ERLC

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

Thinking about an ancient question that's back in the news: 'Terrorist' or 'freedom fighter'?

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Thinking about an ancient question that's back in the news: 'Terrorist' or 'freedom fighter'?

What we have here is a news-you-can-use explainer on a controversial topic that comes from a source that, for some readers, will automatically be controversial.

The headline: “Why terrorists aren’t freedom fighters.” The source is the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, America’s largest non-Catholic religious body.

Ah, but if you follow SBC politics, you know that many on the political and cultural right now believe that the ERLC is kind of “woke” when it comes to issues of this kind. For other readers, the SBC is the SBC and that is that. I would suggest that it helps to contrast the ERLC staff’s material with, let’s say, “just war” thoughts from the Catholic left (care of the Jesuits at America magazine).

Also, the “one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter” debate looms over the results of this year’s “top stories” poll from the Religion News Association (Bobby Ross, Jr., summary here).

Here a view clips from the ERLC thinker. It’s always interesting when Southern Baptists get involved in debates that include Latin terms (“jus ad bellum”). Thus, let’s jump down to the section on the “moral requirements for going to war.” This isn’t the whole list of conditions, of course:

The primary difference is how they align with the criteria of the just war tradition. First, let’s measure them against the jus ad bellum, the moral requirement for going to war:

1. Just Cause: Like nation-states, non-state actors may have just and proper reasons for going to war. For example, they may be acting in self-defense to prevent genocide or acting to restore human rights wrongly denied.

2. Proportionate Cause: Again, like established nation-states, non-state actors could go to war to prevent more evil and suffering than their warfare is expected to cause.

3. Right Intention: Non-state actors may also have the right intentions for going to war. They could, for instance, be motivated by Christian love and pursuit of justice instead of an illegitimate intention to go to war, such as revenge.


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

Plug-In: Looming Israel-Hamas war brings familiar questions about the end of the world

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Plug-In: Looming Israel-Hamas war brings familiar questions about the end of the world

No big deal. OK, it’s sort of a big deal: went to Arlington, Texas, for the start of the World Series. Let’s go, Rangers! But you knew that I would say that.

Speaking of the Fall Classic, Marvin Olasky writes at ReligionUnplugged that the World Series “reflects life and what little we can control.” I sure hope my favorite team can control its bullpen and win its first title ever.

But you signed on for religion news, not my baseball analysis, so here goes: The new speaker of the U.S. House is a Southern Baptist who has served as a trustee of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Baptist Press’ Brandon Porter notes.

Rep. Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, suggested his election as speaker was ordained by God, according to Religion News Service.

This is our weekly roundup of the top headlines and best reads in the world of faith. We start again with the Israel-Hamas War, this time focusing on questions about the end of the world.

What To Know: The Big Story

End times debate: The Israel-Hamas war has sent Christians in search of prophetic meaning, as the Washington Times’ Mark A. Kellner, a former GetReligion contributor, explains:

Evangelical leaders are looking to the Bible’s end-of-days prophecies as congregants seek to understand the Israel-Hamas war.

While the Book of Revelation and the Gospel of Matthew offer details of what is to happen before Christ’s return, apocalyptic Scriptures have often been cited when global tensions flare up, such as Israel’s war of independence in 1948, the 1967 Six-Day War and the October War of 1973.

Believers also sounded alarms after the eruption of World War II, the Cold War and the 9/11 attacks.

“I think even secularists would tell you never have we faced so many severe threats in the world that we’re facing right now,” said the Rev. Robert Jeffress, senior pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Angry about Roe, many journalists focus on crisis pregnancy centers as villains behind it all

, , , , , ,
Angry about Roe, many journalists focus on crisis pregnancy centers as villains behind it all

Before the overturning of Roe v. Wade a little more than a week ago, crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) were considered by mainstream media to be the dregs of the pro-life movement, one of the last stories that anyone wanted to cover.

Now that abortion access is heading toward the deep-blue coastal regions with a few blue islands in the middle, a villain must be found. And voilà; the once despised CPCs are to blame for it all. Now, CPCs are worse than a non-story.

