This year we received 327 nominated titles from 52 publishers. CT staff selected the top five books in each category, and then panels of judges (one panel for each category) determined the winners. In the end, we honor 23 titles that bring understanding to people, events, and ideas that shape evangelical life, thought, and mission. We also include our judges’ comments on the winners.
APOLOGETICS/EVANGELISM
The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Missouri (CBFMO) will offer cash incentives to any member church that is willing to consider hiring a female pastor.CBFMO leadership decided in September to pay interview, travel, and other expenses incurred by search committees that include a woman in their list of candidates in hopes of expanding the number of women in church leadership.None of the 50 CBFMO churches have female senior pastors.“The whole idea behind it, honestly, is to reduce the anxiety or risk that churches feel,” CBFMO associate coordinator Jeff Langford told Christianity Today. “Search committees don’t want to break new ground or rock the boat.”There already is a lot of anxiety surrounding searching for a pastor, he said. Search committees want to make a good decision but not one that is too progressive, so often they choose what feels comfortable to them—a male candidate, he said.Paying expenses is a way to lessen that risk of opening the door to a woman pastor, he said.“Then once they open that door, I really believe that they will be surprised by the quality of candidates they’re going to see,” Langford said. “They will surprise themselves by how open they actually are to the idea. I hope both of those things happen.”Where some see the move as giving churches a hand to help them over the gender divide, others see the initiative as a sign that women in church leadership just isn’t working.“To me, it’s very telling,” Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Al Mohler said. “This reveals a sincere level of frustration on their part.”While the Southern Baptist Convention does not allow women to be pastors, affirmation of women in ministry was one of the founding principles of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF).“It’s easy to look across the theological divide and say, ‘Look at those hypocrites,’” Mohler said. “They aren’t hypocrites at all. The leadership is just not where the churches are on this.”Those who are avidly egalitarian would say the lack of women pastors is a remnant of gender discrimination, Mohler said. “But I think it’s actually the basic sense of biblical memory that keeps congregations from moving in that direction.”It is unlikely that a woman would believe this is a real step forward, he said. Some have voiced concern about raising false hopes with a female candidate who was never considered a serious candidate.And as seminaries graduate more and more women, the problem grows.“If churches aren’t going to call them, they really are facing a crisis of sorts,” Mohler said.And that’s why Central Baptist Theological Seminary President Molly Marshall called a meeting with CBFMO leaders—out of concern for finding churches for the seminary’s graduates, half of which are women. The Central Baptist Theological Seminary serves the Midwest for the CBF.The idea for the incentive grew out of that meeting, and was a way of trying to shift the paradigm, she said. Marshall compared the incentive to the Rooney Rule, which requires National Football League teams to interview minority candidates for head coaching opportunities.“If we can pull away the crassness of, ‘We’ll pay you to put up with this and hold your nose and interview a woman,’ it’s meant to encourage churches, even if the church may not be at a point of being ready,” she said. “They will never be ready without exposure to competent women.”The incentive may be clumsy, but it has been a tool to get churches discussing the idea, Marshall said.“When I was in seminary I had to put myself out there,” she said. “That’s how change happens—when a church hears a competent woman offer the word of God in a thoughtful manner. Change happens when the issue wears a face.”There are so few opportunities for female Baptist pastors in the Midwest that many leave Baptist churches for denominations like the United Methodist Church to find work, she said.Copyright © 2011 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.Related Elsewhere:Associated Baptist Press first reported the incentive program last week.
CHRISTIAN LIVING
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) held its “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” this week. The annual event encourages pastors to “preach from their pulpits … about the moral qualifications of candidates seeking political office.” The event encourages pastors to stand up against tax regulations that, according to the ADF, unconstitutionally regulate pastor speech.However, in practice, pastors are free to speak out on candidates.The ADF event is part of its Pulpit Initiative, a larger legal strategy to change tax law—not the way the IRS implements it. This strategy, ironically, needs the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to start punishing pastors so that the ADF can sue to have the IRS stop punishing pastors.As non-profits, churches cannot participate in political campaigns for or against a candidate for office. The so-called Johnson Amendment limits nonprofits’ involvement in electoral politics. The ADF considers the Johnson Amendment to be unconstitutional.But in the U.S., it is not enough to believe that something is unconstitutional; one needs a victim. The ADF is conducting a classic test case strategy. The ADF cannot sue to change tax regulations unless it represents a client who has been harmed by the law.This is the reason for Pulpit Freedom Sunday: to find a victim whose case can be used to change the law.According to the ADF, “The goal of the Pulpit Initiative is simple: have the Johnson Amendment declared unconstitutional—and once and for all remove the ability of the IRS to censor what a pastor says from the pulpit. ADF is actively seeking to represent churches or pastors who are under investigation by the IRS for violating the Johnson Amendment by preaching biblical Truth in a way that expresses support for—or opposition to—political candidates.”In other words, the ADF is goading the IRS into the church speech regulation business. If the IRS takes the bait and begins punishing pastors, then the ADF can use a resulting case to try to overturn the Johnson Amendment.The ADF is not looking for just any case. Pulpit Freedom Sunday does not promote actual campaign activity—it is a time for pastors to speak about the morality of candidates. According to the ADF, the event is “only related to what a pastor says from his pulpit.” It is “not about voter guides, candidate appearances, or other ‘political’ activities.” If the IRS starts punishing pastors for mere words, then there would be a very strong case on both freedom of religion and freedom of speech.ADF senior legal counsel Erik Stanley said that only churches should decide if it is inappropriate for pastors to speak from the pulpit about candidates.“ADF is not trying to get politics into the pulpit. Churches can decide for themselves that they either do or don’t want their pastors to speak about electoral candidates. The point of the Pulpit Initiative is very simple: the IRS should not be the one making the decision by threatening to revoke a church’s tax-exempt status. We need to get the government out of the pulpit,” said Stanley.But to get them out of the pulpit, the IRS first needs to get into the pulpit. The IRS does state in its guide for churches that the following hypothetical circumstance would be illegal:
Example 4: Minister D is the minister of Church M, a section 501(c)(3) organization. During regular services of Church M shortly before the election, Minister D preached on a number of issues, including the importance of voting in the upcoming election, and concluded by stating, “It is important that you all do your duty in the election and vote for Candidate W.” Because Minister D’s remarks indicating support for Candidate W were made during an official church service, they constitute political campaign intervention by Church M.
