© 2014 The Wired Word
www.thewiredword.com
On Wednesday, Annise Parker, mayor of Houston, Texas, withdrew subpoenas the
city had issued to five Houston pastors in a lawsuit over the Houston Equal
Rights Ordinance, commonly dubbed HERO. The subpoenas had initially demanded of
those pastors "all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO
[the ordinance], the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender
identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your
possession." After the subpoenas were made public, they were denounced by
many Christians and several Christian advocacy groups as a breach of the First
Amendment's separation of church and state clause.While most of the protesting advocacy groups were on the religious right, in this case, some Christian groups on the religious left also agreed that the subpoenas had overreached.
Parker, who is in her third term as Houston's mayor, had earlier withdrawn the "sermons" demand, but with this action, she dropped the subpoenas altogether. She said the decision to rescind the subpoenas came after meeting this week with three local pastors not among the subpoenaed group, and seven members of the clergy from across the country, in what she dubbed "civil discussions about the issues."
The whole affair began in May when Houston officials passed the HERO ordinance intended to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. The ordinance is controversial in part because it gives transgender people the right, in public buildings and businesses, to use the restroom of the gender with which they identify. (The ordinance exempts religious entities from compliance.)
Some Houstonians who don't like HERO and want to overturn it collected 50,000 signatures to get the matter on a city ballot, but many signatures were rejected, meaning that the measure failed to qualify. Opponents then sued the city, claiming that Mayor Parker, who is openly gay, and other city officials used inappropriate methods to exclude many of the signatures.
In response, the city sent the subpoenas to the five pastors who had identified themselves as the leaders of the anti-HERO petition drive and who delivered the petitions to the city, but who are not litigants in the lawsuit. The subpoenas sought materials, including sermons, that might be related to the drive to undo HERO.
At that point, the matter took on a life of its own, with many people across the country branding Houston's actions as an attack on religious freedom and even "thuggery" by the mayor. Responding to the backlash, the mayor narrowed the scope of the subpoenas, removing sermons from the list and focusing more on materials related to the signature-collection campaign, but that did not silence the outcry.
One of the calmer reactions came from Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, President of the Interfaith Alliance, which advocates for both LGBT rights and religious liberty. In an open letter to Mayor Parker, Gaddy wrote, "To trample on one set of freedoms while seeking to expand another fails to capture the intent of the United States Constitution and violates the nature of our democracy."
All of that probably contributed to the mayor's decision this week to rescind the subpoenas entirely, but from her remarks during the public announcement of the withdrawal of the demand, she credited civil discussion with the three Houston pastors and the seven from elsewhere in the nation.
"They came without political agendas, without hate in their hearts and without any desire to debate the merits of the HERO," the mayor said. "They simply wanted to express their passionate and very sincere concerns about the subpoenas. The second meeting group wasn't from Houston, but they took the Houston approach of civil discourse in presenting their case. We gained an understanding of each other's positions."
Parker vows to continue to support HERO and defend it against repeal efforts, but she said, "This is not about what anyone is preaching, this is not about religion, this is not about anyone exercising their religion ... this is about the petition process."
By way of background, the IRS regulations for nonprofit groups, including churches, permit such groups to discuss and even advocate for political issues so long as the group does not exhibit preferences for or against specific political candidates. Thus, taking stands on ballot initiatives is permitted.
As TWW team member Rev. Frank Ramirez stated, "As a pastor, I can preach about anything I want. If I choose to endorse a particular political candidate or party, however, our church could lose its tax-exempt status. My free speech is totally protected. I cannot be prevented from turning my sermon into a campaign speech ... if I feel strongly enough. But I also must be courageous enough to forfeit our tax exemption. I can't have it both ways."
More on this story can be found at these links:
Houston Withdraws Pastors' Subpoenas. Religion News Service
Mayor Parker Withdraws Subpoenas Issued to Houston Pastors in HERO Lawsuit. Click2Houston
Mayor Parker Directs City Legal Department to Withdraw Pastor Subpoenas. City of Houston website
The Subpoena Saga: Houston Officials' Misstep Feeds Religious Right Persecution Complex. Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Sermons Are 'Fair Game' in Houston -- The Real Warning in the Subpoena Scandal. Albert Mohler.com
An Open Letter to Houston Mayor Annise Parker. Leadership Journal
Open Letter to the Mayor and City Attorney of Houston. Interfaith Alliance
The Big Questions
1. From what you gather from news reports, do you think the Houston subpoena as originally worded was a) a real attack on religious freedom, b) a legal challenge directed against the five pastors involved but not an attack on religious freedom, c) an ill-advised tactic by Houston officials but not aimed at the church in general, d) a constitutional challenge, e) a local squabble but with larger ramifications, f) more than one of the above (specify) or g) something else (specify)? Explain your answer.
