mainstream press covers religion news in politics, entertainment, business
Welcome of episode three (yes, the podcast) of the ongoing saga of mainstream journalists wrestling with the picky details of Christian tradition and doctrine (that whole Bible thing, you know) about the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.
To catch up on this drama, you may want to glace at "Here we go again: Will someone please explain Christianity to the Associated Press?" and then "Seeking correction No. 2: Will some please explain Christianity to the AP photo desk?"
Concerning that second item, I must report -- sadly -- that, as of this morning -- the Associated Press website still contains the inaccurate photo tag line that reads:The renovated Edicule is seen in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, traditionally believed to be the site of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, in Jerusalem's old city Monday, Mar. 20, 2017. A Greek restoration team has completed a historic renovation of the Edicule, the shrine that tradition says houses the cave where Jesus was buried and rose to heaven. (AP Photo/Sebastian Scheiner)
To repeat the main point here, Christian tradition (that whole Bible thing, again) teaches that -- after his resurrection -- Jesus spent 40 days with his disciples, was seen by crowds, etc., before his ascension into heaven. Journalists do not have to believe these doctrines. They do, however, need to report the beliefs accurate in stories linked to these sites, biblical passages, holy days and rites.
At the moment, reporters are veering into this territory, of course, because Holy Week and Easter are getting closer. Editors and producers know that it's time to put something into print and video about Easter, a holy day that isn't nearly as commercial and fun (in secular terms) as the season previously known as the Nativity of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
That was the starting point for this week's "Crossroads" podcast. How many times have you seen stories linked to Easter that either mess of the basics of Christianity or actually attack them? We are talking about television specials, covers of major newsweeklies and so forth and so on.
'Tis the season, you know. Talking about this tricky topic led host Todd Wilken to questions that took us right back into the roots of this weblog. For example: Why don't more newsroom managers hire experienced, talented, even award-winning religion-beat professionals to handle this kind of thing. Since Planet Earth is a big place, why doesn't AP have multiple religion writers?
This brings me back to that original Edicule report. Lots of publications are going to need to run corrections because, obviously, a story produced and circulated by the Associated Press is going to go all over the place.
For example, there is The Daily Mail on the other side of the big pond. That newspaper has a tradition of long, long, newsy headlines. Thus, the website still proclaims:The Jerusalem tomb of Jesus restored: Historic shrine that houses the cave where it is said Christ was buried on a slab and rose to heaven to reopen
Has anyone else seen news reports that managed to get the error into the headline? Amazing.
Also, I continue to get emails about a Vice News report of some kind in which the spin was that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is where Jesus IS buried -- present tense. However, no one is sending me a URL. One person said this was a radio report.
I have also looked on the Vice News website, but clearly I am too old to be able to negotiate such edgy news terrain. #HELPME
Meanwhile there is this, care of the National Geographic. Again, this is a photo tagline:A conservator cleans the surface of the stone slab venerated as the final resting place of Jesus Christ.
The "final" resting place of Jesus Christ? Is that the wording that best expresses 2,000 years of Christian thought on the resurrection?
America’s new secretary of state is a man who admits he didn’t want the job; that he’d planned on retiring this month but that God –- speaking through his wife –- told him to do it.
Knowing that, wouldn’t you want to know a bit more details about how the Almighty delivered that set of instructions?
But then the reporter walks away after delivering that piece of news. The profile on Rex Tillerson appeared in the Independent Journal Review, which identifies itself as a “news platform” majoring on breaking news and politics that delivers its content while being “objective, fair and entertaining” (their words).
Not quite what I picked up in journalism school, but their chatty profile on Tillerson fits their stated goal of “fair reporting delivered in an entertaining fashion.”
Am curious what their read is on traditional news media: That they report but don’t entertain? Somehow, IJR has found a way to entertain folks through news reporting and aggregating and they've done well, according to this New York Times piece. But I digress. Here is how IJR began the Tillerson article:When it comes to taking on the world, the two words the Trump administration swears by are “America First.”And the man charged with carrying out that policy around the globe didn’t even want the job in the first place. For Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who until now spent the entirety of his career at ExxonMobil, the challenge he faced on a headline-grabbing trip to Asia was how to translate President Donald Trump’s mandate into a workable foreign policy.
Unfortunately, I have to skip much of this entertaining –- and quite readable -– piece to get to the content that GetReligion readers are sure to interested in.So why, then, did he want the gig?“I didn’t want this job. I didn’t seek this job.” He paused to let that sink in.A beat or two passed before an aide piped up to ask him why he said yes.“My wife told me I’m supposed to do this.”After watching the contortions of my face as I tried to figure out what to say next, he humbly explained that he had never met the president before the election. As president-elect, Trump wanted to have a conversation with Tillerson “about the world” given what he gleaned from the complex global issues he dealt with as CEO of ExxonMobil.“When he asked me at the end of that conversation to be secretary of state, I was stunned.”When Tillerson got home and told his wife, Renda St. Clair, she shook her finger in his face and said, “I told you God’s not through with you.”With a half-worn smile, he said, “I was supposed to retire in March, this month. I was going to go to the ranch to be with my grandkids.”
And? And? Can we have a bit more on how the news arrived from On High? Or just even a mention of kind of believer this man is? There are facts linked to this kind of statement that can be reported.
We have to turn to Religion News Service to find out he’s a Congregationalist, a Wisconsin-based church with a mainline Reformed orientation. That’s a denomination more easily found in New England than Tillerson’s domicile in Texas, which is heavily populated with Baptists, Catholics, Methodists and Pentecostals.
Tillerson may be best known for being part of the executive board of the Boy Scouts of America when it decided in 2013 to allow openly gay young men to become members. He was president of the BSA during 2010-2012, which were the years the organization was re-thinking its former policy excluding gay youth. After weathering that storm, the Trump Administration may be a breeze.
Or almost. Here's Breitbart dinging Tillerson with questions about his commitment to religious freedom. Picking up from IJR:And that may be why the criticism he’s endured hasn’t pushed him to change course. This is not a man who sees a U.S. president in the mirror every morning, which is the kind of personality Washington, D.C., is used to dealing with in such a prestigious and sought-after job. And he does not have patience for the games we’re used to playing here.Tillerson, who will be 65 on Thursday, senses an opportunity to systematize the State Department and rack up some wins, and he seems intent upon removing emotion from the process. There aren’t likely to be goosebump-inducing, soaring speeches. It’s business.Will he stick around for the whole term?In a sign he’s picking up on the lingo, he crossed his arms and said just a little wryly, “I serve at the pleasure of the president.” It doesn’t seem like he regrets accepting the job.“My wife convinced me. She was right. I’m supposed to do this.”
And … that’s it? The piece doesn’t quite exemplify the “religion ghost” cited so often in GetReligion; that is, the hidden factor in a news story that goes unmentioned but which points to the influence of faith, religion, God, worship, etc. Yes, this story mentions a divine nudge but what form did it take? Remember the dream of Pilate’s wife.
This Media Matters piece goes more into how that article was researched and tells us the writer is a White House reporter. I am guessing she hasn't covered religion very often. Someone more attuned to the beat would have been all over Tillerson with more questions. But a lot of the new online media properties out there like IJR (ie Vox, Quartz) have been slow or reluctant to hire religion reporters.
Those of you wishing to follow the fortunes of IJR should know that its site gets 30 million visitors a month and it targets millennials. It's part of a company that owns a GOP consulting firm (Nieman Lab has more about that here) and Buzzfeed calls it the Upworthy of the right wing. The guy who runs IJR is 29 years old and has 100 employees.
Fox News profiled this four-year-old media organization that seeks to create an experience for news consumers. Thus, when they co-sponsored one of the presidential debates, their cameras gave viewers a 360-degree view, allowing watchers to picture themselves in the hall. Although they excel in videos and heavily used Vine, the six-second video platform, Vine’s demise last fall didn’t appear to stop these guys.
You’re looking at the future of news, folks: Facts served up with entertainment.
Note to IJR: While you’re entertaining us, do try to fill in the gaps; in this case a member of the Cabinet who says God convinced him to take the position. Any organization that is serious about news would have a zillion followup questions on that.
Forget the bromides about how wrong it is to make snap judgements about people based solely on their physical appearance. Truth is, we -- by which I mean virtually every last one of us -- put enormous stock in appearances.
To narrow that generalization down some, I'm referring in particular to the world of religion and religious garb.
Spot a woman wearing a Muslim hijab on Main Street U.S.A. -- not to mention a niqab, or face veil -- and, invariably, we conjure thoughts about what this woman believes and how she practices her faith. Individual perspective colors our thoughts, for sure, but the larger point I'm making is that our minds are largely reactive, so react we will.
Which brings me to the following story that's been wending it way through Israeli and American Jewish news outlets. It is, as you may have guessed, a story about appearances and religious garb. And perhaps, also, the need for endless content in our 24-7 journalistic environment.
President Donald Trump -- despite the claims of critics that, at the least, he's willing to countenance anti-Semitic displays among core supporters -- has several self-identified Orthodox Jews in his entourage.
Most famously, his daughter, Ivanka, a convert to Judaism, and her husband, Jared Kushner, self-identify as Orthodox.
As does Jason Greenblatt, a long-time attorney for Trump's business organization who is now a presidential special envoy. Greenblatt made his first extensive visit to the Middle East on behalf of the president last week, meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
Whether or not Greenblatt's effort will bear fruit in bringing Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table, is undoubtedly the storyline that's most important here.
But then there's this sidebar: Orthodox Jewish males -- including the socially more liberal Modern Orthodox movement within Orthodox Judaism that the Kushners can be said to embrace -- normally wear a head covering as a sign of respect to God. Most of the time they wear a kippah, Hebrew for the better-known Yiddish term for skull cap, which is yarmulke.
Greenblatt was photographed being the public diplomat with an uncovered head.
That may sound like no big deal. However, in Israel and the wider Middle East, it takes on great importance among those Jews and Muslims who do not differentiate between politics and religion.
This piece from the liberal American Jewish outlet The Forward pulls the story together nicely. Here's the top of it:President Trump’s adviser on international negotiations just concluded his first trip to the Middle East and won a round of praise from all sides, for his openness and inclusiveness in approaching the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.But some in the Israeli press and on social media noticed another fact: Jason Greenblatt, who is Orthodox, showed up to his meetings both on the Israeli and on the Palestinians side, sans his trademark black kippah.“Trump’s Envoy, Bareheaded, Walks Into Lion’s Den” stated a headline in the Jerusalem Post. The article noted that, “While whether or not someone wants to wear a kippah in public is very much a private matter and his own business, it was impossible not to notice.”Even Reuters could not ignore the fact, including in the news agency’s report on Greenblatt’s diplomatic mission, the note that “Social media commentators were quick to point out that Greenblatt, an Orthodox Jew, had shown a notable degree of religious flexibility during his visit that may reflect a desire to be open and diplomatic: He has not worn his kippah, a skull cap worn by religious Jewish men, all week.”
Makes sense to me. Why complicate an already near-impossible diplomatic dance by wearing your bias on your sleeve? Or head, when you're claiming to be a fair go between.
Greenblatt is far from the first Orthodox Jew operating in the public sphere to doff his head covering. Former Sen. Joseph Lieberman, once a candidate for vice president, also went hat-less in his public political life.