Apparently these places are pretty effective, judging from the editorial hate being poured down on them. They’re the bricks and mortar of the pro-life movement. Instead of reporting about how these CPCs — and the churches that tend to support them — have been defaced, set on fire or otherwise attacked, we have hit pieces like this Associated Press article about a “so-called” crisis pregnancy center in Charleston, WV.

The piece is so front-loaded with trash quotes from its opponents — with no rejoinder allowed from leaders or volunteers at the CPC itself — that you almost miss the story about the woman who visited the center back in 2014 planning to abort her child. She was (very reluctantly) dissuaded from doing so and now is “very happily” raising her 7-year-old son.

So, what’s the moral of this story? That this particular mother should have decided that this kid should be dead? The two reporters who did this disaster of a story don't want to go there.

Considering the invective tossed at these CPCs by places like Planned Parenthood, why aren’t reporters treating this more like a business story?

Like, the CPCs have outwitted the abortion clinics when it comes to figuring out what many pregnant women really want and it’s clear the abortion facilities have suffered financial losses as a result. How about asking people at the latter hard questions about the clients they’ve lost to the CPCs and whose bad marketing decision that was?

Hint: It might have to do with the free ultrasounds offered by the CPCs. Offering this service was a trend that began a decade or more ago and it really cried out for coverage.


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

If the big goal is racial reconciliation, pastors may want to start by breaking bread

, , , , , , ,
If the big goal is racial reconciliation, pastors may want to start by breaking bread

The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., faced a barrage of questions about race and politics during his landmark 1960 appearance on NBC News' "Meet the Press," but one of the most memorable exchanges concerned a blunt question about church life.

"How many white people are members of your church in Atlanta?", asked a reporter from Nashville.

"I think it is one of the tragedies of our nation, one of the shameful tragedies, that 11 o'clock on Sunday morning is one of the most segregated hours, if not the most segregated hour, in Christian America," King replied. Any church that has "a segregated body is standing against the spirit and the teachings of Jesus Christ, and it fails to be a true witness," he added.

Millions of Americans are still wrestling with this Sunday morning divide.

But another practical question emerged during a recent Southern Baptist Convention program entitled "Pursuing Unity: A Discussion of Racial Reconciliation Efforts and the SBC." Can Black and White church folks find gaps in their jammed schedules and start breaking bread together?

"It doesn't matter how many panel discussions you watch. It doesn't matter how many books you read, how many conferences you go to. None of that will do better than dinner table ministry," said the Rev. Jon Kelly of Chicago West Bible Church.

If people want progress, he said, they need to consider their circle of friends and ask "why everyone looks like me, votes like me, thinks like me. … When we talk about racial reconciliation, we want the fruit of reconciliation without the relationships. Until our dinner tables become diversified, … until we eat bread together and fellowship together, we won't make any progress."

Fellowship meals will not make headlines or ignite rhetorical fireworks in social media, and that's a good thing, said the Rev. Ed Litton, who recently said he wouldn't seek a second term as SBC president. He plans to focus on racial-reconciliation projects linked to his own church near Mobile, Ala.

Years ago, he said, Black and White pastors began sharing meals while discussing the "deep wounds" in that racially divided community. The key was focusing on faith and the ties that bind, until basic bonds of trust were in place.

"We hashed out why we were there," said Litton. "We weren't there to bring about some kind of social change.


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

That question again: What's happening to religious believers and others stuck in Afghanistan?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
That question again: What's happening to religious believers and others stuck in Afghanistan?

This is a case in which I don’t want to say, “We told you so,” but -- well — we told you so.

If you dug into this recent podcast-post — “ 'What's next in Afghanistan?' Warning: this news topic involves religion” — you’d know that the GetReligion team has been worried about what will happen to elite news coverage of human rights issues and, specifically, religious freedom, in Afghanistan under this new Taliban regime. In fact, that podcast included many themes from an earlier GetReligion podcast-post with this headline: “When the Taliban cracks down, will all the victims be worthy of news coverage?”

