Same-sex Marriage

Which issue drew more ink? SBC on Trump-era rifts, race, #ChurchToo abuse, gay marriage

Which issue drew more ink? SBC on Trump-era rifts, race, #ChurchToo abuse, gay marriage

Here’s a question for GetReligion readers, including journalists: Are you surprised that the Southern Baptist Convention still believes sex outside of marriage is sin and, yes, that marriage is defined — by two millennia of Christian teaching — as the union of man and woman?

All of you who are surprised, please raise your hands.

There shouldn’t be many hands in the air on that one.

Now, would you say that SBC action on that question is, well, sexier than the decision by the national convention’s executive committee to oust two congregations for violating guidelines on sexual abuse, following in the wake of many #ChurchTwo revelations (especially in major Texas newspapers)?

Meanwhile, SBC President J.D. Greear offered up a blistering speech to the executive committee in which he addressed what he called demonic attacks on SBC unity, attacks centering on two hot-button topics — racism and (to be blunt) Donald Trump-era politics.

Of these four issues, want to guess which drew mainstream-press headlines? That’s the question that host Todd Wilken and I discussed during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast. Click here to tune that in or head over to iTunes to subscribe.

According to the Associated Press, the biggest news was that totally predictable decision linked to marriage and sex. Meanwhile, I am happy to report that The New York Times produced a story that, while the headline was predictable (“Southern Baptists Expel 2 Churches Over Sex Abuse and 2 for L.G.B.T.Q. Inclusion”), was updated to become a solid look at the tensions surrounding Greear and some of these issues. We will come back to both of those stories.

But first, I think GetReligion readers need to read a large chunk of the (edited) text from the Greear broadside. (Click here for Baptist Press coverage and, most of all, here for a file that includes the full video.)

The key: Greear sets out to affirm the 1980s SBC move to the right on issues of biblical authority, while repudiating what he calls the “leaven of the Pharisees” emerging on the SBC’s right flank. The following is long, I know, but essential to understanding what is happening right now in America’s largest Protestant flock:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

United Methodists remain on clock: Will 2022 see biggest church split since Civil War? (updated)

United Methodists remain on clock: Will 2022 see biggest church split since Civil War? (updated)

The United Methodist Church is on the brink of America's biggest religious schism since the Civil War, with the conflict centering on sexual morality, biblical authority and theological liberalism.

At stake is an empire with 6.7 million U.S. members and 31,000 congregations located across most American counties, 6.5 million members overseas and $6.3 billion in annual donations (though there's now a severe money crunch). Many of those churches sit on prime urban and suburban real estate.

But when? The 2020 General Conference to settle matters was postponed until this coming Aug. 29- Sept. 7 in Minneapolis, a city that currently limits meetings to 150 people. News calendars are iffy until the imminent UMC decision on whether it can meet then, or must delay a second time or whether it's possible to manage such a complex international meeting online.

Whenever and however delegates assemble, by most accounts they're prepared to adopt some version of the 33-page "Protocol of Reconciliation & Grace Through Separation" (.pdf here) hashed out last year via professional mediation among representatives of various factions.

One breakaway has occurred prematurely. Online worship last Nov. 29 established the hard left "Liberation Methodist Connection." The new denomination is intended for Methodist exiles to live out their "God-given identities" regardless of not only same-sex identity but e.g. gender expression, sexual non-monogamy, immigration status, piercings, body art or drug use.

However, the main event involves who inherits the UMC's name, logo, endowments, properties and structures. In U.S. Methodism, liberals and centrists combined have political power to install a laissez-faire LGBT policy, while the evangelical wing dissents alongside millions of Methodists in Africa and the Philippines. (This structure is unusual. Most "mainline" denominations that have legislated full LGBT inclusion are U.S.-only.)

The Wesleyan Covenant Association figures conservative congregations and pastors will happily leave behind UMC assets, schools and agencies and is busily preparing a new breakaway denomination under "Protocol" terms that would merge Americans and booming churches overseas.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Ryan Burge day: Political tensions rise as secularism grows (yet faith numbers stay strong)

Ryan Burge day: Political tensions rise as secularism grows (yet faith numbers stay strong)

Anyone who has followed GetReligion for nearly two decades knows that we have — over, and over, and over — stressed that the safe middle ground in American life seems to be vanishing.