According to the IRS, churches most clearly cross the line with references to specific candidates or voting in a particular election. If a pastor makes it clear that he is speaking on his own, that his views are personal and do not reflect the official position of the church, then it is not illegal. Discerning the difference between an official endorsement and a pastor’s own views would be difficult to prove in court. In practice, the IRS has not gone after pastors for their statements in services. According to the ADF’s own documents, the IRS has never punished a pastor or a church for what was spoken from a pulpit in the five decades since the Johnson Amendment.When pastors signed up for the event, they needed to affirm that they would speak out from the pulpit in a way that would violate the law. It was not enough to speak from the pulpit on candidates; the pastors had to have the authority to represent the church (i.e. speak for the 501(c)(3) organization). The pastors agreed “to preach a sermon that evaluates the candidates running for political office in light of biblical Truth and church doctrine and I am willing to make specific recommendations about those candidates in light of the biblical evaluation.”In the two previous Pulpit Freedom Sundays, the ADF turned in its own pastors to the IRS. Information on each of the pastors and their churches was taken to the government. The IRS, however, did nothing. According to the ADF, none of the churches or their pastors were penalized for their alleged illegalities.Copyright © 2011 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.Related Elsewhere:Lifeway Research recently released survey data on what Protestant pastors think about endorsing candidates from the pulpit (84% are against it) and the IRS regulation (86% are against it).Managing Your Church, a Christianity Today sister publication, also covered Pulpit Freedom Sunday this week.Previous coverage of Pulpit Freedom Sunday includes:
‘Pulpit Freedom Sunday’ Tally: 31+ Sermons, 6 Complaints With IRS (Politics blog, Sept. 30, 2008)
Who Is in Charge of Our Pulpits? | Pulpit Freedom Sunday was about bringing kingdom principles to bear on contemporary social problems, not seizing political power. (Ron Johnson Jr., Oct 16, 2008)
Tempted by Politics | Why many pastors want to, but shouldn’t, endorse candidates. (Mark Galli, Oct. 2, 2008)
Endorsing from the Pulpit | Pastors launch challenge of IRS rules on endorsements. (Sept. 25, 2008)
BIBLICAL STUDIES
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) held its “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” this week. The annual event encourages pastors to “preach from their pulpits … about the moral qualifications of candidates seeking political office.” The event encourages pastors to stand up against tax regulations that, according to the ADF, unconstitutionally regulate pastor speech.However, in practice, pastors are free to speak out on candidates.The ADF event is part of its Pulpit Initiative, a larger legal strategy to change tax law—not the way the IRS implements it. This strategy, ironically, needs the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to start punishing pastors so that the ADF can sue to have the IRS stop punishing pastors.As non-profits, churches cannot participate in political campaigns for or against a candidate for office. The so-called Johnson Amendment limits nonprofits’ involvement in electoral politics. The ADF considers the Johnson Amendment to be unconstitutional.But in the U.S., it is not enough to believe that something is unconstitutional; one needs a victim. The ADF is conducting a classic test case strategy. The ADF cannot sue to change tax regulations unless it represents a client who has been harmed by the law.This is the reason for Pulpit Freedom Sunday: to find a victim whose case can be used to change the law.According to the ADF, “The goal of the Pulpit Initiative is simple: have the Johnson Amendment declared unconstitutional—and once and for all remove the ability of the IRS to censor what a pastor says from the pulpit. ADF is actively seeking to represent churches or pastors who are under investigation by the IRS for violating the Johnson Amendment by preaching biblical Truth in a way that expresses support for—or opposition to—political candidates.”In other words, the ADF is goading the IRS into the church speech regulation business. If the IRS takes the bait and begins punishing pastors, then the ADF can use a resulting case to try to overturn the Johnson Amendment.The ADF is not looking for just any case. Pulpit Freedom Sunday does not promote actual campaign activity—it is a time for pastors to speak about the morality of candidates. According to the ADF, the event is “only related to what a pastor says from his pulpit.” It is “not about voter guides, candidate appearances, or other ‘political’ activities.” If the IRS starts punishing pastors for mere words, then there would be a very strong case on both freedom of religion and freedom of speech.ADF senior legal counsel Erik Stanley said that only churches should decide if it is inappropriate for pastors to speak from the pulpit about candidates.“ADF is not trying to get politics into the pulpit. Churches can decide for themselves that they either do or don’t want their pastors to speak about electoral candidates. The point of the Pulpit Initiative is very simple: the IRS should not be the one making the decision by threatening to revoke a church’s tax-exempt status. We need to get the government out of the pulpit,” said Stanley.But to get them out of the pulpit, the IRS first needs to get into the pulpit. The IRS does state in its guide for churches that the following hypothetical circumstance would be illegal:
Example 4: Minister D is the minister of Church M, a section 501(c)(3) organization. During regular services of Church M shortly before the election, Minister D preached on a number of issues, including the importance of voting in the upcoming election, and concluded by stating, “It is important that you all do your duty in the election and vote for Candidate W.” Because Minister D’s remarks indicating support for Candidate W were made during an official church service, they constitute political campaign intervention by Church M.
