Church & State

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

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

How a veteran Catholic congressman evolved into a political heretic

How a veteran Catholic congressman evolved into a political heretic

WASHINGTON — As a veteran Chicago-land Democrat, Rep. Daniel Lipinksi knew what to expect when facing newspaper editors during pre-election endorsement season -- hard questions about his support for centuries of Catholic teachings on abortion.

But the Chicago Sun-Times stressed a different question in 2020 -- same-sex marriage. Lipinski said the Supreme Court had settled that issue, so he didn't expect to face it in Congress. The follow-up was blunt and personal: But do YOU support legalized same-sex marriage?

Lipinski said he supported his church's teachings on marriage and sexuality.

"They didn't just see themselves as newspaper editors interviewing candidates in a political race. ... They saw themselves as inquisitors seeking an admission of heresy," said Lipinski, who lost that close primary race with a rival backed by liberal Democrats.

During his 16 years in Congress, Lipinski voted with his party 90% of the time and his convictions never changed, especially on economic and labor issues. Nevertheless, by 2018 New York magazine had floated this headline: "House Democratic Leaders Rally to Defend Their Illinois Heretic."

By 2020, he had reached "political leper" status, in part because of social-media attacks on his beliefs that bled into mainstream news, he said, addressing the recent "Journalism in a Post-Truth World" conference in Washington, D.C. The event was sponsored by Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio, and the Eternal Word Television Network.

The old days of tough questions and bipartisan debate were one thing, said Lipinski. At this point, American politics have stormed past tribalism into bitter sectarianism, with politicos, activists and journalists embracing "partisanship as a fundamentalist pseudo-religion" that strictly defines good and evil.

What is happening? In the past two decades, he noted, researchers have documented a stunning rise in "religiously unaffiliated" Americans. In 2020, Gallup reported that membership in houses of worship sank to 47% -- below the 50% mark for the first time. In 1999, that number was 70%.

It's possible, said Lipinski, that many citizens are now searching for "for meaning, or a mission, or truth, somewhere else," which only raises the stakes in public life.

"Partisanship has become not just a social identity, but a primary identity considered to be more important than any other," he said. "We all identify ourselves as belonging to different groups -- our families, our religions, our favorite sports teams, our professions. But more and more Americans are defining who they are by the political parties that they choose."


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Mainstream outlets ignore anti-Catholic angles in Merrick Garland's Senate testimony

Mainstream outlets ignore anti-Catholic angles in Merrick Garland's Senate testimony

It’s almost always news when a public official testifies before a congressional committee. Such was the case when Attorney General Merrick Garland faced the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

As expected, it was an important, and often heated, four hours of testimony that was highlighted by the back-and-forth exchanges between Garland and Republican senators on the panel. You can read Garland’s opening remarks on the DOJ website. 

Beyond his prepared remarks, there were plenty of potential storylines tied to religion that surfaced in the hearing. However, depending on which news organizations one follows, these storylines either made it into the news coverage or they were never mentioned. 

The Garland hearing comes at a time of heightened polarization, something made worse by the Supreme Court decision that rolled back the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. The aftermath of that decision has resulted in increased vandalism of Catholic churches, pro-life pregnancy centers and even a now-retracted FBI memo that targeted some traditional Catholics

The content of the coverage of the questions asked and the contents of Garland’s responses depended on what reporters, editors and news organizations deemed important. This has been the case for decades, but the shift has changed dramatically in more recent years as news organizations divide themselves into political camps depending on the beliefs of their faithful audiences

Did valid religion angles, especially those involving Catholics, make it into the coverage of national legacy media outlets? 

Here is a hint: Prayers by protestors at abortion facilities appear to be considered much more dangerous, and thus newsworthy, than vandalism, or even arson, at Catholic churches and crisis pregnancy centers. News coverage of this Senate hearing seemed to have been produced by journalists living in parallel universes. Once again, this is the dominant news trend in the Internet age.

Here is the top of the New York Times report on the Garland hearing: 

WASHINGTON — Republicans subjected Attorney General Merrick B. Garland to a four-hour grilling before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, a harbinger of the fights that loom ahead as the party targets the Justice Department in the months leading up to the 2024 election. 


Please respect our Commenting Policy

EV charging sites at churches: Which denominational brands will get government $$$?

EV charging sites at churches: Which denominational brands will get government $$$?

