SCOTUS Clears Way for Worship

On February 5th, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that California (CA) officials cannot bar churches from holding indoor services amid the COVID pandemic.  They issued orders siding with churches that had protested the state banning indoor services (but not agreeing to strike down prohibitions on singing and chanting during indoor services), and not blocking CA from imposing 25% capacity restrictions in areas deemed Tier 1 on a scale of virus transmission.

The case drew four different opinions from the nine person SCOTUS:

1. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “federal courts owe significant deference to politically accountable officials with the ‘background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.’”  “The state has concluded, for example, that singing indoors poses a heightened risk of transmitting COVID-19.  I see no basis in this record for overriding that aspect of the state public health framework,” he added.  “At the same time, the state’s present determination— that the maximum number of adherents who can safely worship in the most cavernous cathedral is zero— appears to reflect not expertise or discretion, but instead insufficient appreciation or consideration of the interests at stake.”

2. Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito said California “has openly imposed more stringent regulations on religious institutions than on many businesses” since the arrival of COVID-19.  While California forbade any kind of indoor worship in most of the state, it allowed most retail operations to have 25% occupancy indoors and other businesses 50% or more occupancy.  Justice Gorsuch added, “When a state so obviously targets religion for differential treatment, our job becomes that much clearer.”

3. Justice Amy Barrett, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, wrote in a concurring opinion that she largely agreed with Justice Gorsuch, but didn’t believe the court should block the prohibition on singing and chanting.  “The applicants bore the burden of establishing their entitlement to relief from the singing ban.  In my view, they did not carry that burden— at least not on this record.  As the case comes to us, it remains unclear whether the singing ban applies across the board (and thus constitutes a neutral and generally applicable law) or else favors certain sectors (and thus triggers more searching review),” she wrote.  “Of course, if a chorister can sing in a Hollywood studio but not in her church, California’s regulations cannot be viewed as neutral.  But the record is uncertain, and the decisions below unfortunately shed little light on the issue.”

4. The three Democrat-appointed justices banded together in a dissenting opinion led by Justice Elena Kagan, who said justices on the court “are not scientists” and don’t “know much about public health policy.”  “Yet today the court displaces the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic.  The court orders California to weaken its restrictions on public gatherings by making a special exception for worship services.  The majority does so even though the state’s policies treat worship just as favorably as secular activities (including political assemblies) that, according to medical evidence, pose the same risk of COVID transmission,” Kagan alleged.  “Under the court’s injunction, the state must instead treat worship services like secular activities that pose a much lesser danger.  That mandate defies our caselaw, exceeds our judicial role, and risks worsening the pandemic.”

The ruling dealt with cases from Harvest Rock Church and South Bay United Pentecostal Church— two churches that sought relief from CA Gov. Gavin Newsom’s harsh restrictions imposed through a tiered system.

In an emailed statement, Newsom’s press secretary Daniel Lopez told The Epoch Times: “The state of California has taken necessary steps throughout the pandemic to protect Californians from COVID-19 and prevent our health care system from being overwhelmed by the disease, particularly during the recent surge.  While the Supreme Court enjoined the state’s restriction on indoor worship services in counties where COVID-19 is widespread, the Court left in place public health measures imposed to protect worshippers, their families, and the communities in which they live.  We will continue to enforce the restrictions the Supreme Court left in place and, after reviewing the decision, and revise guidelines for worship services to continue to protect the lives of Californians.”!

To be clear: God has not granted civic rulers authority over the doctrine, practice, or polity of the Church.  It has never been the prerogative of civil government to order, modify, forbid, or mandate worship.  The worship of Christ’s Church is not subject to Caesar— rather, Caesar (himself) is subject to God.  Jesus affirmed that principle when He was brought before Pilate and told the Roman Governor: “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above.” (John 19:11)  And because Christ is Head of the Church, Ecclesiastical matters pertain to His Kingdom— not Caesar’s.  Jesus drew a stark distinction between those two kingdoms when He said: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Mark 12:17)  Our Lord (Himself) always rendered to Caesar what was Caesar’s— but He never offered to Caesar what belongs solely to God.  Accordingly, the honor that we rightly owe our earthly governmental authorities does not include compliance— when such officials attempt to subvert sound doctrine, corrupt Biblical morality, exercise Ecclesiastical authority, or usurp Christ as Head of the Church … in any other way.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

UN Effort to Create List of ‘LGBT Hate Groups’

Ryan Foley of Christian Post writes— A conservative group is warning that the United Nations (UN) is preparing to compile a list of “LGBT hate groups” that could be used as a “blacklist” to punish groups and organizations that subscribe to traditional beliefs about gender and sexuality.

