National Center for Law & Policy Files Federal Lawsuit Challenging California Department of Social Services’ Unconstitutional Cancelation of Church School from Child Food Program. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 15, 2023

El Cajon, CA—Today the National Center for Law & Policy (NCLP) and Advocates for Faith and Freedom (AFF) joined forces to file a federal civil rights lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The suit challenges the California Department of Social Services’ (CDSS) unconstitutional decision to permanently cut off public funding allocated to feed needy children at a religious preschool. What led to CDSS’ draconian decision? Simply put, it was the church’s perfectly lawful refusal to abdicate its deeply held religious beliefs regarding human sexuality by capitulating to CDSS’ overreaching demand to immediately and completely align all of its employment decisions, including key positions involved with inculcating religion, to the state’s new divergent sexual orthodoxy. 

The Church of Compassion (Church) and its Dayspring Christian Learning Center (Preschool or Dayspring) have been loving their neighbors in El Cajon, California, for decades by identifying and meeting needs in their community. Their neighborhood is home to many immigrants and indigent families. Dayspring is a place where all children and parents are accepted and loved, where laughter and play are cherished and where children’s spiritual, emotional, and physical needs are met. One way the Preschool demonstrates God’s love is by participating in the state Food Program, where public funds are allocated to help feed indigent children. 

Late last year, the CDSS threatened to withdraw Food Program funding unless both the Church and Preschool agreed to never consider sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) in any and all of their employment decisions. In spite of the fact the federal USDA appropriately exempts religious schools from SOGI mandates, CDSS unlawfully permanently suspended the Preschool and its needy students from the Food Program after the Church and Preschool refused to allow the government to erase and replace their religious beliefs. However, several LGBTQ+ families whose children attend the Preschool, and who understand and appreciate the Preschool’s right to inculcate religion, support Dayspring.  These families are concerned about what the CDSS has done and can testify of Dayspring’s good reputation and unbiased treatment.  

Constitutional attorney Dean Broyles, who serves as lead counsel, says “It is immoral that California is holding hungry children hostage to its draconian desire to coercively control the Church of Compassion and Dayspring’s religious beliefs and employment practices. Whom churches employ has nothing to do with effectively feeding needy kids, yet the CDSS aggressively abused its power by forcibly imposing its new statist sexual orthodoxy mandates on our clients.  In our free nation with a Bill of Rights, the government cannot compel citizens to adopt its preferred ideologies, suppress our religious beliefs, or force us to express only state-approved messages.”

Broyles, continued, “Fortunately, the First Amendment explicitly protects our clients’ free exercise of religion and the freedom of speech from such government overreach. Furthermore, the Establishment Clause forbids government from coercively imposing its new statist religious beliefs regarding human sexuality on our clients or from acting in such an aggressive and controlling manner towards religious institutions. California’s attempted hostile takeover of our places of worship will not stand.” 

Julianne Fleischer, counsel with AFF, says “It is abhorrent that California is forcing its sexual orthodoxy upon the Church of Compassion and Dayspring. The First Amendment has no tolerance for the type of government hostility that California is inflicting on the Church.”

“Our Preschool serves all families, but we do not want the government to force us to replace our core values and the essential beliefs of our Christian faith or make us agree to adopt and express the state’s contrary beliefs,” says Kelly Wade Dayspring’s director.

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin CDSS’ decision to unlawfully withdraw public funds from religious institutions, declare its actions unconstitutional and restore public funding to feed indigent children in El Cajon.  Read the federalcomplaint in Church of Compassion v. Bonta here. Attorneys with Advocates for Faith and Freedom serve as co-counsel in this action with the NCLP. 

The National Center for Law & Policy is a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense organization dedicated to the protection and promotion of religious freedom, the affirmation of life, parental rights, and other civil liberties. Please visit our website at www.nclplaw.org.  For further inquiries, comments, or to schedule interviews, please contact Dean Broyles at The National Center for Law & Policy at 760-747-4529 or dbroyles@nclplaw.org

Newsom and His Abortion Enthusiast Friends Seal California’s Reputation as An Evil Sanctuary State of Death

Sacramento, CA—Governor Gavin Newsom, who claims to be a practicing Catholic Christian, and the California Legislature are spending a lot of time and money exporting a pro-death message to the nation to gin up more abortions.  Newsom has recently taken to using his reelection campaign funds to place billboards in seven other states, actively recruiting women and girls with unwanted pregnancies to travel to the baby-killing “friendly” Golden State to obtain abortions.  The goal is to make California a magnet state for abortion tourism. Newsom’s barbaric billboards direct women in need to an official website of the State of California, paid for by taxpayers.  The website boasts on its home page that, “Abortion remains safe, legal, and accessible in California, whether or not you live in the state. This website has current and accurate information about how you can access abortion services in California.”

The home page also prominently features a convenient button to click to “Find a provider.”  California’s abortion-shilling website includes a lot of “helpful” information, such as:

• How minors (girls under 18) from other states can obtain abortions without their parents’ knowledge or consent.
• How to obtain financial assistance to cover travel and medical expenses.
• How illegal immigrants can obtain free abortions at taxpayer expense.
• How women and girls can obtain low-cost or free abortions. 

The marred message being exported is that Cali wants to import more death.  To that dark end, Newsom’s campaign has purchased space on billboards in seven other states that, post-Roe, have restricted or banned abortions: Texas, Indiana, Ohio, Mississippi, South Dakota, South Carolina, and Oklahoma. They advertise mixed messages, including, “Need an abortion? California is ready to help.” Most notably, Gruesome Newsom’s billboards in Mississippi and Oklahoma speciously quote Mark 12:31 from the Bible, which reads “Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no greater commandment than these.”  

But Newsom’s out of context quote actually contradicts Jesus’ intent. In fact, Jesus’ commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself” is the second part of Jesus Christ’s two-part great commandment.  Before our neighbor, Jesus commands us to love God with everything we’ve got—our heart, our mind and our strength.  It is only when we love first love and obey God that way that we are truly empowered, by the Holy Spirit, to love our neighbors as we should authentically love them. 

Yet Gavin foolishly forgets or intentionally ignores that it is this very same creator-God, who made each of us unique and valuable in His image, who commands us not to murder our neighbors (See Exodus 20:13).  And Jesus, who loves children, certainly does not approve of people who harm children (See Matthew 18:6), especially those who distort God’s commands in order to legitimize killing kids.  Fortunately, love is defined by God, not Gavin.  His blatant and blasphemous twisting of the Holy Bible is a transparent attempt to justify and defend an indefensible evil—and is itself evil. 

Jesus actually instructs us to love your neighbor as [you love] yourself, not “kill your neighbor as [you kill] yourself.”  Abortion is not love.  It is the opposite of love.  In truth, Gavin’s gaff is a bold in-your-face rebellious rejection of and denial of both the Creator and His creation. But what we do in life echoes in eternity.  He will stand before God and will be required to give an account for his life.  I encourage Gavin to repent. 

For context, it is important here to understand the genesis of California’s completely callous continental killing campaign.  I submit that behind it, at its very root is a purely evil commitment to join the prince of this world in his malevolent movement to steal, kill and destroy (see John 10:10).  Fearful that SCOTUS would overturn Roe v. Wade and send the issue of abortion back to the states and the people, Newsom and his death-dealing friends (including the ACLU, Planned Parenthood and NARAL) formed the California Future of Abortion Council (CA FAB Council) in September of 2021.  By early December 2021, they had put together a detailed and dark written plan which included 45 policy recommendations.  California’s uber-liberal legislature was happy to oblige this year.  As a result, Newsom has signed more than fourteen very bad bills, spotlighting California’s reputation as a sanctuary state for child sacrifice.  Furthermore, California voters are also preparing to vote on Proposition 1 in November, a constitutional amendment that would protect a “fundamental right” to “reproductive freedom,” defined as “their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion” or contraceptives.  If passed, this amendment will essentially render any limits on abortion, up until birth, as “unconstitutional,” affirming late term abortion-on-demand as a “civil right.”

These unjust “laws” will further cement California’s wicked reputation as an extreme pro-death state, not only compared to other U.S. jurisdictions, but in comparison to the rest of the civilized world.  Only a few countries like North Korea and China have worse abortion polices. However, the citizens of California are not in synch with this evil push. Most do not favor late term abortions.  In fact, polling shows that a majority of Golden-State citizens believe pre-born children should be protected after the first trimester.

