Commentary Tidbits

Salon: Southern Baptist leader’s role in question because of his ardent Trump opposition

Refinery29: I Found Something Suspicious In The Duggar Family Scrapbook

Religion Dispatches: “He Got Away With It”: Conversion Therapy Survivor on Dr. Joseph Nicolosi’s Legacy

The Nation: This House Republican Just Endorsed a White Nationalist

Vice: A Short History of Congressman Steve King Saying Racist S**t

Boy Scouts Will Now Accept Transgender Boys; Religious Right Fumes

Monday brought good news to transgender children across the U.S. The New York Times reports that on January 30th, the Boy Scouts of America announced that it would accept members based on the gender stated on their applications, rather than the sex listed on their birth certificates. The decision comes after the Boy Scouts ended its ban on gay youth in 2013 and its ban on gay leaders in 2015.

LGBTQ equality advocates at the Human Rights Campaign and Scouts for Equality were pleased with the decision. Naturally, transphobic voices from the Religious Right were disgusted.

Writing at Fox News, Todd Starnes claimed that the Boy Scouts caved into "militant social justice warriors" and "sacrificed its last vestige of integrity on the altar of political correctness". Starnes called for churches and parents to abandon the Boy Scouts in favor of Trail Life USA.

Russell Moore, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told the Baptist Press that the decision confirmed his fears of "an organizational reinvention". According to Moore, the Christian church "must be absolutely clear about God's good and beautiful design for men and women, even when our most cherished public institutions fail to do so," lamenting that, "Tragically, the Boy Scouts seem to be continuing their trajectory toward embracing the moral priorities of the Sexual Revolution."

Denny Burk, a professor at Boyce College (affiliated with the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) with a history of transphobia, was also unhappy. In a January 30th blog post, he expressed disappointment that the Boy Scouts "succumbed to pressure" and chose to "capitulate" on the issue of transgender scouts. Burk called the decision a "concession to radical gender ideology" that will fail to help children.

"When a child embraces a psychological identity at odds with his bodily identity, this is not healthy or good for that child. And it only adds insult to injury for adults to accommodate this harmful self-impression. But that is what this new policy does.

I can’t help but grieve that the Boy Scouts are going along with this radical redefinition of what it means to be a boy. They are making a big mistake in this, and it will be one that hurts not only their organization but also the very boys they wish to serve."

Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, told the Christian Post that the decision marks "the end of the Boy Scouts of America as we know it." Wildmon predicted a "demise" of the Boy Scouts, accusing their policy of being "incompatible with scripture" and "teaching gender confusion" to children.

As with every other advance made by the LGBTQ community, the Religious Right is horrified that transgender boys can now join the Boy Scouts like normal children. As more people and institutions refuge to stigmatize transgender persons, the Religious Right will grow frustrated and baffled. In the meantime, transgender boys can now enjoy the Boy Scout's camaraderie and learning experiences while being true to themselves.

Religious Right Tweets Following the Orlando Massacre

During the early morning hours of Sunday, June 12, a gunman opened fire on people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, killing 50 people and wounding 53 others, according to CNN. The reported shooter has been identified as Omar Saddiqui Mateen, a 29 year-old man from Fort Pierce, Florida. Before exploring the massacre in depth, I'd like to share some tweets from Religious Right figures in the aftermath of the tragedy. Religious Right responses have been both supportive and hateful.

UPDATE: Texas Governor Dan Patrick posted a Tweet earlier today that read, "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Galatians 6:7." He has since deleted the Tweet amidst backlash, according to the Houston Chronicle.

Barack "Identity Politics" Obama and his dilemma: FL victims where homosexuals, but perpetrator was Muslim.

— Bryan Fischer (@BryanJFischer) June 12, 2016

What left should say but won't: we can't let gays kiss in public - it might offend Muslims. https://t.co/kAwqCcjct9

— Bryan Fischer (@BryanJFischer) June 12, 2016

Americans don't need a lecture from the Islamic Society of Central Florida. An Islamist just slaughtered Americans on American soil. AGAIN!

