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

Stay tuned: Ceasefire in battles between LGBTQ rights and religious liberty?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Stay tuned: Ceasefire in battles between LGBTQ rights and religious liberty?

No doubt about it, someone will have to negotiate a ceasefire someday between the Sexual Revolution and traditional religious believers, said Justice Anthony Kennedy, just before he left the U.S. Supreme Court.

America now recognizes that "gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," he wrote, in the 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop decision. "The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression."

Kennedy then punted, adding: "The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts."

The high court addressed one set of those circumstance this week in its 6-3 ruling (.pdf here) that employers who fire LGBTQ workers violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which banned discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

Once again, the court said religious liberty questions will have to wait. Thus, the First Amendment's declaration that government "shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise of religion" remains one of the most volatile flashpoints in American life, law and politics.

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch -- President Donald Trump's first high-court nominee -- expressed concern for "preserving the promise of the free exercise of religion enshrined in our Constitution." He noted that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 "operates as a kind of super statute, displacing the normal operation of other federal laws." Also, a 1972 amendment to Title VII added a strong religious employer exemption that allows faith groups to build institutions that defend their doctrines and traditions.

Nevertheless, wrote Gorsuch, how these various legal "doctrines protecting religious liberty interact with Title VII are questions for future cases too."

In a minority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito predicted fights may continue over the right of religious schools to hire staff that affirm the doctrines that define these institutions -- even after the court's 9-0 ruling backing "ministerial exemptions" in the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School case in 2012.


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

A religion (and business) question: Why do we have so many different Bibles?

, , , , , , ,

THE QUESTIONS:

Why are there so many Bible translations in English on the market? Should there be?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

The Evangelical Textual Criticism blog (click here) is an international forum where conservative Protestant experts chew over what’s stirring with ancient manuscripts and translations of the Bible. It’s esoteric stuff for the most part, but some items carry broad interest.

This week’s top posting, worth pondering by everybody, begins with this biblical bang: “It’s time for someone to stand athwart American Christianity and yell ‘STOP.’” The piece pleads with publishers and scholars to no longer turn out ever more new Bible translations because this “rising tide sinks all boats,” causing confusion that undermines trust in the Scriptures. The writer is Mark Ward, academic editor of Lexham Press, which publishes Bible study materials that include its own Lexham English Bible (LEB) translation, with textual detail for “specialized study,” not everyday use.

The article takes direct aim at the newly announced Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) that is being translated by an influential California pastor Ward greatly respects, John MacArthur, and colleagues at The Master’s University and Seminary. MacArthur has long favored the very literal (and thus rather wooden) New American Standard Bible, issued in 1971 and now available in a 1995 update. Another NASB update is due within a year but the pubisher will keep the 1995 rendition in print also. Ward says MacArthur’s Bible is in the same tradition, so soon we’ll have three variants of one Bible on the market.

He is not pleased about that. And he “simply cannot bear” MacArthur’s “marketing slogan” that his Bible will be “absolutely accurate.” Legitimate views on what that means with a particular passage will never agree, he says, and “there is no possibility — none” that the new Bible is more accurate than the major translations already available.

This debate deals with only the actual text of the Bible translated into English, not the host of study editions that add explanatory footnotes, sidebars, maps, charts and articles, some pitched to particular audiences such as women, youth, or recovery groups. Those variants are one answer to the “why” question above. Another is that Protestants and Catholics have different Bibles because their Old Testament has a slightly different list of books. And — let’s be honest — there’s money to be made from the novelty of a new translation, especially if it catches on.


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

New podcast: What's next in terms of Sexual Revolution vs. religious liberty news?

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

Decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court usually make headlines, especially when the court is bitterly divided. Few things cause as much chaos in American life than 5-4 decisions from on high.

Meanwhile, 9-0 decisions — which are actually quite common — often receive little attention. They are, however, extremely important because they display a unity on the high court that should, repeat “should,” be hard to shatter.

I bring this up, of course, because of the 6-3 SCOTUS ruling redefining the word “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the wake of that historic victory for LGBTQ activists, reporters who cover legal issues, especially church-state conflicts, have to start thinking: Where is this story going now?