The bottom line is this—the radical left is so enthusiastic about abortion (a.k.a. killing babies) that they are willing to stake nearly everything on blindly supporting it without any meaningful limits or restrictions.  Certainly, we have wandered quite far from the former democratic mantra that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.”  Today, the FAB is frantically fighting to “protect, strengthen and expand abortion care” in California up until the day babies are born.  And, if the early version of AB 2223 were past, blatant post-birth infanticide would also have been legally protected.  Even now, the version Gavin’s signed allows a child born alive in a botched abortion to be left to die.  If this is not evil, I strongly suggest that we need to redefine what evil actually is.

Life is a human right.  In fact, it is the first and most basic of all civil rights.  This is why our Declaration of Independence recognizes that we are “endowed by our Creator” with the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (read virtue).  If you are not breathing, you cannot even begin to enjoy any other human right—including the freedom of speech, religion or anything else.  Therefore, harming vulnerable children in any way, including killing them before they draw their first breath, is evil.  No nation or state can state can credibly claim to be on the right side of history or maintain the moral high ground on any issue as long as it approves the systematic genocide of the next generation.  I urge all people of goodwill remaining in the Golden State to stand up for the right to life of the unborn and to courageously speak out against this great evil happening on our watch. 

Fascist or Freedom: “God, Family and Country”?

​​​​​​​Rome, Italy—Giorgia Meloni, a 45-year-old woman, was just democratically elected as the next Prime Minister of Italy. The leftist media is apoplectic about her sudden rise to power.  Why?  Because she is a conservative Christian whose campaign slogan is “God, Country & Family.”  They allege her political party has its roots in fascism.  Recently, President Biden in one of the most divisive speeches ever given by a sitting president, attacked the alleged “semi-fascism” he believes underpins MAGA (Make America Great Again) Republicans.  Ironically, this unhinged speech was given in front of Independence Hall, a symbol of liberty and democracy.  This begs the obvious question: Is being pro-God, pro-family and pro-country actually fascist? 

In a word, no.  Fascism is an extreme authoritarian political philosophy that places nation and race above all other considerations, ruled by a totalitarian dictator who suppresses opposition and obliterates dissent.  Historical iterations of fascism include Hitler and Mussolini.  At its very core, fascism is anti-democratic and authoritarian.  Individual liberties and freedom are not valued by fascists—they are destroyed. 

Are personal commitments to God, family and country a threat?  If so, what precisely do they threaten?  Yes, they are threat, but conservatives are actually the very opposite of fascist.  Their worldview is actually a threat to true fascism.  They are a threat to progressive elitist group think.  They are a threat to government overreach.  They are a threat to Marxism.  They are a threat to all forms of totalitarianism.  They are a threat to all things woke.  They are a threat to those who would, in truth, subvert civil rights and freedom. So, how do these conservative values threaten fascism?

God is an existential threat to woke neo-totalitarians because He is the ultimate authority in the universe.  He has omnipotent power with authority that is higher than any government or leader.  He set the natural laws and moral boundaries for our good and flourishing.   He commands our obedience.  He alone has the authority to define what is good, true and beautiful.  Authentic Christian disciples put God first in their lives, not the state.  There is no place for racism in Biblical Christianity because we are one new man in Christ.  The woke promote racial division and are racist against whites.  For Christians, if the state’s commands conflict with the Creator, we must obey God rather than men (see Acts 5:29).  Totalitarian Wokeism permits no other rivals to its absolutist and totalistic claims, but seeks to obliterate and supplant all rivals, including God.

Family is also an existential threat to woke totalitarians because family is the first “government” to promote good and restrain evil.  Strong families are the basic building blocks of a strong society.  Family trains the next generation in truth—what is right and what is wrong.  Family instills identity and tells us who we really are—unique and valuable, beautifully created in God’s image—male and female. It instills belief in God and clear moral values in children, which increasingly conflicts with the state’s twisted ethics.  Christianity and other religions believe that parents have the primary responsibility to raise children and instill values, not the state.  Totalitarian Wokeism seeks to destroy family.  It creates an identity crisis by ideologically separating children from their parents and by undermining and redefining family.  It indoctrinates contradictory values, abusing public education as a means to propagandize the next generation.  Fortunately, today we see parents rising up across America to oppose state-imposed woke ideologies like critical race theory (CRT) and corrupted comprehensive sexuality education.  That is a good thing. 

Country is an existential threat to woke totalitarians because they want to impose authoritarian Chinese-style Marxism on the entire planet—nations, democracies and families be damned.  God, in His sovereignty, set the boundaries for peoples and nations.  He established government for our benefit, to promote good and restrain evil (see Romans 13).  Therefore, when the government promotes evil and restrains good, it is the right of the people in democratic nations to change their leadership.  The United States of America with the U.S. Constitution’s built-in separation of powers, checks and balances and popular sovereignty has resulted in the freest and most prosperous nation in the history of the world. Our democratic republic with its constitutional norms has been a bulwark against fascism and all forms of totalitarianism.  Good nations like the U.S. ought to remain free and export healthy democratic norms to others.  However, woke totalitarians are enemies of authentic democratic values and democratic nations.  They want to degrade and destroy the U.S. Constitution, and with it our precious form of government and our nation, which though imperfect, has been a beacon of light to the world.  They promote not a healthy nationalism but a sick authoritarian globalist-totalitarian agenda, which subverts local-national democratic norms including basic good things like secure borders. 

Yes, God, Country and Family, are in fact, a threat to fascism.  However, I submit that when you consider the actual definition of fascism, that it is the woke elite left which is in truth far less democratic and more authoritarian than MAGA conservatives.  Exhibit A in support of this contention is the way that woke-led states exhibited very authoritarian and totalitarian tendencies in the extremely overreaching and draconian manner in which they restricted “We the people” during the pandemic.  Exhibit B is the woke agenda that has highjacked most of public education, indoctrinating the next generation of children in Marxist CRT and radical sexuality education. 

Simply put, woke is broke.  Woke is fascist.  Ideas have consequences.  Bad ideas create victims.

Yes, everything we hold dear, is now under attack.  Today, as Giorgia Meloni recently said, “The only way to be rebels, is to be conservative.”  If you are a conservative who believes in God, family and country and you are not regularly being called names or personally attacked these days, you may need to carefully evaluate whether you are a coward who has allowed yourself to be marginalized and silenced by the woke mob.  May today be the day that we stand up for what is good, true and beautiful and continue to speak the truth in love.  This is essential if we want our children and grandchildren to enjoy a free future. 

Britain Shuts Down Its Harmful Child Gender Blender Clinic as California Creates a Macabre Sanctuary State for Gender Dysphoric Minors

London, England—Britain’s National Health Service is shutting down its largest and most influential state-run gender-identity clinic by Spring 2023. Why?  An independent report concluded that Tavistock clinic’s practices of lopping off gender-confused children’s perfectly healthy body parts and subjecting them to fertility sterilizing hormone and drug treatments may not actually be a very good idea, health wise.  Not surprisingly, a Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health report criticizing Tavistock concluded that mutilating children’s bodies to conform with their feelings is actually “not a safe or viable long-term option” for gender-confused young people.  The report also found that patients at Tavistock were “at considerable risk” from clinicians’ “unquestioning affirmative approach.”

Bad ideas have bad consequences and create victims.  That’s why a London law firm has announced a class-action lawsuit on behalf of 1,000 families whose “children and young adolescents were rushed into treatment” by Tavistock and, as a result, “suffered life-changing and, in some cases, irreversible effects.” While legal accountability can be a positive good, unfortunately lawsuits and money won’t assuage the irreparable mental and physical harm already done by the victims of Tavistock’s gender ideology run amok.  Britain joins Sweden and Finland as nations that are pumping the brakes on this experimental and unproven run-away gender transition train.  In this regard, our European cousins across the pond are leading the way morally and ethically. 

We are experiencing precisely the same gender-blender mania problem here in the U.S., but it does not appear that we will wake up to reality anytime soon.  Tragically, the Biden administration is “all in” on what is euphemistically labeled “gender affirming care.”  In truth, it’s gender debauching harm. 

Case in point is California, which has no patience or respect for any other jurisdiction or parent who has not blindly affirmed the gender blender bandwagon.  Not content to experimentally mutilate its own citizens, California is foolishly rushing to export its radical sexual ideology to all 50 states and their families via its latest piece of evil legislation, SB 107.  Tragically, SB 107’s author Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) thinks that cutting off and swapping out perfectly functioning sexual organs of gender dysphoric minors (i.e. transitioning kids) is such a great idea and urgent need, that the Golden State ought to openly flout custodial parental rights and the legal authority of other states.  But Wiener’s law is blatantly unconstitutional in two important ways. 