According to the IRS, churches most clearly cross the line with references to specific candidates or voting in a particular election. If a pastor makes it clear that he is speaking on his own, that his views are personal and do not reflect the official position of the church, then it is not illegal. Discerning the difference between an official endorsement and a pastor’s own views would be difficult to prove in court. In practice, the IRS has not gone after pastors for their statements in services. According to the ADF’s own documents, the IRS has never punished a pastor or a church for what was spoken from a pulpit in the five decades since the Johnson Amendment.When pastors signed up for the event, they needed to affirm that they would speak out from the pulpit in a way that would violate the law. It was not enough to speak from the pulpit on candidates; the pastors had to have the authority to represent the church (i.e. speak for the 501(c)(3) organization). The pastors agreed “to preach a sermon that evaluates the candidates running for political office in light of biblical Truth and church doctrine and I am willing to make specific recommendations about those candidates in light of the biblical evaluation.”In the two previous Pulpit Freedom Sundays, the ADF turned in its own pastors to the IRS. Information on each of the pastors and their churches was taken to the government. The IRS, however, did nothing. According to the ADF, none of the churches or their pastors were penalized for their alleged illegalities.Copyright © 2011 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.Related Elsewhere:Lifeway Research recently released survey data on what Protestant pastors think about endorsing candidates from the pulpit (84% are against it) and the IRS regulation (86% are against it).Managing Your Church, a Christianity Today sister publication, also covered Pulpit Freedom Sunday this week.Previous coverage of Pulpit Freedom Sunday includes:
(Politics blog, Sept. 30, 2008)
| Pulpit Freedom Sunday was about bringing kingdom principles to bear on contemporary social problems, not seizing political power. (Ron Johnson Jr., Oct 16, 2008)
| Why many pastors want to, but shouldn’t, endorse candidates. (Mark Galli, Oct. 2, 2008)
| Pastors launch challenge of IRS rules on endorsements. (Sept. 25, 2008)
HISTORY/BIOGRAPHY
Those who experienced the Jesus Movement of the early 1970s will no doubt remember Lamb, the messianic Jewish music duo of Joel Chernoff and Rick “Levi” Coghill. Messianic worship record label Galilee of the Nations is releasing Lamb’s entire musical catalog of 12 records via digital download from iTunes, Amazon mp3, Napster, Rhapsody, CD Baby and other online digital music stores.
CHRISTIANITY AND CULTURE
MISSIONS/GLOBAL AFFAIRS
Those who experienced the Jesus Movement of the early 1970s will no doubt remember Lamb, the messianic Jewish music duo of Joel Chernoff and Rick “Levi” Coghill. Messianic worship record label Galilee of the Nations is releasing Lamb’s entire musical catalog of 12 records via digital download from iTunes, Amazon mp3, Napster, Rhapsody, CD Baby and other online digital music stores.
THE CHURCH/PASTORAL LEADERSHIP (tie)
As in many cases that touch on religion, Supreme Court justices seemed divided today as they considered the case of a fired Missouri-Synod Lutheran elementary teacher classified as a “commissioned minister.” But they seemed to agree that there’s no easy, uniform principle that would allow church employees to seek redress in the courts without entangling the courts in questions of religious doctrine.“This is tough and I’m stuck on this,” Justice Steven Breyer said. “I don’t see how you can avoid going into religion to some degree. You have to decide if this is really a minister, for example, and what kind of minister. That gets you right involved. Or if you’re not going to do that, you’re going to go look to see what are their religious tenets? And that gets you right involved. I just can’t see a way of getting out of the whole thing.”In June 2004, Cheryl Perich fell ill at a church golf outing and was hospitalized. She took a disability leave of absence and was finally diagnosed with narcolepsy in December, halfway through the next school year. She told the school that she wanted to return to work in February, but the school principal said that a long-term substitute had a contract through the end of the year and that she was concerned about the safety of the students. The principal and school board also began making plans for a “peaceful release proposal.” Perich declined the offer and showed up for work when her doctor released her and her medical leave ended. She was sent home and told that she’d likely be fired. When she threatened to sue, the church “rescinded her call.”Douglas Laycock, a University of Virginia law professor who represented the church, argued that Perich violated the church’s teachings by threatening to sue, and that the church is clearly covered by the “ministerial exception” to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. While “there will be line-drawing problems” about who counts as a minister, he said, “here I think it’s very easy. She’s a commissioned minister in the church. She holds ecclesiastical office. She teaches the religion class.”Perich’s lawyer, Walter Dellinger, argued that it’s not so simple: “She was not a minister and the principal reason is she carries out such important secular functions in addition to her religious duties.” (This, along with the fact that the school did not reference church doctrine during the termination process, was the basis for the 6th U.S. Circuit decision reinstating Perich’s lawsuit.)