logo
Southern Baptists target porn and ‘willful childlessness'

Southern Baptists target porn and ‘willful childlessness'

Chicago Tribune4 hours ago

Southern Baptists meeting this week in Dallas will be asked to approve resolutions calling for a legal ban on pornography and a reversal of the U.S. Supreme Court's approval of same-sex marriage.
The proposed resolutions call for laws on gender, marriage and family based on what they say is the biblically stated order of divine creation. They also call for legislators to curtail sports betting and to support policies that promote childbearing.
The Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant denomination, is also expected to debate controversies within its own house during its annual meeting Tuesday and Wednesday — such as a proposed ban on churches with women pastors. There are also calls to defund the organization's public policy arm, whose anti-abortion stance hasn't extended to supporting criminal charges for women having abortions.
Southern Baptists narrowly reject formal ban on churches with any women pastorsIn a denomination where support for President Donald Trump is strong, there is little on the advance agenda referencing specific actions by Trump since taking office in January in areas such as tariffs, immigration or the pending budget bill containing cuts in taxes, food aid and Medicaid.
Southern Baptists will be meeting on the 40th anniversary of another Dallas annual meeting. An epic showdown took place when a record-shattering 45,000 church representatives clashed in what became a decisive blow in the takeover of the convention — and its seminaries and other agencies — by a more conservative faction that was also aligned with the growing Christian conservative movement in presidential politics.
The 1985 showdown was 'the hinge convention in terms of the old and the new in the SBC,' said Albert Mohler, who became a key agent in the denomination's rightward shift as longtime president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.
Attendance this week will likely be a fraction of 1985's, but that meeting's influence will be evident. Any debates will be among solidly conservative members.
Many of the proposed resolutions — on gambling, pornography, sex, gender and marriage — reflect long-standing positions of the convention, though they are especially pointed in their demands on the wider political world. They are proposed by the official Committee on Resolutions, whose recommendations typically get strong support.
A proposed resolution says legislators have a duty to 'pass laws that reflect the truth of creation and natural law — about marriage, sex, human life, and family' and to oppose laws contradicting 'what God has made plain through nature and Scripture.'
To some outside observers, such language is theocratic.
'When you talk about God's design for anything, there's not a lot of room for compromise,' said Nancy Ammerman, professor emerita of sociology of religion at Boston University. She was an eyewitness to the Dallas meeting and author of 'Baptist Battles,' a history of the 1980s controversy between theological conservatives and moderates.
'There's not a lot of room for people who don't have the same understanding of who God is and how God operates in the world,' she said.
Mohler said the resolutions reflect a divinely created order that predates the writing of the Scriptures and is affirmed by them. He said the Christian church has always asserted that the created order 'is binding on all persons, in all times, everywhere.'
Separate resolutions decry pornography and sports betting as destructive, calling for the former to be banned and the latter curtailed.
At least some of these political stances are in the realm of plausibility at a time when their conservative allies control all levers of power in Washington and many have embraced aspects of a Christian nationalist agenda.
A Southern Baptist, Mike Johnson, is speaker of the House of Representatives and third in line to the presidency.
At least one Supreme Court justice, Clarence Thomas, has called for revisiting the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. Other religious conservatives — including some in the Catholic postliberal movement, which has influenced Vice President JD Vance — have promoted the view that a robust government should legislate morality, such as banning pornography while easing church-state separation.
And conservatives of various stripes have echoed one of the resolution's call for pro-natalist policies and its decrying of 'willful childlessness which contributes to a declining fertility rate.'
Some preconvention talk has focused on defunding the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the Southern Baptist Convention's public policy arm, which has been accused of being ineffective. Ten former Southern Baptist presidents endorsed its continued funding, though one other called for the opposite.
A staunchly conservative group, the Center for Baptist Leadership, has posted online articles critical of the commission, which is adamantly anti-abortion but has opposed state laws criminalizing women seeking abortions.
The commission has appealed to Southern Baptists for support, citing its advocacy for religious liberty and against abortion and transgender identity.
'Without the ERLC, you will send the message to our nation's lawmakers and the public at large that the SBC has chosen to abandon the public square at a time when the Southern Baptist voice is most needed,' said a video statement from the commission president, Brent Leatherwood.
A group of Southern Baptist ethnic groups and leaders signed a statement in April citing concern over Trump's immigration crackdown, saying it has hurt church attendance and raised fears. 'Law and order are necessary, but enforcement must be accompanied with compassion that doesn't demonize those fleeing oppression, violence, and persecution,' the statement said.
The Center for Baptist Leadership, however, denounced the denominational Baptist Press for working to 'weaponize empathy' in its reporting on the statement and Leatherwood for supporting it.
Texas pastor Dwight McKissic, a Black pastor who shares many of the Southern Baptist Convention's conservative stances, criticized what he sees as a backlash against the commission, 'the most racially progressive entity in the SBC.'
'The SBC is transitioning from an evangelical organization to a fundamentalist organization,' he posted on the social media site X. 'Fewer and fewer Black churches will make the transition with them.'
An amendment to ban churches with women pastors failed in 2024 after narrowly failing to gain a two-thirds supermajority for two consecutive years. It is expected to be reintroduced.
The denomination's belief statement says the office of pastor is limited to men, but there remain disagreements over whether this applies only to the lead pastor or to assistants as well. In recent years, the convention began purging churches that either had women as lead pastors or asserted that they could serve that role. But when an SBC committee this year retained a South Carolina megachurch with a woman on its pastoral staff, some argued this proved the need for a constitutional amendment. (The church later quit the denomination of its own accord.)
The meeting comes as the Southern Baptist Convention continues its long membership slide, down 2% in 2024 from the previous year in its 18th consecutive annual decline. The organization now reports a membership of 12.7 million members, still the largest among Protestant denominations, many of whom are shrinking faster.
More promising are Southern Baptists' baptism numbers — a key spiritual vital sign. They stand at 250,643, exceeding pre-pandemic levels and, at least for now, reversing a long slide.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Why Trump's Deployment Of Military in California Is So Controversial
Why Trump's Deployment Of Military in California Is So Controversial

