WASHINGTON (BNG)—The Obama administration released rules July 10 allowing “closely held” for-profit corporations to claim a religious objection to mandated coverage of contraceptives under Obamacare.

In light of the Supreme Court’s 2014 Hobby Lobby decision, final regulations by the Department of Health & Human Services specify businesses not publicly traded but controlled by a relatively small number of people can qualify for a religious accommodation previously offered to faith-based nonprofits.

Sylvia Burwell“Women across the country should have access to preventive services, including contraception,” HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell said. “At the same time, we recognize the deeply held views on these issues, and we are committed to securing women’s access to important preventive services at no additional cost under the Affordable Care Act, while respecting religious beliefs.”

Under the new rules, by informing the government of their objection, for-profit employers can opt out of paying for insurance that covers FDA-approved contraceptives they believe can cause abortion. A third-party insurer will step in and provide contraceptive coverage to employees at no cost to the company and be reimbursed by the government.

The administration also offered an alternative way for eligible organizations that have a religious objection to covering contraceptive services to seek an accommodation from contracting, providing, paying or referring for such services. 

Texas Baptist universities suing

Religious nonprofits including Baptist General Convention of Texas-affiliated East Texas Baptist University and Houston Baptist University have filed lawsuits claiming a requirement that they fill out and submit a “self-certification” form to the Labor Department makes them complicit in providing employees with drugs and services to which they object. After the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the two Baptist schools, they recently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

Under the final rules, a religious nonprofit simply can notify the Department of Health & Human Services in writing of its objection, and the HHS will take responsibility for notifying the third-party insurer of the decision.

Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State doubts the administration’s latest attempt to accommodate religious objections to the contraceptive mandate will end litigation over the matter.

“The administration had to respond to this ruling, and today’s regulations are a good-faith effort to protect women,” Lynn said. “Although I hope I’m proven wrong, I fear that the Religious Right and its allies, the Catholic bishops, won’t stop until they have denied access to safe and affordable birth control to as many women as possible.”

Lynn blamed the whole “mess” on the Supreme Court, which he believes wrongly interpreted the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the Hobby Lobby ruling.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has been involved in several cases challenging the HHS mandate, called the new regulations one more attempt by the government to force religious nonprofits to distribute contraceptives.

Administration ‘digging the hole deeper’

“The government keeps digging the hole deeper,” said Adèle Auxier Keim, legal counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. With a recent Supreme Court decision allowing the government to expand its health care exchanges, Keim said, the government doesn’t need religious employers to help it distribute contraceptive drugs and devices.

“So why is it continuing to go out of its way to force religious objectors, from nuns to business owners, to do something it is more than capable of doing itself?” Keim asked.

NASHVILLE, Tenn.—American evangelicals remain among the strongest supporters of Israel. Most believe God has plans for that nation—now and in the future. And many of America’s preachers say Christians need to support Israel.

Those are among the findings of a study of American attitudes toward Israel and the Bible from Nashville-based LifeWay Research. As part of the study, researchers conducted two surveys of 1,000 Americans in general, along with a survey of 1,000 senior pastors of Protestant churches.

“No piece of literature has had more impact on American culture than the Bible,” said Scott McConnell, vice president of LifeWay Research. “No country is more intertwined with the ancient biblical narrative than Israel, and evangelical Americans see a contemporary connection with the nation.”

Researchers found evangelicals see a close tie between God and Israel. About seven in 10 (69 percent) say the modern nation of Israel was formed as result of biblical prophecy. A similar number (70 percent) say God has a special relationship with the modern nation of Israel. And nearly three-fourths of evangelicals (73 percent) say events in Israel are part of the prophecies in the New Testament book of Revelation.

Fulfillment of Bible prophecy?

While evangelicals remain convinced about a tie between Israel and God’s plans, Americans in general are less certain. Less than half (46 percent) believe the formation of modern Israel is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. More than a third (36 percent) disagree, while 17 percent aren’t sure.

Americans are split down the middle over whether Jews are God’s chosen people as referenced in the Bible, with just under half (46 percent) saying they agree. A similar number (44 percent) disagree, while 10 percent are not sure.

Some Americans think God was closer to ancient Israel than to the modern-day nation. About two-thirds (64 percent) of Americans say God had a “special relationship with ancient Israel.” About one in four (27 percent) disagrees, while 9 percent are not sure. 

In contrast, 48 percent of Americans say God has a special relationship with modern Israel—fewer than the 53 percent of Americans who believe God has a special relationship with the United States, according to previously released LifeWay research. About four in 10 (39 percent) disagree God has a special relationship with modern Israel, while 13 percent are not sure. Evangelicals (70 percent) are much more likely to agree than Americans who don’t identify as evangelicals (38 percent).

Overall, nearly half (47 percent) of Americans believe events in Israel are tied to the biblical book of Revelation. Forty percent disagree, and 13 percent are unsure.

Younger Americans, those 18 to 24, are less likely (36 percent) to see a tie between Israel and Revelation than those 45 and older (52 percent). 

Women (52 percent) are more likely to agree than men (42 percent). Those with graduate degrees (24 percent) are much less likely to agree events in Israel are part of the prophecies in Revelation than those with a high school degree or less (55 percent).

When asked whether they support Israel’s statehood, 42 percent agree, while 35 percent disagree. One in four (23 percent) is not sure.

Higher education means more support for Israel

Higher levels of education correlate to higher levels of support for Israeli statehood. Those with a graduate degree are most likely to be supporters at 61 percent, followed by those with a bachelor’s degree (56 percent), those with some college (43 percent), and those with a high school diploma or less (31 percent).

Slightly more than half of men (51 percent) say they support Israeli statehood, compared to a third (33 percent) of women. Support also is significantly higher among evangelicals (50 percent) than others (39 percent).

