Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Southern Baptists Reject Formal Ban On Churches With Female Pastors; Virginia Governor Calls For Repeal Of Cuts To Military College Tuition Program; North Dakota Says 81 Is Too Old To Serve In Congress. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired June 12, 2024 - 13:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:30:07]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: We're tracking big news this afternoon for the nation's largest Protestant denomination. The Southern Baptist Convention just rejected a ban on churches with female pastors.

The vote, coming in just the last hour, resolves a two-year political dispute over the church's official policy.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: This was a narrow decision. The vote received support from 61 percent of the delegates, but it failed to get the required two-thirds super majority

Joining us now is Beth Allison Barr. She is the James Vardaman professor of history at Baylor University, and she is a former Southern Baptist.

Beth, your thoughts on this vote? Are you surprised by it?

BETH ALLISON BARR, JAMES VARDAMAN PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, BAYLOR UNIVERSITY & FORMER SOUTHERN BAPTIST: I am a little surprised. I thought it would probably pass. However, the margin was so narrow, I think this issue is not resolved.

I think this is just perhaps the first time that we see the law amendment go before the SBC.

SANCHEZ: Beth, more churches were expected to voluntarily leave the denomination if this ban had passed. Do you think that was a factor?

BARR: I think it could have been a factor. I hope also the implications of the law amendment -- I mean, it -- in order for it to be fulfilled, the churches would have to be examined. The Web sites of the churches would have to be examined.

It would be extremely intrusive. It would definitely violate Baptist ideas about local autonomy of churches. And I think that probably gave a lot of people pause.

I hope also that the understanding of the black churches within the SBC, around 4,000 black churches, who were opposing the law amendment because of the many women that serve in pastoral roles on their staff, I hope that also played into it.

KEILAR: If this does come up again, and it does pass, Beth, I wonder what you think the effect on the church overall is going to be?

BARR: I think it'll be interesting to see how this plays out over the next year.

The new president, who was just elected, was a supporter of the law amendment. He also is associated with some of the most conservative elements of the SBC, including the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, which was one of the supporters, adamant supporters of the law amendment.

So I think next year is going to really be a testing period to see. And I think also, even though the law amendment did not pass, I think women in the SBC should still be very worried about the implications of this.

I mean, over 90 percent the vote yesterday to kick out a historic Virginia church over the issue of a pastor -- of a female pastor on their staff, who was not a senior pastor, as well as the fact that the vote was so close.

It was only about margin of 500 votes that kept the law amendment from passing. And that is a very close margin.

And so there are more people who voted yesterday for -- I mean, who voted today for the law amendment, who support the law amendment in the SBC, than there are, who do not support it.

So I think that's a very dire place for women in the SBC to be.

SANCHEZ: So overall, Beth, what message do you think this sends to women about the church, and especially to young girls?

BARR: I think it sends a terrible message to young girls and all women within the church. It tells us that our voice is continuously having to be on trial.

That that our ability to serve in the calling that -- that women feel that they are to be in, that that is continuously on trial. That we always have to be careful about what we are called and what we do.

And that even this still plays into the sex abuse reform that is ongoing. That has become rather lukewarm and, in many ways, within the SBC. And I think that SB -- the sex abuse reform has also told women that our voices do not matter as much as protecting male pastors.

And so I think this is just reaffirming the trajectory that the SBC has been on for a long time, that women are less valued within SBC churches and, thus, in the eyes of God for women who are in the SBC.

KEILAR: Beth, it is great to get your perspective. Obviously, this is a very big day and it's not the end this issue.

Beth Allison Barr, thank you. [13:35:02]

BARR: Thank you so much.

KEILAR: Next, were following the backlash in Virginia after lawmakers cut a key benefit for veteran families and families of fallen service members.

We are joined by a retired Naval officer and Navy SEAL who confronted state officials over the move this week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: On "HOME FRONT" this week, Virginia is for lovers. That's the state's official slogan. But did you know Virginia is for veterans, too, or at least usually is. Nearly one in 10 Virginians served in the military.

And last month, state lawmakers overwhelmingly passed a budget that Governor Glenn Youngkin can sign into law obliterating one of the state's biggest benefits for veteran families, free tuition at in- state public schools for families of a service member killed in the military or of a veteran who is severely disabled.

[13:40:13]

It's called the Virginia Military Survivors and Dependents Education Program. And as the rollback of it left many Virginia Gold Star and veteran families scrambling, the blowback was swift and loud.

They gave state officials some frank feedback about what the sudden change means at a meeting earlier this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This was supposed to reflect the will of the people. As far as I can tell, the only people who wanted this change with the administrators of the colleges where you're trying to justify their high costs and worrying about their bottom line.

Taking away a promise to the families of severely disabled veterans and Gold Star families shouldn't be an accounting item.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How can someone sleep well at night knowing that they have stolen a ray of hope to those who have endured the most unimaginable lose and hardship? Knowing that they stripped away this vital support, leaving these families to struggle with the dual burden of emotional and financial distress.

