We’ve run into a serious question as we have been reworking our policies on the use of our building. Maybe some of you are going through the same thing, and if any of you legal eagles out there want to weigh in, well, free legal advice is always better than paid, right?
Backstory
Several of the churches in our area try to make bank by renting out their buildings – I can’t believe what some of them charge for weddings and other building use. We decided years ago that we’d go a different direction. It didn’t necessarily thrill our Building and Properties Team, but we chose to make our building available to the church family, to Christian ministries, and to the community at a very low rate. We try to break even on utilities and expenses and often we don’t even do that. We want our building in use. Many of the homeschool events in Sioux City are at our church because we have a large facility and we don’t charge them through the nose like some of the other churches do. Our gym stays active – that could be used almost full time. We don’t have a lot of weddings in the building because our worship center doesn’t have the much-coveted center aisle, but we charge less than just about anyone else in town for our weddings. We don’t charge a penny for funerals (does anyone?) and we provide a meal at our cost for the family.
God gave us a building and we try to take care of it, but we want to invest that gift in ministry. That’s our philosophy.
Then along came the Obergefell decision and everything changed. If you haven’t read the excellent booklet jointly published by the ERLC and the Alliance Defending Freedom, called “Protecting Your Ministry,” you need to get it today. Follow the link…I bought you a copy! (Actually, they are free.) I read the book and realized that our policies, written ten years ago, no longer adequately protected the church in the post-Obergefell, “marriage equality” (what a euphemism) world. So, I took to rewriting the policies, using the booklet as a guideline, along with some other legal advice I have received.
Your church should consider doing the same thing. You need a series of policies that protect your church’s religious freedoms in an increasingly hostile legal environment. Written policies followed consistently are not an option anymore.
One essential is a building use policy that protects you against accusations of discrimination. Please understand, I’m not a lawyer and I’m not giving legal advice. I’d welcome advice and correction by any of you legal eagles out there. I’m blessed that the head of my administrative team is a lawyer who works on personnel issues as his field of expertise. He’s advised us through much of the process. One of the things he’s warned is that any exception is a breach in the dam of protection.
Imagine this scenario. We have no policy about building use so pastor Buford McGillicutty makes the decisions as each situation comes up.
- The Child Evangelism Fellowship asks to use your building. No problem. Hallelujah.
- The evangelical pastors’ alliance asks if they can have a Sunday School room for a meeting. There might be the odd charismatic and even a Methodist or two might get in the building, but a pastors group? Go for it.
- Then, the Red Cross asks for a room to hold a training session. Red Cross – servants of the community. Not a redemptive ministry but they serve the community. Sure, c’mon in.
- One of the Red Cross volunteers is a part of the local swim club and they are looking for a place to hold their end of the season banquet. Your fellowship hall is available and their money is American! What harm can it do?
- Oops. One of the parents of one of the kids on the swim club is gay, and his “Gay Lesbian Task Force for Combating Bullying” needs a place to hold their meeting since all the schools are booked because of parent-teacher conferences. So, they give you a call. “Oh, no, sir. We can’t do that.”
You, pastor Buford, have just committed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and your church (and you) are in danger of a lawsuit that you will likely lose. You allowed one secular group to use your facility but you denied another – solely on the basis of their homosexuality. Homophobe! In America (at least for the present time) you are still allowed to use your church building for church purposes alone and to operate according to your church’s convictions within the building. But if you let one group use the building that is not part of your fellowship and don’t allow another group to use it because they are gay, you are discriminating. If you rent out your building for weddings for anyone in the community but you refuse to rent to a same-sex couple, you are discriminating. You are officially guilty of sexual orientation discrimination. And yes, you are guilty. If they sue you will probably lose. You are discriminating against them ONLY on the basis of the fact that they are gay. Is that fair? Is that right? Not much point in arguing that people. If you live in Beijing you can complain about smog but you still have to breathe. In a post-Obergefell world, if you discriminate solely on the basis of sexual orientation, you are in trouble.
