GetReligion.org

There have been a lot of stories in the past week about the conversion bill that was steamrolling through the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, before being tabled for the next few months. Few prospective laws in the Middle East draw much attention, but this one did, largely because of it’s potential consequences for American Jews and future American Jews.

What is at stake, as David Horovitz, editor in chief of the Jerusalem Post, wrote, is the very connection between Israel and the Jewish Diaspora — a very, very, very important relationship for American Jews, and an even more important one for Israelis.

What we are facing is an explosive global crisis over Jewish identity — a huge, snow-balling disaster that is ripping Israeli-Diaspora relations.

I’m not to keen on doing a general survey of all this coverage. Instead, I’d like to compare two stories from two publications that really should get this story right. One is from the paper of record for Los Angeles’ Jewish community; the other is just from the paper of record.

First the story from The New York Times:

The bill that so angered American Jewish leaders was actually aimed at making conversion easier for the 300,000 Israelis among the 1 million who moved to Israel from the former Soviet Union in the 1990s. Those Israelis are not, by Orthodox rabbinic law, considered Jewish because they come from mixed parentage. The law would have tried to make conversion easier by granting conversion powers to local rabbis across the country, a group considered closer to their communities.

But after objections from the ultra-Orthodox, the bill formally placed authority for conversion in the hands of the chief rabbinate and declared Orthodox Jewish law to be the basis of conversion, making Americans fear that their more lenient conversion processes would be invalidated. …

Rabbi David Schuck of the Pelham Jewish Center in Westchester County, N.Y., said of the religious conversion bill, “It spits in the face of Diaspora Jews in particular, and if passed, it would be an acquiescence of the majority of Israeli Jews to a fundamentalist interpretation of Judaism.”

That’s easy enough to understand, and the NYT’s Jerusalem bureau chief Ethan Bronner does well to close this context-filled story with the aforementioned comment from the JPost’s Horovitz. Bronner also mentions something that I’ve noted before when discussing issues of Jewish identity and that unresolvable question:

The question of “who is a Jew?” is as old as the state of Israel. The more liberal forms of Jewish practice advocated by the Reform and Conservative movements, with which most American Jews are affiliated, have never taken root here. Israel has left liturgy in the hands of the Orthodox, with most Israeli Jews leading almost completely secular lives, seeking out rabbis only at birth, marriage and death.

I’ve spent eight days in Israel, and it doesn’t even take that long to recognize how secular most of Israel is. (Remember that story about long beards and black hats?) But Bronner, who had a son in the IDF, has been there much longer, and it shows in this story.

Now let’s see how handicapped Jonah Lowenfeld, my replacement at The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, for which I write The God Blog, was by being stuck stateside. After leding with the “who is a Jew?” question, Lowenfeld wrote in this past week’s cover story, “The Israeli Conversion Bill: What it means and why everyone’s so mad”:

There is much confusion about what the Chief Rabbinate of Israel (Amendment — Jurisdiction Regarding Conversions) Bill, 5770-2010 does and does not say. Some observers wonder what — if any — practical impact it would have if passed. …

Few people can say exactly what the Rotem bill will do. “If you were to read a translation, it would be baffling,” said Rabbi Uri Regev, CEO and president of the Israeli educational and advocacy organization Hiddush, which is dedicated to “Freedom of Religion and Equality.” According to Regev, Rotem’s three-page bill claims to accomplish two things: “One, to provide greater availability of conversion venues for the new immigrants — namely authorizing more rabbis, and among them hopefully some lenient rabbis to do conversions.” The bill’s other stated aim, Regev said, is to address “the phenomenon of rabbinic courts that hold that Orthodox conversions are null and void.” …

Nobody knows what will happen if the bill passes. The former Soviet Union olim are “clearly not particularly religious,” Regev said, “and clearly not going to be particularly adherent to mitzvot,” which would make it unlikely that they would convert within the rabbinate’s Orthodox framework. “Fewer and fewer immigrants are interested in conversion,” Regev said, “on two counts: One, they realize what kind of hoops they will have to go through.” Also, “They realize that it’s really a conditional status,” Regev said of the status of even Orthodox converts in Israel today — one that can be revoked at any time. Secondly, “They realize that life really isn’t impossible for them without conversion,” Regev said. “They have become accustomed to living their lives without going through conversions.”

Lowenfeld’s story is much longer than Bronner’s, but captures less of the dynamic in Israel. It was also hamstrung by an earlier deadline that predated the tabling of the bill. Lowenfeld did, however, offer more perspectives from the American Jewish community, nationally and in Los Angeles, and captured the most important aspect of this bill:

Uncertainty.

No one really knows what this bill would mean, particularly for American Jews who have gone through the more lax conversion processes of Conservative, Reform and other non-traditional strains of Judaism.

I guess we may find out if the conversion bill is resurrected in 2011.

