, , , , , , , , , ,

Return of the evangelical arguments about morality, character and two-party politics

, , , , , , , , , ,
Return of the evangelical arguments about morality, character and two-party politics

It was totally logical for the Southern Baptist Convention to pass its "Resolution on Moral Character of Public Officials" in 1998.

Consider this "whereas" clause: "Some journalists report that many Americans are willing to excuse or overlook immoral or illegal conduct by unrepentant public officials so long as economic prosperity prevails." This was followed by: "Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God's judgment."

Thus, the SBC urged American leaders to "live by the highest standards of morality both in their private actions and in their public duties."

Yes, this resolution passed soon after the infamous claim by President Bill Clinton, a Southern Baptist, that "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

It was easy to predict who thought Clinton should exit the White House, noted conservative writer Marvin Olasky, who was writing "The American Leadership Tradition: Moral Vision from Washington to Clinton" at that time.

"In poker, you really don't know what cards someone has," said Olasky, reached by telephone. "You can't tell, with certainty, the character of a politician. … In that book, I argued that the state of a man's marriage was a strong tell. If he's faithful in his marriage, he's likely to be faithful to the nation."

Olasky's fellow religious conservatives praised the book. But things changed when he wrote a World magazine essay in 2016 entitled, "Unfit for power," arguing that Donald Trump should step aside as the Republican nominee.

"Clinton had denied having a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but her stained blue dress bearing Clinton's DNA was proof that he had used his power for adulterous purposes, and then lied about it," wrote Olasky. Then there was the videotape showing "Trump making lewd remarks about groping women's genitals. While many opponents … have criticized Trump's character, the video gave us new information about how Trump views power as a means to gratify himself."

Olasky recirculated this 2016 editorial after Trump's recent announcement that he would seek the presidency once again, igniting renewed social-media warfare among evangelicals about morality, character and the winner-take-all nature of American politics -- especially when Supreme Court seats are vacant.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Why do ancient churches pray for the dead, while many modern churches do not?

, , , , ,
Why do ancient churches pray for the dead, while many modern churches do not?

THE QUESTION:

“Why Do Catholics Pray for the Dead?”

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

A Catholic News Agency feature for All Saints’ Day with the above headline was written by senior Rome Correspondent Hannah Brockhaus. One of The Guy’s colleagues immediately critiqued that wording because Eastern Orthodox Christians likewise pray for the dead — although in a different mode from Catholics, as we’ll see.

Perhaps the appropriate question should instead be: Why don’t Protestants pray for the dead when these other Christians have done so for many centuries?

There’s long-established history behind the practice of Christians during their earthly life praying to benefit fellow believers who are dead. This was commended by revered theologians of the early church.

By the early 5th Century, St. Augustine said “the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers.” He stated that through parishioners’ prayers, Masses, and donations, “there is no doubt that the dead are aided, that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve.”

The modern Orthodox catechism “The Living God” (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press) teaches that just as Jesus and St. Stephen prayed for forgiveness even for the people who were executing them, so “the prayer of the righteous can also help to obtain forgiveness for a sinner even if he is already dead.”

At this point, Protestants will object that the Bible does not teach such a concept. Their founding principle of sola scriptura means Christian beliefs are defined solely by explicit teachings in Scripture and not by church traditions, even ones that are longstanding and deep-seated.


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

Podcast: Is Colorado Springs covered by a 'fundamentalist' blanket of hate?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Is Colorado Springs covered by a 'fundamentalist' blanket of hate?

At this point, there are many, many crucial facts that journalists do not know about the horrible Club Q massacre in Colorado Springs.

This lack of facts has done little to shape the coverage. We do not, for example, know if Mx. Anderson Aldrich is sincere when claiming, in case documents, to be nonbinary. It will, in the meantime, be interesting to see if many mainstream newsrooms choose to deadname Aldrich in their coverage, perhaps by striving to avoid pronouns altogether.

We do know that the alleged shooter was raised in a broken home with multiple mental-health and violence issues. Consider, for example, the father — an ex-con MMA fighter turned porn star (and a Republican, of one form or another).