Don’t complain to me. If you live in Beijing you can dislike the smog but you have to live with it. In these United States this is how it is since the Supreme Court ignored the Constitution, precedent, logic, and decency and redefined marriage as it did. The liberty of a church to use its building as it decides is under threat. We now have to be “wise as serpents” in our policies as to how we use our buildings.
The best, safest policy (as I understand it) is a restrictive policy that says, “We will only perform weddings for members of the church and only members of the church can use the building.” Most of us are not going to go quite that far. Second prize goes to a policy that requires everyone who is married in our church or who contracts to use our building assent to our church’s basic doctrines and core convictions. We’ve written a document that defines both our doctrines and our convictions. Sample policies are in the “Protecting Your Ministry” booklet.
If you allow some secular groups to use your building and not others, you are in danger. You have to say no to the Red Cross and to the swim club because if you rent your building to them and refuse same sex groups or other secular groups you open your church to an action based on discrimination.
A Deacon’s Question
So, I set about to write these policies – the safe, restrictive policies. As we were discussing it, one of our deacons asked a tough question.
“Aren’t we supposed to ministering to the community? What message does it send to the community if we tell them that they are unwelcome to rent our building?”
In Iowa, community relations are pretty important. The world tends to think of Southern Baptists as snake handlers or holy rollers. One of the best things that happened to Iowa Southern Baptists was the ministry of Disaster Relief during our historic flooding in 1993. World Changers was a great ministry here in Iowa until they cut almost all of us new work states loose. Upward Basketball was an important ministry for us as a church. So, do we really want a policy that tells people, “unless you are fully in line with our doctrines and social convictions, we will not let you use our building?
He asked another question.
“Is it worth a certain amount of legal risk to have a more open and welcoming ministry in the community?”
How much legal risk is it worth to present a better face to the community? Is there a way we can protect the church without building a moat around the church?
Let me be clear. The question is not about who can come to church, but about who can rent the building and use it for their events. We would never tell any sinner he or she can’t come to church because of their sin – that would offend the Savior. But the question is whether we can safely allow some sinners to rent our building without having to rent it indiscriminately to all sinners!
My Question
And that is my question. Can we write policies that are less draconian but still protect the church? The safest policies will also put up some barriers between us and our community. “No, I’m sorry, we cannot allow you to use our building.” Sports teams will not be able to practice in our gym. Community groups will not be able to meet in our classrooms. Is there a better way?
So, I am wondering if there’s another way. I realize what I am about to suggest is not as safe as the other policies but I’m wondering just how unsafe it is. The core of the idea is that we write a policy that focuses on the event that is taking place and the activities that are going to occur – do they conflict in any way with our doctrines and convictions?
Here it is.
“Our buildings are devoted to the glory of God and are available for use by the community. The church has clearly defined doctrines and core convictions {we have marriage, sanctity of life, and other policies}. The building may be used for a variety of activities and it is not required that they all further the purposes of the church. However, no one may use the church building for activities that stand in opposition to the stated doctrines, practices, and core convictions of Southern Hills Baptist Church.”
That is not finalized language – it’s more of a draft. Our purpose is to find a way to allow the building to be used by the community, but give us a reason to restrict its usage by those whose purposes would be counter to our doctrines and our convictions.
Here’s my question: I know this is not as safe as the more restrictive policy, but does it give us any level of cover? Is it brutally foolish? Are we exposing ourselves to legal jeopardy?
- Does your church have written policies on these matters?
- Have you adjusted your policies since Obergefell?
- Do you study and keep abreast of such matters?
- Do you have any insights that can help me?
Advice:
- If your church’s policies on legal, financial, and other such matters are more than about 3 years old, they are probably due for a serious review. A lot has changed. “This is how we’ve always done it” doesn’t work anymore.
- Guidestone has the best material on financial matters, this ERLC/ADF document is alarming but helpful on these issues.
- Whatever you do, have an expert review the documents before you give them final passage. On these matters, a few words here or there can make the difference between protection and exposure. Lawyers cost money (and, they are lawyers! – sorry lawyers). But consulting a lawyer now to get the right wording can save you a gazillion dollars and a lot of heartache down the road if – God forbid – something happens. Write your policies but get them legally reviewed.
