The Reverend Dr. Rob Schenck of Faith and Action in Washington, DC, presents Dr. George Roller of the Center for Christian Statesmanship with a traditional Jewish mezuzah as a housewarming gift on the opening of the Center’s new facility on the other side of Capitol Hill from where the Faith and Action ministry center is located. Rev. Schenck joked with Dr. Roller that the two groups “now have Congress surrounded.”

Rev. Rob Schenck and Peggy Nienaber present Dr. George Roller of the Center for Christian Statesmanship with a traditional Jewish mezuzah as a housewarming gift on the opening of the Center’s new facility.

My mentor in ministry, Dr. Thomas Reid of Buffalo, NY, used to tell me in my formative days as a minister, “There’s no room for competition in the work of God. There’s plenty for all of us to do!”

I’ve lived by that adage ever since. It’s one of the reasons Faith and Action hosts several “allied ministries” in our ministry center behind the U.S. Supreme Court. We also cooperate with other Christian groups located here in Washington, DC, and throughout the country.

Today we celebrated with one of those cooperative organizations. The Center for Christian Statesmanship, a part of Evangelism Explosion International, founded by the late Reverend Dr. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church and Coral Ridge Ministries (Florida), has opened a similar center to ours–only on the opposite side of Capitol Hill. That geographical location is very important in many ways–and very distinct from our mission field. I’ll explain more further down, but, first, let me say more about “the Center’s new center!”

Their facility, a Victorian row house built in the same period as our Ostrowski House on Capitol Hill, will be a venue for various programs including Bible studies, lectures, fellowship events, and evangelistic efforts. That sounds a lot like what we do here at Faith and Action, but it’s not redundant, and I’ll tell you why: Washington, DC–and even Capitol Hill itself–is divided up into very distinct spheres. For example, the various branches of the federal government make up three of those spheres: The executive branch (White House and related agencies), the Congress, and the Supreme Court represent very different–and very separate spheres. They each have their own rules and regulations, facilities, police forces, even cultures. Because the three branches practice the “separation of powers,” they deliberately do not interact much.  Within the branches themselves there are also serious distinctions. For example, because our ministry center is adjacent to the Supreme Court, it places us on the “Senate side” of Capitol Hill. That is, we’re positioned within view of the north side of the US Capitol, where the Senate chamber and related offices and function rooms are located. We are also within sight of the three US Senate office buildings. It is the US Senate that confirms presidential nominees to the federal courts, so the administrative headquarters of the federal courts is nearby. That makes our “neighborhood” very different from where the Center for Christian Statesmanship is located, which is on the south side of Capitol Hill, close to the House side of the US Capitol and the office buildings for the members of the House of Representatives. The House, made up of 435 members has a very different culture than the Senate, made up of its 100 members. I often think of the House as the blue collar labor force in the Congress, and the Senate as the white collar management.

There’s another important difference between our two locations: Our proximity to the US Supreme Court is deliberate. The High Court is our principal mission field. Of the three federal government branches, it is the most unusual and least accessible. As I explained in a previous post, federal judges (including Supreme Court justices) are appointed for life, not elected to serve terms. We didn’t elect them–and we can’t “un-elect” them. Consequently, federal judges owe no one anything. They don’t open their doors to anyone because they don’t need to–and they don’t want to. That makes our mission field uniquely different.

Today, when I congratulated Center for Christian Statesmanship director Dr. George Roller on the opening of their new facility, I said, “You have the south end of the Hill and we have the north end. You have the House and we have the Senate. That means we have them surrounded!”

On a personal level I’ve got to tell you I had a mixed reaction during my visit to the CFCS. It houses a portion of the late Dr. Kennedy’s personal library, along with a portrait of him, and even the pulpit robe he wore so often. Dr. Kennedy was another mentor to me and helped us enormously in our work. He endorsed both of my books and often had me as a guest on his radio and television shows. He was a good man whom I esteemed highly. Being around his things made me realize just how much I miss him. I felt that loss today, but thanked God for his great legacy.

Faith and Action looks forward to working closely with our colleagues, friends, and brothers and sisters in Christ at the Center for Christian Statesmanship. We have cooperated in many Christian outreach efforts already and will now do even more! Welcome good neighbors!

Rob +

Rev. Rob Schenck sat in the courtroom at the US Supreme Court as the decisions were being read today. Rob was watching for the opinions on “Prop8″ or “DOMA” but they were not released. One important opinion presented today, however, was the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics. Watch for our blog, Twitter and Facebook posts.