“I’m sorry to interrupt you, but that can’t be the test,” said Chief Justice John Roberts. “The Pope is a head of state carrying out secular functions, right? Those are important. So he is not a minister?”The question of who counts as a minister has loomed large over the case—it’s the reason that some legal scholars have called it one of the most important religion cases in a generation.Laycock allowed that secular courts do have some jurisdiction to determine who is a minister, and suggested that a church can’t simply declare all of its participants ministers as a pretext to avoiding government intrusion.“The fact that you’re expected to witness to the faith when the occasion arises doesn’t make you a minister,” he said. “We think there should be deference to good faith understandings. But we are not arguing for a rule that would enable an organization to fraudulently declare that everyone is a minister when it’s not true.”It was difficult to say precisely how many of the justices were willing to grant that Perich was, indeed, a minister. The split came more over how broadly the ministerial exemption should apply. Within the first moments of questioning, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked whether a church should be allowed to invoke the ministerial exception in the case of “a teacher who reports sexual abuse to the government and is fired because of that reporting.” It’s not a pure hypothetical, she said. “Now, we know from the news recently that there was a church whose religious beliefs centered around sexually exploiting women and I believe children.”“The government can do many things to force reporting,” Laycock said. “If the government’s interest is … protecting the children, then you can assess whether that government interest is sufficiently compelling to justify interfering with the relationship between the church and its ministers. But the government’s interest is at its nadir when the claim is we want to protect these ministers as such, we want to tell the churches what criteria they should apply for selecting and removing ministers.”(Laycock added, “The one case I am aware of cuts the other way. A priest accused of sexually abusing children was fired, sued to get his job back, and the church invoked the ministerial exception and that case ended. They were able to get rid of him.”)Dellinger brought the child abuse example up as well. “The State’s interest in allowing citizens to have access to its courts and to its agencies is paramount—in cases like child abuse, reporting of school safety problems and others.”“It’s not paramount,” Justice Antonin Scalia interrupted. A Catholic priest can’t just sue if he gets removed from his duties for getting married, he suggested. Dellinger agreed. “The reason is there are ample doctrines to protect church autonomy. One is that under the Establishment Clause, there can be no reinstatement ordered by a court of someone into an ecclesiastical position.”Dellinger and Laycock were not the only lawyers arguing before the court in this case. Leondra R. Kruger, assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, argued the government’s anti-discrimination case. And, to the surprise of many justices, she argued that the First Amendment had limited, if any, application in the case. It’s the right of expressive association that’s at issue, Kruger argued. “We don’t think that the job duties of a particular religious employee in an organization are relevant to the inquiry. … We don’t see that line of church autonomy principles in the religion clause jurisprudence as such. We see it as a question of freedom of association.”Justices Scalia and Samuel Alito were incredulous. But so was Justice Elena Kagan, who called the view “amazing.”But Kruger stood her ground, saying that the question wasn’t about religious rights, but about the right to tell the government about illegal conduct. “The government’s interest in preventing retaliation against those who would go to civil authorities with civil wrongs is foundational to the rule of law.”That government interest is even stronger, she said, than eradicating discrimination in the workplace—which is why she said that a woman could not sue over being excluded from the Catholic priesthood because of her gender.“When you say that, are you not implicitly making a judgment about the relative importance of the Catholic doctrine that only males can be ordained as priests and the Lutheran doctrine that a Lutheran should not sue the church in civil courts?” asked Alito. “You’re making a judgment about how important a particular religious belief is to a church.”Not only that, said Breyer, “But then you have to say that it’s more important to let people go to court to sue about sex discrimination than it is for a woman to get a job. I can’t say that one way or the other, so I’m stuck.”The court is not expected to rule in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC until next year.Copyright © 2011 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.Related Elsewhere:The Supreme Court site has the oral arguments transcript.Christianity Today previewed the case in July.On Monday Christianity Today noted the differences between Hosanna-Tabor
and a religious employment case the Supreme Court decided not to consider, regarding World Vision.More information on the case, including more analysis of the oral arguments, is available from SCOTUSBlog.
