News & Commentary About All Things Baptist

Bob Allen of the Associated Baptist Press has penned an article titled BJC files brief opposing sectarian prayer at government meetings.  Here is a snippet:

WASHINGTON (ABP) — The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty filed legal papers July 6 arguing that inviting religious leaders to invoke sectarian prayers at a North Carolina county’s board of commissioners meetings is unconstitutional.

The BJC filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a Jan. 28 ruling by a federal district judge that prayers used to open or solemnize meetings of the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Towards the end of the article, Allen mentions the prayer controversy here in McLennan County:

A similar controversy has been brewing in Waco, Texas. After weeks of discussion, McLennan County commissionersvoted July 6 to begin their meetings with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance.

The decision came after commissioners sought legal advice and community input about how to conduct prayers in a way that includes all faiths and protects the county from potential lawsuits.

I have previously blogged about this brewing controversy here and here.

I have read the McLennan County prayer policy.  It seems very similar to Forsyth County’s prayer policy.  Lester Gibson and the other McLennan County Commissioners would be well served to read the Baptist Joint Committee’s brief.

Below is a copy of an e-mail that I sent to McLennan County Commissioner Lester Gibson about a recent decision to open meetings of the Commissioners Court with a prayer.  [Followers of the church-state landscape know that these nonsectarian prayer policy rarely have a nonsectarian effect.  More often than not, the overwhelming majority of prayers are evangelical Christian prayers.]

Gibson has spearheaded this effort, apparently acting against the advice of counsel.  After serving McLennan County for 20 years as Commissioner, Gibson only now sees the need for an opening prayer.  Coincidentally, this push for public prayer came within just a few weeks of an announcement that the proceedings of the Court would be broadcast online.  For more background info, see my original post titled Prayer Controversy in Jerusalem on the Brazos.

Dear Commissioner Gibson,

I read your recent comments (June 29, 2010) in the Waco Trib and thought I would respond.

First, let me introduce myself.  My name is Aaron Weaver and I am a graduate of the Church-State Studies program at Baylor University.  I’ve been a resident of McLennan County since 2003.

Let me add that I am not an atheist [readers: see here for context].  Yet, I too oppose the recent decision of the commissioners to open up meetings of the Court with a prayer.

I am a life-long Baptist and member of Lake Shore Baptist Church in Waco.  Prior to making McLennan County my home, I interned with civil rights hero Congressman John Lewis in Atlanta and with the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty in Washington D.C.  The Baptist Joint Committee is a religious liberty watchdog organization which receives significant support from Baptists in the Greater Waco area.  Congressman Chet Edwards is a great friend of the BJC having received the Barbara Jordan/Mark Hatfield Political Courage Award in 1999.  Suffice it to say, I am actively concerned about religious liberty issues, specifically church-state separation, because of the work of Congressman Lewis, Congressman Edwards and the Baptist Joint Committee.

I also operate a popular Baptist website (www.thebigdaddyweave.com) that deals with current issues of interest to Baptists in the United States.  I recently wrote about this emerging prayer controversy on my website.

http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2010/06/prayer-controversy-in-jerusalem-on-the-brazos.html

I invite you to read my thoughts and concerns.  Since you plan to move ahead with a prayer, I hope that you and the other commissioners will carefully craft a policy that is authentically nonsectarian.  Further, I hope that you and the other commissioners are committed to seeing that the implementation of this policy is indeed nonsectarian as well.

A review of prayer-related court decisions will reveal that a policy can be nonsectarian but can still be implemented in a manner which has a sectarian effect.  I recommend that you read closely the very recent decision of Joyner v. Forsyth County which struck down a North Carolina county’s practice of opening board meetings with prayers that were often sectarian in nature.  A federal judge ruled that the nonsectarian policy, as implemented, had “resulted in Government-sponsored prayers that advance a specific faith or belief and had the effect of affiliating the Government with that particular faith or belief.”