— toddstarnes (@toddstarnes) June 12, 2016

Militant Islam seeks and brings death. Radical Christianity seeks and brings life. Praying for those involved in the #OrlandoShootings

— Jason Benham (@JasonBBenham) June 12, 2016

Christian, your gay or lesbian neighbor is probably really scared right now. Whatever our genuine disagreements, let's love and pray.

— Russell Moore (@drmoore) June 12, 2016

Fifty lives gone, at least. Fifty people made in the image of God. Horrific and heartbreaking. https://t.co/2a7XGj9gg0

— Russell Moore (@drmoore) June 12, 2016

Our thoughts and prayers are with the individuals and the families of those involved in the horrific tragedy in Orlando. #PrayForOrlando

— CWA LAC (@CWforA) June 12, 2016

My prayers are with the victims and family members who lost loved ones at the senseless shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando.

— Franklin Graham (@Franklin_Graham) June 12, 2016

Southern Baptist Leader Russell Moore Interviews Jeb Bush

Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention, interviewed Republican presidential candidates Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. Jeb Bush was interviewed in person at the Send North America Conference in Bridgestone Arena in Nashville, Tennessee, while Marco Rubio was interviewed via video.

In an article at the ERLC website, Moore expressed his eagerness to interview the candidates while throwing out buzzwords such as "religious liberty" and "family stability".

"Evangelicals realize they can no longer consider themselves part of some silent majority, where our First Amendment freedoms are assumed and guaranteed. Instead, evangelicals want to know which candidates offer a clear, coherent vision of religious liberty and have a plan to defend it when the very idea is contested in American politics. Evangelicals are looking for leaders who not only understand their convictions about human dignity and family stability but have plans to address them, and this event will provide the opportunity for precisely this kind of discussion with some of the leading presidential candidates, and I am greatly looking forward to it."

ERLC posted a video of the Bush interview on YouTube, from which I've harvested several quotes from Jeb Bush on "religious freedom", reproductive rights, Planned Parenthood, and poverty.

At the 1:17 mark, Bush answered a question from Moore regarding "religious freedom" -- that is, the right for business owners to veil discriminatory practices with religious belief. Bush depicted such business owners as beleaguered Americans being pressured to keep their convictions out of the public square, rather than people who discriminate against the LGBTQ community.

"This is perhaps the most important discussion we need to have as a country going forward. The recent ruling as it relates to marriage puts into doubt now religious conscience, acting on your faith, not just faith. In fact, people will say it's okay to be religious. Just do it in your church and do it at home, but don't act on your faith in the public square, because that's discriminatory against others that may not agree with it. It's the other way around. This is the first freedom. This is a foundational freedom in this country ... You take this one away, it's very easy to imagine other freedoms being taken away as well."

For Bush, "religious freedom" also extends to employers' denial of contraception coverage to employees. At the 4:32 mark, he applauded the Little Sisters of the Poor for their resistance to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate (calling them the Little Sisters of Charity by mistake).

"The best example is the Little Sisters of Charity, [a] group of nuns that are compelled to have contraceptives in their health care plan, and the courts are ruling against them for this. I mean, this is the insistence of HHS, Big Brother telling the Little Sisters that they have to have contraceptives, going totally against their own faith as devout Catholics? It gets absurd pretty quick, and if you persuade people with these kind of facts and stories, I think you can win people over."

At the 11:01 mark, Moore and Bush discussed the controversial Planned Parenthood videos that have seized the media spotlight. Bush made his disdain for Planned Parenthood clear and vowed to defund the organization if elected president. He assured listeners that if elected president, budgets will be passed smoothly, "and in that budget, I can promise you, there will not be five hundred million dollars going to Planned Parenthood."

MOORE: Now I'm sure you've seen--if you've not see the videos, you've seen reports of these Planned Parenthood undercover videos--

BUSH: Oh Lord.

MOORE: --that have really shocked the conscience of the nation right now. There was a vote that failed in the United States Senate yesterday to defund Planned Parenthood. Would you think that we have a continuing resolution coming up to fund the government? Given the atrocity of these children being destroyed with such callous disregard for their lives, shouldn't we make that an issue and say 'not one more red cent to Planned Parenthood'?

