(RNS) Conservative and liberal religious leaders may not agree on much, but both are expressing displeasure with the Boy Scouts’ proposal to accept gay members but reject gay leaders.

The Boy Scouts of America released its draft proposal April 19 that will be voted on at its annual meeting in May.

Frank Page“No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone,” reads the proposed resolution, which also notes that the Scouts “will maintain the current membership policy for all adult leaders of the Boy Scouts of America.”

Frank Page, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Executive Committee, told Baptist Press that he supports a “no” vote.

“Though this resolution is more acceptable to those who hold a biblical form of morality than what was being considered before, we would still prefer no change in the policy,” he said.

Scouting officials had earlier proposed dropping the gay ban for both adults and children, but then reconsidered after massive resistance from religious groups and conservatives.

The policy shift would leave intact the Scouts’ ban on atheists and other nonbelievers, who decline to say the Boy Scout Oath because it begins: “On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.”

The Rev. Peter Morales, president of the Unitarian Universalist Association, called the proposed resolution “a step in the right direction,” but criticized its decision on leadership.

“It is abhorrent to continue to discriminate against scout leaders,” he said.

Leaders of Scouting groups sponsored by religious organizations, including Mormons, United Methodists and Catholics, said their groups are mulling the Scout proposal.

According to the BSA, religious organizations comprise 70 percent of its sponsoring organizations. Mormons, Methodists and Catholics — the three largest groups — sponsored more than 1 million of the 2.6 million Scouts in 2011.

The Religious Relationships Task Force unanimously requested in February that the Scouts postpone a possible removal of the ban on gay members and leaders so they would have more time to consider it.

R. Chip Turner, national chairman of the task force, said his group did not have an official statement on the new proposal.

“As you might imagine, there’s a variety of opinions among our faith groups,” he said.

BOSTON (RNS)—In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings that left three dead and more than 260 injured, perhaps none face more significant adjustments or a longer road ahead than the 14 amputees who lost a limb.

For these victims, the path forward involves relearning almost everything, from getting out of bed to getting in a car. Whether they go on to lead satisfying lives depends largely on how they handle the spiritual challenges at hand, according to amputees and researchers.

Mike Norrell (bottom left) and Woody Thornton (bottom right) ski in a pyramid with Gloria Walker at the top. (RNS Photo by Holly Thornton) Losing a limb is like losing a family member: It involves grief and mourning, said Jack Richmond, a Chattanooga, Tenn., amputee who leads education efforts for the Manassas, Va.-based Amputee Coalition. When one’s body and abilities are radically changed, questions of meaning are suddenly urgent: Why did this happen? Why am I here?

“You’re wondering: Why did I live?” said Rose Bissonnette, an amputee and founder of the Lancaster, Mass.-based New England Amputee Association, a support organization for amputees.

Bissonnette works regularly with more than 150 amputees and finds a common pattern. Those who feel positively connected to God and to other people tend to do better in recovery than those who have “hardened” or grown bitter as a result of their injuries.

“You have to (let go of) the life you lived before and forgive for whatever happened to cause the amputation,” said Bissonnette, who was crushed by a tractor-trailer 16 years ago and lost a leg. “It’s tough. If they don’t have some kind of belief, they get hung up in the anger. I’ve noticed that quite a bit.”

Research on other disabilities reaches slightly different conclusions. People of strong faith are no more likely than nonbelievers to accept a neuromuscular disease, according to Jessica Evans, a psychotherapist who published her findings in the Journal of Christian Healing, published by the Association of Christian Therapists.

However, those who feel conflicted with a faith community or with God have notable difficulty coming to terms with their physical condition.

‘Why is this happening?’

“In stressful situations in particular, that’s when religion is found to be either a protective factor or (a framework for) struggle, in terms of questioning: ‘Why is this happening?’” Evans said.

Although amputees must navigate pressing spiritual challenges, they often don’t receive help in that area from amputee peers assigned to them. Bissonnette is currently finding peer mentors for each of the Boston bombing victims who lost limbs, but she says they won’t discuss religion or spirituality since belief systems vary widely from person to person.

Victims who have suffered major health setbacks often find support in a congregation and see their faiths strengthened in ways that help their recoveries, according to Kenneth Pargament, a psychologist who studies religious coping at Bowling Green State University.

Disappointments

Even so, faith communities sometimes disappoint people who have new needs for support, he said. That can be detrimental for health outcomes, he added, especially in those already facing spiritual struggles.

“The disappointment that people have when they feel their religious community isn’t there for them can be extraordinarily painful and lead to cutoffs and breaks with religious communities,” Pargament said. “It’s important for religious communities to mobilize themselves and be there for people who’ve been through these trying circumstances.”

The challenge of finding new meaning in life is a familiar one, advocates say, for America’s 2 million amputees, including 900,000 who’ve lost limbs in traumatic incidents. For some, the process involves renewing faith commitments and discovering a new mission uniquely suited to the disability.