First, SB 107 violates parental rights protected in the U.S. Constitution by giving California courts the ability to strip the parental rights of citizens of other states if their child travels to California to obtain gender transition counseling or procedures—including harmful puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and irreversible surgeries. This misguided legislation allows California courts to take “emergency jurisdiction” over gender-dysphoric minors from other states, even those who may have been brought to California by a non-custodial parent (i.e., a parent or adult who does not have legal or physical custody) in violation of existing child custody orders.  This could easily encourage the kidnapping of minors from other states by sketchy or unstable adults. Furthermore, the legislation forbids California healthcare providers from providing the medical records related to transitioning treatments to parents, even if subpoenaed. 

Second, SB 107 would also lead to the violation of Article IV, Section 1’s Full Faith and Credit Clause which requires one state to honor and respect the laws and court rulings of another state.  But, SB 107 would override the jurisdiction of courts in a family’s home state that are usually the proper forum for custody determinations.  SB 107 could also conflict with various federal laws, including those governing which state courts have jurisdiction to determine child custody and federal laws governing extradition requirements between the states.

Are such extreme anti-family and anti-republic values actually in the best interest of the child?  No.  Here, adults, who ought to know better, are actually aiding and abetting harm—contributing to the delinquency of minors.  The research confirms that most children who struggle with dysphoria eventually grow out of it.  And many who run the gauntlet of drugs and surgeries later regret it.  In fact, there is a fast-growing community of “de-transitioners,” those who were rushed into medical transitions only to regret them later.  Yet these radical sexual liberty trans activists coercively affirm and promote the false promises of freedom and fulfillment, while in truth they are actually pushing children and families off of a cliff.  As I have written before, I believe that the transgender push which began in earnest in 2015 is a “bridge too far” for most Americans and is a radical idea which will ultimately backfire on the left. 

Our culture’s blind rush to transition children is unethical and is medical malpractice.  A medical “standard of care” which nearly always only affirms the subjective feelings of minors, whose feelings change and whose pre-frontal cortexes are not fully functioning, is no standard at all.  The science shows that young people are very susceptible to peer pressure and the coercive impositions of well-meaning adults.  There must be legal accountability for the negligence and recklessness for those adults, including medical professionals, who should know better and who should have provided objective informed consent to the minors struggling with gender dysphoria and their families.

As is often the case, California is far out of touch with even the most basic medical and scientific truths and realities. This sun-soaked coast far too often eschews objective truth, choosing rather to live in an alternative magical world of subjective woke fantasy.  Sadly, California’s morally blind radical transgender enthusiasm and activism will almost certainly mar and mutilate thousands of children before they learn their lesson. 

It is critically important that we get this one right.  Don’t be confused. This is not healthcare; it is harmcare.  This is not child self-actualization, it’s child abuse, aided and abetted by adults who ought to know better.  And responsible adults who intentionally or negligently harm children deserve to be sued and thrown in jail, or worse.  Perhaps you recall that Jesus said something quite severe about a millstone and deep water in regard to how we treat children?  As has thankfully recently occurred in Britain, Sweden and Finland, I sincerely hope and pray that California’s leaders wake up before more vulnerable children and young people are physically and emotionally damaged.  It would be fantastic if California would study and learn from Europe’s failures, but I am not holding my breath. 

Biden’s Public Enemies List: Are Christians Domestic Terrorists?

Washington, DC—The policies and practices of the Obama administration arguably represented the greatest threat to religious freedom our nation has ever experienced.  In this regard, President Joe Biden is without question Obama 2.0.  On his first day in office, President Biden directed his national security team to lead a comprehensive review of domestic terrorism, which he views as “the most urgent terrorism threat the United States faces today.”  Not letting a crisis to go to waste, the impetus for this urgent assessment was ostensibly the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot.   During his April 2021 joint address to Congress, President Biden declared “white supremacy is terrorism” labeling it “the most lethal terrorist threat to our homeland today.”  On June 15^th, the White House released the “first ever” National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism. 

So, who are these alleged domestic terrorists which pose such an existential threat to our democracy?  The U.S. Government’s report identifies two categories of “bad” guys.  First, there are “the racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists and networks whose racial, ethnic, or religious hatred leads them toward violence….[who] focus their violence towards…persons of color, immigrants, Jews, Muslims, other religious minorities, women and girls, LGBTQI+ individuals, or others.”  Second, there are the “anti–government or anti–authority violent extremists…who take steps to violently resist government authority or facilitate the overthrow of the U.S. Government based on perceived overreach….[and] may be motivated to violence by single-issue ideologies related to abortion….”

To put it simply, according to the Biden Administration, all Bible-believing Christians who have religiously informed perspectives on human sexuality (marriage, LGBTQI+, etc.) and/or who are passionately opposed to the killing of innocent babies in utero (abortion) are potential domestic terrorists.  This verbal trickery became possible because some very clever liberal elite snowflakes have quite intentionally and maliciously redefined faith-informed and reasoned disagreement with their sexually permissive worldview as “hate.”  And strong “hate” almost invariably leads to violence.  Ergo, Christians are “domestic terrorists.”  By self-servingly labeling truth hate, they have effectively silenced a large swath of timid believers whom, though commanded to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15), really do not like being called names. 

The report’s same intellectually lazy name-calling, marginalization and demonization of dissenters applies also to anyone who is legitimately concerned about the size and scope of government control and its overreach (i.e. unconstitutional COVID-19 restrictions).  Bam!  They may be terrorists too.  But by that measure, our founding fathers should posthumously be labeled domestic terrorists for participating in the American Revolution and writing “unhinged” government-limiting documents like the Federalist Papers.  Suddenly, Biden has helped us to finally realize what depraved criminal thugs they were for expressing such “terroristic” ideas in the Declaration of Independence as: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”  Based on the left’s “logic,” Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and John Adams were clearly “domestic terrorists.”  Our nation was purportedly founded by a group of rank terrorists (and we must all now repent)!  Or so the malevolent Marxists want you to believe. 

So, what is really going on here?  President Biden has created an enemies list—and made it public.  But this is not something we should ever tolerate in America.  It is fundamentally inimical to freedom and liberty. This is what tyrannical dictators do.  This oppressive and freedom chilling behavior is precisely what the Bill of Rights, especially the First Amendment, is designed to prevent.  Ideas have consequences.  Bad ideas create victims.  This report is chock-full of spectacularly bad ideas. 

But the government’s list of criminal offenders, even by its own definition of domestic terrorism is woefully underinclusive.  Federal law defines “domestic terrorism” as “activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”  But by this definition, is not ANTIFA clearly a domestic terrorist organization?  And what about aggressive elements of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, who encouraged violence, arson, and looting?  Does anyone remember the “peaceful protests” of 2020, the nineteen deaths, and the billions of dollars of damage done?  The fruit of their extreme beliefs and violent actions are clear.  But the media has run interference for these affinity groups, which clearly meet the left’s own definition of domestic terrorism.  Ironically, however, it’s the radical Marxists leftists who are the ones that really want to deconstruct overthrow and replace everything that is good, true and beautiful in our democratic republic (See Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals).  They are the true enemies of freedom and democracy and must be opposed. 

Taken as a whole, the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism is little more than Biden’s slick and sophisticated public enemies list.  This report continues and expands the coordinated name-calling strategy of lazy leftists to defamatorily label anyone with whom they disagree, on virtually any issue, not only as “hateful,” but as “racist.”  This is a cheap trick employed to avoid any discussion on the merits of ideas. But a careful reading of the report reveals that Biden’s enemies are not limited to actual racist “White Supremacists” but also include conservatives, libertarians, Trump enthusiasts, small-government Republicans, pro-lifers, people who resisted COVID-19 restrictions, Christians, and other religious adherents (devout Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Hindu’s).  It is not even limited to those who commit actual violence in the furtherance of their beliefs.  Essentially, “domestic terrorists” are now anyone with strong personal beliefs that do not perfectly align with the extreme, increasingly Marxist, far left wing of the Democratic party and those who may at some point take action on those beliefs in a way that the Biden administration deems “violent.” 