According to the Center for Family and Human Rights (CFHR), “the UN rights office is collecting the names of anyone who opposes the LGBT agenda in any way.”  The report addresses the contents of a “call for input to a thematic report” on the topic of “gender, sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Issued by Victor Madrigal-Borloz (the UN’s independent expert on sexual orientation and gender identity), the call for input requests information on individual nation-states’ actions regarding issues of sexual orientation and gender identity in addition to asking for information about groups that oppose the idea that “the meanings attached to sex (and other) differences are socially created.”

In other words, Madrigal-Borloz is seeking information about which organizations within a particular country subscribe to the idea that there are only two genders.  He begins the call for input by noting that “many States have adopted gender as a key concept in laws and policies aimed at protecting women and LGBT persons against violence and discrimination.”

Madrigal-Borloz laments the fact that “within multilateral and regional organizations, among other fora, there are currently narratives that, under different lines of characterization (including the accusation of so-called ‘gender ideology’), seek to eliminate the gender framework from international human rights law instruments and processes, and national legislative and policy documents.”

The stated purpose of the impending report is to “document how these narratives are being used to fuel violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and their particular impact on sexual and reproductive rights.”  Madrigal-Borloz seeks responses from “States, regional and national human rights institutions, non-governmental organization, UN agencies, academic institutions, local governments and other relevant stakeholders.”

The first four questions he seeks answers to deal with (1) actions taken by individual states to establish definitions of gender, (2) establish policies “aiming to address violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,” (3) establish databases detailing forms of violence and discrimination against LGBT people, and (4) teach comprehensive sexuality education.

The remaining questions ask about narratives that exist surrounding gender and sexuality within specific countries.  These questions cause the CFHR particular concern.

“Are there examples where the concept of gender has been used in religious narratives or narratives of tradition, traditional values or protection of the family to hinder the adoption of legislative policy measures aimed at addressing or eradicating violence and discrimination based on sex, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity?” Madrigal-Borloz asks.

Additional questions ask about whether “‘gender ideology,’ ‘genderism’ or other gender-related concepts have been used to introduce retrogressive measures, in particular but not limited to LGBT communities,” and if there have been “initiatives taken by States in connection with the right to freedom of religion, belief or conscience (including the figure of conscientious objection) that have had the practical impact of limiting the enjoyment of human rights (including sexual and reproductive rights) of LGBT persons.”

“Who are main actors who argue that the defenders of human rights of LGBT individuals are furthering a so-called ‘gender ideology’?  What are their main arguments?  Have they been ineffective in regressing the human rights of LGBT individuals?  Have their strategies directly or indirectly also impacted on the human rights of women and girls?”

The CFHR warns that “the UN LGBT czar appears to be adopting the approach of the Southern Poverty Law Center, of creating a list of ‘hate groups.’”  The CFHR noted that Madrigal-Borloz had previously urged states to “take decisive action” against “representatives of churches and faith-based groups” that “infringe on the rights of LGBT persons” using “hate speech.”

Unfortunately, most churches and clergy will not make the list!  I better make the list— or I’ve not been faithful to the proclamation of God’s truth!

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

House Taking Up “Equality Act”

The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote this week on House Resolution 5 (H.R. 5)— the so-called “Equality Act.”  This will have disastrous consequences for women, children, and people of a Biblical worldview.  It mandates an anti-life, anti-family, and anti-faith agenda upon all Americans.

H.R. 5 adds the legally undefined “sexual orientation and gender identity” (SOGI) to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal non-discrimination laws.  The bill redefines “sex” to no longer mean the biological (and Biblical) “male or female.”  Instead, “sex” would include sex stereotypes, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

H.R. 5 brings the power of the federal government against those who believe the biological truth of God’s design, that “male and female He created them” (Genesis 5:2).  The bill labels Christian beliefs about marriage, sexuality, and family “discriminatory.”  It empowers the federal government to punish disagreement on these important issues.

This dangerous bill provides no religious exemptions.  In fact, it explicitly exempts the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as a defense for violations.

Similar SOGI laws have been passed in many states and local municipalities— so we already know some of the negative consequences as noted in this brief overview of some of the problems with the “Equality Act” according to Attorney Travis Weber— V.P. for Policy & Gov’t Affairs of the Family Research Council:

The Equality Act jeopardizes women’s privacy and safety.

The Equality Act’s expansion of the Title II “Public Accommodations” definition means that females would no longer have privacy in public bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, or even battered women’s shelters.  State and local laws to this effect are already causing fallout: A kindergartener was assaulted by a boy in her school bathroom.  A rape survivor was forced to quit her job when her employer began allowing men into women’s private facilities.  A man was allowed residence in a shelter, and nine women are suing because they were sexually harassed.

The Equality Act unfairly penalizes female athletes by allowing biological men to compete in women’s sports.

