Books

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: What role did God-talk play in Tucker Carlson's fall at Fox News? Good question

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: What role did God-talk play in Tucker Carlson's fall at Fox News? Good question

Rod “Live Not By Lies” Dreher has shared the following anecdote many times, but it’s especially interesting that he used it, once again, in this Substack post: “Tucker Fired Because Of Religion.”

I am using it to open this podcast post because this week’s “Crossroads” discussion (CLICK HERE to tune that in) isn’t really about Tucker Carlson’s forced exit from Fox News — it’s about whether Carlson was a very good fit with the Fox News political and cultural worldview in the first place.

My theory is that Carlson is a conservative populist — as opposed to being a D.C. Beltway Republican — and that his religious beliefs (especially after he stopped drinking) are part of that mix. This created tension with the dominant Fox News management culture, which is rooted in the Page 3 Libertarian Republican beliefs of titan Rupert Murdoch and the network’s original mastermind, the now disgraced Roger Ailes.

This brings me back to Dreher’s anecdote:

I have long wondered why Fox News doesn’t have much religious reporting, or cover things including a religious angle, even though many of their loyal viewers are religious. Now I know. And you should know too. You might recall my telling the story about how the freelancers Fox hired to cover the 2002 Catholic bishops’ meeting in Dallas, the first one after the scandal broke, asked me to brief them on who the players were, and what the issues were. They took copious notes, but when I told them about the homosexual clerical networks, and their roles in the scandal, they told me to stop. “Orders from the top of the network: stay away from that stuff,” I was told. I told them that you couldn’t understand the scandal without that factor. Maybe so, they said, but we are ordered not to touch it.

Thus, Dreher argues that Carlson’s forced exit should open the eyes of Fox News-hooked religious and cultural conservatives.

Whatever Rupert Murdoch’s internal motivations, the fact is — well, to be precise, what I confidently believe to be the truth — that Tucker Carlson gave an extraordinary speech about the theological aspect of the cultural crisis we are enduring. He talked bluntly, to an audience at Washington’s leading conservative think tank, about the fundamentally spiritual nature of the fights we’re in. And he encouraged his audience to pray for our country.

Several days later, he was fired.

As you would expect, this brings us to the much-discussed Vanity Fair feature that ran with a headline proclaiming, “Tucker Carlson’s Prayer Talk May Have Led to Fox News Ouster: “That Stuff Freaks Rupert Out.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

'On Religion' column enters year 35: Demons, martyrs, violence and miracles in Colombia

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
'On Religion' column enters year 35: Demons, martyrs, violence and miracles in Colombia

In one of her first encounters with violence linked to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), Deann Alford heard, or felt, a bullet pass and slam into a door frame, with shrapnel striking a nearby woman and child.

The future journalist was both shocked and inspired by her contacts with Christians caught in that land's toxic climate of paramilitary warfare, narcotrafficking and kidnappings. She struggled to grasp how someone like pilot Russell Martin Stendal, after years held for ransom, could forgive his kidnappers and then start a missionary effort to convert them.

"Without his months as their hostage, I'm convinced he never could have reached the FARC," wrote Alford, in "Victorious: The Impossible Path to Peace," her blunt memoir about religious freedom in Colombia.

Stendal, she added, "has forgiven all. But I have not. ... In my quarter-century as a journalist, I've written dozens of articles about Colombian guerrilla groups' crimes against Christians, ranging from extortion to murder. Many of these stories regard crimes of the FARC, typically threatening and abducting church workers, missionaries and pastors, extorting them with offers they could not refuse."

Eventually, Alford realized that it wasn't enough to cover Colombia with telephone calls, faxes and Internet connections. She would have to put "boots on the ground" and return. "But I didn't. I was afraid. No, that word is too mild. I was terrified. I let the risk of being killed and kidnapped keep me away."

Alford's bottom line: "I told the Lord I would go anywhere for him but Colombia."

But she returned and, over years of contacts, her fears mixed with frustration. After working in secular newsrooms, as well as Christian publications and wire services, she couldn't understand why more people -- journalists and religious leaders -- could not see the importance of the faith stories unfolding, decade after decade, in Colombia.

This is another example of an important theme woven into my work with this "On Religion" column, with this week marking the start of my 35th year. Simply stated, many journalists do not "get" religion, in terms of grasping the role faith plays in many important events and trends stories.