2. Is one of our tasks as Christians to guard religion against attack? Is one of our tasks as U.S. citizens to guard religion against attack? If you said yes to either question, which religions should be guarded and why? If you said no to either question, why?
3. Since being Christians means that we are citizens not only of our country but also of God's kingdom, how should we deal with governmental rules with which we disagree on religious grounds?
4. How does your understanding of "separation of church and state" help you decide how deeply your church should be involved in political activism?
5. Are there any circumstances under which the state may rightfully expect an individual to violate his or her religious conscience to support the state? If so, what circumstances? If not, why not?
6. What, if any, are the circumstances under which it is acceptable for the state to issue legal demands for pastoral materials, including sermons, private letters and emails to congregants of a religious body?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Proverbs 14:34
Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. (This is a stand-alone proverb; no context needed.)
On the surface, this proverb would seem to be a straightforward statement that no one who believes in God would question. However, there are a couple of qualifiers that should be noted.
First, in ancient Israel, where this proverb originated, there was no separation of church and state. It was a theocracy (a government based on religious authority), not a democracy. The king was seen as divinely appointed, and the nation was considered to be the people of God.
So applying this proverb to a nation with a democratic government means that "righteousness" (defined as being right with God) is not a state toward which political policies and practices officially aim. Rather, they officially aim at democratic ideals, such as "majority rule with the rights of the minority respected," "justice for all" and "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Second, when applying this statement to a democratic nation, who gets to define "sin"? Certainly the church has not always agreed. Recall that, in one era, a significant portion of the church did not view human slavery as sinful. Today, for example, the church is not of one mind about whether persons living in faithful homosexual relationships are living in sin.
Questions: How does the overall truth of this proverb still apply to any nation, regardless of its form of government? What is the proper role of democratic government regarding religion?
Matthew 5:13-14
You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot. You are the light of the world. (For context, read 5:13-16.)
Jesus said his followers should be "salt of the earth" and "the light of the world."
Questions: Since salt alone does not make a whole meal, and light is only one element of creation, what do you think Jesus meant when he applied these two terms to his followers? Does our call to be salt and light include a mandate to fight for religious freedom? Is it a call to strongly influence the world with a witness to the kingdom of God's way? Comment on this, from Martin Luther King Jr.: "The church must be reminded that it is not the master nor the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state."
What methods of fighting for good in our contemporary world are compatible with Christ's teaching? What methods are not? What persons or groups give a good example of Christ-infused behaviors that give light and salt to the unbelieving citizens of this world? How is salt-and-light Christianity related to Mayor Parker's statement that some clergy had talked with her "without hate in their hearts"?
1 Peter 2:13-14
For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. (For context, read 2:11-17.)
Christianity was born under a government that was far from being a democracy. Obedience to the state was mandatory, and not every action of the Roman Empire was just and fair. Nonetheless, Peter advises the early Christians to accept that authority, and actually views the empire's role as an arm of the Lord to punish those who do wrong.
Some Bible scholars believe that things were not as rosy as Peter's words seem to suggest, however, and that the reason for his advice was to keep Christians from appearing to oppose or threaten the state and thus increase their vulnerability to persecution.
In any event, Peter is no doubt sincere in wanting Christians to give a witness of good conduct within the confines of the state, while giving their ultimate allegiance to the kingdom of God.
Question: What principles should religious groups use when deciding to forgo or continue practices that violate the laws of the governments under which they live?
Mark 12:17
Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's. (For context, read 12:13-17.)
Jesus made this remark in response to a trap some of his enemies tried to spring. For the common people, the paying of taxes to Rome was an uncomfortable reminder that their nation was under the domination of Rome. So in the presence of a crowd, those enemies asked Jesus, "Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?" (v. 14). They no doubt thought themselves clever. If Jesus said "Yes," they could brand him as a traitor to Jewish nationalism and thus damage his popularity with the crowds. If he said "No," they could report him to the Roman authorities as a subversive who needed to be arrested.
The trap failed because Jesus refused to play their devious game. Instead he asked them to produce a coin and tell him whose image was stamped on it. "The emperor's" was the reply (v. 16). "Then give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's and to God the things that are God's." With this answer, Jesus not only sidestepped the trap but reminded his opponents of their failure to honor and serve God.
Questions: What conclusions can you draw from Jesus' recognition of two countries -- one earthbound and one spiritual -- that apply to how Christians should think about church-state separation? Is it possible that Jesus was here teaching that certain kinds of opposition to earthly government might be counterproductive or unnecessary?