Two other Orthodox Jews with recent White House ties -- Daniel Kurtzer, who served as U.S. ambassador to Egypt and Israel, and Jack Lew, who served as President Barack Obama’s Treasury Secretary -- did the same.
(I've also known several Orthodox Jewish journalists, for what's it worth, who also left their heads uncovered while on the job. Not all Orthodox journalists look like Jake Turx.
Greenblatt's lack of religious garb and the assumptions it engendered pale, however, in comparison with the scrutiny that Ivanka and Jared Kushner have received for what what some critics regard as their disregard for outward displays of Orthodox piety.
Jared also does not cover his head. And Ivanka? Let's just say I've noticed few signs of the modest dress that Orthodox Jewish women normally display (how the Kushners dress disturbs me not one bit; some of their political actions, on the other hand -- but that's another post).
Criticism of the Kushners has reached the point that they are being defended by some journalists who otherwise oppose just about everything that they and the Trump administration -- remember, both Ivanka and Jared are presidential advisors -- seem to stand for.
Enough, with the religious police! is the general theme.
Andrew Silow-Carroll, editor of JTA, the Jewish wire service, penned a piece back in January, following Trump's inauguration, that expressed this theme. His paragraph that appealed most to me follows.We all should spend less time worrying about how Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, or any of us, observe Jewish rituals and more time asking how we or they affirm Jewish values. Jared and Ivanka, as close advisers to her father, have an opportunity to make the world a better place, to ensure equal protection for people under law, to build a sense of common cause among a divided country, to raise up the fallen and encourage policies that lead all of us in paths of peace. If they can be forces for that, then it will really be a kiddush Hashem.
Of course it's not just Orthodox Jews who get judged for their appearance. I doubt any religious group that accepts people into its ranks manages to avoid the glass house syndrome.
My question for journalists: do such judgements inappropriately worm themselves into your work?
It's time to revisit some ancient history — circa 2016 — in the annals of Donald Trump and evangelicalism.
I refer to when The Donald "went down to Liberty University ... looking for a Scripture to quote," as I put it in a GetReligion post at that time.
As you may recall, candidate Trump hit an unexpected bump at Liberty, as CNN noted then:But Trump, who has eagerly targeted evangelicals – a key voting bloc in the first caucus state of Iowa – in his quest for the presidency, tripped over himself Monday as he attempted to quote from the Bible to connect with the crowd of students at one of the most prominent Christian universities in the country, and the largest in the world."Two Corinthians, 3:17, that's the whole ballgame," Trump said, drawing laughter from the crowd of students at Liberty University who knew Trump was attempting to refer to "Second Corinthians."
Why am I bringing this up again now?
Because it's back in the news — somewhat — with the announcement that the president will deliver Liberty's commencement address this spring:"I look forward to speaking to this amazing group of students on such a momentous occasion," Trump told the Christian Broadcasting Network. Trump added that he looked forward to "celebrating the success of this graduating class as well as sharing lessons as they embark on their next chapter full of hope, faith, optimism and a passion for life."The trip to Liberty University will reunite Trump with one of his most vocal evangelical conservative surrogates, Liberty University President Jerry Falwell.
And yes, it's totally appropriate for reporters to recall the "Two Corinthians" episode, as CNN does:Trump's lack of biblical lingo drew snickers from the crowd, too."Two Corinthians, 3:17, that's the whole ballgame," Trump had said, describing a biblical verse. The correct terminology is "Second Corinthians."
But that necessary background hurts my feelings just a little bit. Obviously, CNN missed — or forgot — the main point of my post way back when:January 19, 2016
For all the details, go back and read that full post. But here's the gist: Some pretty prominent Bible scholars — particularly British ones — use the same "Two Corinthians" language as Trump did.
So he didn't really mess up.
Except that he admitted that he did — giving an interview in which he cast blame for how he said the biblical epistle's name.
Back to present time: Washington Post religion writer Julie Zaumer nails the "Two Corinthians" background:This is not the first time Trump has spoken at Liberty. He addressed the school’s convocation in 2012 and again in 2016 during his presidential campaign, when some mocked him for calling a book of the Bible “Two Corinthians” instead of the common American phrasing “Second Corinthians.”
That's a real precise — and accurate — way to put it.
Way to go, Julie!
Concerning the strange tale of the Associated Press and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre: I have some good news, some bad news, a disturbing update and one very good question from a reader.
First the good news.
If you will recall, my earlier post on this topic -- "Here we go again: Will someone please explain Christianity to the Associated Press? -- asked for a correction in an AP story that mixed up some crucial details in 2,000 years of Christian beliefs about the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. This is the kind of information that isn't hard to get online or, for that matter, in a Bible at the newsroom reference desk.
Well, I am happy to report that this story, at the main AP site, now opens with a clear correction, which is even flagged in the headline. The correction states:JERUSALEM (AP) -- In a story March 20 about renovations at the tomb of Jesus, The Associated Press reported erroneously that the Edicule is revered by Christians as the site where Jesus rose to heaven. Tradition says the Jerusalem shrine is the site of Jesus' resurrection, not the ascension to heaven.
The crucial issue, of course, is whether the newspapers that carried this report, in America and around the world, will run this same correction. GetReligion readers who saw this report in their local newspapers may want to let us know in the comments section.
What about the bad news?
Well, it does appear that someone still needs to explain basic Christianity to the photo-desk at the main Associated Press office. You see, as if this morning, the tag line for the main photo released with this fine feature still reads as follows:The renovated Edicule is seen in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, traditionally believed to be the site of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, in Jerusalem's old city Monday, Mar. 20, 2017. A Greek restoration team has completed a historic renovation of the Edicule, the shrine that tradition says houses the cave where Jesus was buried and rose to heaven. (AP Photo/Sebastian Scheiner)
Obviously, the AP team now needs to ship a correction for this photo information, or simply expand the current correction with some kind of alert to photo and layout specialists in newsrooms. Wrong is still wrong.
One other point, as a way of underlining that there are complicated issues here. Several readers wrote in to make statements such as this: "Also in the photo description the sepulcher is described as the site of the crucifixion which occurred on Golgotha not in a cave."
Well, that would be true, sort of. The key is that the early church believed that Jesus was buried in a stone tomb not far from the place where he was crucified. This gets into complicated arguments about the precise location of the city walls at that time.
The bottom line: Early church leaders believed that BOTH of these holy places (shown in graphic at the top of this post) are contained inside the sprawling Church of the Holy Sepulchre. How is this possible? Much of the surrounding hillside was removed in construction (and destruction) of the church.
There are those -- Protestants mainly -- who disagree. This is complicated, but fascinating, stuff. (Click here for a Christianity Today feature, by my friend Gordon Govier, about some of these debates.)
Anyway, the corrected text at the main AP site how reads:JERUSALEM (AP) -- The tomb of Jesus has been resurrected to its former glory.Just in time for Easter, a Greek restoration team has completed a historic renovation of the Edicule, the shrine that tradition says houses the cave where Jesus was entombed and resurrected.Gone is the unsightly iron cage built around the shrine by British authorities in 1947 to shore up the walls. Gone is the black soot on the shrine's stone façade from decades of pilgrims lighting candles. And gone are fears about the stability of the old shrine, which hadn't been restored in more than 200 years.
The fears are gone? Not according to and new report from journalists at National Geographic, who have been closely linked to this project. This disturbing story argues that the foundation UNDER the shrine now needs to be repaired. The headline on this piece is stark: "Exclusive: Tomb of Christ at Risk of 'Catastrophic' Collapse."
The Associated Press may want to plan a follow-up story, as Holy Week approaches.
What about that good question from a GetReligion reader, one Christopher Enge?I have a couple journalistic questions for Terry. Do big time papers make these kinds of errors with religions other than Christianity? To me, it seems like a basic matter of respect to find out about someone's deepest beliefs when writing about them.Second, one thing I've wondered as a long-time reader of getreligion as well as a listener to Terry's interviews on Issues, Etc. is whether these kind of basic factual errors are unique to the religion beat or is it a symptom of general ignorance and lack of professional competence? It seems like with many stories where I know something about the subject, whether religious or not, there are statements of fact that strike me as wrong. Is there a lot of general sloppiness in journalism made by writers who think they know more than they do or is this a problem specific to religious stories?
It would take a book to answer all of these questions. Yes, similar errors take place with other religions. That raises the question whether, in newsrooms in America (a nation that is allegedly majority Christian in background), journalists are equally unfamiliar with Christianity and, well, other world faiths such as Buddhism or Islam.
Yes, there are often errors of fact on other complicated news beats. One witty journalists, in a discussion long ago, did note that it was interesting that many American journalists seem to know less about Christmas and Easter than about simple subjects such as DNA sequencing and global climate change. How often does one see errors on basic facts linked to sports and politics? Clearly, all newsrooms take those subjects seriously.
So, yes, it does appear that many, many journalists do not get religion. It also appears that some newsroom managers still do not want to hire veteran, skilled religion-beat professionals who can do something about that.
The Record meets with acclaimed academic Mark Noll
CIERA HORTON | EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
For 27 years, Dr. Mark Noll served on the History Department faculty, ending his tenure as McManis Professor of Christian Thought in 2006. In 2016, he retired from The University of Notre Dame after teaching for 10 years. Mark Noll’s book “The Scandal of The Evangelical Mind” (1994) earned him a lasting place in evangelical scholarship. In 2005, Time Magazine named Noll one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in America.
The Record met with Dr. Mark Noll for an interview regarding the current state of evangelicalism, his experience at Wheaton and what is next for him upon retirement.
CH: What’s next for you in retirement?
MN: I still have several Ph.D. students to finish. I hope to keep writing and thinking about historical topics. We have a son and daughter-in-law who live in Oak Park who have a young child and we’re trying to help one day a week or so with the child. This year, I actually have a number of assignments having to do with the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. I’m thinking about the Reformation this year.
C: That’s exciting. What’s one of the assignments you’re working on?
M: For many years — beginning quite early since the time I was at Wheaton — I’ve been trying to study the history of the public use of the Bible. We had a conference at Wheaton here in 1979 for the publication of a book called “The Bible and American Culture.” And I’ve been working hard since then and I’ve finally finished a book on the 18th century, the golden period. I would like to do one on the public use of the Bible in the 19th century. So that’s the major academic project. This summer at Regent College in Vancouver, I’m hoping to teach a short course on the reformation actually with my daughter, who’s a Wheaton graduate. She did her Ph.D. in German history and we’re going to do this course together.
C: What makes the Reformation still relevant today, especially for young evangelicals at places like Wheaton?
M: In some ways, things have shifted decisively on a theological front since the second Vatican council. The protest that led to Protestantism doesn’t really have as much historical traction as it once did. But significantly for Christian people, the effort to see the church is always in need of Reformation. What’s clear now is that Protestant reforms…began to create the churches that we have today and the world that we have today. And certainly the Reformation era, the break up of a unified western Christendom was very significant for the entrance of what we might call modernity…I myself, I don’t think it’s appropriate either to be completely celebratory about the Reformation or completely negative about the breakup of western Christianity. But there were critical issues having to do with religious authority, location of the nature of divine revelation, the means by which God reconciles people to himself, critical issues having to do with the nature of religion in society, the authority of temporal rulers over spiritual rulers. All of those really important matters were adjusted, shaken up, reformed and revised in about a forty year period. So whether people realize it or not, certainly the Christian churches in the West — and to some extent where the churches have spread in the world — were the heirs of what happened then.