When I was still living in the Chicago suburbs, every time Rod Blagojevich, eyes were rolled. Who could believe that the great people of Illinois voted him into the highest position in the state not once but twice?

As you might recall, Blagojevich was arrested on federal corruption charges in 2008. Now he stands trial, and the jury began deliberations yesterday.

Politico released a quickie from Andy Barr that leaves much to be desired. He quotes Blagojevich as saying his fate is now “in God’s hands,” before quoting more from the press conference.

Blagojevich said he has put his faith in 12 members the jury currently deliberating his fate.

“[The jurors] are the ones who will decide and make the decision,” he said. “Patti and I have great confidence and faith in their judgment, common sense and decency. And ultimately in the final analysis Patti and I always have a deep and abiding faith in God.”

The end.

But what exactly is that faith in God is Blagojevich talking about?

I would’ve expected a little bit more from the Chicago Tribune, with the headline “‘Ultimately, it’s in God’s hands,’ Blagojevich says.” But the paper added nothing but a brief mention of the remarks, even though it’s the focus of the headline.

The Chicago Sun-Times took almost the exact same angle: “Case is ‘in God’s hands,” Blagojevich says.” The paper uses the buzz words for the headline without explaining it further.

Flash back to 2008 and you’ll find a few reports about his Serbian Orthodox faith. Here’s one of the first ones by Kate Shellnut for the Windy Citizen where she gives some historical background.

As a child, Blagojevich attended Old Holy Resurrection Serbian Orthodox Church on the Northwest Side, where he sang and played in the orchestra along with his brother Robert, the Chicago Sun-Times reported in 2006. Old Holy Resurrection, in Logan Square, is one of about ten Eastern Orthodox Churches in that area, catering to the city’s Serbian, Romanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian and Greek Orthodox populations.

Blagojevich now lives in Ravenswood Manor, but he said during an interview for his run for governor that he currently doesn’t attend a single church regularly. Still, as the son of Serbian immigrants to Chicago, he remains an icon for the Serbian-American population and remains active in their religious community. Back in April, he visited a Serbian Orthodox monastery and parish in the Third Lake, a northern suburb.

Mary Houlihan also did some reporting for the Chicago Sun-Times on the reaction from the Serbian Orthodox community.

Remember this quote from Ari Goldman last year?

As Rabbi Allen Schwartz of Manhattan recently told his congregation, the Madoff scandal broke just as the scandal Blagojevich scandal was breaking in Illinois. “Did you ever see a reference to Blagojevich’s religion?” the rabbi asked. “Yet we kept seeing Madoff described as Jewish.”

Now there’s no need to reference Blagojevich as Serbian Orthodox in every story, but when referencing his quotes about his faith, it seems necessary.

A reader sent in this video from an award ceremony for the Heartland regional Emmy’s. In the longer clip (a portion of which is excerpted here for your viewing pleasure), there are all sorts of nominees from my native state of Colorado. I guess we’re Heartland.

Anyway, among the various awards distributed, there’s one given for Performer/Narrator of a broadcast segment. The first two nominees are for performers with KAKE-TV in Wichita and Plum TV in Telluride. But the winner is one Vida Urbonis with KRDO-TV. Congratulations Ms. Urbonis!

The awards ceremony features a clip from the winning entry in which we hear narrator Urbonis say:

“Mike Jones, a gay escort, came out with allegations of gay sex and drugs …

He received a payment of $300,000 from New Life. He and his family then moved away and agreed to lay low.”

Now, I don’t think that Haggard admitted to what Jones claimed, per se, so the use of “the” is misleading.

But what was that? Did someone just get a narration Emmy for claiming that Ted Haggard admitted to sexual immortality?

Oy vey!

Religion is such an interesting and emotional topic. In fact, religion used to play a major role in the lives of many, many people as reported in their newspaper obituaries.

This still happens, when people are religious leaders. But what happens when you are dealing with normal, everyday people?

Here is your assignment. Read the following story from the Chicago Sun-Times. Here is a glimpse of how it starts:

The rest of the world receded a little when pretty Patricia Assise watched cute Lou DeMuro play 16-inch softball at Kells Park on the West Side. It was the summer of ‘47.

They were engaged by the following Valentine’s Day and married later that year. Their life together had few frills but many laughs. They would sing the 1950s hit “How Much is That Doggie in the Window?” They listened to the soundtracks from “South Pacific” and “Mary Poppins” hundreds of times. The louder their kids sang along, the more the DeMuros smiled.

“It was a simple life, but it was rich,” said their daughter, Jan Griffin. “I remember Dad barbecuing and getting the biggest kick out of watching us play.” …

The DeMuros were a tag team when it came to raising their three kids: Jan, Lou and David. When Mr. DeMuro got home from work, he was a hands-on parent, so Patricia DeMuro could head to her night job. They roller-skated, bowled and played pinochle together and even used his-and-hers lawnmowers to mow their grass side-by-side, said their son Lou.

