What Can Christians Do to Protect Religious Liberty?

Summary

Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.

The frame: the Jack Phillips case

• The frame introduces jack phillips, owner of masterpiece cake shop in lakewood, colorado: a professing christian who has refused to create custom cakes expressing messages contrary to his christian beliefs, or celebrating a lifestyle contrary to them. Because of this he has been sued, fined, threatened, and harassed, and his case made it all the way to the united states supreme court, where the justices threw out the legal case against him (heard 'throughout'). Despite his victory, legal action has continued to be brought against him. The question posed: knowing this, how should american christian believers respond to these events — how should we respond in general to threats against our religious liberty in the united states, and how can we aid the fight to preserve it?

The case itself: serving everyone, endorsing selectively

• Take his case a little further, because it is instructive: as a baker he would serve all customers — it didn't matter if they were homosexual, heterosexual, or whatever; he didn't inquire, and he had customers and friends he knew were homosexual, and he served them. Despite the media and liberal portrayals, this is not a case of discrimination, even on the basis of homosexual identity. All he refused to do was bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. He went all the way to the supreme court and won — and now they have started over, suing again, which itself shows it is grossly unfair: they are not willing to accept the supreme court's decision; they are trying to make a test case to hurt a man and destroy his livelihood because they hate what he believes. That is the opposite of freedom of religion, and even freedom of speech.
• The latest thing he refused was a cake for a gender transition ceremony. Notice clearly: he is not discriminating on the basis of somebody's identity, even their professed identity — he is not making a judgment call on whether you want to be homosexual or heterosexual, or claim to be a man transitioned to a woman or vice versa; 'i'm not going to attack you or discriminate against you; i will serve you as a customer — but when i'm being asked to endorse something i don't believe in, in this case a ceremony, i reserve the right, freedom of religion and freedom of speech, not to endorse it.' A good example: we stand against racism; we should serve customers — black, white, brown, asian, whatever. If someone says: i'm having a ku klux klan barbecue, would you put on my cake, congratulations to the 100th anniversary of the kkk — do i have a right to say i don't want to make that cake because i don't believe that? Or do i have to make their cake with a racist slogan, in the name of not offending? Obviously not. Even our culture is not being consistent in this.

Stand up: the freedoms, prayer, and the vote

• So yes, we must stand up for religious freedom — freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of press, freedom to protest peacefully, freedom to worship god, freedom to preach from the pulpit, freedom to publish our books. The first thing: we must pray — pray for god to intervene and change the hearts of people. Second, we must vote: since we live in a democracy we have this opportunity; this is one way we can exert our will and express our opinions, speak our voice; we need to take advantage of that — if we're aggravated by all these things, we've got to vote.

Individuals act politically; the church keeps its voice independent

• Third, we can support political action that would protect freedom of speech — as individuals. As a church, we don't endorse officially political candidates or political parties, and there's a good reason: we want to be a church for everyone — everyone should feel welcome to come and become part of our church, not feel they have to belong to a party. And second, we don't necessarily agree with all the stands of any politician; we don't want the risk that we say 'this is my politician' and then they say or do something contrary to christian or apostolic values and we're seen as somehow supporting that. As the church we have to keep our voice independent — but as individuals we can participate in campaigns, support campaigns, even run for office ourselves. There is a distinction between what we can do as private citizens and what the church does.

Networking, and the NACLC–ADF partnership

• Going back to the church: we have to network with others who believe the same message — even people who don't agree with our doctrine but agree on freedom of religion; we've got to partner and join with them. We can and should be involved in the political process: speaking to our moral values, speaking to policies we support, and speaking of religious freedom especially.
• To be very practical: the upci has endorsed an action organization called the naclc — the national apostolic christian leadership conference. He has an upcoming meeting with leaders of other apostolic organizations to sit down and put flesh on this organization. The goal is two arms: the alliance, where individuals and churches join together, pool resources, advocate for policies they support, and provide legal defense for people just like jack; and an action arm, going state by state to organize church people and others to support laws and policies that favor religious liberty. They have formed a partnership with the alliance defending freedom, adf — a conservative group of christian lawyers specializing in legal protection, defending religious liberty. If a church joins the naclc, it automatically, at no extra charge, becomes a member of the adf, which immediately provides legal protection: lawyers who will review all their documents, advise them on anything affecting religious liberty, and help them at no charge if they are ever sued or in an adversarial relationship with a city trying to regulate them. And the adf is the one who took jack's case all the way to the supreme court and won, and is now taking his new case — so when you support the naclc you are actually giving resources to help defend the man in the illustration. Yes, we can, and in fact we are trying to defend religious liberty in the united states of america — and trying to extend similar protections around the world as possible.