Pulpit Freedom Sunday is this coming Sunday.
Religious right groups want ministers to preach about politics on Sunday to the point telling their flocks who they commend for various political offices.
I hope this does not catch on.
It may be Constitutional, but it doesn’t seem good. Churches have a job to do that can be hindered by ministers exercising this right. I have been in churches where such a freedom would split a church. Congregants who think like the pastor of politics might feel empowered but those who don’t could feel intimidated in their own church family.
Ministers, think twice before you make politics more important than the flock. I Corinthians raises some valid teaching about offending others with your liberty. If refusing meat offered to idols was a consideration in the early church, it seems to me that refusal to use a right to speak your mind on politics would be in modern America.
Month: September 2011
On David Barton's claim that Unitarians were "a very evangelical Christian denomination"
David Barton told Liberty University students in their September 9 chapel that Unitarians were at one time “a very evangelical Christian denomination.” In his effort to define what he called modernism, he said this about the Unitarians the late 18th and early 19th century:
And the example of that is what happens when you look at Universalist Unitarians; certainly not a denomination that conforms to biblical truth in any way but as it turns out, we have a number of Founding Fathers who were Unitarians. So we say, oh wait, there’s no way the Founding Fathers could have been Christians; they were Unitarians. Well, unless you know what a Unitarian was in 1784 and what happened to Unitarians in 1819 and 1838 and unless you recognize they used to be a very evangelical Christian denomination, we look at what they are today and say the Founding Fathers were Unitarians, and say, there’s no way they were Christians. That’s modernism; that’s not accurate; that’s not true.
Last week, I briefly examined Barton’s claim that Unitarians were a “very evangelical denomination” with the help of college professor and attorney Jon Rowe. In a 2007 post, Rowe noted that Unitarians during the era of the Founding Fathers denied the Trinity and the deity of Christ. While Unitarians used the Bible to come to their conclusions, one cannot call them evangelical in any meaningful or current sense of the word.
I also asked two Grove City College colleagues with expertise in religious history, Gillis Harp (professor of history) and Paul Kemeny (associate professor of religion and humanities), to react to Barton’s claim about the Unitarians. First, Dr. Kemeny contradicted Barton, saying:
To call nineteenth-century Unitarians a “every evangelical Christian denomination” is like calling a circle a square. While many were deeply pious, Unitarians rejected the deity of Christ and consequently the Trinity. Since the common sense meaning of “evangelical Christian” usually entails an affirmation of Christ’s deity and by implication the Trinity, it strikes me as a rather oddly creative use of the term to suggest Unitarians were “evangelical Christians.” The Unitarians’ early nineteenth-century critics, such as orthodox Congregationalist theologian Leonard Woods, would likely be surprised to learn the Unitarians were actually “evangelical Christians after all.
As Kemeny notes, the orthodox theologians of the time did not think of Unitarians as orthodox. The Congregationalists of the eighteenth century were in dispute with their fellows who were moving in the Unitarian ways. For instance, President John Adams is often listed as a Congregationalist, but, as I documented previously, his views were decidedly Unitarian.
Dr. Harp also discounted Barton’s theory, saying
It is misleading to refer to early 19th century Unitarians as ‘evangelical.’ If Barton means that they were far more orthodox on many basic doctrinal matters than are Unitarians today – then, sure, one can say that. But belief in the incarnation and substitutionary atonement are both essential to evangelicalism and these were both firmly repudiated by all Unitarians in this period. Some Unitarians certainly continued to follow evangelical personal habits (daily prayer, Bible study, promoting evangelism) but that doesn’t make them evangelical doctrinally.
Christian scholars Harp and Kemeny agree that the claim is faulty. What about the original sources? If Unitarians of the era were evangelical in doctrine, perhaps this would show up in their writings. However, even a cursory examination of the leading Unitarian thinkers demonstrates that Barton is incorrect.
Barton cites Jared Sparks as a man who said George Washington was a Christian in the evangelical sense. However, Sparks was a leading Unitarian. Sparks’ ordination to the ministry in 1819 was the occasion for William Ellery Channing to preach a sermon outlining Unitarian beliefs in a break with the more orthodox Congregationalists.