I have sincere doubts though that a policy can be implemented that is nonsectarian.  Your recent comments describing McLennan County as largely Christian, to me, suggests a misguided majoritarian mindset.  That most are generically “Christian” in McLennan County is beside the point.  A nonsectarian prayer policy requires an incredible amount of diversity.  An occasional prayer from a representative of a minority faith tradition will not pass constitutional muster as the Joyner v. Forsyth County decision demonstrates.  I also wonder whether local prayer-proponents are prepared to respectfully sit through an invocation given by someone not of the Christian tradition?  I’m not a betting man but it’s a safe bet to say that some of your constituents will not take kindly to a prayer addressed to a generic deity or to a specific deity from a non-Christian faith tradition.

Before drafting this policy, I suggest you first research the prayer policies of other city governments.  Courts have distinguished between public prayer at city government meetings and legislative prayer.  Modeling a policy after the policy of a legislative body is unwise.  The recent Joyner v. Forsyth ruling, quoting Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), provides insight on this point.

Meanwhile, I hope you and the other commissioners will realize the dangers of government meddling in religion.  And that’s precisely what happens when elected officials sit down to draft policies to regulate a religious practice.  Why now? Why not last year or five years ago?  Why not a moment-of-silence?  Elected officials should promote liberty not threaten it.  To quote Congressman Edwards, “The best way to ruin religion is to politicize it.”

Please do your part as an elected official to respect the consciences of residents of McLennan County from minority faith traditions (including atheists) as you proceed.  Please stand up against religious discrimination and religious coercion.

Sincerely,

Aaron Weaver

[McLennan County, Texas is the home of Baylor University, the largest Baptist-affiliated university in the United States.  I am also a resident of the county.]

Back in May, McLennan County Commissioners proposed opening meetings of the Commissioners Court with both the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer.  These two proposals followed a decision of the Court to begin broadcasting its meetings online.

Commissioner Joe Mashek explained his Pledge proposal: “We represent the state of Texas in the things we do, and so it just might be nice to go ahead and say the pledge…I’m a very patriotic person, and I love Texas.”

[Frankly, it's kinda unclear whether Mashek's Pledge proposal is for the United States or Texas.  Some do still pledge to the Texas flag here!]

Mashek, however, was cool to the idea of opening up meetings with a prayer.  As an alternative to a prayer, he proposed that the Pledge of Allegiance conclude with “God Bless Texas.”

Mashek stated that he had “no problem” with saying a prayer but “[worries] a little bit about mixing religion with politics.”  Mashek later elaborated: “My real concern is making sure that the county doesn’t get sued, so I wanted to leave it at just (”God Bless Texas”).  Or we could have a moment of silence and let people pray to whoever they want to pray to, or to not pray.”

Outgoing Commissioner Ray Meadows, who was recently embarrassed in the Republican primary losing 67.3 to 32.7 to opponent Ben Perry, wants to pray.  Meadows motivations are revealing: “I would rather go with the Christian way.  Over the years, we’ve had a few comments about the Christmas tree in the courthouse and celebrating Christmas, but we still go ahead and go with what you might say is the majority of people.”

After the commissioners agreed to seek a legal opinion from the county’s attorney on the prayer issue, Meadows exclaimed, “That right there’s a heck of a note, to have to get an attorney’s opinion to say a prayer, and I’ve got a problem with that.”

All other commissioners have voiced their support for opening the meetings up with a prayer.  Commissioner Lester Gibson, however, insists that the prayer should come before the Pledge of Allegiance.Here is Lester Gibson (pictured on right):

Why would we put the pledge before prayer? Prayer comes first….My religion and my faith is God first, family second and nation third.

Gibson also suggested that the Commissioners Court could avoid any possible legal issues by praying before the meeting is officially called to order!  According to Gibson:

If we haven’t called the meeting to order, then it’s not like the county officially sanctions it.

One month later, the commissioners were still discussing on how to proceed with the Pledge/Prayer proposals.  Commissioner Lester Gibson again emphasized his support for prayer regardless of the possible legal ramifications:

Now if somebody wants to sue me, I don’t care, for praying to my God, then they can sue.  That’s a conviction that I can deal with.

Now, the Waco Tribune has reported that the McLennan County Commissioners “approved a motion to develop a policy on saying a nonsectarian prayer.”  This prayer will be followed by a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.  Commissioner Lester Gibson - the man who is not afraid of getting sued - is apparently in charge of crafting this nonsectarian prayer policy.  Gibson made the motion to the chagrin of Commissioner Mashek and against the advice of the county attorney.  From the Waco Tribune:

Gibson acknowledged that the prayer policy could not be used to restrict a person from praying in accordance with his or her personal religious beliefs, such as invoking Jesus Christ or Buddha.