Bloomberg

time28 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Why Trump's Deployment Of Military in California Is So Controversial

President Donald Trump ordered the California National Guard on June 7 to dispatch at least 2,000 soldiers to the Los Angeles area as thousands of people demonstrating against immigration raids clashed with security forces. After vandalism and violence broke out, the Pentagon escalated the federal response by also mobilizing 700 active-duty Marines. The president said on his Truth Social platform that federal agencies were to take 'all such action necessary' to stop what he called 'migrant riots.' The rare move by a president to mobilize military forces to quell domestic unrest was quickly condemned as unnecessary and counterproductive by local authorities, including Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Governor Gavin Newsom.

Trump is acting like an authoritarian; California's crisis now rests on what he does next
Trump is acting like an authoritarian; California's crisis now rests on what he does next

Yahoo

time44 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump is acting like an authoritarian; California's crisis now rests on what he does next

Donald Trump is talking and acting like an authoritarian as he escalates a constitutional clash with California over his migration crackdown. Much now depends on whether he's simply talking tough or if he's ready to take an already-tense nation across a fateful line in his zeal for strongman rule. In a mind-boggling moment, on Monday, the president of the United States — the country seen as the world's top steward of democracy for 80 years — endorsed the arrest of the Democratic governor of the nation's most populous state. 'I think it would be a great thing,' Trump, the only convicted felon ever to serve as president, told reporters as he strode across the South Lawn of the White House. Later, Trump deployed hundreds of active-duty Marines to Los Angeles and authorized the arrival of 2,000 more National Guard reservists after a weekend of unrest that saw clashes with police and burning cars in contained areas of the city. The protests were triggered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement sweeps seeking undocumented migrants in a city and state that are epicenters of Democratic power. California and Los Angeles officials reject Trump's claims that they have lost control. On Monday evening, law enforcement officers pushed back demonstrators throwing projectiles with flash bangs. Trump's decision to deploy troops despite the opposition of California Gov. Gavin Newsom represented the latest example of his willingness to flex extraordinary executive power — often on questionable grounds — and marked a break with a first term when he was often talked out of his extreme impulses by establishment officials. For all Trump's multiple previous challenges to the rule of law and democracy, a grave new chapter may be opening. 'The president is forcibly overriding the authority of the governor and mayor and using the military as a political weapon. This unprecedented move threatens to turn a tense situation into a national crisis,' Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said on Monday evening. 'Since our nation's founding, the American people have been perfectly clear: we do not want the military conducting law enforcement on US soil,' Reed said in a statement. California Democratic Rep. Nanette Barragán, whose district encompasses Paramount, just south of Los Angeles, condemned Trump's mobilizations of troops that she said were not justified by the situation. 'This is where I think this is a sign of a dictator,' she told CNN's Jake Tapper. 'And the threat he is making against the governor to arrest him — I mean come on — that is pretty outrageous.' Top Trump administration officials are throwing around words like 'insurrection.' Not surprisingly, many observers have taken such rhetoric as a sign the White House is prepared to invoke the Insurrection Act — a law that would allow the president to activate troops to put down a rebellion in a state. There is no such revolt in California. Trump's claims on Monday that his swift action stopped Los Angeles being obliterated are also not true. The president's border czar Tom Homan, meanwhile, told CNN's Kaitlan Collins that claims by Democratic officials that protests intensified because Trump sent National Guard troops were 'ridiculous.' Joining 'The Source' from Los Angeles, Homan said, 'It all depends on the activities of these protesters— I mean, they make the decisions.' Protesters gathered in large numbers in Los Angeles on Monday night, raising the prospect of another cycle of tension and uncertainty. The trajectory of the crisis could now turn on whether Trump follows through on his dictator's theatrics by crossing lines not approached by modern presidents — notably on the use of troops in a law enforcement capacity. It may also rely on the restraint of protesters, who would play into Trump's hands by taking part in more unrest that creates alarming television pictures that can fuel Trump's dystopian rhetoric. Creating or escalating a law-and-order