It should go without saying that the vast majority of Bible-believing Christians are not racists, as we believe all people are all unique and valuable, created in the image of God, and because Christ calls us to be “one new man” in Him.  Neither is it accurate or fair to mislabel the Bible’s perspectives on human sexuality as “hateful.”  But those details and distinctions apparently don’t at all matter now that Biden has lumped us all in with David Duke and the KKK (But isn’t that discriminatory stereotyping, by the way?).  Are Christians not worthy of the left’s dispensations of the gifts diversity, inclusion and tolerance along with everyone else?  Apparently not. 

President Joe Biden is certainly no moderate.  When his former boss President Obama ominously warned us that he wanted to “fundamentally transform America,” we should have paid more attention.  Biden’s words and actions thus far demonstrate that he is not much of an independent thinker, but is rather a puppet for the far left wing of the Democratic party—which is increasingly overtly dominated by overtly Marxist ideology.  Exhibit A here may be that the government’s plan to fight domestic terrorism includes identifying and rooting out government employees who may pose a “domestic terrorism” threat, including in law enforcement and the U.S. military.  Also chilling is Biden’s promise to work with tech companies to eliminate “terrorist content” online.  And they are throwing money at the “problem.”  The U.S. Justice Department has made domestic terrorism its top priority and has allocated $100 million in additional resources to U.S. Attorneys’ offices and the FBI field offices to combat domestic terrorism.  But any attempt to stop threats before they mature into actions is a difficult task.  Indeed, predicting precisely who will turn strong ideological beliefs into violent acts is likely a fool’s errand, and only really works in science-fiction movies like Minority Report.  

Meanwhile, back here in the real world, Biden’s DNI report and its goals are a direct frontal assault on the freedom of conscience and are clearly designed to suppress the freedom of thought, speech and the free exercise of religion—because no sane person wants to be labeled a “domestic terrorist.”   But if we have any desire to maintain our free republic, this totalitarian effort should be stopped before it gains any traction, not encouraged.  Peaceful resistance to government overreach is not a crime.  Dissent is not violence.  Differences of opinion should not be criminalized.  Certainly nearly all Americans of good conscience would likely agree that punishing actual violent crimes is the proper role of good government.  However, history teaches us that government is at its worst and becomes the ugliest when it alone decides which ideas are orthodox, and aggressively shames and threatens to punish all dissenters—not for actually being violent, but merely because they dissented (committing thought crimes).  Tragically, that is precisely what it appears that Biden and his Thought Police are doing here.  Ironically, Biden’s totalitarian approach may drive some peace and freedom loving Americans to believe that a new American revolution is needed. 

For his part, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland has been quite busy doing damage control by trying to explain how Joe Biden’s approach does not necessarily trample on the civil rights of citizens.  To his credit, Garland promised, “We are focused on violence, not ideology.”  Garland further explained, “In America, espousing a hateful ideology is not unlawful.  We do not investigate individuals for their First Amendment protected activities.”  Good luck walking that tightrope, Mr. Garland.  As we all learned in law school, the freedom of speech is violated not only when the government forcibly stops speech, but even when its threats chill speech.  Even if not aggressively enforced, that is precisely what Biden’s report will do. 

Biden’s sweeping, overbroad, vague, and anti-religious public enemies list is fundamentally inconsistent with democratic principles, ordered liberty and the First Amendment.  It is the epitome of coercive government abuse of power, almost certain to result in civil rights violations.  In fact, perhaps it should be listed in the dictionary as part of the definition of Orwellian.  As a constitutional attorney who cherishes the freedom of speech and religious free exercise, I can think of nothing more chilling than Biden’s National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism.  I have to wonder, am I now somehow a “domestic terrorist” for writing this?

All Black Lives Matter!

Black lives matter! Human beings are the beautiful pinnacle of God’s amazing creation, designed male and female in His image.  Blacks are made in the image and likeness of God (Imago Dei) and therefore have eternal dignity and value.  Each black person is unique and valuable.  Every one.  No black person should be abused, neglected, or killed.

The promise and hope of America embodied in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution—of life, liberty and equality, recognizing the God-imaged value of each person, were grand ideals but remained a false hope for many decades, especially for our black brothers and sisters.  Yes, slavery and segregation are a part of our dark and shameful past.

It would take an especially bloody civil war to finally end the evil institution of slavery.  But that did not solve the problem.  The abolition of slavery by Abraham Lincoln was followed by Jim Crow and segregation.  Evan as laws changed, racism and tribalism remained a deeply-rooted heart problem for many—which is a sin problem at its core.  Only the power of a greater love can break down barriers and drive out hate—the love of Jesus Christ.

Yes, black lives really do matter.  The George Floyd incident is an atrocity.  No one should die like that.  Period.  But what is the leading cause of black deaths?  Is it police brutality?  Is it black-on black-crime?  Is it cancer? No.  Not even close.

Abortion has taken more black American lives than every other cause of death combined since 1973.  On average, 900 black babies are aborted every day in the United States, or approximately 328,500 a year.  More than 20 million black babies have been aborted in our American genocide since the 1973 Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision legalized abortion in our country. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was an avowed racist/eugenicist who wanted to use abortion to reduce the number of blacks, whom she viewed as racially inferior.  This is the disgusting reason that most abortion clinics are placed in minority neighborhoods.  Black lives matter.  Black babies matter, too.

Indeed, biblical Christians should agree with God and enthusiastically affirm that black lives matter.  However, we should not affirm the dangerous and destructive Marxist pagan worldview of the BLM movement.  This is because the BLM movement affirms a radical worldview that actually hurts our black brothers and sisters, including supporting abortion, opposing the nuclear (father and mother) family, and advocating LGBTQ sexuality, among many other very bad ideas.  If we love our black brothers and sisters, we must not let them be victimized by bad ideas any more.

So, what should we do?  We must stand up for what is good, true and beautiful.  As Martin Luther King, Jr. said:

“The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.”

In the face of the evil of the black abortion genocide, and the many other injustices against our black brothers and sisters, as we desire to see God’s kingdom come and His will done on earth as it is in heaven, the church must refuse to remain passive, disengaged and silent.  We should start by hearing the pain of our black brothers and sisters.  We must advocate for their welfare and flourishing.  But to do so, we need to first wake up and engage.  We will not be able to make a meaningful difference unless we cast off our idols of comfort and disobedience.  We must refuse to become an irrelevant and disengaged (i.e. “non-essential”) social club, but rather rise up to be the moral conscience (compass) of our culture and government.  We must recapture our prophetic zeal and engage for the cause of truth, beauty and justice for the common good of the flourishing of our precious black brothers and sisters.  Black lives matter.  All black lives matter.

Justice Gorsuch Creates Shockwaves by Redefining the Meaning of “Sex” in Title VII

 

There is nothing textualist or originalist about creatively changing the meaning of words by judicial fiat, whether they are terms in the U.S. Constitution or the U.S. Code.  But that it precisely what the ill-fitting successor to Justice Antonin Scalia did earlier this month in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia.  Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by five of his liberal friends, including increasingly left-tacking Chief Justice John Roberts (who gave us the atrocious Obamacare ruling), displayed the unchecked hubris to do what even the U.S. Congress had been unwilling to do—with the strokes of the pen, Gorsuch categorically redefined the meaning of “sex” in a federal statute to including gender identity (transgenderism) and sexual orientation (homosexuality).

Such legal faux pas are clearly not new.  Over the past 50 years we have seen this tragically play out before.  Privacy becomes baby-killing (abortion).  Marriage becomes a same-sex relationship. As of last week, sex (gender) becomes homosexuality and transgenderism.  This month’s ruling represents the culmination of the sexual revolution.  Clearly, the hippies have won.  Their latest “victory” will have far-reaching legal and cultural impacts, probably even more so than Obergefell v. Hodges (same-sex marriage).

How did Gorsuch do it?  After freely acknowledging that in 1964 when Title VII passed outlawing workplace discrimination, “sex” simply meant biological sex as in the distinctions between male and female, he proceeded to pull the rug out from under that plain meaning.  He did so by cleverly arguing that homosexual and transgender employees were actually terminated “because of sex…..” since a homosexual male employee wouldn’t be terminated if he were a female attracted to men and a transgender female wouldn’t be terminated if “she” were a biological female dressing as a woman at work.  True, but that’s beside the point.

