The Westboro Baptist Muzzle

Tags

Barton Gingerich, Church, Fred Phelps, LGBT, marriage, public square, public witness, Westboro Baptist Church

McMansion Tudor: the apex of Christendom’s architecture. In all seriousness, this outfit monopolizes Christian witness on marriage in the public eye? (Photo Credit: Wikipedia)

by Barton Gingerich (@bjgingerich)

By now, just about everyone’s heard of Westboro Baptist Church. They’ve gained national infamy for picketing military funerals, saying that soldiers’ deaths are the result of God’s judgment for the nation’s sins, especially for not punishing homosexuality. They are the living, breathing homophobe caricature. One can find photos of them at state capitols and SCOTUS, infamous “God Hates F**s” signs in hand.

But how much do we know about them? Yes, they make it above the fold on the front page, but what else? It seems our disgust at such revolting behavior keeps most of us from researching Westboro any further. However, I think it is incredibly important to know who and what Westboro actually represents since they have left thousands of Christians cowed in shame for believing in traditional marriage. Years ago, I qualified that I was not like “one of those Christians at Westboro”–I doubt I am the only one who has had to explain himself, especially to someone who is progressive and unfamiliar with the Christian world.

First of all, the Westboro Baptist Church congregation is incredibly small. There are about 70 members of the church, most of whom are part of the Phelps family, according to estranged member Libby Phelps Alvarez. One self-professed Westboro-er told a newspaper reporter that the congregation only had 40 active members. Need I remind anyone that you can convince forty people to do just about anything? In this case, it happens to be rancid hate and error.

The WBC also sounds short-lived: in a recent article, former member Lauren Drain revealed, “In the past 10 years, some 19 members have been able to escape the clutches of the WBC.” In that same piece, the Kansas City Star reported, “20 members had left the church since 2004, three-fourths of them in their teens or 20s. Since then, at least two others have left, including Megan Phelps-Roper, the granddaughter of church pastor Fred Phelps.

The character of Westboro is unfitting for a church. Drain wants to help people “escape the clutches.” Alvarez recounts sickening emotional manipulation and spiritual formation. This is the stuff of cults, not churches. Any theology from the congregants–if it could be called such–is rambling, inconsistent, deranged, and divorced from the Church’s historic understanding of biblical texts (or pretty much anyone besides head pastor Fred Phelps).

Westboro also boasts a minuscule protest presence. I speak from personal experience. I first saw them at United Methodist General Conference 2012 in Tampa and then later at the 2013 Marriage March in DC. At General Conference, there could not have been more than five protestors on the corner opposite the civic center. During the March, there may have been 10 nestled near the right side of the SCOTUS building entrance-way. Even though some carried four signs each, they were dwarfed by the LGBT protesters, who were in turn dwarfed by the surge of the marriage defenders marching through them. But it is Westboro that gets their picture taken by the photojournalists. They fit the preconceived narrative of liberal journalists and—what is more—they are a shocking spectacle, cast perfectly for cultural consumption.

The actual marriage defenders (Photo Credit: Flickr)

Westboro is small, does not hold an influential theology, and is probably short-lived. For some reason, they still show up around the country to picket funerals, state petitions, court decisions, and even Taylor Swift. How do they afford all this travel? So far, this remains a missing puzzle piece. Fred Phelps, Sr. got his start as a civil rights activist and lawyer, often suing a variety of government organizations for different prejudices.  Now disbarred, he mostly sticks to his “pastoring” and protest duties, while evidently several of his descendants are also lawyers. At General Conference, LGBT activists in the “Love Your Neighbor” tent were warned, “Do not engage. Most of these people are trained lawyers and make their money off suing people. Do not touch them; they will find a way to take legal action.”

A more sensational conspiracy theory suggests that Phelps & Co. are backed by big time liberal donors. Even if Phelps truly believes his message, others don’t have to in order to write him a check. What better strategy is there than to represent your opposition with an organization that even the KKK finds hateful? As of yet, no evidence has materialized to substantiate these now-gratuitous claims.

This donation fantasy points to a broader issue: Christian shame for defending marriage. We muzzle our public voice in embarrassment. “We’ve cared a lot about abortion and the gays, but not a lot of other things, including gay people themselves. Just look at Westboro,” says the emergent guru. Besides resembling Kierkegaard with a lobotomy, this same hip, post-whatever pastor fails to notice that churches get the most flak for abortion and marriage because those are contested issues; thankfully, ministry to the poor and orphaned is not yet a problem for the powers-that-be. Westboro doesn’t represent the Church; it represents an egomaniac with a penchant for travel and protest signage.