As in many cases that touch on religion, Supreme Court justices seemed divided today as they considered the case of a fired Missouri-Synod Lutheran elementary teacher classified as a “commissioned minister.” But they seemed to agree that there’s no easy, uniform principle that would allow church employees to seek redress in the courts without entangling the courts in questions of religious doctrine.“This is tough and I’m stuck on this,” Justice Steven Breyer said. “I don’t see how you can avoid going into religion to some degree. You have to decide if this is really a minister, for example, and what kind of minister. That gets you right involved. Or if you’re not going to do that, you’re going to go look to see what are their religious tenets? And that gets you right involved. I just can’t see a way of getting out of the whole thing.”In June 2004, Cheryl Perich fell ill at a church golf outing and was hospitalized. She took a disability leave of absence and was finally diagnosed with narcolepsy in December, halfway through the next school year. She told the school that she wanted to return to work in February, but the school principal said that a long-term substitute had a contract through the end of the year and that she was concerned about the safety of the students. The principal and school board also began making plans for a “peaceful release proposal.” Perich declined the offer and showed up for work when her doctor released her and her medical leave ended. She was sent home and told that she’d likely be fired. When she threatened to sue, the church “rescinded her call.”Douglas Laycock, a University of Virginia law professor who represented the church, argued that Perich violated the church’s teachings by threatening to sue, and that the church is clearly covered by the “ministerial exception” to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. While “there will be line-drawing problems” about who counts as a minister, he said, “here I think it’s very easy. She’s a commissioned minister in the church. She holds ecclesiastical office. She teaches the religion class.”Perich’s lawyer, Walter Dellinger, argued that it’s not so simple: “She was not a minister and the principal reason is she carries out such important secular functions in addition to her religious duties.” (This, along with the fact that the school did not reference church doctrine during the termination process, was the basis for the 6th U.S. Circuit decision reinstating Perich’s lawsuit.)“I’m sorry to interrupt you, but that can’t be the test,” said Chief Justice John Roberts. “The Pope is a head of state carrying out secular functions, right? Those are important. So he is not a minister?”The question of who counts as a minister has loomed large over the case—it’s the reason that some legal scholars have called it one of the most important religion cases in a generation.Laycock allowed that secular courts do have some jurisdiction to determine who is a minister, and suggested that a church can’t simply declare all of its participants ministers as a pretext to avoiding government intrusion.“The fact that you’re expected to witness to the faith when the occasion arises doesn’t make you a minister,” he said. “We think there should be deference to good faith understandings. But we are not arguing for a rule that would enable an organization to fraudulently declare that everyone is a minister when it’s not true.”It was difficult to say precisely how many of the justices were willing to grant that Perich was, indeed, a minister. The split came more over how broadly the ministerial exemption should apply. Within the first moments of questioning, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked whether a church should be allowed to invoke the ministerial exception in the case of “a teacher who reports sexual abuse to the government and is fired because of that reporting.” It’s not a pure hypothetical, she said. “Now, we know from the news recently that there was a church whose religious beliefs centered around sexually exploiting women and I believe children.”“The government can do many things to force reporting,” Laycock said. “If the government’s interest is … protecting the children, then you can assess whether that government interest is sufficiently compelling to justify interfering with the relationship between the church and its ministers. But the government’s interest is at its nadir when the claim is we want to protect these ministers as such, we want to tell the churches what criteria they should apply for selecting and removing ministers.”(Laycock added, “The one case I am aware of cuts the other way. A priest accused of sexually abusing children was fired, sued to get his job back, and the church invoked the ministerial exception and that case ended. They were able to get rid of him.”)Dellinger brought the child abuse example up as well. “The State’s interest in allowing citizens to have access to its courts and to its agencies is paramount—in cases like child abuse, reporting of school safety problems and others.”“It’s not paramount,” Justice Antonin Scalia interrupted. A Catholic priest can’t just sue if he gets removed from his duties for getting married, he suggested. Dellinger agreed. “The reason is there are ample doctrines to protect church autonomy. One is that under the Establishment Clause, there can be no reinstatement ordered by a court of someone into an ecclesiastical position.”Dellinger and Laycock were not the only lawyers arguing before the court in this case. Leondra R. Kruger, assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, argued the government’s anti-discrimination case. And, to the surprise of many justices, she argued that the First Amendment had limited, if any, application in the case. It’s the right of expressive association that’s at issue, Kruger argued. “We don’t think that the job duties of a particular religious employee in an organization are relevant to the inquiry. … We don’t see that line of church autonomy principles in the religion clause jurisprudence as such. We see it as a question of freedom of association.”Justices Scalia and Samuel Alito were incredulous. But so was Justice Elena Kagan, who called the view “amazing.”But Kruger stood her ground, saying that the question wasn’t about religious rights, but about the right to tell the government about illegal conduct. “The government’s interest in preventing retaliation against those who would go to civil authorities with civil wrongs is foundational to the rule of law.”That government interest is even stronger, she said, than eradicating discrimination in the workplace—which is why she said that a woman could not sue over being excluded from the Catholic priesthood because of her gender.“When you say that, are you not implicitly making a judgment about the relative importance of the Catholic doctrine that only males can be ordained as priests and the Lutheran doctrine that a Lutheran should not sue the church in civil courts?” asked Alito. “You’re making a judgment about how important a particular religious belief is to a church.”Not only that, said Breyer, “But then you have to say that it’s more important to let people go to court to sue about sex discrimination than it is for a woman to get a job. I can’t say that one way or the other, so I’m stuck.”The court is not expected to rule in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC until next year.Copyright © 2011 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.Related Elsewhere:The Supreme Court site has the oral arguments transcript.Christianity Today previewed the case in July.On Monday Christianity Today noted the differences between Hosanna-Tabor
and a religious employment case the Supreme Court decided not to consider, regarding World Vision.More information on the case, including more analysis of the oral arguments, is available from SCOTUSBlog.