Let me open this post with a confession: I am part of a growing flock of folks (some say “cult”) that attracts lots of nasty social-media commentary from a fascinating coalition of left-wingers and right-wingers.

In other words, I drive an electric car.

Wait. Anger from left-wingers? Remember these four words: Elon. Musk. Bought. Twitter.

Anyway, I have spent quite a bit of time reading about efforts to build EV-charging networks. Things were totally bonkers during the year or two that the Joe Biden White House was refusing to utter the word “Tesla” and seemed poised to pour billions of tax dollars exclusively into networks that are infamous for the stunningly high percentage of time their chargers are broken.

Now, what does this inside-baseball discussion have to do with religion-beat news?

Maybe you saw this Religion News Service headline that ran the other day: “Could churches be prime locations for EV charging stations? One company thinks so.

You see, EV charging stations require (#DUH) empty parking spaces, and it helps if these slots are in convenient urban and suburban locations — frequently near a highway exit or two. This leads to the totally logical overture for this timely RNS piece:

As more drivers make the decision to switch from gas-powered cars to electric vehicles, places to power them remain few and far between in large parts of the country. And with the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 incentivizing clean energy and electric cars, as well as providing investments for green technology, the demand will only increase.

Churches, with their large parking lots that often sit empty during the week, could help provide a solution.

Now, imagine yourself driving through a typical American city. In your mind’s eye, where do you see empty church parking lots?

Basically, you will find two different kinds of lots and they tend to be located in rather different kinds of places. This is where I see a potential news hook or two.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Plug-In: No Separation Of Church And State? New York City Mayor Sparks A Furor

Plug-In: No Separation Of Church And State? New York City Mayor Sparks A Furor

Good morning, Weekend Plug-in readers!

Among the religion news happening now, Catholics in Los Angeles are remembering slain Auxiliary Bishop David G. O’Connell. See photos by Los Angeles Times staff photographer Francine Orr from Thursday’s vigil Mass, before the funeral Mass the next day.

As always, we have a bunch of best reads and top headlines in the world of faith to highlight. Let’s jump right in.

What To Know: The Big Story

Big Apple, big controversy: “Don’t tell me about no separation of church and state. State is the body. Church is the heart. You take the heart out of the body, the body dies.”

New York City Mayor Eric Adams said that at an interfaith breakfast this week — remarks called “unhinged and dangerous” by a rabbi quoted by the New York Times’ Dana Rubinstein.

More from the New York Times:

He went on to suggest that his path to the mayoralty was divinely ordained, saying that when he implements policies, he does so in a “godlike approach.”

At another point, Mr. Adams seemed to suggest that it was a mistake for the Supreme Court to ban mandated prayer in public schools, as it did in 1962. “When we took prayers out of schools, guns came into schools,” he said.

The phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution, but the First Amendment’s statement that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” has been widely interpreted to dictate such a separation.

‘God bless Mayor Adams’: But not everyone criticized the comments.

In fact, Adams won “a new group of fans: Orthodox Jews and evangelical Christians, whose leaders lauded the liberal Democrat,” according to the Washington Times’ Mark A. Kellner.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Hurrah! Associated Press report mentions Clinton-era religious liberty principles (updated)

Hurrah! Associated Press report mentions Clinton-era religious liberty principles (updated)

Back in my Baylor University days, my favorite European history professor had a symbolic gesture he would use when discussing absurd, paradoxical moments in events such as the French Revolution.

“What a world!” he would exclaim, with a cynical laugh, while striking his forehead with the heel of his palm — his own variation on the classic “face palm” gesture.

This is the gesture I would like readers to imagine as I congratulate the Associated Press for a few important examples of basic journalism in a story with this headline: “West Virginia GOP majority House OKs religious freedom bill.”

For starters, the term “religious liberty” wasn’t framed with “scare quotes” in the headline. What a world! Might this have something to do with the First Amendment?

Let’s walk through this AP story and look for what appear to me to be ordinary examples of news coverage. However, in this day and age, basic acts of journalism should be celebrated. Here is the AP overture:

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — West Virginia’s GOP supermajority House of Delegates passed a bill Monday that would create a test for courts to apply when people challenge government regulations they believe interfere with their constitutional right to religious freedom.