Instead, the policy would list the court’s official guidelines for a nondenominational prayer, to avoid appearing biased toward or against any particular religion.

“Of course, we don’t want to put the taxpayers at risk of some frivolous lawsuit that may cost the taxpayers money, so we want to have a policy on that,” Gibson said after the meeting.

Lester Gibson and the other commissioners who approved the motion to move forward with the Prayer proposal have made a monumental mistake that may become costly for the county down the road.  Why now?  Lester Gibson was first elected to serve as a commissioner in 1990.  For 20 years he didn’t see the need to open the court’s meetings with prayer.  Outgoing, defeated commissioner Ray Meadows has been in office since 1986.  It took him 24 years to see the need for prayer.

It’s worth mentioning again that this push for prayer came only after a decision to broadcast the court’s meetings online.  Both Christians, Gibson and Meadows should take a minute to read Matthew 6:5.  I think Jesus had a good word which applies to these commissioners.

I have serious doubts that Lester Gibson will be able to craft a truly nonsectarian prayer policy.  This is a man who apparently thinks that prayer only becomes government-sponsored when a meeting is “officially” called to order.  He also seems to think that all prayer-related lawsuits are “frivolous.”  Gibson has demonstrated no respect for the consciences of his constituents especially those from minority faith traditions with his recent comments.

Given the comments made by Commissioners Gibson and Meadows, it seems highly unlikely that the McLennan County Commissioners Court will be able to craft and implement a policy that is indeed nonsectarian.

The Commissioners would be well served to review the recent decision (January 29, 2010) by a federal court to strike down a North Carolina county’s practice of opening board meetings with prayers that were more often than not sectarian prayers.  In Joyner v. Forsyth County, U.S. District Judge James A. Beaty agreed with and adopted the previous 2009 determination of a federal magistrate judge that the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners invocation policy, as implemented, had “resulted in Government-sponsored prayers that advance a specific faith or belief and have the effect of affiliating the Government with that particular faith or belief.”

The Forsyth County Board of Commissioners prayer policy was very detailed and over three pages long.  In fact, the federal magistrate judge commended the policy for its procedure by which the invocational speaker was selected. According to the magistrate judge’s ruling the Forsyth board’s selection process for invocation speakers “strives to include a wide variety of speakers from diverse religious faiths.”

However, the prayers given under that nonsectarian policy “[did] not reflect this diversity” according to the ruling. Citing decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit, the judge explained:

The undisputed record shows that the prayers delivered at the outset of the Board meetings referred to Jesus, Jesus Christ, Christ or Savior with overwhelming frequency.  No non-Christian deities are invoked.  These prayers as a whole cannot be considered non-sectarian or civil prayer.  They display a preference for Christianity over other religions by the government.  The frequent references to Jesus Christ cause the prayers to promote one religion over all others and thus the effect of these prayers is to affiliate the Board with a specific faith or belief.

The McLennan County Commissioners would be wise to reconsider their decision and perhaps go the moment of silence route instead.

There has probably been no stronger public critic of Southern Baptist fundamentalists over the past decade than Robert Parham of the Baptist Center for Ethics.  I generally agree with much of Parham’s analysis concerning the SBC.  Although, I have to quibble with the conclusions in his recent EthicsDaily.com op-ed titled Is The SBC Pivoting To A New Future?

Parham asks:

Has the SBC pivoted away from its position over the past 20 years of fidelity to angry fundamentalist leaders and faithfulness to the political right? Are the results of last week’s meeting an aberration or a new positive trend?

Four things happened at the SBC meeting in Orlando.

First, the SBC offered a thundering silence about Disney.

…Second, Southern Baptists elected a new president who is not known for fringe statements on social issues and bombastic theological declarations.

Third, Southern Baptists elected Frank Page as their new chief executive officer, someone who wasn’t part of the takeover group, someone who was elected on a vote of 44-30. That vote margin suggests real opposition to him, probably among the old right.