But Alford was dealing with an even more complex equation. Yes, many editors fail to value religion-news coverage. But it's also true that many Americans -- including people in pews -- do not value coverage of international news. Thus, it's hard to imagine a tougher sell in today's media marketplace than coverage of religion news on the other side of the world.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: Can journalists and religious leaders learn how to talk about what 'news' is?

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Can journalists and religious leaders learn how to talk about what 'news' is?

Day after day, year after year (this week opened year 35 for my national “On Religion” column) I receive all kinds of “press releases” from people who want me to write columns about this, that or the other.

Some folks still send these printed on dead-tree pulp, if you can imagine that. The vast majority arrive via email or in press kits (mainly for books) via UPS, Fedex or the U.S. Postal Service.

I am happy to check out most of this material. However, about 90% or more of these offerings are sent by PR professionals who appear to have zero idea what I write about or the audience for my columns. They are simply throwing cheerful digital spaghetti at the wall and hoping something sticks.

In short, they do not understand “news” — what it is and what it is not.

What can religious leaders and/or organizations do to improve their success rates with reporters like me? That was half the equation that we discussed during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here for temporary link to tune that in).

The other half? Just flip that reporter’s notebook around. How can reporters do a better job finding the right voices to include in their coverage of events and trends linked to religion? How can journalists convince clergy and other religious folks to cooperate with press coverage — especially when dealing with controversial topics and scandals?

The podcast was recorded while I was in Los Angeles for two forums hosted by the Poynter Institute under this title: “Telling the Stories of Faith and the Faithful.” The first forum was for reporters and editors, including quite a few who are not religion-beat specialists. The second day, yes, focused on talks with a small circle of religious leaders about understanding how journalists think and work.

We were talking about many of the same questions and issues on both days — only viewed from different sides of a reporter’s notebook (or smartphone, in this age). Here is a bite of the Poynter summary of the session with reporters:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , ,

RIP Charles Stanley, a Southern Baptist media pro (and a megachurch preacher, too)

, , , , , , , , ,
RIP Charles Stanley, a Southern Baptist media pro (and a megachurch preacher, too)

There’s an old saying in the Sunbelt that goes like this: When Jesus makes his glorious return on the last day, He will still have to fly through Atlanta.

I will visit that giant airport myself, today, on my way home from speaking at a Poynter Institute conference — “Telling the Stories of Faith and the Faithful” here in Los Angeles. One day featured meetings with West Coast reporters, including many that don’t work the religion beat, and the second day focused on talks with a circle of faith-group leaders. There were great questions and lots of dialogue.

Thinking about the Atlanta airport reminded me of what I think was as highly symbolic encounter with the Rev. Charles Stanley, a pivotal Southern Baptist leader and preacher who died this week. See this Associated Press report: “Charles Stanley, influential Baptist preacher, dies at 90.”

The leader of First Baptist Church of Atlanta was elected SBC president in 1985 during what was, in my experience, one of the most intense, even angry, national conventions ever (and that’s saying something) during the near life-and-death Southern Baptist civil war of that era.

To get to that meeting in Kansas City, working for The Charlotte Observer, I had to (#DUH) change planes in Atlanta. I ended up on the same plane with Stanley, who was rumored to be a candidate for SBC president. He was in First Class, obviously, and I was not, obviously. After we had been airborne for an hour or so, I walked up front to give Stanley my card and to request an interview before the election.

Seeing that he was reading a document, I confess that I looked it over before I alerted him to my presence at his right shoulder.

Trust me — I wish I had a photographic memory. Why? Because he was reading a professional set of public-relations guidelines describing (#WaitForIt) how to deal with journalists after his election as SBC president.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , ,

God's Word? Concerning modern scholarship and those bloodthirsty Bible passages

, , , , , , , ,
God's Word? Concerning modern scholarship and those bloodthirsty Bible passages

QUESTION:

How do scholars explain bloodthirsty Bible passages?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

Skeptics seeking to disparage the Bible and, with it, Judaism and Christianity, cite certain passages in the Bible that depict all-out warfare as mandated by God. Consider Israel’s “conquest” of Canaan under Joshua, and a notably bloodthirsty passage like Deuteronomy 20:16-17, which says “you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them … as the LORD your God has commanded.”

Readers can see how that issue might, to say the least, be relevant to debates about some events in recent decades.