Tom Davis’ story

That’s what happened for Tom Davis, an Iraq War veteran who lost his leg when an improvised explosive device went off during a night patrol. For two years, he was unable to move forward, he said, as the burdens of war—including guilt and post-traumatic stress—held him back.

He found peace, he insists, when he gave his life to Jesus Christ in 2008. He sees his mission as inspiring others to find Christ, too.

Now Davis is using his platform as this year’s Boston Marathon winner in the hand cycling division to urge new amputees to make peace with God sooner rather than later.

“There are people that deal with (an injury) and move on and accept it, and there are people that don’t and are miserable,” Davis said. “I would say to (new amputees), ‘Put your faith in Christ, and let him heal you.’”

The Boston victims

Boston bomb victims remain in area hospitals and rehabilitation facilities. They include a 10-year-old boy, a preschool teacher, the father of a 5-year-old and a woman whose husband was also badly injured.

Most are apt to need psychiatric as well as physical therapy, but their prospects for leading full and productive lives are good, according to Peter Burke, chief of trauma services at Boston Medical Center, where five bomb victims had limbs amputated.

As they settle into changed lives, they’ll find other amputees eager to help them accept new realities and learn to thrive. When that involves wrestling with spiritual questions, they’ll find help in specialized ministries led by people like 44-year-old Woody Thornton, who lost his lower legs when a train ran over him in 1989.

“For 15 years as an amputee, I was coping and getting along, but there wasn’t a good answer to ‘Why?’… until I started up a support group,” said Thornton, founder and president of the Auburn, Ala.-based Christian Amputee Support Team. “I want to give (amputees) a sense of purpose.”

ORLANDO, Fla. (RNS)—For Southern Baptist Pastor David Uth, immigration reform became a priority after a family in his Orlando, Fla., megachurch faced deportation.

Ricardo McClin insisted it was time to speak up when members of a Church of God congregation he oversaw as bishop stopped worshipping in Jacksonville, Fla., because they feared detention.

As Congress appears close to hammering out new immigration policy, religious leaders—especially evangelicals—say personal encounters with the current system have prompted them to advocate for reform.

“We’ve sensed in our church this growing understanding that immigration has a face,” said Uth, pastor of First Baptist in Orlando. “It has a name. It has a story.”

A recent poll shows white evangelicals are less supportive—at 56 percent—than other religious groups of allowing immigrants living in the United States illegally to become citizens. But leaders say there’s been a sea change in the last couple of years as they hear about church members being detained or deported and the effects of those measures on their families.

The Evangelical Immigration Table has mounted a six-figure campaign that includes Christian radio ads, distribution of more than 100,000 bookmarks urging congregants and members of Congress to read Bible passages about “welcoming the stranger.” The group also planned a recent lobbying day in Washington.

Ricardo McClinMcClin, a former district supervisor for the Tennessee-based Church of God, said a predominantly immigrant church in Jacksonville shut down after going through ups and downs in attendance by fearful worshippers.

“One Sunday, there’s a service—we had 80, 100 people,” he recalled. “And the following Sunday, there would be nobody.”

“I can’t pretend that everything is going to be OK because of faith,” said McClin, now a pastor in Kissimmee, Fla. “Faith has to be put to work.”

Samuel Rodriguez, a longtime advocate for immigration reform, said personal experiences have driven many non-Hispanic clergy “off the fence.”

“This is now a Christian issue,” said Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. “It’s not a political issue. It became a Road to Damascus moment.”

In January a broad network of churches—including mainline Protestant, historically black, Orthodox, Catholic, evangelical and Pentecostal leaders—issued a statement calling on Congress and the president to improve the laws.

“Each day in our congregations and communities, we bear witness to the effects of a system that continues the separation of families and the exploitation, abuse and deaths of migrants,” Christian Churches Together in the USA declared.

Jim WallisJim Wallis, the evangelical founder of the anti-poverty group Sojourners, said some Christians have seen a passage from the Gospel of Matthew in a new light. It includes the verse that reads: “I was a stranger, and you welcomed me.” A “biblical conversion” is occurring, along with a relational one, he insisted.

“When you worship with people, you get to know them, and you get to know their lives and their families and their kids, and so stereotypes go away,” said Wallis, author of the new book, On God’s Side: What Religion Forgets and Politics Hasn’t Learned About Serving the Common Good. “And you understand who they are, and that changes you.”

Evangelical leaders hope to use newfound support to galvanize Congress. Scores of pastors are meeting with legislators in their home districts and in Washington, urging them to take the “I Was A Stranger” challenge and study related Bible verses for 40 days.

Samuel RodriguezRecently, Rep. Randy Hultgren, R-Ill., met with evangelical leaders at an Aurora, Ill., church. Huntgren, who attends an evangelical church, committed to read the several Scripture passages and took extra bookmarks to share with members of his congressional Bible study group in Washington, according to his spokesman, Josh Wessell.

The congressman’s primary focus has been border security, but he is in an “information-gathering phase,” Wessell said.