They did everything together.

So it was fitting that, at the end, they died together, succumbing within hours of each other from a multitude of ailments.

Read it all. Then pick out what you think is the most inspiring quotation or symbolic detail. Go head, please.

For this to work you need to stop reading this post for a second and read the story. Otherwise, go read something else. Deal?

OK, let’s proceed.

Here is the passage that grabbed me. I predict that I am not alone. I’ll include the material that frames the symbolic moment.

They had moved just last month to the San Diego area, to be near their daughter. But Mr. DeMuro — who had leukemia, Parkinson’s disease and diabetes — soon was in hospice care at their senior apartment. And Mrs. DeMuro — with diabetes, high blood pressure and heart failure — was soon on a ventilator at Sharp Grossmont Hospital.

Their children knew it was only a matter of time. So, on June 28, they had an ambulance bring Mr. DeMuro to the hospital on a gurney to be with his wife. He greeted his bride of 62 years as he always had: “Hi, Babe.”

“They had them facing one another in their individual beds, and we put their hands on top of one another so they could hold hands,” their daughter said. “Mom was awake. She said, ‘Lou, I love you. I had a wonderful life. I’ll see you in another place.’ ”

The DeMuros spent a contented couple of hours near each other. Then, it was time for Lou DeMuro to go back to hospice.

“I had to tell Dad, ‘You aren’t going to see Mom again,” their daughter said.

At 1:20 p.m. that day, Mrs. DeMuro slipped away.

Mr. DeMuro grew restless and distraught. He was gone at 6:45 p.m.

It’s that simple, yet very romantic, exchange that starts with, “Hi, Babe.” That did it for me.

This is, of course, a reference to heaven. The story, to this point has told us all kinds of practical family details, right down to the lawnmowers and the couple’s love of Italian cooking. But something is missing, something that sets up that inspiring quotation that is the emotional heart of the story.

So what details are we given about the role of faith in this tight-knit family?

A celebration of their lives is being planned for later this year at Our Lady of Sorrows Cemetery in Hillside.

Oh, there is more.

The DeMuros’ kids had an old-fashioned Chicago upbringing. They lived in a two-flat with relatives upstairs. The children went to school across the street at Our Lady Help of Christians. They’d come home for lunch.

That’s it. We are told that Sunday was the day for pot roast. Was that true during Great Lent, as well?

I think something is missing here. I think a crucial piece of the romance is missing, a piece that is linked to that lovely farewell quotation.

Art: Our Lady Help of Christians

Last week New York Times Vatican reporter Rachel Donadio had a fun but flawed piece about the renaming of a Florence museum. Here’s a colorful graph:

Now a particularly enduring Catholic practice is on prominent display in, of all places, Florence’s history of science museum, recently renovated and renamed to honor Galileo: Modern-day supporters of the famous heretic are exhibiting newly recovered bits of his body — three fingers and a gnarly molar sliced from his corpse nearly a century after he died — as if they were the relics of an actual saint.

There were many errors in the piece but here’s a real doozy:

Even today, centuries after Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, the pope’s theological watchdog, had Galileo arrested for preaching Copernicanism, the church has never quite managed to acknowledge that his heliocentric theory is correct. (For his part, Cardinal Bellarmine was made a saint in 1930.)

Hunh? There are a couple of problems with that line. This November 1, 1992, article from, well, the New York Times says exactly the opposite:

Vatican Science Panel Told By Pope: Galileo Was Right

Moving formally to rectify a wrong, Pope John Paul II acknowledged in a speech today that the Roman Catholic Church had erred in condemning Galileo 359 years ago for asserting that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

But at First Things, R.R. Reno notes that, in another sense, you can’t “acknowledge” that Galileo’s heliocentric theory is “correct” because he believed in circular orbits. Johannes Kepler, a contemporary, rightly theorized that planets followed elliptical orbits rather than circular.

There are other problems, too. The church’s position was that the Copernican theory was not based on evidence. Technically, that is not in dispute. The idea is mocked in Donadio’s piece, however. Galileo’s ordeal is often referred to as a trial for heresy. But, strictly speaking, the Copernican system was never officially declared heretical and Galileo was not condemned for heresy. Bellarmine died in 1621 and didn’t arrest Galileo. And so on and so forth.

I know that we’re supposed to believe that Galileo was an unblemished martyr for science over religion but the story is much more complex than an Indigo Girls song. Getting basic facts right is an important part of learning that story. On that note, I recommend this article, for those with interest in the topic, that ran in Scientific American years ago.

Initial lawsuit stories can be frustrating. For reporters. And for readers.