C: Your banner book “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind” has, of course, secured you a place in modern history of evangelicalism in America. Do you think that the definition of evangelicalism is changing or has changed, since you wrote your famous book in 1994?
M: I think people your age are going to have to answer that question. Because I think the real problem is trying to define evangelical in any simple way. The things that David Bebbington identified, that others have used and I’ve used — cross, Bible, conversion, activity in the world — these all characterize broadly speaking “evangelical” people. I don’t actually think “evangelicalism” exists. There are evangelical institutions, evangelical movements, evangelical people, evangelical emphases. But you say, what’s the institutional or organizational continuity? And there just isn’t any. So does the word mean anything? If when people hear “evangelical” they think of something political first, then the serious meaning of the word is gone.
C: The word “evangelical” took center stage in the presidential election and continues to do so. However, there does seem to be a disconnect between Trump’s policies such as the now-blocked travel ban, immigration and sole support for Israel which Christians are divided on — so how do you explain the evangelical support and winning the evangelical vote?
M: I think what’s called “evangelical support for Trump” had to do with the pro-life position of the Republican party, it had to do with a lot of antagonism against some of the cultural steps taken by the Obama administration. It certainly had to do with the memory of Bill Clinton’s immorality in the White House, and a lot of white evangelicals were concerned about economics…I do think we have increasing numbers of Christian academics who would have a much more sophisticated approach to political life than, “I’m angry at Hillary so I’m voting for Trump.” But I’m worried about the Christian populace at large listening all the time to their media go-to and never being concerned about folks who are trying to see things more broadly.
C: Are you more optimistic about the state of the evangelical mind than you were in ’94?
M: Yes, and for a number of reasons. A major one would be that I think I was not keeping in mind as much as I could have in writing the book that weaknesses and mistakes from a Christian perspective should never be taken too seriously. The Christian faith is a faith of hope. So that was a theological adjustment…In the areas that were discussed in the book, I think there are problems, but by the same token, there are lots of serious Christian people who are doing really serious thinking about politics, about history, about science. In that sense, I think it’s not a golden age, but you can find first-level, deep Christian analyses of whatever you’re interested in that domain. But, there’s also a pretty big disconnect — and I think a growing disconnect. That may be worse than it was in the past, even though the number of evangelical Christian people who are bringing their Christianity to the intellectual task has risen.
C: So how do we bridge that gap then, from the “elite” and the majority population?
M: I still hold a lot of hope for local churches. Ideally when you have one congregation with people of different minds, you do have the possibility of improving things, of having the populus as a whole less spasmodic in thinking about things. You have the occasion for people who have studied things to talk to others who haven’t. In other words, there’s a burden on Christian intellectuals to take part in local congregations.
C: Last year, Wheaton made headlines with Dr. Larycia Hawkins and her statement regarding Muslims and Christians worshipping the same God. This “referent view” is becoming more and more prominent among evangelicals. Is this a valid position for evangelicals to hold? And how does your work studying church history inform your view of the relationship between Christianity and Islam?
M: I think that the first question is the easy one. I read an article where the author said that you can’t answer the question unless you have a subordinate question. From one angle, yes, you have an Abrahamic faith. But from another, from the essential Trinitarian view of God, then no, of course you don’t. What he was trying to say is that some really important religious issues cannot be reduced to a simple single statement. I think all parties involved, the administration, Professor Hawkins and the faculty had difficult situations. But for me, the obvious thing was in our modern media: people were just jumping to judgment without parsing the question. I think it would be entirely appropriate from one angle for evangelicals to say that Muslims and Christians have the same God. I don’t think I would say “worship the same God” because Christians worship a triune God and Muslims don’t. But with the Qu’ran’s reference to the Old Testament and aspects of the New Testament, there is a form of identity there. So I would say it depends on if you’re saying worship or just observing some sort of historical genealogy.
As a historian, I think people should be studying the twentieth century for the history of Islamic-Christian relationship. Also I think studying sensitively the history of Christian missions to Islam since the early 19th century — sometimes the missionaries who went to places like Egypt and Lebanon ended up, not caving into Islam, but coming back with much more sophisticated views in what’s involved in Islamic conversion. Thinking through things in a sophisticated way in our media-obsessed world tends to be reduced to a “gotcha.”
C: Since your days as student and professor, and now returning after Notre Dame, how do you think Wheaton College as an institution has changed through your years of experience with it?
M: My family lived in Wheaton in the early 1950s, and looking back you realize that Wheaton always had a strong commitment to liberal arts education. But not many of the professors would themselves be actively involved scholars in their professions. And that’s certainly changed. It means, for faculty and sometimes students, during the pre-World War II years, the primary loyalty of faculty was to the institution. And now I think it’s a shared loyalty and it’s a more complicated relationship because the standards for an academic discipline, which can often be quite secular, neutral or antagonistic to the Christian faith, have to be negotiated by faculty at the same time as they’re trying to be faithful to the constituency that wants a certain kind of education for their students. My guess is that Wheaton has changed now in that there’s less representation in the student body from what would be considered traditional Protestant denominations, and now more general inter-denominational or nondenominational student body.
C: What is the most impactful book that you’ve ever read and that you’d recommend any Wheaton student read?
M: Early on, it certainly was the Book of Romans. I think now the Gospel of Luke would be the most impactful. Outside of the Scriptures, I turn to the work of Martin Luther. Dickens’ History of the English Reformation was also a great book. The history books that were written with good research and a strong sense of Christian priorities and written very well.
C: What is your fondest memory of Wheaton?
M: A fond memory would be of the undergraduates who, either instinctively or came to see, the study of the Christian past as really significant for themselves. I was just over a Buswell today working on a paper I’m supposed to write for a book edited by Douglas Sweeney, a faculty at Trinity Seminary. He was a student in my Reformation class who brought a tremendous amount of interest and ability. I think I might have been able to help him see a way of working with the past that wasn’t polemical but was trying to see more deeply into the character of Christian life over against the context of historical society. He’d be a super example, not of what I did, but of what I was able to witness.
This interview has been edited for concision and brevity.
The Spokesman-Review, the major daily east of the mountains in Washington state, doesn’t have a religion reporter, which is one reason why the Religion News Association started up its own website in Spokane in 2012.
Tracy Simmons is still capably running SpokaneFavs.com five years later, which may be why religion coverage in the Spokesman-Review is pretty rare. But on Tuesday, the paper did feature a piece about a state Senate bill in neighboring Idaho that tried to regulate faith-healing groups.
This is a tremendously interesting topic but see if you can understand the story as it appeared in Tuesday’s paper:BOISE -- Controversial faith-healing legislation narrowly cleared an Idaho Senate committee on Monday, after a hearing in which nearly everyone who spoke opposed it.Sen. Dan Johnson, R-Lewiston, said his bill, SB 1182, makes a series of changes to Idaho’s existing faith-healing exemption from civil liability for child neglect, but makes no changes in the state’s criminal laws, which include a religious exemption from prosecution for faith-healing parents who deny their children medical care and the children die or suffer permanent injury.“I’m not sure that it really changes a whole lot,” said Johnson, who co-chaired a legislative interim working group that held hearings on Idaho’s existing faith-healing exemption, “other than it moves a bunch of words and sentences around.”
What we’re missing at this point is some background.Johnson said his bill restates Idaho’s current religious exemption from civil liability for child abuse or neglect as an “affirmative statement,” and clarifies some wording. It also references Idaho’s existing Religious Freedom Restoration Act, citing rights to free exercise of religion. “That is a fundamental right that applies to all parenting decisions,” Johnson said. The bill makes no changes to Idaho’s criminal laws.Then follows a number of quotes from people who oppose the bill, including a county sheriff who says he’s had a handful of child deaths in the past four months due to parents not giving their offspring medical care.
A group called Followers of Christ is identified, but we’re not told anything about them. A woman who grew up in this group but now opposes them was also quoted along with a member of FoC. Two politicians are quoted, along with a person from Protect Idaho Kids Foundation, which helps the story move along –- to a point.
But we’re given so little background about the bill that I still couldn’t figure out what was going on after two readings. Thus, I looked around and found a helpful piece that appeared in the Boise Weekly a year ago. It said in part:Idaho is one of a handful of states that allows a complete religious exemption from the obligation to provide a child medical care, even if it results in death. The laws effectively create a religious defense against manslaughter because "criminal injury to a child" cannot be charged in cases of religion-based medical
neglect….The Idaho Legislature passed its religious exemption laws in a no-fuss 1972 session. The bill was one of several enacted across the nation in quick succession thanks to pressure from Washington, D.C. It stemmed from two powerful Christian Scientist aides within the Nixon Administration, H.R. Haldeman and John D. Ehrlichman, who pushed religious exemptions into the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act…
OK, that was helpful. I also found a 2015 article from Al Jazeera that explained why Idahoans believe as they do.
Also, my co-GetReligionista Mark Kellner reminds me that the Christian Science movement helped get these religious exemption laws passed way back when. A national spokesman for Christian Science is from Idaho. And tmatt has written about holes in coverage of faith healers in Pennsylvania, so the Spokane paper is not alone in coming up short.
I appreciate the Spokesman-Review for covering a religious issue but it would have been helpful to have notified us that more children die in Idaho than any other state of sicknesses that could have been cured by medical help, but weren’t because of religious reasons.
I’m also interested if it’s just the FoC who are the main villains in this story or are there any Jehovah’s Witnesses or Christian Scientists around who have similar views on medical treatment. According to a public radio station out of Boise State University, Idaho and Virginia are the only states with faith healing exemptions for neglect and abuse and manslaughter laws.
Personally, the whole thing puzzles me. I’ve spent several years researching Pentecostal serpent handlers in Appalachia and although they believe in God’s healing power, they also believe that you have to be at least 18 years old to refuse medical help, should you get bit by a venomous snake. No one younger than that is allowed to handle the deadly reptiles and yes, these believers take their kids to the doctor. I am curious why these Idahoans see things differently.
If you're interested in hearing more, ProtectIdahoKids.org will give you some background (one of their photos is featured on this site) as will voactiv.com. I did not find a site defending faith healers but the Oregonian had plenty of coverage two weeks ago about the FoC in that state. The Portland newspaper has been following this group for at least 20 years.
I wish the Spokane paper had given us some of these details. Just know as journalists, that when it comes to reporting on complex religion-and-the-law topics, no amount of explanation is too little.
My parents, Bob and Judy Ross, served for 25 years as houseparents at Christ's Haven for Children, a Christian child-care ministry based in Keller, Texas.
Mom and Dad lost count of the exact number of children for whom they cared. Some came into their home and stayed just a few days. Others they raised from preschool through high school graduation. In all, more than 250 girls lived in my parents’ cottage.
My mother said she and Dad always wanted a mission to lead people to Jesus Christ. At Christ’s Haven, they found it. They studied the Bible with all the girls in their care, and Dad baptized many of them, as I noted in a Christian Chronicle column in 2007.
