I'm not usually a "sky is falling" kinda Christian...but this is a BIG deal.

At this point Christians should expect every church meeting in a public school to be challenged by atheist and separation groups within the next two to three years. The precedent set by this decision will impact how churches operate in US, particularly new church starts that rely on these facilities for their meeting space.

That said, while we can (and should) petition for change we must accept the ruling of our leaders and humbly submit to their decisions. This is our biblical mandate which supercedes our American rights.

"Please read Caleb Clardy's thoughtful article on This Is Our City's website and then share your thoughts here."

:::cough:::link?:::cough:::

Calebs wonderings and thoughts of confusion are accurate for the courts refusal to hear a lower ruling that seems to be very contrived and anti-American. We know that God is involved in this decision. I would suggest that God might like Caleb to reexamine his assumptions as to why he and the saints need a facility for a large group to meet in one room, most likely so they can all hear him give a weekly Bible lecture year after year and so they can keep on experiencing what they consider to be a more powerful gathering, when it isn't so, by what the Word says.

Jesus gave us instructions on teaching that would make that situation unnecessary and bring in huge strategic stewardship and reproductive benefits to the household of faith. Luke 6:40 "A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher."
This is reproductive teaching rather than perpetual dependency teaching. There should be many now that are "fully trained" "to be like" Caleb. Now the fellowship can meet in smaller, more intimate, mutual, participative dynamic, each with it's own teacher, rather than on large group with only one man leading in what is not very intimate, mutual, or participative by God's standards.

Large group gathering is proof that perpetual dependency teaching is happening. It also forces believers to consume 75 - 86% of their giving to buy the facilities and the hired Bible lecturer. What a blessing for 100% of their giving to be giving and for full reproductive faith on display.

I know this is hard for many to swallow with their deep taste or addiction to traditional ways with pulpits and pews. I'm just a messenger for what the Word says.

Maybe we are all going to "forced" back to a simple, New Testament style of gathering, in homes. Those of us who have yearned for the limelight of the big platform, and those of us who have depended for our spiritual life on the big name, highly talented preachers may have to trust God and be real, practical Christians.

to tim and sheer....that is a common post modern fallacy to interpret the Acts church wrong...they met in homes for fellowship and worshipped and sat under the apostles teaching in doctrine together at the temple. Read before you criticize and misapply scripture and historical fact.

"I know this is hard for many to swallow with their deep taste or addiction to traditional ways with pulpits and pews. I'm just a messenger for what the Word says."

LOL. Wow.

Way to pad your argument so that no one can disagree with you!

Maybe we should have a conversation about prescriptive vs descriptive.

"Read before you criticize and misapply scripture and historical fact."

Dear John,
I think we should find our own way seperately, and really, this is about me.
Love,
Sheerahkahn
_____________________________________________
Always wanted to do that, but for brevity sake, yes, John, do read before you criticize and misapply scripture and historical fact...
And by scripture, I mean what I wrote,
and by historical fact, I mean what I was writing about...

...I was asking for working link to "This Is Our City's" website of which seems to not be working towards the bottom of Url's text...

If they can ban churches from meeting in a school house they can just as easily ban a religious meeting in your home. The heart of the American people is very hard. Serious persecution is on the way and only those who are truly "born-again" will withstand it. We've been warned for at least the last 40 years. But, O well.

John & Matt
"…criticize and misapply scripture and historical fact."
"…conversation about prescriptive vs. descriptive."

Thanks for your boldness in speaking your disagreement - something that is not allowed in the typical pulpit & pew set up. Nothing about organic church is BASED on what occurred in Acts. (I realize that many books on organic dynamic refer to what happened in Acts. If this is actually their base, then it is a weak base. The BASE is in purely instructive texts in the N.T. ) It's is based on HIGHLY descriptive text. Did you read the one from Jesus I gave? If JUST THIS ONE text were applied in teaching dynamic, there would be no need OR interest in pulpits and pews or any kind of crowd oriented gathering.

Did I misapply Luke 6:40?
Is Luke 6:40 merely descriptive?

When you can acknowledge this text for what it is, I will offer more descriptive and instructive texts that call for the exact opposite of what is offered in crowd oriented gatherings that consume huge amounts of "giving".

"LOL. Wow. Way to pad your argument so that no one can disagree with you!"