There’s been intriguing recent discussions of this complex issue. Even conservative evangelicals, who defend the Bible’s historical accuracy, are reinterpreting such passages, as we’ll see.

“Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary,” issued by Judaism’s Conservative branch, freely admits a modern reader “recoils” from a demand to wipe out a population group. It says the context is the Canaanites’ “abhorrent” deeds. Verse 18 goes on to explain combat is necessary so “they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices which they have done in the service of their gods.”

Scholarly commentaries think ritual sacrifice of children was a major part of this. The context of such verses is said to be “the Torah’s abiding fear that these pagan nations will lead Israel astray.”

Here’s another part of the context. Risking any military advantage from surprise, Joshua informed Canaanites in advance about the invasion plan so they could flee from bloodshed, and he first offered a peace settlement before resorting to combat. (That was relatively humane for the cruel culture 3,000 years ago.) The same point is underscored by a classic source in Orthodox Judaism, the “Pentateuch & Haftorahs” compiled by Britain’s longtime chief rabbi, J.H. Hertz.

This Orthodox Jewish commentary also observes that the Israelites’ need for a homeland is part of all human history, including for most western nations.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Attention mass-media leaders: What should Americans know about each others' faiths?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Attention mass-media leaders: What should Americans know about each others' faiths?

America’s three biggest hamburger chains have 27,000 local outlets.

The three biggest of America’s 2,800 or so religious denominations alone have 97,000 local congregations.

Which is to simply remind readers that faiths retain powerful impact in society despite the increase of people with no religious affiliation and other secular inroads.

Relations among major faiths feel especially pertinent in 2023, since Islam’s holy month of Ramadan with concluding Eid festival overlaps Jewish Passover and the two Easter dates observed by Christians.

Zeenat Rahman, executive director of the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics, thinks American religion is “increasingly polarizing” and yet at the same time is “essential to rebuilding a strong civil society,” which means Americans “need a basic understanding of the faith of others.”

So, in practice what do people know about other major world religions? What should they know?

Those are important questions for regional or national journalists to explore via interviewing, plus polling if your medium has the money. Or consider commissioning brief articles where religious leaders sum up the basics they think others should know about their faiths and — especially helpful — what’s often misunderstood.

How about books? Stephen Wylen accepted this sort of challenge with his self-published “You Should Know This: A Rabbi Explains Christianity to Jews.” For years now, Terry Mattingly has also been recommending this classic by religion-beat veteran Mark Pinsky: “A Jew among the Evangelicals: A Guide for the Perplexed.”

Some standard book publisher should put together a non-sectarian and up-to-date anthology in which experts would depict their own religions for outsiders, including the main internal branches and variants.

Political scientist (and GetReligion contributor) Ryan Burge recently took up these matters, in a Religion News Service analysis, by re-examining 2019 interfaith data from the ubiquitous Pew Research Center.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tremors in a 'fundamentalist' empire: What kind of news story is unfolding at Bob Jones U?

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Tremors in a 'fundamentalist' empire: What kind of news story is unfolding at Bob Jones U?

Attention religion-beat journalists: What we have here is a chance to use the hot-button word “fundamentalist” in way that is consistent with years of guidance from the Associated Press Stylebook.

Honest. Give it a try.

I am referring to news coverage of a rather mysterious power struggle at Bob Jones University in Greenville, S.C. At this point, there has been next to zero national coverage of this inside-baseball conflict, perhaps because it’s a fight between conservative Christians that does not appear to involve the words “Donald Trump.”

But there has been quite a bit of coverage at the regional level and in “Christian market” news, because this is a powerful and symbolic institution in the Bible Belt. You can see some major-league buzz words in the overture of the main story at The State: “SC Christian university president resigns, cites problems with governing board.” This is long, but essential:

The president of Bob Jones University has resigned amid long-simmering disagreements with the chairman of the board and grandson of the university’s founder over the discretion of the fundamentalist Christian school in Greenville.

Steve Pettit was named president in 2014, the first non-Jones family member to hold the job since the school was founded by Bob Jones Sr. in 1927. He was succeeded by Bob Jones Jr., Bob Jones III and then his great-grandson, Stephen Jones. Bob Jones IV elected not to work at the school.

In a four-page letter to the board, Pettit said board chair John Lewis had created disunity on the board, held a meeting without telling staff and was not taking seriously a comment made by a board member that “female students’ clothing and female student athlete uniforms accentuate their ‘boobs and butts.’”