BUSH: We should, and the next president should defund Planned Parenthood. [Applause] I have the benefit of having been governor, and we did defund Planned Parenthood when I was governor. We tried to create a culture of life across the board. The argument against this is, well, women's health issues are going to be-- you're attacking, it's a war on women and you're attacking women's health issues. You could take dollar for dollar--although I'm not sure we need a half a billion dollars for women's health issues--but if you took dollar for dollar, there are many extraordinarily fine organizations, community health organizations that exist, federally sponsored community health organizations to provide quality care for women on a wide variety of health issues, but abortion should not be funded by the government, any government in my mind. [Applause]

First, Bush conveniently forgot that the federal government cannot fund abortion anyway due to the Hyde Amendment. Second, his comment about women's health issues not needing $500 million in funding shows how little importance he assigns to women's health, something enlightened voters will remember on Election Day. Finally, many communities have a dearth of community health organizations, meaning that many women would be left without accessible reproductive health care if Planned Parenthood were defunded. To boot, not all community health organizations provide abortion services, so if Planned Parenthood were defunded, many women would be left without access to abortions. Does Jeb Bush really want more unwanted pregnancies (and all the problems that come with them) in America?

Observers were quick to condemn the insensitive comment, according to the Associated Press. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called Bush "absolutely, unequivocally wrong" on Twitter. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders chided Bush as well, tweeting that "We actually need a heck of a lot more than $3 per person for women's health care". Bush later issued a statement insisting that he "misspoke", according to Talking Points Memo.

Moore played devil's advocate at the 13:25 mark, asking Bush how he would react to claims that his policies would harm vulnerable citizens.

MOORE: What would you say to people who would say, well yes, but if you're repealing Obamacare, you're dealing with entitlement reform and so forth, we have vulnerable single mothers in our communities, including in many of the urban areas that these pastors are serving, aren't we turning them over to Planned Parenthood when we don't have a robust support system economically around them?

BUSH: Look, this is a place where my personally belief is that life should be cherished. It's a gift from God from beginning to end, and if people are in vulnerable circumstances, government has a duty to help. Maybe more effectively than creating a culture of dependency around people, maybe we help people that are acting on their heart, like many of you do, which I applaud. There's many better ways to do what government does today in isolation of the big and caring hearts of our community, but certainly we as a just and loving and generous society should have a government that puts the most vulnerable in our society in the front of the line.

In reality, the federal government does not act in isolation of community organizations. Federal funds allow many social service organizations to exist. For example, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the organization Bush criticized earlier in the interview, provides countless grants to service providers. Bush's response to Moore's question did not provide a coherent blueprint for protecting America's most vulnerable citizens.

In conclusion, the Moore-Bush interview left me unimpressed. While Bush has better manners than a certain other presidential contender hogging the limelight, he brings no fresh ideas to the presidential race. His stance on "religious freedom" and reproductive rights will appeal to the Religious Right, but will also alienate women, religious minorities, and LGBTQ voters. In short, I doubt that Bush can win the 2016 election by disregarding so many important constituencies and espousing a platform at odds with 21st century America.


To read additional commentary, visit the following links.

The New Civil Rights Movement: Jeb Bush Says 'Not Sure We Need A Half-Billion Dollars For Women's Health' Then Says He Misspoke?

Think Progress: With Declining Evangelical Power, Only 2 Candidates Attend Southern Baptist Forum 

Politico: Jeb Bush’s ad-lib offers Dems another gift

News Tidbits

Daily Journal: Oath Keepers and militia 'guarding' local Armed Forces Career Center

Religion News Service: Pharmacists can’t claim religion to deny emergency contraception, appeals court rules 

Religion News Service: Southern Baptist leader Russell Moore to interview Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio at evangelical rally

USA Today: Baked in the cake: Legal battles follow gay marriage ruling 

Pink News: Clerk ‘fasted and prayed’ before refusing to marry gays

Gay Star News: Louisiana: Married gay man says he was denied communion at his mother’s funeral Mass

WMAZ 13: Dodge judge won't perform weddings, to protest same-sex ruling 

The Advocate: POLL: Thousands of U.K. Health Workers Believe in Gay 'Cure' 

Politico: Code Pink protesters disrupt Ted Cruz at rally

ERLC Announces Gathering as Supreme Court Reflects on Same-Sex Marriage

As a Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage draws near, supporters of LGBTQ equality and Religious Right figures are waiting eagerly for a decision. The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention will hold an event this summer to discuss the decision. Equip Austin will take place in at the Austin Stone Community Church in Austin, Texas on July 29th.