I couldn't help but recall my parents' experience as I read a Texas Tribune story this week proclaiming that "Texas' next religious liberty fight could be over foster care":You can’t talk about religious liberty in Texas without mentioning Lester Roloff.In the 1970s, Roloff, a Baptist preacher, was known for his homes for teenagers in Corpus Christi. A 1973 legislative report on child care in the state said members heard testimony from children previously in Roloff's Rebekah Home for Girls about irregular meals and whippings. Roloff told lawmakers his homes should be exempted from state interference due to his religious roots.“We spanked them because God loves them, and we love them,” Roloff told the committee.Those hearings led to the Legislature passing Senate Bill 965 in 1975, which established child care licensing laws in the state.Now, 42 years later, Texas legislators are considering sharpening religious protections for faith-based groups the state hires to place children in foster and adoptive homes and oversee their care. Critics say this could give religious groups license to use their faith as a reason to refuse to place foster children with gay couples or with families with certain religious beliefs. Legislators say this could halt bipartisan warmth on bills changing how Texas cares for abused and neglected children.
In the lede, the Texas Tribune sets a negative tone on the legislation right away — and that critical theme dominates the story. Besides the bill's author, the "nonpartisan media organization" quotes six sources. Five of them voice concerns about the bill. You get the (not-so-balanced) picture.
The bill itself (read the full text here) addresses "the conscience rights of certain religious organizations and individuals." However, guess what word never appears in the Tribune story? If you said "conscience," you win the prize.
This, too, is a topic we've addressed repeatedly:By the time U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage ... conscience claims by religious people who view marriage as a sacred union between one man and one woman already were making frequent national headlines.Of course, in most media reports on those claims — before and after the high court's 5-4 ruling — the word "conscience" never appeared. Rather, news organizations such as the Los Angeles Times framed the issue as a matter of Christians wanting to "deny service" or "refuse service." Often, news stories on the subject carried scare quotes around terms such as "religious liberty" and "religious freedom" — a journalistic eyebrow raising, if you will.
Give the Texas Tribune credit for not using scare quotes around religious liberty.
However, the outlet does feel compelled to set aside "sincerely held religious beliefs," as you'll notice as the story continues:Rep. James Frank, R-Wichita Falls, vice chairman of the House Human Services Committee, has authored House Bill 3859, which would protect faith-based providers from retaliation if they assert their “sincerely held religious beliefs” while caring for abused and neglected children.The bill would include allowing faith-based groups to deny a placement if it’s against their religious beliefs; place a child in a religion-based school; deny referrals for abortion-related contraceptives, drugs or devices; and refuse to contract with other organizations that go against their religious beliefs.Frank said the his bill is meant to give “reasonable accommodations” for faith-based groups and not meant to be exclusionary. He said the ultimate goal is to help find the right home for kids.Faith-based organizations are closing their doors to foster children “because they can’t afford to stay in business when they’re getting sued on stuff,” Frank said. “They’re basically being told to conform or get out on stuff that’s important but it’s not core to taking care of foster homes.”
The Tribune casts the issue as relating to "faith-based groups the state hires to place children in foster homes." The bill refers to providers operating "under governmental authority to refer or place children."
I wonder after reading both the story and the legislation: Does this bill concern only faith-based groups that receive state contracts? Or does it extend to the operations of privately funded religious groups seeking state licensing? The distinction would appear to be important, but I'll acknowledge my ignorance when it comes to the intricacies of how the system works in Texas.
In a Christianity Today story way back in 2011, I noted:Just a few years ago, a key question in the public square was: Would gay and unmarried couples be allowed to adopt children or serve as foster parents?Now, the question seems to be: Can faith-based agencies with conscientious objections refuse to place children with gay and unmarried couples?"It's a question of: Can religious organizations continue to operate for the public good in a way that's consistent with their convictions?" said Jedd Medefind, president of the Christian Alliance for Orphans.
I'd love to see the Texas Tribune — and other major news organizations in the Lone Star State — delve deeper and provide a fuller, fairer portrait of faith-based foster care and adoption providers and the issues at stake.
It's a truth your GetReligionistas have discussed many times. When you are covering a story about people linked to a faith with a clearly defined hierarchy it's pretty clear who you are supposed to call.
I'm not just talking about Roman Catholics. If a United Methodist pastor gets in trouble, there is a clear regional and national structure linked to the work of the clergy. Southern Baptist congregations are part of regional associations, state conventions and then they have ties of various kinds to the national Southern Baptist Convention. You have some place to start digging.
But when a minister goes REALLY off the tracks, it's hard -- especially in the world of nondenominational, independent evangelicalism or Pentecostalism -- to find a paper trail anywhere, along with people who were responsible for supervising the work of this or that clergyperson. And what about people who were only "sort of" clergy?
I thought of all of that while reading this recent piece at The Daily Beast that had this genuinely hellish tabloid headline: "UNHOLY: Pastor Arrested for Chopping Up Teen Kept Counseling Kids for 23 Years."
Now, in terms of facts linked to church life, the key word in that headline is "pastor."
When you hear "pastor," you kind of assume that we are talking about an individual who has gone to seminary, been ordained and has a pulpit somewhere in a church. Pastors fill a specific leadership role in a specific faith community, one with a tradition of some kind (even if its an independent local congregation). You hear "associate pastor" and you think someone who carries out a specific ministry, working in a larger church that has a senior pastor in the pulpit.
Now in this case, things are much murkier and the Daily Beast team never offers readers a clear look at the facts, in terms of the man at the heart of this nightmare. Once we make it past the mysteries linked to the sniffing dog and the headless torso, what we get is this:Fred Laster, 16, was last seen with local youth pastor Ron Hyde several days earlier. Laster hitched a ride with Hyde after a family argument, according to his sister. Laster and his five siblings were living with their elderly grandparents at the time, after their mom died from cancer four years earlier.When Laster called his twin sister later, the boy “sounded distant, emotional,” she told police. She asked Laster if he was alright and he said he was with Hyde. It was the last she ever heard from him.Meanwhile, Hyde has worked as a youth pastor for the past 23 years. In that time, authorities and a local mother believe he may have preyed on other boys like Laster.
Now, what is a "youth pastor"?
The simple answer is that there is no simple answer. In my experience, a youth pastor may or may not have seminary training, may or may not be ordained and may or may not be working full-time on a church staff.
In a mystery of this kind, when part of the story is that a church leader has done a terrible thing, these kinds of details matter. You see, the question lurking in the background is this: Who was responsible for stopping this monster? What institution?
Readers are clearly told that Hyde has "worked as a youth pastor for the past 23 years."
Maybe, maybe not. Later in the story there is this:60 years old at the time of his arrest, Hyde still worked as a faith-based mental health counselor. In his decades of freedom, the accused murderer has been in frequent contact with children. The FBI said Hyde had been a suspect in at least one previous child exploitation case.“He’s travelled frequently throughout the United States and abroad. During the course of this homicide investigation, we determined that Hyde was a named subject in a previous international child exploitation case,” Charles Spencer, an FBI spokesperson said in a statement to press. “We’ve also learned that through his various positions and jobs in the Jacksonville area, he had the potential for additional child victims, because he had access to children in multiple positions he held throughout the area.”
So he had been a youth pastor all this time in multiple positions with local churches? He was a "faith-based counselor"?
Actually, it appears that was not the case. Most of his work was as a counselor with a wide array of institutions, both secular and religious. In other words, it appears that he may have rarely held a job linked to church ministry.
Remember that word "pastor"? Well, this guy appears to have had secular day jobs paid with tax-payer dollars.
There are more hints on this angle in this complicated passage in the Daily Beast feature, which finally mentions a church.As a mental health counselor at Crosswater Community Church, Hyde advertised classes on “standing up to bullies,” as well as addiction counseling for “sex, pornography and relationships,” he wrote on his professional page. “If you’re ready to make a change, I can show you how.The church where Hyde worked says they are cooperating with law enforcement.“We are working and cooperating fully with the FBI in their investigation of Ron Hyde,” Pastor Jack Millwood of Crosswater Community Church told a local NBC affiliate. “I am personally not aware of any victims of Ron Hyde that involve anyone associated with Crosswater. If any person or persons has any information regarding potential victims of Ron Hyde, please contact the local FBI office.”
Now, watch the video at the top of this post. It appears that Hyde was someone to whom the ordained leaders of this independent congregation referred people when they needed the help of a professional, licensed counselor.
Looking at coverage elsewhere, the original text of a local ABC television affiliate report noted that Hyde had:Several connections, as a licensed counselor ... in Jacksonville, Fla., and even state institutions. Church staff noted that he was not on the church payroll, but was linked to the church through referrals for professional counseling.
Thus, is it accurate to say that Hyde worked "at" this church? To say that Crosswater was the church "where he worked" implies, at least to me, that he was a member of the staff. When you call Hyde a "pastor" who worded "at" a particular church, the implication is that he is an ordained minister on the staff of that congregation.
Was that the case? Are we actually talking about a man who has ever served as an ordained minister at a local church, let alone as a "pastor" who led a congregation?
Based on the facts in that story, it would appear not.
None of my objections, in this case, have anything to do with lessening the horrors of Hyde's acts. I would also assume that it was just as hard for the Daily Beast to learn key details about this man's murky past as it would have been for the leaders at Crosswater church to have studied his background, as an licensed counselor with his own practice.
So here is the bottom line: Why is the word "pastor" in that bloody headline?
Longtime GetReligion readers will recognize the name of Rod Dreher as that of an frequently mentioned longtime "friend of this blog."
Many will also recognize Dreher as the author of the much discussed (check out this search) book called "The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation," published last week by Sentinel. The basic thesis: orthodox Christians -- small "o" and capital "O" -- need to form tight-knit communities to preserve the values in the face of a post-modern onslaught.
This post isn't about that. I'll leave GetReligionistas such as tmatt to comment on the book and the surrounding media mentions. We wanted to ask this veteran reporter a few questions about religion news.
Instead, here's what Dreher had to say in response to our noted "5Q+1." However, since he passed over the "do you have anything else to say" query, it's just 5Qs:
(1) Where do you get your news about religion?
From the Internet. I read websites like First Things, Mere Orthodoxy, Mosaic, Real Clear Religion and The Atlantic, but also mainstream news sites like The New York Times, the Washington Post and others. I find that I'm increasingly dependent on Twitter feeds from key people to pass on news to me. I'm thinking about Mollie Hemingway, Ross Douthat, Michael Brendan Dougherty, Damon Linker, Andrew T. Walker, Russell Moore and Denny Burk. But there are others.
(2) What is the most important religion story the MSM doesn't get?
They are completely missing the ramifications of sociologist Christian Smith's findings about the religious illiteracy among American Christians, which is driving America's steady de-Christianization. As Smith and his colleagues have pointed out repeatedly, what they term "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism" is the de facto faith of American young people. I would add of Americans, period.
When I interviewed him for my new book "The Benedict Option," I asked Smith about the de-Christianization of America. He said, "America has lived a long time off its thin Christian veneer, partly necessitated by the Cold War. That is all finally being stripped away by the combination of mass consumer capitalism and liberal individualism."
True, there has been a lot of coverage about the rise of the Nones, but what's missing is a comprehensive, in-depth look at the nature of de-Christianization, and what it looks like in different parts of the country, and in different demographic groups. There are so many aspects to this story. What is a de-Christianized America going to be like?
