First-World Persecution: Implications for Moral Theology

[The Liturgist]

We are all aware of increasing persecution of Christians for expressing scriptural truth about homosexuality, trans-sexual mutilation, abortion, euthanasia and other issues which have been adopted by certain “progressive” governments, media and major corporations, for example, this incident involving QANTAS who I will definitely not be flying with on my upcoming trip to Australia, not that there are any really superior airlines (years ago, I remember Alaska Airlines would serve a prayer card with meals, I received one while flying First Class with them to Seattle in March of 2006, which was a lovely flight, on an MD-80, which in Alaska Airlines service had particularly nice interiors, and which I always enjoyed flying, but I would be surprised if they still do that, however, the conduct of QANTAS was particularly terrible in that case). Or in some cases simply for being Christian; there was recently a firestorm of hate launched on X formerly known as Twitter against a YouTube content creator known as Wendigoon simply because of his well-known Christian faith, in an effort to “cancel” him.

In some instances, distressingly, the persecution seems to be of conservative clergy by hierarchs in their own church.

My desire is to post a thread in General Theology to discuss specific instances of these persecutions and the theological response, since in all cases we know those who suffer for Christ our True God will be rewarded.

Now there are controversial instances that are edge cases, and some groups like Westboro Baptist Church actually aided the opposition by engaging in very nasty protesting at the funerals of deceased soldiers who had nothing to do with sexual immorality. In general, my goal is not to dwell on these edge cases, nor on the eschatological implications of this persecution, but rather on the subject as an issue of moral theology.

Specifically, I would like to review any instances you have heard of involving the potential or actual persecution of Christians for their beliefs, whether by online groups, businesses or other organizations, governments or their own churches for teaching and practicing traditional Christianity. I also have a particularly complex issue of moral theology I would like to discuss, ideally if someone happens to post a similar case they are familiar with.

 

[The Liturgist]

By the way @Carl Emerson I believe you had a particular interest in this subject.

 

[Carl Emerson]

By the way @Carl Emerson I believe you had a particular interest in this subject.

Yes, lets see how the thread develops. Thanks for thinking of me.

 

[GDL]

I also have a particularly complex issue of moral theology I would like to discuss,

And what would this be?

 

[PloverWing]

In some instances, distressingly, the persecution seems to be of conservative clergy by hierarchs in their own church.

How do you distinguish this situation from a situation of church discipline?

If I do something, and my bishop tells me to stop, and I deliberately keep doing it anyway, and my bishop imposes some kind of penalty or restriction on me -- am I being persecuted by my bishop, or disciplined? How do you tell?

 

[The Liturgist]

How do you distinguish this situation from a situation of church discipline?

If I do something, and my bishop tells me to stop, and I deliberately keep doing it anyway, and my bishop imposes some kind of penalty or restriction on me -- am I being persecuted by my bishop, or disciplined? How do you tell?

That is an interesting question with an interesting answer, that being that, frankly this is something of a non-issue. The reason for this is that most of the breaches of church discipline have involved those agitating for capitulation to secular values on human sexuality, abortion and other issues. Particularly since most churches which have shifted to the left have done so in a manner that is relatively gracious and non-vindictive, for example, the Presbyterian Church USA created no impediments for parishes wishing to leave and also provided certain assurances for those willing to stay. So the instances of breeches of discipline or questionable canonical conduct have only occurred in the opposite direction.

Specifically, in the case of the United Methodist Church clergy who are being persecuted, they are being persecuted for obeying the rules set forth in the current version of the Book of Discipline, as adopted at the last General Council in 2018, which the American hierarchy thinks it has the right to set aside simply because it disagrees with it, which makes the situation in the UMC particularly egregious. Likewise, in the Roman Catholic Church, there is a question according to canon law of the legality of recent actions of Pope Francis, since the Popes actually do lack the authority to contradict earlier teachings of the church, which is what has been transpiring, and also there is the interesting fact that Bishop Strickland did nothing wrong.

The Episcopal Church has engaged in less of this, but Bishop Bruno of Los Angeles, who was active in this regard, was later suspended and subsequently resigned over his actions regarding St. James the Great. Also likewise it emerged that Episcopalian dioceses can leave the Episcopal Church and keep their property, and thus the actions contra: the Diocese of Fort Worth and other departing dioceses were contrary to the ruling of the US Supreme Court. This also has an implication for the persecution of Bishop Strickland in the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Carl Emerson]

it emerged that Episcopalian dioceses can leave the Episcopal Church and keep their property

Who made this decision ? Was it a legal issue?

