News Tidbits

Reuters: U.S. report calls for end to 'conversion therapy' for LGBT youth

Atlanta Journal Constitution: In Gainesville, Ben Carson preaches return to God, war on the ‘PC police’

Al Jazeera America: Michigan ACLU takes on Catholic hospital for refusing tube tying

Seattle Times: Bremerton football coach vows to pray after game despite district order

USA Today: Baptist leader: Christians should boycott gay weddings

Associated Press: Virginia man says he was fired from job at Catholic assisted living home because he's gay

The Advocate: Tennessee Church Kicks Out Boy Scouts For Being Too Accepting

Voices from the Right Respond to Ferguson

On August 9th, Michael Brown, a young African American man, was shot to death by Darren Wilson, a white police officer, during an altercation in Ferguson, MO. As outrage over Brown's death mounted, Ferguson would become the focal point of a heated national discussion about race and police violence. The harsh response by local law enforcement to Ferguson demonstrators, including the arrest of journalists and the use of tear gas, rubber bullets, and LRAD, was condemned by human rights organizations. 

On the evening of November 24th, St. Louis County prosecutor Robert P. McCulloch announced that a grand jury declined to indict Darren Wilson. Local demonstrators protested the decision by blocking Interstate 44 and intersections in nearby Clayton, while other protests took place in cities across the U.S.. Despite pleas for peace by President Obama and Ferguson clergy, riots broke out in Ferguson, with images of looters and burning buildings dominating the news. Many Ferguson business owners found their businesses vandalized or destroyed the next day.

Observers from across the political spectrum have offered commentary on the grand jury's decision and the Ferguson riots, and the Religious Right is no exception. While some figures from the right have called for unity, others have used recent events to criticize the left and the media.

First, two voices from the Southern Baptist Convention have called for unity and justice following the grand jury decision. In a commentary piece entitled "Ferguson and the Path to Peace" SBC Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission president Russell Moore laments that racial tensions still plague America. "The tension [in Ferguson] ought to remind us, as the church, that we are living in a time in which racial division is hardly behind us," he wrote. Moore calls for racial unity and recognition of all people as part of the Body of Christ.

"So what should we do? In the public arena, we ought to recognize that it is empirically true that African-American men are more likely, by virtually every measure, to be arrested, sentenced, executed, or murdered than their white peers. We cannot shrug that off with apathy. Working toward justice in this arena will mean consciences that are sensitive to the problem. But how can we get there when white people do not face the same experiences as do black people?

The answer for the Body of Christ starts with a robust doctrine of the church lived out in local congregations under the lordship of Christ. The reason white and black Americans often view things so differently is because white and black Americans often live and move in different places, with different cultural lenses. In the church, however, we belong to one another. We are part of one Body."

Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminar, acknowledged the existence of flawed systems in America and promoted a message of racial justice. In a transcript of a November 25th podcast, Mohler praised President Obama for urging restraint and calm following the grand jury announcement. Mohler seemed to take African American complaints of institutional racism seriously, urging Christians to demand accountability and justice from fallible institutions.

"...There are many people who are saying the system is broken. Well in one sense, Christians understand that every system is only as good as the human beings fragile frail and sometimes downright faulty involved in the process. There is no perfect system, not humanly speaking, because human beings are involved in it. And this means that some of the accusations and concerns coming from the African-American community have to be taken very seriously. Christians should be at the forefront of demanding that these concerns be thoroughly vetted, heard, and considered, because after all we do know that as important as these systems are, every system indeed breaks down at the very fallibility of human beings. It is no insult to the system, it is no insult to the society, to make very clear that we have to watch continually that we’re living up to our ideals – including the ideal of equal standing, equal justice, before the law."

Mohler also expressed disapproval of the Ferguson riots, writing that "the kind of reform, the kind of improvement in justice that is needed in our society cannot be brought about by flaunting that form of justice with the kind of injustice that was seen on the streets."

"The rule of law cannot be improved, nor corrected – much less reformed – by lawlessness. And the subversion of the rule of law on the streets of Missouri last night is a refutation of the claim that this is being done in the name of justice."

However, other Religious Right voices were quick to criticize Michael Brown, the left, and the media following the grand jury announcement. For example, the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer spoke approvingly of the grand jury's decision. In the November 25th edition of Focal Point, Fischer discussed the grand jury decision not to indict Wilson, speculating that Michael Brown was under demonic influence during his encounter with Wilson. (Hat tip to Right Wing Watch.)

"I think that at this point there was a demonic presence that was operating inside Michael Brown's body, activating him, energizing him, driving him forward in this homicidal rage. So when he says he looked like a demon, I think that's because he was looking into the eyes of a demon that was driving Michael Brown to do what he did."

Fischer described Brown's death as a "tragedy" and a "heartbreak" because of his "wasted potential", but added that he saw Brown as responsible for his own demise.

"Who is to blame here? Who's fault is this that this young life has been snuffed out? I think you look at the evidence, you have to say, well, I think we're going to have to expect Michael Brown to take full responsibility for his own death."

American Family Association news director Fred Jackson also weighed in on the grand jury decision. During the November 25th edition of Sandy Rios in the Morning, Jackson expressed disapproval of the Ferguson riots and denied that Wilson's actions were motivated by Brown's race. Jackson spoke several times about absolute truth and moral responsibility, arguing that truth is "under attack today" with regard to the public response to the Brown case. (Hat tip to Right Wing Watch.)

"Absolute truth is defined by scripture, the Bible, God’s word. That’s how it’s defined, and when you violate that, there are consequences. Now you may get away with it for a while, for a period, but God says there will be consequences ... When you do not have a dad figure around, there is not someone there in authority to demonstrate there are consequences to violating the rules. If you don’t have that presence in the family, you’re going to have problems."