When I moved to Philadelphia in 2010, a friend of mine, a native Catholic who was plugged in to the archdiocesan leadership, walked me around showing me big buildings that were part of the Archdiocese. He said to me, "By the time my kids are my age, all of this will be gone." So many American Christians have no idea what's coming.
(3) What's the story you will be watching carefully in the next year or two?
I'll be watching very carefully the religious liberty battle. Specifically, I'm going to keep an eye on how the Trump Justice Department makes and enforces policy. I'll be more interested, though, in seeing how Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) laws make it through legislatures and the courts.
Similarly, I'm going to watch how successfully religious schools defend themselves in court when they are sued over alleged anti-LGBT discrimination.
(4) Why is it important for journalists to understand the role of religion in our world today?
Religion is most fundamentally about the sacred narratives that bind a culture. "Religare" is Latin for "to bind". Its absence within a society means that society will sooner or later fragment or dissolve, because it will have lost its story. In this sociological sense, I suppose you could say that secularism is a religion, inasmuch as it has its own narratives that it considers axiomatic.
If journalists understood religion better, they would be better able to understand why people do the things they do, even when they don't make sense to seculars. They would also come to understand why their own worldview is essentially religious, even though they typically cannot see it -- and why so many of us religious believers see its supposed neutrality as a sham.
The lack of religious understanding among journalists has made for terrible, ill-informed, simplistic, and even bigoted coverage of the long fight over same-sex marriage, and now transgenderism. This issue is the one above all others in which the "sacred secularism" of journalists warps their ability to comprehend and faithfully reproduce the story fairly, accurately, and completely.
(5) What is the funniest, most ironic twist that you have seen in a religion news story lately?
Well, I don't know if this is funny, though people like me, with dark senses of humor, may find it so. I always find it absurd to read the general coverage of Islam in America. Most American journalists fall all over themselves to present their subjects in a sympathetic light. Yet if they were writing about American Christians who held the same retrograde beliefs ("retrograde" by a secular liberal's standards), the coverage would almost certainly be very different.
What this reflects is the bad habit of American journalists to project their own culture-war commitments onto the people they cover. To many of them, Muslims can only ever be victims of bigots, usually Christian bigots. Of course Muslims sometimes are exactly that. The problem is that journalists are not dealing with Muslims as real, complex people, but as screens upon which to project their own sympathies. I think this is also true, but in a reverse way, when it comes to journalists covering conservative forms of Christianity.
GetReligion's Terry Mattingly once floated an Ur-principle of American journalism: "The Religious Right must lose." It's interesting to observe how often you can tell how a reporter is going to cover a particular story that has to do with religion or values by applying that principle. This is how you get a situation I witnessed myself in a news meeting, in which the suggestion that the paper ought to cover more closely the radical teachings at a local mosque was met by a key newsroom editor by this statement: "We're always hearing about what radical Muslims are doing. What about Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson?!"
It's just nuts. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is the operative strategy here. I guess I find it funny that so many American journalists pride themselves on their tolerance and open-mindedness, when what they're really doing is arranging their prejudices.
I've been wondering about that since I first read a front-page Houston Chronicle story earlier this month about the Torres family's experience:Dad held the babies upright on his chest, patting them and swaying, while Mom crammed the last bag between a cooler of donated breast milk and a new portable crib.“Well,” Chelsea Torres said, closing the trunk and turning to her husband, Nick, “it all fits.”That was the easy part.What lay ahead was far more daunting.Leaving the hospital with a newborn is a moment no parent is ready for. What if the baby screams in the car? What if she won’t take a bottle once you get home? Chelsea, 24, and Nick, 23, have an even darker worry: What if the girls don’t survive the drive?The doctors assured them everything should be fine, but it’s hard to shake that fear. They’ve carried it for months, ever since the doctor back in Idaho told them Chelsea was pregnant with conjoined twins. Ever since they decided to ignore his recommendation to have an abortion. Ever since they loaded their 3-year-old son, Jaysin, into their Kia Optima six months ago and drove 25 hours to Houston.“I’ve been dreading the return,” said Nick, dark circles under his eyes after days with little sleep. “I’m just glad we’re making it with two healthy babies.”
My question is simple: Why?
Why did the couple choose not to have an abortion? Were religious beliefs a factor? The Chronicle story that I read did not explain their thinking, so I Googled in hopes of finding more background.
The Idaho paper noted:One doctor said the babies only had a 20 to 30 percent chance of surviving, while another gave them better odds but also warned that there was a high probability they wouldn’t make it to full term.The couple was given the option to terminate the pregnancy early on.“When we got home, it hit like bricks. We thought about it. We left it open for three days,” Chelsea said, adding that she cried that whole time.But in the end, they never really could consider that option, she said.
That sounds like the decision was more personal than theological — but then again, the paper never specifically addresses the family's religious background or lack thereof.
In a follow-up story published this week, the State Journal describes the 2-month-old twins' progress as "a miracle":Chelsea and Nick Torres were able to move back to Eastern Idaho this month with not only their young son, but also their newly born twin daughters.That’s a miracle for the former Blackfoot couple that didn’t know if their twins, Callie and Carter, who are conjoined, would even make it through their birth.But the twins were delivered safely at a hospital in Houston, Texas, on Jan. 30, and they were doing better than anyone expected.“Everyone was surprised,” Chelsea said, adding that Carter needed a little oxygen when she was delivered, but that was likely because the girls were taken by Cesarean section. “The doctors told us most C-section babies need a little air.”
Again, the latest State Journal story refers to the couple's decision against an abortion and the parents' determination "to give their unborn daughters a fighting chance at life." But why were they so determined to bring their children into the world?
Is there any possibility that religion played a role? Faith has not come up in any of the various stories I've read.
But am I absolutely certain that it's not a factor? No.
I sure wish some enterprising reporter would ask.
Maybe it's time to cue the theme from "Jaws" at copy desks in major newsrooms.
We are halfway through the season of Lent, and you know what that means. Once again, we are approaching the most important days on the Christian calendar, as in Holy Week and Easter. Editors should note that Easter in the West (Gregorian calendar) and Pascha in the churches of the East (the older Julian calendar) are on the same date this year.
This time of year is dangerous for editors because the odds rise that they will need to handle news stories that are supposed to contain accurate references to church history and basic Christian beliefs. This has, in the past, been a challenge in some newsroom, even at the most elite levels of the news food chain. Take, for example, the New York Times and its ongoing struggle with the details of the Resurrection.
This brings us to an Associated Press news feature about the efforts to restore the main shrine in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. See if you can spot the problem here:JERUSALEM (AP) -- The tomb of Jesus has been resurrected to its former glory.Just in time for Easter, a Greek restoration team has completed a historic renovation of the Edicule, the shrine that tradition says houses the cave where Jesus was buried and rose to heaven.Gone is the unsightly iron cage built around the shrine by British authorities in 1947 to shore up the walls. Gone is the black soot on the shrine's stone façade from decades of pilgrims lighting candles. And gone are fears about the stability of the old shrine, which hadn't been restored in more than 200 years.
Did you see the problem?
I'll give you a second chance, because this error was repeated in the tag line for the main AP photograph that ran with the feature. It's probably safe to say this photo description was based on the story, not the other way around.The renovated Edicule is seen in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, traditionally believed to be the site of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, in Jerusalem's old city Monday, Mar. 20, 2017. A Greek restoration team has completed a historic renovation of the Edicule, the shrine that tradition says houses the cave where Jesus was buried and rose to heaven. (AP Photo/Sebastian Scheiner)
OK, I know that this is complicated. Maybe there needs to be an expanded entry in the Associated Press Stylebook covering the events of Holy Week, Easter and the Ascension?
Attention AP corrections desk: Christians around the world do not believe that Jesus was "buried and rose to heaven" from the tomb cut into the stone of Golgotha. They believe that he was buried there, was resurrected, then ascended to heaven 40 days later. Church tradition points to Mount Olivet as the site of the Ascension.
Let me stress that there is plenty of interesting and valid material in this AP report, once you work your way past the messed up reference to the Resurrection. The factual information about the restoration work is fascinating, even to someone like me who has visited this shrine twice. Here is some background:The limestone and marble structure stands at the center of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, one of the world's oldest churches -- a 12th-century building standing on 4th-century remains. The shrine needed urgent attention after years of exposure to environmental factors like water, humidity and candle smoke.Three main Christian denominations jealously guard separate sections of the church, but they put aside their longstanding religious rivalries to give their blessing for the restoration. In 2015, Israeli police briefly shut down the building after Israel's Antiquities Authority deemed it unsafe, and repairs began in June 2016.A restoration team from the National Technical University of Athens stripped the stone slabs from the shrine's façade and patched up the internal masonry of the shrine, injecting it with tubes of grout for reinforcement. Each stone slab was cleaned of candle soot and pigeon droppings, then put back in place. Titanium bolts were inserted into the structure for reinforcement, and frescos and the shrine's painted dome were given a face-lift.
While doing repairs inside the tomb, workers were allowed to carefully work their way through several layers of history. The wording here is careful, some would say skeptical, but this is the language of secular history and journalism.On Oct. 26, the team entered the inner sanctum of the shrine, the burial chamber of Jesus, and temporarily slid open an old marble layer covering the bedrock where Jesus' body is said to have been placed.Below the outer marble layer was a white rose marble slab engraved with a cross, which the team dated to the late Crusader period of the 14th century. Beneath that marble slab was an even older, grey marble slab protecting the bedrock, and mortar on the slab dates to the 4th century, when Roman Emperor Constantine ordered the Church of the Holy Sepulcher built.The restorers have cut a small window from the shrine's marble walls for pilgrims to see -- for the first time -- the bare stone of the ancient burial cave."It seems we are in front of levels of history that are validated," said Antonia Moropoulou, who supervised the renovation.
Concerning the error at the top of the story: AP editors will need to print a correction on that. I would urge them to be careful when doing so. After all, the highly skilled corrections desk team at The New York Times didn't cover itself with glory when correcting a similar error a few years ago.
All of this reminds me of a piece of "laugh to keep from crying" satire on this topic. I believe this was written by Mollie Hemingway, but an old link to the original source has gone dead. Can you imagine a great newspaper like the Times needing to run a correction like this?In last Thursday’s story, “Americans excited to visit ‘ball parks,’” the sport of baseball was repeatedly spelled bayspall. The number of ‘bases’ was given as five; the correct number is three. “Home plate” is a marker embedded in the ground, not a trophy awarded to the winner of the World Series. “Babe” Ruth was the popular nickname of George Herman Ruth Jr. (1895–1948), generally regarded the greatest baseballer of the early twentieth century, and not the African-American mistress of Brooklyn Dodgers owner Walter F. O’Malley as stated in the article. The Times regrets the errors.
Hang on. There are plenty of complicated religious holidays just ahead on the calendar.
After a federal judge in Hawaii blocked President Donald Trump's revised executive order on immigration and refugees, the Wall Street Journal dispatched Los Angeles-based national religion writer Ian Lovett to Honolulu.
Talk about a tough assignment! (And, by the way, could you please sign me up?)