In many cases, the story starts as a news release from an attorney or advocacy group. And it’s not uncommon for the key source — the plaintiff — not to be available for interviews. The defendant, meanwhile, frequently declines comment, either because the accused party has not been served with the lawsuit or has not had time to develop a response.

If it’s a juicy story, the media bite anyway — probably rightfully so — and we end up with reports that lack key details.

Here’s the top of a Chronicle of Higher Education story on a lawsuit filed last week:

A graduate student in school counseling is accusing Augusta State University in federal court of violating her constitutional rights by demanding that she work to change her views opposing homosexuality.

In a lawsuit filed on Wednesday in the U.S. District Court in Augusta, Ga., the student, Jennifer Keeton, argues that faculty members and administrators at the university have violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion by threatening her with expulsion if she does not fufill requirements contained in a remediation plan intended to get her to change her beliefs.

Ms. Keeton’s lawsuit accuses the university of being “ideologically heavy-handed” in imposing the requirements on her “simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity.” It argues that her views, which hold that homosexual behavior is immoral and that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle, would not interfere with her ability to provide competent counseling to gay men and lesbians.

A news release sent out by the Alliance Defense Fund identifies Keeton as a “Christian” and indicates that she holds “mainstream Christian beliefs.” However, given that 78 percent of Americans identify with some form of Christianity, according to Gallup, more specific information on Keeton’s religious background and affiliation would be extremely helpful.

Instead, readers get descriptions such as “devout Christian” in a CNN report and “outspoken Christian views” from AOL News. Even a generic “evangelical” would go a long way, assuming that’s the case. In the video above, the narrator cites Keeton’s “deeply held religious beliefs, including clear biblical teaching on sexual morality.” But there’s no indication if she’s a Southern Baptist, a Pentecostal or a Roman Catholic.

Initial lawsuit stories can be frustrating. For reporters. And for readers.

Remember last month when the big statue of Jesus was struck by lightning and burned to the ground? Well, one reporter is trying to squeeze as much juice out of the story as possible.

Check out this Dayton Daily News headline that read like the sound of nails screeching against a chalkboard.

Response to statue reveals schism between evangelical and mainstream Christians

I’m sorry, what are mainstream Christians? Perhaps the copy editor who wrote that headline meant mainline Christians. Sift through the story a little bit and you’ll find out where the headline probably originated.

The statue’s unavoidable, unapologetic, in-your-face presence has made it symbolic, for some, of American evangelical Christianity. Many believe the caustic comments reveal a growing schism between evangelicals and mainstream Christians.

There it is. Again, who are mainstream Christians? Let’s review: evangelicals make about 26 percent of the country while mainliners make up about 18 percent.

Here’s the summary of the story:

Typically, a church fire draws out only sympathy and support, so why the mean-spirited, even gleeful response from some quarters?
Solid Rock co-pastor Lawrence Bishop explains it simply: “Because that’s the way people are.”
But theologians, political scientists and religious history scholars find far more complicated explanations, and they have followed the unfolding story with fascination.

If you read through the story, though, you’ll find one political scientist, one Catholic theologian, and one religion professor who don’t really have very complicated explanations.

The reporter uses the professors to take a starkly black and white approach where there are evangelicals on one side and then “mainstream” Christians on the other. What about those evangelicals that might have the same kind or even more discomfort with the statue for similar reasons? Trust me, they are out there. Is there really a “schism”?

Here are the three people she quotes: an associate professor religion from Wright State University, a Catholic theology professor at the University of Dayton (is she trying to group mainliners and Catholics to form “mainstream”?) and an associate professor of religion from WSU. The professors are very much entitled to their opinions, but on the surface, they don’t really offer any data or support for their lengthy comments.

Take this quote, for example:

“If you take the statue as a symbol of American evangelism, and then the lightning bolt as a traditional way of talking about God’s judgment, you can see how easy it is for people to read something into it,” observed Ava Chamberlain, an associate professor of religion at Wright State University. “The statue displays how evangelical Christianity has become more and more powerful in American life and more and more powerful in American politics. It’s not just atheists and people of other faiths who are uncomfortable with that, but non-evangelical Christians.”

It’s a fine opinion, but you could find many evangelicals who are just as uncomfortable with mixing faith and politics. And you could probably easily find another professor who says just the opposite, that evangelical Christianity has become less powerful in American life, which is why everyone’s attention seems to be currently interested in the Tea Party or other groups.

Notice that she doesn’t quote anyone who studies evangelicals. I know newspapers obsessed with the local, but is there really no one in Ohio who can speak authoritatively on their perspective? Otherwise, the schism angle just doesn’t seem to work.

We’ve looked at the Daily Caller stories about the Journolist list-serv. Most of them have little to do with religion news but some of them might be of interest to GetReligion readers.