In a November 25th commentary piece at the National Review, Dennis Prager called for "moral clarity" regarding racial tensions in the U.S.

"For decades now, we have been told that there is a black–white divide regarding how members of each race perceive racial matters in America. The problem with this belief that is that it renders moral judgment — of white police, of black crime and black incarceration rates, of white judges and jurors, and of black riots and protests — impossible ... Many blacks see racism almost everywhere — especially in arrest, conviction, and incarceration rates, and in white police interactions with blacks. On the other hand, whites (specifically, whites who are not on the left) think that white racism has largely been conquered, and therefore blacks’ disproportionately high arrest and conviction rates are the result of black behavior – particularly the high out-of-wedlock birth rate that has deprived the great majority of black children of fathers – not white racism."

Prager criticizes those who fail to condemn the Ferguson riots, as well as those who look at the Brown case through a racial lens. He calls current race attitudes "damaging", arguing that such attitudes ignore "objective truth and moral truth". Prager blasts liberals for supposedly treating truth and morality as subjective, writing that, "For every black and every white unwilling to condemn the protests over Michael Brown’s killing that took place before any relevant facts came out, their half-hearted condemnation of the riots notwithstanding, truth doesn’t matter."

In a November 24th column at Red State, Erick Erickson points to the Ferguson unrest and writes that "This is what happens when everything becomes political," adding that "Michael Brown’s death should not be political." He complains that many Americans cannot have honest conversations about the Brown case because of "too many agendas" at work. Many factions (especially the media) want to inflame tensions, Erickson argues, making it unlikely that issues surrounding race and the Brown case will be resolved any time soon.

"The sad truth is that too many young black men have been, for so long, told they are victims that they’ve started acting as if they are not responsible for their actions and that society is out to get them.

And you know what?

In a lot of cases, it is true. Society is out to get them. Instead of judging them individually, police and others judge young black men collectively. In a group? Probably up to no good, whether it is true or not.

Conservatives have a tendency to say young black men need to rise so far about the stereotyped behavior they cannot be blamed. Liberals say that is unfair. And the truth is that in some cases they could rise as close to the standard of Jesus as possible and some policeman somewhere still might pull them over.

If only we could all rely on our better angels. But I am a pessimist on this issue. Too many people on both sides have too much of an incentive to keep tensions going. It is a TV ratings bonanza for cable news and reality shows. Too many profit off it."

Erickson accepted the grand jury's decision not to indict Wilson. "The facts and witnesses show that Michael Brown was a thief. The facts and witnesses show Officer Wilson was doing his job," he wrote.





To watch key videos related to the grand jury decision, visit the following links.


CNN: Ferguson grand jury announcement

C-SPAN: President Obama on Ferguson Grand Jury Decision

Vice: Highlights from Live Coverage in Ferguson, Missouri

The Gospel, Homosexuality, & the Future of Marriage Conference: Mohler on "Moral Revolution"

To read about Rosaria Butterfield's talk at "The Gospel, Homosexuality, and the Future of Marriage" conference, click here. To read about Denny Burk's talk, click here.

The Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission hosted a national conference entitled "The Gospel, Homosexuality, and the Future of Marriage" in Nashville, TN on October 27-29. The conference focused on issues surrounding sexuality, marriage, and the LGBTQ community, as demonstrated by its workshop offerings. The ERLC website offered a glimpse at the conference's conversation on America's "moral revolution surrounding homosexuality".

"Are you and your church prepared for the moral revolution surrounding homosexuality and same-sex marriage happening across America? While human sexuality and social institutions are being redefined before our very eyes, the Bible presents marriage as an unchanging picture of the gospel through the union of one man and one woman. The gospel announces that the story of Jesus is greater than the sum total of our sexual desires."

Videos of the conference are available at the ERLC website, and I listened to several talks in order to hear what messages were being shares at the gathering. My first selection was a talk entitled "Aftermath: Ministering In A Post-Marriage Culture", in which Albert Mohler discusses how evangelicals are to respond to changing societal attitudes on LGBTQ persons.

Mohler cast advances in LGBTQ rights as a "moral revolution" in which what was once condemned and what was once celebrated have swapped places. At the 4:27 mark, he cites Theo Hobson while discussing how U.S. culture has changed. The implication, it seems, is that LGBTQ status was once condemned but is now "celebrated", and that conservative Christians who refuse to celebrate their LGBTQ neighbors are now condemned, to their chagrin.

"Theo Hobson says that moral revolution is different than a moral shift or a moral change because it does change everything in the culture. The culture becomes completely realigned on the other side, and he says in order for this to happen, three things have to take place ... The first thing that has to take place for a moral revolution, a massive U-turn in the culture is that what was condemned has to be celebrated ... Something that was nearly universally condemned is now nearly universally celebrated. It's normalized ...

That's just the first of three necessary dimensions of the moral revolution. The second comes when that which was celebrated is condemned ... You think about the definition of marriage, and you think about the moral response to same-sex relationships and same-sex acts, when you think about it in the context of the sexual revolution in general, it's not just that what was condemned is celebrated, but that which was celebrated is now condemned. And so, in much of our society today, the sin is not certainly homosexuality, but what is simply dismissed as homophobia ...

Hobson says there's been a third dimension that becomes necessary, and that is ... thirdly, those who refuse to celebrate are condemned. And that's where we are, and we sense that, and Gospel-minded Christians who are seeking to serve under the lordship of Christ and under the authority of scripture are wondering, how in the world did this happen?"