That’s precisely what “Crossroads” host Todd Wilken and I talked about in this week’s podcast (click here to tune that in). Journalists can expect clashes sooner, rather than later, when it comes to LGBTQ Americans presenting evidence that they were fired, or were not given a fair chance to be hired, at businesses operated by traditional Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.

One could start a timer, methinks, to measure how long it will be until the first story of this kind breaks involving Hobby Lobby or Chick-fil-A. The more important story, however, will be how this new legislation passed by the Supreme Court will affect traditional religious believers across the nation who own and operate small businesses. Journalists looking for stories on the cultural left will want to visit businesses led by religious believers who stress that they have had no problems with their employees.

However, let’s go back to that other religious question: What is the next shoe that will drop?

With that in mind, reporters may want to ponder the implications of a 9-0 church-state decision at the Supreme Court in 2012 — which isn’t that long ago, in legal terms. I am referring to Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC. That’s the case that strengthened the concept of a “ministerial exception” that gives doctrinally defined religious institutions great freedom in the hiring and firing of employees. The bottom line: The state isn’t supposed to become entangled in personnel decisions that involve doctrine.

Why does that matter right now? As I argued this week (“ 'But Gorsuch...' crashes at Supreme Court: Now watch for 'Utah' references in news reports“), debates about Title VII religious exemptions are looming in the near future. At that point, all roads lead to the 9-0 ruling on Hosanna-Tabor.

The question legal minds are asking: Are we about to see a drama with two acts?


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

Just a church-business story? Black pastor is new chairman of top Southern Baptist board

, , , , , , , , , , ,

In this coronavirus age, religion-beat reporters are, along with their newsroom colleagues, being deluged with invitations to attend virtual news events.

In some cases, these are “gatherings” that major newspapers would have staffed in the past, even if it meant shelling out travel-budget dollars for airplane tickets and hotel rooms. Those days are long gone, for 99% of reporters.

The problem now, of course, is that reporters have a limited amount of time and, in some cases, the decline in newsroom personnel is a problem. So which virtual-meeting URLs get clicked and which ones do not?

I thought about this because of an event that happened yesterday (June 17) linked to the biggest story in America, right now — #BlackLivesMatter protests and attempts by major American institutions to respond to them.

So this discussion of race and the church (Facebook Live archive here) involved the leader of America’s largest Protestant flock, the new chairman of its powerful executive committee and black church leaders from Philadelphia, Chicago, Baltimore-Washington, D.C. and Nashville.

Newsworthy? Maybe, maybe not. It is interesting to note that all of the participants were affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention and the Rev. Ronnie Floyd, the CEO of the SBC’s executive committee, was the only white evangelical in the circle.

The other clergy participants: Rolland Slade, senior pastor of Meridian Baptist Church of El Cajon, Calif., and newly elected chairman of the SBC executive committee; Charlie Dates, pastor of Progressive Baptist Church in Chicago; Kevin Smith, executive director of the Baptist Convention of Maryland/Delaware; and Willie McLaurin, vice president of Great Commission relations and mobilization of the executive committee; and K. Marshall Williams of Nazarene Baptist Church of Philadelphia.

As you would imagine, lots of the discussion focused on the hurt and anger that is fueling protests across America.


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

That question again: Where is the familiar faith theme in news about these civil rights events?

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Coverage continues of protests and other events linked to the life and death of George Floyd.

It’s impossible, of course, to read all of this material. But while reading what I can, I have continued to look for facts and images linked to what I think is one of the most interesting elements of this story — an angle readers might expect to be seeing, in light of the history of civil rights work of this kind.

The big question: Where are the African-American clergy in these news stories? I doubt they are sitting on the sidelines during this historic moment. This question is, of course, central to discussions of press coverage of religion in these events.

Did you see this material in Julia Duin’s fascinating first-person visit into CHAZ territory? See this post: “Seattle's de-policed CHAZ district is a religion-free zone, even in mainstream press.”

As my friends and I were arriving at CHAZ, there was a meeting of black pastors south of us who were trying to support the local police — who’ve taken a beating in all this. The police were forced to vacate CHAZ, even though the chief, a black female, told the media she has not wanted to leave. Mayor Jenny Durkan, who calls CHAZ a place with “a block party atmosphere,” overruled her. …

These black clergy clearly resent how the white Social Justice Warriors are taking over the debate. Wish a reporter could explore that angle more.