Christians need to stand firm on these moral issues, in season and out of season. Sure, local congregations and other parachuch institutions have treated LGBT folks poorly in individual cases, but an obscure, mind-addled congregation from Kansas is never a reason to be ashamed of or silent on upholding marriage in the public square

Let it be known: Westboro Baptist Church is a little fraud that casts a long shadow. So speak bravely, Christian.

Update on the Sovereign Grace Ministries Lawsuit

Tags

Church, Evangelicals, IRD Blog, Kristin Rudolph, Lawsuit, sex abuse, Sovereign Grace Ministries

(Credit: pastormattblog.com)

Kristin Rudolph (@Kristin_Rudolph)

Since my last report on the Sovereign Grace Ministries lawsuit in May, more developments have unfolded in this horrific ordeal. For an in-depth overview of the situation, see my last article on the topic. To sum up the events though, back in October 2012 three women represented by attorney Susan Burke filed a civil lawsuit in Montgomery County, MD accusing SGM and various of its leaders and churches of covering up and failing to report child sex abuse crimes through the 1980s and 90s.

In May 2013 eleven plaintiffs signed onto the second amendment of the lawsuit and Burke stated there were even more. The civil suit was largely dismissed for the expired statute of limitations, but criminal investigations are in the works and the plaintiffs have filed an appeal.

SGM is a network of about 80 “evangelical, Reformed, and charismatic” churches led, until a few months, ago by C.J. Mahaney. SGM was headquartered in Gaithersburg, MD until their recent relocation to Louisville, KY.

A major concern in this situation was the silence of well-known pastors and leaders close to Mahaney and SGM. Very little was said concerning the lawsuit outside the rumblings of lesser known bloggers. Shortly after the lawsuit was dismissed, two major evangelical organizations with close ties to SGM and its leader C.J. Mahaney (who is among the defendants in the lawsuit) commented. Within hours of each other, Together for the Gospel (T4G) and members of The Gospel Coalition (TGC) issued statements explaining their silence resulted from hesitation due to the complex nature of the lawsuit and their close friendship with Mahaney.

TGC’s letter was signed by Don Carson, Kevin DeYoung, and Justin Taylor. It specifies that the letter does not represent the views of all associated with TGC. Neither statement calls for Mahaney to step back from public ministry until the allegations and lawsuit are resolved. The three members who make up T4G with Mahaney – Al Mohler, Mark Dever, and Ligon Duncan – received criticism for stating that Mahaney was merely accused of “founding a ministry and for teaching doctrines and principles that are held to be true by vast millions of American evangelicals. For this reason, we, along with many others, refused to step away from C. J. in any way.”

The statement was recently removed from T4G’s website and replaced with a letter from Mahaney explaining why he will not be speaking at the group’s 2014 conference. In the letter dated July 1 Mahaney writes: “Unfortunately, the civil lawsuit filed against Sovereign Grace Ministries, two former SGM churches and pastors (including myself), continues to generate the type of attention that could subject my friends to unfair and unwarranted criticism. Though dismissed in May (and now on appeal), the lawsuit could prove a distraction from the purpose of this important conference. My withdrawal is not intended to communicate anything about the merits of the suit.”

Others in the evangelical community have used this circumstance as an opportunity to address how churches should prevent, and if necessary, deal with child sexual abuse. The Southern Baptist Convention, at its recent annual meeting in Houston passed a resolution titled “On Sexual Abuse of Children” urging churches to vigilantly screen prospective staff members – particularly those working with children – and comply with legal obligations by reporting abuse to the authorities, among other things.

In addition, the resolution encourages “all denominational leaders and employees of the Southern Baptist Convention to utilize the highest sense of discernment in affiliating with groups and or individuals that possess questionable policies and practices in protecting our children from criminal abuse.”

Further, Boz Tchividjian founder and Executive director of GRACE (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment) has been critical of how evangelical leaders have publicly handled this tragic situation. Tchividjian, grandson of Billy Graham and brother of TGC member Tullian Tchividjian, stated in a post on the GRACE website that “the heart of this lawsuit is about a systematic church effort to discourage and eventually prevent the families of children who were allegedly (and repeatedly) sexually victimized by church officials from speaking out and reporting to law enforcement.”

He continues: “A Gospel-centered response to child sexual abuse begins with our understanding that silence is not an option. We must be willing to openly confront abuse and its surrounding silence and give of ourselves so that those impacted can experience the healing and transformative power of Jesus.”

As the appeal goes to trial and the criminal investigations proceed, we can only pray justice prevails and that moving forward, churches and ministries will do all in their power to protect children from violation.

IRD Exclusive: Bishop Sutton on the Roman Catholic-Anglican Dialogue

Tags

Anglican, Archbishop Robert Duncan, Barton Gingerich, Bishop Ray Sutton, Church, ecumenism, interview, Pope Benedict XVI, Roman Catholic, Rome

Archibishop Robert Duncan (left) and Bishop Ray Sutton (center) greet Pope Benedict XVI (right). (Photo Credit: Facebook/Anglican Church in North America)

by Barton Gingerich (@bjgingerich)

During the Anglican Way Institute, IRD’s Barton Gingerich had the opportunity to sit down with the Rt. Rev. Ray Sutton, bishop coadjutor in the Diocese in Mid-America of the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) and Ecumenical Officer for the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). This is Part 3 in a four part series.

Bart Gingerich: On the global front, many Anglicans I’ve talked to want to know about the trip to Rome. I didn’t know if you could reveal too much about the whole story, but people tend to get excited when they saw you and Archbishop Duncan receiving a welcome from then-Pope Benedict XVI. What can you tell us about the nature of that visit? What consequences might that have for the relationship between Anglicans and Roman Catholics in the United States, especially when contrasted with that of Episcopalians and Roman Catholics?

Bishop Ray Sutton: Well, there’s a larger background to that meeting on November 28^th.. When Pope Benedict was Cardinal Ratzinger, he had sent a communication to Episcopalians meeting here in Plano in 2003, right around the time of the election and consecration of a practicing homosexual to the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church. Gene Robinson. Cardinal Ratzinger sent a wonderful letter to Archbishop Duncan and other bishops who were present. Cardinal Ratzinger referred to the history of the relationship between Christians out of old Briton to the spread of the Gospel to his ancestors in Germany. So (A) he wanted to encourage especially our moral and Gospel commitments. (B) In so doing he demonstrated an awareness of what was developing and happening among conservative Anglicans. He therefore wanted to encourage those taking a stand for the truth in our part of the Church. So it was not a complete surprise that we got an invitation to go see him. Archbishop Duncan was able to bring him up to date on what had been happening in ACNA and the global south of Anglicanism, and ask for his prayers.

As for what it means in the future, I think that of course Anglicans view the Roman Church as part of the faith, and our brothers and sisters in Christ. Anglicanism has always been committed to trying to bring Christians together. We especially have a historically close relationship with the Roman Church in our own past. We want to seek ecumenical dialogue with them to the greatest extent possible. And so as these things begin, they start at an informal level, a non-official level, though the meeting with the Pope was at a public gathering that he has on Wednesdays during the week. We were allowed to go up and bring him personal greetings, thank him, and as I say ask him for prayer. That part is official. What we hope will develop in the future would be more official ecumenical kinds of discussions and efforts together. I do think there is interest in what’s happening in the Global South of Anglicanism. Our brothers and sisters in the Catholic Church have always demonstrated a willingness to stand together with other Christians for a common witness to the world. The recent, sad decisions of the Supreme Court regarding same-sex unions being viewed as marriage underscores what a struggle we are in as Christians of all persuasions to uphold Biblical, traditional marriage, understood as one man, one woman in a lifelong commitment.

Why “Blinged-Out Weddings”?

Tags

Barton Gingerich, Church, consumerism, family, Jillian Kay Melchior, marriage, morality, National Review, wedding, wedding industry

(Photo Credit: Wikimedia)

by Barton Gingerich (@bjgingerich)

Jillian Kay Melchior authored a worthy article over at the National Review Online in which she most righteously skewers the American wedding industry. Bridal gowns that could make royalty blush with envy, artificially jacked-up prices for catering and other party staples, massive puff-publishers of magazines and other media, facility difficulties, over-the-top expectations, tremendous expense: it’s all there. Most crucially, Melchior observes how this proves to be not only a pricey annoyance, but a truly onerous burden on young newlyweds just starting out in the world.

The article concludes, “America’s blinged-out weddings come at a time when marriage is, statistically speaking, on the decline…Perhaps Americans hold excessive weddings as a counter-reaction to marriage’s decline: As American marriages come undone, the wedding becomes overdone.” Perhaps.

However, this line of questioning can also reveal some troubling trends. We’re seeing not only a breakdown of marriage after the ceremony, but also before. I refer, of course, to premarital sexual ethics. Let’s be frank, shall we? Lots of newlyweds have already been either fooling around or cohabiting. What does this mean for the nuptial event itself?

It means that the wedding doesn’t mark the entrance of man and woman into the community as a new family (which will produce children and enjoy the process thereof). What, then, does the event become? A display of economic stability, or, as the NRO article here puts it, another high school reunion. It’s a gaudy show that indicates to family and friends that the couple is “really really committed,” even though they’ve already exhibited a stunning lack of sexual commitment for their spouse. Indeed, for concupiscent and virtuous newlyweds alike, the nuptial service has become an opportunity to simultaneously broadcast images of normalcy and unique individuality to the world.

Which gets us to another problem: an often-unwitting egotism. Excessive individualism is in the American air we breathe. Part of that means an abandonment of tradition, even in an event that marks entrance into mankind’s oldest known institution. Old American (typically Protestant) weddings were often derivations of near-medieval liturgies, especially as presented in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. The famous vows said at the altar are straight from the venerable Order of Matrimony. In fact, in its primitive form, the Western wedding is a Eucharist service, in which Christ is the ultimate focus. As such, matrimony is not really centered on the couple itself and thus is not necessarily a proper stage for self-expression. The tradition laid down limits on personal preference.

Now no more: couples write their own (often cloying) vows, present slideshows, and get their friends to participate in a musical talent show to celebrate the happy occasion. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with making the Big Day special, but if we’re honest with ourselves, we can’t help noticing that modern weddings can tend towards self-indulgence.

Speaking of the churchly nature of many nuptials, a final troublesome issue makes for an inhospitable marital landscape: religious and geographical displacement. The death of active, common church life cannot be understated. It’s a lot easier and cheaper to get facilities, manpower, and other resources when the couple is already a part of a congregation. But we don’t entrust the church and hardly the family with our weddings; instead, we turn to various businesses for space and catering. Obviously, building size and other constraints can be an issue, but how many couples in our increasingly unchurched age are really involved in parish life and thus care to get their brethren involved in their romantic festivities? This does not mean that Christians must react with increased potlucks in the fellowship hall (a motion I would not oppose as I am a lover of pillow mints and Little Smokies). It does raise the question of the changing landscape of American marriage and the Church’s responsibility to instantiate a flourishing community of fruitful pilgrims.

I speak as a spectator of many weddings, each quite different (save the Book of Common Prayer and Roman Catholic ones); I may one day have to eat my words. But I do challenge readers to seriously reconsider the hyped-out, consumerist liturgy that is the Modern American Wedding. Maybe it’s time to lay aside our variations on the Disney princess fantasy and realize that marriage—before and after the vows—is much more than the glossy magazines and Instagrammed perfection.

Marriage: Considering Our Cultural Moment

Tags

Christianity, Church, culture, Evangelicals, Institute on Religion and Democracy, Kristin Rudolph, marriage, Politics

(Credit: Huffington Post)

Kristin Rudolph (@Kristin_Rudolph)

The traditional Christian understanding of marriage, family, sexuality, and human life has long been receding from dominance in America, and this week’s Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor, which declared the federal government’s traditional definition of marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act’s (DOMA) as unconstitutional was consistent with this trend. Recent developments and controversies surrounding same-sex marriage (SSM) bring to light cultural assumptions about sexuality, and likewise, clarify what traditional Christians believe on all matters of life, sexuality, marriage, and family.

For church leaders and Christians across America, this is one more opportunity to be salt and light by living and speaking God’s truth in all areas of life. Save a dramatic cultural shift (which is certainly possible) we are moving toward a day where the majority (or all) of US states will redefine marriage. Popular opinion is dramatically changing, because, as it turns out, marriage was hollow even before the recent SSM debate. Christians should not be shocked by recent developments.

Looking Back

An overview of the rise and fall of civilizations throughout history indicates strong marriage and family norms are essential for a stable and flourishing society. The decay of the family is far advanced in America. Back in 1947 (!), Harvard sociologist Carle Zimmerman warned in Family and Civilization that “The family will probably keep on moving, in one direction or another. One of the reasons it cannot stop now is that it is already so completely atomized that it produces no stable social body in which to solidify. Its human products, children, are not sufficient to reproduce the society of which it is a part. Its psychological product, the human stuff of society … seems insufficient to give the society a workable, stable moral code widely enough accepted to enable the great society to hold together.”