Supporters are split on the reasons they back Israel. Sixteen percent say the Bible tells them to, and 9 percent say it’s because Israel is important for biblical prophecy.

Some (13 percent) say they support Israel primarily because Israel is America’s best friend in the Middle East. Others say it’s because Jews needed a refuge after the Holocaust (11 percent) or because Israel is the one and only Jewish homeland (15 percent).

Few ‘Zionists’

Although the term “Zionist” is synonymous with believing Jews should have their own state, only 8 percent of Americans claim this label. A third (32 percent) of Americans are not sure whether they are Zionist.

Senior pastors of Protestant churches are among Israel’s most ardent supporters. Most (80 percent) agree with the statement, “Christians should support Israel.” About one in seven (14 percent) disagrees.

Even though they support Israel, some pastors have their doubts about Israel’s military actions. About four in 10 (41 percent) agree with the statement, “It is hard to defend Israel’s military tactics.” Fifty percent disagree, while 9 percent are not sure.

“It is surprising that evangelicals, who have such a fascination with Israel’s biblical connections, are no more likely to have an opinion about Israel’s statehood than other Americans,” McConnell noted.

Survey methods

The first phone survey of Americans was conducted Sept. 19-28, 2014, and the second phone survey was conducted Sept. 26-Oct. 5, 2014. Callers used Random Digit Dialing. Sixty percent of completes were among landlines and 40 percent among cell phones. Researchers used maximum quotas and slight weights for gender, region, age, ethnicity and education to reflect the population more accurately. 

The completed sample is 1,000 surveys. The sample provides 95 percent confidence that the sampling error does not exceed plus or minus 3.5 percent. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups. Those labeled evangelicals consider themselves “a born again, evangelical or fundamentalist Christian.”

The phone survey of Protestant pastors was conducted Sept. 11-18, 2014. The calling list was a stratified random sample drawn from a list of all Protestant churches. Each interview was conducted with the senior pastor, minister or priest of the church called. Responses were weighted by region to reflect the population more accurately. The completed sample is 1,000 surveys. The sample provides 95 percent confidence that the sampling error does not exceed plus or minus 3.1 percent. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.

WASHINGTON (RNS)— The leader of the National Baptist Convention, USA, says his member churches should “do everything that is humanly possible” to protect themselves—even if it means hiring armed guards. But the head of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion denomination would rather churches call 911 if necessary.

More than a half-dozen black churches have been burned since the shootings of worshippers at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C. (BNG / Creative Commons photo by Erik Olson)After nine people were shot fatally at an African-American church in Charleston, S.C., and more than a half-dozen black churches have burned, officials of predominantly black denominations are taking different—and sometimes contradictory—approaches as they try to prepare for a safer future.

More than 1,000 people took part in a Department of Homeland Security web-based seminar July 1 that emphasized measures to prepare for a range of crises. Barbara Williams-Skinner, co-chair of the National African American Clergy Network, tuned in to the webinar and heard advice on how congregations should connect with first responders.

“Some churches are doing that,” she said. “Others had not been, and I think the Charleston church massacre helped people to understand that houses of worship that welcome strangers also have to be ready for strangers that mean harm.”

Leaders of the African Methodist Episcopal Church said the denomination is preparing congregations to “set up safety watches and take preventative measures to protect human life and physical assets.”

Jerry YoungJerry Young, president of the National Baptist Convention, USA, said he will advise members of his predominantly black denomination to take new measures, from installing interior and exterior video cameras to having office security systems buzz in visitors.

“We are in consultation even now with the experts to assist us in making sure we get to all of our constituent churches instruction, advice and suggestions as to how they can actually beef up security around the worship centers,” he said.

In his opinion, that can include armed guards.

But George Battle Jr., the senior bishop of the AME Zion Church, doesn’t think guns should be an option.

“We’re not going to have any guns on our property to deal with that,” he said.

George Battle Jr.Referring to a verse from the Book of Isaiah that says “no weapon formed against you shall prosper,” he added:  “We can’t preach one thing and do another.”

Authorities have not linked the Emanuel AME attack to the church fires or confirmed the fires are racially motivated. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is investigating five fires across the South at predominantly black churches in June.

ATF’s Bomb Arson Tracking System shows 127 incidents at houses of worship in 2014, compared to 146 in 2013 and the same number in 2012. Last year, 42 were deliberately set, 26 were ruled accidental and 54 were labeled “undetermined.”

Still, the recent spate of black church fires, which remind many of attacks in the 1960s and 1990s, has prompted widespread concern.

Anthea Butler, a professor of religious and Africana studies at the University of Pennsylvania, said the government webinar should be only the beginning of efforts to address the attacks on black houses of worship.

“While this is important, it focuses on prevention—not cure or eradication of racism or religion-based hate crimes,” said Butler, writing in Religion Dispatches. “What needs to happen is a concerted effort by all churches, black and white alike, to confront the issue of racism in America with fervor.”

There has been some response across racial lines to the recent incidents.

Christ Church Cathedral in St. Louis started a fund-raising campaign to rebuild recently burned churches that were victims of arson with a goal of $25,000. It has raised more than $113,000.

“The response to this has been incredible, but truly not surprising,” said Mike Kinman, dean of the predominantly white Episcopal congregation. “There is so much good in people’s hearts.”

Carl Chinn, a ministry security expert, said prevention is a worthy goal, but it cannot eliminate evildoers.

“There have been many wolves, and there will be more,” he said. “Some will hate blacks, some will hate Christians, whites, Israelis or Sikhs—but they will come.”

WASHINGTON (BNG)—A Baptist group specializing in church/state issues says the threat of churches and other religious organizations losing their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage has been “highly exaggerated.” 