I have always felt that real estate is a major issue when church splits occur.

 

[The Liturgist]

Who made this decision ? Was it a legal issue?

I have always felt that real estate is a major issue when church splits occur.

Yes it was a lawsuit and it was decided by the United States Supreme Court, so it is now the law of the land.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Yes it was a lawsuit and it was decided by the United States Supreme Court, so it is now the law of the land.

Mmmm... that is good news, I doubt if the is the Law here, must check it out.

However the remaining oversight retain the bulk of the assets so to be faithful the challenge is to walk away from much.

 

[The Liturgist]

Mmmm... that is good news, I doubt if the is the Law here, must check it out.

However the remaining oversight retain the bulk of the assets so to be faithful the challenge is to walk away from much.

Just to clarify, the entire Diocese of Fort Worth was able to retain all its real property without exception, so they weren’t really walking away from anything.

The only problem is this does not appear to extend to the parish level.

In retrospect it is unfortunate that the Diocese of San Joaquin never even tried to keep their real estate.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Just to clarify, the entire Diocese of Fort Worth was able to retain all its real property without exception, so they weren’t really walking away from anything.

The only problem is this does not appear to extend to the parish level.

In retrospect it is unfortunate that the Diocese of San Joaquin never even tried to keep their real estate.

I might add that the accumulation of real estate by the church is proving to be a painful issue when the church looses it's way.

Sometimes it amounts to vast holdings and not just places of worship.

Do you think this is 'Kosher' ???

 

[The Liturgist]

I might add that the accumulation of real estate by the church is proving to be a painful issue when the church looses it's way.

Sometimes it amounts to vast holdings and not just places of worship.

Do you think this is 'Kosher' ???

Well I think it depends on how it is used. There are useful and abusive ways in which churches can own land. For example, the Mormon cult owns massive amounts of real estate and is probably using it abusively; the polygamist Mormon Fundamentalists definitely are.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I suspect a time will come when the Church being a business with assets and employees will be no longer viable and will need to operate in a mode much more invisible.

 

[PloverWing]

I suspect a time will come when the Church being a business with assets and employees will be no longer viable and will need to operate in a mode much more invisible.

This may be something that varies by country, and by the exact nature of the business-like activity. Here in the US, we have pretty firm legislation that protects houses of worship and the acts of worship conducted within. If a religious congregation wants to exclude someone from membership or leadership because they're female, or gay, or divorced, or married, or just have the wrong religious beliefs, that's protected by our Constitution, and I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future.

Schools and church-owned businesses and businesses owned by individuals who are Christian (these are three different legal categories) are in a murkier position when they come into conflict with the state's civil rights laws. Famously, Bob Jones University was allowed to continue to prohibit interracial dating through the end of the 20th century, though they had to give up their tax-exempt status to do it. (BJU changed their policy in 2000.) This may be the kind of thing we see going forward: being allowed to continue to operate, but having to give up federal funding or tax-exempt status. Still, that's not the same thing as having to be invisible, or having to disband large religious organizations.

I don't know how New Zealand law views all this.

 

[Carl Emerson]

This may be something that varies by country, and by the exact nature of the business-like activity. Here in the US, we have pretty firm legislation that protects houses of worship and the acts of worship conducted within. If a religious congregation wants to exclude someone from membership or leadership because they're female, or gay, or divorced, or married, or just have the wrong religious beliefs, that's protected by our Constitution, and I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future.

Schools and church-owned businesses and businesses owned by individuals who are Christian (these are three different legal categories) are in a murkier position when they come into conflict with the state's civil rights laws. Famously, Bob Jones University was allowed to continue to prohibit interracial dating through the end of the 20th century, though they had to give up their tax-exempt status to do it. (BJU changed their policy in 2000.) This may be the kind of thing we see going forward: being allowed to continue to operate, but having to give up federal funding or tax-exempt status. Still, that's not the same thing as having to be invisible, or having to disband large religious organizations.

I don't know how New Zealand law views all this.

That sounds hopeful thanks, great information.