LT. JASON REDMAN, RETIRED NAVAL OFFICER & NAVY SEAL: This is appalling and a tremendous breach of a covenant, not to provide an entitlement for our most protected veterans, our Gold Stars, our severely wounded warriors, but something that was earned at the highest level.

(END VIDEO CLIP) KEILAR: That last speaker is retired Naval officer and Navy SEAL, Lieutenant Jason Redman, and he is with us now.

Jason, thanks so much for being with us.

Can you just tell us what this will mean for families like yours?

REDMAN: Brianna, I mean, the cutting of this program was so unexpected. Nobody saw it coming.

There were some rumors about it happening that had been -- been put forth probably six months prior and tried to be put into bills and it had been stuck down multiple times.

And then in the dead of the night on May 13th, they slid this into the bill and it was only given two days before was approved. There's a lot of finger-pointing happened.

But regardless, it canceled this program. This program that so many of us, me, as a severely wounded warrior, my kids have used this program. My teammates, individuals who have fallen.

Jason Lewis (ph) was a teammate killed on my deployment. His widow was there. Donald Lewis (ph), Gold Star, family member, talking about how this program was caught for her kids.

It was so unexpected that no one could be ready for it. No one had saved money. No one had put things in place to be able to offset this. And literally with this two-day notification, it set an explosion, an atomic bomb across Virginia and the Gold Star and severely wounded community.

KEILAR: I know that when you were wounded in Iraq, knowing this benefit was there for your kids was so important for your family.

And Virginia has actively tried to attract veteran families. Just, overall, it has the third-highest share of veterans for any states -- any states who bring with them their tax dollars, they're desirable resumes for defense work that helps sustain the state economy there.

What message does this change? Send two military and veteran families about their place in this state?

REDMAN: It's a pretty appalling attack and a hit on us. And not only did it impact us. A lot of people didn't know there were also law enforcement and fire. This program impacts fallen police and firefighters.

But for all of us, I mean, it was just a colossal hit. Our message -- and this was one of the big things. I got a lot of messages online when I posted about this.

Most people were incredibly supportive and said, hey, Virginia needs to hold this up. For 100 years, this program has been in existence. And all of a sudden, overnight, it went away. And there were a lot of people who would say to me, oh, it's just

another entitlement program we need to cut. And this is not an entitlement program. This is something that needs to be clearly understood. And I talked about this in my message.

There is a huge difference between an entitlement, meaning maybe you're part of society as a citizen or resident of the state of Virginia and you receive some sort of benefit just for being part of the state or part of a federal government, as opposed to something that's earned at the absolute highest level through tremendous blood and sacrifice.

And it was a covenant the state of Virginia made to all of us. We were aware of it. And it was promised to us. And now that promise, that covenant has been broken.

So this was one of the biggest things. We are pushing for the General Assembly -- June 28th, they meet again. They need to repeal and replace this bill in its entirety and fix this massive disservice to Virginia veterans.

KEILAR: Well, let me ask you about that because Governor Glenn Youngkin, he signed this budget, which was a bipartisan budget, right? Democrats and Republicans almost overwhelmingly behind this. He -- he signed it into law.

Now he's calling for that special legislative session later this month that you mentioned. We did reach out to his office and we asked if he can guarantee that this will be repealed, his office could not. They said they are working to repeal it.

[13:45:10]

Do you have confidence that lawmakers will change this? And what's your message to them and to the governor?

REDMAN: I don't have confidence yet. I've done a lot of digging. I have not been able to confirm this fact yet. I was reaching out to several of my friends that are in Virginia government.

I was told that the language that was used, that they reworded a lot of the original language in the bills that were submitted six months ago. And what was submitted in this bill on May 13th, they removed many of the key nomenclature, like VMSDEP, which stands for this program, VMSDEP.

I have not confirmed that, but that's what I was told. I was told this was very shady and done under the cloak of darkness. And I've had several people say that's how this managed to slip through the cracks. I cannot confirm nor deny that.

At the end of the day, I don't care if you're on the right. I don't care if you're on the left. Our veterans, 700,000 veterans, severely wounded warriors, our Gold Star families who literally laid a loved one upon me, all for our freedom, this program is owed to them. It was promised to them. And my message to - from -- from Governor Youngkin to anyone who has a political title here in the state of Virginia, there are 700,000 veterans in Virginia. There are 15,000 Gold Stars. And we are watching your guy's decision that you're going to make on June 28th.

I tell you what, if you don't make the right decision, we will remember when elections come.

KEILAR: Yes, I'm hearing a lot of frustration by very surprised military and veteran families. So we'll be keeping an eye on this.

Retired Navy SEAL, Jason Redman, thank you for coming on and thank you so much for your service and your sacrifice.

REDMAN: Brianna, my honor. Thank you, guys, for having me on.