Gorsuch acknowledges that this interpretation may burden religious employers, but he appears hold out hope that the Free Exercise Clause, Title VII exemptions for religious organizations, RFRA and other similar protections will be sufficient for religious organizations.  But it is more probable that this new federal edict incorporating SOGI into Title VII will not stop there but will metastasize to the dozens of other federal laws addressing sex discrimination, including Title IX (prohibiting discrimination in higher education).  He also ignores that fact that redefining sex to include SOGI lends cultural weight to the idea that people maintaining biblical beliefs about sexual morality are hopelessly backward bigots.

The ruling was a postmodern work befitting an increasingly post-truth America. The fatal flaw of progressives and most post-modernists is that they nearly always confuse change with actual progress.  They blindly deconstruct without realizing they are actually destroying that which is good, true, and beautiful. Stepping away from fixed definitions and objective reality allows them to creatively play with ideas and attempt to manipulate the very nature of reality—to destroy and re-make the world into their subjective and ever-shifting image.  On that score, Gorsuch gets a “A” for creativity and hubris, but an “F” for judicial restraint (staying in his lane).

What’s the big deal?  Isn’t this just the law “evolving” with the times towards a groovy value-free utopian future?  No, this is the unmistakable naked usurpation of nearly everything we have established and valued in our democratic republic.  Why?  Because we are a nation of laws, not men.

First it violates the separation of powers.  As Alito and Thomas pointed out in a blistering dissent: “There is one word to describe what the Court has done today:  legislation.”  Constitutionally, it is the sole role of the U.S. Congress, not the courts to pass legislation.  Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964.  When it inserted “sex” as category of discrimination it indisputably meant one thing only—gender (male and female).  If Title VII is to be now changed to include sexual orientation and gender identity, it is only the responsibility of the House and the Senate to do that, not Neil Gorsuch and five of his hip friends wearing black robes.  In fact, Congress has tried and failed for the past 45 years to explicitly add sexual orientation, and more recently gender identity, to Title VII and other federal statutes.  The federal judiciary simply does not have the authority to expand or contract a statute by reinterpreting its words to mean something other than was written and intended.  Judges are appliers of the law only, not cultural oracles reimagining our evolving future.

Second, it undermines the rule of law and confidence in the judiciary.  Citizens should be able to rely on straightforward and reasonable interpretations of the U.S. Constitution, statutes, and ordinances without fearing that creative judges are going to whimsically negate or expand the meaning of words to mean something completely different and unpredictable.   The hallmark of textualism is that the words of a law, Justice Scalia insisted, “mean what they conveyed to reasonable people at the time.” As Alito pointed out in his searing dissent, “In 1964, ordinary Amer­icans reading the text of Title VII would not have dreamed that discrimination because of sex meant discrimination be­cause of sexual orientation, much less gender identity.” If judges are given the power to creatively (or by strict literalism) redefine the meaning of words or phrases, then our constitution, laws and words themselves become essentially meaningless.  The law then essentially becomes whatever a judge says it is. This is legal positivism run amok.  As Kavanaugh stated, “Both the rule of law and democratic accountability badly suffer when a court adopts a hidden or obscure interpretation of the law, and not its ordinary meaning.” Cultural and legal anarchy are not far behind, since whoever is in power can arbitrarily dictate the law and control everyone else.  There is a right way to amend a statute and a wrong way.  The way that Gorsuch did it here was clearly wrong.

Third, it destroys the English language and thereby further loosens our collective grip on reality and our sanity.  By reality I mean that which corresponds to the truth.  As Justice Kavanagh pointed out in his separate dissent, “courts must follow ordinary meaning, not literal meaning” because literal meanings can be taken out of context, leading to absurd results.  Thus, he who controls the definitions or meanings of words or phrases can, via collective Orwellian indoctrination, control everything and everyone.  Up is down.  White is black.  Good is evil.  Evil is good. Truth is a lie.  “Sex” is whatever you want it to be.  Absurdity rapidly replaces rationality as we slip into a confusing moral fog and drift towards a state of coerced insanity.  In Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass, Humpty Dumpty brags to Alice that he has the power to change the meaning of words.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

Sadly, Justice Neil Gorsuch has become the jurisprudential Humpty Dumpty of the U.S. Supreme Court, certainly he is not an Antonin Scalia.  The U.S. Supreme Court is not intended to be an arbitrary and capricious star-chamber.

This decision is not a minor blip on the public policy radar screen.  It is a massive shift.  Legal scholars on the left and right all agree that this is a far-reaching decision.  That is because it is the first step to redefining sex in nearly all federal and state statutes to expressly or impliedly include sexual orientation and gender identity.  Ideas have consequences.  Bad ideas have victims.  As a result of Justice Gorsuch’s strange work of post-modern judicial legislation, there will be entire classes and categories of new victims.  Women and girls may be hurt the worst, which is ironic since Title VII was meant to protect them.

As Justice Alito joined by Justice Thomas acknowledged, “As the briefing in these cases has warned, the position that the Court now adopts will threaten freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and personal privacy and safety.”  Specific examples include bathrooms, locker rooms, student housing, women’s sports and healthcare, among others.  Furthermore, pressure will grow to remove any and all exemptions and exclusions for religious persons, organizations, and institutions to not discriminate on the basis of sex, which will increasingly include sexual orientation and gender identity.  Employers speech will be increasingly coerced to use gender neutral personal pronouns.  This ruling will certainly be used to bludgeon into further submission or silence those who hold traditional views on marriage and human sexuality.

Yet, Humpty Dumpty sits high on his elitist wall, preening about his “enlightened” and ever-so-clever wordplay edict, ever so proud of his God-like power to create and impose new transformational realities on everyone.  Tragically, what has come crashing down is truth and freedom and, with it, our Constitution.  This is how liberty dies, one oppressive SCOTUS decision at a time.  It’s a very good thing that our hope is in God and the fact that He wins in the end (and we with Him)!  This is because all the king’s horses and all the king’s men may not, in our lifetimes, be able to put our once-free republic back together again.

For More Information:  you can read the NCLP’s powerful amicus brief in Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC (one of the three cases decided under Bostock) filed at the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of Scholars of Family and Sexuality (including Professor Mark Regnerus, Ph.D.) here.

 

The 9.5 Theses

A biblical perspective on the American church’s response to COVID-19

1. The church is commanded to not stop meeting together.

For the nearly 2,000-year history of the Christian church, in-person assembly for worship has been the norm (including teaching of God’s word, encouragement, prayer, praise, repentance, communion, baptism, etc.).  Whether meeting in a home or at a mega church, this is not a mere cultural habit—scripture actually commands it.  The Old Testament admonishes us to “remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”  Exodus 20:8. The New Testament demands that we “not giv[e] up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching” Hebrews 10:15 NIV (See also Acts 2:20; Acts 2:42; Acts 2:46; Acts 5:42).  Jesus promised, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them” (Matthew 18:20, ESV).  His presence is directly connected to gathering.  The Greek word ecclesia literally means the “assembly.”  Alone we are saints.  Together are we the church.  Video services have been promoted as a perfectly acceptable replacement for the in-person assembly of the church.  They are not.

Martin Luther was a model of obedience to the biblical command to gather and worship, even during the plague, a scourge that killed far more people than the coronavirus (between 30% to 60% of the population).  He wrote in a letter to a pastor in 1527, “We have done this [instructed souls how to face death] orally from the pulpit, and still do so every day in fulfillment of the ministry to which we have been called as pastors. First, one must admonish the people to attend church and listen to the sermon so that they learn through God’s word how to live and how to die” (See link below).  It is very difficult, if not impossible, to take communion, baptize new believers, make disciples, and teach people to obey all Jesus has commanded us, among other things, via the streaming, live or otherwise, on the internet (See Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 11:2; Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:16; Acts 2:37-38; Hebrews 10:25).  Jesus promises us that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against” the church (Matthew 16:18), so why are we allowing the relatively tame coronavirus to stop us from meeting together in obedience to God?  Orthodoxy (right belief) is not enough.  Orthopraxis (right action) is also required.  “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says” James 1:22. There is no pandemic exception to scripture, including God’s clear instruction to regularly gather together.