I found this interpretation of history unsatisfying, because it assumes that our society is monolithic in its views. Condemned by whom? Celebrated by whom? Mohler's comment about "what is simply dismissed as homophobia" also troubled me, as it suggested that he did not take homophobia seriously. Anti-gay bigotry is very real, as demonstrated by the condemnation, discrimination, and violence that LGBTQ people still endure.

Nevertheless, Mohler is not alone in his bewilderment at losing the culture war. Like other fundamentalist Christians, he realizes that not all Americans share his views, and struggles to understand what the next step is.

Mohler's attitude toward transgender persons was not reassuring either. At the 9:27 mark, he pointed out that gender identity issues have triggered as many social upheavals as sexual orientation. Mohler suggested that transgender persons spring from a post-Fall world in which "confusion" and "rebellion" reign.

"In the transsexual, transgender revolution, the revolt against the fixity of gender, that we're also looking at a testimony to what happens in a Genesis 3 world east of Eden. When we're now entering a level of confusion that Biblically would be defined as a form of rebellion that at the level of identity should leave us very humbled by what this tells us about humanity at large."

Mohler quoted from Romans 1 (which condemns same-sex intimacy as shameful, among other sins), using it to launch a discussion about the righteousness of God as revealed in scripture. Despite God's truth, all humans still suppress truth and succumb to confusion, he argued, and that Romans 1 is an indictment of all sinful humans, not just those who engage in same-sex behavior. Mohler disagreed with preachers who claimed that America's immorality would cause God to give up the nation to sin, arguing that humans have already been given over to sin since the Fall at the 19:19 mark.

"Here's a real problem again with evangelical preaching. A lot of evangelical preachers will preach a text like [Romans 1] and they'll say, 'America, you better wake up because otherwise, God will give us over. If America doesn't turn from its wicked ways, and if America doesn't get itself right and in accordance with the law of God, then God's going to give us over just like he gave over so many empires and civilizations and nations before.' It's too late! We were given over in Genesis 3. This is not something that just might happen. This is something that just did happen with Adam and Eve, our first mother and father."

As I listened to Mohler, his interpretation of Romans 1 sounded like an elaborate way of saying "Gays are sinners, but then again, we're all sinners." He failed to realize that casting sexual orientation and same-sex intimacy as sinful are still homophobic, and that such attitudes are still destructive to LGBTQ people. Whether or not we're all sinners, sexual orientation and gender identity should not be cast as something negative.

At the 26:36 mark, Mohler discussed 1 Corinthians 5:9-10, arguing that Christians should not shun "sexually immoral people" and questioning whether that would even be feasible in our society. Instead, Christians should be a "gospel people" to "sinners of every single variety".

"Paul says in [1 Corinthians] chapter 5 they were not even to have fellowship -- he says, 'I wrote to you in my letter' --that's the one we don't have, one of the two we don't have -- he says, 'I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people'. I was taught that as a boy in Sunday school and church. We're not to associate with sexually immoral people. No one ever got to the next part of that verse. In the text in chapter 5 he says in verse 10, 'not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers or idolaters, then you need to go out of the world'. I think the evangelical church I knew as a boy was fairly happy with that, with being out of the world, if that meant not having to deal with this. 

We're not living in a situation in which that is possible. We're not living in a situation in which that can correspond in any way to gospel faithfulness. The clear distinction here between the church and the world is made abundantly clear by Paul. We're not to associate with sexually immoral people inside the church, but in the world, we're to be a gospel people, and that means we're in contact with sinners of every single variety."

Even though Mohler did not seem to accept same-sex intimacy and transgender status, he claimed that he was evolving on issues of sexuality. At the 29:23 mark, he repented of his prior anti-gay statements and admitted that "human sexual affective profiles" are more complex than he thought.

"One of the things we should not be embarrassed to say is that we are learning. One of the embarrassments that I have to bear is that I have written on some of these issues now for nearly thirty years, and at a couple of points, I have to say I got that wrong, and we've got to go back and correct it, correct it by scripture. Now early in this controversy, I felt it quite necessary in order to make clear the gospel, to deny anything like a sexual orientation. Speaking at an event for the National Association of Evangelicals, twenty-something years ago, I made that point. I repent of that. I believe that a Biblical, theological understanding, a robust Biblical theology would point to us that human sexual affective profiles, who we are sexually, is far more deeply rooted than just the will, if that were so easy. But Genesis 3 explains that, helps us to understand that this complex of same-sex challenges coming to us is something that's deeply rooted in the Biblical story itself, and something we need to take with far greater seriousness than we've taken in the past."

His repentance notwithstanding, it soon became clear that Mohler was still clinging to a right-wing understanding of sex, relationships, and reproduction. At the 31:48 mark, he claimed that divorce, cohabitation, and contraception have contributed far more to the alleged "subversion of marriage" than same-sex marriage.

"We come to understand that rupture in the universe, that rip in creation of human sin and sexual sin in particular, we come to understand that now we are seeing the flowering of virtually all this simultaneously. We need to admit it didn't start with same-sex marriage. We need to admit it didn't start with same-sex relationships. It didn't start with those who are advocates for normalization of homosexuality in various forms. It didn't start with the transgender movement. It started with heterosexual sin. It started with the heterosexual subversion of marriage ... 

If you were to rewind history to the beginning of the 20th century, not one Christian denomination of any sort had anything but absolute theological opposition to contraception, and it was the Anglican church that was the first to break on that in the  early pre-war period between World War I and World War II. And quickly things happened and a lot of it happened without much forethought whatsoever ... 