Sparks was also the editor of the Unitarian Miscellany and Christian Monitor. In an 1821 edition, he explained the Unitarian position on Christ.
Unitarians believe, that Jesus Christ was a messenger commissioned from heaven to make a revelation, and communicate the will of God to men. They all agree, that he was not God; that he was a distinct being from the Father, and subordinate to him; and that he received from the Father all his power, wisdom, and knowledge. (p. 13)
Although unitarians do not believe Christ to be God, because they think such a doctrine at variance with reason and scripture, yet they believe him to have been authorized and empowered to make a divine revelation to the world. We believe in the divinity of his mission, but not of his person. We consider all he has taught as coming from God; we receive his commands, and rely on his promises, as the commands and promises of God. In his miracles we see the power of God; in his doctrines and precepts we behold the wisdom of God; and in his life and character we see a bright display of every divine virtue. Our hope of salvation rests on the truths lie has disclosed, and the means he has pointed out. We believe him to be entitled to our implicit faith, obedience, and submission, and we feel towards him all the veneration, love, and gratitude, which the dignity of his mission, the sublime purity ot his character, and his sufferings for the salvation of men, justly demand. But we do not pay him religious homage, because we think this would be derogating from the honour and majesty of the Supreme Being, who, our Saviour himself has told us, is the only proper object of our adoration and worship. (p. 15-16)
Regarding sin, Unitarians denied original sin and consequently the need for Christ’s atonement to pay the penalty for sin. Again in 1821, Sparks wrote:
We have only room to state, that we do not believe “the guilt of Adam’s sin was imputed, and his corrupted nature conveyed to all his posterity;” nor that there is in men any “original corruption, whereby they are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil.” (p. 19)
Disputes between trinitarians and the anti-trinitarians (as unitarians were often called) raged in eighteenth century New England. Historian E. Brooks Holifield wrote in his book Theology in America that the divinity of Christ was in doubt among New England clergy as early as 1735, adding
By 1768, Samuel Hopkins could claim that most of the ministers of Boston disbelieved the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. By 1785, James Freeman succeeded in leading the Episcopal congregation at King’s Chapel in Boston to delete Trinitarian views from their liturgy. (p. 199)
In his speech to Liberty University quoted above, Barton refers to 1784 as a point of reference for what Unitarians were. Perhaps he has this transition at King’s Chapel in mind when the church went from Anglican doctrine to Unitarian beliefs. The minister at the time, James Freeman, considered the church Anglican. However, in another sign that orthodox leaders of the day did not consider Unitarian views to be in line with traditional doctrine, the local Bishop refused to ordain Freeman in the Anglican church.
A question for Mr. Barton: Since the Unitarians at the time took pains to distinguish themselves from orthodoxy and the orthodox leaders of the day did not consider unitarian beliefs to be what we would today call evangelical, why would we dispute them now and call them “very evangelical?”
Is there more to the Dakota Ary story than has been reported?
In a comment posted here yesterday and at Towleroad, some potential new wrinkles in the Dakota Ary case were asserted. Ary is the high school Freshman, represented by Liberty Counsel, who was briefly suspended over comments made in a Fort Worth High School German class. The initial report was that Ary said he was a Christian and believed homosexuality to be wrong. However, a GLBT group is now claiming to have spoken to the teacher involved, Kristopher Franks, who paints a picture of harassment on the part of Ary and other classmates against the teacher due to their perception that the teacher is gay.
I will state the obvious: I have no idea what the real story is. I post this because the report from the teacher, if accurate, would correct the post I made last week.
Often, people look at a story like this and allow their biases influence them. If you are someone who believes religion is a victim of gay advocacy, you might side with Liberty Counsel. If you believe religion is used to harass GLBT people, then you might be inclined to believe this new report from the GLBT student group.
All I can say is that the reports we have are insufficient to be dogmatic. I have investigated many claims from advocates on both sides of the culture war and been disappointed that truth was not being told. Speaking about my community (evangelical), I can say that I have found some evangelical culture war groups engage in spin. I used to trust such groups to be honest and consider the impact of spin on public perception. As a matter of course now, I don’t accept things at face value.
