gay lifestyle.

These issues will multiply if the health refrom legislation before Congress passes. Physicians, nurses, and hospitals will not be free to refuse to perform abortions. Many Catholic hospitals have threatened to close their doors rather than compromise. Again I applaud their commitment, and can only hope that others will be so courageous.

If we desire to protect our religious freedom we must exercise it no matter what the cost!