FICTION
In response to international condemnation for Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani’s death sentence, the Iranian government has changed its story.Though Nadarkhani was found guilty and sentenced to death for apostasy in 2010, the semi-official Iranian news agency Fars News reported on September 30 that he will now be executed for Zionism, rape, and extortion. The Iranian Embassy in London also issued a statement, saying the Iranian Court of Appeals had made no official ruling in Nadarkhani’s case. But Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) has official documents that prove otherwise, said Khataza Gondwe, CSW team leader in Africa and the Middle East.“CSW is in possession of original court documents that state clearly that the charge against Pastor Nadarkhani was apostasy, and that the death sentence for apostasy was upheld by the Supreme Court,” Gondwe said. “These belated efforts to fabricate unsubstantiated charges against the pastor appear to be a desperate effort to justify the passing of a sentence of death, and reflect badly on the Iranian regime.” Last week, CT reported that after Nadarkhani repeatedly refused to recant his faith, numerous religious freedom organizations lobbied for his sentence to be dropped. The White House condemned the conviction on September 29, stating, “That the Iranian authorities would try to force him to renounce that faith violates the religious values they claim to defend, crosses all bounds of decency, and breaches Iran’s own international obligations.” That international attention is causing the Iranian government to change its story about the case, said Jonathan Racho, regional manager of Africa and South Asia for International Christian Concern (ICC). “Because of the international media attention and because of the pressure that the Iranian government is getting from different angles and different agencies, [government officials] are making false statements,” he said.Though it is unclear what Iran’s next steps will be in the case, Racho said there are concerns the government is waiting for the international attention to fade before proceeding. “It looks like a strategy so that this news will die down and people will forget about it, and then at some point they will go ahead and kill him if he perseveres in his faith in Christ,” he said.However, Nadarkhani’s lawyer said he thinks the case will end soon, as early as Saturday. “I am optimistic that the Supreme Court in Qom will drop the case altogether,” Mohammad Ali Dadkhah told Reuters on October 3. “I am 95 percent sure about it.” (Dadkhah told reporters that Nadarkhani had not yet been given a death sentence.)Nadarkhani would be the first Christian executed through Iranian legal process since 1990, making this case particularly unusual, said Todd Nettleton, director of media development at Voice of the Martyrs. While it’s still too early to tell if this is the start of a trend, there has been a definite increase in Christian persecution in Iran, he said. However, as CT reported in June, Iran’s strategy of increasing persecution against Christians is likely backfiring.Issa Dibaj, an Iranian Christian, told CT, “In fact, in places like Tehran and more educated communities, if you say, ‘I have become a Christian,’ they will respect you because of your courage and your independent thinking.”Since Iran is an Islamic state, Nettleton said the Iranian government is partially responsible for the church’s rapid growth. “When the people see failure in the government, they perceive it as a failure of Islam, and they’re hungry for something else,” he said. “That is making Iranian people very, very open to the Gospel, and so the church is growing very rapidly.”Nadarkhani is not the first pastor whose death sentence has stirred international reactions, nor is he the first to be accused of rape by a restrictive state that had initially focused on religious issues. In August 2001, the Chinese government arrested Pastor Shengliang Gong, founder of the South China Church and sentenced him to death for rape, arson, and leading a cult. Several witnesses claimed they were tortured and sexually assaulted until they signed the statements, and the case received international attention, including an intervention from the Bush administration. As a result, Gong was given a retrial and was sentenced to life in prison.Despite the passage of time, many aspects of the case still remain unclear. In 2005, one of the star witnesses in the case escaped from China and subsequently denied Gong raped her. But in 2007, China Aid Association (CAA) received a letter allegedly written by Gong claiming he was indeed guilty of some of the charges, including the allegations of sexual misconduct. CAA conducted an independent investigation and could find no evidence the letter was fabricated. CAA has since lost touch with the church’s leaders, partially as a result of that report, CAA president Bob Fu said.However, Gong’s treatment during his time in prison is unacceptable, regardless of his guilt, Fu said. While there has been no indication that Nadarkhani has been tortured during his time in jail, the two cases highlight the similarities of the Iranian and Chinese governments toward Christians, he said. “[These cases] show if you’re not submitting to the total control of the totalitarian state power, you will be regarded as the enemy … and they will do whatever they can to discredit you, to punish you. That’s how the game is played.”Copyright © 2011 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.Related Elsewhere:Christianity Today earlier covered Nadarkhani’s conviction and the White House response.Earlier coverage of Iran includes reporting how persecution has increased Christianity’s appeal and how western missiologists viewed the push for U.S. sanctions against Iran.
SPIRITUALITY
In response to international condemnation for Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani’s death sentence, the Iranian government has changed its story.Though Nadarkhani was found guilty and sentenced to death for apostasy in 2010, the semi-official Iranian news agency Fars News reported on September 30 that he will now be executed for Zionism, rape, and extortion. The Iranian Embassy in London also issued a statement, saying the Iranian Court of Appeals had made no official ruling in Nadarkhani’s case. But Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) has official documents that prove otherwise, said Khataza Gondwe, CSW team leader in Africa and the Middle East.