The two same-sex marriage cases before the US Supreme Court are simple but could have wide-ranging consequences. U.S. v. Windsor involves a lesbian couple who were married in Canada. Because the U.S. has a law called “The Defense of Marriage Act” or “DOMA,” married same-sex couples are not recognized by the federal government and must, therefore, pay tax on assets they “inherit” from their partners. This was the case here. The woman whose “married spouse” died and left her property, had to pay the federal government taxes on it–which would not have been the case for an opposite-sex survivor. Therefore, the petitioner wants DOMA struck down as unconstitutional.

The other case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, is over what happened with same-sex marriage laws in California. The people of California turned down same-sex marriage, but the California Supreme Court ordered the legislature there to legalize it because, according to them, denying same-sex couples legal marriage violated the California state constitution. Citizens then organized and forced a public referendum–or state-wide vote–on whether to legalize same-sex marriage. 52% of California voters said no to it, and the California Supreme Court validated the results, but a federal appeals court nullified the referendum, saying it violated the constitutional rights of same-sex couples. The state of California refused to appeal the decision, but various groups of citizens stepped in and petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. The question would be whether citizens in a state have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they want same-sex marriage legalized in their own states.

OK, now we have that much straight about all this. (No pun intended.) So, by now I’ve either lost you completely and you’re no longer reading–or, you may be wondering what I expect to happen. If you’re still here, I’ll tell you:

Based on everything I know about the justices and how they think, I will hazard a guess on this. I believe a majority of the justices will strike down DOMA as unconstitutional because, in their opinion, the federal government has no business defining marriage. At the same time, I think they will more or less affirm the right of states to decide same-sex marriage for themselves (at least for the time being), but this doesn’t mean they will uphold the outcome of California’s referendum. I believe they will basically say that although the people of California voted and the State’s Supreme Court upheld it, the people bringing the lawsuit didn’t have “standing” or the legal grounds to do so, therefore, the lower court (district and 9th Circuit) decision stands, requiring same-sex marriage to continue in California.  It won’t technically be a victory for same-sex marriage proponents, but it will likely be treated as such. No doubt same-sex marriage advocates in other states will see momentum in this outcome and will seize the opportunity to push for same-sex marriage in their own states.

Of course, I’m not a lawyer nor any sort of legal expert, so I could have all of this very wrong. Also, the justices can change their minds on any of this for any reason right up to the moment the decision is announced, so nothing is certain anyway. I think there’s some handwriting on the wall, however, and I’m sticking with my view of what will happen–for now.

This means a few things: 1) Federal government will be out of the marriage business, which I think is the right outcome. 2) The states will be deciding on same-sex marriage, which is better than the federal government doing it. 3) Same-sex marriage is likely here to stay and will only become more popular, so we must deal with it as  reality. These are real people who are in real legal relationships, including having and raising real children – making them legal, intact families. As Christians we must decide what this means to us in terms of how we relate to other people in Christian love. I’ll be writing on this in the days ahead because it has significant ramifications for us as human beings, as disciples of Christ, as evangelists, and as loving, caring people. It also has major ramifications for how we live out our own faith–and that may mean defending our own rights to practice our faith as we see it. As one group’s “rights” are affirmed by the courts, another group’s may be violated. We must be vigilant in protecting our God-given and constitutional freedoms to define and live out marriage as our faith dictates.

So much more to say, but I don’t dare add more words to this post! Done for now. I’ll keep you–well–posted!

Rob +

Photos aren’t allowed in the Supreme Court, so sketch artists record events, as here with the arguments on same-sex marriage.

The US Supreme Court will likely rule on the same-sex marriage cases within the next two weeks. This article is part one of a two-part series by Rev. Rob Schenck on these cases and the anticipated decision by the Court. 

You probably know the Supreme Court is expected to announce it’s decisions on the so-called “same-sex marriage” cases any day between Monday, June 10 and Monday, June 24, the official last day of the Court’s current term. Of course, the Justices make their own rules and aren’t bound by anything except what they want to do, so they could extend their term, hold the decisions until they get back from their summer break, or do just about anything else they feel like doing with these cases and any others. However, the Court also likes ritual and tradition, and generally sticks to its well-established patterns, and that means we can reasonably expect their rulings on two major cases at some time during the next three weeks. That means at Faith and Action, we’ve set up our daily “Court Watch” until the two cases we care most about, U.S. v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry, are announced by the High Court. Our staff will be monitoring the Court’s decision-publishing process and we will literally have staff across the street, inside the Court, every day ready to snatch the opinions as soon as they’re available.