At this point, it does appear that some journalists — while searching for the “why” in the “who, what, when, where, why and how” formula — have decided to place the city of Colorado Springs on trial and, perhaps, the whole state of Colorado. This was the primary topic discussed in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

The key: A return of that dreaded journalism F-word — “fundamentalist.” For more background on this religion-beat disease, please see this GetReligion post by Richard Ostling (“What is 'Fundamentalism'? Name 666 or so examples from recent news coverage”) and this On Religion column (“Define ‘fundamentalist,’ please”) that I wrote in 2011.

Here is the key material from a USA Today story that, in my opinion, goes completely over the top while claiming that, to be blunt, a kind of hate cloud covers Colorado Springs. The headline: “Colorado Springs worked to change its anti-gay image — then its sole LGBTQ nightclub was targeted.”

Most notably, in 1992, religious fundamentalists from Colorado Springs wrote Amendment 2, a measure seeking to amend Colorado's constitution by making it illegal to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. The measure was approved by Colorado voters that November, earning Colorado the nickname of the "Hate State," according to the Colorado Springs Pioneer Museum. Amendment 2 was ultimately struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996.

The city is also the headquarters of Focus on the Family, a fundamentalist Protestant organization whose founder James Dobson is known for his stances against gay and trans rights.


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

Eastern University changes its doctrines on marriage, which is a totally valid news story

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Eastern University changes its doctrines on marriage, which is a totally valid news story

OK, I know that it has only been two months since I wrote about this topic and that recent post’s headline even included a nod to the fact that this is a topic I have addressed before.

Sue me. That headline stated: “Reminder to journalists (again): Private schools – left, right – can defend their core doctrines.”

You see, as a former professor on several Christian campuses, and the graduate of the Baylor University Church-State Studies graduate program (which, alas, closed a decade ago), this is the kind of subject that matters to me. And since this is Thanksgiving, I really need to find a way to frame this quick post as a Thanksgiving offering.

So here goes. I am thankful for the First Amendment and I am thankful that, at this point, it still protects the believers on both the left and the right, in terms of the freedom to exercise their beliefs in the real world.

This First Amendment reminder was inspired by a recent Religion News Service story with this headline: “Eastern University on hold from CCCU after dropping ban on LGBTQ faculty.” I should state, right up front, that I am a former founder and director of the Washington Journalism Center program at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities and, what do you know, I once interviewed for a proposed faculty slot at Eastern, where it was clear that I was not a good fit, doctrinally speaking.

There is nothing all that unusual about this RNS story. As one would expect, there is zero attempt in this “news” report — as opposed to an analysis piece — to represent small-o orthodox voices in this debate about life on a campus that has, as the story notes, been headed to the doctrinal left for several decades. This niche-news, advocacy journalism approach has, alas, become the norm on this topic. Here is the overture:

Eastern University, a Christian school affiliated with the American Baptist Churches USA, has amended its policies to allow for the hiring of LGBTQ faculty and to add sexual orientation to its non-discrimination statement.

As a result, its membership with the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities has been put on hold during the 2022-23 academic year, and the school is no longer listed online among the 150 U.S. and Canadian schools that belong to the Christian higher education association.


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

Celebrities rule: How should reporters assess the name fame game in religion?

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Celebrities rule: How should reporters assess the name fame game in religion?

As of the 2022 midterms, the United States had 49 million registered Democrats and 39 million registered Republicans, according to estimates from WorldPopulationReview.com.

Recent National Basketball Association and National Football League annual attendance combined came to 39 million. And last week, a religious leader named Timothy P. Broglio took charge of a U.S. organization with 67 million members.

Timothy who? That would be the archbishop who is the newly elected president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, who will lead the church in the U.S. through the 2024 election season and on the 2025. If you think his task is placid, note this liberal jeremiad — care of National Catholic Reporter — about his election.

Weeks before, Kristen Waggoner became a prime culture wars figure.

Kristen who? This evangelical attorney is the new president of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal non-profit that represents religious conservatives in matters like LGBTQ disputes, as in this critique of the Democrats’ marriage act. Her ADF is branded a “hate group” by the equally controversial Southern Poverty Law Center.