Today’s story looks at what the Daily Caller calls the “heroes” on Journolist — those whose “postings reflected admirable integrity or civility.” The write-up of the New Yorker’s James Surowiecki was particularly interesting:

When Nidal Hasan murdered 13 people at Ft. Hood, Texas, shouting “Allahu Akbar!” before opening fire, members of Journolist debated whether the media should report on Hasan’s apparent ties to Islamic extremism.

Luke Mitchell, then of Harper’s magazine, said doing so “points the way to things that are actually alarmingly dangerous, such as the idea that there is a large conspiracy of Islamists at work in the United States, that we need to ‘do something’ about this conspiracy.”

Surowiecki replied to Mitchell and others that the truth was worth pursuing.

“I find it bizarre that anyone would argue that an accurate description of what happened is somehow pointless,” Surowiecki said. “That is, that it’s not useful to offer up an accurate picture of Hasan’s actions because nothing obvious follows from it. We want, as much as possible, to have a clear picture of what’s actually going on in the world. Describing Hasan as a violent Islamist terrorist is much closer to the truth than describing him as a disturbed individual.”

This is probably a good example of how discussions on Journolist mirrored or resulted in mainstream coverage. We all remember that there was the odd attempt to turn Hasan’s violent outburst into more a story of a “disturbed individual” than a violent terrorist. On the other hand, those attempts failed pretty quickly because of the quality reporting done by the Washington Post and other media outlets that worked to serve the truth rather than a preconceived agenda.

This exchange reveals how difficult it can be for journalists to report the truth even about something as newsworthy as a mass shooting at a U.S. Army base. And it’s nice to see that at least one of the 400 folks on Journolist was able to see the importance in reporting news over unfounded speculation about mental health.

Analyzing the media coverage of the Roman Catholic sex abuse crisis has been difficult simply because of the disgusting nature of the topic. But perhaps one of the most difficult articles to read was this April Newsweek story putting the abuse by priests in context of the larger problem:

Experts disagree on the rate of sexual abuse among the general American male population, but Allen says a conservative estimate is one in 10. Margaret Leland Smith, a researcher at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says her review of the numbers indicates it’s closer to one in 5. But in either case, the rate of abuse by Catholic priests is not higher than these national estimates. The public also doesn’t realize how “profoundly prevalent” child sexual abuse is, adds Smith. Even those numbers may be low; research suggests that only a third of abuse cases are ever reported (making it the most underreported crime). “However you slice it, it’s a very common experience,” Smith says.

In fact, the estimate of how many priests abuse children is something like 4%. So not only do they not abuse at a higher rate than the general population but, in all likelihood, at a much lower rate.

Shortly after I read that Newsweek story, I was traveling with my youngest to Texas. Waiting around for the airplane, I began to calculate what percentage of the men around us were child molesters. I realized that this probably wasn’t a good use of my time but the horrifying thoughts have kind of stayed with me.

I’ve begun wondering why we see so many stories about clerical sexual abuse and so few stories about other areas of sexual abuse. Three years ago, the Associated Press ran a story that claimed three children are abused by public school teachers each day. That certainly sounds believable, if very sad. You have to wonder why the media have such outsized interest in certain types of abuse compared others. It’s probably worth noting how much lawyers have driven the Vatican story if only to note that it’s much harder for victims to sue public school districts.

And yet, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some lawsuits over this horrendous story: The Washington Post ran a huge expose about a serial predator of teenage boys. He was a public educator and he abused boys beginning in 1978. There is evidence that he was pushed out of school district after school district for inappropriate behavior — and yet nothing was ever placed on his record. He has finally been caught — with a cache of pictures and stories about his many victims. It’s a horrifying story, very difficult to read. In my brief time reporting on abuse by priests, I’ve learned a bit about how difficult it is to catch the worst offenders. They are very good at manipulating relationships. Kevin Ricks, the man accused in the Post profile, seems to have been just such an offender.

There are many more stories to tell about predators in families, in schools and throughout the community. But since I’ve been critical of the degree to which the media has focused the big guns almost exclusively on Catholic priests, I wanted to highlight this story — even if it has not one ounce of religion in it — for investigating one particularly dramatic story about the failings of the public school institution to protect teenage boys from sexual predators. It also has tough questions for foreign exchange student programs and parents who failed to be suspicious about the interest he showed in their sons. These are all important parts of the story about how we protect children and adolescents from predators.

Analyzing the media coverage of the Roman Catholic sex abuse crisis has been difficult simply because of the disgusting nature of the topic. But perhaps one of the most difficult articles to read was this April Newsweek story putting the abuse by priests in context of the larger problem:

Read more on What do child abusers look like?…

The Washington Post had a story about a Virginia native son charged with joining a terrorist group that was well-written and filled with lots of details. But came up short nonetheless.

Read more on WP: Got religion? Get terrorism…

Let’s face it, there are not many controversial fast-food chains in America when it comes to issues of religion, politics and culture (as opposed to super-size-me issues of fat, cholesterol, calories, salt and other forms of human passion).