2. Churches stopped meeting together indefinitely after stay-at-home orders were issued.

In mid-March, panicked by significantly overblown “scientific” projections predicting certain widespread calamity and death, governors across the nation started issuing sweeping stay-at-home orders, exempting only people and businesses declared “essential” by government fiat.   Almost overnight, it seemed like most, if not all, of America’s more than 300,000 churches were closed.  We were all asked to do our part to “flatten the curve” and most churches obliged.  Some orders initially exempted churches or declared church assemblies essential, most did not.  At that point, Church leadership justified the decision to shut down for three primary reasons:  1) the pandemic seems to be really bad and scary, 2) Romans 13 commands us to obey the governing authorities, and 3) we ought to love our neighbors, not kill them.  The secular state did not see churches as “essential.”  However, biblically committed believers objected to this secular mischaracterization, affirming that their faith is as spiritually important to them as the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink.  But apparently, when the rubber met the road with this pandemic, neither did the church see itself as essential, since most were so willing to shut sanctuary doors and forsake in-person assembly, without nary a peep of protest.  The church’s compliant response was perhaps understandable in the early days of the pandemic, but as the facts and data emerged, maintaining the panic response became untenable. Sadly, churches that kept meeting out of biblical fidelity were disparaged, not only by the secular media, but by fellow Christian “leaders.”  But if the church of Jesus Christ would have risen up as one early on to declare it’s essentiality? I believe the government would have backed down.  But, tragically, that’s not what we did.  We collectively affirmed our non-essentiality and obeyed the secular state, but not God.  Its unimaginable to think of Jesus, Paul, or Martin Luther congratulating us for shutting down our churches.

3. Stay at home orders and exceptions do target the church and do discriminate against religious assemblies.

Perhaps to justify their obeisance to the state, some Christian leaders have claimed that churches were not targeted or discriminated against by the sweeping stay-at-home orders and gathering bans when compared to similar secular gatherings.  As a constitutional attorney, I can assure you that sentiment is demonstrably not in alignment with reality.  Many states and local authorities did, in fact, target churches and discriminate against Christian assemblies, treating religious gatherings far worse than a myriad of comparable secular locations where people assemble.  These comparable secular locations include airports, train stations, Walmart, Home Depot, pot dispensaries, liquor stores, offices, and many other locations where people were permitted to continue to assemble and gather.  In California, for example, this discrimination continues unabated as Governor Newsom’s plan will open dine-in restaurants, offices, schools and malls before churches.  That’s not acceptable. Under our constitution, churches are given special protection by the First Amendment’s free exercise clause.  That means that churches should actually be treated better than similarly situated secular places where people gather, not worse. Yet, untold numbers of people were permitted to gather at these secular locations virtually unrestricted, as long as they purportedly followed social distancing.  However, churches were not given the same benefit.  Why?  Most churches were restricted to only streaming worship services over the internet.  As churches started pushing back, more than 15 states agreed to view church assemblies as “essential.”  Churches started winning “drive-in” cases in federal courts.  The U.S. Department of Justice saw the injustice and started weighing in, filing statements of interest supporting churches.  Now, churches are starting to win assembly cases in Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina and elsewhere.  The DOJ submitted a powerful letter to Governor Gavin Newsom on March 19, 2020, warning him about California’s discriminatory treatment of churches (See link below).

4. When faced with an unjust law, which opposes biblical principles, Christians ought to obey God, not man.

There is a long tradition of peaceful biblical civil disobedience Egyptian midwives (refusing the kings order to kill male children); Daniel (refusing to stop praying); Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (refusing to bow and worship the king’s statue); Peter (refusing to stop speaking in Jesus’ name).  Martin Luther King, Jr. laid out the case for principled Christian Civil Disobedience in his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail.  In that powerful letter, he challenges white pastors for being timid and weak in the face of the injustice of racial discrimination.  Quoting Thomas Aquinas, Luther pointed out that there are times when it is acceptable or even a matter of obedience to God and conscience to disobey governing authorities.  Such instances are triggered by a man-made law that is unjust.  If the unjust secular law commands you to disobey a just command of God, a Christian is justified in disobeying the unjust law and obeying God.  However, the Christian engaging in principled Christian civil disobedience must be ready to accept punishment, whether it be persecution, jail, or death. That’s precisely what pastors are facing today.  Governors have issued unjust edicts in the form of executive orders, which command churches to indefinitely stop meeting.  These are in violation of God’s clear command to regularly gather for fellowship and worship.  I submit that the faithful church is duty bound to obey God, not man here.  Perhaps, though, the reason that we are not obeying God, is because we fear that we might actually be called upon to suffer for our faith.  We are not bold and courageous.  Rather, we are weak and feckless.

5. It is unloving to disobey God.

Many churches have argued that they have a duty to love those in their congregation and community.  True.  But then they imply to that continue to meet with COVID-19 floating around in the community is somehow unloving, perhaps as risky as shooting a gun blindfolded into a crowd.  While this argument may pull on our heart strings, it misses the biblical mark.  The first commandment we are to obey is to love God with everything that we have.  Loving others is second. Jesus told his disciples, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” John 14:15. God commands us to gather.  God, by definition is love.  Therefore, it cannot be reasonably argued that obeying God’s command to meet is therefore somehow unloving.  Conversely, we cannot rightly claim that we are loving God if we disobey Him.   We can only rightly love people if we love God.  Yes, we are to love people, but we are to love (and obey) God first.  Making loving others the primary goal, as many churches have done even before the pandemic, can lead to ignoring our primary obligations of love and obedience to God.  Wanting people to like us is leading the church to widespread compromise, capitulation and assimilation to secular worldviews. That is precisely what is happening here.  We must get our spiritual priorities straight.  Love God first.  Love people second. Otherwise we will be confused and live spiritually weak lives. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 9:10).  Fear of man is a snare (Proverbs 29:25) that always leads to compromise and disobedience in the cause of worldly redefinitions and human conceptions of “love.”

6. Obeying God and asserting our constitutional rights is, in fact, obeying the government.

Many pastors have used Romans 13 to justify their decision to assent to our church doors being shut and in-person assembly for worship being suspended indefinitely.  This reliance in misplaced.  Yes, as a general proposition, under normal circumstances, we are certainly commanded to obey the governing authorities.  But these are not normal circumstances because the government is prohibiting what God requires and our constitution secures.  We must be clear here about who is the government.  In our republic, the highest level of government authority is “We the people.”  As a free people, we eschew kings or tyrants who are prone to oppress us and subvert our civil rights.  Thus, we have created a system of self-government.  Public servants serve the citizens, not the other way around. The highest law we have agreed upon via the “consent of the governed,” is the U.S. Constitution (the Supreme law of the land).  Related to this issue, the First Amendment located in a primary position in the Bill of Rights protects our right to peaceably assemble, freedom of speech (including religious speech), and most relevant here, the free exercise of religion.   All governing authorities are bound to honor and respect our fundamental and unalienable constitutional rights.  No governing authority is above the law. That includes our president, governors and all local officials.  If we desire to remain free, including in the exercise of our religion, we cannot afford to blindly obey unjust and unlawful orders that subvert our constitutional liberties and command disobedience to our Lord. Therefore, when the church simply insists that the governing authorities respect and honor our civil rights, we are in fact obeying the governing authorities, not “rebelling” in disobedience to God as some have falsely implied or argued.  Yes, we are to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s but we are supposed to render to God the things that are God’s (See Matthew 22:22).  For the sake of Caesar, we ought not abandon the duties that we owe our Creator. These include our regular assembly and worship.

7. Safety and faith are not mutually exclusive—they can co-exist together.

Our lives and deaths are in God’s hands.  Ultimately, it is His responsibility to keep the church and individual saints safe, not the government nor church leadership.

Whoever dwells in the shelter of the Most High
will rest in the shadow of the Almighty.
I will say of You, Lord, “You are my refuge and my fortress,
my God, in whom I trust.”
Surely You will save me
from the fowler’s snare
and from the deadly pestilence.

You will cover me with Your feathers,
and under Your wings I will find refuge;
Your faithfulness will be my shield and rampart.
I will not fear the terror of night,
nor the arrow that flies by day,
nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness,
nor the plague that destroys at midday.
A thousand may fall at my side,
ten thousand at my right hand,
but it will not come near me.

-Psalm 91:1-7

Churches can be faithful to God’s word and reasonably protect the health and safety of their congregation and communities.  The purported choice between health or safety is a false choice.  Churches, just like secular locations, could have continued to faithfully meet while at the same time keeping people reasonably safe by following CDC guidelines.  Those who argue that you have to somehow choose one or the other are committing a logical and practical fallacy and are not trusting in God’s sovereignty.  If people can safely assemble in other locations, by following CDC guidelines including social distancing, the same can be done at church.  Churches can and should meet and meet safely.  We can do this!  We can walk and chew gum at the same time while ultimately leaving our lives in God’s hands.  Do we really trust God, or do we not?

