Women

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

Variations on old questions: What do U.S. churches believe on transgender issues?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Variations on old questions: What do U.S. churches believe on transgender issues?

THE QUESTION:

What do U.S. churches believe on the transgender issue?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

As with American society at large, churches' consideration of the sensitive transgender issue emerged only recently and rather suddenly, compared with their decades-long-debate over whether to leave behind the Christian tradition against sexual activity in gay and lesbian relationships. The religious implications go well beyond political agitation over "bathroom bills," athletic competition or women's shelters.

Transgenderism is part of a broader gender-fluidity movement. A recent survey by the interfaith Religion News Service asked readers to identify themselves as either female, male, transgender, trans woman or MTF, trans man or FTM, intersex, questioning, non-binary, genderqueer, gender fluid, agender or "other."

Among theologically flexible "Mainline" Protestants, a key breakthrough was the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's September installation of Megan Rohrer of California, its first transgender-identified bishop. Rohrer was barred from the clergy until a 2009 policy change, so was originally ordained by the independent Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries, which works for full LGBT inclusion. (Oddly, that organization suspended Rohrer from membership in December over alleged and unspecified "racist words and actions.")

The United Methodist Church is expected to split this year over the older same-sex disagreement, exactly 50 years after the first floor debate at a governing General Conference. In October, religious media reported the gender transition of the formerly "cisgender" Methodist pastor married to Peggy Johnson, the just-retired bishop for eastern Pennsylvania, Delaware and eastern Maryland. But last month Indiana Methodists removed Pastor Craig Duke from his congregation over drag queen shows and drag education to express solidarity with his daughter, who identifies as pansexual.


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

Here we go again: With Catholic news, reporters should be careful with this word -- 'reform'

, , , , , , , , ,
Here we go again: With Catholic news, reporters should be careful with this word -- 'reform'

Let’s pause for a moment and reconsider a very loaded and tricky word that shows up all the time religion-news coverage (as well as political coverage, of course).

That word is “reform.”

For really, really, loyal GetReligion readers, I will admit that I am, in part, flashing back to this 2008 GetReligion post: “Who gets to "reform" what?” Once again, let’s look at some of the language that shows up in online dictionaries when you search for that term. To “reform” an institution or a law means to:

* make changes for improvement in order to remove abuse and injustices; "reform a political system" * bring, lead, or force to abandon a wrong or evil course of life, conduct, and adopt a right one; "The Church reformed me"; "reform your conduct" ... * a change for the better as a result of correcting abuses; "justice was for sale before the reform of the law courts" ... * improve by alteration or correction of errors or defects and put into a better condition; "reform the health system in this country" * a campaign aimed to correct abuses or malpractices. ...

The key words in that digital cloud are these: “improve by alteration or correction of errors or defects …”

Also, let me remind readers that I am not a Roman Catholic. Some people seem to be confused about that. My views on this topic are based on decades of reporting (and a graduate-school readings class focusing on the church before and after Vatican II) about the very complex world of Catholic life and thought.

With that in mind, let’s look at the top of a recent Religion News Service story that ran with this headline: “Can Pope Francis make real change for women? Vatican women leaders assess his chances.”

VATICAN CITY (RNS) — A panel of women who have attained leadership positions in the Catholic Church met … to discuss Pope Francis’ ambitious plan to reform the power structures in the church, raising questions about female ordination, the role of bishops and the need for women theologians.


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

Think pieces: Why are evangelicals evolving on doctrines linked to LGBTQ issues?

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Think pieces: Why are evangelicals evolving on doctrines linked to LGBTQ issues?

Yes, this is an unusual “think piece,” in part because it is best to consider it an online debate between two major voices shaping debates in contemporary evangelicalism.

One one side is the Rev. Denny Burk, a biblical studies professor at Boyce College, which is linked to the giant Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville.

On the other side is historian and gender-studies specialist Kristin Kobes Du Mez of Calvin University, who is best known as the author of the much-discussed book “Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation.”

Let’s start with a short comment from Burk, who posted:

… I had an important exchange with Kristin Kobes Du Mez on social media. I won’t rehash the entire back and forth here. Some of it is linked below for your reference if you are interested in following the threads. If you boil it all down, she asked me a question, and I asked her one. She asked me whether I thought her book Jesus and John Wayne contains false teaching (to which I answered “yes”), and I asked her if she believes that homosexuality is sinful (to which she answered that she doesn’t know yet).

Hers is my question: What does it mean to state that “homosexuality is sinful”? Is this a discussion of homosexual orientation or of sexual behavior?

In other settings, people have been arguing about whether it is sinful, or perhaps simply spiritually dangerous, for celibate LGBTQ Christians to publicly and enthusiastically proclaim a gay identity. Thus, their sexual behavior does not violate centuries of Christian doctrine.

There are important lines between each of these stances and, frankly, other variations on these themes.


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

About that RNS/AP series on women leaders: Aren't most religions 'male-led'?

, , , , , , ,
About that RNS/AP series on women leaders: Aren't most religions 'male-led'?