John 18:36
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not from this world." (For context, read 18:33-38.)
This is part of Jesus' reply to Pilate's question, "Are you the King of the Jews?" (v. 33).
Question: Could Jesus' reply here be taken as a warning to us of the incompatibility, and sometimes even toxic incompatibility, between the kingdoms of this world and the kingdom of God? Explain your answer.
1 Corinthians 13:13
And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love. (For context, read 12:12--13:13.)
Although 1 Corinthians 13 is often read by itself, especially at weddings, it is really part of a larger "sermon" from Paul that includes chapters 12 and 14 as well. (That's why we have suggested that you start the context reading at 12:12, but if you have time, read all three chapters.) In these three chapters, as in much of 1 Corinthians, Paul is addressing divisions within the church, as expressed in arguments over whose spiritual gifts are the "best."
In chapter 13, Paul gets to his main point, that no matter what other gifts and talents people have received from God, the greatest gifts are faith, hope and love, and of those three, love is the very best. And it was the failure to love one another that allowed the partisan spirit to flourish and divisions to hurt the church.
It is worth remembering that in chapter 13, the King James Version of the Bible uses the word "charity" instead of "love." Back in 1611, when the translators of the KJV were working, charity accurately conveyed the meaning Paul intended. But in the intervening centuries, it has come to mean giving to the needy. Thus, virtually all modern Bible translations render the Greek agape as "love" rather than "charity" to avoid the almsgiving connotation.
But the word "love" has problems too. In modern usage, it can mean tender emotions, infatuation, sex, neighborliness, family loyalty, or devotion to another person. So there is value in reconsidering "charity." In its earlier sense, it meant wishing good for others and behaving so that good would indeed befall them. Charity does not require us to feel affection toward everyone or to like everyone. But it does require us to act with goodwill toward others, including those with whom we disagree, within the Christian community and in the political realm.
Questions: If you decide it is right for you or your church to be politically active, where specifically should you be prepared to act charitably? Does "charity" imply that we should start out assuming that political opponents are arguing their position out of good intentions? Why or why not? Do you agree that the pastors who engaged in civil discourse with Mayor Parker and who she said spoke "without hate in their hearts" might have been demonstrating the very charity about which Paul was speaking?
For Further Discussion
1. Did God call us who follow Jesus to establish the kingdom of God or to live according to kingdom principles? Defend your answer.
2. Discuss this alternative interpretation of the events in Houston, suggested by TWW team member Ellyn Seelye: "To my mind the issue is more properly framed as that a city government rashly presented a group of clergy with a legal demand (subpoenas) for their sermons and other pastoral communications. The response of the faith community, in this case, heeded Christ's admonition to 'be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves' (Matthew 10:16, KJV). There was a kind of canny, two-pronged approach. First, there was wide dispersion of the news, eliciting much negative -- often strongly negative -- response from many quarters. Then, with this disapproval as backdrop, both local and national teams of pastors requested meetings to reason with the mayor in a candid and civil manner. They quite properly defended the faith. As Peter said when he and the apostles were hauled before the authorities for teaching and preaching, 'We ought to obey God rather than men' (Acts 5:29, KJV). Christians have similarly challenged the notions of the state in their opposition to slavery and in their advocacy of the protection of innocent human life."
3. Respond to this, from TWW team member Rev. Jim Berger: "Every sermon I preach is a public document. It is published on our website. It is open for anyone to enter the church and hear it. Sermons are not privileged communication. They are public pronouncements. I would be surprised if any court found otherwise. I am acutely aware every Sunday that what I say is a public document, and what I say can and will be used against me in a court of law if someone chooses to take issue with it! Their case may be found to be without merit, but I would still have to defend my words, or my church would. And that costs money. If a preacher slanders someone in a sermon, they may rightly sue the preacher for the allegations. The rights of free speech and separation of church and state do not give individuals such as me a pass on accountability to the Constitution. Yes, we answer only to God for theology. But when we transgress the laws of the land, the mandates of Romans 13:1-7 must be respected."
4. When, if ever, should our civil liberties take precedence over our religious beliefs, so that our freedom of religion {ITALIC}and everyone else's freedom of religion is protected?
5. How far should your church go in supporting the religious freedom of groups with whom you disagree over matters of doctrine or practice? What might be the result of such support? What might be the result of nonsupport?
6. Respond to this statement: It's important to recall that the Christian church has widely varying understandings of some social matters. For example, not only do some Christians accept and welcome LGBT people and their spouses, but some would add that some Christians are those LGBT people.
Responding to the News
This is a good time to consider the ways in which we can be salt and light to our communities.
Closing Prayer
No comments:
Post a Comment