Contrary. You disagreed and I gave a full reply in complete mutuality. I am calling your error. You are welcome to disagree more. My padding merely says how hard it is to come to the truth when 80% of what you have heard is tradition wrapped with bogus textual arguments and many texts ignored. Have you swallowed a simple understanding of Luke 6:40 yet? It's hard. I struggled with it for years.

elegance
The real reason for meeting in intimacy, mutuality, reproductivity and full participation is not because of persecution and to avoid it. It is because that is what the scriptures call for - prescriptively. When men reject the scriptures, it is common for God to turn up the heat to see if they will wake up and smell the truth.

Correction above - 1st paragraph:
It's is based on HIGHLY presscriptive text.

Is this referring to the Bronx Household of Faith case or a different one? If its the Bronx Household of Faith, then I think it might be a little over-interpreted. The second circuit decision actually merely said that local school board was allowed to adopt a policy excluding worship services. It distinctly did not say that they had to exclude churches. The Supreme Court has actually said nothing of the kind and its cases actually support the opposite.

It is not surprising that the Supreme Court would refuse to hear this case, either. It's quite early on this issue and the Supreme Court generally does not like to decide issues it does not have to decide particularly on a subject like this one. What we need are more Christian legal scholars and educators who can explain that equal use of public facilities is not an establishment of religion. The number of the Christians in legal academia is not many. Who should be more able to interpret laws than those who have received divine law?

Clardy is quoted as saying If MS 51 can choose to host the basketball league and the farmers' market and the theatre troupe and the voting stations, why can't they choose to host the church as well?

The question itself is disingenuous. The reason is because the "establishment" clause of the 1st Amendment specifically prohibits the establishment of religion, not the establishment of farmers' markets or theater troupes of voting stations. If the "establishment" clause said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishmebnt of religion or of vegetable stands or the Stanislavski method of acting", Clardy would have a point. But then, perhaps Clardy believes that what the church does is of no more consequence than someone selling rutabagas or reciting Hamlet's soliloquy. His comparison says a lot.

JRC

Persecution of believers is here. We should be thankful that we have experienced freedoms where we could worship and use facilities in the public sector for as long as we have.
It is time to start looking at this situation a little differently. I know what I am about to say will not be understood or welcomed by many. Persecution and suffering can bring good.

@Linda: Persecution of believers is here.

How so? The judge issued a ruling quite consistent with the "establishment" clause of the First Amendment. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with the Bill of Rights.

Or do you put religion in the same category as selling vegetables at a farmers' market?

JRC

James R. Cowles

Establish: Set up (an organization, system, or set of rules) on a firm or permanent basis.
Initiate or bring about (contact or communication).

Renting a facility to a religion does not match up with "establish" in any simple definition. Seems like an anti-religious streeeeeeetch to me. I would not doubt that some anti-religious judge or board of education somewhere has establish some sort of precedence that reflects this meaning switch.

The advocates of organic/house church are not as worried - because they recognize that life goes on and so does the church. We will find other ways (maybe better ways) to gather, network, share, love, and strategize. But we need to recognize what is happening: forces are gathering against the church and against the faith. Not just against assembling. But against all expression that is deemed 'controversial' or 'inciting' depending on where you stand. It's all under attack, and it's all a battleground: the internet, freedom of assembly, even the very existence of a corporation called "America"... The church is above all that, and we will shine, regardless. We are personal individuals who love and serve under the God of Heaven. However, make no mistake about it, organic/house church people: they are coming for you! This is now a global war of ideology. We have crossed some kind of social/technological threshhold. The future of the world is in the balance, and everyone knows who the competitors are. It's no longer about nation states or corporations, etc (if it ever was). It's about ideological purity - and the competition between ideologies. And it will not stop. Various isms are gunning for YOU (some are doing this 'by any means necessary'). This will happen until one ideology (freedom) WINS by winning a solid unity, expressing it coherently, and standing together.

"Persecution of believers is here."

Wait...what?

Where is this "here" at?

Africa?
Middle East?
China?
Turkey?

Usually it is the schools needing rooms in the church - churches sit vacant all week, basically.

What kind of church is this that has to meet in a school?

To the extent my tax dollars paid for and support a school, I don't want that school used for religious purposes. I don't want a single dollar used to advance religion.

@Tim: Renting a facility to a religion does not match up with "establish" in any simple definition.