KEILAR: And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:52:10]

SANCHEZ: That old adage about age just being a number is no longer true in North Dakota, at least when it comes to running for office.

Last night, 61 percent of North Dakotans approved a ballot measure that says you cannot run for Congress if your 81st birthday falls before the end of your term in office.

KEILAR: This question of how old is too old to run for office comes at a time when Americans are not feeling great about their choice this is for president.

You have the incumbent, Joe Biden, 81, and his Republican challenger, Donald Trump, turning 78 this Friday, not far behind him.

So let's turn to CNN senior data reporter, Harry Enten.

All right. Harry, how many current members of Congress will be 81 or older by the end of their term in office?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: Does feeling 81 count? Because then, if I join Congress, I could be up there.

(LAUGHTER)

ENTEN: No, look, at the end of the day, there are few members. It's not like the overwhelming majority are going to be 81 at the end of their term. But it's a significant number.

We can look at both the House and the Senate on this particular one. Look at this. Fourteen House members will be age 81 at the end of their current term. Eight Senate members will be 81 at the end of their current term.

So look, that's less than 10 percent. But the fact is we would lose some members if, in fact, that this was applied across the nation.

SANCHEZ: So, Harry, what do voters think?

ENTEN: Yes, voters love age limits.

(LAUGHTER)

ENTEN: Let me tell you, they love it. They love them.

(LAUGHTER)

ENTEN: They love it for presidents and they love them for Congress. And it's not just Republicans and not just Democrats who love them. They both love them. And the vast majority of them love them.

Look at this. When do you ever see two-thirds of Americans agree on anything? We got it here. And we've got two-thirds of Democrats and basically two-thirds of Republicans.

So, yes, Americans love age limits. They love them like they love fast-food, we'll put it that way.

KEILAR: All right. What if you're an American who loves institutional knowledge, right? I mean, what type of skills and legislative benchmarks are we seeing from these members of Congress, Harry?

ENTEN: Yes, you know, if we decided to force some of these folks to go aside, who would be 81 at the end of their terms, we would lose some folks who have some real institutional knowledge. You know?

We can look at their legislative effectiveness scores. This is a metric that's put out by the Center for Legislative Effectiveness -- or Center for Effective Lawmaking -- excuse me. And you can see there, 12 members met or exceeded the effectiveness benchmark.

Now there were 10 who, of course, were below that. But the fact is that there are plenty of members who are south of 81 at the end of their current term, who would be below their current benchmark. So we would lose a lot of folks.

And to kind of put some actual faces to these numbers. Take a look at these folks who meet the legislative effective benchmark and would be 81 or older at the end of the current term.

We're talking about Chuck Grassley in the Senate. We're talking about Dick Durbin in the Senate. We're talking about Jim Clyburn, in the House. We're talking about Virginia Foxx in the House.

Now, obviously, someone like Nancy Pelosi is also plenty north of 81 at the end of her current term. So we would be losing a lot of institutional knowledge.

[13:55:06]

But of course, I guess voters aren't necessarily thinking about that. They're just thinking, maybe, hey, we don't want those old folk serving.

And at the end of the day, though, I'm not quite sure that this will necessarily pass across the nation. This is one state. Honestly, I'm not even sure it's constitutional.

KEILAR: Yes. We'll have to see.

You know, I will say one thing of having started as you did, too, Boris in small market news, you cover all kinds of things and I've covered a number of 100th birthdays.

SANCHEZ: Oh, yes, for sure.

KEILAR: And something that strikes me about it is the range of what 100 can be.

ENTEN: Yes.

KEILAR: Some people aren't extremely a young 100, to the point where one woman, I said to her, you know, like, what's your secret? She seemed like she was 70. And she said, "I stretch every day."

So maybe we should just vote --we should just vote for stretching for lawmakers.

ENTEN: Yes.

KEILAR: Is that unconstitutional?

SANCHEZ: Some good stretching. How'd you learn those moves?

ENTEN: I think -- I've learned them from you, Boris, when you were here in New York last time around.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

ENTEN: Look, I -- of course there's a huge range.

(LAUGHTER)

ENTEN: I mean, my Uncle Neal (ph) was just -- we had them on A.C. show last week. He sounded beautiful and looked beautiful at the age of 85.

SANCHEZ: Maybe Neal (ph) should run for office.

ENTEN: He should. He's a singer/songwriter. Why not run for Congress as well? It could be like Sonny Bono.

KEILAR: Yes, just not in North Dakota.

SANCHEZ: Yes. We've got to have his music some time playing on her show.

Harry Enten, thanks so much, man. Great to see you.

ENTEN: Thank you. KEILAR: All right. A new report on inflation has made for much stronger odds that we may see some interest rate cuts later this year. Isn't that music to your ears?

What is the Fed going to say here? We're going to find out any minute. The central bank's announcement expected at the top of the hour.

Stay with CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)