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty released a two-page handout in light of the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

Click to view the full-size PDF file.“Churches have long followed their own rules for performing marriages without such threat,” the Baptist Joint Committee said in a resource document titled “The Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling: What you need to know now.”

The Baptist Joint Committee, a 79-year-old education and advocacy organization representing 15 national, state and regional Baptist bodies in the United States, says the high court’s 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges doesn’t change that.

Threat to religious entities would be ‘over-expansion’

Any threat to the tax-exempt status of religious entities, the Baptist Joint Committee says, would require “over-expansion” of a 1983 Supreme Court ruling against Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist Christian school in Greenville, S.C., which lost its tax-exempt status over a policy prohibiting interracial dating and marriage.

In that decision, the Supreme Court agreed 8-1 with the IRS that to qualify for tax exemption as a “charitable” organization, an institution must provide a public benefit and not be contrary to public policy.

“We are bound to approach these questions with full awareness that determinations of public benefit and public policy are sensitive matters with serious implications for the institutions affected,” Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for the majority. 

“A declaration that a given institution is not ‘charitable’ should be made only where there can be no doubt that the activity involved is contrary to a fundamental public policy. But there can no longer be any doubt that racial discrimination in education violates deeply and widely accepted views of elementary justice.”

The Baptist Joint Committee said the ruling does not apply to churches and has not been applied beyond racial discrimination in education. “It is unlikely that the court’s decision in favor of same-sex marriage will have any effect on the 501(c)(3) status of religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage,” the BJC said.

An issue for colleges and universities?

During oral arguments in April, Justice Samuel Alito asked U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli if the Bob Jones precedent would apply to a college or university that opposed same-sex marriage.

“I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue,” Verrilli said. “I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is going to be an issue.”

Chief Justice John Roberts remembered the exchange in a dissenting opinion to the marriage decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. “There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this court,” Roberts predicted. “Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”

Religious liberty threat ‘unimaginable’

Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Virginia, told the New York Times Verrilli’s response to Justice Alito was ill-considered.

Laycock, recognized as one of the nation’s leading authorities on religious liberty law, said church leaders are worried about jeopardizing their tax-exempt status because “there is a certain obvious logic” to Alito’s question. But he termed it “unimaginable” any administration of either party anytime soon would go after the tax exemption of a religious institution over its views on homosexuality.

“When gay rights looks like race does today, where you have a handful of crackpots still resisting, you might see an administration picking a fight,” he said.

In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 the Constitution does not allow the government to deny same-sex couples marital benefits available to married couples of the opposite sex.

The decision to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide prompted sharp response from a wide range of Baptists—concern from those who support a traditional view of marriage as “holy union between one man and one woman” and celebration from self-described “welcoming and affirming” Christians.

Holly HollmanWriting for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated: “The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them.”

In an initial assessment of the decision, Holly Hollman, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, noted the court’s majority “respectfully acknowledges that some deeply held and long-standing religious beliefs oppose same-sex marriage.”

“In doing so, I believe Justice Kennedy was trying to quell fears that religious beliefs at odds with the court’s view of same-sex marriage are beyond the pale of civil discourse,” Hollman said. “In heated public debates over marriage equality, religious beliefs have not always been treated so respectfully.

“Of course, this decision does not answer all the questions about the conflicts between religious institutions and legal rights of same-sex couples. It does, however, acknowledge that marriage has both religious and civil meanings. Respect for religious differences will be a key component of working out the various conflicts that will arise in the wake of this decision. The court today, however, was properly focused on the civil definition of marriage.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the court’s decision a “flawed ruling” and “a radical departure from countless generations of societal law and tradition.” He pledged to protect citizens’ rights “to exercise their faith in their daily lives without infringement and harassment.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton“Consistent with existing federal and state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that should already protect religious liberty and prevent discrimination based on religion, we must work to ensure that the guarantees of the First Amendment, protecting freedom of religion, and its corollary freedom of conscience, are secure for all Americans,” he said.

“Our guiding principle should be to protect people who want to live, work and raise their families in accordance with their religious faith. We should ensure that people and businesses are not discriminated against by state and local governments based on a person’s religious beliefs, including discrimination against people of faith in the distribution of grants, licenses, certification or accreditation; we should prevent harassing lawsuits against people of faith, their businesses and religious organizations; we should protect nonprofits and churches from state and local taxes if the federal government penalizes them by removing their 501(c)(3) status; and we should protect religious adoption and foster care organizations and the children and families they serve.”

Jim DenisonJim Denison, founding president of the Denison Forum on Truth and Culture, compared the court’s decision to the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion.

“Now the court has sided again with an activist agenda rather than historic moral commitments,” said Denison, former pastor of Park Cities Baptist Church in Dallas and theologian-in-residence with the Baptist General Convention of Texas.

“This decision renders marriage genderless and makes it primarily about the desires of adults rather than the welfare of children, families and society.”

Denison raised questions about what the ruling will mean for churches, Christian institutions and individual believers who conscientiously oppose same-sex unions.

“Most legal observers believe that pastors and churches will not be forced to perform same-sex marriages. But what about a church facility rented for weddings?” he asked. “What about universities that offer married heterosexual students housing but not married gay and lesbian students? What about hiring practices and spousal benefits at faith-based hospitals and ministries? Will statements defending biblical marriage be considered hate speech? Will religious nonprofits that support biblical marriage see their tax-exempt status threatened?

“The ruling is fresh, the questions are many, and the answers are few.”

Russell MooreRussell Moore, head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, predicted the ruling “will have wide-ranging and perilous consequences for the stability of families and for freedom of religion.”

“Despite this ruling, the church of Jesus Christ will stand fast,” Moore said. “We will not capitulate on this issue because we cannot. To minimize or ignore a Christian sexual ethic is to abandon the message Jesus handed down to us, and we have no authority to do this.”