“He’s seeking input from folks, particularly leaders in the faith community, on how to successfully balance federal immigration policy with his faith and biblical principles,” Wessell said.

Beyond the biblical focus, some evangelical leaders are addressing immigration reform for strategic reasons.

While some predominantly white evangelical congregations may not have any immigrants in their pews, denominational leaders are aware immigrants are contributing to the growth of their churches, said Matthew Soerens, U.S. church training specialist for World Relief, a founding member of the Evangelical Immigration Table.

“If you’re in a denominational office, you know that,” he said. “And you don’t want to see the part of your church that is growing deported.”

BOSTON (BP)—In the aftermath of two bombs that exploded near the finish line of the iconic Boston Marathon, pastors and other leaders urged people to pray for Boston as the city grapples with questions that arise from tragedy.

Three people were killed and more than 170 were injured, including at least 17 still in critical condition, according to The Boston Globe. Metal fragments led investigators to believe the bombs were loaded with pellets or nails intended to harm as many people as possible, the newspaper said.

(BP Photo)“I would say first of all to just pray for Boston. This was a huge shock,” said Jim Wideman, executive director of the Baptist Convention of New England. “Patriot’s Day is a state holiday and a day that the Boston Marathon is always run. It’s an exciting day for Boston. Up here, this far north, it really marks the beginning of spring for us.

“So, it’s a day that everybody looks forward to, and this action was calculated, I believe, to cause as much confusion as possible. It has left the city in shock.”

Amid that shock, a group of young adults from Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano made themselves available to talk with and pray for passersby on the streets near the site of the bombings.

The group had been in town since April 11, working with Hope Fellowship Church, a Southern Baptist congregation about three miles away in Cambridge.

On April 15, the Prestonwood mission team handed out gum and invitations to Hope Fellowship to people watching the marathon.

“Some of our people actually walked down toward the finish line,” Josh Steckel of Prestonwood Baptist said.

About 2:30 p.m., less than half an hour before the blasts went off, the group started heading back to the church.

“Some people said they heard something that sounded like gunshots,” Steckel said. “We were away from the city when it happened, on our way back from the marathon already.”

That night, Hope Fellowship opened its doors for people to stop in and pray. Although residents of Boston were encouraged to stay home following what is being investigated as a terrorist attack, a few people from the neighborhood who aren’t normally part of the church showed up to pray and to be prayed for, Pastor Curtis Cook said.

“We will have a special service … as a time to pray, read Scriptures, sing and have a chance for others in the neighborhood who might want to come in as well,” Cook said.

Steckel’s team from Prestonwood was back out on the streets the day after the bombings, handing out granola bars, this time with signs on their bags that said: “Need prayer? We are available.” That simple invitation afforded several opportunities to pray with people and share the hope of Jesus, Steckel said.

They also secured cases of water and gave them to police and National Guardsmen stationed near the blocked-off crime scene.

“Tell people to pray boldly in Jesus’ name that the gospel-centered church planters and pastors here would have more opportunities to share the gospel and love on the people of Boston,” Steckel said. “Also pray for healing, that God would use this for revival and for his glory.”

Steve Brown, a bivocational church planter who moved to Boston last summer with his wife and two children, was anticipating opportunities to speak with his coworkers at The Container Store as he drove to work the morning after the bombing.

“The people that we’re close with, our friends and the people I work with for sure, they know that we’re Christians, and when things like this happen, it just creates a lot of questions in people’s minds, whether they are up front in talking about it or not,” Brown said.

Brown asked God to give him opportunities to share the hope and comfort of Christ with people in the midst of those questions.

“I think it makes people think about their worldview, whether they realize it or not. People think about why these things happen and where such evil comes from and where does God fit into this,” Brown said.

When tragedy struck in Newtown, Conn., in December, Brown talked with coworkers about how to process and respond to evil events in the world. He hopes to build on those conversations now, leading people to place their faith in Jesus.

Josh Wyatt, pastor of Charles River Church in Boston, landed at Boston’s Logan Airport just half an hour after the bombings and expected his wife and three children to be at the finish line to support one of their friends who was running. He was going to meet them there.

“By God’s grace, at a church marathon party that morning, church members talked my wife out of going because the crowds would be too challenging to navigate by herself with three young kids. Instead, she picked me up at the airport, we prayed with our children and began supporting victims and their loved ones and hurting Boston residents,” Wyatt said.

Wyatt used texting and social media to check on the safety of church members and to issue a call to prayer for Boston.

“We’re asking those outside to join us in prayer for the church in Boston, that we would unite to love our city well. Pray also that our city would experience the hope of Jesus,” Wyatt said. “For those who trust in him, ‘He will wipe away every tear from their eyes and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.’”

Wideman noted the Baptist Convention of New England reached out to crisis incident management officials and to others who would need trained chaplains and pastors to step in and help people process the bombings.

“We are always looking for ways to build bridges to people who may not know Christ, and we’re hoping that we have an opportunity here as well,” Wideman said. “It’s brought up a lot of questions, and I know that our church planters and our pastors and lay people will have the opportunity to visit with neighbors and with friends.