This is true in religion and it is certainly true in politics.

Now, journalists and news consumers can prepare to dig into two books related to these trends — both linked to the work of names that will be familiar to GetReligion readers.

The first, by GetReligion contributor Ryan Burge, is entitled, “The Nones: Where They Came From, Who They Are, and Where They Are Going.” It will hit the market March 9th. We will come back to Burge in a moment, with links to some of his omnipresent charts and commentary.

The second book is entitled, “Secular Surge: A New Fault Line in American Politics,” and it was written by David Campbell, Geoffrey C. Layman and (here’s the familiar name to most GetReligion readers) John C. Green.

Yes, that John C. Green, the man from the 2007 seminar at the Washington Journalism Center who told a circle of journalists from around the world about emerging research about “religiously unaffiliated” Americans and how this would impact politics and, in particular, the shape of the Democratic Party. The line-graph he sketched on our write-on-wall that day was a foretaste of the stunning 2012 Pew study on the rapid rise of the “nones.”

The key was that the “nones” were the natural political partners of secular voters and believers in the shrinking world of the Religious Left. At some point, however, he said there would be tensions with moderate and even conservative Democrats in the Black church and in Hispanic pews, both Catholic, evangelical and Pentecostal. As I wrote in an On Religion column:

The unaffiliated overwhelmingly reject ancient doctrines on sexuality with 73 percent backing same-sex marriage and 72 percent saying abortion should be legal in all, or most, cases. Thus, the “Nones” skew heavily Democratic as voters — with 75 percent supporting Barack Obama in 2008. The unaffiliated are now a stronger presence in the Democratic Party than African-American Protestants, white mainline Protestants or white Catholics.

“It may very well be that in the future the unaffiliated vote will be as important to the Democrats as the traditionally religious are to the Republican Party,” said Green, addressing the religion reporters. “If these trends continue, we are likely to see even sharper divisions between the political parties.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

New podcast: Are tensions between Speaker Pelosi and her archbishop a valid news story?

New podcast: Are tensions between Speaker Pelosi and her archbishop a valid news story?

The following is not a hypothetical case or a parable. This is the heart of the news story that was the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in).

Step one: Speaker Nancy Pelosi was a guest on Hillary Clinton’s “You and Me Both” podcast. As you would expect, since this was recorded a week after the stunning January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol, they spent some time discussing their views on the Donald Trump years.

This led to a discussion about the choices made by pro-life voters in the 2016 election. Here is some crucial material from a Catholic News Agency story about the exchange.

… House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that support of pro-life voters for former President Donald Trump was an issue that “gives me great grief as a Catholic.”

“I think that Donald Trump is president because of the issue of a woman’s right to choose,” she said of abortion, implying that pro-life voters boosted Trump to victory in 2016. She added that these voters “were willing to sell the whole democracy down the river for that one issue.”

Other than the “sellout” implication, the key phrase there is “as a Catholic.”

Step two: The archbishop who — canonically speaking — is charged with overseeing Pelosi’s life as a Catholic believer was not amused by this assertion. Here is another chunk of that CNA report.

“No Catholic in good conscience can favor abortion,” said Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, Pelosi’s home diocese. … “Our land is soaked with the blood of the innocent, and it must stop.”

Pelosi has long supported abortion despite her Catholic faith. In 2008, she said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” regarding when life begins, “over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition.” She said that her Catholic faith “shouldn’t have an impact on a woman’s right to choose.” …

Archbishop Cordileone clarified that "Nancy Pelosi does not speak for the Catholic Church. … And on the question of the equal dignity of human life in the womb, she [Pelosi] also speaks in direct contradiction to a fundamental human right that Catholic teaching has consistently championed for 2,000 years.” …

Step three: Write a mainstream news story?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

America remains bitterly divided: But is this country veering closer to another civil war?

America remains bitterly divided: But is this country veering closer to another civil war?

Call it the "Texit" parable.

America's new civil war begins with the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, creating an abortion-free zone in the Bible Belt and most heartland states.