Just as an aside, you may be interested in how these decisions are made and published, and how they are enforced. Supreme Court cases begin when a party (called a petitioner) asks the Court to review a case that has almost always been decided already on two levels: 1) at the district (or trial) court level–where there are lawyers, and, if it’s criminal, prosecutors, where facts are established, evidence is presented, witnesses testify, often a jury hears it, and so forth–what you normally think of as a “trial”– and 2) An appellate court has re-considered the case based on how it was handled in the trial court. Obviously someone is not happy with the result of the appeals process and is now going to the highest court in the land for a final, definitive ruling. Now, keep in mind, the Supreme Court will only hear a case if there is a question on whether the petitioner’s constitutional rights were violated in some way–or, whether the outcome of the case will affect the constitutional rights of others. The Supreme Court will not hear a case simply because one of the parties to a suit doesn’t like the outcome of it. In fact, no one has a “right” for their case to be heard by the Supreme Court. The decision to hear a case at the Court is based solely on “judicial discretion” and only for “compelling reason.” (Rule 10 of the Supreme Court.)

When the Court agrees to hear a case, it grants what it calls a “Writ of Certiorari,” or, “Cert” for short. This term is based on a Latin word for “certainty.” In other words, the Court agrees to issue a “final say” on the matter. I put “final say” in quotes because that’s not always how these cases come out. Sometimes they open new questions; sometimes they’re dismissed; sometimes they’re rendered so narrow that they are a “final say” only in part; and sometimes they come up with a answer that’s anything but certain to anybody. Still, the purpose of the process is generally to end further litigation by rendering a final answer as to whether the case was properly handled and decided in lower courts or not. The result can then be either the affirming of a prior decision of a lower court, a different decision than was found by the lower courts, or, an order that the lower courts re-hear the case and render a new decision.

Four of the nine justices on the Court must vote to take a case. It’s then scheduled on the Court’s calendar, briefs are filed with the justices (these are long legal papers detailing the history, facts, and arguments being made by each side), and lawyers for each side make “oral arguments” in front of the nine justices on the bench. Only the lawyers for each side are heard–there are no witnesses, defendants, plaintiffs, or anyone else. Each side usually gets about 30 minutes to state their cases. During that time each lawyer may be asked a few or a lot of questions by the justices. After reading the briefs and hearing the oral arguments, the justices meet privately, without any other staff or persons present in the room, and discuss the case, then inform each other where they stand. The Chief Justice guides this process but has no more authority in the decisions than any other justice. He then assigns the writing of the majority and minority opinions usually based on seniority. Justices either join with the majority or dissent from it. When everyone is done writing their opinions–and each justice may write a brief or simply join (“concur”) or “dissent” from the majority–and this can be done in whole or in part.

The decision is then usually announced publicly from the bench (but doesn’t have to be) by the Chief Justice, or by whichever justice has written the majority opinion. Sometimes they read a summary of the decision, or, on occasion the whole decision. Dissenting justices sometimes will read their opinions from the bench as well, although that’s relatively rare.

The decisions are also handed out in booklets, called “slip opinions,” at the Supreme Court Clerk’s office at the time they are read from the bench. Only recently have decisions been posted to the Court’s website at the same time.

There are various ways that Supreme Court decisions are enforced, but basically it’s by courtesy of the parties or government authorities involved. In other words, the Court really has no way to force its opinions to be followed. It’s decisions are “law” in a sense, but not really. The legislative branches of government are the only ones with power to make and enforce law. What the Court does is advise the legislative powers that something they did was against the highest law of the land (is “unconstitutional”) and therefore is null and void. Or, it tells the lower courts they did something wrong, therefore their decision is null and void or must be reconsidered. The Court can also tell presidents and state governors the same thing, but it takes the respectful cooperation of these other branches to comply with the High Court’s directives. Sometimes, these decisions are simply ignored. While the Supreme Court has an armed police and marshal service, they are very small and charged only with protecting the justices. The Supreme Court police are in no position to physically compel anyone to obey the justices.

I know about this whole process personally because I’ve been through a Supreme Court case. Schenck v. Pro-choice Network was a case based on the experience my brother, Rev. Paul Schenck, and I had, along with many others, in doing pro-life ministry in front of abortion businesses back in the 1990s. A federal judge had banned a group of us from handing out Bibles and Gospel tracts to anyone coming or going from abortion clinics. (Or simply claiming they were.) We knew that was a violation of our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, religion, and association, and we fought it all the way through the courts. Along the way we paid stiff penalties, including fines, property seizures, federal orders to stop preaching and teaching on certain Bible passages, and, eventually, my own brother went to federal prison. Finally, in February 1997, the Court announced that the restrictions on literature distribution violated our constitutional rights and struck them down. It was a long awaited victory for us.

OK, now that you know all this trivia about how Supreme Court cases work, I’ll get to where I started: With the same-sex marriage cases. 