“We just want to be sensitive when the opportunity arises to speak a word of hope because of Jesus into the lives of people who have been affected. We ask Southern Baptists to pray that we have those opportunities.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—In nearly two hours of arguments, the Supreme Court heard many of the expected cases for and against recognizing same-sex marriage: Refusing to do so is blatant discrimination. Gay marriage is a social experiment that the court should not pre-empt. Washington has no role in state marriage laws.

Edie Windsor speaks outside the U.S. Supreme Court after oral arguments in her challenge to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. (RNS photo by Kevin Eckstrom)Yet arcane arguments over matters of legal standing seemed to animate the justices most, reflecting what seemed to be a desire to find a way for the court to sidestep a definitive up-or-down ruling on one of the most divisive social issues.

In short, the court—particularly its conservative majority—seemed to ask why they should hear a second gay marriage case in as many days, particularly one in which the government supports the lower court’s ruling. And the answer to that question will go a long way toward determining the outcome of a spirited national debate.

It’s not an insignificant question. The high court in recent years, especially under Chief Justice John Roberts, has used questions of legal standing to bypass definitive rulings on a number of hot-button issues, particularly church-state disputes.

Three options face the court in United States v. Windsor, a challenge to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage at the federal level as between a man and a woman:

• Uphold DOMA as constitutional.

• Strike down the law.

• Bypass the debate by saying it lacks jurisdiction, based on the unusual path by which DOMA arrived at the high court.

That third option seemed to both intrigue and flummox the justices, who grappled with the Obama administration’s decision to stop defending DOMA in federal courts. A bipartisan legal advisory group appointed by the House GOP leaders stepped in to defend the law when the Obama White House stepped out.

The Obama administration has agreed with federal court rulings against DOMA, even as it is charged with supporting and enforcing it. Normally, the White House could only punt the case to the Supreme Court by appealing the case against DOMA. Instead, it agreed it is unconstitutional and asked the high court for a final say.

Supports of gay marriage rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court as justices heard a challenge to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. (RNS photo by Kevin Eckstrom).And that’s where the justices got uncomfortable—as if they had just been tasked with caring for someone else’s baby.

When and how does the executive branch get to decide which laws to support and which to ignore, Roberts asked. If Obama doesn’t support DOMA, he said, he should at least have “the courage of his convictions” and fight it through the proper legal channels or seek its repeal in Congress.

Justice Antonin Scalia peppered the government’s lawyer, Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan, on why the justices are considering a case when the government agrees with the ruling. He expressed dismay at this “new world” where the attorney general seems to be able to pick and choose which laws to enforce.

Justice Kennedy the swing vote

The court’s decisive swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has written powerful opinions in favor of gay rights before, nonetheless said he found it “very troubling” how the case arrived at his doorstep.

The court’s liberal wing, meanwhile, had its own questions about whether House Republicans have legal standing to defend the law. “From where do they derive the right, the statutory right, to take on the power of representing the House in items outside of the House?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wanted to know, calling it “sort of unheard of.”

Kennedy, too, had questions. Why did the House—and not the Senate—get to defend DOMA?

If the justices decide they have grounds to decide the case, they will be have to decide the degree of legal scrutiny to give DOMA. If a law fails to advance a government interest on a “rational basis,” opponents argue, it must be struck down. And if a law targets a minority—in this case, gays and lesbians—it must face an even higher level of judicial scrutiny.

Paul Clement, arguing for DOMA on behalf of congressional Republicans, said Congress was interested only in clarifying the federal definition of marriage as states began debates over gay marriage. The idea, he said, was to “stick with what we’ve always had” so there would be no confusion.

Deferring to states vs. uniformity

In essence, he said, early efforts to allow gay marriage in the mid-1990s “forced Congress to choose between its historic practice of deferring to the states (on marriage law) and its historic practice of preferring uniformity.” Nothing more, nothing less.

But the practical result, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, was two kinds of marriage—full marriage for some, and a less satisfying “sort of skim milk” marriage for others. The day-to-day results of a “skim milk” marriage, she said, were “pervasive” when it comes to hospital visitation, inheritance and Social Security benefits.

Justice Elena Kagan pounced, in one of the most dramatic exchanges of the day, pointing to a House report that accompanied DOMA’s passage that said: “‘Congress decided to reflect and honor a collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.’ Is that what happened in 1996?”

Clement appeared caught off guard as the packed courtroom gasped. “Does the House report say that? Of course, the House report says that,” Clement conceded. “And if that’s enough to invalidate the statute, then you should invalidate the statute.”

At the same time, Roberts seemed to doubt gays and lesbians are a targeted political class deserving of greater protection. Politicians have been “falling all over themselves” to support marriage equality, he noted, and conveyed his dim view of the idea that the 84 senators who voted for DOMA in 1996 were motivated by “animus.”