“CSW is in possession of original court documents that state clearly that the charge against Pastor Nadarkhani was apostasy, and that the death sentence for apostasy was upheld by the Supreme Court,” Gondwe said. “These belated efforts to fabricate unsubstantiated charges against the pastor appear to be a desperate effort to justify the passing of a sentence of death, and reflect badly on the Iranian regime.” Last week, CT reported that after Nadarkhani repeatedly refused to recant his faith, numerous religious freedom organizations lobbied for his sentence to be dropped. The White House condemned the conviction on September 29, stating, “That the Iranian authorities would try to force him to renounce that faith violates the religious values they claim to defend, crosses all bounds of decency, and breaches Iran’s own international obligations.” That international attention is causing the Iranian government to change its story about the case, said Jonathan Racho, regional manager of Africa and South Asia for International Christian Concern (ICC). “Because of the international media attention and because of the pressure that the Iranian government is getting from different angles and different agencies, [government officials] are making false statements,” he said.Though it is unclear what Iran’s next steps will be in the case, Racho said there are concerns the government is waiting for the international attention to fade before proceeding. “It looks like a strategy so that this news will die down and people will forget about it, and then at some point they will go ahead and kill him if he perseveres in his faith in Christ,” he said.However, Nadarkhani’s lawyer said he thinks the case will end soon, as early as Saturday. “I am optimistic that the Supreme Court in Qom will drop the case altogether,” Mohammad Ali Dadkhah told Reuters on October 3. “I am 95 percent sure about it.” (Dadkhah told reporters that Nadarkhani had not yet been given a death sentence.)Nadarkhani would be the first Christian executed through Iranian legal process since 1990, making this case particularly unusual, said Todd Nettleton, director of media development at Voice of the Martyrs. While it’s still too early to tell if this is the start of a trend, there has been a definite increase in Christian persecution in Iran, he said. However, as CT reported in June, Iran’s strategy of increasing persecution against Christians is likely backfiring.Issa Dibaj, an Iranian Christian, told CT, “In fact, in places like Tehran and more educated communities, if you say, ‘I have become a Christian,’ they will respect you because of your courage and your independent thinking.”Since Iran is an Islamic state, Nettleton said the Iranian government is partially responsible for the church’s rapid growth. “When the people see failure in the government, they perceive it as a failure of Islam, and they’re hungry for something else,” he said. “That is making Iranian people very, very open to the Gospel, and so the church is growing very rapidly.”Nadarkhani is not the first pastor whose death sentence has stirred international reactions, nor is he the first to be accused of rape by a restrictive state that had initially focused on religious issues. In August 2001, the Chinese government arrested Pastor Shengliang Gong, founder of the South China Church and sentenced him to death for rape, arson, and leading a cult. Several witnesses claimed they were tortured and sexually assaulted until they signed the statements, and the case received international attention, including an intervention from the Bush administration. As a result, Gong was given a retrial and was sentenced to life in prison.Despite the passage of time, many aspects of the case still remain unclear. In 2005, one of the star witnesses in the case escaped from China and subsequently denied Gong raped her. But in 2007, China Aid Association (CAA) received a letter allegedly written by Gong claiming he was indeed guilty of some of the charges, including the allegations of sexual misconduct. CAA conducted an independent investigation and could find no evidence the letter was fabricated. CAA has since lost touch with the church’s leaders, partially as a result of that report, CAA president Bob Fu said.However, Gong’s treatment during his time in prison is unacceptable, regardless of his guilt, Fu said. While there has been no indication that Nadarkhani has been tortured during his time in jail, the two cases highlight the similarities of the Iranian and Chinese governments toward Christians, he said. “[These cases] show if you’re not submitting to the total control of the totalitarian state power, you will be regarded as the enemy … and they will do whatever they can to discredit you, to punish you. That’s how the game is played.”Copyright © 2011 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.Related Elsewhere:Christianity Today earlier covered Nadarkhani’s conviction and the White House response.Earlier coverage of Iran includes reporting how persecution has increased Christianity’s appeal and how western missiologists viewed the push for U.S. sanctions against Iran.
THEOLOGY/ETHICS
Twitter is reaching out to religious leaders, encouraging them to use the social media platform, 140 characters at a time.
Religion has not received the same kind of attention in the company as other categories, says Claire Diaz Ortiz, leader for social innovation at Twitter, Inc. But its growing popularity is changing that.
“The kind of content that religious users and influencers are creating is really incredible,” Diaz Ortiz told Christianity Today. “They have really high engagement rates.”
She hopes to help the company connect to Christian leaders to ensure that popular accounts are not being run by imposters. Twitter uses a verified symbol to suggest the authenticity of celebrities, authors, and other influencers, but many pastors have not been verified. For example, Mark Driscoll (who has about 172,000 users following his posts) and Rob Bell (who has about 80,000) are not verified.
Twitter’s attempts to connect to religious leaders come after ministries have faced struggles with some other technology companies. Earlier this year, Google cut churches out of its nonprofit program, and Apple has pulled applications from Exodus International and the Manhattan Declaration amid protests on the groups’ views of homosexuality.
Part of Twitter’s effort included networking—the physical, handshaking, business card exchanging kind—at Catalyst, a conference of about 13,000 pastors and other attendees that ends today in Atlanta. Diaz Ortiz is meeting with speakers and attendees, planning to follow up on the company’s site.
The theme of this year’s Catalyst was “Be Present,” with many speakers noting the struggles they face with the idea as they interact with Twitter, Facebook, text messages, e-mails, and other communication tools.
At the same time, the conference promoted the #cat11 hashtag for people to tweet. The speakers also delivered a number of short, tweetable quotes to satisfy a crowd of iPad and iPhone owners.
Words like attention, focus, silence, clutter, and noise filled the stadium screens just before each session. During the breaks, the giant screens encouraged attendees to “be present” throughout the year by connecting through social media platforms.
Christians offer a high level of engagement on social media, and Diaz Ortiz notices the amount of religious content that is retweeted.
“We’re trying to work out the specifics, but we want to give religious influencers and religious organizations attention that they deserve because they’re creating valuable content that people really like,” Diaz Ortiz said. She believes that the reason religious influencers are so good at harnessing Twitter stems from the same reason they are good at marketing.
“It’s about relationships and social media is about relationships. A lot of companies don’t understand that. They think it’s a new way to market themselves,” she said. “In contrast, religious organizations have been relying on word-of-mouth marketing and relational marketing for forever, so they take to social media well.”
Twitter said last month that it has over 100 million active users worldwide, half of whom log in daily. “More than 40 percent of the top global religious leaders are on Twitter, including @DalaiLama and the Pope, who sent his first Tweet from @news_va_en in June,” Twitter said in a release.
Diaz Ortiz, who recently released
Twitter for Good
, has navigated the nonprofit world a little bit differently.