It is a reasonable presumption that the school building, when being used as a church, would be used to inculcate and propagate a sectarian religious doctrine. So there would be no relevant difference between (1) the government providing a building space for a church to use to spread religious doctrine, and (2) the government providing textbooks to kids studying, e.g., Catholic catechism. (Google "Lemon test".) The latter has -- quite appropriately -- been ruled violative of the "establishment" clause. So should the former. The government has no business providing material assistance to churches in spreading their religious doctrines.

JRC

PS -- The government may, without violating the "establishment" clause, provide textbooks for purely secular studies, e.g., math, physics, etc., since there is no such thing as "Protestant math" or "Catholic physics".

@Fish: To the extent my tax dollars paid for and support a school, I don't want that school used for religious purposes. I don't want a single dollar used to advance religion.

Congratulations, Fish, you understand the "establishment" clause of the First Amendment. And I say that without sarcasm.

JRC

Question for those who think the government should provide the school building to the church ... Suppose that the religious group that wanted the building was, not a Christian church, but, say, a hare krishna group or the Unification Church ... or a group of Muslims without a mosque. Would you still be in favor of the school being used for religious purposes?

If you say "No, the school should only be available for Christian groups", then you have a very severe problem, because then the government would be favoring Christianity over other faiths, very much against the "establishment" clause.

If you say "Yes, the school should be available for all faiths", then you have a situation where your tax dollars that built the school would be used in the furtherance of religious teaching directly contrary to Christianity. How comfortable would you be with that?

JRC

Tim-

I'm amazed how you turn nearly every article on here as proof that you are the only one (sent by God) to tell everyone else how they are doing church wrong. Honestly, I was initially simpathetic to your position, but you seem to be blind to your own errors.

JRC-

"Would you still be in favor of the school being used for religious purposes?"

I would answer "yes." So long as those gatherings were not destructive to the property, meeting in the facility does not equate to establishment. The intent of the 1st Amendment was freedom for all religions, not freedom from all religions. Religion very much belongs in the public square, and our government should not be picking winners and losers, especially if that loser is all religions and faith expressions.

To not expect Christianity to compete mocks Jesus' willingness to engage with those who disagreed with Him on religious matters and is quite frankly unbiblical in that we see no case made for such exclusion in Scripture.

@Bil_ ... I disagree with your position of making the school equally available to all faith traditions.

There are, historically, 2 ways to interpret the "establishment" clause of the 1st Amendment:

(1) The "inclusionary" interpretation, whereby, e.g., public spaces like courthouse lawns, school bldgs, etc., should be equally available to all faiths. So the Christians can put up a creche on the courthouse lawn, but Jews can put up a menorah in honor of hanukkah, etc., etc. Under this interpretation, the "establishment" clause should be read as " ... respecting the establishment of a religion ... ", i.e., preferring one religion above others.

(2) The "exclusionary" interpretation, whereby government is out of the religion business altogether, and under which no religion of any kind may utilize a public space. Under this interpretation, no religious symbols of any sect may utilize the courthouse lawn, not even Christians. The "exclusionary" interpretation argues that the "establishment" clause should be read as meaning " ... respecting the establishment of religion as such ... "

My understanding of the case law -- I am not a lawyer -- strongly suggests that, historically, the inclusionary interpretation has prevailed, but that the exclusionary interpretation is equally defensible.

My preference is the "exclusionary" interpretation, but historically, I am in the minority.

JRC

JRC-

I see your point and appreciate the clarification. The only difference I see here is that this is a local institution making it's space available for rent, then excluding renters based on religious criteria.

From wikipedia:

"The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another."

I do not understand how renting space to any organization violates the establishment clause. I do appreciate the conversation though, as it makes us re-examine our assumptions, expectations, and motivations.

@Bil_: The only difference I see here is that this is a local institution making it's space available for rent ...

Agreed ... But it is a government institution, which means that -- under an "exclusivist" reading of the "establishment" clause -- the fact that the government's fingerprints were on the renting of a government building for a religious purpose would mean that the government was promoting religion.

Now, it seems -- I'm reading between the lines here -- that the court, in this instance, is adopting such an "exclusivist" interpretation of the "establishment" clause.

Under an "inclusivist" interpretation of that clause, there would be no violation of the "establishment" clause, provided only that the renting of the school building was equally open to all faith-traditions.

But that seems not to be the way the court is reading that clause of the 1st Amend.