Appearing to speak directly to Roberts and his desire to find a way around an up-or-down decision on gay marriage, Clement said this was a question for voters and lawmakers, not the court.

“You have to persuade somebody you’re right. You don’t label them a bigot. You don’t label them as motivated by animus,” he said. “You persuade them you are right. That’s going on across the country.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe legalized same-sex marriage in the U.S. is inevitable, according to a study by LifeWay Research, a Nashville polling firm with ties to the Southern Baptist Convention.

But for some respondents, inevitability doesn’t equal approval.

According to the findings, 64 percent of American adults believe same-sex marriage will become legal, whether or not they believe in it.

“We’re kind of in a national conversation about not just the issue of marriage and homosexuality, but really how our culture responds both to shifting views on the issue and views that aren’t shifting,” said Ed Stetzer, the president of LifeWay Research.

According to a poll from last November, by the Pew Forum of Religion & Public Life, 48 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage, up from 35 percent in 2001. A Gallup poll last December showed that 53 percent of Americans support gay marriage.

Christians, however, are split on their support of gay marriage. Only 19 percent of white evangelical Protestants favor gay marriage, according to the Pew poll; Catholics are the most in favor of same-sex marriage among Christian groups, at 54 percent.

Fred Sainz, vice president of communications for the Human Rights Campaign, said gay marriage is no longer a question of if, but when. “These are no longer assertions, they’re verifiable conclusions,” Sainz said.

But not everyone agrees that same-sex marriage is a sure thing.

Ryan Anderson, a fellow of the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that not everyone understands the issue, which means they can’t be certain.

“There hasn’t been effective articulation for the case, for traditional marriage. We’re just now having a national conversation of what marriage is,” Anderson said. “No one knows what the consequences of redefining it are.”

Nine states and the District of Columbia have already legalized gay marriage, and the Illinois Senate recently passed a bill to do the same. In addition, 11 other states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships.

The LifeWay poll also found that a majority — 58 percent — of respondents believe gay marriage is a civil rights issue.

The survey asked people whether various individuals or companies should be able to refuse services to same-sex couples. Sixty-three percent said clergy should be allowed to say no, and 58 percent said the same for photographers. Minorities of Americans believe that rental companies (40 percent), landlords (20 percent) or employers (14 percent) should be allowed to discriminate against gay couples.

There are currently no federal laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, 21 states and the District of Columbia have laws that prohibit employment and housing discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The issue of same-sex marriage will come to a head later this month, when the Supreme Court hears arguments against California’s Proposition 8 that banned gay marriage and the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay marriages.

The LifeWay poll of 1,191 U.S. adults has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points.

The White House announced March 13 that Melissa Rogers, a Baptist church-state specialist who formerly worked at the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, will serve as special assistant to the president and director of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

“I’m honored to be able to serve President Obama by forging and promoting a wide range of effective partnerships with faith-based and secular nonprofits that help people in need,” Rogers said Wednesday morning.

Rogers, director of the Wake Forest University School of Divinity Center for Religion and Public Affairs and a non-resident senior fellow within the Governance Program of The Brookings Institution, previously served as inaugural chair of President Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

A graduate of Baylor University, Rogers earned her law degree from the University of Pennsylvania. Before coming to Wake Forest she was general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee and executive director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Co-author of a 2008 casebook titled Religious Freedom and the Supreme Court, Rogers is frequently quoted by media as a leading expert in church-state relations. Associated Baptist Press honored her in 2011 with its 13th Religious Freedom Award, established in 1994 to honor individuals who advance the principles and practice of religious freedom.

Rogers succeeds Joshua DuBois, a Pentecostal minister and one of President Obama’s longest-serving aides, who resigned Feb. 8.

ORLANDO, Fla. (RNS)—The animated figure on the computer screen moves carefully among the wounded, darting from one fallen figure to another. Trailing the combat medics, the uniformed military chaplain kneels and performs “spiritual triage,” assessing who is dead, who is soon to die and who is likely to survive.

For the dead, there is silent prayer; for the gravely wounded and those in pain, there are words of comfort. Checking dog tags to determine the faith of the fallen, the pastor uses language consistent with each faith tradition. At each point in the action, a prompt asks users what they think is the appropriate response and then offers feedback on their choices.

Veterans say nothing short of the real thing prepares someone for serving under fire, but a computer simulation company in Orlando, Fla., has received a $100,000 development contract by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory’s simulation-technology center to develop a program designed to help prospective military chaplains.

Chaplain Jeff Zust, an Army lieutenant colonel and an EMT, was deployed for 15 months in Iraq. (RNS photo courtesy Jeff Zust).A prototype, to include a variety of battlefield scenarios and vignettes, is expected to be delivered to the Army by the middle of this year, according to officials at the lab. If accepted by the Department of Defense, it is likely to become part of the curriculum at the chaplain training school at Fort Jackson in Columbia, S.C.

In harm’s way

The computer-simulation program is designed primarily for those who will serve in harm’s way in Afghanistan through the promised U.S. pullout in 2014, as well as in future conflicts. However, developers say the simulation will remain relevant for any terrorist attack or natural disaster involving mass casualties.