Last year, a similar ERLC event not only delegitimized LGBTQ people, but largely left them out of the conversation on faith, gender, and sexuality. I don't expect Equip Austin to be different in that regard.

ERLC president Russell Moore described the conference in such a way as to demean same-sex unions, while recognizing that legalization of same-sex marriage was a real possibility.

"The Supreme Court will soon decide whether states can legally choose to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It is a watershed moment in our nation’s history. But regardless of whether our land’s highest court recognizes the unchangeable or not, we will hold steadfast. Even more, regardless of the decision, the church will have to learn to engage a culture with the gospel in which we cannot assume people share our same understanding of marriage. As we seek to equip churches for this task I’m thrilled to partner with this exceptional band of leaders at this event to think through what gospel faithfulness looks like in our ever-changing culture."

The Supreme Court recognizing "the unchangeable"? Holding "steadfast" in a culture that doesn't "share our same understanding of marriage"? If Moore's words are any indication, Equip Austin will opposed full LGBTQ equality.

However, Moore seems to accept that the world is changing, realizing that mainstream society is diverging from Southern Baptist sensibilities. This tone will come to define more Religious Right figures if LGBTQ equality continues to make strides in the U.S. While the Religious Right is pernicious, powerful, and deserving of scrutiny, its followers will slowly realize that they are losing the culture wars.

News Tidbits

The Tennessean: Baptist leader Russell Moore: Gospel can overcome gay marriage

Nebraska Educational Telecommunications: Ban on job discrimination for sexual orientation stalls after anti-Catholic remarks

Raw Story: Chairman of Alabama GOP: Allowing same-sex marriage will bring down ‘God’s wrath’ upon us

KTVB: Prosecutors: Jewish woman beaten, harassed in conversion attempt

Humanum: Russell Moore on Marriage, Sex, and Gender

To read an introduction to the Humanum conference, click here. To read about Pope Francis' opening address at Humanum, click here. To read about Rick Warren's talk, click here. To read about Theresa Okafor's commentary, click here.

Humanum: The Complimentarity of Man and Woman took place in Vatican City on November 17-19. Among the speakers at Humanum was Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. Moore's talk exalted heterosexual marriage and binary gender roles, caricaturing people who rejected these paradigms as sinister.

At the 0:17 mark, Moore opened his talk by accusing people who reject binary notions of gender of seeing humans as "machines", of deluding themselves with a "Faustian myth". Moore champions a binary notion of gender, painting any notions of gender outside of this narrow paradigm as "arbitrary". In Moore's eyes, those who accept binary gender roles accept their created role as defined by scripture, while those who do not are ignoring natural "limits".

"Poet Wendell Berry observed several years ago in reacting to the technological utopianism of naturalistic scientism that the key question of the modern era is whether or not we will think of persons as machines or as creatures. I believe that this question frames the entire discussion that we have today.

If we are creatures, then we have meaning and purpose and dignity, but with that, we have limits. If we see ourselves as machines, then we will believe the Faustian myth of our own limitless power and the ability to reshape even what it means to be human. And this is, it seems to me, the question at the heart of the controversies that we face around marriage and sexuality.

Are we created, as both the Hebrew scriptures and Jesus of Nazareth put it, male and female from the beginning, or are these categories arbitrary or self-willed? Do our bodies and our sexes and our generational connectedness, do they represent something of who we were designed to be, and thus place both limits on our ability to recreate ourselves and responsibilities for those who will come after us?"

I would argue that the "limits" Moore imposes are arbitrary. First, we are not created only "male and female". Like other complementarians, Moore ignores the existence of intersex people. Second, sex and gender are not synonymous, as Moore's talk implies. One's biological sex does not dictate one's gender presentation, strengths, skills, temperament, and life path, which all vary from individual to individual. Gender roles vary across eras and cultures, with some cultures acknowledging more than two possible genders. Few people perfectly fit their culture's notion of "masculine" and "feminine", and some people transcend those man-made categories altogether. As much as Moore would like to think otherwise, sex and gender are complex, and always have been.

