Ms. [Cheryl] Perich spent most of her time teaching nonreligious subjects with about a sixth of her time on religion classes, so the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that she was not a ministerial worker and that she could sue. In overturning that decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the question could not be “resolved by a stopwatch” and that Ms. Perich’s limited teaching about religion helped qualify her as a minister.
The court’s conception of the ministerial role is more encompassing than it has been defined by state and federal appellate courts. Its sweeping deference to churches does not serve them or society wisely.
Hi Kendall
The link is dead and I can’t find the article on the NY Times op-ed page. Did they pull it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/opinion/the-ministerial-exception.html?_r=1
This appears to be the editorial in question.
This editorial stance seems to have shaped their reporting. No surprises there. I can’t see them having quoted anybody, who doesn’t have a vested interest in the decision, who said either:
1) This is a good reading of the constitution (which is surprising as this was a unanimous decision).
2) This is good for the country.
Lots of airplay for those who disagree, quotes from people in favor saying churches shouldn’t abuse (which in absence of robust statements of 1&2 has the effect of also saying this is a dangerous and bad decision), but nothing that genuinely dissents and endorses this unanimous decision and has some reason to know what they’re talking about.
The initial NYT article on this decision did not, I believe, even mention that the decision was unanimous
My mistake; it did say, “Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in a decision that was surprising in both its sweep and its unanimity.”
I notice in England a homosexual is suing because he was not chosen to be a bishop and apparently it was his homosexuality and living with another homosexual that led to his twice being turned down.
It will be interesting to see how the Anglican Church being a state church will affect the results of the lawsuit.
I agree with their ruling in general, I just think they are misapplying it here. They say that this ruling does not apply to people who don’t have a “ministerial function” then they go to say that they are not going to define what a “ministerial function” is and then they say that this woman had a “ministerial function.” I think she didn’t and I think this is therefore a bad ruling.
If a Christian (or other religious) school cannot chose its own standards for its teaching staff, ordained or otherwise, it cannot maintain the Christian (or other religious) perspective it exists to impart to its students. Even the school custodian can have an impact on the students.
Well, many of the Supreme Court justices apparently didn’t want to get too wrapped up in the question of ‘who is a minister’ as that term isn’t used much outside of some branches of Christianity. There are religious groupings for whom that category isn’t that useful. In this case it was useful – the Lutheran church in question considered this woman to be a minister, and has considered people like her to be one for some time. In that situation I think the Judges called this correctly.
1) It’s not their job to decide whether the religious group has correctly classified someone as a minister – that’s the group’s responsibility. Making that decision means deciding on questions of doctrine.
2) If you’re going to have a principle like this, then by its very nature you can’t really define it that closely. Defining it is going to involve you making some decisions that are doctrinal in nature and will exclude some forms of religious leaders in some religious groups. In that situation you acknowledge that it is there and that it *really* matters (unanimously contra the Administration’s position) but you can’t define it. If it gets abused then you revisit it. But if it’s working (and it basically is) don’t try and fix it.
Thanks for the help; the link now works.
#8 That was not the ruling nor was that what the church argued as that would be horrific. The “Christian teaching” that this woman supposedly broke (which resulted in her firing) was threatening to sue the church. The courts (and the church) agreed that you simply cannot take the ability to sue a church away from everyone who even remotely works for the church! So the janitor is black and you don’t like black people so when you take over as pastor you tell the janitor “get lost n*&&^&” and he has no recourse because he can’t sue you for discrimination because Christians can’t sue one another and he works for a Christian church? Everyone realizes that would be completely unacceptable and it is not what the church argued.
#9 That’s essentially what the court argued. That this would have to get decided on a case-by-case basis and if it seemed to be becoming abusive, it would have to be re-visited. I agree with that ruling. I just think on a “case-by-case” basis, this woman didn’t fit the definition.
Catholic Mum,
But this is why I think the decision was a good one. Few Christian groups would see her as a minister. But the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (IIRC) *does* see people performing her function that way, and have for some time. Thus they require them to not seek civil courts redress – something that looks fairly ‘Luther’s view of the two kingdoms’ to me. So doing that was, all on its own, a very serious breach of the standards required of her position as an unordained minister (IIRC) in the Lutheran church.
And no, most Christian churches couldn’t set up a janitor that way. But some Anabaptist inspired grouping might move from John 14:13-17 to make the janitors in their congregations the leaders – actually theologize that it is their janitorial work that gives them their role to lead the congregation liturgically and doctrinally, rather than it being one of their duties along with teaching and liturgy etc. They are janitors who by virtue of being janitors also lead.
That’s the genius of not defining IMO. Once the definition is down, it’ll be used to exclude groups with structures that are unusual. The Lutherans think this kind of school teacher is a minister. They really, truly do and have for a while. The Supreme Court has said, that’s all that counts, they have to have a free hand in that situation.
Mark, I see your point. But I guess I would want to be sure that 1) I actually knew when I was hired that I was being classified as a “minister” (when all along I thought I was the janitor) and 2) it was made clear to me that as a “minister” I can be fired at will with no recourse. (For example, if the pastor says “sleep with me or you’re fired and I try to bring legal action against him, I can be fired with no recourse.) If I accept that, then that’s the deal. But if it appears otherwise and it’s only when you want to fire me that I suddenly become a “minister” then something stinks.
I agree entirely Catholic Mum. That’s why I’ve conditioned my statement as saying something like, ‘if we think this is a good principle’. When God wrote a nation’s laws he had nothing like freedom of religion in it, so I think the case could be argued that it isn’t *necessarily* good for a nation to have this principle.
I think it is good for the way we run nations to have this principle there very robustly, but I think you have to see the big picture to get it. By having it you run the risk of injustices on the individual case as you’ve identified. They are exactly the same as those that already exist for ‘proper’ church leaders – sleep with me (says the bishop, chair of the presbytery, guy who can swing the member’s votes in congregationally run church) or you’re fired. And there’s no recourse to civil address for wrongful dismissal.
I think if it was a surprise to the person or others in that job that they were ministers, and/or what was expected of the role that was unusual was a surprise, that would be something concrete that the courts could access to say, “We smell a rat” without getting involved in doctrinal questions. It’d be a *very* esoteric doctrinal structure that had leaders who didn’t know they were leaders but could be sacked on rules entirely interior to the group that those leaders also didn’t know.
Mark, I’m not sure that things are as clear as you think they are — but I guess the Supreme Court is saying that that’s what we’ll find out.
If things are as loosey-goosey as I think this ruling makes them, then a person would be advised only to work for a denomination they don’t belong to!