LGBTQ

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

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
, , , , , , , , , , ,

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

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
, , , , , , , , , ,

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
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: Jump in GetReligion WABAC machine and explore roots of @NYTimes revolt

, , , , , , , , , , ,

When I was a kid in the 1960s — soon after the cooling of the Earth’s crust — I was a big fan of the The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. My favorite feature was the show within the show entitled “Peabody's Improbable History," in which the WABAC machine transported the brilliant Mr. Peabody (a dog, actually) and his boy Sherman (an actual boy) into the past to have wonderful adventures.

At two points in my life I have been a fan of the BBC Doctor Who series — especially Tom Baker as Doctor No. 4 and Peter Capaldi as No. 12.

So this time travel thing is a useful concept, methinks, even when dealing with trends in postmodern journalism. You’ll see that (or hear it) during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in). In this particular post we will be making four stops, although we could make a dozen.

Turn on the WABAC machine and tell me — as a reflection on the latest editorial explosion in the New York Times newsroom — who said or wrote the following (don’t click the link yet) after debates about fair and accurate coverage of what event?

As we reflect on the momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.

That, of course, was part of a letter from New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., and executive editor Dean Baquet — responding to complaints that their newspaper had botched coverage of the 2016 White House race and the rise of Donald Trump.

How do those words hold up right now?

The key issue, according to Times public editor Liz Spayd, was whether America’s most influential newsroom was interested in doing accurate, informed, fair-minded coverage of roughly half of the American population. See this column, in particular: “Want to Know What America’s Thinking? Try Asking.” Here is a key chunk of that:


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

2020 White House race: U.S. bishops don't want to make news, but it'll be hard avoid it

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

You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

It’s like being stuck between a rock and a hard place.

No good deed goes unpunished.

Religion-beat pros will understand if cliches such as these are being muttered by members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops these days. Why? As Americans prepare to decide who will be their next president this November, members of the Catholic hierarchy are finding themselves in a no-win situation.

Do they speak favorably of President Donald Trump, helping him potentially to win re-election, or do they lend a hand to Democratic challenger Joe Biden helping the former vice president become just the second Catholic to ever serve as a U.S. president? Catholic leaders — be it the pope, cardinals, bishops or your local parish priest — don’t openly endorse candidates for political office.

There is a reason for that. The main reason is that it fosters division among a very large spectrum of people who are all part of the same denomination. IRS rules also forbid nonprofit institutions like churches from engaging in partisan politics — something some pastors avoid by saying they are speaking on behalf of themselves, not the church they represent.

While a few members of other Christian bodies choose to openly back a candidate (for example, some evangelicals and Trump; African-American church leaders and Biden), Catholic prelates see an endorsement as something that could weaken the church’s own authority and belief system.

In other words, you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t if you’re a Catholic leader. Still, this election will raise all kinds of unavoidable moral and religious questions for Trump and Biden.

Which brings us to Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York City. He was the target of outrage on the part of left-leaning Catholics for the way he spoke favorably of Trump following a phone call the president had with several U.S. bishops. Dolan, it should be noted, has also received abuse from the church’s right-wing cheering section for the way he’s handled the issue of gay priests.

Trump, on a call with bishops, called himself the best president in “the history of the Catholic Church.”


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

Thinking about Little Richard: Mark Kellner with a Seventh-day Adventist look at rock pioneer

, , , , , , , , ,

As folks in his native South would say, Little Richard was a piece of work.

One way or another, Richard Wayne Penniman always stressed that he was a work in progress and that, one way or another, God was the author of this story.

This was a man who was driven to shout and scream about all kinds of things. The same rock ‘n’ roll genius who exploded out of radios in the ‘50s, singing songs with lyrics that had to be cleaned up the masses, also went to seminary and devoted decades of his life to preaching, evangelism and Gospel music. He openly struggled with issues of sexual identity, yet never shied away from talking about sin as well as sensuality.

When the news broke about his death, at age 87, I wondered if mainstream obituaries would dig into all of that. I’m pleased that they did. Here’s a key chunk of the obit at The New York Times (the Gray Lady also ran a tribute essay discussing Little Richards’ contributions to popular culture, which discussed his faith):

Little Richard, delving deeply into the wellsprings of gospel music and the blues, pounding the piano furiously and screaming as if for his very life, raised the energy level several notches and created something not quite like any music that had been heard before — something new, thrilling and more than a little dangerous. …

Art Rupe of Specialty Records, the label for which he recorded his biggest hits, called Little Richard “dynamic, completely uninhibited, unpredictable, wild.”

And all the people said, “Amen.”

Little Richard burned red hot through the mid-1950s and the retreated from mainstream music. The Times obit clearly describes why:

He became a traveling evangelist. He entered Oakwood College (now Oakwood University) in Huntsville, Ala., a Seventh-day Adventist school, to study for the ministry. He cut his hair, got married and began recording gospel music. For the rest of his life, he would be torn between the gravity of the pulpit and the pull of the stage.

“Although I sing rock ’n’ roll, God still loves me,” he said in 2009. “I’m a rock ’n’ roll singer, but I’m still a Christian.”

With all of that in mind, please note the following Adventist Review tribute by former GetReligionista Mark Kellner — a veteran mainstream journalist who has also served as a Seventh-day Adventist press aide. Here are two samples of that:


Please respect our Commenting Policy