Moore applauded heterosexual marriage, asserting that such unions are "embedded into the creation order". Any other notion of marriage was creation of the state, he insisted, saying, "Marriage and family were not created or crafted by any human state, and thus cannot be redefined by any human state."

Heterosexual marriage is the "means of human flourishing", not "the arena of individual human desires and appetites", Moore argued. In saying this, Moore insultingly refused to acknowledge that love, trust, and devotion could exist in unions other than heterosexual marriages, reducing them to a matter of urges.

Like other speakers at Humanum, Moore depicted heterosexual marriage as intrinsically good, ignoring examples of unhealthy marriages. In his haste to glorify heterosexual marriage as a universal good, he ignored blights such as domestic violence, reproductive coercion, child marriage, and forced marriage around the globe. To boot, for gays and lesbians, heterosexual marriage would be inappropriate and deeply unsatisfying for both spouses. Marriage is a social good when it involves adults whose sexual orientations and temperaments are compatible, but it is not a universal good per se.

"Sexual difference" is rooted in the "natural order", Moore claimed. At the 5:16 mark, he argued that alleged gender differences and heterosexual marriage were created by God.

"The man needed someone similar to him and yet different from him, and fitted together, they form an organic union, as a head with a body. Humanity then, in the image of God, created male and female, with male and female identities that correspond to one another and fulfill one another, we are not created as Spouse A and Spouse B, but as man and as woman, and in marriage as husband and wife, and parenting as mother and as father. Masculinity and femininity are not aspects of the fallen order to be overcome, but they are instead part of what God declared from the very beginning to be very good."

Moore's talk of "a head with a body" made me uncomfortable. The head does the thinking for the rest of the body, so was he implying that the husband should do the thinking for the wife? My suspicions were conformed at the 6:07 mark, when Moore waxed poetic about male "servant leadership" over the family.

"A man is created then to be other-directed, to pour himself into his family. Headship, in God's design, is not Pharaoh-like tyranny, but Christ-like sacrifice."

Fundamentalists Christians justify male dominance over the family by calling it "sacrifice" and "servanthood", as if playing fast and loose with word definitions somehow makes the practice less repugnant. Such reversals do not change what male dominance is. As much as complementarians speak of "sacrifice" and "servanthood", male dominance doesn't look like this in real life. More often than not, such "headship" encourages boorish behavior among husbands, silences wives, and robs wives of adult autonomy. No matter how much fundamentalists sugar-coat it, male dominance is still unethical and unfair to women.

Moore blasted noncommittal sex, cohabitation, divorce, and evolving notions of marriage, ignoring the fact that these are not new phenomena. At the 7:39 mark, he caricatured feminism as a misguided force trying to tear down patriarchy with free-wheeling sexuality. He further caricatured male sexuality outside of heterosexual marriage as a "Darwinian" and dangerous force that the sexual revolution had unleashed.

"Western culture now celebrates casual sexuality, cohabitation, no-fault divorce, marriage definition, and abortion rights as parts of a sexual revolution that they say can tear down old patriarchal systems. But this is not the case. The sexual revolution is not liberation at all. The sexual revolution is merely the imposition of a different sort of patriarchy. The sexual revolution empowers men to pursue a Darwinian fantasy of the predatory alpha-male, rooted in the values of power, prestige, and personal pleasure. [Applause] Does anyone really believe that these things will empower women and children, when we see the wreckage of sexuality as self-expression all around us?"

Where to start? First, Moore depicts the "sexual revolution" as something recent and monolithic, ignoring the fact that sexual mores have always evolved across eras and cultures. Second, Moore ignores the boons that non-stigmatized sex, divorce, and reproductive freedom have bestowed. I fail to see how forcing women to bear unwanted children, forcing people to stay in unhappy marriages, and stigmatizing premarital sex between consenting adults creates anything but misery.