By themselves, these three things suggest a tilt away from negativity and reactivity.  But the more compelling evidence, the fourth event, appears in the SBC’s resolution on the catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico. That statement suggests a new day is dawning for Southern Baptists on the environmental front.

…We will know soon enough if these signs are an aberration or a new normal. For the sake of the common good, we can hope that they represent a constructive tilt.

Parham is correct to note that the new president of the SBC is not known for fringe statements.  The same can be said for his predecessors Frank Page and Johnny Hunt.

However, I don’t see what Parham apparently sees in the selection of Frank Page as the new SBC CEO.  EthicsDaily.com has certainly not shied about from highlighting the less-than-positive actions and statements of Page. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here

Fear-mongering that pastors who preach against homosexuality in the U.S. will eventually be jailed, evangelizing Catholics, failure to retain pastoral confidentiality, blame liberals who “control the media” and public education for all the world’s woes, labeling sexual abuse critics as “opportunists,” blame Jimmy Carter for Southern Baptists’ negative image, support for a Southern Baptist ‘exit strategy’ from public schools, and accusing organizers of the New Baptist Covenant Celebration of having a “left-wing liberal agenda.”

What exactly then about Frank Page’s selection as SBC CEO could possibly indicate a “new positive trend”?

I agree that the latest Southern Baptist resolution on the environment is a step-forward.  More than anything, I think this particular resolution reflects the influence of Russell Moore who chaired the resolutions committee.  Clearly, there is a divide between the conservation-stewardship ethic of Russ Moore and the free-market, anti-environmentalist approach of Richard Land.

Nonetheless, Richard Land remains the SBC’s ethics guru as head of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.  He also remains hostile to environmentalism - see the recent EthicsDaily.com article by Brian Kaylor titled Land Defends BP, Blames Obama for Gulf Catastrophe

Also, keep in mind that the 2010 resolution did not renounce the global warming skepticism of the SBC’s 2006 resolution titled On Environment and Evangelicals.  In light of the e-mail controversy dubbed Climategate by some in the media, I have a hunch that global warming skepticism is stronger than ever among SBCers.  Strengthened skepticism would certainly be consistent with larger trends in American society.  Support for environmental protection and environmental stewardship among Southern Baptists does not necessarily translate into support for significant environmental reform policies.

In his argument that the SBC might be pivoting to a new future, Parham failed to inform his readers of the two strongly-worded anti-gay rights resolutions passed by the Southern Baptist Convention this year.  Excluding the obligatory “Appreciation to Host City” resolution, 33% of the resolutions passed this year were concerned with gay rights.  While there may have been silence on Disney, opposition to homosexuality and gay rights was still central to the SBC’s social-political agenda this year.

The resolution titled On Homosexuality and the United States Military announced that “ATTEMPTING” to normalize homosexuality in the military “demonstrates a willingness to jeopardize national security.”  According to the resolution, “SOCIAL SURVIVAL” is at stake as well if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed.  Further, the military will be “CRIPPLED” by the repeal and there will be a mass exodus of active military personnel.  That gays can serve openly in the military threatens religious liberty, says the SBC.

The resolution titled On Employment Non-Discrimination Act asserts/implies that hate crimes laws criminalize the preaching of the Gospel and faith-based adoption agencies (which receive federal funding) should be allowed to discriminate against gays.  The resolution also contends that FOR-PROFIT BUSINESSES with a broadly-defined “religious character” should be allowed to discriminate in the hiring process on the basis of sexual orientation. (Read more about these resolutions here)

When links to these two resolutions were making their way around the blogosphere and Facebook, responses ranged from “Typical” to “Homophobes!”

I’m not alone in failing to see the possibility of a “positive new trend” in the SBC.

It is a huge mistake to focus on one positive resolution and ignore the rest.

I’ve seen no evidence to support the idea that the SBC is less than faithful to the political right.

SBC Pivoting Toward a New Future? Hardly.

Other related posts:The SBC is Changing Because Though the Bible Is Infallible Our Interpretations Are Not (Grace and Truth To You)

“The SBC Is Changing Because Though the Bible Is Infallible Our Interpretations Are Not”

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty is calling on the Senate Judiciary Committee to question U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan about her understanding of the religion clauses of the First Amendment.