In contrast, the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists called the Supreme Court ruling “a significant milestone for the LGBTQ (lesbian/ gay/ bisexual/ transgender/ queer) community.”

“Among core Baptist beliefs is the separation of church and state,” the association said. “In the secular arena, the Supreme Court’s ruling clearly recognizes the equality of marriage for all people completely independent of our or other Baptists’ religious beliefs.  

“In the face of anti-equality rhetoric among part of the broader Baptist family, AWAB calls specifically on the Southern Baptist Convention to encourage civil compliance with equality law among their membership, regardless of whether individual churches choose to conduct or theologically acknowledge same-sex unions.”

Gus ReyesGus Reyes, director of the Christian Life Commission, the public policy and moral concerns agency of the BGCT, emphasized marriage as a divinely ordained “holy union between one man and one woman,” not subject to redefinition by any court.

“We respect the Supreme Court decision as the law of the land, but we believe in One who is higher than national laws, and ultimately, we must submit to God’s authority,” Reyes said. “Marriage is a God-designed and God-ordained institution, and no Supreme Court decision can redefine what has been defined by God.”

In light of the ruling, Reyes suggested Texas Baptist churches consider taking several steps.

“First, we recommend churches adopt bylaws and employment policies that clearly define biblical marriage and protect church property from use in same-sex ceremonies. The CLC offers examples of how this may be done, which can be found on our website,”  he said.

David Hardage“Additionally, ministers who do not agree with the state’s understanding of marriage may wish to refrain from signing state marriage licenses and move to offering a covenant marriage consistent with biblical teaching.” 

David Hardage, executive director of the BGCT Executive Board, underscored Texas Baptists’ desire to share God’s love and “treat all people with grace and respect,” but he affirmed a traditional understanding of what the Bible teaches about marriage.

“Texas Baptists believe the love of God, demonstrated by the death of his Son on the cross, was for all people. We are committed to loving and caring for all our neighbors,” Hardage said. 

“At the same time, we strongly affirm the biblical view of marriage as that between one man and one woman. This has been, is and will be our position on this matter.”

Jeff HoodJeff Hood, an LGBT activist in the Dallas area and 2009 graduate of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., likewise emphasized God’s love, but he took an altogether different view on the subject of same-sex marriage.

“God is love. When love wins, God wins,” said Hood, minister of social justice with Hope for Peace and Justice. “I am thankful that the Supreme Court stood with God this morning, and I pray that Texas Baptists will do the same.”

In 1996, messengers to the BGCT annual meeting approved a report stating the Bible teaches “the ideal for sexual behavior is the marital union between husband and wife and that all other sexual relations—whether premarital, extramarital or homosexual—are contrary to God’s purpose and thus sinful.” Texas Baptists subsequently reaffirmed that statement—most recently in 2007.

When two churches—University Baptist Church in Austin and Royal Lane Baptist Church in Dallas—publicly acted contrary to that position, the BGCT Executive Board took action by refusing any further contributions from the congregations and asking the churches to cease identifying themselves as affiliated with the BGCT. 

Suzii PaynterThe Cooperative Baptist Fellowship issued a statement calling for unity in the wake of the ruling. CBF Executive Coordinator Suzii Paynter noted the ruling accentuates the diversity of the nation.

“People of faith woven into our nation’s vibrant religious tapestry fall along many points on the spectrum on the subject of same-sex marriage,” Paynter said. “In the High Court’s ruling today, that is borne out in both the majority opinion and in dissenting opinions referencing religious groups.”

With additional reporting by Bob Allen of Baptist News Global

WASHINGTON (BNG)—The U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 1 retailer Abercrombie & Fitch violated the civil rights of a Muslim woman not hired because her religious obligations conflicted with the company’s policy on employee attire.

Overturning a decision by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 Abercrombie failed to accommodate a job applicant not hired after wearing a hijab, a religious head covering, to her interview.

Samantha Elauf, a Tulsa, Okla., teenager, was turned down for a job as a sales associate in 2008 for violating the store’s “look policy,” which forbids employees from wearing “caps.” 

Violation of Civil Rights Act

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit on her behalf alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to “accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”

The EEOC prevailed in district court, which ordered Abercrombie to pay a $20,000 award in 2011. The appeals court struck down the judgment in 2013, finding the burden was on Elauf to inform Abercrombie she needed a religious accommodation to the policy during the interview.

Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia disagreed with the 10th Circuit’ interpretation of the law.

“Abercrombie’s primary argument is that an applicant cannot show disparate treatment without first showing that an employer has ‘actual knowledge’ of the applicant’s need for an accommodation,” Scalia wrote. 

“We disagree. Instead, an applicant need only show that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision.”

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the majority decision, finding Abercrombie’s discrimination against Elauf was not “intentional.”

Baptist Joint Committee

Holly Hollman, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, welcomed the majority’s decision.

“The court today confirmed the fundamental principle in Title VII’s ban on religious discrimination in employment,” Hollman said. “Neither a person’s religion nor the potential need to accommodate a religious practice should be a basis for denying a prospective employee a job.”

In December, the BJC joined more than a dozen other religious liberty and civil rights groups asking the Supreme Court to overturn the 10th Circuit’s ruling in favor of Abercrombie.

Russell Moore, head of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, described the Supreme Court decision on Twitter as “a big win for religious freedom.”

ALPHARETTA, Ga. (BP)— For many Americans, Memorial Day is simply an extra day of rest. But for millions of others, it’s a day of memories and reflections on the friends and family who sacrificed everything in the defense of freedom. 

Here are three stories of ordinary Christians—in their own words—who faced extraordinary situations and still celebrate the hope found in Christ in times of crisis and loss.
 

