In the beginning, there were two essential mainstream-press narratives about the coronavirus and religious worship.

The first was that most sane, science-affirming religious groups had moved their worship online and were cooperating with government authorities. The second was that there were lots of conservative white evangelicals who claimed (a) that God would shield them from the virus, (b) that COVID-19 was a myth, (c) they had some kind of First Amendment “religious liberty” right to gather for worship or (d) all of the above.

That approach was simplistic, from Day 1, for several reasons. Here at GetReligion we argued that the number of dissenters was actually surprisingly small — even in conservative religious traditions — and that the bigger story was the overwhelming majority of congregations that were doing everything they could to safely hold some kind of worship services, while honoring local laws and restrictions. Entire religious bodies — Catholic, Orthodox, Southern Baptists — developed plans for how to do that.

Early on, congregations trying to gather for worship outdoors — drive-in service of various kinds, especially — emerged as a crucial story angle. See this podcast and post, for example: “Who-da thunk it? Drive-in churches are First Amendment battlegrounds.”

Now we have a must-read Washington Post update on the legal efforts by Capitol Hill Baptist Church to force officials in the District of Columbia to, well, allow worshippers the same local right of outdoor assembly as protesters and marchers. Here’s the headline: “Federal court allows D.C. church to hold services outdoors despite coronavirus restrictions.” And here is a crucial block of material right up top:

Capitol Hill Baptist Church, which has 850 members and no online worship services, has been meeting in a Virginia field. The U.S. District Court’s granting of a preliminary injunction allows the church to meet outdoors en masse in the city, where most of its members live, while its lawsuit moves forward.
The church was not seeking a class action, and the decision, which can be appealed, applies only to Capitol Hill Baptist.
Capitol Hill Baptist, which had twice sought a waiver before suing, centered its argument on comparing D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser’s ban on religious gatherings over 100 with her toleration and encouragement of massive anti-racism protests over the summer.

To understand what's happening at the top of the Southern Baptist Convention these days, you really have to be willing to believe that, in the end, many religious believers truly believe that religious doctrine matters more than partisan politics.

Yes, I know. The headlines insist otherwise. Headlines tend to increase a few picas in size the minute the word "evangelicals" gets connected to the words "Donald Trump."

Here's a case in point. This past week, The New York Times basically ignored the dramatic national meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention -- with lots of developments linked to women and Baptists of color -- until it was possible to write a story with this headline: "Pence Reaches Out to Evangelicals. Not All of Them Reach Back."

But, hey, at least that one story did make an important point: One of the crucial tensions inside this particular SBC gathering was between clashing camps of solid "evangelicals." Actually, lots of people on both sides of that SBC debate about the Pence appearance would, under other circumstances, be called "fundamentalists" in the sacred pages of the Times.

This brings me to this weekend's think piece, which was written by Jonathan Leeman, editorial director of the 9Marks Journal and an active leader at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. He is also the author of a new book entitled, "How the Nations Rage: Rethinking Faith and Politics in a Divided Age."

The headline: "Truth, Power, and Pence at the SBC." Here's how this essay opens:

I’m sitting here at the Southern Baptist Convention. Earlier today Vice President Mike Pence addressed the convention. We were told he initiated the offer to speak. I wish we had not accepted.

Don’t misunderstand. I’m grateful to God for our nation. I want him to bless it. But here’s a question for my fellow Southern Baptists and evangelicals more broadly: can you name a place in the Bible where God sends a ruler of a (non-Israelite) nation to speak to God’s people? Is the pattern not just the opposite?

Now, what's this all about? Is it a missive from a "moderate" (which means "liberal," in current SBC speak) at an urban church in a blue-zip DC zip code within shouting distance of the Capitol dome?