Pettit said he had heard the board member took photos of women without their permission. He said he did not know if the information was true, but by law should have been turned over to the Title IX coordinator for investigation.

Ah, a Title IX fight. For those who have followed Bob Jones trends, that would lead straight into the crucial issue of whether this school will play ball with government agencies or outside educational authorities of any kind.

A big word here is “separatism,” along with “ultra-separatism” (click here for background). The key is the degree to which true “fundamentalist” would work with mere evangelicals who have associated, in any way, with liberal and modern trends in Christian faith.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

New probe of origins of Islam's Quran resembles 200 years of New Testament conflict

, , , , ,
New probe of origins of Islam's Quran resembles 200 years of New Testament conflict

Muslims -- and religion writers -- will want to ponder these quotations:

“There is not much reason to place a great deal of confidence in the Islamic tradition’s account of the Quran’s origins” in light of “the bewildering confusion and complexity” of early Muslim memories about this. Yes, “at least some, and perhaps much” of the holy book does have roots in the Prophet Muhammad’s actual preaching career in Arabia.

However, the book as Muslims know it is a “composite and composed text” that was “altered significantly” and “reimagined, rewritten, and augmented” during a half-century or so after the Prophet’s lifetime and finally standardized under Damascus-based Caliph Abd al-Malik (685–705 CE).

What Muslim tradition tells us about Muhammad’s career may contain factual “nuggets” but much of it is “little more than pious fiction” with “no basis in any genuine historical memories.”

There could be trouble. All that will certainly offend believers in the orthodox view that between 610 and his death in 632, Muhammad, guided by the angel Gabriel, received God’s verbatim words, memorized them, dictated them to scribes, and confirmed the entirety of the Quran’s revelations as they exist today.

This sort of dispute will be familiar to educated Christians, since similar western “historical criticism” or “higher criticism” has been aimed at their New Testament for 200 years.

Now that outlook is being applied to Islam’s holy book in “Creating the Quran.” Author Stephen J. Shoemaker, a prolific scholar of Christian and Muslim origins at the University of Oregon, asserts that experts have been too timid or reverential in promoting a revisionist viewpoint.

“Creating” was published last July but languished in academic obscurity until Baylor University historian Philip Jenkins boosted it as an eye-opener in a recent Patheos.com article. The University of Chicago’s Fred Donner blurbs that this is “a milestone in Quranic studies” and “the most comprehensive and convincing examination” of the issues currently available.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Parents, schools and 'LGBTQ themes': Why is the Associated Press being so vague?

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Parents, schools and 'LGBTQ themes': Why is the Associated Press being so vague?

Let’s start here: I am a journalist who is married to a librarian. When it comes to First Amendment issues, we are old-school liberals. However, there are times when — in debates involving public schools, tax dollars and parental rights (without “scare quotes”) — there are First Amendment tensions that cannot be denied.

Week after week, I keep reading angry mainstream-press reports covering battles about removing LGBTQ-audience books from the libraries of schools in various red zip codes across America.

I confess that I am confused about what is happening in many of these debates. I assume that the content of proposed legislation is different in various states, but it’s hard to know the details in the news coverage. In particular, it’s hard to know if books are being removed from (a) mandatory classroom assignments, (b) recommended sex-education lists promoted to students or (c) library bookshelves — period.

Also, I am having trouble understanding the specifics of why parents are upset (and these concerns may vary from case to case). Most news reports stress that conservative (read “traditional” religious believers, either Christian, Jewish or Muslim) parents are upset about all LGBTQ content.

However, if and when journalists deem to quote parents, the parents seem upset about visual images and graphic stories that they consider to be pornographic or not age-appropriate for their children. Are their concerns valid? It’s hard to make judgements about that — since news reports never describe the details of their concerns, perhaps because the content is too strong for publication in newspapers.

With these questions in mind, let’s look at a recent Associated Press report that ran with this headline: “School library book bans are seen as targeting LGBTQ content.” Note that the headline seems to assume that books are banned from library shelves and that’s that. Here is the overture:

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Teri Patrick bristles at the idea she wants to ban books about LGBTQ issues in Iowa schools, arguing her only goal is ridding schools of sexually explicit material.

Sara Hayden Parris says that whatever you want to call it, it’s wrong for some parents to think a book shouldn’t be readily available to any child if it isn’t right for their own child.


Please respect our Commenting Policy