Below is a copy of the letter signed by the Baptist Joint Committee:

Dear Senator:

We write in anticipation of the upcoming hearing, scheduled to commence June 28th, on U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s nomination to be an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.These hearings are an opportunity both to learn about the nominee’s judicial philosophy and to highlight particular legal issues. Although our organizations hold differing views on the nomination of General Kagan and many do not take positions on judicial nominees, we are all committed to a strong separation of church and state and robust religious liberty for people of all faiths and none. To that end, we’d like to suggest some questions aimed at probing Solicitor General Kagan’s views on the religion clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.

As you know, the Supreme Court has the power to protect or erode the wall of separation between church and state, and each individual justice, confirmed to a lifetime appointment, can have a major impact on federal jurisprudence in this, and every, area of the law. If confirmed, General Kagan will surely contribute to the process of shaping the law under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. The Court has already granted certiorari in two cases related to religious freedom for the October 2010 term, so her consideration of these issues would be almost immediate.

We encourage you to pose the following (or similar) questions to General Kagan when she appears before you at the hearings:

1) What are the aims of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the Constitution? What values do they seek to protect? How, and in what ways, has the Court’s jurisprudence safeguarded or eroded these values?

2) In your testimony at your hearing for confirmation as Solicitor General, you stated that “religious organizations are different and that these differences are sometimes relevant for the purposes of government funding.” How are religious organizations different from secular organizations for First Amendment purposes? What limits does the Establishment Clause place on government funding that flows to faith-based organizations? In what other ways does the special nature of religious institutions call for different treatment under the Constitution?

3) Traditionally, Free Exercise rights have been accorded both to individuals and to institutions. What do you believe is the scope of those rights? How does the Free Exercise Clause protect the practice of faith by individuals and institutions? To what extent, if any, do free exercise protections differ when cases involve institutions rather than individuals? And what additional protections, if any, does the doctrine of religious autonomy provide for religious institutions?

4) What is the authority of Congress to regulate state action in the interest of protecting individuals from violations of their Equal Protection rights under the 14th Amendment — please answer both generally but also particularly in regards to legislation designed to protect individual and institutional religious liberty?

5) The Court has historically recognized a special category of taxpayer standing in Establishment Clause challenges (Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968)). The Court has recently discussed this precedent in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 551 U.S. 587 (2007). Is it important to provide special leeway for taxpayers to bring Establishment Clause lawsuits? If so, why, and how should courts do so?

We look forward to a productive hearing and stand ready to serve as a resource as you craft questions related to these important issues.

Click here to see a complete list of the organizations that signed this letter.

Well, I think this is probably a first for the Southern Baptist Convention.  Pastor Joshua Shank introduces a motion in affirmation of the controversial Acts 29 Network in the form of a rap at the 2010 meeting of the SBC in Orlando, Florida.

The Acts 29 Network, an interdenominational church planting network, was founded by Mark Driscoll, aka the Cussing Pastor (who apparently doesn’t cuss anymore or cusses less or something like that).

Messengers to the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention in Orlando, Florida passed seven resolutions today.

On Homosexuality and the United States Military

This resolution strongly opposed the “normalizing and open presence” of gays and lesbians in the armed forces.  Describing “homosexual behavior” as “a contributing cause and consequence of God’s judgment on nations and individuals,” the resolution asserted that the Defense Department “must accept input from…the Southern Baptist Convention.”

The resolution announced that “ATTEMPTING” to normalize (not the act itself but the attempt) homosexuality in the military “demonstrates a willingness to jeopardize national security.”

Not only is national security at stake, according to Southern Baptists.  “Social survival” is at stake as well - all because gays and lesbians live openly as gays and lesbians while serving in the military…

The “religious moral freedom” of Southern Baptist military personnel, especially chaplains, is also jeopardized so says the SBC.  SBCers warn that military recruiting will be “crippled” with the repeal of DADT.  They believe that a large percentage of active military personnel will not reenlist or will end their careers early.

The resolution continues with the claim that the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is in no way comparable to President Truman’s decision to desegregate the militry back in the late 40s.  Here is where “Sin Rights Movement” vs. God-ordained Civil Rights Movement argument comes in to play.  Too bad that very very few Southern Baptist “conservatives” were supportive of that God-ordained quest for civil rights back in the 50s and 60s.