Chaplain (Maj. Gen.) Doug Carver 

“For the most part, it’s been a quiet day in Baghdad. Units in other locations report an increase of suicide bombers, anti-Coalition sentiment and discovery of mass graves. Spending most of the afternoon preparing for the Memorial Day service at 1800 hours.”—Journal Entry 1, May 26, 2003

Chaplain (Maj. Gen.) Doug Carver It was Monday, May 26, 2003. I was at Victory Base Complex, just on the outskirts of Baghdad, Iraq, with the U.S. Army’s V Corps. This Memorial Day would be especially meaningful to our troops as we remembered the 146 Americans killed in action in Iraq to date.

I planned on focusing the Protestant Memorial Day service on a celebration of the lives of our fallen, as we also used the time to celebrate the new life and freedom that God gave to us through Jesus Christ’s life, death and resurrection. I used Proverbs 10:7 as my primary text (“The memory of the righteous is a blessing.”) The Camp Victory Chapel was packed. Even the V Corps commander and his staff took time out of their battle schedule to attend the service.

No sooner had I pronounced the benediction and walked out of the chapel with my commanding general than we received the bad news. Five soldiers were dead from various enemy attacks and accidents. All of them took place within the very hour of our Memorial Day Service. 

One of those killed in action was a young 25-year-old from Missouri, PFC Jeremiah D. Smith. His vehicle had hit an improvised explosive device in Bagdad, marking the beginning of the enemy’s concerted effort to hit, maim and kill our troops with this new weapon that most of us had never heard of previously. I’ll never forget Memorial Day 2003. We had paused in a war zone to think about life, to thank the Lord for those who’d paid the full measure of devotion to duty to our country and to celebrate the Good News of Jesus Christ. And then, with a prayer and the “amen,” you’re brought right back to the fact that here we are in a combat zone where young men and women are standing in harm’s way, and the war continues. 

“The commanding general was visibly shaken and upset from today’s casualties. Job 1:21: ‘The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the Name of the Lord.’”—Journal Entry 2, May 26, 2003

Chaplain Carver retired from his position as chief of chaplains of the U.S. Army in 2011 and now serves as the North American Mission Board’s executive director of chaplaincy.

Ernest DePaul Roy Jr.

I never knew my daddy. He only saw me one time when I was three days old. He was at Parris Island (Marine Corps Recruitment Depot) back in 1944, and I was born in Mobile, Ala. They weren’t going to give him a pass to come home, because he was about ready to ship out. The Red Cross stepped in and got a three-day pass for him. That was it—a three-day pass. He came and stayed 21 hours, and he didn’t sleep at all. He slept on the train coming down, and he slept on the train going back. That was it. He shipped out and never come back home. Ernest DePaul Roy Jr. at flag relay.He got killed in Okinawa when I was about five months old. He got there May the 5th, in 1945, and he was killed on May the 12th, which was my mom’s birthday. So we didn’t celebrate birthdays for her for a good while. She always thought of that as the day her husband got killed. We talked a lot about him, and I know a lot of stories that people told me about him and everything.

I (recently) went to Okinawa and saw where he got killed. My nephew took me, and we visited around all the camps and bases. We found a guy who was a historian over there and gave him my daddy’s name, so he looked him up on the registry. We got to see just about where he got killed. I’ve heard that, back in those days, Marines hung their hand-grenades on their vest, you know, and sometimes a bullet would hit one. That guy over in Okinawa said that’s the way my daddy died, too. A bullet hit the hand grenade. My mother never got personal stuff back.

Even though I never knew him, I do know my daddy was adopted, and I have an adopted son, too. My grandmother adopted Daddy out of Wilmer Hall in Mobile when he was 9 years old. My wife and I had been married 19 years when the good Lord gave us our son. 

Ernest “Sonny” Roy Jr. is a retiree and truck driver living in Mobile, Ala.

Gunnery Sgt. Leland Stephens

As Marines, we train the way we train because we never want to be the guy or the girl that has to put on a dress blue uniform and knock on a door to tell a family they’ve lost a member. The value is placed on the Marine to your right and your left, knowing that you have to trust them to do their job and they have to trust you to do your job. As Christians, our actions, they don’t just cost a life. We’re talking about an eternal soul here. At the end of the day, when that life is lost, it can’t be re-won. As Marine Christians, it’s our job to try to be an influence to lead others to a relationship with Christ, so that regardless of what happens on a battlefield, the eternity is secured. 

Gunnery Sgt. Leland Stephens and wife Jenniffer.I think one thing I’ve noticed in coming out of the Marine Corps is there’s less of a sense of urgency when it comes to sharing your faith outside of the military. In the military, we realize at any moment, at any time during any training exercise or during any wartime event, lives that never made a decision or never heard the name Jesus can be lost. As Christians outside of the military, I’ve noticed that, maybe, there’s less of a sense of urgency because the danger doesn’t seem as real within America as it does when you’re deployed overseas. 

As a Marine, you’re constantly hearing stories of heroic actions—of people who endured just the worst possible conditions to give us the freedom that we have in America today. I think Memorial Day is of even greater importance to those of us who have served, because we’re constantly confronted with the mistreatment of it, of the freedom that people bled and died to give us. It’s a direct parallel to the gift that Christ gave us and talked about in John 15:13, and he’s not just talking about death. I think he’s talking about the choices we make, as well. But there’s such parallelism in what we see in America today and what Jesus did because of the mistreatment of the gift that was offered. 

And I think that’s why I value Memorial Day so much, because it really has so many parallels into both sides of my life—my military life, as well as my Christian life.

Gunnery Sgt. Leland Stephens recently retired from military service after more than 17 years in the Marines. He is studying at a Denver seminary to prepare for ministry to fellow service members.