Finally, Moore demonizes male sexuality outside of marriage as the path of the "predatory alpha-male" defined only by "power, prestige, and personal pleasure". The implied message seems to be, Ladies, keep those legs closed and get married, or those bad men out in the world will devour you! He ignores the fact that some men behave this way in heterosexual marriages, and that not all men behave this way outside of marriage. Plenty of men value consent, trust, honesty, and intimacy in their sexual lives, because they understand that their partners are human beings. Plenty of other men (both single and married) still need to learn these values, but heterosexual marriage does not automatically instill these virtues. Healthy communities, open communication about sex, and quality sex education do. Demonizing all men as beasts who must be tamed with heterosexual marriage is dishonest and unhelpful, and such stereotypes will not help people cultivate healthy sexuality.

Listening to talks by Pope Francis and Russell Moore made me realize that Humanum is less about championing strong families, and more about championing rigid gender roles and facile notions of sexuality. The world is changing, however, and more people recognize that gender, sexuality, and marriage don't have to look a certain way. Humanum represents a segment of society that sees society evolving, and cannot accept it.

The Gospel, Homosexuality, & the Future of Marriage Conference: Talking About LGBTQs But Not With Them

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

One of the most striking things about "The Gospel, Homosexuality, and the Future of Marriage" conference this fall was how speakers talked about LGBTQ people instead of with them. Most of the speakers at the conference were heterosexual religious leaders, and several frowned on same-sex marriage, transgender status, and so for.

This is a longstanding trend among the Religious Right, who declare LGBTQ status sinful while rarely inviting LGBTQ people to the conversation -- not so-called "ex-gay" speakers who fight their sexual orientation and frame it as a "struggle", but LGBTQ people who accept their sexual orientation without shame.

At the Southern Baptist Convention's ERLC conference, Christians and the LGBTQ community were understood as two separate categories. The idea that LGBTQ Christians exist and might want to take part in the conversation was not considered, apparently. This occurred to me as I listened to Rosaria Butterfield's conversation with Russell Moore. Butterfield, the author of The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, was a former professor at Syracuse University who had been in relationships with women, but is the wife of a pastor and a homeschooling mother.

At the 1:20 mark, Moore asked Butterfield what she thought the Christian community misunderstood about the LGBTQ community. This puzzled me, since it assumed that LGBTQ status and Christian faith were exclusive categories. What about LGBTQ Christians? They have a foot in both communities, so wouldn't they be the best people to ask? I thought.

MOORE: What do evangelical Christians just not get about the LGBT community?

BUTTERFIELD: One of the first things that I firmly believe you don't get is that in this very room and in all of your encounters, you will meet and know and love people whose original sin has left the thumbprint of unwanted homosexual desire. People are not different. Original sin is the great leveling playing field. It has democratized everything, and without meaning to ... you are presuming that without even knowing the people with whom you're speaking that they need to be fixed and fixed up in a specific way. 

At the 3:33 mark, Moore asked Butterfield what she thought the LGBTQ community should know about Christians.

MOORE: What do you think the LGBT community does not understand about evangelical Christians?

BUTTERFIELD: Well, I think it would be impossible for anyone apart from the bounded system of the Christian church to know anything about the means of grace. I think the means of grace are things that we have at our fingertips. It is part of the great spiritual inheritance of being a child of the living God.

There is a reason why openly LGBTQ Christians are not invited to such conversations, why the Religious Right talks about LGBTQ people as that group over there instead of with them. It's easy to objectify a group over there. It's much more difficult to objectify people when you engage with them as people. When LGBTQ people discuss the truths of their lives -- their thoughts, feelings, hopes, and experiences -- it challenges onlookers to accept them as human beings who deserve respect. Condemning a group as sinful, unbiblical, and unhealthy becomes much more difficult when one hears their stories, stories that demand validation.

Where there is ignorance, intolerance thrives. Enlightened people must replace bigotry with knowledge and empathy.