For example, biological boys won first and second place at a Connecticut girls’ high school indoor track championship.  As a result, two biological girls fell below the threshold to advance to the next meet— inhibiting their ability to be seen by college recruiters and obtain scholarships.  [Scholarships are sometimes the only avenue students have to pursue higher education, which could lead to better job opportunities and better pay.]

The Equality Act would undermine real civil rights gains women have made.

For example, the Small Business Administration Office of Women’s Business Ownership— whose mission is to “enable and empower women entrepreneurs through advocacy, outreach, education and support”— would have to give biological men who identify as women access to its programs.

The Equality Act would interfere with the medical profession.

It would force doctors and others who provide legitimate hormone treatments and surgical procedures for patients with certain physical conditions to offer those treatments for individuals with gender dysphoria.  Their moral or medical opinions about assisting individuals in physically altering their bodies would be disregarded.  Medicine would be politicized— despite science telling us these treatments are actually harmful.  A 2011 Swedish study, one of the most robust on the issue, found that post-surgery individuals had a suicide completion rate 19 times higher than the general population.  The risk of psychiatric hospitalization was 2.8 times higher even after adjustment for prior psychiatric disease.  Additionally, death by neoplasm (a benign or cancerous mass) and cardiovascular disease was 2 to 2.5 times higher.  There is also evidence that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones can cause cancer, heart disease, diabetes, blood clots, stroke, and more.  The Equality Act’s requirements would override a doctor’s concern about any of these points.

The Equality Act could erode parental rights.

When Ohio parents declined hormone treatment for their child, the Children’s Hospital of Cincinnati involved child protective services, and the parents were ultimately stripped of their parental rights.

The Equality Act would severely erode religious freedom.

The Equality Act expressly exempts itself from the RFRA— the flagship religious liberty law.

The Equality Act’s expansion of public accommodations could require churches and houses of worship to violate their beliefs regarding how they use their facilities.

Its changes to employment law would prohibit some houses of worship from ensuring their clergy and employees abide by their doctrines or beliefs about marriage, sexual behavior, and the distinction between the sexes.

Federal aid could be denied to students attending faith-based institutions— unless those institutions abandon policies and practices reflecting their sincerely held beliefs about marriage and sexuality.

The Equality Act would inhibit faith-based charities’ ability to operate.

Faith-based organizations and others play a vital role in the adoption and foster care system and generally receive funding under Title IV of the Social Security Act to help do their important work.  The Equality Act would force them to violate their beliefs or shut down, displacing children like the thousands left hanging in Illinois when Catholic Charities was shut down under a similar law.

The Equality Act could be the most pro-abortion legislation to pass the House in a decade.

Not only would this bill expand “public accommodations” to include health care providers, but it would add sex discrimination as a protected class.  It would then define prohibitions on “sex discrimination” to include preventing and treating “pregnancy … or a related medical condition” (which can include abortion) less favorably than other physical conditions.  This change would essentially create an abortion mandate.  In conjunction with the RFRA exemption and expansion of what constitutes a public accommodation, this also jeopardizes long-standing federal conscience laws that protect those opposed to abortion.  The Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding for abortion, would also be in jeopardy.

The Equality Act shamefully attempts to usurp the civil rights movement’s history and legacy.

In no way are one’s sexual conduct and inclinations equivalent to the innate characteristic of skin color.  Suggesting or implying as much diminishes the hard-fought gains of this movement.  Indeed, scientific evidence shows that “sexual orientation” is quite fluid and that “gender identity” is not fixed.  But if the Equality Act becomes law, its backers may use the courts to force its ideas into public school curricula around the country.  Indeed, the idea that these notions are equivalent to skin color is false, and failure to recognize this falsehood only harms all affected.

Listen: Now is the time to express your objection to H.R. 5 with your elected officials.  Contact them today to tell them not to cosponsor and not to support the Equality Act.  Let them know that a vote in favor of H.R. 5 does not represent your viewpoint.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

The Return

I feel the time has come for me to return to posting on my blog— Kingdom Builder … because of the evident need to enlighten God’s people with an understanding of the Biblical worldview.  I am fully aware that the strong opposition to ‘truth’ may well attempt to censor my words— in part or in full— as they have in the past.  Yet, I feel compelled to be “salt and light” amid the distasteful news and ever-increasing darkness within our culture.

Just as the Apostle Paul wrote to the Church at Philippi— “Whatever is true … think on such things.” (Philippians 4:8)— so I (as a Christian) will strive to speak the truth with the hope that you will “think on such things.”  But beyond your thinking, please share these postings as far-and-wide as you are capable.  Do not merely ‘keep the faith’— but ‘share it.’

Starting next week, I will return to posting on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.  My posts will reveal both personal thoughts and those of others … which I will endeavor to properly credit.

Until then, may God anoint and protect this proclamation of truth— to His honor and glory.  Amen.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel