The United Methodist Church is facing a possible schism between those who support and oppose same-sex marriage, the Washington Post reports. One issue:
like much of Christianity, its growth today is in the developing world—particularly in Africa and the Philippines, where United Methodists tend to vote against gay equality.
A similar problem bedevils the Anglican Communion, although the U.S. Episcopal Church has the independence to be inclusive on its own, with a small number of congregations that have chosen to perpetuate traditional discrimination breaking away so as to align with African Anglican churches that prefer hate to the gospel of love.
Meanwhile, U.S. Reform Jewish rabbis have just installed their first openly lesbian leader. Orthodox Jewish congregations remain opposed to ordaining gay rabbis and marrying same-sex couples.
Religious denominations are and should be at liberty to pursue whatever principles of faith they like, even when their tenets collide with government policy or increasingly common views of what is right and just. Things get dicey when government gets entwined with the practice of faith, as when ordering religiously affiliated organizations to pay for abortifacient drugs, or not to discriminate in hiring against gay people.
Another interesting entanglement: should military chaplains from religiously traditionalist churches be stopped from telling service members their denomination’s views against homosexuality?
If the government is going to have military chaplains, I don’t think they should be censored. Also, I’m told service members are given access to a wide variety of chaplains at military bases, both Christian and non-Christian, and from conservative evangelicals to the more liberal protestant churches. Still, this shows how government entanglement with religious faiths can work to the detriment of both.
More. Obviously, in combat situations, there is not a choice among chaplains. And yes, chaplains can take part in nondenominational or cross-denominational services and counseling as well as ministering to service members who share their faith, depending on the circumstances. This particular instance, resulting in the chaplain facing the threat of dismissal, seems to have involved conversations in which a soldier asked the chaplain about his views and those of his church.
Update. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) recognizes same-sex marriage:
Pastors—traditionally known as “teaching elders”—have already been allowed to perform same-sex marriages in states where they’re legal since last June. The new amendment leaves the discretion of whether to conduct such ceremonies with individual ministers.
“There is nothing in the amendment to compel any teaching elder to conduct a wedding against his or her judgment,” the Rev. Gradye Parsons, the church’s stated clerk, or top ecclesiastical official, said Tuesday.
Seems like a reasonable step forward that allows same-sex couples to marry within the denomination while also respecting the rights of clergy who are not yet onboard.
The church earlier eliminated barriers for ordaining gays, reports USA Today, which says “The denomination is now the largest Protestant group to recognize same-sex marriage as Christian.”
More. The National Black Church Initiative, a coalition of 34,000 churches comprised of 15 denominations and 15.7 million African-Americans, has broken its fellowship with Presbyterian Church USA following its recent vote to approve same-sex marriage. How hatefully homophobic are some of these African-American churches? Take a look.
13 Comments for “On the Religion Front”
posted by Mike in Houston on
Military chaplains hold a special place because of the diversity within the military — it is one that requires them to minister to all, and not overtly impose on the people that they serve.
The Fox “news” story here is yet another non-troversy being trumped up by certain folks to buttress their assertions of “Christian Persecution™”. In reality, the chaplain in question was called out for violating professional ethics of the position as outlined by the military and as noted in the Common Code of Ethics for Chaplains, Pastoral Counselors, Pastoral Educators and Students: http://www.professionalchaplains.org/files/professional_standards/common_standards/common_code_ethics.pdf
And from The Covenant and Code of Ethics for Chaplains of the Armed Forces:
Sounds like this particular chaplain couldn’t deal with the rules… not a case of censorship.
posted by Jorge on
Another interesting entanglement: should military chaplains from religiously traditionalist churches be stopped from telling service members their denomination’s views against homosexuality?
No more and no less that one soldier should be stopped from telling another soldier their own views against homosexuality and for about the same reasons. Freedom of religion considerations are limited by abuse of power considerations.
I do not believe a priest telling a member of his own congregation their own faith’s position on homosexuality should in any way be considered illegal or unethical, not withstanding that some priests have hearts of stone. With a chaplain you have a different situation in that you may not always have informed consent to be indoctrinated in a particular faith. In situations where informed consent is very high–like a counseling session–it does not make a difference. But there are some situations in which informed consent is very low, that’s what creates an abuse of power situation.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Also, I’m told service members are given access to a wide variety of chaplains at military bases, both Christian and non-Christian, and from conservative evangelicals to the more liberal protestant churches.
The reality of military chaplaincy is that a chaplain is typically assigned to a battalion-level unit, and during deployment few soldiers have ready “access to a wide variety of chaplains”. As a result, the unit chaplain is the chaplain for all soldiers in the unit.
A military chaplain is both a member of the clergy and an officer of the military. Within the unit to which the chaplain is assigned, a military chaplain does not serve only his co-religionists, and one of the duties of a military chaplain is to provide for the spiritual/religious/counseling needs of soldiers of other religions.