Read more on Eat mor non-Sunday chikin…

Last year, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted to change its doctrine to allow gay clergy in committed sexual relationships. The Associated Press ran a story about one of the consequences of that vote:

Read more on Nothing to see here, move along…

Last year, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted to change its doctrine to allow gay clergy in committed sexual relationships. The Associated Press ran a story about one of the consequences of that vote:

Seven pastors who work in the San Francisco Bay area and were barred from serving in the nation’s largest Lutheran group because of a policy that required gay clergy to be celibate are being welcomed into the denomination.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America will add six of the pastors to its clergy roster at a service at St. Mark’s Lutheran Church in San Francisco on Sunday. Another pastor who was expelled from the church, but was later reinstated, will participate in the service.

The group is among the first gay, bisexual or transgender Lutheran pastors to be reinstated or added to the rolls of the ELCA since the organization voted last year to lift the policy requiring celibacy.

Although I’m not a member of the ELCA, I am Lutheran and I keep a Google News alert out for the term “Lutheran.” This means I get tons of news about the ELCA. And far and away the biggest story I’ve seen over the last ten months has been case after case of Lutheran congregations leaving the ELCA following this vote.

It’s only been 10-plus months since the vote was taken but I’d estimate that I’ve seen reports of hundreds of churches voting to leave the ELCA since then. This is noteworthy because the process to leave is somewhat complicated. I think there may be different rules for different congregations (depending on which of the three church bodies they were part of when the ELCA formed) but generally the rule is that you need to take two votes separated by over three months’ time. These votes need to pass by a supermajority of two-thirds. And then after you have these votes, I think the ELCA has to officially release you. Here was one case where they refused. I’ve heard of congregations that have failed to get the margin by a few votes. Rather than fight the process, the majority of the congregation might just form a new church. Others have just begun the process of discussing whether to leave. Others have simply decided to just stop giving money to the ELCA. And some have voted on whether to leave and decided to stay.

Now there are 10,000 congregations in the ELCA, so the departure of hundreds of congregations — and thousands of individual members — should be kept in perspective. In my mind, the full fall-out won’t be known for a decade or more. But the departure of what I estimate to be several hundred congregations in only 10 months is newsworthy. Some of these are the largest congregations in the denomination. You can get a nice rundown of how congregations are voting here. It’s probably very similar to what the Episcopal Church experienced in the last few years — the departure of key congregations and forming of new alliances.

But this story didn’t find room for that part of the story or the feelings of those who wish the vote to change doctrine had gone differently. This is the entirety of what was said about the exodus:

A small number of congregations have voted to leave the ELCA in response to the August vote.

See! Nothing but lollipops and roses over in the ELCA. There is nothing to see here. Move along.

Rather than decide what makes a schism noteworthy and what makes it “small,” better to just do the shoe-leather reporting of explaining how many congregations have voted to leave, how many are withholding funds, and so on. Readers can decide what those numbers mean about the effect of last year’s vote. The story began with the reinstatement of seven GLBT pastors. That’s also not a large number. But the significance is important. And it’s significant not just to those that support the ordination of clergy in committed gay sexual relationships but to Lutherans who hold to the historic teaching of the Christian church as well.

Other than that, however, the story is a good write-up of an important event. And the AP has actually been one of the outlets to cover the exodus of congregations, even if that story is ongoing and deserves more coverage in the future.

O Canada.

Did someone up there fail to get the memo that the National Enquirer isn’t exactly the most trusted outlet on earth?

Apparently not. Kenneth Kidd of the Toronto Star released the following report this morning.

There’s a new televangelist soap opera.

Reports this week suggest a still-married Benny Hinn is now romantically involved with Paula White, another television preacher with a colourful past.

Here’s a quick review for those who don’t know the people involved. Benny Hinn is best-known his healing healing and television program This Is Your Day. Earlier this year, his wife filed for divorce. Paul White is the pastor of Without Walls International Church in Tampa. In 2007, she and her fellow pastor/husband Randy divorced.

Back to the Toronto Star’s story, I couldn’t find the so-called reports. Take a quick scan of Google news, Yahoo news, whatever you use, and you probably won’t find any mainstream reports of this alleged affair either. I am in no way defending or condemning Hinn or White, and I am not suggesting that they did or did not have an affair. From a journalist’s perspective, the point is, where do these reports come from?

The closest “report” I could find was a brief in the National Enquirer teasing you to pick up its next issue with a spread on Hinn/White. Here are the first few sentences of the National Enquirer story:

Married TV evangelist Benny Hinn is hiding a shocking secret love affair from his flock!

In a blockbuster exclusive sure to rock the worldwide Christian community, the Enquirer has learned the popular televangelist recently sneaked off with fellow minister Paula White for a romantic trip to Rome.