Enraged Democrats pledge to end the U.S. Senate filibuster and expand the number of high-court justices. After restoring Roe, they seek single-payer health care, strict gun control and sweeping changes in how government agencies approach the First Amendment, with the IRS warning faith groups to evolve -- or else -- on matters of sexual identity. Big Tech begins enforcing the new orthodoxy.

Conservatives rebel and liberals soon realize that most of America's military, including nuclear weapons, are in rebel territory. Then federal agents kill Alabama's pro-life, Black governor -- while trying to arrest him as a traitor. That's too much for Gov. Francisco Gonzalez of Texas, who decides that it's time for a new republic.

David French fine-tuned this "Texit" vision early in 2020, while finishing "Divided We Fall: America's Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation." Best-known as a #NeverTrump conservative pundit, most of the Harvard Law graduate's career has focused on old-school First Amendment liberalism -- which in recent decades has meant defending conservative religious believers in religious liberty cases.

The book's first lines are sobering, especially after recent scenes on Capitol Hill.

"It's time for Americans to wake up to a fundamental reality: the continued unity of the United States cannot be guaranteed," wrote French. Right now, "there is not a single important cultural, religious, political, or social force that is pulling Americans together more than it is pulling us apart."

Americans are divided by their choices in news and popular culture. America remains the developing world's most religious nation, yet its increasingly secularized elites occupy one set of zip codes, while most traditional religious believers live in another. In politics, more and more Democrats are Democrats simply because they hate Republicans, and vice versa.

Ironically, cultural conservatives now find themselves hoping that the Supreme Court will protect them, said French, reached by telephone. Conservatives know they have lost Hollywood, academia, America's biggest corporations, the White House and both houses of Congress.

"I constructed the Texit scenario around court packing because that has become their last firewall," said French.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Yearenders-palooza: Ryan Burge (Who else?) charts religion and politics in #2020

Yearenders-palooza: Ryan Burge (Who else?) charts religion and politics in #2020

We now know, apparently, what happens if you force political scientist Ryan Burge into lockdown — but leave the WiFi turned on.

You end up with lots and lots and lots of charts, with most of them focusing on the major role that religion plays in politics and the American public square, in general.

Burge’s work was all over the place during 2020, with good cause. He’s a contributor here at GetReligion, but we keep stressing that journalists (and news consumers) really need to follow his active Twitter feed and his work at the weblog Religion In Public. Here in that blog’s “Year in Review” feature.

Anyway, I wrote Burge and asked him to send me several crucial bytes of his work from 2020, with some quick commentary. You will see that below. I have always appreciated the fact that Ryan’s work tends to poke at stereotypes on the left and the right.

I also asked him for his take on the Top 10 religion-beat news stories and trends of 2020, using the full list of options provided at the start of the Religion News Association poll. I have already offered my own take on that poll here in an “On Religion” column and then here, in a “Crossroads” podcast.

Burge’s commentary on that poll is at the end of this post.

So let’s get started, with Burge’s charts and commentary.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

How should Biden-era Americans understand 'religious freedom' and First Amendment?

THE QUESTION:

What does American “religious freedom” now mean?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

Protection of Americans’ “free exercise” of religion has been guaranteed by the Bill of Rights for 229 years and counting.

Until recently, people generally agreed on what this means. The debates involved whether this constitutional right should be exercised or restricted in specific, unusual situations. For example, the Supreme Court has permitted the Santeria faith to conduct ritual slaughter of animals, and exempted Amish teens from mandatory high school attendance laws.

Now this principle is swept up into culture wars that divide the population and the two political parties. In October, the Brookings Institution, a moderately liberal think tank, issued a lengthy white paper titled “A Time to Heal, A Time to Build” with recommendations on religion policy for the U.S. president. It states that the older consensus “began breaking down as new issues emerged, particularly around the struggle for LGBTQ equality.” Brookings consulted 127 experts on church and state for this document, though few were from the so-called “religious right.”

