Godbeat

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This time, will U.S. Supreme Court finally clarify rights of same-sex marriage dissenters?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
This time, will U.S. Supreme Court finally clarify rights of same-sex marriage dissenters?

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2021-2022 term produced biggies on abortion, religious freedom and the separation of church and state. The term that opens October 3 will bring another blockbuster — if the high court finally settles the unending clashes over LGBTQ+ rights versus religious rights.

Newsroom professionals will want to watch for the date set for the oral arguments in 303 Creative v. Elenis (Docket #21-476).

In this six-year dispute, graphic designer Lorie Smith is suing Colorado officials over the state’s anti-discrimination law, seeking to win the right to refuse requests to design websites that celebrate same-sex marriages, which she opposes, based on the teachings of her faith. She does not reject other work requests from LGBQ+ customers.

As currently framed, the case involves Smith’s freedom of speech rather than the First Amendment Constitutional right to “free exercise” of religion. The U.S. Supreme Court sidestepped the religious rights problem in 2018 (click here for tmatt commentary) when it overturned Colorado’s prosecution of wedding cake baker Jack Phillips (who is still enmeshed in a similar case per this from the firm that also represents Smith). Nor did the high court rule on religious freedom aspects when it legalized same-sex marriage in the 2015 Obergefell decision.

Last month, the Biden Administration entered 303 Creative (.pdf here) on the side of Colorado and LGBTQ+ interest groups. Essentially, the Department of Justice argues that as enforced in Colorado or elsewhere, “traditional public accommodations laws ... burden no more speech than necessary to further substantial government interests — indeed, compelling interests of the highest order.”

Smith has support from 16 Republican-led state governments and 58 members of Congress, while 21 Democratic states and 137 Congress members take the opposite stance alongside e.g. the American Bar Association.

The issue will face the U.S. Senate after the November elections as Democrats try to “codify” Obergefell into federal law but for passage may need to accept a Republican religious-freedom amendment. The Equality Act, which won unanimous support from House Democrats but is stalled in the Senate, would explicitly ban reliance on federal religious-freedom law in discrimination cases, include crucial laws passed by a broad left-right coalition during the Bill Clinton administration.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

This just in! Southern Baptists are still very conservative on issues of marriage and sex!

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
This just in! Southern Baptists are still very conservative on issues of marriage and sex!

Let’s face it, it’s rather hard for a congregation to be “removed from fellowship” — that’s Baptist-ese for “kicked out” — from the Southern Baptist Convention.

After all, are we talking about ties being cut to the local association, a state convention (some states, for doctrinal reasons, have more than one) or the various programs linked to the national SBC? Then there are, for extra-conservative or extra-progressive congregations, alternative “fellowship” networks that have their own vague relationships with the larger SBC ship.

Finally, if a church is “removed from fellowship” and any or all of these levels of voluntary association, it may simply become an independent autonomous Baptist church, as opposed to an autonomous SBC church. Most local folks will never know the difference and independent, often nondenominational, congregations are the fastest growing sector of American religious life.

But if you dig into the Google search in my first paragraph, you will see that churches have been pushed out the exit door of SBC life for several reasons and that this is nothing new. However, it is true that these churches are being kicked out for reasons that many (not all) journalists may consider more worthy of coverage than others. Think “politics.”

Consider this summary material from a New York Times piece last year that ran with this headline: “Southern Baptists Expel 2 Churches Over Sex Abuse and 2 for L.G.B.T.Q. Inclusion.”

The Southern Baptist Convention is the nation’s largest Protestant denomination and has been increasingly divided in recent years over a variety of cultural and political issues, including racism, sexuality and white evangelicals’ embrace of former President Donald J. Trump. …

[A]n increasingly influential conservative wing of the denomination accuses those leaders of prioritizing “social justice” over biblical truth. They denounce the encroachment of “critical race theory” — an academic framework intended to capture the deep influence of racism — and accuse the S.B.C.’s national leadership of being out of step with the rank and file.

It’s pretty easy to spot the subjects that would leap into headlines, right?

There is, for example, nothing new about “progressive” Baptist congregations veering to the doctrinal left on issues linked to gender and sexuality.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Please, NPR, get serious -- professional, even -- when covering religion/trans debates

, , , , , ,
Please, NPR, get serious -- professional, even -- when covering religion/trans debates

Way back when, there was a time when National Public Radio was known for accurate, decent, cutting-edge religion stories.