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

News Tidbits

Los Angeles Times: On abortion, election delivered mixed messages

Huffington Post: Meet the Newly Empowered Right-wing Radicals 

The Advocate: 6 Outrageous Quotes From I Stand Sunday

Religion News Service: Russell Moore, Rick Warren to join Vatican conference on marriage and family life

The Telegraph: Christian bakery ordered to recant over Bert and Ernie gay marriage cake or face court

News Tidbits

Baptist Press: Marriage, homosexuality focus of conference

Religion News Service: Evangelical leader Russell Moore denounces ex-gay therapy

Associated Press: Southern Baptists tell pastors: Hold line on gays

ABC News: Murder Charge Dropped in Prayer Group Death

Kansas City Star: Exorcism preceded confession in 2012 death involving International House of Prayer, defense says

On Top Magazine: Tim Cook's Sexuality Is 'Irrelevant,' Says Tony Perkins As He Threatens To Boycott Apple 

Religion News Service: Mark Driscoll resigns from Mars Hill Church 

The Guardian: Mars Hill church to disband following resignation of lead pastor 

NBC K5: First pastor fired at Mars Hill foresaw fallout

Christian Post: Christian Rocker, 10-Year Mars Hill Member Says Mark Driscoll Resignation Is 'Good News'

E! Online: Duggars Support Pro-Life Political Candidates With "Faith, Family, Freedom" Bus Tour

Deseret News: Group meeting in Salt Lake to plan 2015 World Congress of Families

The Guardian: As Ebola epidemic tightens grip, west Africa turns to religion for succour

Sioux City Journal: Church officials struggle to assist those with mental illness

Windy City Times: Focus on the Family's Glenn Stanton talks bigotry, marriage

Huffington Post: Ron Baity, Baptist Preacher, Claims God Will Send Something Worse Than Ebola As Punishment For Gay Marriage

NECN: Scott Lively on His Biblical-Based Massachusetts Governor's Campaign


 

Complementarianism, Male Headship, and Domestic Violence

Domestic violence has figured prominently in the media this week. Ray Rice, the Oscar Pistorius verdict, and the 20th anniversary of VAWA remind us yet again that many women still endure abuse from their partners.

Two conservative Christians weighed in on domestic abuse this week, condemning violence against women. Unfortunately, they also defended complementarian gender roles and male "headship" over wives, oblivious to how these paradigms imperil women.

First, Russell D. Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, penned a commentary piece on domestic violence at his website. In "The Church and Violence Against Women", he advocated for supporting abused women and holding abusers accountable in both the church and the public sphere.

Moore encouraged believers to tell women in their churches, “A man who hits you has surrendered his headship, and that is the business both of the civil state in enacting public justice and of this church in enacting church discipline.” He called for social and economic justice to help vulnerable women while encouraging collaboration with secular feminists to combat rape culture.

"Church discipline against wife-beaters must be clear and consistent. We must stand with women against predatory men in all areas of abandonment, divorce, and neglect. We must train up men, through godly mentoring as well as through biblical instruction, who will know that the model of a husband is a man who crucifies his selfish materialism, his libidinal fantasies, and his wrathful temper tantrums in order to care lovingly for a wife. We must also remind these young men that every idle word, and every hateful act, will be laid out in judgment before the eyes of the One to whom we must give an answer.

In the public arena, Christians as citizens should be the most insistent on legal protections for women. We should oppose a therapeutic redefinition of wife abuse as merely a psychological condition. And we should call on the powers-that-be to prosecute abusers of women and children in ways that will deter others and make clear society’s repugnance at such abuse."

At first, I was pleased to see a conservative Christian condemning domestic abuse so firmly. As I kept reading, however, I became uncomfortable with Moore's defense of complementarianism. He claimed that abuse does not spring from "over-enthusiastic" complementarianism, reluctant to believe that male "headship" and rigid gender roles could play a role in abuse. He also warns readers against embracing a caricatured "gender-neutral feminism".

"An abusive man is not an over-enthusiastic complementarian. He is not a complementarian at all. He is rejecting male headship because he rejecting his role as provider and protector. As the culture grows more violent, more consumerist, more sexualized and more misogynistic, the answer is not a church more attenuated to the ambient culture, whether through a hyper-masculine paganism or through a gender-neutral feminism."