Consider some history: Back in 1993, Democrats were central in passage of the federal “Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” Then-Congressman Chuck Schumer, who is Jewish, introduced the bill in the House, where it won 170 co-sponsors and easily passed by voice vote. In the Senate, Ted Kennedy, a Catholic, was the Senate co-sponsor with Republican Orrin Hatch, a Latter-day Saint, and the act was approved 97–3. President Bill Clinton, a Protestant, enthusiastically signed it into law.

The act states that government cannot “substantially burden” the “exercise of religion,” even when the burden applies to people generally, unless limiting of the freedom is “the least restrictive means” to further a “compelling governmental interest.” Those whose freedom is wrongly suppressed have the right to “obtain appropriate relief” in court. (This restored prior U.S. Supreme Court doctrine that the court had shelved in its 1990 Smith ruling.)

That was then.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Justice Alito warns: To spot religious-liberty trends in USA, listen to voices on campuses

Justice Alito warns: To spot religious-liberty trends in USA, listen to voices on campuses

Almost a half century ago, comedian George Carlin recorded his controversial "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" monologue.

That was then.

"Today, it would be easy to create a new list entitled, 'Things you can't say if you are a student or a professor at a college of university or an employee of many big corporations.' And there wouldn't be just seven items on that list -- 70 times seven would be closer to the mark," said U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, via Zoom, addressing the recent Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention.

Discussing religious beliefs, he argued, has become especially dangerous.

"You can't say that marriage is the union between one man and one woman," he noted. "Until very recently, that's what the vast majority of Americans thought. Now it's considered bigotry."

Consider, for example, the case of Jack Denton, a Florida State University political science major whose long-range plans include law school.

In June, he participated in a Catholic Student Union online chat in which, after the death of George Floyd, someone promoted a fundraising project supporting BlackLivesMatter.com, the American Civil Liberties Union and similar groups. Denton criticized ACLU support for wider access to abortion and the BLM group's "What We Believe" website page that, at that time, pledged support for LGBTQ rights and efforts to disrupt "nuclear family" traditions.

"As a Catholic speaking to other Catholics," he said, "I felt compelled to point out the discrepancy between what these groups stand for and what the Catholic Church teaches. So, I did."

Denton didn't expect this private discussion to affect his work as president of the FSU Student Senate. However, an outraged student took screenshots of his texts and sent them to the Student Senate. That led to petitions claiming that he was unfit to serve, a painful six-hour special meeting and his forced exit.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Words matter: What kind of Catholic is Joe Biden? What kind of American is Rep. Cawthorn?

Words matter: What kind of Catholic is Joe Biden? What kind of American is Rep. Cawthorn?

For serious journalists, words matter.

This is especially true when covering a subject as complex and nuanced as religion. So let’s ponder a religion-beat issue that, in political terms, is quite simple. However, in terms of history and doctrine, it’s rather complex.

Fill in the blank: “Joe Biden is a ______ Catholic.”

Now, if you follow the mainstream press, you know that for many the answer is “devout.” As in this CNN headline: “Trump claims Biden, a devout Catholic, wants to 'hurt God'.” And here is a typical news-story passage, care of CBSNews.com:

On Election Day, Mr. Biden, a devout Catholic, started out by attending Mass and visiting the graves of his son, Beau, and his first wife Neilia and infant daughter Naomi, who were both killed in a car crash in 1972.

On Sunday, Mr. Biden did the same, attending Mass with his daughter Ashley and grandson Hunter at St. Joseph on the Brandywine Catholic Church in Wilmington, Delaware, and then visiting his family members' graves.

Religion-beat veterans will notice that an important detail is missing from that passage — whether or not Biden received Holy Communion. The assumption, of course, is that he did (and that’s a safe assumption in East Coast establishment Catholicism).

It would appear that the key is that Biden says Catholicism has been a crucial force in his life and that Catholic social doctrine affects his political work. He carries a rosary. He goes the Mass — frequently. Other Catholics will note — a statement of fact — that some parts of Catholic social doctrine affect his political work and others clearly do not.

All of this came up for discussion as we recorded this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), which focused on a common theme from this blog’s 17-year history. Here it is: While many conservatives claim that the mainstream press is “anti-Christian,” or “anti-religion,” that simply isn’t true.

Take the New York Times, for example.


Please respect our Commenting Policy