Once again, here is the question: Are black clergy attempting to play a leadership role in some of these discussions and (a) being shunned by other leaders? Or are the clergy there, as usual, but (b) not receiving any coverage? What’s going on?

In a way, this is a hard-news angle linked to questions that I raised the other day in this post: “Dramatic funeral service for George Floyd: Was there Gospel in it, or only politics?”

It is interesting that some reporters — in religious publications — took the time to dig into the live-streamed video of this funeral and note the Christian themes and content, especially in the music and biblical images.

Here is a must-read on that, care of Kate Shellnutt at Christianity Today: “The Songs and Scriptures of George Floyd’s Houston Funeral.” Here is a crucial passage from this feature:


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

Looking ahead: After SCOTUS ruling, some major faith groups still face LGBTQ battles

, , , , , , , , , ,

In a closely-watched case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday (.pdf here) that gay and transgender employees are now included under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars job discrimination based upon “sex.” With the high court’s prior edict legalizing same-sex marriage, that settles much of secular law except for ongoing disputes between LGBTQ rights and religious liberty, which journalists should be prepared to cover for some time to come (see tmatt update here)

The doctrines within most American religious groups are also settled. Many “mainline” and liberal Protestant churches, Jewish organizations, Unitarian Universalists and others are committed to same-sex weddings and clergy ordinations. Meanwhile, there’s no prospect sexual traditionalism will be abandoned by e.g. Islam, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, the Southern Baptist Convention and other evangelical groups, the Church of God in Christ (the largest African-American body), Orthodox Judaism or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

But three divided Protestant denominations have showdowns ahead, all postponed from this year due to the coronavirus crisis. The media have widely reported on the impending massive split in the United Methodist Church. Legislation on this is expected from a General Conference in August 29-September 7, 2021 (mark your calendars).

Any day now, the venerable Reformed Church in America will receive a panel’s plan to resolve its “soul-sapping conflict” at next June’s General Synod. Proposals have included continuation of the ambiguous status quo, radical reorganization perhaps with three loosely affiliated entities or outright “graceful separation” based upon sexual belief. Watch for news breaks here.

The pacifist Church of the Brethren ( www.brethren.org) is further along on the schism path. There may be no way the Annual Conference of June 30–July 4, 2021, can prevent a breakaway, since a conservative “Covenant Brethren Church” began operating last year. Sources: Church of the Brethren General Secretary David Steele (800–323–8039), CBC chair Grover Duling (groverduling@gmail.com and 540-810-3455), and the liberal caucus Brethren Mennonite Council for LGBT Interests (bmc@bmclgbt.org and 612-343-2050).

Then there’s the conservative Presbyterian Church in America, which just released a 60-page committee report on human sexuality (.pdf here) to come before a General Assembly June 29–July 2, 2021.


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

'But Gorsuch...' crashes at Supreme Court: Now watch for 'Utah' references in news reports

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

It’s no surprise that mainstream news reports about the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling on LGBTQ rights for secular workers included a strong note of celebration. To the victors go the spoils and this was a big win for the cultural left and, one can only assume, the new middle America — as defined by the Harvard and Yale law schools.

The unanswered question hanging over all of this was, of course, the same one that haunted the majority opinion written by Donald Trump’s first choice for the high court. That would be: What happens to the bigots — sexual orientation now equals race — in churches, synagogues, mosques, etc., who run schools and nonprofit organizations built on centuries of premodern doctrine? After all, it’s hard to tolerate religious believers who are intolerant.

It’s also important, of course, to ask whether grieving believers on the religious and cultural right will stay home during the 2020 elections since they can no longer say, “But the Supreme Court” when justifying votes for the Tweeter In Chief.

Expect waves of coverage of that in the days ahead, of course.

Political wars vs. religion news? No contest.

What matters the most, to readers in middle America, is how this story was covered by the Associated Press. In this case, AP stuck close to the political and legal angles of the decision, with little or no interpretation from activists on the left, the right or in the middle.