For instance, recently the law firm representing Dakota Ary, Liberty Counsel, asserted that the American Association of Christian Counselors was a larger group of professionals than the American Psychological Association. This is flat out untrue. On the same day, Mat Staver told his radio audience that the AACC has produced ““the most definitive, most recent research that’s come out that says change is possible.” This is spin.
First, to my knowledge, the AACC has not paid for any research on sexual orientation change. Perhaps, they have and I am not aware of it — if so, I will correct this statement. AACC members Mark Yarhouse and Stan Jones released the first wave of their study at an AACC conference but the AACC did not produce it; Exodus International funded the research. Furthermore, the research showed that some changes took place for a minority of participants but calling the research definitive is a stretch.
Recently, the AACC journal Edification published a report from Mark Yarhouse and his students from Regent University showing that men and women in mixed orientation marriages described no change in sexual orientation. To my knowledge, the Christian culture war complex has not addressed this finding. In a journal, the AACC published research that stands in contradiction to the Liberty Counsel statement.
Some Christians take my skepticism as a character flaw or a sign that I have capitulated to the enemy (see what the culture war does to perception of out-groups?). They say that the opposition spins and manipulates data, so why shouldn’t we? I think the answer is obvious, so obvious that I will let that question sink in and not answer it.
I don’t know who is offering the most factual narrative in the Fort Worth controversy. I just know that right now, for me, the question is open.
Golden Rule Pledge Partners with Pacer Center's National Bullying Prevention Month
The Golden Rule Pledge has again partnered with the Pacer Center and National Bullying Prevention Month for October’s effort to reduce school bullying. The GRP works to mobilize churches and youth groups to take a stand against bullying in school.
I started the GRP in 2008 in response to a call from some Christian groups urging parents to keep their kids home on the Day of Silence. I also wanted to respond to the Day of Truth (now called Day of Dialogue) which in my view is not a constructive way to address the very real problem of bullying and anti-gay harassment in schools.
Students in high schools and colleges around the country have carried GRP pledge cards to school. Some have made clear statements to GLBT peers that they stand with them against bullying and harassment. Some churches (I have no way of knowing the number since the materials are free on the website) have used the bullying prevention materials designed for church youth groups. The Los Angeles School District has the GRP on the calendar for April of 2012.
I am always on the alert for volunteers nationally who desire to focus on ending bullying. If interested, email me.
NARTH Report: Suicide attempts increase during sexual orientation change therapy
Writing in the second edition of NARTH’s (National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) Journal of Human Sexuality, Neil Whitehead proposed a reanalysis (NARTH summary here) of a paper by Ariel Shidlo and Michael Shroeder on potentially harmful outcomes of sexual orientation change efforts. NARTH’s headline describing the paper is
Sexual Orientation Change Efforts Do Not Lead to Increased Suicide Attempts.
Contrast NARTH’s headline with the title of my post. After examining Whitehead’s article, I submit that his analysis supports my title as much or more than it does NARTH’s claim.
Shidlo and Shroeder wrote the following about suicide attempts in their 2002 report:
In examining the data, we distinguished between participants who had a history of being suicidal before conversion therapy and those who did not. Twenty-five participants had a history of suicide attempts before conversion therapy, 23 during conversion therapy, and 11 after conversion therapy. We took the subgroup of participants who reported suicide attempts and looked at suicide attempts pre-intervention, during intervention, and post-intervention to see if there was any suggestive pattern. We found that 11 participants had reported suicide attempts since the end of conversion interventions. Of these, only 3 had attempted prior to conversion therapy. Of the 11 participants, 3 had attempted during conversion therapy.
In his NARTH paper, Whitehead makes a series of assumptions about the participants in the Shidlo and Schroeder study. I think these are questionable assumptions but for sake of discussion, I will play along. First, he assumes that these suicide attempts occur over a span of 25 years (13 years pre-therapy, two years in therapy and then 10 years post-therapy). He then assumes that the attempts occurred at a constant rate over that span to calculate an expected number of suicide before, during and after therapy. Whitehead then compares his expected attempts with the actual number of attempts as reported by Shidlo and Schroeder. Whitehead summarized his findings as follows:
(a) Comparing pre-therapy, therapy, and post-therapy groups, there is overall no significant increase in suicides per unit time.