It appears that there are two problems.

Reality No. 1: It’s hard to cover the hellish realities of life in the new-old Afghanistan without discussing the messy exit of U.S. diplomats and troops from that troubled nation. Thus, new coverage will please Republicans, who are infuriated about that issue, and anger the White House team of President Joe Biden, which wants to move on. New coverage allows Republicans to “pounce,” as the saying goes.

Reality No. 2: There are many valid stories inside Afghanistan right now, but some are more explosive than others in terms of fallout here in America. This is especially true when dealing with stories about Americans who are still trapped there. Then there are religious believers — including Christians and members of minority groups inside Islam — who face persecution and even executions because of their beliefs. It appears that some journalism executives (and foreign-policy pros) continue to struggle with the reality that religious issues are at the heart of the Afghanistan conflict.

Thus, cases of political and religious persecution in Afghanistan are “conservative news.” For a quick overview, see this National Review piece: “In Afghanistan, ‘Almost Everyone Is in Danger Now.’ “ Note this snarky line:

The sort of headline that shouldn’t just be local news. … Those knee-jerk Biden critics over at . . . er, the Connecticut affiliate of NBC News report: “43 Connecticut Residents Still Stuck In Afghanistan.”

Here is a key chunk of that NBCConnecticut.com report:


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

Are we finally witnessing the long-anticipated (by journalists) evangelical crack-up? 

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Are we finally witnessing the long-anticipated (by journalists) evangelical crack-up? 

Those impossible-to-ignore and hard-to-define white " evangelicals" have, for decades, been the largest and most dynamic sector in U.S. religion. Are we finally witnessing an evangelical crack-up as so long anticipated -- and desired -- by liberal critics?

That's a big theme for the media to affirm or deny.

To begin, The Religion Guy is well aware that millions of these conservative Protestants quietly attend weekly worship, join Bible and prayer groups, try to help those in need, fund national and foreign missions and are oblivious to discussions of this sort on the national level.

For years we've seen a telltale slide of membership and baptisms in the Southern Baptist Convention, that massive and stereotypical evangelical denomination. At the same time, it’s clear (follow the work of Ryan Burge for background) that many of those Southern Baptists have simply moved to independent, nondenominational evangelical megachurches of various kinds.

But more than numbers, analysts are pondering insults to cultural stature, which greatly affect any movement's legitimacy, respect, impact and appeal to potential converts, especially with younger adults.

The Scopes Trial to forbid teaching of Darwinian evolution nearly a century ago continues to shape perceptions of evangelicalism and its fundamentalist wing, especially due to the fictionalized 1955 play and 1960 movie "Inherit the Wind." No doubt ongoing evangelical enthusiasm for Donald Trump has a similar negative impact among his critics, but this is not merely a political story but involves evangelicalism's internal dynamics. The Trump era exacerbates divisions that already existed despite unity in belief.

Turn to former GetReligion writer Mark Kellner, who is already making his mark (pun intended) as the new "faith and family" reporter for the Washington Times. Here is an essential recent read: “After scandals, is evangelical Christianity's image damaged?"

The immediate cause behind the question was an odd little incident that spoke volumes, the sacking of Daniel Darling as spokesman for National Religious Broadcasters (NRB).


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

Thinking about fights over religious liberty and 'religious exemptions' from COVID vaccines

, , , , , , , ,
Thinking about fights over religious liberty and 'religious exemptions' from COVID vaccines

The Delta variant story keeps getting bigger and bigger, which means that debates between anti-vaccine activists and mainstream science and government leaders are getting hotter and hotter.

There are plenty of religion-news angles there, of course. There are plenty of articles to read about COVID-19, vaccines and fights in pews.

With that in mind, let’s connect several dots while on our way to this weekend’s “think piece” — which is a David French essay with this double-decker headline:

It’s Time to Stop Rationalizing and Enabling Evangelical Vaccine Rejection

There is no religious liberty interest in refusing the COVID vaccine.