Chaplain Jeff Zust, an Army lieutenant colonel and an EMT, was deployed 15 months in Iraq. Based on that experience, he later served on a team of chaplains, enlisted chaplain’s assistants, and technology and training specialists tasked with adapting existing medic triage simulators for chaplains serving in forward operating bases and forward aid stations.

“In combat, unit ministry teams need to know how to respond to physical, mental, emotional and spiritual trauma,” said Zust, 54, a minister in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. “This ability comes with experience. However, it raised the question: Can’t some of these skills be trained in a simulation environment when the stakes are not so high?”

Serious game

By simply changing the uniform on a previously developed medic training simulation, Engineering & Computer Simulations Inc. is working on adapting the program for chaplains. The “serious-game” software will be designed to assist chaplains in navigating a “virtual battlefield” so they can decide how best to minister to those in need, some in the last moments of life.

As a first step, checking the dog tags of the fallen is important, said Zust, who is the training and operations chaplain for First Army at the Rock Island Arsenal in Illinois, because “religious support in trauma begins with honoring the preferences of the soldier.”

Zust has high hopes for the computer program, but acknowledges its limitations.

“We shouldn’t confuse simulation trainers as replacements for chaplains or care providers,” he said. “Trauma care and counseling need to be provided in person. There is no substitute for human contact in training.”

Realistic situations

Navy Chaplain Josh Sherwin, 31, a rabbi who has deployed three times to Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan’s Helmand Province, agrees.

“There is no way a classroom environment can prepare you,” he said. “But a simulation that puts you through realistic situations can be highly valuable.”

Serving in two brutal wars, both without defined battle lines and plagued by sudden, explosive acts of violence, it is no surprise some who are called to minister to those under fire are suffering from physical wounds, profound doubts and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Years after returning from Iraq, Roger Benimoff of Grand Prairie wrote in Guideposts magazine that he still suffered from PTSD. Serving in combat zones, for two tours, the Baptist pastor admitted to questioning where God was.

“Was he at work when men in my regiment were blown apart by roadside bombs? Killed by a grenade—while guarding a hospital?”

In addition to the computer simulation program under development in Orlando, other tools are available for military chaplains who may be required to serve in combat.

Chaplains under fire

A 2010 documentary, “Chaplains Under Fire,” examines the roles of military clergy in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the complexities inherent in their service. The film shows chaplains visiting with soldiers in forward operating bases, watching over them in field hospitals, and meeting their flag-draped coffins when they are returned to the United States.

“It’s exhilarating to be in combat,” says Chaplain Bennett Sandford in the film, after escaping an improvised explosive attack unscathed. But before long, after praying over a slain Marine, the Baptist minister says, “the exhilaration went away.”

CLARKSVILLE, Tenn. (RNS)—Walter Slonopas insists he quit his job in order to save his soul.

Slonopas, 52, resigned as a maintenance worker at Contech Casting LLC in Clarksville after his W-2 tax form was stamped with the number 666.

Walter Slonopas resigned as a maintenance worker at his company in Clarksville, Tenn., after his W-2 tax form was stamped with the number 666.The New Testament book of Revelation calls 666 the “mark of the beast,” and some Christians associate it with the Antichrist in End Times prophecy. Slonopas said after getting the W-2, he could either go to work or go to hell.

“If you accept that number, you sell your soul to the devil,” he said.

Bob LaCourciere, vice president of sales and marketing for Revstone Corp., which owns Contech Casting, said that Slonopas’ W-2 was labeled with 666 by the company that handles Contech’s payroll. It refers to the order in which the forms were mailed out, he said.

This isn’t the first time the satanic number has caused Slonopas trouble at work.

During his first day on the job in April 2011, Slonopas was supposed to be assigned the number 668 to use when he clocked in. But the human resources department gave him the wrong number—666— instead.

Slonopas, who said he became a born-again Christian about 10 years ago, complained and was given a new number.

Trailed by an evil number

In July 2011, the company changed time clock systems, and once again Slonopas got 666. This time he quit. The company apologized, and he returned to work a few days later.

This latest incident with the W-2 baffled company spokesman LaCourciere. He could not believe it had happened again.

“I am completely at a loss for words,” he said.

The number 666 first appears in Revelation 13, which describes a satanic figure called the beast—identified by some Christians as the Antichrist—who takes over the world and stamps everyone with a mark bearing the number 666. According to Revelation, no one will be able to buy or sell anything without that number stamped on them.

Taking Revelation seriously

That’s caused people to fear any time that number pops up, said Jay Phelan, senior professor of theological studies at North Park University in Chicago. “It’s seen as a very dangerous number,” he said.

For believers such as Slonopas, who take the book of Revelation literally, any tie to 666 is a betrayal of their faith. Phelan said he understands why Slonopas quit.

“It’s a desire to be loyal to his faith and to not be identified with the Antichrist,” he said. “The company ought to find a way to cut him some slack.”