We caught the couple walking hand-in-hand out of the five-star Hotel Hassler, where Pastor Benny was booked into the presidential suite under a false name, on July 13.

Although the 57-year-old multimillionaire faith healer and host of TV’s “This Is Your Day” is separated from his wife Suzanne, the couple are not yet divorce.

Rick Hiebert blogs that Swedish Twitterers are also posting on Hinn.

Yes, the paper broke the John Edwards mess, but reporters still have an obligation to follow up and do their own reporting. I guess there was a small attempt:

Neither Hinn nor White could be reached for comment Friday.

That’s nice.

Unfortunately, the Star’s 600 words on Hinn and White’s background and the sidebar by Rick Sznajde on “Other televangelist troubles” give added weight to the story. Keep in mind, there’s a big difference in most people’s minds over “reports suggest” and “the National Enquirer reports.”

But please keep watching. Help us spot mainstream reports.

That is, if there are any out there worth reading.

The Washington Post had a story about a Virginia native son charged with joining a terrorist group that was well-written and filled with lots of details. But came up short nonetheless.

That’s because when it discussed religion, I found myself a bit baffled.

First the top of the Post’s story about the 20-year-old kid who was stopped while allegedly trying to leave the country and join a Somali terror group:

Zachary Adam Chesser was barred July 10 from leaving New York City for Uganda on a multi-leg journey to join al-Shabab, an Islamist insurgency that wants to topple Somalia’s weak central government, according to the FBI and papers filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria.

In diary entries, personal e-mails and interviews with federal agents detailed in court papers, Chesser described in haunting terms a two-year descent from a quiet and awkward suburban teenager to a willing “foreign fighter” for a designated terrorist group, which most recently claimed responsibility for bombings that killed 76 people in Uganda on July 11.

In doing so, Chesser — who gained online notoriety in April for attacking the creators of the animated satire “South Park” for an irreverent depiction of the prophet Muhammad — became the latest in a wave of homegrown terrorist suspects. Thirty-four Americans have been charged by U.S. authorities since January 2009 with direct involvement in international terrorism. The list includes would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad.

OK. Sounds pretty messed up, right? If you’re like me, you were probably most upset about Chesser’s involvement in the “South Park” censoring debacle. If you don’t remember, Comedy Central caved to threats of violence and censored the “201” episode a week after putting Muhammad in a bear suit, click here and here. Chesser was the author of the post at RevolutionMuslim.com that said:

“We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.”

This background is given in the Post’s story, as are basic details about Chesser and some revealing details about what others thought of the transformation he underwent in the past year or so.

Chesser, a George Mason University dropout whose parents live in Centreville, told the FBI that he only recently became religious and grew a beard, took the name Abu Tallah Al-Amrikee and married a Muslim woman in 2009, according to court papers. He allegedly looked to online videos, chats and over-the-counter CDs “almost obsessively,” before creating a stream of YouTube sites, blogs and postings spreading the call “to fight jihad,” the papers say.

Here’s where the story gets a little sketchy (and I don’t mean shady). They put “almost obsessively” in quotes, but it’s not clear who said that; it appears to have been Chesser in a conversation with the FBI.

More troubling, though, is the use of the term “religious.” What does it mean to become religious?

I was baptized in eighth grade, thereby committing myself to a more religious, even pious, life. Plenty of my friends have made the move much later in life. Does that suggest that we’re going to start a latter-day Crusade?

I doubt that is what the reporters meant, though they may believe that the rules are different when Muslims “become religious.” Either way, this is hardly correct or the nuanced kind of reporting I would expect from the Post.

But the story at least attempts to show what it meant to Chesser to be religious and how that differed from what his fellow Muslims considered to be religious.

Ibrahim Al-Khalaf, a 2009 graduate of Oakton High School and a former president of the Muslim Students Association, said he thought Chesser converted to Islam his senior year. “He was a really nice kid. He smiled at everybody,” Al-Khalaf said.

But Chesser criticized other students’ faith at MSA meetings. “We were more liberal, and we used to try to educate everybody and create a positive environment,” Al-Khalaf said. “But Zach would say, ‘If you do this, you are going to hell. If you do that, you are going to hell.’”

Obviously, no one likes a fire-and-brimstone naysayer, especially not in college. But I imagine his fellow MSA members considered themselves “religious” — not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Two weeks ago, the Sunday Boston Globe magazine ran an essay — not a news story, I admit — that I have been thinking about ever since. It was called “What I Believe” and it was written by Charles Pierce, a staff writer at the publication.

Read more on A Catholicism for journalists?…

O Canada.

Did someone up there fail to get the memo that the National Enquirer isn’t exactly the most trusted outlet on earth?

Apparently not. Kenneth Kidd of the Toronto Star released the following report this morning.