Unless your local media runs articles by the Associated Press or Religion News Service, you might not be aware of their current series on “women’s roles in male-led religions.”

Most religions are pretty patriarchal, aren’t they, unless you count numerous female deities as making Hinduism women-friendly. But wait — there was that whole thing about female temple prostitutes — so maybe even Hinduism favors the guys as well.

So let’s look some news about issues linked to this.

In 2018, the Lilly Endowment Inc. put together a $4.9 million grant to fund 13 new positions at The Associated Press, Religion News Service and The Conversation in an effort known as the Global Religion Journalism Initiative.

Since then, evidence of this collaboration have been sparse, so this new series that premiered last week is one of the first major efforts on that front.

First out of the blocks was a Dec. 8 piece in The Conversation by Deborah Whitehead of Religion News Service giving a summation of womens’ efforts –- over a broad swath of denominations and religions -- to either be ordained or attain more power in their congregations. The main holdouts, she said, were Orthodox Jews, Latter-day Saints, Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists.

I’m not sure why she didn’t mention Eastern Orthodox Christians, who likewise don’t ordain women but once had a tradition — in the distant past – of female deacons. See here for a debate among two Orthodox scholars about the matter.

The way Whitehead’s piece –- and indeed the entire series that I’ve seen to date — is that women’s ordination is the logical, progressive next step. The sub-headlines that describe the opposing point of view include “Opposition to change” and “Other forms of discrimination,” so it’s not hard to see where this series is headed. This is advocacy journalism, especially when it comes to changing the priesthood in ancient churches


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

Just how big is the Mississippi abortion case at U.S. Supreme Court? Well, THIS BIG

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Just how big is the Mississippi abortion case at U.S. Supreme Court? Well, THIS BIG

“The most important abortion case in decades” is how the New York Times’ Adam Liptak describes it.

“The most significant abortion case in a generation,” agree the Wall Street Journal’s Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall.

“The biggest challenge to abortion rights in decades,” echo The Associated Press’ Mark Sherman and Jessica Gresko.

It’s not hyperbole: Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide, faces its biggest test yet. The Washington Post’s Robert Barnes explains:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday signaled it is on the verge of a major curtailment of abortion rights in the United States, and appeared likely to uphold a Mississippi law that violates one of the essential holdings of Roe v. Wade established nearly 50 years ago.

Whether the court would eventually overrule Roe and its finding that women have a fundamental right to end their pregnancies was unclear.

But none of the six conservatives who make up the court’s majority expressed support for maintaining its rule that states may not prohibit abortion before the point of fetal viability, which is generally estimated to be between 22 and 24 weeks of pregnancy.

At Christianity Today, Kate Shellnutt reports that “pro-life evangelicals who had rallied for the cause for decades were encouraged that the conservative-leaning court appeared willing to uphold a contentious Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks.”

Other helpful religion coverage:

• How faith groups feel about this major abortion case (by Kelsey Dallas, Deseret News)

• Before there was Roe: Religious debate before high court’s historic ruling on abortion (by Adelle M. Banks, Religion News Service)

• Religion abortion rights supporters fight for access (by Holly Meyer, The Associated Press)


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

As Mississippi abortion case arrives, key religion stories vote views of Jews, evangelicals

, , , , , , , ,
As Mississippi abortion case arrives, key religion stories vote views of Jews, evangelicals

Let’s start with the basics, for those who have not been following weeks of heated commentary in the mainstream press.

On today’s docket at the U.S. Supreme Court is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case out of Mississippi some say is designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark case that legalized abortion.

It involves a 2018 Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks, with few exceptions. If decided favorably, states with more restrictive laws (i.e. Texas) would be able to enforce them. Abortion would not be outlawed, but it would be greatly limited — which is why it’s annoying to hear broadcasts, such as the Fox TV item featured at the top of this post, saying the case could “end Roe v. Wade.”

Well, not quite. Because of its new “heartbeat” law, abortions in Texas are down 50% from what they were this time last year, to give you an idea of what may lie ahead.

As for me, I’d like to think that SCOTUS would actually make a decisive ruling on something that has divided the American public for 48 years and resulted in 60 million abortions. These justices have dithered a lot in similar cases and I’m guessing they will bail on this case as well — as they did with Masterpiece Cakeshop case in 2017 in refusing to rule on the merits of the case. I do realize the makeup of the high court has shifted since then. I’m guessing they’ll refuse to give Dobbs a definitive ruling and base their decision on some technicality.

So yes, I’m a pessimist. Key members of this court appear to shun clarity. But at least abortion is on the table again in terms of public discussion, with religion as one of its many permutations, which makes covering this case important for religion reporters.

On the left, this Slate piece argues that abortion rights are in dire peril:

On the eve of Dobbs — before a tsunami of protesters descend upon the court, before nerve-racking oral arguments before a partly empty courtroom, before months of tense deliberations behind the velvet curtains — the smart money counts five votes to gut Roe. …


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

How will media cover the secretive Afghan mullah who will shape Islam's global status?

