Balancing Two Kingdoms in Chicago

Pastor Frank Teesdale

Considered strictly by its legal subject matter, Teesdale v. City of Chicago is a bit of a snoozer.  Primarily about “standing” and what constitutes a city policy, it’s hardly deserving of a headline like The High Cost of Free Speech in Chicagoland or that article’s picture of a duct-taped mouth. But its facts are compelling. The crescendo-fact is a Baptist preacher arrested while preaching on the streets of Chicago.  Amplifying the crescendo, consider one of the Court’s findings:

The district court held that the 2008 arrest did not violate Pastor Teesdale’s Fourth Amendment rights because the officers had probable cause to arrest Teesdale for disorderly conduct and were entitled to qualified immunity.

So we have a preacher, an arrest, and a court approving of the arrest. But before we get carried away and start using boldface and exclamation points to describe the case, here’s a little something to make us pause: “This decision was not appealed.” That’s right – Pastor Teesdale did continue to litigate, but he didn’t press on to claim his arrest was unconstitutional.  So there must be something going on other than a virtual police-state arresting a preacher. And there is.

Pastor Teesdale was, indeed, preaching on a Chicago street, but it wasn’t just any street on any day. It was during an annual festival hosted by a local Catholic church.  Each year the city would block off two streets around the church for the occasion.  Teesdale’s entry to the festival is described by the Court:

On July 12, 2008, Pastor Teesdale and several members of his church entered the east end of the festival and began walking down one of the blocked-off streets. Teesdale carried a bullhorn, while the other Garfield Church members carried signs and a banner with Scripture verses. The group engaged festival patrons in conversation and handed out gospel tracts.

Teesdale was then confronted by Ray Kolasinki, the head of the security team for the festival, who was a parishioner and a police officer who was working as an off-duty volunteer.  Here’s how that confrontation went:

… [Kolasinki] told him that although he could preach at the festival, he could not use a bullhorn. Kolasinski also said that the group could not distribute literature without St. Symphorosa’s permission. Teesdale then attempted to speak through the bullhorn. Kolasinski responded by taking Teesdale’s arms, handcuffing them behind his back, and telling Teesdale that he was under arrest.

The security officer went too far when he said the literature couldn’t be distributed, but was it wrong to forbid the bullhorn? As we address that question, we’ll temporarily set legal analysis to the side. Instead, let’s zoom out to the big picture and talk about how we are both Christians and citizens. To say it another way, we have a kind of dual citizenship.  As Christians, we will find ourselves antithetical to others in important and deeply held ways. But, at the same time, we share citizenship with those “others” and we are, in an important sense, together with them in making our country function in mutually beneficial ways.

There’s a slim chance I would be content to sit under Pastor Teesdale’s preaching.  Actually, make that chance “none.”  As a point of agreement, we likely share the same conviction that the gospel is obscured in the Roman Catholic Church, but  if I were to visit the Catholic festival I’d be inclined to look for a flaky pastry, a cup of coffee, and some pleasant conversation, figuring there are other times, other places, and other ways to deal with our religious differences.  Obviously Pastor Teesdale disagrees with that, and felt compelled to confront them during their festival. Still, even Pastor Teesdale would likely agree that, though the gospel should be preached, there are appropriate ways and means to do so. I doubt he would go barging into a nursing home, a public school, or a Catholic church during the Mass with his bullhorn. That’s because, at some level, even Pastor Teesdale will admit that religious rights are not a zero-sum game; it’s not the case that every time one side gets something less than maximum expression that it loses and some other side wins.  Maybe there’s a way of maintaining our convictions and being able to express them, but with rules of accomodation that make everyone better off.

In the case at hand, there is a public place, a group hosting an event in that public place, and a man with the conviction that he must address people there with a message contrary to their beliefs.  The task of both citizens and the courts is to find a balance that recognizes all these.  A prudent district court judge did, indeed, find a balance:

the district court urged the parties to come to a temporary agreement allowing the plaintiffs to enter the festival on terms acceptable to both sides. The parties thus prepared a standby order, which the district court entered. This order permitted Pastor Teesdale and up to nine other Garfield Church members to enter the festival during specific hours with some limitations on the size of their signs and a prohibition on using a bullhorn or other sound enhancing device.

So under that order, Pastor Teesdale could use the public space to share his message, the occasion could still substantially be the event of the Catholic church, and, moreover, Teesdale and the Catholic church agreed to these terms. That’s civil wisdom – thank you, Your Honor.

One might say the parties agreed to “reasonable content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions” on Pastor Teesdale’s speech.  Lo and behold, that’s a legal standard for permissible restrictions on speech in a public forum such as the streets of Chicago. As the United States Court of Appeals court noted,

Such restrictions would include, for example, prohibiting someone from using a bullhorn during a public festival. Even without a bullhorn, a person is still able to express his message.

It’s clear that Pastor Teesdale and his partisans understand something about their religious citizenship. Let’s hope there will be a growing understanding of their – and our – earthly citizenship as well.


Filed under Church and State, Courts, Free exercise of religion, Religious rights

9 responses to “Balancing Two Kingdoms in Chicago

  1. 1. I know it would depends on two unlikely things–Catholic itinerancy and Baptist festivals, but the real test may be when a Catholic apologist wants to invade the Baptists’ public space. Somehow I don’t see a compromise being struck.

    2. I can’t help but be reminded of a recent dust up involving Calvary Chapel’s Scott Rodriguez’s invasion of prosperity preacher Dayna Muldoon’s private space (which makes it worse than Teesdale’s public invasion). More troubling was how so many Reformed came to Rodriguez’s defense, instead of contemplating some of the more sober nuances about a dual citizenship.

    • Zrim, I thought of the video you posted. Link? But, wow, people defended barging into someone else’s church service? I’ve called it a zero-sum game mentality here. Hart’s From Billy Graham to Sarah Palin speaks of how the evangelical right is inattentive to formal structures, which would explain why they are content to win battles at any level – state or federal, statutory or constitutional – rather than considering what kind of form might be the best.
      Maybe there is a civil “do unto others as you would have them do unto you so we all enjoy order and freedom.” Right, that’s not a very catchy saying, but that’s the idea.

  2. If you click on the “YouTube” button in the lower right, you’ll get the link (if that’s what you mean). Not just people, but confessionally Reformed people who are supposed to respect formal structures. Just goes to show how victorious the evangelical ethos has been. And when when the ethos of second greatest commandment is suggested, one runs the risk of not being hard enough on the prosperity preachers.

  3. At least he was holding her hand when he said it…

  4. Was that church or the Jerry Springer show?

  5. dewisant1

    “was how so many Reformed came to Rodriguez’s defense,…”
    I didn’t know that the Calvary Chapel was Reformed. Or, are they?

    • Richard

      Calvary Chapel is about as far from Reformed as you can get. Chuck Smith, Calvary’s founder, used to rant against Reformed theology–I remember the White Horse Inn guys re-playing some of his rants on the radio.

    • Maybe Zrim will clarify when he wanders back. He put that video up over at the Confessional Outhouse some time ago. He’s probably referring to the comments he got, as in Reformed commenters defending the ruckus.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s