WASHINGTON (BNG)—The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and Southern Baptist Convention Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission joined other faith groups in announcing a new coalition to combat predatory lending.

The new Faith for Just Lending coalition, announced at a press conference in Washington, unites groups from varied backgrounds and traditions in a common belief that just lending is a matter of biblical morality and religious concern. 

George Mason, pastor of Wilshire Baptist Church in Dallas, told reporters on Capitol Hill that payday lenders are “a scourge upon the land.” (BNG Photo by Chris Sanders)“It is time for a return to traditional lending practices that acknowledge usury as immoral and detrimental to communities,” said Stephen Reeves, associate coordinator of partnerships and advocacy for the Decatur, Ga.-based CBF. 

“Our elected officials should take note that the faith community stands united in our call to put the law back on the side of struggling families rather than those creating debt-traps for profit.” 

Russell Moore, head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s moral concerns agency, denounced payday lending—short-term, high-interest loans that commonly trap borrowers in a cycle of recurring debt—as “a form of economic predation that grinds the faces of the poor into the ground.”

“As Christians, we are called by Jesus, by the prophets and by the apostles to care for the poor, individually, and also about the way social and political and corporate structures contribute to the misery of the impoverished,” Moore said. 

“Groups across this diverse coalition don’t agree on every issue in the public square, but I am happy to work together on this issue to stand against unchecked usury and work for economic justice, human dignity and family stability.”

Other members of the coalition include the Center for Public Justice; Ecumenical Poverty Initiative; National Association of Evangelicals; National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc., USA, Inc.; National Latino Evangelical Coalition; and the PICO National Network.

Principles for just lending

The coalition released a set of principles for just lending:

• Individuals should manage their resources responsibly and conduct their affairs ethically, saving for emergencies and being willing to provide support to others in need.

• Churches should teach and model responsible stewardship, offering help to neighbors in times of crisis.

• Lenders should extend loans at reasonable interest rates based on ability to repay within the original loan period, taking into account the borrower’s income and expenses.

• Government should prohibit usury and predatory or deceptive lending practices.

With those principles in mind, the coalition called on churches, lenders, individuals and government to do their part to teach stewardship, offer responsible products, use credit wisely, encourage just lending and put an end to predatory loans.

The coalition is calling for an end to the exploitation of households and families through the payday debt trap.

‘Scourge upon the land’

George Mason, senior pastor of Wilshire Baptist Church in Dallas, described usurious practices of payday lenders as “a scourge upon the land.”

“Exploiting the poor while pretending to serve them is a greedy and sinful business,” said Mason, pastor of a predominantly Anglo congregation, who has worked with African-American Pastor Frederick Haynes of Friendship-West Baptist Church to oppose payday lending in Dallas.

“We are calling on lawmakers to remember that when virtue fails, laws are made to restrain evil and protect the vulnerable,” Mason said. “Even those who believe strongly in limited government know the value of promoting fairness and honesty in the marketplace.”

NASHVILLE, Tenn.—A dispute over who can lead student religious groups has left Americans uneasy, but few want to see groups punished for requiring their leaders to hold specific beliefs or practices.

A new study from Nashville-based LifeWay Research finds mixed opinions about whether student religious groups should be allowed to mandate leaders’ beliefs or, because of their religious beliefs, restrict LGBT members from leadership roles. Yet nearly seven in 10 say colleges should not withhold funding or meeting space from such organizations.

The issue has emerged in recent years on college campuses from California to Maine. Student groups say their belief statements and ethics define their identity. College officials—citing what are known as “all-comers” rules—insist groups and their leadership be open to all students, no matter what.

Groups at more than two-dozen campuses have lost their official standing over this disagreement. One dispute, at the Hastings College of Law in California, went before the U.S. Supreme Court. Lawmakers in several states have proposed laws that would bar colleges from applying “all-comers” rules to on-campus religious groups.

Enforced diversity vs. religious freedoms

“Recent university restrictions on beliefs and practices of student group leadership are a sharp contrast to admissions offices that celebrate pluralism, residential programs that encourage diversity, and schools that encourage new thinking,” said Ed Stetzer, executive director of LifeWay Research. “Oddly, these ‘all-comers’ policies lead to the idea that even Oscar Mayer should be allowed to lead the Vegetarian Club.”

LifeWay Research asked 1,000 Americans to respond to this statement in a phone survey: “Should student religious organizations, recognized by publicly funded colleges, be allowed to require their leaders to hold specific beliefs?”

About half (48 percent) say no. A similar number (46 percent) say yes.

Evangelicals (51 percent) are more likely to say groups can require specific beliefs than those with no religious preference (33 percent).

Private colleges

LifeWay Research asked a similar question about student groups at private colleges. A little more than half (51 percent) of Americans say those groups should be allowed to have required beliefs. Forty-four percent say they should not.

Researchers also asked Americans whether colleges should restrict student groups that do not allow gay and lesbian students to be leaders. Evangelicals and Catholics often believe sexual behavior outside of marriage and homosexual behavior disqualifies a person from certain leadership roles.

More than a third (38 percent) say colleges should give funding and meeting space only to groups that allow gay and lesbian leaders. About six in 10 (57 percent) disagree with that restriction.

Nones—people with no religious preference—are more likely (48 percent) to want to see limits on groups that ban gay leaders than Christians (37 percent) or those from other faiths (25 percent). Catholics (50 percent) are more likely to want to see limits than Protestants (32 percent) or evangelicals (27 percent).

Religious objections

Yet support for a restriction lessens when religious objections come into play. Those who support the restriction were asked whether colleges should “exempt religious organizations that object to homosexual behavior from this requirement.” More than a quarter (29 percent) of this subset affirmed religious organizations should be exempt.