crisis or threat to public security and then using it to justify the use of the military on domestic soil would mirror the methodology of tyrannical leaders throughout history. And hopes of restraint are hardly supported by Trump's second term so far. The president has, for instance, invoked highly contentious national emergencies on immigration and trade to unlock rarely used executive powers with no pushback from the Republican Congress. He's used presidential authority against what he regards as centers of liberal authority and influence: at Ivy League universities, in the federal government and in the media. And even in his breakup with erstwhile DOGE chief Elon Musk last week, Trump threatened yet another abuse of power by cancelling federal subsidies for the SpaceX boss's firms. The administration is spoiling for a fight as it lays down a marker in California for other Democratic states where leaders are loath to cooperate with Trump's deportation purge. It obviously also perceives a political advantage in the president positioning himself as the guardian of public order in a way that allows Republicans to accuse Democrats of defending softer immigration enforcement. But as ever with Trump, there's a question as to whether he's serious with his threats or is staking out an extreme position to please his voters or even to create some perceived leverage for himself. Homan, for instance, told CNN's Collins that Newsom had 'absolutely not' done anything at this point to justify his arrest. And North Dakota Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer adopted the classic GOP line that not everything that the president says should be taken literally when asked about administration threats to detain Newsom. 'You guys could ask every day if I am comfortable with what he said. He hasn't arrested him. I can't imagine that he is going to arrest Gavin Newsom,' Cramer told CNN's Manu Raju. Cramer also voiced the view of many Republicans that, far from behaving like an authoritarian, Trump is rightfully addressing failures by Democratic leaders on immigration policy and public order. 'There's no question about it: Places like California have thumbed their noses at the American people and decided they want to be sanctuary for criminals,' Cramer said. So far, National Guard reservists mobilized by the president over the head of a state governor for the first time since the Civil Rights era in the 1960s have mostly been used to defend federal buildings in Los Angeles. While the announcement of a deployment of Marines to the city was superficially alarming, their orders prohibit them from conducting law enforcement activities like making arrests without Trump invoking the Insurrection Act. The Marines are expected to be used to bolster National Guard members on the ground while up to 2,000 reservists are mobilized. CNN's Evan Perez, meanwhile, reported on Monday evening that while officials like top White House aide Stephen Miller have been talking about an 'insurrection,' administration lawyers have been working to craft a much less confrontational way of protecting the federal government's ability to carry out immigration enforcement, hoping to avoid further inflaming the situation, according to multiple people briefed on the discussions. This may all signify that the president is not yet ready to push the nation toward an unprecedented authoritarian cliff — even if his personal history, not least over January 6, 2021, suggests that in the heat of the moment he often takes the most reckless course. And Trump may be playing with fire in a city and state where anger over his wild four-month-old presidency is boiling. By inserting troops into such a volatile and tense environment, he's opening the possibility that flashpoints could ignite and even that tragic circumstances could unfold. But then again, maybe that's the point, if the president is seeking a predicate to deploy active-duty troops on the streets of American cities. Another troubling omen is that Newsom — who, like Trump, relishes public fights — has no incentive to cave to the man he would like to replace as president in 2029. Newsom, for example, wrote on social media on Monday that the president was deploying another 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles, even though only 300 from his initial 2,000-strong contingent had so far arrived in the city. 'This isn't about public safety. It's about stroking a dangerous President's ego,' the governor said. 'This is Reckless. Pointless. And Disrespectful to our troops.' The state has sued the administration over that initial call-up of reservists. State Attorney General Rob Bonta called Trump's federalization of the state's National Guard troops 'unnecessary, counterproductive, and most importantly, unlawful.' The suit created yet another legal morass around one of Trump's most aggressive power grabs. California has now lodged 24 lawsuits against the administration in 19 weeks. With every day that passes in the California public order crisis, the political incentives seem to be driving toward more confrontation rather than a peaceful resolution. But ultimately it's up to Trump how this ends.