On Employment Non-Discrimination Act

For background on ENDA, read here.

A few assertions made/implied by the SBC in this resolution:

-Hate crimes laws criminalize the preaching of the Gospel

-Faith-based adoption agencies (which receive federal funding) should be exempt from non-discrimination statutes

-Support for broadly-defined “conscience clauses” in the health care profession.  For example (according to SBC), a Wal-Mart pharmacist opposed to birth control on conscience grounds should not be legally obligated to fill any prescriptions for birth control pills, etc.

-For-Profit Businesses w/ 15+ employees that have a “religious character” will be unable to deny employment on the basis of sexual orientation IF ENDA is passed and signed into law, according to the resolution.

I’m pretty confident that Congress will not choose to exempt sizable for-profit businesses with a “religious character” from ENDA.  The line has to be drawn somewhere.

In the RESOLVED sections, the SBC urges President Obama to appoint and Congress to confirm “only nominees to federal judicial positions who will protect foundational religious freedoms.”  This is a nice sentiment.  Fortunately, most do not consider the right to discriminate against persons on basis of one’s sexual orientation in the for-profit business world to be a “foundational religious freedom.”

It is EXTREMELY hard for any outsider to take seriously the SBC’s claim that “Homosexual persons are not our enemies but our neighbors whom we love” when they spend so much time and effort fighting every single gay rights initiative from opposing Hate Crimes legislation to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to non-discrimination legislation aimed at BUSINESSES not churches.

Southern Baptists have been meeting this week in Orlando, Florida for the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention.  Today, they passed seven resolutions.  Below is the full-text of their resolution opposing ENDA:

ON THE EMPLOYMENT NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT

WHEREAS, Southern Baptists historically have supported religious freedom and its related political ideal of a “free church in a free state,” and affirm that the First Amendment statement on religion applies to the workplace in the sense that employers and employees should be free from governmental interference or coercion as they freely express matters of religious conviction; and

WHEREAS, Scripture speaks of the God-given rights of conscience and the freedom of dissent based on moral and religious principles (Daniel 1:3-17; Acts 4:5-20; 5:17-32); and

WHEREAS, Christians face a series of challenges to religious liberty—such as “hate crimes” laws around the world that would criminalize the preaching of the gospel, laws requiring Christian orphan ministries to facilitate adoptions to homosexual couples, the erosion of conscience clauses enabling health care workers to refuse to participate in abortion-related activities, and so forth; and

WHEREAS, The right of religious organizations to hire people whose beliefs and conduct are consistent with the principles such organizations espouse is inherent within the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty and was also affirmed in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and

WHEREAS, Congress subsequently strengthened those statutory protections, declaring that any “religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society” could consider the applicants’ religious faith during the hiring process; and

WHEREAS, The Supreme Court upheld hiring protections for faith-based organizations in 1987, and Congress has included those protections in numerous federal laws; and

WHEREAS, Legislation titled the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that has been introduced in the House of Representatives (HR 3017, with 202 co-sponsors) as well as in the Senate (S 1584, with 45 co-sponsors) would radically alter the idea of protected classes in American law, granting such things as sexual orientation the same employment protections as gender and race, placing these immoral and aberrant behaviors on the same level as the immutable traits of gender and ancestry; and

WHEREAS, ENDA would make it illegal for businesses and organizations with fifteen or more employees to fire or to refuse to hire or promote an employee because of his or her actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity; and

WHEREAS, Although recent formulations of ENDA contain a religious exemption that states that churches do not have to hire “homosexual ministers,” they do not contain an exemption for rights of conscience or religious freedom to protect businesses with a religious character (such as religious bookstores, publishers, and parachurch ministries) and other businesses with religious owners or managers; and

WHEREAS, Such legislation jeopardizes our First Amendment freedoms by establishing in law the principle that disapproval of homosexual conduct is a form of bigotry, equivalent to racism; and

WHEREAS, Homosexual persons are not our enemies but our neighbors whom we love and wish to see find the same forgiveness and freedom we have found in Christ; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Orlando, Florida, June 15-16, 2010, express our profound opposition to ENDA and any similar legislation; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we call upon the president of the United States to appoint, and Congress to confirm, only nominees to federal judicial positions who will protect foundational religious freedoms; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we plead with churches to love all persons, with mercy and grace, regardless of the nature of each person’s sin, and to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, with compassion and conviction, regardless of the laws of the state (Acts 4:18-20).