Point being that important leaders within segments of American religion are generally far less prominent than athletes, entertainers, politicians or tech billionaires. Publicity usually falls to clergy who run purchased-time broadcasts, utter political sound bites or are trapped in scandals.

Think Pat Robertson.

Things were different not so long ago when Billy Graham, and Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders, were titanic cultural and media personalities. In an earlier time (so to speak), Time magazine would devote a cover story to Christian thinkers C.S. Lewis (1947) or Reinhold Niebuhr (1948, written by Whittaker Chambers). Presbyterian bureaucrat Eugene Carson Blake (“Can Protestants Unite?”, 1961) or U.S. Catholic Cardinals Spellman (1946) or Cushing (1964).

Since the media and the Internet are meshuga over lists (is this David Letterman’s doing?), how about a well-reported article, not about our American era’s Top 10 religious celebrities, but which ones exercise the most influence, seen or unseen?


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

Who is covering this big story? The exodus of the Donald Trump faith advisors

, , , , , , ,
Who is covering this big story? The exodus of the Donald Trump faith advisors

An interesting wrinkle in religion news came up the other day when a bunch of news organizations did some digging and found out that former President Trump’s once loyal religious base had evaporated.

Perhaps one of the most shattering admissions of this loss came from one of his advisors who called the former president a “little elementary school child.”

Clearly a lot has changed on the Trump train faith-team front. Let’s start with this Religion News Service story:

WASHINGTON (RNS) — When Donald Trump launched his 2020 reelection bid in Orlando, Florida, three years ago, the event was riddled with faith-speak. Both Trump and then-Vice President Mike Pence repeatedly referenced God, arguing the Almighty had blessed America. Trump’s closest evangelical adviser, Florida pastor Paula White-Cain, opened up the event with a passionate invocation in which she insisted the “hand of God” would work for Trump.

But when Trump announced yet another White House bid from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida on Tuesday (Nov. 15), he did so with a speech devoid of overt religious references. It was unclear if the event included an invocation, and while some of Trump’s stalwart evangelical supporters were seen milling about the resort’s carpeted floors Tuesday evening — namely, conservative commentator Eric Metaxas, pastor Mark Burns and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell — many of the former president’s longtime religious defenders were nowhere to be seen.

Which brings up a question I’ve been wondering for some months: Where is the Rev. Paula White and was she at this Mar-a-Lago gathering? If not, why not?

Why ask? She has turned over the reins of her Orlando-area church to her son, so she’s not tied down with ecclesiastical responsibilities.

Instead, most have remained silent about his new campaign, while others have hinted at allegiances to other potential 2024 presidential contenders such as Pence and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.


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

AP soft-pedals big story: USA progressives winning (sort of) the United Methodist war

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
AP soft-pedals big story: USA progressives winning (sort of) the United Methodist war

If you have followed the half century of United Methodist Church warfare over the Bible, marriage and sex — I started covering this story in the early 1980s — you know the debates have consistently contained activists in three different camps. Here’s that line-up, for newcomers:

(1) The doctrinal right fighting for enforcement of the doctrines and rules in the church’s Book of Discipline.

(2) The North American establishment that has insisted that it could find a way to tweak the status quo — doctrine would change from zip code to zip code — so that everyone could stay in the same big financial tent, including LGBTQ activists in UMC seminaries and agencies.

(3) The candid doctrinal left — think West and Northeast — that openly proclaims the need to change 2,000 years of Christian tradition to fit the doctrines of the Sexual Revolution.

These divisions only became more complex as the United Methodists evolved into a truly global denomination that included booming churches in Africa and Asia — a form of diversity that made the denomination’s shrinking North American establishment more and more nervous.

In global meetings, a small-o orthodox coalition — most of the Global South plus a conservative U.S. minority — kept winning vote after General Conference vote to defend current doctrines. However, COVID-19 prevented crucial global meetings, allowing the U.S. establishment (Camp 2) several years to steer the ship.

This brings me to a new Associated Press report that does a great job, if that was the goal, of soft-pedaling recent victories by the establishment and candid left. The headline: “LGBTQ-friendly votes signal progressive shift for Methodists.” The overture:

The United Methodist Church moved toward becoming more progressive and LGBTQ-affirming during U.S. regional meetings this month that included the election of its second openly gay bishop. Conservatives say the developments will only accelerate their exit from one of the nation’s largest Protestant denominations.