And then came the divorce revolution. The divorce revolution has done far more harm to marriage than same-sex marriage will ever do. Long before the proponents of same-sex marriage showed up, heterosexuals showed how to destroy marriage by making it a tentative, hypothetical union for so long as it may last, turning it merely into a contract to be treated as any other contract, as a consumer good to be continued so long as it brings both parties mutual benefit. And then cohabitation. I mean, now we're looking at the fact that the census bureau tells us that the first intimate relationship, the first residential relationship for most adults is cohabitation ... The inevitable social pathologies that come from that are just massive."

Americans are increasingly rejecting these rigid beliefs, and as a result, fundamentalist Christianity no longer holds the power over society that it once did. Mohler grieved for this loss of power, complaining that his ilk no longer had the credibility and dominance they once did. At the 38:15 mark, he encouraged listeners to recognize the current state of affairs.

"We are accustomed to ministry from the topside of the culture, not from the underside. We are accustomed to speaking from a position of strength and respect and credibility, and now we're going to be facing the reality that we are already, in much of America, speaking from a position of a loss of credibility, speaking from the underside, speaking from the wrong side of the moral equation ... This is something all of us now have to face, because if we're involved in Christian ministry now, this is what's staring us, right now, in the face, this moral revolution."

For all Mohler's talk about learning, repenting, and living as "gospel people", his beliefs about sexuality remain stagnant. Despite his soft words, he still looked askance at LGBTQ status, divorce, cohabitation, and contraception, much like other Religious Right voices. Indeed, his talk seemed more focused on coping with the growing acceptance of these things than on cultivating a more enlightened understanding of Christian sexuality. Having listened to the first of the ERLC conference talks, I'm not optimistic about what the other talks will offer.



To read additional commentary, visit the following links.

The Advocate: Southern Baptist Conference Wrap-Up: Shifting Rhetoric, Maintaining Anti-LGBT Beliefs

Religion Dispatches: LGBT Christians Respond to Southern Baptists’ Call For Kindness, Understanding

Think Progress: How The Southern Baptists Are Still Completely Failing Transgender People

Think Progress: Three Days In Nashville Talking To Southern Baptists About Homosexuality

World Vision Welcomes Employees in Same-Sex Marriages

World Vision, one of the largest Christian charities in the U.S., recently announced a policy change that has sent shock waves through the evangelical community. On March 24th, World Vision's U.S. branch announced that it will employ Christians in legal same-sex marriages, according to Religion News Service. The organization's employee conduct manual will no longer define marriage as between a man and woman, and will acknowledge same-sex marriage as compatible with its requirement of “abstinence before marriage and fidelity in marriage” among employees.

An official statement from World Vision explained that conflicts over LGBTQ rights in the Christian community have been "tearing apart the Body of Christ", and that the World Vision board does not want such tensions to impair its mission. The statement stressed that it has not endorsed same-sex marriage, but has merely deferred to local churches on the matter.

"But since World Vision is a multi-denominational organization that welcomes employees from more than 50 denominations, and since a number of these denominations in recent years have sanctioned same-sex marriage for Christians, the board -- in keeping with our practice of deferring to church authority in the lives of our staff, and desiring to treat all of our employees equally -- chose to adjust our policy. Thus, the board has modified our Employee Standards of Conduct to allow a Christian in a legal same-sex marriage to be employed at World Vision.

I want to be clear that we have not endorsed same-sex marriage, but we have chosen to defer to the authority of local churches on this issue. We have chosen not to exclude someone from employment at World Vision U.S. on this issue alone ..."

In an interview with Christianity Today, World Vision U.S. president Richard Stearns explained that the policy change represented Christian unity, not compromise. Stearns also insisted that the decision was not influenced by activists, employee groups, or legal pressure. "We're not caving to some kind of pressure. We're not on some slippery slope. There is no lawsuit threatening us. There is no employee group lobbying us," he told Christianity Today.  "This is not us compromising. It is us deferring to the authority of churches and denominations on theological issues. We're an operational arm of the global church, we're not a theological arm of the church."

World Vision's decision, while not momentous or controversial, is still a step forward. When a large Christian charity makes a public decision not to discriminate against employees in same-sex marriages, it sets a positive precedent for the faith community. Homophobia should never impede charitable work, something that World Vision has come to understand. While I still disagree with some of World Vision's employee policies, I feel that this decision was an enlightened step in the right direction.

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) applauded the policy change. Ross Murray, GLAAD director of news, praised World Vision's decision to focus on charitable world rather than exclusion.

"While this shift may be considered insignificant by some, it demonstrates a recognition that more Christian denominations recognize LGBT people and marriage equality. It also asserts that LGBT discrimination is not a core component of World Vision's Christian identity. The organization chose to focus on its mission to bring relief to people worldwide, as opposed to spending its energy keeping out those who wish to help support that mission."

Unfortunately, voices from the Religious Right quickly slammed the decision. Anti-gay figures such as Peter LaBarbera, Linda Harvey, and Bryan Fischer took to Twitter to lambaste World Vision for its anti-discrimination stance, as documented by Truth Wins Out.

Reactions from right-leaning Christian leaders were swift.  During an interview with the American Family Association, Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber spoke of World Vision's decision in venomous terms. He cited a warning in Revelations 13 in which people would need the mark of the beast to engage in commerce. At the 1:28 mark of the Right Wing Watch video above, Barber claimed that Stearns would have to explain himself to God someday.

"I'm more concerned with World Vision. I mean, I'm concerned for Richard Stearns. I'm concerned for his relationship with Christ. He's going to have to answer to God for this, and so are the people who are facilitating this within World Vision. To do things in the name of Christ that God calls an abomination, I wouldn't want to be standing before God and having to explain myself."  