8. We cannot protect everyone from every threat because we are not God and it is foolish to try.

Only God is sovereign.  We are not.  He controls life and death.  On this side of heaven, we cannot protect everyone from every conceivable risk or harm and continue to live as free people in a free nation.  Yet now, strange new coronavirus “logic” commands that we must not do anything if it might be “unsafe.”  Nonsense!  Life is not safe and living certainly involves many risks!  We take risks every day when we decide to get out of bed.  Yes, danger lurks in our world and people even die.   But that doesn’t mean we should walk around in constant terror, fear and panic.  Under our new COVID-19 lockdown “logic,” perhaps we should all stop driving for love of our neighbor and selves because auto accidents kill 38,000 people every year.  And certainly we must outlaw obesity, which kills 300,000 annually. But that would be silly and foolish.  Before the coronavirus we did not allow the swine-flu, avian flu, bad flu seasons, nor pneumonia outbreaks to cancel church.  So, why are we doing that now?  Admittedly, COVID-19 is more of a threat than the common flu.  But it is not significantly more so.  Our collective overreaction to the coronavirus doesn’t make rational sense and sets a horrible precedent for the future of all freedoms—including religious freedom. If we decide as a nation to respond to every threat like we did with COVID-19 (i.e. smashing a mosquito with a sledgehammer), we will have no liberty and we will bankrupt our nation.  We must not allow perpetual fear of the unknown to destroy freedom and civil rights.

Christians are supposed to be “Not of this world.”  Yet, safety has suddenly become an overpowering idol, sadly replacing and superseding our obedience to Jesus Christ. Fear makes us stupid.  Living in constant fear of infection and death is not biblical nor is it Christ-like.  Likewise, it is foolish to destroy the entire economy and undermine religious freedom for the sake of 100,000 deaths.  While we are not to be reckless or foolish, we are not in control of life and death.  That is God’s domain alone.  As Martin Luther, author of the 95 Thesis, wrote in a letter about “social distancing” during the plague: “If God should wish to take me, he will surely find me and I have done what he has expected of me and so I am not responsible for either my own death or the death of others. If my neighbor needs me however I shall not avoid place or person but will go freely as stated above.” 

9. A faithful church runs towards danger, not away.

The church is called to be salt and light.  That means when the culture is facing danger and death, the church steps up and engages by speaking the truth in love (Eph. 4:15) and committing sacrificial acts of compassion and mercy–it doesn’t shut its doors to the needy and run away and hide in fear.  At the very time when people are experiencing much fear, confusion, isolation, and looking for answers, the church should be there.  We, who uniquely understand what is good, true, and beautiful, ought not to be sidelined.  We are commanded to deny ourselves, pick up our crosses, and follow Jesus.

In fact, Christians should be on the front lines sacrificially loving, serving, ministering to and praying for our neighbors.  We have a multitude of positive historical examples, including believers who physically cared for the sick in the Roman empire during plagues.  During a cholera outbreak, Charles Spurgeon prioritized local ministry, continued church meetings, physically ministered to the sick, shared the gospel with hurting souls, and entrusted his life to God. As Martin Luther wrote, “Those who are engaged in a spiritual ministry such as preachers and pastors must likewise remain steadfast before the peril of death. We have a plain command from Christ, “A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep but the hireling sees the wolf coming and flees [John 10:11].”  Pastors, be shepherds, not hirelings.

9.5  Rise Up Shepherds, there is great blessing in obeying God.

The church of Jesus Christ needs strong and courageous leaders now, perhaps more than ever.  Historically, we are in a Bonhoeffer moment and the church desperately needs more Bonhoeffers. Bold biblical shepherds are required for such a time as this.  Not those who pretend the threats are not real or faint in fear or panic and run away like hirelings as many threatening wolves are prowling outside the doors of our churches (See John 10:12-13).  Our choices have consequences.  What we do in life echoes in eternity.  There is blessing in obeying God. There are consequences for disobedience.  Ideas have consequences.  Bad ideas have victims. Indeed, many Churches who acquiesced to being shut down indefinitely have experienced seeing many negative impacts.  These include not being able to meet with members in crisis, loss of revenue, laying off staff, and many others.  In many ways, these are self-inflicted wounds.

To be blunt— this is neither the time nor the hour for Christian snowflakes.  The church of Jesus Christ needs to wake up, dig down deep, find the courage of its convictions and rediscover its “spiritual” spine. I believe the Lord is calling His church to cast off timidity and fear and commit anew to proactively engaging the world for Jesus Christ in fulfilling the great commission, which includes making disciples (not coverts) and teaching people to obey everything that Jesus commands (Matthew 28:18-20).  We, uniquely, have the words of life.  We know what is good true and beautiful.  We ought to be bold and courageous in this present darkness. “For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, love and a sound mind.” 2 Timothy 1:7.  Choose this day whom you will serve, but for me and my house, we will serve the Lord (See Joshua 24:25).

For further reading:

Martin Luther’s letter during the plague (circa 1527):  https://blogs.lcms.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Plague-blogLW.pdf

DOJ’s May 19, 2020 letter to California Governor Gavin Newsom regarding his treatment of churches:  https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000172-3334-d930-a77f-b3b7e1a50000&fbclid=IwAR29–bZcKRcB-sBlcRXA4a35ChqsfdpL6S1y1WJ3DDqePHxWshYqnBTlxI

The Coronavirus, Civil Rights, and the Church

Any Town, U.S.A.—A lot has changed in the past ten days.  It seems like almost everything that makes life interesting has been brought to a sudden screeching halt.  Schools closed.  Sports suspended.  Shopping shuttered.  Arts ended.  Travel banned.  Bars stopped.  Restaurants suspended.  Every day, the list of things we can no longer do gets longer.  Even our language is changing.  In our rapidly evolving new normal, phrases like “social distancing,” “community spreading” and “flattening the curve” have quickly become part of our Corona-vocabulary.  And who knew that toilet paper was so important?  Crazy, right? The world appears turned upside down.  America’s cultural mantra “Just do it” has overnight become “Just don’t.”  So far, except for a few nihilistic (“Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you may die!”) millennials, most of us appear eager to comply with the list of growing restrictions for the greater good.  But at what price?

After mentioning “martial law” earlier this week, last night California Governor Gavin Newsom ordered every person in the state to stay home for an indefinite period, locking down the entire state. As a student of history and cultural observer,  I am deeply concerned that our reaction to the virus may do more damage than the virus itself does—both spiritually and economically.

Remarkably, for the first time in my lifetime, thousands of churches are closed across America pursuant to broad government directives to keep group sizes under 10 people.  As thousands of leadership teams and elder boards obediently decide to play it safe, millions of believers have seen their mid-week and Sabbath routines disrupted.  Rather than physically fellowshipping and engaging with others they watch online in their living room in their PJ’s with their immediate family members or small groups.  We are now doing internet church, via Vimeo, Skype, Zoom, and Facebook.  All in the name of public safety.

So what is the legal justification for this and other draconian measures?  I have been researching and searching, but haven’t found much of anything solid.  While there is some historical precedent for extreme government control during times of crisis (President Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas corpus), the expressed legal basis for massively suspending our civil rights doesn’t appear to be much more sophisticated than “Desperate times call for desperate measures.”  We are told the Coronavirus poses an unprecedented threat, so we obediently jump in line to do whatever the government “experts” say, even willingly surrendering our civil rights for the greater good.

Constitutionally, our right to religious freedom, including our right to “peaceably assemble” and worship, is well protected.  The First Amendment not only protects our free exercise of religion, but also our freedom of speech—which also specifically safeguards religious speech.  In most instances, these “First freedoms” can only be curtailed if there is a compelling state interest and the means used by the government are narrowly tailored using the least restrictive means.  An important question to ask here is how long should we willingly submit to the suspension of our First Amendment rights?  One week?  One month?  One year?

Here, the government would argue that protecting the health of the public from the threat of the Coronavirus is a compelling state interest.  Perhaps, but can the government show that its remedies are narrowly tailored using the least restrictive means?  Perhaps not.  In fact, the government here appears to be trying using a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito.  A sledgehammer that is not only undermining religious freedom, but is doing great harm to our society and economy.  Federal and state governments are applying a broadly tailored approach with remedies that are rapidly approaching the “most” restrictive means.