I don't know if Lovett got to spend any time at the beach or if he was too busy working, but his excellent feature captures the mood — and concerns — of the island state's Muslims in the Trump era.
The lede explains Hawaii's surprising role in the controversy:HONOLULU — With only a few thousand Muslim residents, Hawaii would seem an unlikely place to challenge — and halt — President Donald Trump’s travel ban.Only a half-dozen of refugees are settled here each year. The small Muslim community has quietly thrived, away from the conflicts on the mainland. They built a mosque in the hills overlooking Waikiki, celebrated the end of Ramadan on the beach and enjoyed good relationships with neighbors in this multicultural state. Anti-Islamic threats or hate speech was virtually unheard of, Muslims here say.But all of that has abruptly changed in recent weeks, as Hawaii’s Muslim community has found itself at the center of the nationwide battle over immigration and Islam’s place in American society.Anti-Muslim incidents have jumped since late last year, Muslims here say, and members of the community have been separated from their families by Mr. Trump’s travel ban.The state of Hawaii—along with the imam at the mosque here, Ismail Elshikh—sued to stop the revised ban from taking effect, saying it was motivated by religious animus toward Muslims. On Wednesday night, a federal judge agreed and put the order on hold.
From there, the Journal does a really nice job of quoting Muslims in Hawaii and letting them describe their own experiences. The piece puts real faces on the random Muslims we hear so much about.
I wish the narrative that anti-Muslim incidents are up was less squishy — with more concrete statistics and confirmation by authorities. But to Lovett's credit, he quotes a Honolulu police spokeswoman concerning two incidents and notes that other cases — "small expressions of hate" — have not risen to the level of reportable crimes. Sometimes, anecdotal evidence is the only kind available.
Certainly, the Journal avoids the kind of overreach seen in many "Islamophobia" reports.
All in all, it's a great piece of quick-hit journalism.
To Lovett and the Journal, I say: Mahalo!
Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Neil Gorsuch begin today, so get set for some good TV.
A few journalists are still trying to get to the bottom of the form and content of Gorsuch’s religious views. Is he truly an Episcopalian or some kind of crypto-Catholic? Is he conservative or liberal? What are his views on abortion?
The latest effort, from CNN, assembles together what a lot of journalists have written about the nominee’s faith plus a few details the reporter found out on his own. The headline: “What is Neil Gorsuch’s religion? It’s complicated” hints at what's to come. We start here:WASHINGTON (CNN) Earlier this month, the Trump administration summoned two dozen religious leaders to a private meeting. The mission: to rally support for Neil Gorsuch, Trump's Supreme Court nominee…Eventually, the conversation turned to Gorsuch's own religious background.He was raised Catholic but now worships with his wife and two daughters at St. John's Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colorado. Like the city, the congregation is politically liberal. It bars guns from its campus and installed solar panels; it condemns harsh rhetoric about Muslims and welcomes gays and lesbians. And its rector, the Rev. Susan Springer, attended the Women's March in Denver, though not as a form of protest but as a sign of support for "the dignity of every human being."
It goes a lot into his early life as a child in a Catholic family and then:After college and law school, between stints clerking at the Supreme Court, Gorsuch studied legal philosophy at Oxford University in England, where his dissertation was supervised by John Finnis, a giant in the field and a former member of the Vatican's prestigious International Theological Commission.Among laypeople, Finnis may be best known for his expositions on natural law, an often-misunderstood area of legal and moral philosophy.
The article then veers into a discussion of natural law. But isn’t Oxford where Gorsuch switched from the Catholic to the Church of England, also known as the Anglican Communion or, in the United States, the Episcopal Church? Writing about Gorsuch a few weeks ago, I included information on this point thanks to a helpful piece in the Daily Mail that connected the dots.
However the CNN piece -- this is crucial -- suggests the Brits are wrong and that the judge never changed faiths.When Neil Gorsuch returned from his studies in Oxford, he came home a married man. His British-born wife, Louise, was raised in the Church of England. As the new family settled in Vienna, Virginia, they joined Holy Comforter, an Episcopal parish.According to church records, the Gorsuches were members of Holy Comforter from 2001 to 2006, when they moved to Colorado. But on membership forms, Neil listed his religion as Catholic, and there is no record that he formally joined the Episcopal Church, said the Rev. Lyndon Shakespeare, Holy Comforter's interim rector.
I used to live one suburb over from Holy Comforter, which was –- and probably still is -- a middle-of-the-road Episcopal parish. The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia had a large selection of nearby evangelical and charismatic parishes (Truro Church, The Falls Church and Church of the Apostles, for starters), so if the Gorsuchs were of that persuasion, they had ample opportunity to choose one. People drove from all over northern Virginia to attend those churches, so the fact that the Gorsuches stayed at Holy Comforter speaks volumes.
Yes, if Gorsuch had become Episcopalian, there’s a small reception ritual one goes through with the local bishop plus it would have been noted on parish records somewhere that he had joined up.
The article then makes the case that the couple’s attendance at Episcopal churches is because of what Louise Gorsuch wants.When the Gorsuch family moved to Colorado, they joined St. John's, where they have been active in Sunday services. Louise is a lay reader, the couple's two daughters likewise assist in the liturgy as acolytes and Neil has been an usher.Friends and family say Louise Gorsuch has an affinity for the liturgy and music at St. John's, finding in it an echo of her upbringing in the Church of England…
The reporter then makes the case that Gorsuch is not an Episcopalian at all.Springer said she doesn't know whether Gorsuch considers himself a Catholic or an Episcopalian."I have no evidence that Judge Gorsuch considers himself an Episcopalian, and likewise no evidence that he does not."Gorsuch's younger brother, J.J., said he too has "no idea how he would fill out a form. He was raised in the Catholic Church and confirmed in the Catholic Church as an adolescent, but he has been attending Episcopal services for the past 15 or so years."(Michael) Trent, Gorsuch's close friend, said he believes Gorsuch would consider himself "a Catholic who happens to worship at an Episcopal church."
Those of us are Episcopalian know the membership standards are not stringent.Gorsuch could also call himself an Episcopalian if he meets the church's minimum standards for membership: Being baptized Christian, receiving Holy Communion at least three times a year and supporting the church through prayer and financial donations."The intent here is key," said the Rev. Thomas Ferguson, an Episcopal priest and an expert on its relationships with other churches. "If he intends to be an Episcopalian he could certainly be considered one."This may seem academic, but the religious composition of the Supreme Court is closely watched by many believers…
Read the article yourself to see the delicious quote by Richard Land (a politically astute Southern Baptist) at the end. The possibility that Gorsuch is an inactive Catholic is sure an interesting one and may be accurate. However, there are factual questions that journalists could be asking. For example: Is he is receiving Holy Communion in his current Episcopal parish? Is he slipping away to Mass at a church in Boulder or elsewhere?
The fact that he attends an Episcopal parish tells me that there is a really good chance that he no longer thinks like a Catholic. It also tells me that while his legal philosophy is quite similar to that of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, his moral philosophy may be quite different.
That may not mollify Democrats much, but for reporters, that’s an important distinction to know.
The big news in The Washington Post this weekend? The headline! "Inside Trump’s White House, New York moderates spark infighting and suspicion."
This was a shocker built on two stunning revelations.
First, did you know that Donald Trump -- who has surrounded himself with chaos at every stage of his public life -- has created a White House staff that appears to exist in a constant state of chaos? Shocking! As many has noted, Trump has always said that he enjoys hearing a wide range of viewpoints, even if that creates conflict, knowing that he gets to make the final decision.
Then there was shocker No. 2: Did you know that the style, priorities and values of "moderate" (a label that in elite media-speak means, "good guys in this context") New Yorkers are often different kinds of people than the populist and cultural conservatives who live in red-zip-code America? Can you imagine?!
Now, when you look at this buzz-producing Post political thriller from a GetReligion perspective it contains one more stunning revelation: Apparently these chaotic clashes are rooted in personalities and pure political gamesmanship and have nothing to do with hot-button issues linked to culture and religion!
At least, that is how things play out when the script is written by the pros at the Post political desk. Here is the overture and how-we-did-it summary for this feature:Inside the White House, they are dismissed by their rivals as “the Democrats.”Outspoken, worldly and polished, this coterie of ascendant Manhattan business figures-turned-presidential advisers is scrambling the still-evolving power centers swirling around President Trump.Led by Gary Cohn and Dina Powell -- two former Goldman Sachs executives often aligned with Trump’s elder daughter and his son-in-law -- the group and its broad network of allies are the targets of suspicion, loathing and jealousy from their more ideological West Wing colleagues.
Of course, the daughter and the son-in-law have already been hailed as the voices of urbane reason when it comes to issues of "religious liberty" -- they probably even put that ordinary First Amendment term inside scare quotes -- and sexual liberty. Also note that the Post team believes that this camp of "Democrats" does not have a strong ideology and its members are not prone to fits of suspicion, loathing and jealousy, while their opponents struggle with all of that.
Let's keep reading.On the other side are the Republican populists driving much of Trump’s nationalist agenda and confrontations, led by chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, who has grown closer to Chief of Staff Reince Priebus in part to counter the New Yorkers.As Trump’s administration enters its third month, the constant jockeying and backbiting among senior staff is further inflaming tensions at a time when the White House is struggling on numerous fronts -- from the endangered health-care bill to the controversial budget to the hundreds of top jobs still vacant throughout the government.
Once again, no tensions here about issues linked to culture and social issues.
Come to think of it, readers should note that this story's only reference to Vice President Mike Pence -- the most symbolic social conservative in the Trump mix -- noted where he sat during a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Apparently, he is irrelevant.
The anonymous voices march through this piece like flag-wavers on parade. To its credit, the Post political pros -- the alphas in this Beltway newsroom -- are very open about this.The emerging turf war has led to fights over White House protocol and access to the president, backstabbing and leaks to reporters, and a heated Oval Office showdown over trade refereed by the president himself.This account of the internal workings of Trump’s team is based on interviews with 18 top White House officials, confidants of the president and other senior Republicans with knowledge of the relationships, many of whom requested anonymity to speak candidly.
Now, that is pretty much the end of any content in this piece that would be of interest to Americans whose primary concerns focus on moral and social issues, as opposed to the fine details of personality wars and political chess matches. It should be noted that, in a massive show of restraint, which I will praise -- the Post team did not turn this chaotic drama into a wrestling match between East Coast Jews and heartland evangelical Protestants.
Otherwise, I was left pondering this: While it appears that the Post editors were rather candid when it came to the nature of the anonymous sourcing for this piece, is it possible that, well, they didn't mention that most or all of the sources came from the New York and social libertarian side of these arguments?
Is it possible that these are the members of the Trump team that feel more comfortable sharing information and opinions with the Post political team, which has emerged as kind of the Breitbart of the grieving DC left?
Read the whole piece. Did I miss something? Is the message here, if one reads between the lines, that the religious and social conservatives who flocked (or limped, as a final resort) to Trump have already been betrayed and now play zero role in the White House? Or is that the point of view of Trump team members who are willing to meet in secret with Post people?
Hello fellow religion writers.
Hello fellow religion-news junkies.
Have you spent a good part of this past week listening to the loud and potentially strategic silence in corners of cyberspace that normally buzz with Southern Baptist Convention news and commentary? Have you been paying close attention to see when a certain feed on Twitter will return to action?