Franklin Graham, president of Samaritan's Purse, blasted World Vision's decision in a March 24th online statement.

"I was shocked today to hear of World Vision’s decision to hire employees in same-sex marriages. The Bible is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.

My dear friend, Bob Pierce, the founder of World Vision and Samaritan’s Purse, would be heartbroken. He was an evangelist who believed in the inspired Word of God.

World Vision maintains that their decision is based on unifying the church – which I find offensive – as if supporting sin and sinful behavior can unite the church.

From the Old Testament to the New Testament, the Scriptures consistently teach that marriage is between a man and woman and any other marriage relationship is sin."

Bethlehem College & Seminary chancellor John Piper was also unhappy about World Vision's move. In a March 25th post at Desiring God, he claimed that World Vision's decision "trivializes perdition" by failing to lump same-sex intimacy together with other sins.

"...to treat regular homosexual intercourse as less dangerous than fornication, adultery, greed, theft, and drunkenness is to treat perdition as if it were a small thing, or not really coming. The same text that imperils active fornicators and adulterers and thieves and coveters, also imperils those who practice homosexuality."

Piper argued that World Vision's decision placed it firmly in the liberal Christian camp, which would allow "worldliness" to weaken the organization from within.

"...World Vision has aligned itself with liberal Christians who choose not to renounce homosexual practice. Culturally, historically, and biblically this is a huge step toward the powerlessness and growing irrelevance of the mainline liberal establishment. You cannot undermine biblical authority, and trivialize perdition and its blood-bought remedy, and expect to maintain a vibrant spiritual base. It isn’t going to happen.

This means that, without repentance and change, World Vision will go the way of worldliness and weakness. A great superstructure will remain for a season, but the Christian soul will disappear. And who will suffer most? The poor."

Russell D. Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, wrote in a March 24th commentary piece that World Vision's decision was wrongheaded. He claimed that Christians "empower darkness" when they refuse to warn others about sinful behavior invoking judgment.

"At stake is the gospel of Jesus Christ. If sexual activity outside of a biblical definition of marriage is morally neutral, then, yes, we should avoid making an issue of it. If, though, what the Bible clearly teaches and what the church has held for 2000 years is true, then refusing to call for repentance is unspeakably cruel and, in fact, devilish ... We empower darkness when we refuse to warn of judgment. We empower the darkness when we refuse to offer forgiveness through the blood of the cross."

R. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, criticized World Vision's alleged "flawed moral vision" in a March 25th commentary piece at his website. Mohler stressed that same-sex intimacy is sinful, accusing World Vision of failing to name sin.

"The leader of World Vision U.S. now claims that the Bible is not sufficiently clear on the sinfulness of same-sex sexuality and relationships, but he also claims a “mission of building the kingdom.” The Apostle Paul makes homosexuality a kingdom issue, and he does so in the clearest of terms ... The worst aspect of the World Vision U.S. policy shift is the fact that it will mislead the world about the reality of sin and the urgent need of salvation. Willingly recognizing same-sex marriage and validating openly homosexual employees in their homosexuality is a grave and tragic act that confirms sinners in their sin — and that is an act that violates the gospel of Christ."

Mohler insisted that a Christian organization's operations and theology cannot be kept separate, chiding World Vision for allegedly throwing off theological responsibility.

"The distinction between an “operational arm” of the church and a “theological arm” is a fatal misreading of reality. World Vision claims a Christian identity, claims to serve the kingdom of Christ, and claims a theological rationale for its much-needed ministries to the poor and distressed. It cannot surrender theological responsibility when convenient and then claim a Christian identity and a theological mandate for ministry."

As LGBTQ rights gain momentum, Christian congregations slowly welcome LGBTQ persons, and Christian organizations such as World Vision adjust their stance on same-sex relationships, the Religious Right grows angry and bewildered. As more Christians choose unity and service over bigotry, the Religious Right's homophobia will become an increasing outlier.


3/26/14 EDIT: World Vision reversed its decision, unfortunately. More here.


To read additional commentary, visit the following links.

Sojourners: World Vision and the State of American Evangelicalism

Zach Hoag at the Nuance: Farewell, Gospel Coalition

Rage Against the Minivan: On World Vision, gay marriage, and taking a stand on the backs of starving children

News Tidbits

New York Times: Standard-Bearer in Evolution Fight: Eugenie C. Scott Fights the Teaching of Creationism in Schools

Washington Post: Leader of Southern Baptist seminary marks 20 years, helped make school more conservative

Religion News Service: Religious diversity is increasing at the office, and so are pitfalls

New Republic: Meet the New Anti-Adoption Movement

KOIN: Oregon: Sweet Cakes closing shop amid same-sex wedding cake rift

Raw Story: Former Navy chaplain wants ‘worthy of death’ printed on all LGBT couples’ wedding photos

Raw Story: Christian radio host Sandy Rios: Military’s ‘homosexual takeover’ could doom attack on Syria

Boise State Public Radio: Why The Mormon Church Is Sending So Many Missionaries To Idaho

Boy Scouts May Reconsider Ban on Gays; Religious Right Horrified

The Associated Press reports that the Boy Scouts of America may empower sponsors of troops to decide whether or not to accept gays as leaders and scouts. In a press statement on the Boy Scouts of America website, BSA director of public relations Deron Smith revealed that the organizations is reconsidering its ban on gays.

"Currently, the BSA is discussing potentially removing the national membership restriction regarding sexual orientation. This would mean there would no longer be any national policy regarding sexual orientation, and the chartered organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with each organization’s mission, principles, or religious beliefs."