Read more on Benny Hinn and the National Enquirer…

Let’s face it, there are not many controversial fast-food chains in America when it comes to issues of religion, politics and culture (as opposed to super-size-me issues of fat, cholesterol, calories, salt and other forms of human passion).

However, Chick-fil-A would be at the top of the list for a very simple reason — this family-owned chain is centered in the Bible Belt and operated by people who are not afraid to say that they are Christians and that their faith affects how they run things. If you find that interesting, surf around in the following Google files for a few minutes — click here and then here.

The big, symbolic details is that Chick-fil-A franchises are not open on Sunday.

Anyway, I was surprised to discover that this chain is a major player here in blue-zip-code Baltimore. I learned this in a breezy little business-section interview in the Baltimore Sun with Chick-fil-A president Dan T. Cathy. Here’s the opening:

Move over, blue crab. Baltimore loves its Chick-fil-A.

That’s according to Dan Cathy, president and chief operating officer of the fast-food chain. While on a recent swing through Baltimore, Cathy said the Baltimore-Washington area ranks as the highest average sales market, generating more per Chick-fil-A restaurant than any other market in the nation.

Chick-fil-A Inc. has built a following of devoted customers over the years with its chicken-heavy menu and quirks. Its ads use standing cows who encourage people to “Eat Mor Chikin.” New store openings bring die-hard fans from miles away for a chance to win a year’s worth of free weekly meals. And customers can ask for a behind-the-scene tour of the kitchen.

The focus of this interview with the visiting chicken executive is that fact that Baltimore was one of only two test markets for a new product that the chain has been testing — a spicy chicken sandwich. Now, I know that fried chicken is a key element of the religion of food in the South, but this level of doctrinal innovation is not enough to get one accused of heresy.

Nevertheless, the Sun piece did briefly mention that Cathy is the son the chain’s founder, who is identified as “a devout Christian whose religious beliefs inform company policies.” Thus, readers were kind of asked to read between the lines in these questions at the heart of this interview transcript:

Q: How has Chick-fil-A weathered the recession?

A: Many of our operators decided not to participate in the recession this year. [Laughing] I think we have emotional equity. We have a lot of emotional endearment that has already been built in the minds of our customers, that while they may have to cut back on a lot of things, this is a special treat to eat Chick-fil-A. …

Q: Chick-fil-A restaurants are closed on Sundays. Have you felt pressure to reconsider that policy?

A: There have been times that we have reaffirmed that decision. We don’t operate outside the U.S. In the ’90s, we thought there might be some markets internationally we might not go into because of our policy of being closed on Sunday. In the U.S., we’re located in some theme parks, but we’re not in all theme parks and a lot of stadiums because we would be required to open on Sundays.

We’ve forfeited a lot of business opportunities because of that policy. But I like to tell people that our food tastes better on Monday because we’re closed on Sunday.

Near the end, the Sun reporter asked a very basic question and, frankly, I am surprised that this very blue-ink newspaper printed the answer. So, kudos to the brave editor who let this get into print.

Q: Is there anything else you want to add?

A: We didn’t talk about our corporate purpose. What really drives us to do all this. It’s a very simple statement: To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us. To have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.

Now, that’s sort of nice. That certainly sounds like Cathy is a Southern evangelical Protestant, but readers never find that out for sure. He’s just another generic “devout Christian.”

But here is my question: Is that enough? Is this a case in which the Sun team actually needed to press on an ask more pointed questions about the chain and its policies? In effect, I am saying that it would have been appropriate — outside the Bible Belt — to ask a few questions from the point of view of the chain’s critics. I, for one, would have been interested in the answers.

Some reporters just react to events and press releases. Others do a good job of keeping the big picture in mind.

I thought of this when I read Washington Post religion reporter Michelle Boorstein’s blog request for assistance on one of the issues she covers. She says she’s been requesting access to the faith-based offices in federal agencies for more than six months but has been shut down across the board:

Sure, we know generally that the offices help faith-based and other nonprofits that run programs on things like job training, but let’s get more specific. Which groups do they help and fund, and for what projects? Have their priorities changed since the offices were run by the Bush White House? Does the office at USAID, for example, get involved in the many millions of dollars of contracts related to sex and family planning overseas? And what does the Justice Department faith office do?

If you can help provide answers, be sure to let her know.

The Chicago Tribune actually had the opportunity to find out answers to these questions but squandered the opportunity.

But, no. Instead the newspaper published a puffy, no-news piece praising Joshua DuBois, the head of the faith-based office. You’d be hard pressed to find a reporter who dislikes DuBois as a person but many of the reporters I know who cover the faith-based office have been nothing if not frustrated with their inability to get answers to basic questions about what the office is doing. At a Religion Newswriters conference a couple of years ago, an NPR reporter asked him point blank why he was so unresponsive to reporter queries.

So next time someone gets an opportunity like the Tribune had, let’s make sure we use it well!