Amy-Jill Levine, professor of New Testament and Jewish studies at Vanderbilt University Divinity School, said the writer of Revelation was using a technique called “gematria”—in which letters have numerical values—to refer to a Roman emperor as the beast.

Over the past 2,000 years, readers of Revelation have tried to use 666 to figure out who the Antichrist is, she noted. Among the candidates were political figures such as Hitler, Ronald Reagan, and Barack Obama and corporations such as Procter & Gamble and IBM.

The number has caused problems for at least one other worker in the past. In 2011, a factory worker from Georgia named Billy Hyatt sued his former employer after he was fired for refusing to wear a sticker with 666 on it. The sticker referred to the number of accident-free days he’d had on the job.

Just wants a new number

Slonopas, though, said he has no interest in suing anyone. All he wants is for his former employer to give him a new W-2 without a satanic number on it. Otherwise, he said, he can’t file his taxes.

He shakes his head when asked if he’d go back to work for Contech, even if the company gives him a new W-2. That would send the message that he sold out his faith for money.

“God is worth more than money,” he said.

LaCourciere said the firm planned to mail out a new W-2, in a plain envelope. The company also wants to rehire him.

“We’d love to have him back,” he said.

(RNS) The decision by Boy Scouts of America to postpone any change in policy about gay membership was fueled by an “outpouring of feedback.” Much of that reaction came from a sector with strength in numbers: the religious groups that comprise the majority of the Scouts’ chartered organizations.

On Feb. 4, two days before the BSA’s announcement, the Religious Relationships Task Force met for a regularly scheduled meeting with an unexpected topic on its agenda: a possible drop of the Scouts’ ban on gay members and leaders.

Larry Coppock, the United Methodist Church’s national director of Scouting ministries. (RNS photo courtesy United Methodist Church’s General Commission on United Methodist Men.)

Larry Coppock, the United Methodist Church’s national director of Scouting ministries, said the group — including Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist representatives — unanimously requested that Scouting executives give them more time to consider the possibility.

“There’s a lot of passion around this,” he said. “There’s a lot of differences of opinion.’’

They got what they asked for, Coppock said Wednesday, though he couldn’t say how much influence their particular petition made. John Halloran, chairman of the National Catholic Committee on Scouting, said he believed the task force’s action was “a contributing factor.”

There is simply no denying the influence of religion in the Boy Scouts, a group that includes “my duty to God’’ in its oath. According to the BSA, religious organizations comprise 70 percent of its sponsoring organizations. Mormons, United Methodists and Catholics — the three largest groups — sponsored more than 1 million of the current 2.6 million Scouts in 2011.

As in other denominations, Mormon officials are “following this proposed policy change very closely. We believe the BSA has acted wisely in delaying its decision until all voices can be heard on this important moral issue,” said Michael Purdy, a spokesman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Beyond specific denominations, religious liberty advocates and conservative Christian supporters of traditional families voiced concern about the Scouts’ proposed policy change.

“The legal and religious liberty implications of a bad decision would have been huge,” said Kelly Shackelford, president of Liberty Institute, which sent a letter from conservative legal groups to the BSA warning that the absence of a national ban on gays could result in “crippling” lawsuits against local groups that retain a ban. “We are hopeful the Board will make a good decision protecting this great organization.”

More than 40 conservative organizations took out an ad in USA Today urging the BSA to “stand firm for timeless values.”

Jonathan Saenz (center), president of Texas Values, spoke to hundreds of people outside the BSA headquarters in Irving on Feb. 6. (RNS photo courtesy Texas Values)

One of those groups, Texas Values, rallied with hundreds of people outside the BSA headquarters in Irving on Wednesday just as the postponement decision was announced.

“There’s no doubt that the faith communities that have gotten involved in this issue have made a difference,” said Jonathan Saenz, president of Texas Values. “We’re very encouraged to see so many people of religious faith step up and be leaders and do what’s right.”

But not all religious leaders — on both sides of the debate — are satisfied with the postponement.

“It is not enough that they postpone a decision,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Washington-based Family Research Council, which also signed onto the USA Today ad. “Instead, the BSA board should publicly re-affirm their current standards, as they did just last July.’’

The Rev. Susan Russell, a gay rights activist and a priest at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, Calif., said the Episcopal Church has been calling on the BSA to be open to gay members and leaders since 2000.

“And now the Boy Scouts ‘need more time’ to send the message to young gay American kids that they are just as loved, valued and important as their straight friends and neighbors?” she asked. “The time is now to end discrimination against our kids.”

The Rev. Mike Schuenemeyer, the United Church of Christ’s executive minister for gay and lesbian concerns, expressed a similar reaction to the BSA delay.

“Their decision today is a failure of leadership to do what is right,” said Schuenemeyer, whose denomination called for a policy change in 2003. “It is time for the Boy Scouts to change their policy.”

Some denominations have alternative programs for boys. The Southern Baptist Convention, which was already retooling its own Royal Ambassadors program when the Scouts’ policy was first floated, wants the Scouts to stick with its current policy.