JRC

Bil
"I'm amazed how you turn nearly every article on here as proof that you are the only one (sent by God) to tell everyone else how they are doing church wrong."

Would you be amazed if Satan were not trying to corrupt every area of church life? He was successful with doing that to the Israelites over and over and over again. The spiritual corruption in the household of faith is deep and massive. It looks pretty and feels great to many, but those are also characteristics of sin. I know I am not the only one who thinks this way. If I am the only one speaking here at this point - so be it. The number of people who believe something is in no way a basis for suggesting something is right or wrong, or for me to cower and be silent. There were not many in Luther's day. I give God's Word as the basis. If you find error in what I say, you are free to speak it. I'll respond to it. You are free to hide your perceived errors in what I say and merely claim I'm wrong.

Often I'm amazed that I can give a simple scripture with obvious meaning that confronts habits that are the opposite and saints will reject it for no Biblical reason. But I get over my amazement because I realize we are just made of dust. I'm happy to acknowledge error on my part if there is basis.

JRC

There is no comparison between your one and two above in terms of establishment. If there was a cost or a sum loss to the state for the rental, a case for establishment could be made. There is a sum gain for the state in this case.

The exclusivist interpretation is clearly an intentionally twisted view driven by faith haters, or those who think they should pandering to faith haters to try and gain their favor, and a few others. The simple obvious language of the constitution does not point this direction at all. Faith haters are well known for twisting this clause and that of the prohibiting the free exercise clause in every way they possibly can to thwart the actions of people of faith.

@Tim: There is no comparison between your one and two above in terms of establishment. If there was a cost or a sum loss to the state for the rental, a case for establishment could be made. There is a sum gain for the state in this case.

It isn't clear to me what costs and / or gains have to do with the "establishment" clause. If the government establishes religion, that question is irrelevant to the dollars-and-cents issue. Whether the government makes a profit on the deal or suffers a loss is immaterial. I'm more than a little leery of the government making money by promoting religion. I think I could make a better case for violating the "establishment" clause in that case than in the "cost" case.

@Tim: The exclusivist interpretation is clearly an intentionally twisted view driven by faith haters, or those who think they should pandering to faith haters to try and gain their favor, and a few others.

Well, James Madison was a "faith hater", then. Madison was even against creating the office of congressional chaplains, and also opposed to opening each session of either Chamber with a chaplain-led prayer. This issue is not as black-and-white as you suggest. Historically, the case law seems to favor an inclusionary interpretation, but the exclusionary interpretation is quite respectable.

@Tim:The simple obvious language of the constitution does not point this direction at all.

The language of the Constitution is neither "simple" nor "obvious" on this point. I cited the case of Madison above in support of the exclusionary interpretation. Despite the historical record in the case law, respectable cases can be made, based on the transcripts, the few that survive, of the debate in 1789 regarding the Bill of Rights, both in the Federal Congress and in the state legislatures. Ultimately it was decided to leave the matter ambiguous. If the Framers themselves did not find the language of the clause altogether clear, I figure I am in no position to contradict them.

JRC

@Tim: The number of people who believe something is in no way a basis for suggesting something is right or wrong ...

Would that same principle apply to the interpretation of the "establishment" clause?

The number of people -- judges and ordinary bystanders like me -- who take an "exclusionary" interpretation is a distinct minority, historically.

But by your own principle -- with which I agree, BTW -- that "The number of people who believe something is in no way a basis for suggesting something is right or wrong", the fact that we "exclusionists" are in the minority does not mean we are wrong ... or that "exclusionists" are faith haters.

Are you willing to extend your principle that far? If not, why?

JRC

@Tim: Often I'm amazed that I can give a simple scripture with obvious meaning

If the meaning of Scripture is so "obvious", then why are there ... I forget the exact number ... some 4-digit number of Christian denominations, each with its own "obvious" meaning of Scripture, and with "obvious" meanings sometimes diametrically contradictory?

JRC

JRC
"It isn't clear to me what costs and / or gains have to do with the "establishment" clause. "

If you are going to establish a business there must be investment by the establisher directly for the purpose to make that establishment happen and control by the investor to direct his investment. The state is not investing money to make the religion happen or to control. It invested to make the school happen. The religion is benefiting the state in making the school happen in simple relationship that has nothing to do with establishment since there is no control. It is merely a mutual relationship. The constitution does not forbid mutual,non controlling relationships with religions or businesses. The mutual benefit does not create establishment which includes the element of control. There is no control here.