(b) There is a very clear increase in attempts during therapy.
(c) There is a trend to fewer attempts after therapy.
Using his assumptions, Whitehead wrote:
Suicide attempts reported before therapy were 25, and those reported during and after therapy combined numbered 34. The expected numbers allowing for the time periods and normalized to the above total are 30.55 and 28.44. The expectation on which this is calculated is that therapy has no effect, either positive or negative.
In this analysis, no difference shows up in suicides related to therapy when suicide attempts before therapy are compared with the time period during and after therapy. However, Whitehead does not stop there. About suicide attempts during therapy, he wrote:
For attempts before and during therapy, the observed results are 25 and 23, and the calculated expected normalized figures are 42.18 and 5.82. These are very different from the observed, and the chi-square test produces a result of p < 0.001. They are not the same, and therapy has therefore been associated with a several-fold increase in attempts.
In other words, there is a very large increase in suicide attempts during therapy. The title of my post is accurate. According to this NARTH report, sexual orientation change “therapy has therefore been associated with a several-fold increase in attempts.”
Continue reading “NARTH Report: Suicide attempts increase during sexual orientation change therapy”
Florida Got On the Cain Train
Wow, Hermann Cain scored a big win in the Florida straw poll today.
Beat out Perry – who was expected to win – by nearly 22 points.
Herman Cain: 37.11%
Rick Perry: 15.43%
Mitt Romney: 14.00%
Rick Santorum: 10.88%
Ron Paul: 10.39%
Newt Gingrich: 8.43%
Jon Huntsman: 2.26%
Michele Bachmann: 1.51%
Michele Bachmann had Peter Waldron deployed to FL and she still finished lower than Huntsman. Time to follow T-Paw back to MN?
High school student opposed to homosexuality will not have negative mark on record
Dakota Ary a Fort Worth area high school student wants an apology from the school district after he was removed from class for a negative comment about homosexuality.
The school is investigating but the media reports have the boy making an offhand comment to another student proclaiming his Christianity and saying he thought homosexuality was wrong. The classroom teacher overheard the remark and sent the boy from class.
If it turns out that the boy was expressing his views in response to a discussion about religion and homosexuality, then I suspect he will not be disciplined and may get his apology. If he was inciting an incident then the situation becomes more complex.
Addtional thoughts: I went back to the first report I could find on this story which comes from an NBC affiliate in the Fort Worth area. The discussion in class was about religions, Bibles and Germany and the discipline referral form quotes him as saying: “no gays allowed in Christianity.”
According the Fort Worth report, the form also said that “the comment was unprovoked and out of context.” The form also said, “It is wrong to make such a statement in public school.”
The school is not commenting so I do not think we can evaluate the situation at this point. According the Liberty Counsel (the same group who falsely said that the AACC is larger than the APA), another student asked how to say lesbian in German. At that point, according to Liberty Counsel, Ary told another student that homosexuality is wrong.
If that narrative is accurate, then I believe the boy’s statement would have been in relation to something else taking place and apparently intended to stay between him and the other student. A teacher should focus the conversation back to the topic. However, if the statement was brought up without provocation and seemed to the teacher to inflame, then a teacher would be correct to address it, albeit in a less dramatic manner.
The school district is not talking but they have relented on the severity of the punishment according to this report from the LA Times.
Janet Museveni denies role in Uganda's anti-gay bill, says Bahati is the source
Recently, Uganda’s Daily Monitor summarized diplomatic cables from the office of U.S. Ambassador to Uganda Jerry Lanier. Some of those communications, released on Wikileaks website, implicated Uganda’s First Lady Janet Museveni as the originator of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.
Today, in the government affiliated media outlet New Vision, Mrs. Museveni responded to charges leveled in those cables. In her article, she denied being involved in the creation of the bill.