 

[The Liturgist]

This may be something that varies by country, and by the exact nature of the business-like activity. Here in the US, we have pretty firm legislation that protects houses of worship and the acts of worship conducted within. If a religious congregation wants to exclude someone from membership or leadership because they're female, or gay, or divorced, or married, or just have the wrong religious beliefs, that's protected by our Constitution, and I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future.

Schools and church-owned businesses and businesses owned by individuals who are Christian (these are three different legal categories) are in a murkier position when they come into conflict with the state's civil rights laws. Famously, Bob Jones University was allowed to continue to prohibit interracial dating through the end of the 20th century, though they had to give up their tax-exempt status to do it. (BJU changed their policy in 2000.) This may be the kind of thing we see going forward: being allowed to continue to operate, but having to give up federal funding or tax-exempt status. Still, that's not the same thing as having to be invisible, or having to disband large religious organizations.

I don't know how New Zealand law views all this.

I suspect given the current Supreme Court it is likely that religiously funded entities not actually supporting racism will get to obtain and retain tax exempt status. Particularly considering that Scientology is classified as tax exempt, which is remarkable and absurd.

 

[The Liturgist]

I suspect a time will come when the Church being a business with assets and employees will be no longer viable and will need to operate in a mode much more invisible.

Indeed, we have to be prepared in countries with hate speech laws which could be abused, or already have been abused, to effect the persecution of our clergy, for more severe persecution. In those cases there will likely be a need for something like the Catacomb Church in Russia and elsewhere in the former USSR, and before that, in Ancient Rome,

 

[Carl Emerson]

...and currently in China.

 

[The Liturgist]

...and currently in China.

Especially for Orthodox Christians. Unlike Catholics and Protestants, there is no state-sanctioned entity for them meaning that Eastern Christianity, particularly amajor Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East, which was once one of the major religions in China, Tibet and Mongolia before the genocide initiated by the monstrous Muslim war!ord Tamerlane.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

We are all aware of increasing persecution of Christians for expressing scriptural truth about homosexuality, trans-sexual mutilation, abortion, euthanasia and other issues which have been adopted by certain “progressive” governments, media and major corporations, for example, this incident involving QANTAS who I will definitely not be flying with on my upcoming trip to Australia, not that there are any really superior airlines (years ago, I remember Alaska Airlines would serve a prayer card with meals, I received one while flying First Class with them to Seattle in March of 2006, which was a lovely flight, on an MD-80, which in Alaska Airlines service had particularly nice interiors, and which I always enjoyed flying, but I would be surprised if they still do that, however, the conduct of QANTAS was particularly terrible in that case). Or in some cases simply for being Christian; there was recently a firestorm of hate launched on X formerly known as Twitter against a YouTube content creator known as Wendigoon simply because of his well-known Christian faith, in an effort to “cancel” him.

Qantas is a private company, and it can formulate policies as it pleases regarding who it will sponsor. That is, after all, part of the rights of private ownership. It would be wrong for our government to Legislate to attempt to force a private Airline to sponsor anybody who expresses views or opinions or intentions to act in ways that are contrary to the policies of the airline. It could be argued but probably unsuccessfully, that the airline, because it is providing a paid for service to the public, should make its sponsorships equally available to all persons, regardless of their stated views. But I do not believe any Australian government would be prepared to write and pass such legislation. In fact, I think it is impossible that such a law would pass the Australian Parliament. Given the remarks I've just made, I do not agree with the proposition that you put forward. But I do agree fully that you are free to withhold your fees and fares from Qantas if you wish to; by all means find another airline. Perhaps you will find one that would not take similar action to Qantas.

It is worth calling to mind that Qantas' action against Israel Falau was based not on his being a Christian, but on his anti-gay rights stance and anti-gay statements made in public. Qantas indicated that it did not wish to be associated with such views. And so, it said it would withdraw its sponsorship. I do not know if they actually did withdraw sponsorship. There was a court case between Israel Falau and the Rugby League, but I am not sure how Israel did in it.

PS: I do not see how withdrawal of sponsorship could constitute persecution by any stretch of the imagination. Sponsorships are financial arrangements voluntarily entered into They are not legislated requirements. They do not have legal repercussions. But there are financial repercussions, such as of loss of sponsorship if the sponsored person does something that the sponsor does not like.