Each of the UMC’s five U.S. jurisdictions — meeting separately in early November — approved similarly worded measures aspiring to a future of church where “LGBTQIA+ people will be protected, affirmed, and empowered.”

How would these aspirations come to pass?


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

Latter-day Saints back proposed same-sex marriage law, but other flocks remain concerned

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Latter-day Saints back proposed same-sex marriage law, but other flocks remain concerned

More than a decade ago, I wrote a piece for Christianity Today headlined, “Should the marriage battleground shift to religious freedom?”

In that article, University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock made the case that Christian conservatives who opposed same-sex marriage should shift their focus to fighting for their First Amendment religious-liberty rights.

I was reminded of that discussion when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — in what the Salt Lake Tribune characterized as “a stunning move” — “gave its support to a proposed federal law that would codify marriages between same-sex couples.”

The story by the Tribune’s Tamarra Kemsley and Peggy Fletcher Stack notes:

The Utah-based faith’s doctrine “related to marriage between a man and a woman is well known and will remain unchanged,” the church stated in a news release. “We are grateful for the continuing efforts of those who work to ensure the Respect for Marriage Act includes appropriate religious freedom protections while respecting the law and preserving the rights of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters.”

At Religion News Service, Bob Smietana traces the Latter-day Saints’ surprise backing of the federal law to the fallout from the church’s 2008 support for Proposition 8. That California ballot measure was aimed at banning same-sex marriage.

Smietana writes:

Voters narrowly approved Proposition 8, but their victory proved short-lived. A California court ruled that any ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

The church’s public image took a beating, said Benjamin Park, a scholar of Mormonism at Sam Houston State University. “Church leaders recognized the writing on the wall,” said Park.

The defeat led LDS leaders to back the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill that would protect same-sex marriage that Congress is now expected to pass this week with bipartisan support. In Wednesday’s 62-37 vote in the U.S. Senate to end debate on the bill and advance it, Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah was among the yeas.


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

Irish priest dares to preach on sex and sin -- creating a hellish media firestorm

, , , , , , ,
Irish priest dares to preach on sex and sin -- creating a hellish media firestorm

For centuries, Irish Catholics heard priests deliver sermons about sin, hell, repentance, grace and heaven.

Times have changed and an 80-year-old priest in County Kerry didn't get the memo.

"How will people know that God wants to forgive them if we don't tell them?", said Father Sean Sheehy, preaching as a substitute priest at St. Mary's Church, Listowel. "How will people who are lost, be found, if we -- as God's people -- don't call them and say, 'Look, God loves you. He has come to call sinners. But he wants you to have life, and to have it to the full'? …That's what he wants. He wants you to live life to the fullest."

The problem was that Sheehy's October 30 sermon stressed ancient Catholic doctrines on behaviors many modern Catholics refuse to call "sins."

This caused a media storm, including this Irish Times headline: "Fr Sheen Sheehy's Listowel sermon was an uncomfortable reminder of who we really were." Also, Kerry Bishop Ray Browne apologized, after 20-plus parishioners walked out of the rite, and barred Sheehy from saying Mass until the parish priest returns to the altar.

During his sermon, Sheehy fiercely condemned core doctrines of the Sexual Revolution, while defending Catholic teachings on marriage and sex.

"What is so sad today is you rarely hear about sin but it's rampant. It's rampant," he said. "We see it, for example, in the legislation of our governments. We see it in the promotion of abortion. We see it in the example of this lunatic approach of transgenderism. We see it, for example, in the promotion of sex between two men and two women.

"That is sinful, that is mortal sin and people don't seem to realize it. … And we need to listen to God about it -- because if we don't, then there is no hope for those people."

In his public statement about the furor, Bishop Browne said it's crucial for Catholics to have "total respect for one another" and it was wrong for Sheehy to address these issues during a weekend Mass.

"I apologize to all who were offended," he said. "The views expressed do not represent the Christian position."


Please respect our Commenting Policy