In other words, this was not a story in which First Amendment content was crucial. So there. The headline: “Supreme Court says gay, transgender workers protected by law.” Here’s the overture:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a landmark civil rights law protects gay, lesbian and transgender people from discrimination in employment, a resounding victory for LGBT rights from a conservative court.

The court decided by a 6-3 vote that a key provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 known as Title VII that bars job discrimination because of sex, among other reasons, encompasses bias against people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , ,

Seattle's de-policed CHAZ district is a religion-free zone, even in mainstream press

, , ,

While coverage of religion during the protests surrounding the death of George Floyd has revolved around the antics of President Donald Trump hoisting a Bible, there’s been no mention of it here in “occupied” Seattle.

Living in the suburbs as I do, I wondered if there is some faith-based news happening on Capitol Hill –- the part of the Emerald City that’s been taken over by protestors and devoid of police for more than a week. If so, journalists are not mentioning it. After scouring the pages of the Seattle Times and other publications, I only found one mention, by the Wall Street Journal’s religion reporter, of a group of chaplains on site.

So on Sunday afternoon, I decided to repair to what was known as CHAZ (Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone) –- a six-block area -– to see for myself. (As of Sunday, the area is also known as CHOP for Capitol Hill Occupied Protest to signify these folks aren’t leaving the area any time soon. I’ll use the CHAZ moniker).

I’d hung back before, mainly because (1)I didn’t know if I’d be welcome as a white person; (2) The weather has been rainy for weeks here; and (3) I don’t know that area of town very well. Then #VisitSeattle ran this post on their Facebook page last Friday telling everyone to drop on by.

Contrary to what you may have seen in some news reports, Seattle is not under siege. We are healing. We are growing. We are coming together to learn from each other and support our neighbors. This is our community. And it's beautiful.

Then I saw a widely distributed video showing a white preacher getting beaten by a vicious crowd at CHAZ (shown below). The preacher was hoisting a sign and yelling “Sin is worse than death!” Yes, a mob congregated, flung themselves on him, forcibly kissed him (sexual assault anyone?) and stole his phone. I am not excusing his horrible treatment, but I wondered at the wisdom of this guy trying to use the #BlackLivesMatter space as a Gospel-preaching platform.

CHAZ is not a space for white folks to do street preaching at this point. The emotions are too raw. Why didn’t he team up with black Christian friends and have them preach instead of him? What he did was just stupid.

Yes, he had a First Amendment right to be there, but remember, dear readers, that the mayor has ceded this area to CHAZ, so forget about constitutional rights and police protection as well.


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

Thinking about journalism as religion: Damon Linker on 'woke' press shunning old liberalism

, , , , , , ,

Long ago, when GetReligion was born, another website set out to offer its own view of religion and the news.

From the start, GetReligion wanted to defend the old-school approach to journalism that historians call the American Model of the Press.

The other site — The Revealer — basically approached religion as a great global mystery that journalists feared handling. Since it was all a mystery, it should be covered that way — with a magazine feature approach that offered all kinds of room for analysis, opinion and strange details. It’s kind of an online magazine about religion that you can tell is rooted in college and academic culture.

At the time of that site’s birth, New York University journalist professor Jay Rosen wrote a piece entitled “Journalism Is Itself a Religion.” The epic subtitle said, in part: “The newsroom is a nest of believers if we include believers in journalism itself. There is a religion of the press. There is also a priesthood.”

Rosen described some of the doctrines of this de facto newsroom religion, as he saw it from his desk in New York. I bring this up as a way of introducing a think piece — another Damon Linker essay at The Week about the civil war inside the newsroom at The New York Times: “The woke revolution in American journalism has begun.” This war is, you see, a clash between competing doctrinal approaches to journalism.

But before we go there, let’s go back to a key chunk of the Rosen piece — which focuses one of the key problems that shape the religion of journalism. You will immediately see the link to GetReligion. This is long, but essential:

Ninety percent of the commentary on this subject takes in another kind of question entirely: What results from the “relative godlessness of mainstream journalists?” Or, in a more practical vein: How are editors and reporters striving to improve or beef up their religion coverage?

Here and there in the discussion of religion “in” the news, there arises a trickier matter, which is the religion of the newsroom, and of the priesthood in the press.


Please respect our Commenting Policy