The bill passed after several Democrats expressed concern that the proposal could be used as a tool to discriminate against LGBTQ people and other marginalized groups. Democratic Del. Joey Garcia also asked whether the proposed law could be used to overturn West Virginia’s vaccine requirements, which are some of the strictest in the nation.

A sign of progress? Note that the lede states that the bill created a “test for courts to apply” — not a mandate of some kind. This is a sign of things to come.

Let’s read on.

One of the legislation’s co-sponsors, Republican Del. Todd Kirby, said those questions would be up to the courts to decide — the bill only provides a judicial test for interpreting the law.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Loaded question: Is gambling evil? That's a religion-beat hook in many states

Loaded question: Is gambling evil? That's a religion-beat hook in many states

THE QUESTION:

Is gambling evil?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

Analysts anticipated a record high cash haul from the Super Bowl with the explosion in legalized online sports betting. The big weekend produced several interesting articles about the pros and cons, the inroads and innovations, of America’s gambling industry.

The Wall Street Journal’s Barton Swaim mulled religious aspects under the arresting headline “Would Jesus Bet on the Super Bowl?” He said that for Jews and Christians the Bible is “less than explicit” in warnings and yet its moral teachings do raise questions about gambling.

Swaim sympathizes with theologians who oppose the desire to “get something for nothing,” accompanied by the attitude that work to earn necessary income “is a mostly unhealthy activity best avoided.” But he admitted that’s also the case when we inherit assets or the value of property increases regardless of our own efforts.

For Swaim, the key moral aspect is what gambling “reveals about the gambler,” especially desire or lust for wealth. The last of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:17) even forbids private inward thoughts of material desire or coveting, and Jesus warned in the Sermon on the Mount that “you cannot serve both God and money” (Matthew 6:24).

Yet another moral problem for Swaim is the fact that a certain portion of gamblers “will end up addicted and in financial and moral ruin.” More on that below.

Looking at Judaism, a Super weekend survey in The Forward noted that the late Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, the prime thinker for the “modern Orthodox” movement, denounced casino attendance and that’s the view of “pretty much every other authority” on Jewish law, before and since. Even the rabbis of Judaism’s liberal Reform branch have called gambling  “non-productive and threatening to the social fabric.” A noted Jewish  therapist says even seemingly innocent small bets can be a gateway to addiction.

Among Christians, there’s a notable split between tolerant Catholics and Protestants, who’ve been mostly hostile.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Why you probably missed news about the FBI memo calling out 'radical traditionalist' Catholics

Why you probably missed news about the FBI memo calling out 'radical traditionalist' Catholics

The politicization of American society has affected a great number of institutions — from universities to major sports leagues to large corporations. Right now, there are a great many things that divide us as Americans.

The FBI has also become politicized. This is a belief that picked up momentum during Donald Trump’s presidency, but continues to exist now under the Joe Biden administration. If journalism is the place that you believe should shed a light on this painful paradox, then you’d be sadly mistaken.

Not only has the FBI possibly been politicized, but so has journalism, and we’re all poorer for it. A great example of this journalistic disconnect is an important story that “conservative” and “religious” media covered, while it was ignored by the vast majority of mainstream news outlets, including our culture’s most elite and powerful newsrooms.

The key question: Has the FBI decided that “radical” Catholics are dangerous and a threat to American public life?

On Feb. 8, a website called UncoveredDC reported on an FBI document titled “Interest of Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremists in Radical-Traditionalist Catholic Ideology Almost Certainly Presents New Mitigation Opportunities.”

UncoveredDC says on its website that it pledges “to work hard to bring you the unvarnished truth, a concept the legacy media abandoned long ago.” It is considered a right-wing news website given the people it covers and the angles it takes on stories. That doesn’t mean that what they are reporting on isn’t true, especially if it comes on the form of official government documents.

The memo, out of the FBI’s Richmond, Va. field office, zeroed in on what it called “Radical-Traditionalist Catholics.” The memo notes that FBI investigations have found that there is a “growing overlap” between white nationalists and the RTCs. The Jan. 23 memo claimed that RTCs are a small minority within Catholicism. It said that they adhere to beliefs that are “anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBT” and linked to “white supremacy.”

That sounds like a big story, especially with a rosary-carrying Catholic in the White House, even if he is a Catholic who has — in word and deed — rejected some ancient doctrines of the church.

Why was this story not covered by most news outlets?


Please respect our Commenting Policy