Southern Baptists have been meeting this week in Orlando, Florida for the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention.  Today, they passed seven resolutions. Below is the full-text of their resolution on homosexuality and the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

ON HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE UNITED STATES MILITARY

WHEREAS, President Obama has promised repeatedly to repeal current law (10USC654) and to change policies that prevent normalizing the open presence of homosexuals in the armed forces; and

WHEREAS, The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has told Congress that he favors normalizing the open presence of homosexuals in the military because he thinks it is morally “the right thing to do”; and

WHEREAS, The secretary of defense has told Congress that he will carry out orders to implement normalizing the open presence of homosexuals in the armed forces and has appointed a high level working group to prepare plans for doing so should Congress repeal current law; and

WHEREAS, The House of Representatives voted recently to normalize the open practice of homosexuality in the military by authorizing the repeal of current law, and the Senate Armed Services Committee has also passed the repeal language; and

WHEREAS, The Defense Department working group tasked with preparing a plan to normalize the open presence of homosexuals in the military must accept input from various sources including advice offered by religious groups such as the Southern Baptist Convention; and

WHEREAS, Homosexual behavior cannot be normalized without rejecting God’s moral standards (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10) and is contrary to moral standards held by nearly every civilized order in human history, including most societies in the world today; and

WHEREAS, The Bible describes homosexual behavior as both a contributing cause (Genesis 18:20-21; Leviticus 18:24-28; Jude 7) and a consequence of God’s judgment on nations and individuals (Romans 1:18-32); and

WHEREAS, Findings in the law passed in 1993 remain true and relevant today including: (1) that “There is no constitutional right” for anyone “to serve in the armed forces,” (2) that “The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service,” and (3) that “The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability”; and

WHEREAS, Defense Department policy remains true and relevant today that states, “the presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission”; and

WHEREAS, Attempting to normalize the open presence of homosexuals in the armed forces while fighting two wars demonstrates willingness to jeopardize national security in favor of the radical agenda advanced by the homosexual lobby, and substitutes a therapeutic ethic (one measuring everything by self-satisfaction) for the sacrificial ethic (one placing duty over personal survival) essential for sustaining national security and social survival; and

WHEREAS, Normalizing the open presence of homosexuals in the armed forces will result in pressuring Southern Baptist and other biblically faithful military chaplains to restrict or redefine the gospel message, first by censoring their teaching of the biblical definition of sin, and second by trying to change their beliefs about what is sinful and immoral by requiring them to attend “sensitivity sessions” meant to indoctrinate personnel who resist normalizing openly present homosexuals in all aspects of military life; and

WHEREAS, No government should implement standards or policies regulating the lives of military personnel based on nothing other than indulging sexual desires, however strong; and

WHEREAS, The United States historically has honored the religious moral freedom of Americans serving in the armed forces, religious moral freedom no government should deny; and

WHEREAS, It is the seasoned judgment of most military leaders that normalizing the open presence of homosexuals in the military is incompatible with generating, strengthening, and maintaining good discipline, unit cohesion, and combat readiness; and

WHEREAS, Those who would equate the normalizing of homosexuality with the right and just action of President Truman and others to undo racial segregation within the armed services in the mid-twentieth century wrongly confuse the indulgence of immoral behavior with God-given civil rights; and

WHEREAS, Military recruiting will be crippled because: (1) those segments of the American population most represented in the armed services are also those segments most likely to have moral convictions against homosexual behavior, (2) a great many of those who have served in the military since 1993 say they would not have served if required to live on intimate terms with open homosexuals, (3) should current law be repealed, a large percentage of currently serving military personnel say they will not reenlist or will end their careers early, and (4) should current law be repealed, many parents will not entrust their sons and daughters to superiors who require them to live on intimate terms with open homosexuals; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Orlando, Florida, June 15-16, 2010, affirm the Bible’s declaration that homosexual behavior is intrinsically disordered and sinful, and we also affirm the Bible’s promise of forgiveness, change, and eternal life to all sinners (including those engaged in homosexual sin) who repent of sin and trust in the saving power of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 6:9-11); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we oppose changing current law to normalize the open presence of homosexuals in the armed forces, and insist on keeping the finding of Congress that sustains current law, which states that even “the presence in the armed forces” of persons demonstrating “a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts” creates “an unacceptable risk to . . . the essence of military capability”; and be it further