, , , , , , , , ,
How will media cover the secretive Afghan mullah who will shape Islam's global status?

Showing his age, The Guy notes with amusement that early in his career "Afghanistanism" meant "the practice (as by a journalist) of concentrating on problems in distant parts of the world while ignoring controversial local issues" (per the authoritative Merriam-Webster)!

Today, many will argue that no nation is more important in news terms than the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, which affects both international turmoil and Islam's global status and cultural direction.

Journalists may ask, “Why?” This is probably the most heavily Muslim of nations and the Taliban who regained power in August proudly proclaim totalist governance based upon strictly interpreted and enforced Sharia (Islamic religious law). This example of Islam in action presents a huge challenge to the world religion.

A two-page (paywalled) Wall Street Journal status report by chief foreign correspondent Yaroslav Trofimov last weekend said the militantly Sunni Taliban have yet to impose the harshest policies that provoked wide condemnation during the prior Taliban years in power.

But the future is iffy.

For the moment, females seem able to attend primary school, but mostly not high school and college. Rigid bans on women leaving home unless accompanied by male relatives have not reappeared, and some women continue careers though many do not.

Public spectacles of beheading of opponents, and street beatings by religious police, have not resumed (though there are social-media rumors), nor have music and visual art yet been restricted. Shia and Sufi Muslims, and the tiny enclaves of non-Muslims, are understandably anxious, along with Christians, both coverts and missionaries who chose to remain after the exodus. (Other aspects of autocratic rule are commonplace in that part of the world.)


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

Dang it! Your GetReligionistas pounced a bit too early on the 'parental rights' wars

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dang it! Your GetReligionistas pounced a bit too early on the 'parental rights' wars

Dang it (said the Texas Baptist preacher’s kid), I really hate it when GetReligion gets to a serious media topic Just. A. Bit. Too. Early.

What am I talking about?

Well, take a look at the New York Times headline featured in the tweet at the top of this post, a tweet authored by a symbolic figure in the wider world of Democratic Party life. Michael Wear is a political consultant, but he is best known as the faith-outreach director for Barack Obama's 2012 campaign and then as part of Obama's White House staff. Here’s that headline:

Republicans Seize on Schools as a Wedge Issue to Unite the Party

Rallying around what it calls “parental rights,” the party is pushing to build on its victories this week by stoking white resentment and tapping into broader anger at the education system.

First of all, I think the verb “seize” is a stand-in for the world “pounce,” which has become a bit of a cliche in recent years. Here is the Urban Dictionary take on the “Republicans pounce!” phenomenon or click here for a National Review essay on the subject. The whole point is that the issue at hand isn’t really all that important, but conservatives have “pounced” on it and are using this alleged issue to hurt liberals in social media, conservative news sources, etc.

Major media on the coasts, of course, avoid covering the topic — unless it leads to an embarrassing defeats for Democrats in a symbolic state like Virginia.

Anyway, the Times headline may ring a bell or two for those who read this October 22 podcast-post here at GetReligion: “Are 'parental rights' references (inside scare quotes) the new 'religious liberty.” Here is the opening of that post:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

How do modern Latter-day Saints view their faith's complex history of polygamy?

, , , ,
How do modern Latter-day Saints view their faith's complex history of polygamy?

THE QUESTION:

How do Latter-day Saints view the polygamy in their faith's past?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which seeks to abolish its former "Mormon" nickname) was founded in 1830 by the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., who later began practicing and advocating polygamy (the faith prefers the term "plural marriage" and in past times spoke of "the Principle.") Smith wanted this kept secret but dissenters inside his flock revealed the controversial teaching, which played a role in his 1844 assassination.

After Smith's successor as prophet, Brigham Young, led LDS adherents to Utah, the church in 1852 openly proclaimed its practice. This scandalized the nation. Young himself was to take 55 wives. But when federal laws attacked the faith's very organizational existence, President Wilford Woodruff halted the practice in the 1890 "Manifesto." Today, polygamy is grounds for excommunication, even in nations where it is legal.

That is basic, well-established history. But there's far more to be said.

In recent times, the Utah-based faith has issued relatively candid explanations (click here), as well as on the subject of "plural marriage” (click here). Now the church's Deseret Book company has published "Let's Talk About Polygamy," a more thorough and fascinating accounting by Brittany Chapman Nash, a 10-year veteran of the church's official history department who emphasizes the experience of LDS women. Much of the following relies upon her research.

Twenty-first Century Americans might wonder why LDS followers ever wanted multiple spouses. At one level, the answer is quite simple. As Nash says, "they believed God commanded it." Members then and now believe in Smith as God's unique prophet and that all his revelations established the "latter-day" restoration of true Christianity that had been lost for nearly 19 centuries.

Smith's own marital history began with his 1827 wedding to the former Emma Hale. His early scriptural revelations in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants advocated traditional Christian monogamy. But in the mid-1830s Smith privately wed 16-year-old Fanny Alger, who worked in the Smiths' home. She soon moved away and married another man. History does not record what Emma knew or thought about this.


Please respect our Commenting Policy