The second Daily Monitor report alleges that I am the initiator of the Gay Bill. This ludicrous claim is not only an insult to Hon. Bahati, the originator of the bill but also to me, because it implies that I need to hide behind someone else in order to introduce a bill in parliament.
I believe Ugandans know by now that I have always had the courage to stand by my convictions – even when they go against the grain of prevailing popular opinion. I think I have adequately demonstrated, in my work over the years, that I can boldly stand by what I believe in without fear or favour.
In other words, if she had wanted to see the bill become law, she would have introduced it herself.
Reports of the bill’s origins conflict. Ugandan minister Julius Oyet once claimed that various ministers, including Martin Ssempa, and other Christian leaders in Uganda looked for a member of Parliament to introduce the bill and asked Bahati to be the one. Certainly, Ssempa had involvement with the bill before it was introduced. He sent a copy of the bill to me which originated in a Las Vegas area Christian school (Faith Lutheran) dated August 11, 2009 which was long before the October 14, 2009 introduction of the bill in Uganda. Whether Ssempa helped author it or not, he was privy to the bill before it was introduced.
NARTH to Feature Anti-gay Activists at Annual Convention
The National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) bills itself as “a scientific, secular organization.” However, this year the organization’s annual conference in Phoenix, AZ will begin with a decidedly religious and political tone. On the first day (Nov. 4) of the conference, Rev. Michael Brown and Sharon Slater will speak. Brown, who recently wrote a book called A Queer Thing Happened to America, will speak in a plenary session, while Sharon Slater, leader of Family Watch International will talk about her anti-gay work internationally and at the United Nations (Slater’s name does not appear on the current conference schedule, however, NARTH’s David Pruden confirmed today that she is giving the speech labeled “The United Nations and an International Overview.”)
Regarding homosexuality, Dr. Brown told religious talk show host Sid Roth in April of this year that some people can be delivered from homosexuality by ridding them of demons. To Roth, Brown said:
Sid: I have met people that have been prayed for deliverance that were homosexual and when the demon was cast out of them even their walk was different.
Mike: Listen, why is it that people can accept demonic influences in other behaviors? Someone’s a heterosexual pornography addict and they get delivered from demons and their free. Someone’s addicted to drugs, they get delivered from demons, someone’s got a horrific fierce temper, they get deliver from demons and their free. Why can’t we recognize that this can happen with homosexuality too? It’s not every person. I was in Israel Sid, talking to a top national leader and he talked to me about some men in his congregation and he said that he watched them in front of his eyes and get truly delivered, he said and they are free. They are different, they are fully heterosexual.
More recently, Brown accused unnamed gay activists of complicity in the murder of Larry King, the young gay teen who was murdered in school by classmate Brandon McInerney. Brown wrote on the OneNewsNow website:
Of course, there is only one real killer, Brandon McInerney, just 14 years old at the time of shooting. He confessed to killing Larry in cold blood in full view of his classmates. But there are others who are complicit in Larry’s terribly tragic death, and rather than point the finger at a “homophobic” society, they should point it at themselves. I’m speaking of course of gay activists, who have made Larry into a martyr for the cause of gay activism when, in reality, he was more a victim of gay activism.
Brown argues that gay students should keep their feelings hidden because such feelings, when expressed, provoke harassment from other students. In the article on Larry King, Brown asked:
If our schools really are so “homophobic” and dangerous, why not encourage these kids to keep their sexual orientation to themselves until they’re in a safer environment?
Sharon Slater is the director of Family Watch International, a Phoenix based group which opposes the repeal of laws criminalizing homosexuality. Last month in an interview, Slater told me that she favored laws in the United States which make homosexual behavior a crime. She and her organization Family Watch International work with United Nations member nations to maintain laws which criminalize gays. About those laws, Slater said
“We do not support any laws that promote violence against homosexuals.” She added that her organization presents research showing that gays can change orientation. Such research is relevant to her stance because, “laws that promote violence would discourage therapy for people with unwanted same-sex attraction.”
I asked Mrs. Slater if she considers a 14-year jail sentence a form of violence. She said that her organization has no position on that question saying, “FWI does not dictate to nations what specific laws people should enact or protect regarding homosexual sex or whether they should fine or jail individuals.”