Start here, with this passage near the end of my GetReligion post earlier this week that ran with this headline: “Was this a story? Why? Mississippi governor talks about heaven and Southern anti-vax trends.”

When thinking about religious liberty and those seeking exemptions from vaccine mandates, remember that — for decades — the U.S. Supreme Court has said that government can ask tough questions about religious beliefs and actions when they involve fraud, profit and clear threats to life and health. Watch for discussions of that third factor in these public-policy debates. …

The fact that there are bitter debates on this topic in conservative pews is a sign of DIVISION on the topic, not that Black and White believers are UNITED against vaccines and masks. The press coverage keeps implying unity here and that is the opposite of what the facts show.

Now, it is becoming clear that some religious leaders are going to test these religious-liberty arguments with employers and then in courts.


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

Thinking about the practical impact of shaming messages aimed at vaccine-resistant believers

, , , , , , , ,
Thinking about the practical impact of shaming messages aimed at vaccine-resistant believers

During my decades in religion-beat work, I have heard many an evangelical leader make the following sardonic observation.

Wait, I’ve also heard traditional Catholics offer variations on this theme. And there may be partisan political versions of this, as well. But that’s not my turf.

OK, here is the message: The quickest way for an evangelical to receive glowing elite press coverage and commentary (add social-media praise, after about 2000+) is to attack other evangelicals.

Now, that is not what this think piece is about. I say that, even though some vaccine-resistant religious leaders may have thought that’s what Daniel Darling, senior vice president for Communications at the NRB (think National Religious Broadcasters) was doing in his recent USA Today op-ed entitled, “Why, as a Christian and an American, I got the COVID vaccine.”

But careful readers could see that his message was way more complicated than that. If you weren’t sure about his intent, check out the lengthy interview with Darling that followed on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program (click here or see the YouTube at the top of the full copy of this post). The veteran evangelical leader — former head of communications for the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission — was clearly sending two messages.

Yes, one was to religious leaders who have doubts about the COVID-19 vaccines. But he also had sobering words for their critics, whose attacks have caused anger and conflict, instead of changing minds.

Thus, what we have here is a piece of op-ed work, and the MSNBC appearance that followed, that people on both sides of this warfare need to parse carefully. This includes journalists who are covering this story — which is so not over yet.


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

#SBC2021, CRT and sexual abuse: Are compromises possible in this complex showdown?

, , , , , , , , ,
#SBC2021, CRT and sexual abuse: Are compromises possible in this complex showdown?

When most journalists, and thus most news consumers, think of Southern Baptists it’s highly likely that “compromise” is not one of the first words that leaps to mind.

But think about this for a moment. The current firestorm surrounding the Southern Baptist Convention’s national meetings in Nashville (tomorrow and Wednesday) centers on recent efforts by the convention’s leaders to find working compromises on two explosive issues in church life — racism and sexual abuse. In both cases, forces have pulled at convention leaders to move further to the right or to pursue more “progressive” options that would clash with realities in SBC life and polity.

Consider the hellish realities of racism and, in particular, the complex secular doctrines of “Critical Race Theory.” The SBC could praise CRT and embrace it or totally reject this school of thought. A compromise? That would stress listening to conservative Black church leaders and saying that CRT makes some points about racism in America that are valid, but that it also contains secular views of evil and race that do not mesh with traditional Christian beliefs. Hold that thought.

On sexual abuse, there are progressives who want the SBC to start some kind of national agency that would be granted powers to yank abusive clergy and congregations into line. This would clash with Baptist teachings on the autonomy of local churches. At the same time, others say SBC leaders have already gone to far while trying to create a centrist, compromise, stance — providing some guidelines for churches facing accusations of sexual abuse, as well as best-practices materials on how to help victims.

So, here is the journalism question to ponder in the next few days: Can national-level religion reporters find a way to avoid the classic two-army, left vs. right, template that dominates most news coverage of clashes of this kind? This would allow readers to see the larger picture — the attempt to find compromises between two extremes that please enough conservatives to prevent a damaging explosion in SBC life.


Please respect our Commenting Policy