Here are Rev. Schenck’s complete remarks from the ceremony:

“I was here in the Capitol on that hot July day in 1998 when Officers J. J. Chestnut and John Gibson were shot and killed in the line of duty. It was a painful day to do chaplain work, but it left me with even more respect for every man and woman that bears the badge here and everywhere.

As a Christian, for me some of the most important words of all time came from the lips of Jesus Christ who said, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” You who bear the badge illustrate to us this greatest of loves:

You run toward the danger when most of us run away from it; You place yourselves between that danger and those you are charged with protecting; You start every day prepared to give all for us, and we are grateful to God and to you for your selfless courage.

It is my honor to pray for you for your fellows, and for our time together here this morning:

Let us pray.

Dear God, thank you for the men and women of the United States Capitol Police Department and for the heroic work they do protecting our national legislators, the members of the public, and so many others so that we can meet in this building today feeling safe and secure. Thank you for their selfless sacrifice in risking their own lives and safety on our behalf. Thank you for this special occasion when we can recognize their superb service. Please bless each of them, their families, and their fellow officers with your protection, guidance, and gift of your presence. We’re grateful for the fellowship and food we enjoy this morning. I offer this prayer to you in Jesus’ name. Amen.”

Rev. Rob Schenck (center) and Peggy Nienaber (right) join others in honoring US Capitol Hill Police “Officers of the Year”

Yesterday was a remarkable day of ministry at Faith and Action.

One of the most significant and personally moving aspects of the day was a special ceremony honoring US Capitol Police officers of the year. Our own chief of program, Peggy Nienaber, serves as president of the Capitol Hill Executive Service Club, a distinguished group of civic, military, and political leaders, and presided over the ceremony. The Capitol Hill Executive Service Club has supported and honored the US Capitol Police for over 40 years.

In attendance at this stirring ceremony were such dignitaries as Senator Patrick Leahy, the Architect of the Capitol, Stephen Ayers, and the current and former US House Sergeant-at-Arms, Paul Irving and Bill Livingood respectively.

Faith and Action’s president and lead missionary, Rev. Rob Schenck, is the first-ever chaplain for the Capitol Hill Executive Service Club and offered a prayer for all that “bear the badge.” Rob was in the Capitol on the July day in 1998 when Officers J. J. Chestnut and John Gibson were shot and killed in the line of duty. Rob noted it was a painful day to do the work of a chaplain, but it left him with even more respect for every man and woman that bears the badge at the US Capitol and everywhere else across the nation. Here are the words to Rev. Schenck’s moving prayer:

Dear God, thank you for the men and women of the United States Capitol Police Department and for the heroic work they do protecting our national legislators, the members of the public, and so many others so that we can meet in this building today feeling safe and secure. Thank you for their selfless sacrifice in risking their own lives and safety on our behalf. Thank you for this special occasion when we can recognize their superb service. Please bless each of them, their families, and their fellow officers with your protection, guidance, and gift of your presence. We’re grateful for the fellowship and food we enjoy this morning. I offer this prayer to you in Jesus’ name. Amen.

Rob Schenck prays with new extended ministry team leaders just before the Supreme Court gala

Later in the day, Rev. Schenck welcomed several new extended ministry team members to the missionary family at Faith and Action. Extended team members are pastors and other Christian leaders with local ministry in other parts of the nation who also feel called by the Holy Spirit to assist Faith and Action in carrying out its unique missionary outreach in Washington, DC. Alerting new members to the peculiarities of ministry to elected and appointed officials is critical. Their success depends upon our ability to orient them to those peculiarities. Ministry to national leaders demands respecting the protocol and culture of Washington, DC and is rooted in the development of deep, trusting relationships over the long haul, something we have worked at diligently for 25 years in our nation’s capital.

Rev. Rob Schenck and his wife Cheryl at the United States Supreme Court

The day culminated with Rob Schenck, and his wife Cheryl, being accompanied by their guests to a special black-tie gala in the great hall of the US Supreme Court. This very special, invitation-only event proved to be an exhilarating evening for Faith and Action’s new extended ministry team members. Of course, our purpose in hobnobbing with the judicial elite was not to carry out some clandestine mission, but simply to understand them better, express our supportive prayers for them and the important role they have in our Republic, and to offer our friendship–a rare commodity in Washington.

Please pray for this side of our work. We say very little about it, and write on it even less. Our hope is always to build solid, long-lasting, meaningful friendships–and that requires confidentiality and its resultant mutual trust. So, this is about all you’ll ever read on this vital aspect of our ministry, but I hope it’s enough for you to pray in a more informed way. You may never have the opportunity to join us in the rarified air of the High Court, but you can always join us in the heavenlies as we bring our prayers for these important leaders to the throne of God’s great grace.