When I served, our unit’s chaplain was a Roman Catholic priest, who has since become an Archbishop. He said Mass for the Catholics, conducted a non-denominational Protestant service for the Protestants, and prayed with the Jews during the High Holy Days. He provided counsel and spiritual encouragement to everyone, religious or not, working as best he could within the soldier’s understanding of God and religion.
He was a good man, a good soldier and a model for a chaplain. I cannot imagine him acting like the chaplain in the Fox News article. Period. Ever.
Still, this shows how government entanglement with religious faiths can work to the detriment of both.
Nonsense. Would you deploy soldiers into combat situations without a chaplain? Really? Chaplains are an essential part of armies all over the world, and have served the needs of soldiers in the United States since the Revolutionary War.
posted by JohnInCA on
Anyone complaining about the chaplain thing doesn’t understand the nature of a military chaplain’s job. When they agree to the job they know that they’re going to minister to people who don’t share their religion. And the know that it will *not* be acceptable for them to brow-beat those people with how sinful and fallen they are for following a false god.
It would be no more acceptable for that chaplain to tell a Muslim soldier he’s going to hell then for him to tell a gay soldier the same. The chaplain corp has long accepted the former, it’s mostly accepted the later already.
posted by Houndentenor on
The internal policies of religious denominations are their own affairs. Same sex reason is not going to be the sole issue for any split. It’s just one of many issues and in some cases might be the issue that is one too many but it’s hardly the single cause for the ongoing strife between liberals and conservatives in quite a few religious organizations.
As for chaplains, they have some responsibility to be nondenominational. They should be free to voice an opinion but should also be willing to refer servicemembers to a more appropriate chaplain whenever necessary. Unfortunately there are large sections of the military where the religious right has been given free reign (especially the Air Force) and that needs to end. I think it’s good to have chaplains, especially for those stationed overseas where there are not local churches, at least not English-speaking ones, but the point is not to push religion on those who don’t want it or to favor one denomination over the other. If chaplains can’t abide by that then they should find another job.
Also, “religiously affiliated” is not the same as being a church. Moreover, no one is expected to pay for “abortifacient” drugs directly. They are sometimes included in insurance policies and we are about to create a mess by offering wide religious exemptions to organizations that are not churches. And finally “abortifacient” is a word religious extremists made up to cover drugs that prevent pregnancies but do not in fact induce abortions. It’s a lie and one that should not be repeated unchallenged.
posted by craig123 on
Abortifacient drugs required to be provided through insurance and paid for by employers (and directly paid by self insured employers), which were the subject of the Hobby Lobby ruling, interfere with a fertilized egg attaching in the uterus, which is essential for a viable pregnancy. So, it’s the destruction of a fertilized egg.
You can a mouth all the pro-choice/MSNBC talking point you like, but it doesn’t change the facts.
posted by JohnInCA on
The fact that medical science disagrees with you?
posted by Francis on
I doubt this gobshite will pay any attention to that. His ilk always think they’re better informed on matters of reproductive health than the people who actually work in that sodding field.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The United Methodist Church is facing a possible schism between those who support and oppose same-sex marriage … A similar problem bedevils the Anglican Communion …
We saw similar schisms in the middle 1800’s. Methodists split north and south, as did Presbyterians, Baptists and other denominations. Christians split off into schismatic denominations all the time over all sorts of issues. Let the Christians work this out among themselves at their own pace.
posted by Houndentenor on
Hence the mildly amusing joke “Let’s make like a Baptist church and split.”
posted by Kosh III on
When I was a kid there was a local Baptist church which split: the building was quite old. One faction wanted to fix up the building, the other faction wanted to build a new place.
The “build a new place” group won out; the old building was knocked down and they built a new one.
The “fix up” group left the church, moved down the road a ways and built their own building.
Ooooo the irony.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
I don’t think that the government is too eager to start melding in any number of internal church affairs, nor should anyone suggest that such a thing is likely to occur.
Churches, temples, synagogues and mosques make numerous internal decisions without the government getting involved…although that doesn’t preclude outside criticism or internal disputes.
Armed forces chaplains cannot simultaneously be a representative of their own particular church, creed or religion.
In a combat situation, their could only be one chaplain available, and we cannot have the army chaplain telling a soldier on the operating table that they are going to yell unless, they embrace Scientology.
posted by Don on
I believe this is just a function of our increasingly intolerant political discourse. Pick nearly any topic from either side and there is an intense effort to shut down the debate. Having spoken with more than a couple of professional priests/pastors/rabbis in my day, they describe this chaplain’s approach to his vocation as a “rookie mistake.” Sadly, it’s made all the time by non-rookies.
It is why I come to this website. To challenge my beliefs and shape new ones. I no longer fear those who disagree or misunderstand. I am comfortable with doubt and uncertainty. (usually)
This is usually the principle I use to gauge whether or not a crusade is legitimate (IMHO). Is it lifting people up or tearing them down? It’s why I have such a hard time with the bakers. They aren’t preserving anything of their own integrity. They are trying to shame others. Simply does not pass the sniff test. Much less the golden rule.
It’s like that age-old political test: would you still support this policy if both Hillary Clinton and George W Bush were wielding that power?