The combined response to the two questions indicates 68 percent of Americans believe colleges should not withhold funding or meeting space from religious student organizations that do not allow gay and lesbian students to be in leadership roles. Twenty-six percent believe colleges should withhold funding or meeting space from such organizations, while 7 percent are unsure.

“Religious groups are defined by belief and practice,” Stetzer said. “An increasing number of universities are not permitting student leadership in religious groups to be defined by their own beliefs and practices. More than two-thirds of Americans stop short of denying funding or meeting space on campus despite the groups’ increasingly unpopular religious beliefs and practices.”

Survey methodology

The phone survey of Americans was conducted Sept. 26-Oct. 5, 2014, using Random Digit Dialing. Sixty percent of completes were among landlines, and 40 percent were among cell phones. Analysts used maximum quotas and slight weights for gender, region, age, ethnicity and education to reflect the population more accurately. The completed sample is 1,000 surveys. The sample provides 95 percent confidence the sampling error does not exceed plus or minus 3.5 percent. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Beheadings, enslavement, kidnappings and rape plague minority religious communities across the Middle East, and it’s time for President Obama to fill a job created to address their plight, a group of prominent evangelicals, scholars and other religious leaders told the White House.

Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission President Russell Moore, right, leads a June 9, 2014, panel discussion as David Platt, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s International Mission Board, listens. (RNS photo by Adelle M. Banks)“The persecution and even eradication of religious minorities in the Middle East right now is the biggest humanitarian and national security crisis that we face,” said Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “There is a moral imperative to do everything we can to advocate for imperiled religious minorities.”

The Washington-based International Religious Freedom Roundtable sent a letter to Obama, signed by Moore and 22 other religious freedom activists, including National Association of Evangelicals President Leith Anderson and Joel Hunter of Northland Church in Central Florida. More than 30 groups also signed, including Coptic Solidarity, the Chaldean Community Foundation, International Christian Concern and the United Methodist Church’s General Board of Church & Society.

“The Islamic State’s murderous reach has extended beyond Iraq and Syria,” the letter reads, asking Obama to find a candidate “swiftly” for the envoy job. “Doing so would signal to beleaguered communities in the Middle East, and beyond, that America stands with them.”

Nina Shea, director of the Center for Religious Freedom at the Washington-based Hudson Institute, said violent rampages by the Islamic State, Boko Haram, al-Qaida, al-Shabab and other Muslim extremist groups amount to the ethnic cleansing of Christians. Other religious minorities in the Middle East and elsewhere, including the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Pakistan, Baha’is in Iran and Yazidis in Iraq, also are suffering grievously.

A Red Cross worker comforts a mourner as bodies of the students killed in an April 2, 2015, attack on a Kenyan university arrive at the Chiromo Mortuary in Nairobi. The assault by Somali militants killed 148 people. (Photo: REUTERS/Herman Kariuki)The new push echoes earlier calls for Obama to fill the State Department’s ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom position, which sat vacant for months. Rabbi David Saperstein was confirmed for that post in December.

Even with Saperstein in place, the United States also needs a special envoy for religious minorities in the Middle East and South Central Asia, Shea said, noting the extreme and widespread violence these groups face.

Shea blamed U.S. political and religious leaders for failing to publicly recognize victims of this violence are targeted because of their religion. Gunmen from al-Shabab hunted down Christian students when they killed 148 people at a Kenyan university on April 2, for example.

Obama and other leaders shy away from relevant religious labels, Shea continued, as if “Christians are the oppressors, and they can’t be victims.”

American Christians are trying to do something about violence against Christians and other minorities in the Mideast, Moore said. 

“I see Christians praying for the persecuted church more than they ever have,” he observed. “I see Christians contacting their members of Congress and asking for actions on these issues more than I ever have before.”

But “Americans across the board aren’t as alarmed as they should be because I think they’ve grown callous to violence in the Middle East, and some Americans wrongly assume that violence in the Middle East is something we should just expect,” Moore added.

The White House did not have an immediate response to the letter.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—As the nine Supreme Court justices took up the vexing question of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage April 28, arguments came down to two competing visions of marriage—what it’s been or what it should be—and who gets to decide.

The day before the Supreme Court took up the same-sex marriages debate, people were already making their case known through signs, posters, flags and even costumes. (Photo: John Rutledge, Baptist Standard)Outside the court, hundreds of demonstrators echoed both sides. Opponents of same-sex marriage carried signs proclaiming, “Man & Woman: United for Life, Open to Life.” Gay rights supporters chanting “Love Must Win!” tried to drown out sidewalk preachers with their megaphones.

Beyond the arcane and real-life arguments over the state’s sanction of private relationships, the court must decide the very nature and purpose of marriage—or at least which nature will be reflected in civil law.

Justice Anthony Kennedy—the swing vote and the author of the court’s major gay rights decisions the past 20 years—struggled to understand how the Supreme Court in 2015 could alter the definition of marriage.

Before the Supreme Court considered arguments about legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, supporters and opponents outside used imaginative displays to proclaim their positions. (Photo: John Rutledge, Baptist Standard)“This definition has been with us for millennia,” he said. “And it—it’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh, well, we—we know better.’”

In that vein, the court’s conservative wing pressed lawyers for gay and lesbian couples in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and Michigan about the nature of the institution they were fighting so hard to access. The questions boiled down to this: Is marriage about a civil contract between two adults or a societal covenant for the rearing of children?

Michigan’s Special Assistant Attorney General John Bursch, arguing to keep his state’s ban on gay marriage intact, repeatedly stressed marriage is about securing bonds between parents and their biological or adopted children. 

“There’s harm if you change the definition of marriage because, in people’s minds, if marriage and creating children don’t have anything to do with each other, then what do you expect? You expect more children outside of marriage,” he said.