So, what would a narrowly tailored approach to the Coronavirus using the least restrictive means actually look like?  I am no doctor, but it is clear that this virus is only deadly for older individuals and few others, but especially for those with compromised immune systems.  Therefore, I submit a much better approach would have been to aggressively quarantine only those individuals who are most likely to be killed by the virus.  If we would have done this, I believe we could have avoided the economy destroying and First Amendment undermining mandates.  That’s my take.  I am sure many will disagree.

But what does the Bible say about this?  One of the most relevant “big ten” directives is to “[r]emember the Sabbath day be keeping it holy” (Exodus 20:8).  Yes, we are commanded to obey the governing authorities (See Romans 13), but that instruction is not absolute.  Fundamentally, we indeed owe an absolute allegiance to a much higher authority than the state.  As the Apostle Paul also wrote about the primacy of gathering for fellowship,

“Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.”  Hebrews 10: 23-25.

The in-person regular meeting of the Church for fellowship, worship, prayer and the preaching of God’s word is biblically normative.  Acts 2:46 acknowledges that “With one accord they continued to meet daily in the temple courts and to break bread from house to house, sharing meals with gladness and sincerity of heart.”

Christians have a lot to do right now.  The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. People, especially those who do not know Jesus Christ, are currently very anxious and are feeling empty as their creature comforts, social distractions, and American idols have been suddenly stripped from them—like sheep without a Shepherd.  Similar to after 9/11, Americans are recognizing their need for God.   They are lost and desperate and are looking for answers.  Yet, at the very time the church is perhaps needed the most, many of our doors are largely closed to the needy.  As people made in the image of God despair, who is going to show them what is good, true, and beautiful?  Who is going to share the good news with them and pray with them?  We must not hold our health or our lives dearer than God’s kingdom and His glory.  To do so is a spiritual tragedy.

We should be on the front lines of this Coronavirus, speaking the truth in love (Eph. 4:15) and ministering to hurting people.  I am deeply concerned that an already largely fearful and disengaged American church has become more fearful and disengaged because of government edicts.  Is this the “salt and light” we were meant to be?  Are we hiding our light under a basket? Christians should be on the front lines sacrificially loving, serving, ministering to and praying for our neighbors.  We have a multitude of positive historical examples, including believers who physically cared for the sick in the Roman empire during plagues.  During a cholera outbreak, Charles Spurgeon prioritized local ministry, continued church meetings, physically ministered to the sick, shared the gospel with hurting souls, and entrusted his life to God.

Church leaders may argue that they are not meeting, precisely because of love for their neighbor (i.e. avoiding “community spread”).  But the biblical definition of love is active, not passive.  As Jesus said, greater love has no man that this, that he lays down his life for his friends (John 15:13).  True love is active, engaged, and sacrificial.  Certainly, while I argue here that Churches should perhaps consider resuming regular meetings as well as engaging, loving and serving their communities, this is no time to be foolish or unnecessarily reckless.  Christians over 65 should strongly consider staying home and quarantining, as well as those who are otherwise health- or immune-compromised.  If you are sick yourself, please stay home.  But pastors should be still actively shepherding and discipling the flock, equipping the saints for ministry, and proactively leading us regarding how to minister to others during this present crisis.  As Albert Mohler recently pointed out, You Tube is only a very temporary answer, but it won’t spiritually cut it in the long run.

However, if you are physically able, our faith compels us to refuse to submit to fear, but rather to “consider how we may spur each other on to love and good works.”  (Heb. 10:24-25).  It is tragic that abortion mills like Planned Parenthood are open for the business of killing babies while some pregnancy care centers have shut down operations. There are some positive notes here, too, though.  Certainly, there are a lot of great biblical churches and ministries out there who are very still much engaged in their communities and who are doing great work.  God is pleased.  Please keep it up!

People of faith, I understand that this all may sound quite radical, extreme and counter-cultural.  Surely, this may not be a very popular opinion right now in the midst of our collective Corona-panic.  I expect many to disagree, and quite strongly so. But I believe that it is shortsighted and misguided to allow our fearful obedience to the world to foster disobedience to God.  Our civil rights are given to us by God, not the fickle permission of the state.  For religious freedom to flourish and endure, we must resist the impulsive and self-preserving temptation to cede god-like absolute power to the state, even during times of crisis—especially during times of crisis.  Trading liberty for temporary security is a dangerous bargain, especially for a remnant church living in an increasingly hostile culture in this present darkness.  When government edicts contradict God’s clear commands, we ought to agree with the apostle Peter who proclaimed, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

Editor’s Note:  The NCLP stands ready to provide legal advice to churches and non-profit organizations during the Coronavirus.   

For further reading:

5 Lessons from Spurgeon’s Ministry in a Cholera Outbreak

How Early Christians Saved Lives and Spread the Gospel During Roman Plagues

‘As Coronavirus Pandemic Takes hold, We are Making Decisions Without Reliable Data’

Some Thoughts about Fighting the Good Fight in This Present Darkness

San Diego, CA—On our watch, a cosmic battle of epic proportions rages between opposites:  light and darkness, good and evil, beauty and ugliness, hope and despair, flourishing and decay, life and death, truth and lies.  The war is both spiritual and physical.  The conflict is both internal and external to us because the divide between good and evil runs down the center of the human heart.  These are truly the times that try the souls of men and women. Much is at stake.  Our hyper-divided nation appears closer to civil war than any other time in our history except 1862.

The threat to freedom is real.  A radical and rabid left seeks to replace order with chaos.  They are actively deconstructing everything good that has made us a beacon of hope for the world and are seeking to, by force, reconstruct a disordered, unrecognizable, and increasingly insane culture.  In the center of the cultural chopping block is the Judeo-Christian worldview which has nourished, sustained and caused our republic to flourish—until now.  The self-evident truths which have heretofore guided the greatest and freest nation the world has ever known are experiencing a full-frontal assault from the forces of darkness and evil.  These truths include the reality that God has created us equal in His image (male and female) and has endowed us with inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursued of happiness (virtue).

Darkness advances only as light retreats.  Tragically, most of the American church has been in full-blown cultural retreat for decades.  Many have been caught flat footed and tongue tied, not knowing what to say or how to respond to the growing cultural pressure, including false charges of hatred and bigotry.  We have largely abandoned our obligation to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15)—whether it be preaching the full counsel of God, sharing the gospel, or opposing evil.   As such, we find ourselves marginalized to the sidelines in this epic battle—hiding in our Christian enclaves rather that engaging on the field. We have been unfaithful.  But not all is lost.  Now is the time for the church of Jesus Christ to awake, arise and engage.

Who is responsible to fight?  Everyone.  No exceptions.  But especially our pastors and Christian leaders.  In dark times, true leaders lead authentically by taking responsibility, not by making excuses.  As Germany spun out of control before WWII, Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, “I have made a mistake in coming to America.  I must live through this difficult period in our national history with the Christian people of Germany.  I will have no right to participate in the reconstruction of Christian life in Germany after the war if I do not share the trials of this time with my people.”  And as Sophie Scholl stated in a Nazi court shortly before her execution for participating in a leaflet campaign decrying the acts of the Third Reich, “We are Christian, and we are German, therefore we are responsible for Germany.”  We are Christian, and we are American, therefore we are responsible for America.

All is not lost.  I am very encouraged by the good work being done by many engaged and engaging organizations like the American Renewal Project.  I was blessed recently to see 700 pastors and Christian leaders at a conference in Southern California, gathering to commit to biblically impacting our lost and dark culture—to fighting the good fight—that His kingdom come and His will be done on earth as it is in heaven.  Leaders challenge the flock to not just be hearers of the Word, but doers of it (James 1:22-25). A Christian leader not exercising biblical leadership that makes a difference in the world is similar to a ship with a broken rudder.  He may hold a title, occupy a position, or even head a mega-church, but the results are spiritually fruitless.

Fear is paralyzing our leaders and neutralizing our witness.  Fear of man is leading us into cultural compromise, capitulation, and assimilation.  But God has not given us to a spirit of fear, but of power, of love, and a sound mind (II Timothy 1:7).  It is time for the American church to repent and stop being so listless and passive and running away from the good fight.  Let us agree to stop giving in to the downward pressure of the “spiral of silence.”  Rather, like Scholl and Bonhoeffer, let us commit instead to taking active responsibility for our communities and our nation, exercising clear bold and courageous biblical leadership.  The flock desperately needs good shepherds to protect us, disciple us, and lead us now, perhaps as never before.  And the world desperately needs the church to be salt and light, standing without wavering or compromise for what is, and always will be, good, true, and beautiful.