“When you’re talking about religious organizations, you’re talking about a belief and you’re sending a message, which is different from sending information, which is what nonprofit organizations are sending,” she said. “I often tell nonprofits, ‘Would you go up to someone in the street and ask for money?’ When I’m approached, I feel guilted into it. The same things I think are awkward in real life are awkward in social media.”
Religious leaders engage with Twitter in different ways, especially those who are leading megachurches, organizations, seminaries, and other kinds of ministries.
Perhaps one of the more noted tweets this year was when Minnesota pastor John Piper
tweeted “Farewell, Rob Bell” after Bell released his promotional video for Love Wins. Last month, Piper tweeted, “Seriously, as before, may you fare well, Rob Bell” to his 211,000 followers after Bell announced his plans to leave his church.
“If a religious influencer made a bold statement about faith in general, I think you’ll have more people being responsive,” Diaz Ortiz said.
California pastor Rick Warren, who regularly tweets a variety of inspirational, motivational, or informational messages to about 432,000 followers, was named in 2010 as one of Forbes magazine’s top 20 most influential Twitter celebrities. Author and speaker Joyce Meyer is even more popular, with 435,000 followers.
Texas pastor Joel Osteen usually tweets inspirational messages to his roughly 365,000 followers, but like many religious leaders, he called for Christians to stand for the release of Youcef Nadarkhani in Iran.
Generally, accounts that only offer inspiration risk sounding impersonal, Diaz Ortiz said.
“Who doesn’t want a quote a day type of thing that’s really inspirational? I do think you have to make sure you’re mixing in personal stuff,” she said. “Those accounts risk sounding automated.”
For instance, she noticed the difference between Dave Ramsey on Twitter compared to The Dave Ramsey Show on Twitter. “A strong message doesn’t come through when people are doing third-party takes,” she said.
Similarly, churches need to figure out the kinds of messages they want to send, such as supplementary material, summarizing material, or announcements, Diaz Ortiz said. One of the major national hotels, she says, has a fake person who runs their social media account. If the leader of the hotel moves on, the personality remains with the hotel.
Other pastors occasionally touch on national or international events. For instance, Andy Stanley tweeted to his 113,000-some followers, “Proud of our President for bringing The Word at Ground Zero gathering yesterday. Psalm 46: The Lord Almighty is with us . . .” after President Obama’s September 11 speech.
Other pastors with influential networks don’t engage on Twitter as regularly as others, such as Illinois pastor Bill Hybels. And many well-known pastors, such as Ed Young Sr., do not use Twitter at all.
Copyright © 2011 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
Related Elsewhere:
Christianity Today has repeatedly
covered the increasing role Twitter and other
social
networks are playing in Christian life. So has our sister publication,
Leadership
.
Leadership Journal’s‘s blog, Out of Ur, is blogging from Catalyst.
Copyright © 2005 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
Related Elsewhere:
To order any of these books click on the book covers above or visit Christianbook.com.
Past coverage of the books listed include:
The Jesus Creed | Jesus’ Guide to Spiritual Formation | The Lord’s modified creed was key for disciples’ growth, author says. (April 06, 2005)
Africa and the Bible | Sudan’s Biblical History | Sudan’s ongoing civil war isn’t the only reason Christians should be familiar with the region. (May 25, 2004)
The Rise of Evangelicalism | An Authentic Narrative of Some Remarkable and Interesting Particulars | Mark Noll delivers the first installment of a five-volume, multiauthor history of evangelicalism. (Books & Culture, July/August 2004)
The Design Revolution | William Dembski’s Revolution | The author of Intelligent Design set out to answer the toughest questions about the movement he helped promote. (March 30, 2004)
Encountering New Religious Movements | Targeted Apologetics | Encountering New Religious Movements with the Gospel. (July 07, 2004)
Gilead | This Poor Gray Ember of Creation | Marilynne Robinson’s Gilead is a novel to savor. (Books & Culture, March/April 2005)
Of Fathers and Sons | The sometimes-fractured relationships between fathers and sons are the heart of this stellar second novel from Marilynne Robinson (first item, March 09, 2005)
Invitation to Solitude and SilenceExcerpt: Are You Dangerously Tired? | A hard-to-recognize hazard for Christian leaders (from sister publication, Building Church Leaders)
Excerpt: Rest for the Mind | How can you still your racing thoughts in order to enjoy the presence of God? (from sister publication, Building Church Leaders)
Familiar StrangerNot a Tame Lion | An engaging theologian questions the Jesus of modern scholars. (Feb. 15, 2005)
Spirit and FleshLiving with Fundamentalists | Spirit and Flesh documents life in a Baptist church. (Oct. 27, 2004)
Excerpt: Fundamentally Personal | At The Shawmut River Baptist Church, worship and preaching are saturated with the familiar, the “at-home.” (Oct. 27, 2004)
When I Lay My Isaac DownGod Amid Tragedy | A review of When I Lay My Isaac Down. (Aug. 12, 2004)
Excerpt: When My Son Was Arrested for Murder | Finding faith under unthinkable circumstances. (Aug. 12, 2004)
UnveilingLife Imitates Art | Unveiling is a commendable debut novel. (April 05, 2004)
Seeing Is BelievingPictures of God’s Love | Seeing Is Believing lays the theological foundation for imaginative prayer. (May 05, 2004)
See our earlier book awards for 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, and 1997, as well as our Books of the Twentieth Century.
For other coverage or reviews, see our Books archive and the weekly Books & Culture Corner.
