Evangelicals

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

Podcast: Why didn't @NYTimes mention complex political history of 'equal access' laws?

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

The church-state roller-coaster at the U.S. Supreme Court just keeps going and we’re not done yet.

The main purpose of this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) was to talk about my recent post about Chief Justice Roberts and his decision to switch sides and defend the high court’s abortion legacy. SCOTUS, on a 5-4 vote, took down a Louisiana state law that would have required doctors working in abortion facilities to have the same kind of admitting privileges at local hospitals and those who work in other specialty surgery centers.

Mainstream journalists didn’t seem interested in the personalities behind that law. To get those ordinary facts, readers had to go to religious and/or “conservative” websites. Thus, I offered this headline: “Conservative news? White GOP justice strikes down bill by black, female pro-life Democrat.” Gov. John Bel Edwards of Louisiana, who signed the bill, is a Democrat, too.

Why did so many journalists ignore that angle? It would appear that those facts didn’t fit into the white evangelicals just love Donald Trump template. Why muddy the political waters with coverage of two Democrats — a black Baptist and a white Catholic?

Lo and behold, by the time we did the live Lutheran Public Radio show, the court had released another 5-4 decision that, at first glance, had little or nothing to do with the Louisiana abortion bill. Here’s the New York Times double-decker headline on that story:

Supreme Court Gives Religious Schools More Access to State Aid

Religious schools should have the same access to scholarships and funds as other private schools, the justices ruled, in a victory for conservatives.

Readers who have followed church-state issues will recognize a key fact that the Times team — to its credit — got into that headline: Secular and religious private schools should be treated the same.

That immediately made me wonder if the Times, and other major mainstream outlets, were going to realize that this “equal access” principle was crucial to the church-state coalition of liberals and conservatives that accomplished so much working with (wait for it) the Clinton White House.

That’s interesting, right?


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

Thinking with Ratzinger and Burge: Concerning sex, marriage, doctrine and church decline

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

When historians write about the career of Pope Benedict XVI I predict that they will include a sobering quote that dates back to his life and work as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany.

I am referring to that 2001 interview when — looking at trends in postmodern Europe — he put all of his hopes and fears on the record. I thought of this exchange during a Twitter dialogue the other day with GetReligion contributor Ryan Burge. Hold that thought.

Ratzinger had been candid before. German journalist Peter Seewald probed on this topic by noting an earlier quote in which Ratzinger said that the future church would be "reduced in its dimensions; it will be necessary to start again." Had the leader of Rome's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith changed his views?

That led to this famous reflection by the future pope. This is long, but essential:

[The Church] will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. As the number of her adherents diminishes … she will lose many of her social privileges. … As a small society, [the Church] will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members. …

It will be hard-going for the Church, for the process of crystallization and clarification will cost her much valuable energy. It will make her poor and cause her to become the Church of the meek. … The process will be long and wearisome as was the road from the false progressivism on the eve of the French Revolution — when a bishop might be thought smart if he made fun of dogmas and even insinuated that the existence of God was by no means certain. … But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church. Men in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely. If they have completely lost sight of God, they will feel the whole horror of their poverty. Then they will discover the little flock of believers as something wholly new. They will discover it as a hope that is meant for them, an answer for which they have always been searching in secret.

And so it seems certain to me that the Church is facing very hard times. The real crisis has scarcely begun. We will have to count on terrific upheavals. But I am equally certain about what will remain at the end: not the Church of the political cult, which is dead already, but the Church of faith.


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

Bitter split in Baptist flock in Alabama: Was this about Donald Trump or ancient doctrines?

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

As part of its ongoing visits to flyover country in Middle America, the New York Times recently ran a long feature with this epic headline: “The Walls of the Church Couldn’t Keep the Trump Era Out — The young pastor wasn’t sure his congregation would like what he had to say and had no idea where it would lead all of them. He found himself at a crossroads of God, Alabama and Donald Trump.”

Now, that headline is — to be blunt — quite dishonest.

While I acknowledge that the Trump era plays a role in this Baptist drama — rooted in tensions surrounding the ministry of a progressive, the Rev. Chris Thomas — the Times article contains a thesis statement near the end that is much more honest. Here is that summary paragraph:

Racism had driven Mr. Thomas from his first church in Alabama; at Williams it had been gay rights that had caused the division.

In Times-speak, of course, debates about racism and gay rights are one and the same — ideological clashes about politics. The reality is more complex than that, pivoting on two ancient doctrinal questions: Is racism a sin? The orthodox (or Orthodox) answer is, “Yes.” The second question: Is sex outside of traditional marriage a sin? The orthodox answer there, for 2,000 years, has been, “Yes.”

There are other doctrines lurking in the background that may, or may not, have affected the crisis inside this particular Alabama congregation, which the Times piece describes as: “First Baptist Church of Williams, a relatively liberal church with a mostly white congregation.”

That’s a pretty good description of the world of “moderate” Baptists and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a network of like-minded churches that emerged after the Southern Baptist Convention civil war that began in the late 1970s.

There is no way for me to write about this story without saying, candidly, that this subject is directly linked to my life and that of my family, at all levels. My wife and I were married in a “moderate” church next to Baylor University, using a rite from a modernized version of the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer. The last Baptist congregation we attended — in Charlotte, N.C. — was to the theological left of FBC Williams.

A key moment, for me, was a conversation I had with one of the church deacons, a philosophy professor at a Baptist college near Charlotte. This church leader asked what, for me, was the most important doctrine in Christian faith.