What Moore fails to realize is that domestic abuse will end only when society achieves true gender equality. A paradigm that gives men arbitrary power over women renders women vulnerable to mistreatment, whether he wants to acknowledge it or not. While Moore's heart is in the right place, he is so invested in the male headship paradigm that he refuses to jettison it for the greater good.

Similarly, John Piper discusses domestic abuse and complementarianism in a September 11th transcript of his "Ask Pastor John" podcast. He devotes much of his monologue to vaguely defining and sugar-coating complementarianism, as well as the male "headship" paradigm.

"Complementarians say men and women are different in deep and important ways, not just physical and surface ways, and that these differences God has designed, for our good, have profound influence on the way we relate to each other and what roles God wants us to take up ... This means that complementarians don’t think all the roles defined for us are based merely on competencies. So in a relationship you don’t just ask: Who is smarter? Or more articulate? Or physically stronger? Or faster? Or a better reader? Or neater? And so on. You ask, more significantly and more fundamentally: Is the man as man, created by God with a built-in deep sense — an inclination, a disposition, something deeper than cultural, deeper than societal, deeper than upbringing — a sense of responsibility deep in his soul to nurture and provide for and protect and take life-giving initiatives with the women in his life?

Complementarians answer that question yes. Man — as God created him, not as sin has distorted us, but man as man — senses deep in his masculine soul, “It is my special responsibility to show special care for and provide for and protect and be hope-giving and life-enhancing and woman-ennobling in the initiatives that I take in relation to the women in my life” (knowing this will look different from one relationship to the other, say, to the woman who brings the mail to the house or the bank teller or the woman police officer or his wife or his daughter or his mother)."

Piper insists that through these arbitrary gender roles, men offer "protection and care and vision" to women. He criticized Ray Rice for failing to do so.

"The complementarian says to Ray Rice, and every other man: Your manhood, as God designed you, and as Jesus Christ the Son of God can remake you through a faith relationship with him, means conquering your selfish impulses with the realization that real men don’t hit women. Real men protect women. Real men don’t use women to provide for their appetites. Real men use their strength to provide for a woman’s good. Real men are not led by the leash of their temper. Real men master their temper and lead women out of harm, not into it."

Piper ignores the fact giving men arbitrary authority over their wives is unfair, unethical, and potentially harmful. This arrangement takes agency away from wives, mutes their voices, and allows husbands to make decisions for them, all while arguing that these hierarchical roles are hard-wired in men and women. As much as Piper sugar-coats it, this paradigm is toxic.

While complementarianism and the male headship paradigm do not cause domestic violence per se, they do create an environment that renders women vulnerable to abuse. Women are commanded to submit to their husbands, so when a relationship becomes unhealthy, it can be difficult for the woman to undo the conditioning and escape. By dissolving healthy boundaries between husbands and wives, male headship sets the stage for the boundary violations that characterize domestic abuse. In real life, any belief system that gives men unchecked power over women and values men's voices over women's will put women at a disadvantage. Domestic abuse springs from the belief that a man is entitled to control his wife/girlfriend, so we need to look hard at these parallels.

Also, remember that domestic abuse is about power and control. Physical violence is but one of the forms that domination can take. As the power and control wheel reminds us, abuse can take the form of exploiting male privilege, economic domination, and isolation. Even if a husband never strikes his wife, if he makes all the major decisions, controls the household finances, prevents his wife from seeking employment, and tells her what she can and can't do -- all of which could be justified under male headship -- how is this not abusive?

Instead of clinging to a misogynist paradigm for marriage, people like Moore and Piper should embrace an egalitarian vision of relationships. Equality and mutual respect, not dominance and submission, are the basis of healthy relationships. If we truly want to end domestic violence, we must resist patriarchy and promote an egalitarian world.


Many thanks to Joan for bringing the Moore and Piper commentary pieces to my attention.


For additional commentary on domestic violence, visit the following links.

Religion Dispatches: Biblical Battered Wife Syndrome: Christian Women and Domestic Violence

Love, Joy, Feminism: Just Obey: Christian Patriarchy as Spiritual Abuse

Love, Joy, Feminism: That’s Some Accountability You’ve Got There

Rhymes with Religion: #WhyIStayed: How some churches support spousal abuse 

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