Have you ever had a craving for a chicken sandwich after a Sunday service, only to discover that your favorite chicken establishment observes the Sabbath and is closed for the day?
As a ministry leader, odds are good that you support this business decision, in spite of your waylaid plans. Just like it may bring a smile to your face to spot a Bible verse printed on the paper goods at a take-out joint. But what about the rest of America? Is the average consumer just as supportive of overtly Christian business?
A recent Barna survey asked if people would be “more likely or less likely to buy a particular brand if they knew it was from a company that embraces and promotes the Christian faith, or wouldn’t it make a difference.”
According to the survey results, “…one-third of all U.S. adults (37%) said they would be more likely to purchase from this type of business (with 22% expressing the highest level of interest possible on the five-point scale)…Only 3% said such a faith connection would make them less likely to support this type of organization and its products, resulting in a favorable-to-unfavorable ratio of 12 to 1…Most consumers (58%) were indifferent to whether or not a company actively embraces and promotes Christianity.”
This certainly rings true at ECCU. For us—and likely for you, too—our Christian faith and business principles are the very things that draw people to us. Whether you’re a church, crisis pregnancy center, or financial institution like us, claiming the name of Jesus as your reason for existence is likely why people walk through your doors in the first place (as opposed to going somewhere else to have their need met).
It’s probably safe to say that you support Christian businesses and ministries whenever you can, but let’s go a step further: What if you discovered you were purchasing products and services from an organization clearly supporting causes contrary to Scripture? What would you do?
I owe you an explanation.
Remember the recent court case where three former World Vision employees sued the organization for discrimination based on their religious preferences? The case caught the attention of ministries everywhere, and for good reason. The implications are significant.
I posted a couple months back that ECCU was partnering with the Christian Leadership Alliance and Rothgerber, Johnson & Lyons law firm to host a seminar exploring these implications for our ministry members. (See blog posts on September 29 and October 6.)
Sure enough, the event has come and gone—and attendees are still talking about the information gleaned. Hence, my desire to follow up.
Here’s a brief explanation of the most vital takeaways from this event:
- The mixed opinions by the three-judge panel in the World Vision decision make it even more important that religious organizations clarify their religious origins, religious purposes, and religious activities. (See October 6 post for more details on the decisions reached by the three judges involved in this case.)
- Clarifying these issues should involve all organizational and employment documents, including articles and bylaws, employee handbooks, employment agreements and contracts, job descriptions, and applications, to name a few.
- Churches or religious organizations with any international component should consider the laws that impact international transactions and activities and ensure that they have attended to these requirements before conducting ministries abroad.
- Many states are passing regulations or statutes that have the effect of requiring religious organization employers to provide benefits contrary to their beliefs. Such laws require employers to be more scrupulous in reviewing their insurance plans, benefits, and strategies so they can manage their ministry consistent with their values.
Do you have any other helpful resources that address this issue? Post a comment and share them with our readers.
Much is being written about how pastors lead and why many need to lead differently. The bold title of a recent blog by Ed Stetzer underscores the seriousness of this issue: “How Christian Consumers Ruin Pastors and Cheat the Mission of God.”
Stetzer lays much responsibility in the leader’s lap: “The pastor who insists on being the focus of local ministry trains the body of Christ to sin…God cannot receive glory in the church when pastors are always up front receiving the credit and doing the things that their consumerist congregants should be doing.”
A 2009 Leadership Journal article with a less incendiary title—“Open Source Activists”— offers a relevant alternative to the top-down leadership style. Of that model, Pastor J.R. Kerr writes: “This kind of organizational environment expects leaders to know and control virtually everything in the life of the community.”
His alternative? “My generation is hungry for something more than the 15 principles for building a better team…They are a generation that isn’t content receiving a vision; they want to be part of shaping and creating the vision. My generation believes in open source influence.”
Here’s a question: How might this different kind of leadership look for those who manage a ministry’s finances? What do you think?
Recently, we wrote about a World Vision case that would have wide ministry implications. By now, you may be asking, “What are the implications?” and “How do they affect my ministry?”
To answer these questions and give you a sneak peak into what to expect at the October 18 event, Staffing Ministries with Fellow Believers: Lessons and Mischief from the Recent World Vision Decision, we spoke with a legal expert who will be presenting. L. Martin Nussbaum, Esq., is an attorney who focuses on labor and employment, litigation, non-profit organizations, and religious institutions. He helped us understand some implications of the decision.
- Of the three judges (O’Scannlain, Kleinfeld, and Berzon), two voted that World Vision was a religious organization and one did not. Each one wrote a separate opinion. Judge O’Scannlain (who wrote the lead opinion) responded to the plaintiff’s argument that the exemption should be limited to “churches and entities similar to churches,” reasoning that if Congress had intended to so restrict the exemption, “it could have said so.” Judge O’Scannlain adopted this three-part test to determine whether an employer was a religious organization:
- Is it organized for a self-identified religious purpose?
- Is it engaged in activity consistent with, and in furtherance of, those religious purposes?
- Does it hold itself out to the public as religious?
With some minor differences, Judge Kleinfeld agreed with these same three questions and then added a fourth:
- Does it not engage primarily or substantially in the exchange of good or services for money beyond nominal amounts?
Judge Kleinfeld’s additional test is capable of substantial mischief. If it became law, some plaintiffs would argue it excludes from the religious organization exemption (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) religious hospitals, retreat centers, church preschools, Christian camps, churches that charged for youth mission trips or other outings, churches that charged for any type of retreats, religious publishers, faith-based social services ministries that contract with the government, and many other organizations.
- The World Vision decision is binding in the Ninth Circuit. Accordingly, it is a persuasive but not controlling authority in non-Ninth Circuit states. A Colorado religious organization, for example, could argue that any of the other published opinions are more persuasive than World Vision and the judges in the Tenth Circuit states would have to decide which approach to follow. Ministries concerned about protecting their freedom to staff themselves with like-minded people of faith need to take precautions like we’ll be discussing at our seminar.
- Legal strategies to ensure that ministries have freedom to staff as they choose will be discussed at the seminar and involve a very thoughtful approach to the content of a ministry’s articles, bylaws, statement about itself, and its human resources architecture.
You can still register for this half-day seminar in Colorado Springs, which is being presented on October 18, 2010. It will address these topics:
- The World Vision Decision: a “Victory” Breeding Mischief
- The Human Resources Freedom Architecture
- Benefits and Beliefs
- Critical Issues for Ministries Active Internationally
For details and registration information, visit www.rothgerber.com/events.aspx.
Have you heard about the legal decision that was recently handed down in a case involving World Vision? Three former employees who identified themselves as Christians when hired were dismissed from their jobs after professing atheism. They sued World Vision claiming discrimination based on religious preference.
While the court ruled in favor of World Vision, the case has profound implications for all ministries. To address these implications, ECCU is partnering with Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons (a law firm specializing in labor and employment law as it relates to non-profits and religious organizations) and the Christian Leadership Alliance (CLA) to co-sponsor a half-day event in Colorado Springs. Staffing Ministries with Fellow Believers: Lessons and Mischief from the Recent World Vision Decision will be presented on October 18, 2010, and address these topics:
- The World Vision Decision: a “Victory” Breeding Mischief
- The Human Resources Freedom Architecture
- Benefits and Beliefs
- Critical Issues for Ministries Active Internationally
One of the experts presenting will be L. Martin Nussbaum, Esq., an attorney who focuses on labor and employment, litigation, non profit organizations, and religious institutions.
You can find details and registration information at www.rothgerber.com/events.aspx.
