Crossroads -- Why not cover church-state wars in Finland?

It's crucial to note that journalists often rush to cover religious views that they support

At the intersection of church and state, few U.S. Supreme Court dramas have received more news coverage than the battles over Colorado cake designer Jack Phillips and his efforts to defend his Masterpiece Cakeshop business.

Flashback: Phillips was approached by two of his regular customers who asked him to create one of his unique, handcrafted cakes for their wedding, including content celebrating their same-sex union. Phillips said he would sell them any of the cakes in his store (which they could decorate) and handle their reception. However, citing his evangelical Christian beliefs, he declined to create a unique cake for the wedding, one with their requested artistic content.

The rest is history. I thought about this case, once again, during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast, when host Todd Wilken and I discussed a bitter church-state battle in Europe, one discussed in a recent Rod Dreher commentary at The Free Press that ran with this headline: “In Finland, Promoting Biblical Views Is Now Illegal.”

That’s a complicated headline. Truth is, the Finland powers that be are not attacking all “biblical views.” Instead, as in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the government is saying that some “biblical views” are unacceptable in public life, while other doctrines are acceptable — such as those affirmed by progressive leaders of the nation’s official denomination, the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

Expressing state-affirmed doctrines is fine and praiseworthy. What is unacceptable are public expressions of “biblical views” that clash with the evolving moral teachings of the state. Hold that thought.

The key to this podcast is that the Finland case is receiving little or no mainstream news coverage. The big question is, “Why?” I stressed that the Finland story is another example of “good religion,” in the eyes of many journalists, clashing with “bad religion.” But why not cover news linked to victories by progressives?

Before addressing that, let me share a mirror-image parable that I frequently used at GetReligion.org, when discussing the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. This parable is carefully crafted to fit the truly liberal contents of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which passed on a 97-3 vote in the U.S. Senate in 1993. Here is that parable, with one or two tweeks:

… Let’s say that there is a businessman in Colorado who runs a video-production company. He is an openly gay Episcopalian and, at the heart of his faith (and the doctrines articulated by his church) is a sincere belief that homosexuality is a gift of God and a natural part of God’s good creation. This business owner has long served a wide variety of clients, including a nearby Pentecostal church. …

One day, the leaders of this church ask him to shoot and edit a video about a major event at their church — the upcoming regional conference of the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays. The videographer declines, saying this would violate everything he stands for as an Episcopalian. He notes that they have dozens of other video options in their city and, while he has willingly served them in the past, it is his sincere belief that it would be wrong to do so in this specific case.

One more fact is crucial:

It's clear that the gay Christian businessman is not asking to discriminate against an entire class of Americans. He is asking that his consistently demonstrated religious convictions be honored in this case, one with obvious doctrinal implications.

If this parable came alive in public life, would journalists understand and feel sympathy for the gay businessman’s claim that requiring him to create this unique video would violate his First Amendment and religious-liberty rights?

How does this relate to what is happening in Finland?

Dreher’s piece is commentary, of course. However, news consumers will want to note some of the basic facts about the Finland case.

In a shocking ruling delivered in Helsinki … , the Supreme Court of Finland convicted Päivi Räsänen, a 66-year-old longtime Christian Democratic parliamentarian, and her Lutheran bishop, Juhana Pohjola, of hate speech for “making and keeping available to the public a text that insults a group.” The court ordered that the text, a 2004 pamphlet explaining and defending traditional Biblical teaching about homosexuality, must be “removed from public access and destroyed.” …

What this means is that it is now illegal in Finland for Christians to defend traditional Christian teaching about homosexuality. You can’t write or speak about the matter without risking arrest. This, in Europe, in 2026.

Räsänen, a physician by training, wrote the pamphlet in 2004 to inform debate within the Finnish Lutheran Church over the church’s policy on homosexuality and related issues, like gay marriage and adoption. Räsänen is theologically conservative, and explained at length traditional Christian teaching about sexuality and how, in her opinion, it should inform Christian thinking about the law.

An English translation of the pamphlet clearly shows that what the court condemned as hate speech is the plain meaning of passages from the New Testament. For example:

“Paul equates the commission of sin and the approval of sin in strikingly similar terms of condemnation (Romans 1:32). The Church is in great peril where it is tempted to demonstrate its approval of homosexual relationships.”

Meanwhile, is is perfectly acceptable for progressive believers to preach and publish “biblical views” that echo those of the state church.

During the podcast, I discussed several factors that could be undercutting mainstream press coverage of this important church-state clash. Here are some of them, in a condensed form.

* As a rule, American news consumers do not care about foreign news, especially readers on the right. However, American conservatives are appalled by many trends and events in Europe. Meanwhile, American progressives continue to believe that Europe is, culturally, ahead of America and hope that what they see as positive trends there reach this side of the Atlantic.

In this case, however, Finland appears to be crushing free speech and freedom of conscience, values long affirmed by many, on the left and right, in America.

Who would want to read about this story? Primarily American conservatives.

* To cover this story, journalists would need to accurately quote the views of the conservative groups — such as Alliance Defending Freedom International — that are backing Räsänen and Pohjola.

It would even be relevant, as noted by Dreher, to note how this Finland case fits into bitter divisions between leaders of the European Union and many prominent American politicos. Thus, Dreher writes:

What’s now at issue is the supposed right of gays and lesbians not to be offended by the opinions of those who disagree with them — including Christians whose consciences are bound by their reading of the Bible.

What happened to the parliamentarian and the bishop in the Helsinki courtroom last week is exactly what Vice President J.D. Vance spoke of in his controversial 2025 Munich Security Conference speech. In it, Vance cited several cases of criminalizing speech in European countries — like the British Catholic woman charged for praying silently in the vicinity of an abortion clinic — and pleaded with Europeans to strengthen their democracies by returning to a more authentically liberal conception of free expression.

“You cannot win a democratic mandate by censoring your opponents or putting them in jail — whether that’s the leader of the opposition, a humble Christian praying in her own home, or a journalist trying to report the news,” he said.

Is that a story many elite journalists truly want to cover?

* Why aren’t modern progressives, on both sides of the Atlantic, openly celebrating their victories in this Finland case, while seeking press coverage?

For starters, it is clear that those who defend freedom of speech, conscience and religion will continue to defend these conservative Lutherans in every court available, such as the European Court of Human Rights. The battle continues.

Thus, I asked: Would news coverage — at this point in time — potentially hurt the European establishment? If that is true, then there is little incentive for the new progressives to seek coverage from the elite journalists they respect, the same journalists who would not be interested in the appeals of conservatives such as Vance.

* In a way, what Finland officials are attempting is the creation of de facto blasphemy laws that punish those preaching doctrines that clash with the faith affirmed by the state.

Again, note that these legal actions do not oppose religious expression — period. What they oppose are forms of religious expression and practice that are “bad,” or “offensive” religion, in the views of the government and the official state church. They oppose what the government, in effect, now considers “blasphemy.”

This raises another question worthy of serious news coverage: How are authorities in Finland, and the European Union, dealing with public expressions of traditional Islamic doctrines, which tend to be “conservative” on these same issues? Is it illegal to preach and publish offensive passages from the Quran?

Again, this case is not over. If I have missed serious, accurate mainstream media coverage of Finland’s actions against Räsänen and Pohjola, please let me know in the comments pages.

Enjoy the podcast and, please, pass it on to others.