Zimmerman specifically predicted widespread divorce, plummeting birthrates, ubiquitous antifamilism, acceptance of sexual deviance, among other trends prevalent today when he wrote Family and Civilization in 1947, noting that these ills are “but symptoms of the final decay of the basic postulates upon which the ‘human’ part of society is built.’”

One major factor in this breakdown is the cultural understanding of marriage as a primarily emotional relationship aimed at making adults happy and fulfilled, which is not sufficient to provide a firm foundation for healthy, thriving future generations. But most Americans now hold a watered down emotionally oriented view of marriage, based primarily on a weak understanding of love. This definition of marriage runs counter to the traditional Christian teaching that marriage is a lifelong, self-sacrificial one flesh union, open to the creation new life.

Barbara Dafoe Whitehead writes in Divorce Culture that during the divorce revolution in the 1960s and 70s, emotional satisfaction and personal happiness became the primary measures of a “successful” marriage, and adults were no longer expected to uphold their vows, even for the sake of their children. In fact, Whitehead writes, children’s literature addressing divorce often told youngsters to “Understand how unhappy your parents are and do what you can to help them feel better.”

Younger generations have only known a time dominated by an individualized, feelings oriented definition of love and marriage, so it is little wonder they view marriage as entirely optional and fluid. Christians should not be shocked by this shift in public opinion. It has been underway visibly for decades, and the philosophic foundations have been under construction for centuries.

This is no reason to despair and develop a defeatist mindset. Instead, it is one area where Christians will continue to contrast with the culture around us. The contrast will grow increasingly stark. There are some who already hate Christians who hold a traditional view of marriage, and the broader culture will likely follow suit. Indeed, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion declares that DOMA’s “principle purpose is to impose inequality,” and asserts the law was motivated by “improper animus” against persons in same-sex marriages.

Looking Ahead

In addition to defending traditional marriage, especially through fresh communication strategies (See the John Jay Institute’s “You’ve Been Framed” document), what should Christians do? First, we must look ahead of the current moment at the coming challenges. Redefining marriage inevitably means redefining family and how families are created. This shift has already meant challenges (and closures) for Christian adoption agencies that will only place children with traditionally married couples and threats to religious freedom will undoubtedly continue. Further, Christianity teaches marriage is the institution God has designed to bring human beings – eternal souls – into this world.

The formation and stability of families and the dignity of the human person is at stake in all angles of this revolution. Sex has already been separated from marriage and procreation while marriage is viewed as a largely optional arrangement for having children. As such, assisted reproductive technology (ART) is increasingly common for heterosexual and homosexual couples and single persons.

Ultimately, as the interconnectedness of marriage, sex, and children is dismantled, the human person becomes commodified and broken down into pieces. The ART industry, a new wild frontier largely unexplored ethically and legally, shows this breakdown clearly. Although the euphemism “donation” is used to describe the selling of “genetic reproductive materials,” the creation of human beings through ART is undoubtedly a business, profiting on the creation of human beings.

LGBT activists are touting a bill before the Washington, D.C. city council that would legalize surrogacy contracts in the nation’s capital. Louisiana’s governor recently vetoed a similar bill that state lawmakers approved with overwhelming support. Such legislation receives little attention and creates even less controversy than it should. By definition, children raised by homosexual couples are separated from at least one biological parent, or have an array of multiple “parents.” It is rare to hear anyone publicly seriously consider the implications of ART for the children created through such means. Children, once again, are the defenseless victims left to the whims of adult desires.

The average American knows little to nothing about the ART industry and the ethical issues it entails. More alarming, most Protestant Christian leaders seem unaware and/or silent on the matter. This is unacceptable. As our culture moves further away from a traditional understanding of marriage and family, these ethical questions will only intensify and multiply.

Christians must focus on the big picture. We cannot isolate SSM or abortion as moral concerns without articulating the consistent Christian teaching on the dignity of the human person from conception to natural death, the validity of a chaste life in singleness or lifelong marriage, and the necessary connection between sex and procreation within marriage. Many within the Western Church have already compromised on these teachings, but our cultural moment is a wake-up call to refine our convictions about marriage, family, sexuality, and human life.