The Boy Scouts current excludes gays from units, a long-standing policy that has frustrated LGBTQ advocates. If the Boy Scouts changes its policy, it would free troops to accept members of different sexual orientations.

The news comes after several corporate donors (including Merck, UPS, and Intel) have refused to contribute money to the Boy Scouts because of its ban on gays. It also follows several high-profile cases of discrimination, including a teenage boy who was denied Eagle Scout rank for being gay and a troop leader who was removed from her post for being lesbian.

Predictably, the Religious Right is revolted by the idea. First, in a January 28th press release, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins urged Boy Scouts of America to resist pressure from "the bullying of homosexual activists". He correlated the ban on gay members with "moral integrity". (See www[dot]frc[dot]org/newsroom/frc-boy-scouts-should-stand-firm-in-its-moral-values-resist-pressure-to-change-homosexuality-policy)

"The Boy Scouts of America board would be making a serious mistake to bow to the strong-arm tactics of LGBT activists and open the organization to homosexuality. What has changed in terms of the Boy Scouts' concern for the well-being of the boys under their care? Or is this not about the well-being of the Scouts, but the funding for the organization?

The Boy Scouts has for decades been a force for moral integrity and leadership in the United States. Sadly, their principled stances have marked them as a target for harassment by homosexual activists and corporations such as UPS which are working to pressure the Boy Scouts into abandoning their historic values.

The mission of the Boy Scouts is 'to instill values in young people' and 'prepare them to make ethical choices,' and the Scout's oath includes a pledge 'to do my duty to God' and keep himself 'morally straight.' It is entirely reasonable and not at all unusual for those passages to be interpreted as requiring abstinence from homosexual conduct."

Also, in a January 28th alert, the Family Research Council urged supporters to contact Boy Scouts of America before its upcoming board meeting and support its ban on gays. (See www[dot]frc[dot]org/alert/breaking-news-will-the-boy-scouts-stand-up-to-bullies)

In a January 29th commentary at his website, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Albert Mohler lamented that the Boy Scouts might "surrender to massive public pressure". He called the increasing acceptance of LGBTQ people "the reversal in one generation of a moral consensus that had endured for thousands of years". (See www[dot]albertmohler[dot]com/2013/01/29/morally-straight-the-transformation-of-the-boy-scouts-of-america/)

"The Boy Scouts will soon face the same challenge seen in much of the United States military. The conservative segments of the population most opposed to the normalization of homosexuality are also the segments that have historically provided the vast majority of those who volunteer to serve in the military. The Boy Scouts of America is prepared to surrender to massive public pressure and to set itself against the majority of its own members. Remember that just six months ago the B.S.A. chief executive said that the current policy was supported by “the vast majority of the parents of the youth we serve.”

Those parents and sponsoring organizations, including thousands of churches, were no match for the political clout of the gay rights movement. This should serve as a sobering indication of the cultural momentum behind the current moral revolution — the reversal in one generation of a moral consensus that had endured for thousands of years ... Faithful Christians are left in the excruciatingly difficult position of maintaining fidelity to moral judgments revealed in the Bible while the culture around us races in the opposite direction. While the Boy Scouts use language like “morally straight,” the church uses its own language of sin, grace, and obedience."

In a January 28th post at the American Family Association's Rightly Concerned blog, Bryan Fischer warned the Boy Scouts against "capitulation to the forces of sexual deviancy". He claimed that gays sexually abuse children at higher rates, ignoring research to the contrary. (See www[dot]afa[dot]net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147531729)

"If the Scouts do not reverse themselves, we will soon be reading the kind of horror stories about Scouting that we have read about in the Catholic Church. Homosexual pedophiles already seek to infiltrate scouting because it provides a target rich environment for their twisted desires. Abolishing the sexual orientation standard will turn every Boy Scout in America into vulnerable prey for the sexually deviant."

Finally, in a January 29th article at American Thinker entitled "The Boy Scouts: A Deal with Gay Activists?", Dan Nagasaki and Glenn Doi oppose the idea of gay scout leaders but insist it has nothing to do with homophobia. Rather, they claim that placing someone in a leadership position overseeing "impressionable, and sometimes troubled or sexually-confused boys or girls" where sexual tension might exist is inappropriate. (See www[dot]americanthinker[dot]com/blog/2013/01/the_boy_scotus_dealing_with_gay_activists.html)

A common theme runs through many of these statements: the incorrect claim that gay men are more likely to perpetrate abuse. Whether the language is subtle ("concern for the well-being of the boys under their care") or brazen ("homosexual pedophiles" seeking victims for their "twisted desires"), the ugly stereotype of gays as predators is unmistakable. This kind of hateful rhetoric demonizes gays, ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of LGBTQ persons are not predators. Moreover, such rhetoric ignores the real correlates of sexual abuse -- abuse that the Boy Scout's policy of excluding gays did not prevent. If Religious Right figures were genuinely concerned about abuse in the Boy Scouts, they would focus on real abuse prevention instead of scapegoating gays.

Whether the Boy Scouts retains or drops its no-gays policy, the fact that it is publicly reconsidering the policy is progress. The world is evolving on LGBTQ issues, to the Religious Right's dismay. I expect the Religious Right to fume like this every time a major organization abandons an unfair policy or adopts an LGBTQ-affirming stance. And, I expect more and more people to see through their homophobic rhetoric.


To read additional commentary, visit the following links.

Right Wing Watch: Bryan Fischer Explodes: 'Not One Loving Father' Should Entrust Son to the Boy Scouts if Gays Are Included

Christian Science Monitor: Will Change on Gays Allow Boy Scouts to Recapture Role in Society?