In December, 2009, I asked NARTH’s leadership about the organization’s position on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill. At that time, some proponents of the bill were suggesting that forced therapy for gays should be included in the bill. NARTH’s David Pruden rejected the forced therapy as ineffective. However, NARTH’s Dean Byrd declined to take a position on criminalization saying,
We are aware of the situation in Uganda but thank you for bringing this to our attention. I am sure that you are aware that as a scientific organization, NARTH does not take political positions; however, we are happy to provide a summary of what science can and cannot say about homosexuality for those who do.
NARTH takes no position on criminalization and yet brings in a non-scientist who supports criminalization around the world in an “applied workshop.” NARTH claims to be a secular organization but brings in a minister who believes some homosexuals can be changed by removal of demons. I cannot imagine another scientific group giving a platform for similar views.
Voter Registration Effort Seeks to Bring Biblical Change to America
United in Purpose wants to bring biblical change to America via five million newly registered evangelical voters. They want to do this through their efforts called Champion the Vote and One Nation Under God house parties. Watch the plan:
Five million new Christian voters can sway any election, so the thinking goes, because apparently all Christians vote alike.
The collection of groups and efforts are looking for candidates who will vote according to the Bible. Rick Perry (invited but not confirmed) and Newt Gingrich are on the agenda for the One Nation Under God house parties. I’ll bet that will be a rocking party.
Under the umbrella of United in Purpose is the focus of the video above, Champion the Vote. Reportedly, Rick Perry’s prayer meeting (the supposedly non-political The Response) mailing list has been used to solicit people for the Champion the Vote effort. This is unsurprising since this effort advocates churches become ACORN-like voter registration machines. Clearly, our salvation comes from the ballot box and not the Lord.
Champion the Vote has specified a worldview that they would like to see in power. You can read it here. Some excerpts:
A Biblical worldview begins with God in Genesis, chapter one and verse one. A Biblical worldview is viewing the world, the beginning of the world, people in the world, the problems in the world, governments in the world, issues in the world, solutions for the problems in the world, and the future of the world – through God’s Word.
A Biblical worldview requires that you know what the Word of God teaches!
Everyone has a worldview whether they realize it or not. Your response to news about an abortion clinic is based upon your worldview. Your response to school shootings is based upon your worldview. Your response to evolution is based upon your worldview. Your response to issues of life and death is based upon your worldview. Everyone has developed a “system of beliefs” and core values that they operate from. The goal is to be sure that this “system of beliefs” is based totally on the Word of God!
A Biblical worldview cannot be based upon any human system of beliefs and values.
The best way to define a worldview is “simply how you see the world”. If you were to put on a pair of glasses that had “blue lenses” everything you see would be “blue”. If you were to put on a pair of glasses that had “green lenses” everything you see would be “green”. The same is true for a worldview.
There are basically two worldviews: Biblical and atheistic.
You really get a sense of the reductionism with these statements. One is either an evangelical Christian or an atheist. Champion the Vote promotes this “biblical worldview” as a part of the statement of purpose:
Champion the Vote is an initiative of United in Purpose (UiP), a non-partisan, non-profit organization whose mission is to actively advance the traditional values of America’s founding fathers.
UiP provides resources and infrastructure for like-minded Christian organizations and ministries to educate and mobilize their constituencies for the common cause of bringing the Biblical worldview to the forefront of American life and politics.
CTV wants you to join if you want your vote to go for candidates with a biblical worldview.
If you’re passionate about America and about God’s Word, if you long to see our nation return to the timeless truth of a Biblical worldview, if you’re willing to be on the frontlines and speak out to mobilize others to act – if you have as little as one hour a week to volunteer — become a Champion!
Of course, the nation never had such a worldview as a foundation. The danger in this group is that they seek to impose a return to something that never was. They seek to make the church into a political machine.
I have no objection to people of like-mind seeking to recruit other people. This is how it works. However, I do have a problem with the blurring of divisions between the cross and the flag, using the church for unintended reasons.