RESOLVED, That while we oppose normalizing the open presence of homosexuals in the military, we also deplore all acts of violence by anyone for any reason relating to this issue, whether it be violence against homosexuals, or violence by homosexuals; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we express profound pride in and support for all now serving in the United States armed forces, and especially for Southern Baptists and other biblically faithful chaplains serving as ministers of God in the armed forces; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we commend Southern Baptist efforts to engage in loving, redemptive ministry to homosexuals and encourage all Southern Baptists to consider how they might assist those struggling against same-sex attractions to find spiritual, sexual, and emotional wholeness in Christ; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we express appreciation to our servicemen and servicewomen in all branches of the military, who are serving faithfully and honorably both at home and abroad; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we encourage all Southern Baptists to pray for the safety, well-being, morale, and readiness of our military personnel and to offer prayer, support, and appreciation for the husbands, wives, children, parents, and siblings of our fine service members serving in every capacity of our nation’s military.

Southern Baptists have been meeting this week in Orlando, Florida for the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention.  Today, they passed seven resolutions.  Below is the full-text of a resolution titled On The Gulf of Mexico Catastrophe.

ON THE GULF OF MEXICO CATASTROPHE

WHEREAS, On April 20, 2010, the deadly explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico resulted in the deaths of eleven workers and touched off an underwater gusher of oil that has spewed millions of gallons of crude petroleum into the waters of the Gulf; and

WHEREAS, This crisis is described already as the largest environmental calamity in American history; and

WHEREAS, The oil spilling from the ocean’s floor now poses a dire and immediate threat to the coastlands and inland estuaries, marshes, and waterways of the Gulf Coast of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, and to the eco-systems of birds, shrimp, oysters, fish, and other life-forms; and

WHEREAS, Due to the symbiotic relationship between the Gulf of Mexico and the hardworking residents of the Gulf Coast, this crisis jeopardizes an entire way of life for communities, with vast economic, social, cultural, familial, and spiritual consequences; and

WHEREAS, Holy Scripture tells us “the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof” (Psalm 24:1, KJV), and that God’s wisdom and glory is seen in the teeming of life in the seas (Psalm 104:25); and

WHEREAS, God has designed us with a dependence on the natural resources around us and has assigned us a dominion of stewardship and protection of those resources for future generations (Genesis 2:7-15); and

WHEREAS, Our God-given dominion over the creation is not unlimited, as though we were gods and not creatures, so therefore, all persons and all industries are then accountable to higher standards than to profit alone; and

WHEREAS, The Scripture teaches both love of neighbor for those who are suffering (Mark 12:31; Luke 10:25-37; Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14) and accountability for those whose actions harm the vulnerable (Exodus 21:33-22:15; Luke 19:8; Romans 13:1-7); now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Orlando, Florida, June 15-16, 2010, lament the deaths of the eleven oil rig workers and pray for their families; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we call on Southern Baptist churches and other Christians to pray for the end of this catastrophe and for the homes, lives, cultures, and livelihoods of those in the Gulf Coast region; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we call on the governing authorities to act determinatively and with undeterred resolve to end this crisis; to fortify our coastal defenses; to ensure full corporate accountability for damages, clean-up, and restoration; to ensure that government and private industry are not again caught without planning for such possibilities; and to promote future energy policies based on prudence, conservation, accountability, and safety; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we encourage persons, communities, industries, and governments to work together to find ways to lessen the potentiality of such tragic accidents and of such devastating pollution in order that we may protect what God loves and safeguard the lives, livelihoods, health, and well-being of our neighbors and of future generations; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we call on Southern Baptists to be ready to assist the communities and churches of the Gulf Coast through the clean-up process with the same generosity of spirit that Southern Baptists exhibited after Hurricane Katrina of 2005; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we acknowledge that this tragedy should remind us to testify to the love of God in His creation and to the hope, through the blood of Christ, of a fully restored creation in which the reign of God is seen “on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10).