“We’re pleased that apparently it’s not going to be left in the hands of a few powerful corporate board members but rather they’re going to allow all of the charter organizations to have a vote,” said Roger Oldham, a spokesman for the SBC Executive Committee.

Alvin Townley, an independent national Scouting advocate, said there’s no question that the diverse opinions of faith groups will weigh heavily on the deliberations of Scouting’s leadership.

“Certainly Scouting wants to honor the opinions of our religious charter partners — who actually ‘own’ Scout units — and as you can imagine, those churches, synagogues, and mosques have widely differing views on where Scouting should go,” said Townley, author of Legacy of Honor: The Values and Influence of America’s Eagle Scouts.

“Everyone wants to ensure we make this decision carefully, in consultation with our members and partners.”

WASHINGTON (ABP)—The Obama administration has proposed a broader opt-out for religious organizations that object to mandated coverage of contraceptives in employee health care plans, an effort to alleviate religious-liberty concerns behind a number of lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

New rules, subject to an open-comment period through April 8, would allow nonprofit religious employers like faith-based hospitals and universities to opt out of the contraceptive mandate as a matter of conscience. Their employees would instead receive a stand-alone private insurance policy to provide contraceptive coverage at no cost.

Brent Walker

The new guidelines would apply only to religious nonprofits and not include for-profit businesses like Hobby Lobby that are subject to federal anti-discrimination laws that don’t apply equally to religious organizations.

“Today, the administration is taking the next step in providing women across the nation with coverage of recommended preventive care at no cost, while respecting religious concerns,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “We will continue to work with faith-based organizations, women’s organizations, insurers and others to achieve these goals.”

While emphasizing he had not yet read the full 80 pages of new guidelines, Brent Walker of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty reacted with a favorable first impression.

“The proposed rules signal an ongoing effort by the administration to provide for the preventive health care needs of women employees while seeking to honor the conscience objections of religious employers and their affiliates,” Walker said. “The proposed rules laudably clarify and simplify the definition of religious organizations and affiliated nonprofits and seek to provide an acceptable alternative for self-insured employers.”

Impact on nonprofits

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty said the new proposals do nothing to protect the rights of family businesses like Hobby Lobby, who also find some of the covered birth-control methods immoral and oppose them on religious grounds. The group said it continues to study the proposal’s impact on lawsuits it is handling for nonprofit religious organizations like East Texas Baptist University and Houston Baptist University.

Catholic schools like Ava Maria University and Belmont Abbey College have filed lawsuits because artificial birth control goes against teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Baptist schools including Louisiana College, meanwhile, don’t oppose contraceptives outright but believe some of the FDA-approved birth-control methods take effect after fertilization, making them in fact a form of abortion, which the Southern Baptist Convention opposes.

The White House has said from the beginning the administration is sensitive to religious-liberty concerns of employers but committed to coverage for preventive care that includes contraceptive coverage with no co-pays as a matter of women’s health.

“We need a both/and solution to these important policy issues,” Walker said. “Women’s health care is promoted; religious liberty is protected.”

Self-insured groups

The administration said it still is working out how to handle self-insured group health plans like those offered by the Southern Baptist Convention’s GuideStone Financial Resources, so that workers receive contraceptive coverage at no cost but eligible organizations don’t have to contract, arrange, pay or refer for such coverage.

The proposal amends rules issued in 2011 that for purposes of exemption defined a religious employer as one that has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose, primarily employs people who share its religious tenets, primarily serves people who share its religious tenets and is a church or an integrated auxiliary, convention or association of churches.

After receiving more than 200,000 comments both for and against, the administration adjusted the criteria to ensure an otherwise exempt employer plan is not disqualified because the employer’s purposes extend beyond the inculcation of religious values, or because the employer serves or hires people of different religious faiths, and to accommodate religious institutions of higher education with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate.

WASHINGTON (ABP)—Georgia’s law banning carrying guns in churches will remain on the books after the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to revive the case of a Baptist minister who claimed it burdens his free exercise of religion.

In addition to a Second Amendment claim, Jonathan Wilkins, pastor of Baptist Tabernacle in Thomaston, Ga., argued the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause prohibits states from banning activities in churches when such activities generally are permitted elsewhere in the state.

By declining to review the case, the Supreme Court upheld a ruling last July by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the First Amendment protects only “sincerely held religious belief” and not “personal preference and secular beliefs.”

Wilkins filed a complaint in 2010 after Georgia law was changed to ban firearms in certain places, including houses of worship, without the owner’s permission. Wilkins, who is licensed to carry a weapon, said he often worked alone in the church building after hours and would like to have church members armed for protection of members attending worship and other events.

“The handgun is the quintessential self-defense weapon in the United States,” the lawsuit stated, citing Americans’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The appellate court said, however, churches are not public places, and the Second Amendment does not give an individual the right to carry a firearm on private property without the owner’s knowledge and permission.