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

Thinking with Ryan Burge: God 'anointing' presidents -- a Trump thing or an American thing?

, , , , , , , , , ,

Maybe something strange leaked into the American water system a dozen years or so.

I am not a Republican, so I wasn’t part of the choir that sang the praises of Ronald Reagan. I do remember that journalists and historians were nervous about Reagan referring to America as an “anointed” land (example here). However, I don’t remember his followers using similar “anointing” language to describe the president. Ditto for George W. Bush.

I do remember (I was still a Democrat at the time) the wave of interesting semi-religious images and language in press coverage of the young Sen. Barack Obama as he started his bid for the White House. Folks who have been around will remember the online feature — “The Obama Messiah Watch” — that Timothy Noah launched at Slate. Here is the overture for the first post in that series:

Is Barack Obama — junior U.S. senator from Illinois, best-selling author, Harvard Law Review editor, Men’s Vogue cover model, and “exploratory” presidential candidate — the second coming of our Savior and our Redeemer, Prince of Peace and King of Kings, Jesus Christ? His press coverage suggests we can’t dismiss this possibility out of hand. I therefore inaugurate the Obama Messiah Watch, which will periodically highlight gratuitously adoring biographical details that appear in newspaper, television, and magazine profiles of this otherworldly presence in our midst. …

Readers are invited to submit … details — Obama walking on water, Obama sating the hunger of 5,000 with five loaves and two fishes — from other Obama profiles.

I bring this up to point readers to an interesting feature entitled “Trump The Anointed?” at the Religion In Public blog — written by Paul A. Djupe and GetReligion contributor Ryan P. Burge.

Here is how that post opens, referring to people who — in polling nearly a year ago — believed that Donald Trump was “anointed by God to be president of the United States”:

Just 21% believed this, but evangelicals were more likely to believe it (29%), and pentecostals were the most likely (53%). This belief didn’t come out of nowhere, it was making the rounds of conservative media, with figures such as Rick Perry suggesting that Trump is “the chosen one,” a label Trump embraced and used (while pointing toward the clouds) in an August 2019 presser. Others used variations on the theme; he was compared to King Cyrus; “God was behind the last election;” and Trump is the “King of Israel,” and the “second coming” according to Wayne Allen Root.

Now, there is a theological point that needs to be made here.


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

Trump support weakens among white evangelicals: So @NYTimes talks to lots of old folks

, , , , , , , , , , ,

I was reading a New York Times piece the other day — “Trump’s Approval Slips Where He Can’t Afford to Lose It: Among Evangelicals” — when I found myself thinking about the Rev. Pat Robertson and quarterback Tom Brady.

This may take some explaining.

For starters, if you know anything about the 2016 election, you know that white evangelicals helped fuel Trump’s success in the GOP primaries. Then, in the general election, white and Latino evangelicals were crucial to his pivotal win in Florida. But the key to his election was winning the votes of Rust Belt (a) Democrats who previously voted for Barack Obama, (b) conservative and older Catholics, (c) angry labor union members/retirees or (d) citizens who were “all of the above.”

Catholic swing voters were much more important to Trump than white evangelicals — in the 2020 general election (as opposed to primaries).

But back to aging NFL quarterbacks and this sad Times political desk feature. Here is a key passage, which is linked — of course — to the bizarre Bible photo episode:

Unnerved by his slipping poll numbers and his failure to take command of the moral and public health crises straining the country, religious conservatives have expressed concern in recent weeks to the White House and the Trump campaign about the president’s political standing.

Their rising discomfort spilled out into the open … when the founder of the Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson, scolded the president for taking such a belligerent tone as the country erupted in sorrow and anger over the police killing of an unarmed black man, George Floyd, in Minneapolis.

Speaking on his newscast, “The 700 Club,” the televangelist whose relationship with Mr. Trump dates to the 1990s said, “You just don’t do that, Mr. President,” and added, “We’re one race. And we need to love each other.”

This leads us to some summary material that could have been written by some kind of automated writing program on a blue-zip-code newsroom computer:


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

Plug-In: What does this landmark LGBTQ ruling mean for traditional religious institutions?

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling Monday barring workplace discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender workers certainly seemed to catch some by surprise.

Take USA Today, for example.

The URL on the national newspaper’s story indicates that the court denied protection to LGBT workers. Oops!

Kelsey Dallas, national religion reporter for the Salt Lake City-based Deseret News, closely follows high court cases with faith-based ramifications.

“Genuinely shocked,” she tweeted concerning the 6-3 decision. “I had prewritten only one version of this story and predicted a ruling against gay and transgender workers based on debate during oral arguments.”

Why was Dallas so surprised?

I asked her that in a Zoom discussion that also included Elana Schor, national religion and politics reporter for The Associated Press; Daniel Silliman, news editor for Christianity Today; and Bob Smietana, editor-in-chief of Religion News Service.

Watch the video to hear Dallas’ reasoning. (Hint: It’s not just that Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion.)

Learn, too, what all the panelists think the decision means for religious hiring practices, the court’s 5-4 conservative split and the Nov. 3 presidential election.

Among related must-read coverage: Schor’s AP story on why the religious right laments the ruling but sees opportunities, Yonat Shimron’s RNS story on conservatives looking to the next cases on religious liberty and Elizabeth Dias’ New York Times story on the “seismic implications.”

Why did the decision rattle Christian conservatives? The Washington Post’s Sarah Pulliam Bailey explains.

At the Deseret News, Dallas asks, “Are we headed toward a federal version of the Utah Compromise on LGBTQ rights?”


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

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