The Atlantic: The Real Story Behind the Boy Scouts' Gay-Ban Reversal Is a Human Story

Diversity and Tolerance Triumph at Presidential Inauguration

On Monday, President Obama was sworn in for the second term of his presidency. His inauguration fell on the same day as Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and his inaugural address reflected a spirit of equality, justice, and obligations to future generations that would have likely appeal to the late Dr. King. President Obama's inaugural address touched upon the need for equality across race, sex, and sexual orientation.

"We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths –- that all of us are created equal –- is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall ... For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law -- for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."

The choice of speakers for the inauguration also reflected a spirit of equality. Rev. Louie Giglio was originally scheduled to deliver the benediction at the inaugural ceremony, but these plans were jettisoned when a past homophobic sermon by Giglio surfaced (more below). In Giglio's place, the Presidential Inaugural Committee invited Episcopal priest Luis Leon to deliver the inaugural benediction. Leon, pastor of St. John's Episcopal Church in Washington D.C., was a member of the steering committee for D.C. Clergy United for Marriage Equality, according to the Washington Blade.

Rev. Leon's benediction stressed the common humanity that diverse people share, asking God to dispel fear of those who are different. Gays were included in Leon's vision of a common humanity.

"We pray for your blessing because without it suspicion, despair, and fear of those different from us will be our rule of life. But with your blessing, we can see each other created in your image, a unit of God's grace, unprecedented, irrepeatable and irreplaceable.

We pray for your blessing because without it, we will see only what the eye can see. But with the blessing of your blessing we will see that we are created in your image, whether brown, black or white, male or female, first generation or immigrant American, or daughter of the American Revolution, gay or straight, rich or poor."

Moreover, poet Richard Blanco delivered a poet entitled "One Today" during the swearing-in ceremony, in which he celebrated America's rich diversity. The 2013 presidential inauguration was indeed a time to celebrate diversity, to acknowledge the many groups that make up the American tapestry.

This inauguration was a meaningful moment for America. The choice of speakers and the messages they conveyed suggest an America where diversity is increasingly celebrated, where more people recognize the humanity of their LGBTQ brethren. Symbolically and concretely, America is making progress toward greater unity.

Of course, the Religious Right is not happy about this. For instance, in a January 22nd commentary at the Family Research Council website, the FRC accused President Obama of using a "combative tone" and fomenting division by defending "special rights based on sexual behavior". The fact that an organization opposed to LGBTQ rights could accuse anyone else of divisiveness blows my mind. (See www[dot]frc[dot]org/washingtonupdate/a-vision-of-division)

"With every reinvention of the Founder's ideals, President Obama made it clear that he is committed to continuing his push for big, centralized, and expensive government. And paramount to that push is a highly controversial vision that includes everything from unlimited entitlements and gun bans to illegal immigration to special rights based on sexual behavior. "Our journey is not complete," the President said, "until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law--for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well." In these instances, a speech that could have built bridges only widened the gaps."

The Religious Right's anger over inauguration details had ignited long before inauguration day. As mentioned above, Rev. Louie Giglio, pastor of Passion City Church in Atlanta, Georgia, had been selected to deliver the benediction at President Obama's inaugural ceremony. According to the Washington Post, Giglio had been chosen because of his extensive work in raising awareness of human trafficking.

Controversy erupted when Think Progress unearthed a 1990s sermon by Giglio which contained homophobic remarks and endorsement of so-called conversion therapy. In  the sermon "In Search of a Standard -- Christian Response to Homosexuality", Giglio spoke of homosexuality as a sin, an addiction, and a threat to morality. For instance, at the 31:45 mark, Giglio urged listeners to resist the "aggressive agenda" of the LGBTQ community, warning that gays are not a "benevolent" force.

"We must lovingly yet  firmly respond to the aggressive agenda of not all, but many in the homosexual community ... Underneath this issue is a very powerful and aggressive moment. That movement is not a benevolent movement, but it is a movement to seize by any means necessary the feeling and the mood of the day, to the point where the homosexual lifestyle becomes accepted as a norm in our society and is given full standing as any other lifestyle, as it relates to family."

At the 40:25 mark, Giglio suggested that faith in Jesus Christ could lift people out of the "homosexual lifestyle". (Sound familiar?)

"As the church of Jesus Christ, we cannot sit on the sidelines. We cannot sit back inside our churches, but we must reach out and we must aggressively move toward the homosexual community because we have a message. We’ve got something to say ... Our message is we know Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ is powerful enough to do anything and to do everything. And the only way out of a homosexual lifestyle, the only way out of a relationship that has been engrained over years of time, is through the healing power of Jesus."

These comments soon caught up with Giglio. In a January 10th blog post at the Passion City Church website, Giglio explained to readers that he would not be praying at the presidential inauguration. In a statement he submitted to the White House, Giglio worried that his participation in the inauguration would be overshadowed by people with an "agenda". (See www[dot]passioncitychurch[dot]com/blog/?p=1436)

"Due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15-20 years ago, it is likely that my participation, and the prayer I would offer, will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration. Clearly, speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past fifteen years. Instead, my aim has been to call people to ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ."