Did you notice, however, the interesting thoughts and comments on a certain post by Dwight McKissic at the SBC Voices website? That would be the one with this headline:A HILL ON WHICH [“NOT”] TO DIE: Biographical Reflections and Ruminations on the SBC and Responses to the Graham-Moore Controversy
We are, of course, talking about the uncertainty that remains after the much-discussed meeting between the Rev. Russell Moore, the SBC's most prominent voice in Washington, D.C., and the Rev. Frank Page, leader of the convention's executive committee ("About the Washington Post report on SBC's Russell Moore: It's best to simply say, 'Read carefully' "). The two men released a "peace pipe" statement afterwards and then the silence descended over SBC land.
All of this provided the hook for this past week's "Crossroads" podcast (click here to tune that in). The goal in this conversation, however, was to look at the wider themes seen in this conflict, the political and generational conflicts that are seen in many religious bodies right now, not just in America's largest Protestant flock.
With that in mind, read this passage this passage in that McKissic post, which addresses the reality that much of the SBC fighting about Moore and his work is, in reality, another sign of conflicts in American evangelicalism linked to -- and I say this carefully -- faith in Donald Trump and in his ability to keep promises. The opening reference to "Biblical Inerrancy" refers to the doctrinal fight at the heart of the great SBC civil war that began in the late 1970s.Biblical Inerrancy was/is “A Hill on Which to Die” (which is the title of the book written by Judge Pressler detailing the inerrancy battle in the SBC). The Confederate Flag Resolution was/is not “A Hill on Which to Die.”Neither is an alignment with and official sanctioning of President Donald Trump and the Republican Party “A Hill on Which to Die.” I join with my President, Pastor Byron Day, of the National African American Fellowship of the Southern Baptist Convention in appealing for unity in the life of our Convention. Although I’m unsure of whom the target audience might have been, but I concur with a recent tweet by my friend Bob Roberts: “mixing the Kingdom of God with the kingdoms of man always leads to a fake kingdom.” The SBC will morph into a “fake kingdom” if they continue this horrid love affair and identification with the Republican Party, particularly while Donald Trump is President.Tony Evans is renowned for saying, “God is not riding the backs of donkeys or elephants. He doesn’t take sides, He takes over.” God is neither Republican nor Democrat. It would be a travesty for our Convention to make a decision that would be widely and rightfully interpreted as aligning us with the Republican Party. It would be equally unwise and unholy to align the SBC with the Democratic Party.
That's blunt and to the point.
The wider issue, as I see it, rest on differences about the current state of the American soul. Many Southern Baptists (and others) led by an older generation of Religious Right leaders seem convinced that it is still possible to win the so-called culture war over faith, morality and public life -- no matter what the polls show about the beliefs of younger generations. Many younger Southern Baptists (and others) believe that it is wrong to keep focusing on politics, other than a strong push to protect religious liberty for all. They want to stress a reformation in church and family life, so that Christians in the present and future will have something to pass on to both their children and a hurting world, when it comes to faith and culture.
To tune in that side of the conflict, let me point journalists and readers toward the "Christians in the Hands of Donald Trump" column by Ross Douthat, in the New York Times, of course. Here is his more elegant statement of my earlier thesis:Moore (and many others) spent the campaign warning that a countercultural Christianity would risk its credibility by supporting a figure like Trump for the presidency. But other leaders, mostly in the movement’s older guard, found ways to cast Trump as a heaven-sent figure, whose flaws and failings were no worse than those of a King David or a Constantine. And when Trump won, shockingly -- with strong support from conservative churchgoers, however conflicted they might have been -- the Trumpist faction claimed vindication, and among some Baptist pastors the knives came out for Moore.
But was the Trump victory a sign of lasting progress or only another symptom of the bitterness and confusion that is tearing American in half?
This brings us to a big-time reading assignment for all who want to cover the deeper themes in this national story, which is not over yet. No way.This reversal of fortune provides the unexpected backdrop for several new books from conservative Christian writers, all written back when liberalism’s cultural-political progress seemed more inevitable (that is, last year). They include Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput’s “Strangers in a Strange Land: Living the Catholic Faith in a Post-Christian World” and the Providence College English professor Anthony Esolen’s “Out of the Ashes: Rebuilding American Culture.” The most talked-about title is Rod Dreher’s “The Benedict Option” (blurbed, the alert reader will note, by Russell Moore), whose arresting title references the founder of Western monasticism, St. Benedict of Nursia, and whose countercultural themes have been percolating for some time in Dreher’s prolific blogging.Each book has its own tone. Chaput’s is ruminative and strains for optimism; Esolen waxes poetic in the service of a cultural jeremiad. Dreher’s is an interesting mixture. It begins in sweeping pessimism, describing a Western Christianity foredestined to all but disappear, collapsing from within even as its institutions are regulated and taxed to death by secular inquisitors. Then it pivots to a more practical how-to guide for believers trying to build religious communities -- churches, schools, families, social networks -- that are more resilient, more rigorous and more capable of passing on the faith than much of Christianity today.
So, get to reading. And listening. In addition to this one, there are all kinds of interesting podcasts out there about these themes.
Russell Moore talks to Rod Dreher? Yes, please. Click here.
Rod Dreher in a potentially newsworthy conversation with the prominent SBC public intellectual, and Southern Baptist Seminary leader, Albert Mohler, Jr.? Yes, please. Click here.
Last, but not least, please save a few moments for this week's edition of "Crossroads." As you would imagine, I am still trying to figure out the wider news hooks in all of this.
Why has U.S. politics became so rancid in tone and so harshly polarized?
Analysts have pinned the blame variously on talk radio and cable news, social media and the Internet, gerrymandering of U.S. House and state legislative districts, the Supreme Court’s campaign finance ruling, suspicion of authorities and cultural rebellion since the 1960s, a general coarsening of culture, economic woe, and much else.
Now comes prominent liberal analyst Peter Beinart with a striking thesis in the April issue of The Atlantic (which alongside its Web site has emerged as the most interesting source of religion coverage and commentary among general-interest magazine companies). He contends that what ails the fractured republic has much to do with the serious slide in church involvement over recent years.
His scenario deserves major media attention, with responses from fellow pundits and Christian conservatives who will dislike his anti-Donald Trump slant and resent any connection with the “race-and-nation” movement.
Beinart, who is Jewish, is an old-school New Republic editor turned journalism professor who writes for The Atlantic and others. He notes that some analysts welcomed the increase of “nones” who lack all religious affiliation, figuring this would foster greater tolerance and social harmony. Beinart’s view is precisely the opposite.
Yes, there’s more acceptance of gay marriages and legalized marijuana, he says. But the slide in organized religion is “making America’s partisan clashes more brutal” and contributes to the rise of the “alt-right,” and “white nationalism,” pitting “us” against “them” in “even more primal and irreconcilable ways.” The older “culture war over religious morality” has been succeeded by a “more secular, more ferociously national and racial culture war” that is worse.
Beinart piles up survey research to back up that claim. For instance, the Public Religion Research Institute reports the percentage of white Republicans with no religious ties has nearly tripled since 1990. President Trump, who focused voter despair and resentment, did best with evangelicals who don’t attend church while weekly worshipers supported conservative candidates with different messages.
Surveys show “culturally conservative white Americans who are disengaged from church experience have less economic success and more family breakdown” and “grow more pessimistic and resentful.” White working class Americans without church involvement are more likely to suffer from divorce, addiction and financial distress. They share traditional aspirations about life but have trouble holding on to a job or a marriage “and otherwise forging real and abiding ties in their community.”
The bottom line: The worse they fare, the darker their view of their country.
Tolerance? Beinart says when cultural conservatives drop out of organized religion, they grow more hostile toward African Americans, Latinos and Muslims. Even hard-shell conservative churchgoers are continually taught to love thy neighbor. But “when cultural conservatives disengage from organized religion, they tend to redraw the lines of identity, deemphasizing morality and religion and emphasizing race and nation.” He sees President Trump as “both a beneficiary and a driver of that shift.”
Beinart sees effects beyond white Protestantism. Religious “nones” helped fuel the successes of the very secular Bernie Sanders’s insurgency against Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment. Likewise with “Black Lives Matter,” which is far more disengaged from religionthan the older civil rights movement, and oriented more toward fueling resentments than achieving multi-racial reform.
The upshot: Whatever the ways religious involvement creates positive social effects, we find that “secularization isn’t easing political conflict. It’s making American politics even more convulsive.” And with “post-Christian” perspectives on the rise, “it’s easy to imagine American politics becoming more and more vicious.”
IMAGE: Stock graphic with a CBS News report.
Like almost every other parent of a child or pre-teen in America, I’m hoping to take the kiddo to “Beauty and the Beast” this weekend at some nearby theater. The Disney Channel, to which my daughter is glued every afternoon, advertises the movie during nearly every ad break, so there are probably few Americans under 13 who don’t know about its release.
Of course there’s been blowback about the “gay moment” in B&B, which apparently comes rather late in the film (after a few hints early on). So, we’ll see if my almost 12-year-old picks up anything different in that I’ve not breathed a word to her about the issue.
Meanwhile, we’ll see if I pick up anything. There were a few things said about a same-sex couple in “Finding Dory,” but they were only on for a few nanoseconds and you had to be looking for it. Also I’m hoping this PG-rated movie stays PG. I'm not looking forward to it for other reasons. Disney has a way of overloading a simple fairy tale and I've been hearing that it's overblown and overdone.
Some folks overseas have an even different read on the movie, according to the Los Angeles Times, which ran this piece:When Disney's live-action "Beauty and the Beast" debuts worldwide Thursday, Malaysia will no longer be among the invited guests.The Associated Press reported Tuesday that the company had shelved its plans for Malaysian release after film censors there approved the film after cutting out its so-called "gay moment."According to the chairman of the Film Censorship Board in Malaysia, Abdul Halim Abdul Hamid, scenes promoting homosexuality are banned in the country."We have approved it, but there is a minor cut involving a gay moment. It is only one short scene but it is inappropriate because many children will be watching this movie," Abdul Hamid told the Associated Press.
This is confusing. The film board censored the film to match up with local sensitivities, then banned it nonetheless? Odd. Why is this happening?
Up to this point, the story is a rewrite of an earlier Associated Press release. Then:The censorship board does allow for the depiction of homosexual characters onscreen, but only if they are shown in a negative light or repent for their actions. In Malaysia, same-sex sexual activity is illegal and carries a punishment of whipping and up to 20 years in prison.
The link in the last paragraph leads to a Huffington Post story that does a better job of explaining why Malaysians feel this way. Sharia (Islamic) law, it says, governs the country’s state courts.
It's not hard to add this small , but essential detail. This USA Today story at least states that Malaysia is “mainly Muslim” and that sodomy is punished by a 20-year prison sentence and whipping in Malaysia. It only takes one internet search to discern Islamic attitudes towards homosexuality and it would have taken the Times one sentence to have pointed this out.
The AP story on which the Times piece is based on has a religion ghost as well; “ghost” being the religion angle to the story that got left out (in GetReligion lingo).
One wonders about the omission. Were both AP and the Times eporters truly ignorant of Malaysia’s Islamic heritage? Do any of them realize that the crescent on the Malaysian flag represents the country’s official religion? And that Malaysia has been more Islamicized by the year?