Afghans in Northern Virginia react to first day of travel ban
Afghans in Northern Virginia react to first day of travel ban

Yahoo

time44 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Afghans in Northern Virginia react to first day of travel ban

ALEXANDRIA, Va. () — Monday marks the first day of President Donald Trump's latest travel ban, which includes mostly African and Middle Eastern countries. Over the past few years, thousands of Afghan refugees have come to the D.C. area. Afghanistan is now on that travel ban list. Can you still visit the countries listed under Trump's travel ban? At the Afghan Market in Alexandria, people who spoke with DC News Now discussed a level of disappointment at the ban. 'We are disappointed about the travel ban, especially for those Afghan allies that they left behind,' said Farid Younsei, who lives in Virginia. Younsei said many in the Afghan community in Northern Virginia came to the U.S. during mass evacuations once the Taliban took over, but not all of their family members joined them. 'Most of them are in neighboring countries, like in Pakistan, and in Qatar, and in United Arab Emirates,' he said. Those family members left behind are the people on the minds of those who spoke about the travel ban. 'I kinda worry about them because one day, or maybe another day, they're going to figure it out about them — that they used to work with the embassy, or used to work with the government. And your life would be in danger. 100%,' Fertaos Bakhshi, of Alexandria, said. Trump's rationale for the travel ban is public safety. 'We will not allow people to enter our country who wish to do us harm,' the president said in a video on social media. International students confused, anxious about their futures under second Trump term At the market in Alexandria, there's a feeling that the ban can harm those looking for a better and safer life. 'If you compare Afghanistan to United States, it means like you compare hell to paradise,' Bakhshi said. 'The bad and good, now the immigrants, they're getting mixed with each other. So it's kind of difficult to separate them.' The leader of a local organization supporting newly arriving Afghan refugees tells DC News Now it's important to note that the U.S. government is continuing to issue special immigrant visas and is allowing the recipients of the SIVs and their families to travel. However, they also expressed that one of the most significant concerns is that it takes away some of the different tools to help reunite families who have been separated during the initial evacuation, or later due to the visa process. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store