Naturally, the Religious Right was outraged. In a January 10th press release posted at the Family Research Council website, FRC president Tony Perkins called the Giglio affair an example of the Obama Administration's "intolerance", condemning the value it has placed on "forced acceptance of homosexuality." Perkins argues that the major Christian denominations sanction sexual behavior only in opposite-sex marriages, oblivious to the fact that not all Christians embrace homophobia, and that not all Americans are conservative Christians. (See frcblog[dot]com/2013/01/pastor-giglio-disinvitation-signals-inauguration-new-era-religious-intolerance/)

"This is another example of intolerance from the Obama administration toward those who hold to biblical views on sexuality. Why is the president surprised that an evangelical pastor would teach from Scripture on homosexuality? One would be hard pressed to find an Evangelical pastor who hasn’t preached on what the Bible teaches about human sexuality.

Catholic, Evangelical Protestant, and Orthodox churches all actively proclaim that sexual intimacy within the marriage of one man and one woman is the only biblically-sanctioned human sexual behavior. Are the scores of millions of Americans who affirm these teachings no longer welcome at the inauguration of our president?

What is shocking is the intolerance of the Obama team that put such a high priority on forced acceptance of homosexuality that they totally disregard Pastor Giglio’s life work combating human trafficking. What we are seeing is the inauguration of a new era of religious intolerance in America."

In a January 11th post at the National Organization For Marriage blog, NOM president Brian Brown defended Giglio's view as "the standard view of sexual morality" in the world's major religions. He also accused the Obama administration of excluding "traditional Christianity" and thereby sacrificing the principles of unity and tolerance. The sheer irony of an anti-LGBTQ organization accusing the White House of neglecting national unity and tolerance is mind-boggling. (See www[dot]nomblog[dot]com/32322/)

"Nonetheless, Pastor Giglio's view is the standard view of sexual morality in orthodox Christianity (and Judaism, and Hinduism, and Islam, and Buddhism) for thousands of years.

His withdrawal under political pressure demonstrates the New World Order at the White House: traditional Christianity must be excluded; the wrath of gay advocates is more important than national unity or the principle of tolerance and inclusiveness."

In a January 10th commentary, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Albert Mohler called the Giglio affair "evidence of the new Moral McCarthyism of our sexually "tolerant" age". He claimed that Giglio had been disinvited "because he believes and teaches Christian truth", complaining that anyone who condemns homosexuality now risks being ostracized. (See www[dot]albertmohler[dot]com/2013/01/10/the-giglio-imbroglio-the-public-inauguration-of-a-new-moral-mccarthyism/)

"Louie Giglio was cast out of the circle of the acceptable simply because a liberal watchdog group found one sermon he preached almost twenty years ago. If a preacher has ever taken a stand on biblical conviction, he risks being exposed decades after the fact. Anyone who teaches at any time, to any degree, that homosexual behavior is a sin is now to be cast out."

Similarly, Janice Shaw Crouse sees Giglio as a victim of religious discrimination. In a January 15th column at the Washington Times, Crouse argued that the Obama administration is ostracizing those who embrace "Christian teaching" and that Christians must defend their religious freedom. (See www[dot]washingtontimes[dot]com/news/2013/jan/15/obama-committees-slap-in-the-face-of-religious-lib/#disqus_thread)

"The Obama administration has thrown down a gauntlet, declaring that anyone who espouses historic, biblical Christian teaching will be prohibited from participation in events in the public square, just as nativity scenes, Christmas trees, depictions of the Ten Commandments and other symbols of Christianity have previously been banned ... As Christians, we cannot back down from our religious freedoms, nor can we betray our faith by watering down scripturally based Gospel. The path forward in the moral morass of today will require our discernment and total reliance on God’s guidance and grace."

Let them fume. As much as I respect Giglio's anti-trafficking efforts, his past homophobia troubles me. Giglio could have used the controversy as an opportunity to reject his past homophobia and make amends to the LGBTQ community, but this did not occur.

The Giglio controversy, as well as the inclusive inaugural speeches delivered on Monday, are a sign that America is slowly rejecting homophobia and evolving into a more tolerant country. Homophobia is by no means dead, as the above Religious Right comments demonstrate. However, if homophobic comments can draw public disapproval, and pro-equality voices can take center stage at the presidential inauguration, America is evolving toward a more just society.


To read additional commentary, visit the following links.

Religion Dispatches: Unpacking the Giglio Imbroglio

Huffington Post: Louie Giglio's Missed Opportunity

The Bilerico Project: Louie Giglio's Strange Logic

The Art of Marriage, Part I

Last month, I posted on a Christian marriage workshop to be held in central Pennsylvania called "The Art of Marriage." Created by FamilyLife and sponsored by the Pennsylvania Family Institute, "The Art of Marriage" became a source of controversy because Chik-Fil-A was reportedly sponsoring the event as well. Members of the LGBT and progressive blogosphere were unhappy that Chik-Fil-A was reportedly co-sponsoring an event with Pennsylvania Family Institute, a right-wing group that promotes the "traditional family." In an article at the Christian Post, Pennsylvania Family Institute president Michael Geer insisted that Chik-Fil-A was merely donating food for the event.

"The Art of Marriage" debuted this weekend at churches in Camp Hill and Reading, PA, and I attended the first night of the event (February 11th) at Christian Life Assembly in Camp Hill, PA. I attended the workshop not because of Chik-Fil-A (which was not mentioned at all while I was there), but because I wanted to hear what messages about marriage, gender, and religion would be promoted.

FamilyLife, a ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ, offers relationship guidance to Christian couples. I have already written on some of the disconcerting messages about gender and homosexuality found at the FamilyLife website, some of which were reflected in "The Art of Marriage" workshop videos. After watching two of the six video modules and perusing "The Art of Marriage" workbook, I found that the program contained both healthy and unhealthy advice. While the program does promote positive relationship elements such as good communication and intimacy, it does so within a heteronormative, patriarchal framework that expects religious faith to do a lot of heavy lifting.