I've also heard that Kazakhstan, my daughter's birthplace and a Muslim-majority country, is also not allowing the film. I could only find one poorly translated article saying this, but a Kazakh friend of mine confirms it's not being shown for reasons similar to that of Malaysia.
It is not hard to ask such questions. Reporters only need to ask the "why" ones more often. For some reason, journalists tend to drop that "why" component in the old "who, what, when, where, why and how" news formula, if the religion in question is something other than a controversial form of Christianity.
I'm on a reporting trip to Canada and writing this post from my hotel room in Hamilton, Ontario, southwest of Toronto.
Ordinarily when I travel, I don't pay much attention to the news back home in Oklahoma City. But this week — even though I'm 1,200 miles away — I haven't been able to escape the scandal making banner headlines in my local newspaper, The Oklahoman.
The headlines concern a state senator caught up in a child prostitution scandal:March 17, 2017 March 17, 2017 March 17, 2017
Until this week, I had never heard of Shortey. Since I cover national religion news, I don't follow the key players in Oklahoma politics as closely as I did years ago when I worked for The Oklahoman.
But my 17-year-old daughter met Shortey through the YMCA’s Youth and Government organization, which lets teens participate in a program that simulates state government. My daughter, a high school senior, served as a judge in the YAG program and had meetings with Shortey and other students just recently. So she has been — for obvious reasons — distressed and sickened by this week's news (as has her father).
The Oklahoman has been all over the story — five front-page reports in three days (here, here, here, here and here) — and rightly so. Voters deserve to know what happened, and the newspaper has an important role to play in ensuring that justice is served.
And yes, there is — sadly — a religion angle, one that so far has not been pursued as much as it could be and should be.
Today's main story in The Oklahoman highlights the senator's religion — but only in a superficial way:NORMAN — A conservative state senator who once wanted to be a missionary was accused Thursday in a child prostitution case of offering to pay a 17-year-old boy for sex.Sen. Ralph Shortey, R-Oklahoma City, was charged with three felony counts, one week after police found him with the teenager in a Moore hotel room.Gov. Mary Fallin, Lt. Gov. Todd Lamb, Senate leaders and many others called Thursday for him to resign.The accusations “do not reflect the character and decorum that we expect of an elected official,” Fallin said. “It is not acceptable.”The evidence against Shortey includes a graphic online conversation where the two discuss having sex and smoking marijuana, police reported in a court affidavit. The conversation was found on the teenager’s Kindle tablet.Shortey, using the online name “Jamie Tilley,” at one point during the discussion about sex called the teenager “baby boy,” according to the affidavit.
Later, the newspaper notes:Shortey had studied in college to do mission work in Uganda but decided to go into the oil and gas industry after having his first child. “I actually planned my life around being a missionary,” he said in a TV interview.
Believe it or not, that's it — all of the details The Oklahoman provides after introducing Shortey's faith background in the lede.
Among my questions that the paper fails to engage, much less answer: Does Shortey have a home church? If so, what do church leaders and fellow members say, if anything, about him and his arrest?
Also, what college did he attend? Does it have a religious affiliation? If so, do leaders there remember him? How do they react to the child prostitution charge?
The Oklahoman has had full stories on fellow senators and politicians responding to the news and on random voters in his Senate district reacting to the charge. Wouldn't information about his church and religious background be equally relevant, especially given the shocking hypocrisy with which he is accused?
A quick Google search turns up Shortey's official Senate biography:Shortey graduated from West Moore High School in 2000, and following graduation he attended Heartland Baptist Bible College in Oklahoma City in preparation for mission work in Uganda. In 2002, Ralph married his high school sweetheart, Jennifer and continues to make his home in south Oklahoma City with their two children, Kaitlyn and Elena. With a growing family, Shortey decided against pursuing mission work and instead entered the oil and gas industry, working as a production consultant.
Heartland Baptist Bible College has ties to Southwest Baptist Church, an Oklahoma City megachurch that various online sources indicate is an independent Baptist church. Southwest Bible Church is included on a listing of independent Baptist churches that believe in using only the King James Version of the Bible.
Is Shortey a member of that church? My Google review did not provide a quick answer. But given where the senator attended college, I am hopeful that reporters will do more digging.
As I mentioned, I'm a long way from home as I type this. If I've missed media coverage that addresses the religion angle, by all means, please provide a link (or links) in the comments section.
The headline on a timely "'Splainer" feature from Religion News Service could not be more direct: "The ‘Splainer: Who was St. Patrick, and would he drink green beer?"
You know, or think you know, St. Patrick.
The guy with the shamrock. The cultural excuse for some of the most rowdy parties in the history of humanity, anywhere on earth where there are people who have any claim to be Irish.
Allow me a moment, along those lines, for a personal note: I am about an English as one can be, in terms of family heritage. However, my patron saint is St. Brendan of Clonfert, better known as St. Brendan the Navigator, who is another great hero of Irish Christianity. So cut me some slack on this topic.
So how does one start a news-you-can-use explainer feature about someone who is famous as a cultural figure, yet not as well known as the great Christian saint that he actual is? Let's look at the RNS overture.
Hint: My major problem with this piece is right here at the top.For Catholics, Episcopalians and some Lutherans, March 17 is the Feast Day of St. Patrick. For the rest of us, it’s St. Patrick’s Day -- a midweek excuse to party until we’re green in the face.But who was Patrick? Did he really drive the snakes out of Ireland or use the shamrock to explain the Trinity? Why should this fifth-century priest be remembered on this day?
OK, hold it right there.
Now, as everyone knows, there are about 1.2 billion Catholics in the world. That ancient communion goes right at the top of the list, if you are talking about feast days for St. Patrick. And it's true that there are about 85 million Anglicans in the world and, here in America, the small flock of Episcopalians is still a major player when it comes to making news. When you add up the various branches of Lutheranism, you get nearly 80 million believers.
Now, who are we missing there in this list of Christian communions that honor St. Patrick?
That would be the world's second largest Christian communion, as in the various Eastern Orthodox churches. So do the Orthodox have a feast day to honor St. Patrick?
Well, what do you know. The feast day of St. Patrick of Ireland, Bishop of Armagh and Enlightener of Ireland, is (wait for it) -- March 17. Let's turn to the OrthodoxWiki site and see if this sound like the great saint and missionary that we are looking for:Our father among the saints Patrick of Ireland, Bishop of Armagh and Enlightener of Ireland, was born a Briton. Captured and brought to Ireland as a slave, he escaped and returned home. Later, he returned to Ireland, bringing Christianity to its people. His feast day is March 17.Saint Patrick was born around 390 (likely in 387), at Kilpatrick, near Dumbarton, in Scotland. His name is from the Latin Patricius, meaning high-born. His parents were part of the Christian minority of Britain; his father, Calpurnius, was a deacon, "the son of Potitus, a priest, of the village Bannavem Taburniæ."At the age of 16, he was captured during a raiding party and taken to Ireland as a slave to herd and tend sheep. During that time, he prayed frequently and came for the first time to have a true faith in God. At age 22, he had a vision in which God told him to be prepared to leave Ireland. Soon, he escaped, walking 200 miles to a ship and returning to England. In a dream, he saw the people of Ireland calling him, "We beg you, holy youth, that you shall come and shall walk again among us."
That sounds like the man.
So why leave the Orthodox out of that list? Maybe the Episcopalians and Lutherans are better known for throwing parties (at least on this particular date) than the Russians and the Greeks? That may be true, although I think the Russians and Greeks could catch up if they tried.
I realize that people don't think "Orthodox" when they hear about St. Patrick, but the many great Celtic saints from the ages before the Great Schism of 1054 actually have a lively following among the Orthodox, especially Orthodox converts in North America. Note the copy editors: Almost all of the saints before the Great Schism are claimed by churches in the West and the East.
In fact, if you look around, you might even find a St. Patrick Orthodox Parish or two. Honest.
So there needs to be a correction in this piece, in the online file copy -- because March 17 is the feast day of St. Patrick for the Orthodox, as well.
Now, back to some interesting material in the 'Splainer. The final question asks "what did he do that would make him worthy of getting a whole day dedicated to him (plus a bunch of parades and a whole lot of green beer)?A: Short answer: Patrick was a maverick, an iconoclast, a trailblazer. And though he was high born, he never forgot the naked shepherd boy, cold and hungry and huddling on an Irish hillside. “The imagined Patrick to me is interesting as a cultural phenomenon, but not as a breathing man of faith,” said Philip Freeman, author of “St. Patrick of Ireland.” “He suffered terribly, was tormented by self-doubt, yet he always pressed forward to spread the Gospel.” He was also the first church father to speak out against the abuse of women, especially slaves. And at a time when Christian biggies like the Apostle Paul and St. Augustine never left the boundaries of the Roman Empire, Patrick was the first missionary to people considered barbarians.
Yes, there is a key word right there near the end that should be moved much higher in this piece, maybe even above the word "beer."
You see, if you created a Mt. Rushmore to honor the greatest MISSIONARIES in the history of world Christianity, St. Patrick of Ireland would almost certainly make the cut. (I would nominate St. Nina, Equal of the Apostles and Enlightener of Georgia, as well.)
So how to end this piece in honor of this great bishop, missionary and saint? With this famous prayer, of course -- a morning prayer of St. Patrick, also called the "Lorica" or "Breastplate" of St. Patrick. I know of at least one Orthodox bishop here in America who has asked that this be chanted at his funeral someday.I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the Threeness,
Through confession of the Oneness
of the Creator of creation.I arise today
Through the strength of Christ’s birth with His baptism,
Through the strength of His crucifixion with His burial,
Through the strength of His resurrection with His ascension,
Through the strength of His descent for the judgment of doom.I arise today
Through the strength of the love of cherubim,
In the obedience of angels,
In the service of archangels,
In the hope of resurrection to meet with reward,
In the prayers of patriarchs,
In the predictions of prophets,
In the preaching of apostles,
In the faith of confessors,
In the innocence of holy virgins,
In the deeds of righteous men.I arise today, through
The strength of heaven,
The light of the sun,
The radiance of the moon,
The splendor of fire,
The speed of lightning,
The swiftness of wind,
The depth of the sea,
The stability of the earth,
The firmness of rock.I arise today, through
God’s strength to pilot me,
God’s might to uphold me,
God’s wisdom to guide me,
God’s eye to look before me,
God’s ear to hear me,
God’s word to speak for me,
God’s hand to guard me,
God’s shield to protect me,
God’s host to save me
From snares of devils,
From temptation of vices,
From everyone who shall wish me ill,
afar and near.I summon today
All these powers between me and those evils,
Against every cruel and merciless power
that may oppose my body and soul,
Against incantations of false prophets,
Against black laws of pagandom,
Against false laws of heretics,
Against craft of idolatry,
Against spells of witches and smiths and wizards,
Against every knowledge that corrupts man’s body and soul;
Christ to shield me today
Against poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against wounding,
So that there may come to me an abundance of reward.Christ with me,
Christ before me,
Christ behind me,
Christ in me,
Christ beneath me,
Christ above me,
Christ on my right,
Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down,
Christ when I sit down,
Christ when I arise,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.