People had been camping on the sidewalk outside the Supreme Court building since the Friday before the justices heard the same-sex marriage arguments April 28. (Photo: John Rutledge, Baptist Standard)Justice Elena Kagan, perhaps the court’s most aggressive questioner on this issue, seemed dumbfounded.

“Do you think that that’s what it would do, Mr. Bursch, that if one allowed same-sex marriage, one would be announcing to the world that marriage and children have nothing to do with each other? she asked, saying she found his warnings unrealistic, either in the “abstract or the concrete.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, also needling proponents of maintaining the existing bans in 13 states, played down the link between procreation and marriage, noting elderly couples, infertile couples and even some prisoners could get state blessing on their marriages.

“Suppose a couple, a 70-year-old couple, comes in and they want to get married,” said Ginsburg, an 82-year-old widow. “You don’t have to ask them any questions. You know they are not going to have any children.”

Ginsburg noted society’s understanding of marriage itself has evolved, now shunning the notion of “a dominant male (married) to a subordinate female.”

The pro-life organization Faith2Action, led by Janet Porter (center), held a press conference April 27 in front of the Supreme Court, encouraging support for a bill to block federal courts from ruling on marriage. The bill was introduced the previous week by Rep. Steve King in the House and Sen. Ted Cruz in the Senate. (Photo: John Rutledge, Baptist Standard)The court’s most outspoken conservative members—Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito—wondered early and often what would prevent an even further redefinition of marriage to include multiple spouses, or even child brides. “Would there be any ground for denying them a license?” Alito wanted to know.

On the other side, proponents of same-sex couples argued if the court really cares about the well-being of children, it must not overlook the estimated 210,000 children being raised by same-sex parents without “the stabilizing structure and the many benefits of marriage.” For them, marriage is a solemn covenant of commitment between two consenting adults, supporters of gay marriage asserted. 

Stickers, placards and streamers added to the carnival atmosphere outside the Supreme Court before the same-sex marriage arguments April 28. (Photo: John Rutledge, Baptist Standard)Arguments about children and parentage are important, they said, but also a sideshow to more fundamental questions about human dignity and civil rights.

“The right to be married is as basic a liberty, as basic a fundamental liberty … which has existed for all of human civilization,” Justice Stephen Breyer said, expressing dismay at the idea government would “offer that to almost everyone, but exclude a group.”

Kennedy, again clearly grappling with a decision that could define his tenure on the bench, wrestled with the idea of withholding the “dignity-bestowing” access to marriage, echoing his earlier decisions that same-sex couples want nothing more than the “same ennoblement” as everyone else.

Sensing a potentially fatal blow—and the possible loss of Kennedy’s swing vote—Bursch emphasized his view of marriage was about protecting children, not enhancing or harming any adult’s dignity.

Demonstrators speak to a captive audience of people waiting to witness the Supreme Court hear a case the day before it took up the gay-marriage bans in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and Michigan on April 28. (Photo: John Rutledge, Baptist Standard)“Dignity may have grown up around marriage as a cultural thing,” he said. “But the state has no interest in bestowing or taking away dignity from anyone, and certainly it’s not the state’s intent to take dignity away from same-sex couples, or from anyone based on their sexual orientation.”

Arguing on behalf of the Obama administration, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli framed the case—and the very nature of marriage—in the broadest terms possible.

“What I would suggest is that in a world in which gay and lesbian couples live openly as our neighbors, they raise their children side by side with the rest of us, they contribute fully as members of the community, that it is simply untenable—untenable—to suggest that they can be denied the right of equal participation in an institution of marriage, or that they can be required to wait until the majority decides that it is ready to treat gay and lesbian people as equals,” he said.

“Gay and lesbian people are equal,” Verrilli insisted. “They deserve equal protection of the laws, and they deserve it now.”

The court is expected to issue its decision by the end of June.

OKLAHOMA CITY (BNG)—An Oklahoma scholarship program to help children with disabilities attend private schools violates the state’s constitution because it uses public funds to support religious instruction, according to a brief filed before the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Interfaith Alliance Foundation asked the court to uphold a district court decision that the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Program violates the constitution’s strict prohibition of both direct and indirect taxpayer funding of sectarian schools.

Holly Hollman, general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee. “Oklahoma’s ‘No Aid’ provision is unambiguous,” said Holly Hollman, general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee. “It broadly prohibits the government from directly or indirectly funding religious schools.”

Twelve Oklahoma taxpayers filed a lawsuit in 2013 challenging a law approved by the legislature in 2010 allowing taxpayer dollars to follow children with disabilities to the school of their parents’ choice.

The Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship Program was named for a daughter of former Gov. Brad Henry and his wife, Kim Henry, who died in infancy. Last August, an Oklahoma County District Court judge ruled the law unconstitutional.

Oklahoma’s constitution states: “No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit or support of any sect, church, denomination or system of religion, or for the use, benefit or support of any priest, preacher, minister or other religious teacher or dignitary or sectarian institution as such.”

Critics of the constitution’s language claim its historical basis is anti-Catholic bias, but the brief says its intent was to prevent Native Americans from being pressured to educate their children in Christian schools.

Tribes in the Indian Territory, in what today is eastern Oklahoma, came to the state in the 1830s after a forced march known as the Trail of Tears. A government program tried to assimilate them by using schools to convert their children to Christianity, something many adults saw as a threat to Native American culture and traditions.

“Voucher programs like Oklahoma’s are little more than a taxpayer-funded handout for religious schools,” said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “The Oklahoma constitution is crystal clear when it comes to public support of religious schools: It is not allowed.”

The Disabilities Education Act grants special protections and service for students with disabilities in public schools. The friend-of-the-court brief says parents have a right to send their children to private religious schools, but not at taxpayer expense.

“The right to choose a religious education does not include taxpayer financing,” Hollman said.