"Madison was even against creating the office of congressional chaplains, and also opposed to opening each session of either Chamber with a chaplain-led prayer."

Since Madison did not get his way, has the government established a religion because there is a chaplain and prayer in congress? No religion has been established by the government. Madison is right in being concerned that it might lead to establishment and control of a national religion, but it has not. Renting to a church will not either.
If it does, it should stop. People of faith do not want a government establishing and controlling a religion either.

"Would that same principle apply to the interpretation of the "establishment" clause?"

Yes and no. Yes in that we are a nation driven to a large extent "by the people" so numbers do matter in determining right. The Bible is delivered to us by God as the truth giver. There is no "by the people" nor amending the Bible by people. The number of people who believe something the Bible says does not make it right or not. History is full of majorities violating the Bible.

Many exclusionists are faith haters, either verbally and functionally or just functionally.

"...then why are there ... I forget the exact number ... some 4-digit number of Christian denominations, each with its own "obvious" meaning of Scripture..."

Denominationalism is one of the elements very common in the institutionalized form of church. It brings a hierarchy of control by men, control of money, and control of truth expression. There are many non-denominational churches that still have all these elements on the local level. Believers cannot be unified even on simple things when men are in control in this fashion. The Bible tells us Satan is a very clever deceiver of men. He has been successful for many generations in developing a very complex web of deceit, using the Bible and our remaining human imperfections to bate men into twisting God's Word and it's meaning. All of this division and disagreement are symptoms of disobeying God's instructions. I could say more but must try to keep it short of a book. Would you say the scripture I gave above is very simple to understand in it's presentation of what teaching is supposed to accomplish?

@Tim ... I am not aware of any instances in case law where any appellate court, Supremeor otherwise, has ruled that establishment requires that the state benefit monetarily from supporting religion. In fact, the cases that I am best acquainted with, those dealing with the so-called "Lemon test", are cases in which the state has been held to be in violation of the establishment clause, even though the state lost money in supporting religion. E.g., I cannot recall the exact citation offhand, but there have been cases in which the state was ruled to be in violation of the establishment clause for providing textbooks in religious teaching, IOW catechism texts in Catholic language, to parochial-school students. In such cases, the state does nor profit monetarily and, in fact, is even out the cost of the catechism texts, and yet, despite this "negative cash flow" (which was never, as far as I know a point argued at trial), the state was nevertheless held to be in violation of the establishment clause.

Since Madison did not get his way, has the government established a religion because there is a chaplain and prayer in congress?

I would argue yes. So would Mr. Madison.

No religion has been established by the government.

But this statement presupposes that the exclusionary view of the establishment clause is not valid, which is precisely the point at issue. IOW, you are assuming the very thing you are trying to demonstrate.

Yes in that we are a nation driven to a large extent "by the people" so numbers do matter in determining right.

So if the people voted to grant full legal recognition to same-sex marriage, that would suffice to determine the legitimacy of same-sex marriage, in your mind? I ask that as a proponent of same-sex civil marriages, BTW.

The Bible is delivered to us by God as the truth giver. There is no "by the people" nor amending the Bible by people.

That's a good thing, given the 2000-years-and-counting worth of disagreement on how the Bible is to be interpreted ... which is an excellent reason to not enact biblical commandments into civil law without a secular justification (e.g., prohibitions against murder).

Denominationalism is one of the elements very common in the institutionalized form of church. It brings a hierarchy of control by men, control of money, and control of truth expression. There are many non-denominational churches that still have all these elements on the local level. Believers cannot be unified even on simple things when men are in control in this fashion.

Granted, but the hierarchies do not exist in a theological vacuum. I am aware of no instance in church history when another Christian group "hived off" and formed its own denomination purely and exclusively in order to create a new hierarchy or modality of church organization / governance. Denominations and their corresponding hierarchies are formed because of originating theological disagreements, which in practice has always meant originating disagreements in the way the Bible is to be interpreted. Furthermore, these newly formed denominations would have died on the vine for lack of support had there not been some "critical mass" of ordinary people in the pews who supported and agreed with the new interpretation of the Bible. The theological disagreement, with its corresponding party of lay supporters comes first, followed by a denominational split, followed by a new hierarchy ... in that order.

JRC