But its most recent serious religion specialist, Tom Gjelten, retired last year. So that day is long gone, alas, judging from a mindless story about transgenderism and Christianity that came out this week, one completely lacking in terms of balance and serious research.

Now there are good ways to cover this divisive topic, with thoughtful voices on both sides of the debate. But the following story wasn't one of them.

PORTLAND, Ore.— Something as small as signs that say "men" and "women" on the bathrooms in a house of worship can shut the door to trans people.

"For me as a non-binary person, I've been to so many churches where they don't have a bathroom that I feel like I can use," says AJ Buckley, an Episcopal priest in Portland, Ore. "And so I'll just not go to the bathroom there."

Churches are tasked with living out the Bible's message both from the pulpit and in the pews. And it's hard to connect to spiritual concerns if people there to sing and pray literally can't be physically comfortable.

That's why Saint David of Wales Episcopal Church in Portland, where Buckley has been associate rector for the past year, has made changes like putting up signs that say anyone can use any bathroom, including pronouns on name tags and preaching to "siblings in Christ" rather than brothers and sisters.

What has been the result of this cultural innovation? Have more trans people flooded this church in southeast Portland?

We are not told, as the article switches to a Minneapolis man who co-founded QueerTheology.com who says the Bible has several passages transcending gender norms.

"We have women who are judges. We have men who spend their time in the kitchen. There are eunuchs, which were considered this kind of other third gender," he says.

His assertions go unquestioned, even though there’s quite a good argument that eunuchs weren’t by any means considered a third gender.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , ,

Plug-In: Ties the bind -- Elizabeth II wove threads of faith and family into her funeral rites

, , , , , , , , ,
Plug-In: Ties the bind -- Elizabeth II wove threads of faith and family into her funeral rites

In a previous Plug-in, we highlighted the importance of Queen Elizabeth II’s Christian faith in her life.

The 96-year-old monarch’s funeral rites certainly reflected that.

The Guardian’s Harriet Sherwood explains:

The powerful liturgy and rituals of the Church of England – the established church since the 16th century but increasingly marginalised in everyday life – were at the heart of a ceremony watched by billions around the world.

The Queen’s funeral took place under the magnificent gothic arches of Westminster Abbey, the setting for every coronation since 1066, home to the tombs of kings and queens, and the church where the then Princess Elizabeth was married in 1947.

The service was taken from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the C of E’s official prayerbook, noted for its beautiful and archaic language but largely displaced in recent decades by those seeking a more modern style of worship.

The Queen was said to be devoted to the Book of Common Prayer, along with the hymns and readings chosen personally by the monarch for her funeral.

The Washington Times’ Mark A. Kellner offers additional details:

“Few leaders have received the outpouring of love we have seen,” Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby said during the state funeral. “Her Late Majesty’s example was not set through her position or her ambition, but through whom she followed.”

Archbishop Welby said the queen, who reigned for 70 years and celebrated her Platinum Jubilee in June, modeled the servant leadership expressed in the life of Jesus, her savior.

“People of loving service are rare in any walk of life,” he said. “Leaders of loving service are still rarer. But in all cases, those who serve will be loved and remembered when those who cling to power and privileges are long forgotten.”

At the National Catholic Register, Father Raymond J. de Souza characterizes the queen’s state funeral this way:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ryan Burge at RNS: Thinking about the impact of political sermons, on left and right

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Ryan Burge at RNS: Thinking about the impact of political sermons, on left and right

Hey churchgoers: How long has it been since you heard a political sermon?

Wait. We need to pause and discuss what a political sermon might sound like. For example, I think everyone would agree that an open endorsement of a political candidate from the pulpit would be “political.”

But what if a congregation or a denomination invited a political leader to speak in a worship service or some other event? This is something that happens on the political left and right. For generations, to name one example, Democrats have accepted warm, strategic invitations to speak — or perhaps simply exchange greetings — in African-American churches. It makes headlines when GOP leaders address major evangelical bodies (think Vice President Mike Pence and the Southern Baptist Convention).

More questions: What if a bishop or a preacher addresses issues that are clearly both doctrinal AND political, such as right-to-life concerns or threats to the environment? What about a conference focusing on ways religious groups can defend First Amendment rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religious practice? Is a liberal rally on abortion more “theocratic” than one organized by believers on the doctrinal right?

I ask these questions because of a piece GetReligion contributor Ryan Burge, he of the omnipresent charts and info on Twitter, wrote for Religion News Service. Here’s the newsy headline “When preachers get political, do they change minds? Preachers tend to risk political speech only when they know it will receive a warm reception.” The overture:

One of the most important and difficult questions among those who study religion and politics is just how important a pastor, rabbi, imam or other religious leader is when it comes to shaping the worldviews of their congregation. These figures get a weekly chance to dominate the attention of the people who come to listen to their sermons. They have a nearly unique opportunity to mold their congregants’ view of the theological, social and political world around them.

How often do pastors actually use that opportunity to speak out about the pressing issues of the day? Some new data gives us a look.

A Pew Research Center poll fielded in March of 2021 asked people if they had heard sermons that contained references to the fallout from the 2020 presidential election in the previous month. The survey asked about four topics specifically: the possibility that the 2020 election was rigged, former President Donald Trump’s inaccurate statements about election fraud, as well as support for or opposition to those who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

That is certainly a rather Donald Trump-era dominated list, but that reflects several years of headlines. Meanwhile, it’s safe to say that President Joe Biden is in the White House, in large part, because of support from voters in Black churches during several primaries. But I digress.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Question for journalists to mull: What will America's religious life look like in 50 years?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Question for journalists to mull: What will America's religious life look like in 50 years?

Scribes in the U.S. press snapped to attention last year when the Gallup Poll announced that as of 2020 less than half of Americans held religious memberships for the first time in its eight decades of asking the question. Only 47% of Americans said they belonged to a church, synagogue, mosque or other house of worship, a dramatic loss from the 70% as recently as 1999.

Now comes the Pew Research Center with a related pulse-pounder issued last week.

Pew figures that currently 64% of Americans (including children) identify as Christians in some sense, compared with 6% for other religions and a hefty 30% for “nones” and “nothing in particulars” — those without religious affiliation. Then we’re told that 50 years from now the Christian percentage may well fall to a modest 54% or even to a remarkable 35% in the worst-case scenario, while the non-religious population rises to somewhere between 34% and a slim majority of 52%.

Understandably, the Pew numbers became spot news for, among others, CBS, National Public Radio, the Washington Examiner and Washington Post, both newspapers in faith-focused Salt Lake City, USA Today, Britain’s The Guardian and a host of religious outlets.

This remains a good spot story for media that haven’t yet reported Pew’s basics. But even media that have reported the topline numbers could return to the theme with illustrative anecdotes and reactions from area religious leaders. And for sure journalists and religious analysts will want to give the full report some careful thought.

Pew emphasizes that its numbers are only “possibilities,” not “predictions of what will happen,” and comments that such a future would have “far-reaching consequences for politics, family life and civil society.” For example, also consider the multiple social science surveys that associate religious involvement with psychological and medical well-being and positive life outcomes for youths. Also, there is the impact of religious charity, not only effective huge organizations but private person-to-person interactions. Also, religions strengthen community in our “Bowling Alone” culture.

Pew calculated four future scenarios based largely upon the rates at which Americans may switch in or out of Christian identification and in or out of religious “none” status.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Reminder to journalists (again): Private schools -- left, right -- can defend their core doctrines

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Reminder to journalists (again): Private schools -- left, right -- can defend their core doctrines

Back in the late 1970s, during the cornerstone seminar in Baylor University’s Church-State Studies program, my major professor made an interesting prediction while reviewing some documents that would eventually surface with the Bob Jones University v. United States ruling at the Supreme Court in 1982.

That case pivoted on questions of racism and claims linked to religious doctrine. At some point in the future, my professor said, the high court would face similar cases in which centuries of religious doctrine would clash with beliefs at the heart of the modern Sexual Revolution.

The U.S. Supreme Court would be challenged to equate the facts of racism with the mysteries of sexual identity (or words to that effect). At that point, traditional forms of Christian education would be at risk.

Anyone who has followed American politics in recent decades has watched this conflict march through religious and educational structures and into the headlines. The question, all along, would be if “progressive” thinkers — the word “liberal” is problematic — would find a way for the Sexual Revolution to trump existing legal standards defending free speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion.

Thus, Julia Duin wrote a recent post describing coverage of SCOTUS moves linked to clashes between the modern Orthodox Judaism of Yeshiva University and LGBTQ groups on its New York campus. See this post: “New York Times pursues ultra-Orthodox yeshivas in massive story that raises (some) Jewish ire.”

One of the stories she discussed was a Jewish Telegraphic Agency piece with this headline, linked to an earlier stage in this legal struggle: “Yeshiva U can block LGBTQ club for time being, Supreme Court says.” This case provides, Duin noted, an:

… interesting counterweight on what’s happening in Christian colleges across the country. Last week a group called Campus Pride released a list on what it considers “the absolute worst, most unsafe campuses” for LGBTQ students. Not surprisingly, Yeshiva University is one.

She then stressed this crucial passage in the JTA report:

Yeshiva University’s case could be complicated by the fact that it removed religion from its charter, essentially the text that gives it permission to operate in New York State, in 1967 in an effort to secure more state funding.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , ,

Role of religion in Leicestershire riots? BBC journalists fell prey to 'word salad' logic

, , , , , , , ,
Role of religion in Leicestershire riots? BBC journalists fell prey to 'word salad' logic

I apologize for repeating this sobering anecdote, but — alas — it’s relevant again.

When “Blind Spot: When Journalists Don’t Get Religion” was released in 2008, several of the authors took part in a circle-the-globe trip for events linked to the issues covered in the book. One interesting — or disturbing — forum took place with journalism students at the multi-faith Convergence Institute of Media in Bangalore, India.

The topic, of course, was how to improve religion-news coverage in print and broadcast media. In a previous post — “Life and death (and faith) in India” — I noted:

I was struck by one consistent response from the audience, which I would estimate was about 50 percent Hindu, 25 percent Muslim and 25 percent Christian. When asked what was the greatest obstacle to accurate, mainstream coverage of events and trends in religion, the response of one young Muslim male was blunt. When our media cover religion news, he said, more people end up dead. Other students repeated this theme during our meetings.

In other words, when journalists cover religion stories, this only makes the conflicts worse. It is better to either ignore them or to downplay them, masking the nature of the conflicts behind phrases such as "community conflicts" or saying that the events are caused by disputes about "culture" or "Indian values."

Cover the story WRONG and more people die, they said. But if you cover the story ACCURATELY, even more people will die. As a rule, editors and producers resorted to vague terms — “community violence” was common — to hide bloody sectarian divides. Journalism is not an option when covering religious divides in India.

With that in mind, consider the foggy “word salad” language at the top of this recent BBC report about what were clearly sectarian riots in East Leicester. This is from a web archive, since the story was updated later without explanation. The bottom line: The religion angles in this story were too hot to mention.

Police and community leaders have called for calm after large numbers of people became involved in disorder in parts of East Leicester. Footage online shows hundreds of people, mainly men, filling the streets. …

It is the latest in a series of disturbances to have broken out following an India and Pakistan cricket match on 28 August.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , ,

Memory eternal: The quiet, yet very public faith, of Queen Elizabeth the Great

, , , , , , , , , ,
Memory eternal: The quiet, yet very public faith, of Queen Elizabeth the Great

Before wearing the Imperial State Crown, Queen Elizabeth II knelt at the Westminster Abbey altar for a moment of silent, private prayer.

The three-hour coronation in 1953 contained myriad oaths and symbols, but the most ancient rite -- Archbishop of Canterbury Geoffrey Fisher anointing Elizabeth with holy oil -- sought the highest possible blessing on her life's work and eventually her death.

"Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God," he prayed, "who by his Father was anointed with the oil of gladness … that by the assistance of His heavenly grace you may govern and preserve the people committed to your charge in wealth, peace and godliness; and after a long and glorious course of ruling a temporal kingdom wisely, justly and religiously, you may at last be made partaker of an eternal kingdom."

Televised for the first time, 27 million BBC viewers watched what Oxford don C.S. Lewis called the "tragic splendour" of this drama.

“Over here people did not get that fairy-tale feeling about the coronation. What impressed most who saw it was the fact that the Queen herself appeared to be quite overwhelmed by the sacramental side of it," he noted, writing to an American friend.

It was "a feeling of (one hardly knows how to describe it) -- awe -- pity -- pathos -- mystery. The pressing of that huge, heavy crown on that small, young head becomes a sort of symbol of the situation of humanity itself: humanity called by God to be his vice-regent and high priest on earth, yet feeling so inadequate."

Few could have imagined that the woman many now call "Elizabeth the Great" would reign for 70 years, striving to lead by example after the suffering of World War II and into an age in which humanity would be united by the Internet, terrorism, pandemics and other challenges.


Please respect our Commenting Policy