Ethics

, , , , , , , , ,

MinistryWatch.com is go-to resource for keeping up with evangelical controversies

, , , , , , , , ,

Last month, colleague Bobby Ross Jr. noted the value of MinistryWatch.com for alerting journalists to less than salutary aspects of U.S. ministries, especially in wooly evangelical Protestant and “parachurch” sectors.

Ross cited its recent articles on Wycliffe Associates and David Jeremiah’s ministry. This outlet also provides ratings on organizations and, more positively, info on what groups do what things right.

One such media controversy has been revived with the death of the highly influential evangelical author and speaker Ravi Zacharias. Heartfelt personal tributes came from the likes of Vice President Mike Pence, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and here from prominent New York City Pastor Timothy Keller.

And yet. Coverage in religious media noted problems with his exaggeration of academic credentials and — notably avoided in The New York Times obit — a 2017 legal entanglement involving a married woman in Canada. That case was settled out of court under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), leaving as-yet-unexplained mysteries. (Note this World magazine analysis last October of problems with NDAs.)

MinistryWatch updated matters for the media on Monday. The woman, Lori Anne Thompson -- who has backing from celebrated evangelical victim advocate and attorney Rachael Denhollander -- is now asking the organization (without actually naming it) to release her from the NDA to answer what she calls “cruel and baseless allegations.”

In its original coverage, MinistryWatch concluded that “a cloud of uncertainty” hovers over the Zacharias ministry. The Guy cannot summarize this complex situation here, but MinistryWatch offers the media a typically careful assessment of what’s known, what’s unknown and why that is important for donors and the wider Christian community.

Here’s a sampling of other recent MinistryWatch articles.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

In search of news coverage of China's moral responsibility for coronavirus pandemic

, , , , ,

A slew of European and African nations, plus Australia and, of course, the United States are angrier at China than they’ve been in a very long time. To which I say, good.

The reason for all this, as you undoubtedly know, is Beijing’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, which originated on its turf in the city of Wuhan.

Bottom line: It took a direct threat to the lives of other nations’ citizens for the international community to finally react to the heavy-handed and duplicitous manner that China deals with its own people and the world.

Just how widespread this opprobrium has become is detailed in this New York Times overview piece.

My question?

When this pandemic ultimately subsides — or at least becomes relatively manageable — will the international community’s attitude toward China revert to the previous just-look-the-other-way approach because there’s lots of money involved?

Or is there a chance that, at least some Western-style democracies will view China’s morally questionable political and economic values and actions in a different and more critical light?

The realist in me — or cynic, take your choice — thinks that the passage of time and humanity’s seemingly insatiable appetite for material comforts will again serve China’s imperial designs. And that China’s ruthless authoritarianism will again be overlooked. That accepting its police-state treatment of political dissidents and religious believers will again be viewed as the price global capitalism simply must pay to have access to China’s huge markets and it’s relatively cheap consumer products. Correct?

Journalists might want to start asking these questions now. And not only of the business and political leaders in their area. But of their religious leaders and thinkers — their community’s presumed moral compasses.

Also, don’t overlook the rank-and-file religious believers (and non-believers); they represent a community’s popular moral outlook.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Plug-In: This Woodward-and-Bernstein fan's way to strengthen ministries? Investigate them!

, , , , , ,

Warren Cole Smith wants to strengthen Christian ministries.

A major way he intends to do that: through investigative journalism.

Smith, 61, has served since October as president of the independent donor advocate MinistryWatch.com.

“Our overarching goal is to create transparency and accountability in the Christian ministry world,” the 1980 University of Georgia journalism graduate told me.

Rusty Leonard, who founded the nonprofit with his wife, Carol, in 1998, serves as board chairman. Leonard reached out to Smith after a donor provided funding for the new position.

Smith’s past experience includes serving as vice president and associate publisher of World, a leading evangelical magazine, and owning a chain of Christian newspapers. He is working on a book titled “Faith-Based Fraud,” which MinistryWatch hopes to publish in August.

His interest in reporting stretches back nearly five decades to the 1970s Watergate scandal uncovered by the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.

“When we’re doing investigative journalism, there are two audiences that I care most about,” Smith said. “What do donors need to know to make them more effective stewards? And how can we serve the victims?

“There’s an old saying that I use a lot in this kind of work: Ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have victims,” he added. “So we want to be an advocate for the victims, which is why we will not only cover financial abuse, but we will also cover sexual abuse as well.”

See examples of Smith’s recent work here, here and here.

Power Up: The Week’s Best Reads

1. DNA points to former suspect in 1985 church murders: Here’s a real whodunit with a major break in the 35-year-old case, thanks to digging by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.


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

Fire at will, in a circle: What does 'pro-life' mean in the context of the COVID-19 era?

, , , , , , , , ,

The assertion of certain conservative politicians that abortion should not be considered “essential” surgery in a time of medical shortages is the latest twist in the ever-active “pro-life” news agenda. But different sorts of life debates lie ahead.

Writers on religion and ethics went to work when Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick suggested on Fox News that it’s OK if senior citizens like himself need to die in this epidemic to ensure that their children and grandchildren have decent economic livelihoods. Radio talker Glenn Beck, a Latter-day Saint, agreed that he’d “rather die than kill the country.”

Even liberals who favor fully free choice for abortion and mercy-killing abhorred suggestions that incomes should count more than the sacredness of human life. Harvard’s Ashish Jha told The Washington Post’s Sarah Pulliam Bailey that Patrick set up “a false dichotomy” between economics and public health, which is “possibly the dumbest debate we’re having.”

A related topic could be around the corner that journalists should be preparing to cover. In a word: Triage.

Here’s the Merriam-Webster definition: “The sorting of and allocation of treatment to patients and especially battle and disaster victims according to a system of priorities designed to maximize the number of survivors.”

That is, in a crunch who gets life-saving treatment and who doesn’t? In the current crisis, what if intensive care units in a city’s hospitals run short of ventilators necessary to sustain life, as worst-case projections indicate could happen? Should advanced age be a criterion for withholding treatments? This is a nation that next January will inaugurate a president of age 74 (Donald Trump) or 78 (Joe Biden) or 79 (Bernie Sanders), alongside a likely House Speaker who is 80.


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

Many patients and not enough ventilators: Is religion part of this coronavirus debate?

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

Let’s state this coronavirus question bluntly: Is the emerging “let Granny die” puzzle a political story, an economics story or a religion story? Based on the coverage I am seeing, it appears that the safe route is to call this a “medical ethics” story.

Something tells me — based on his fierce writings about materialism, greed and modernity — that Pope Francis would insist that centuries of traditions in multiple faiths are relevant during debates about this equation.

But I understand that news organizations only have so much space and time. However, I believe this is a case where some editors are editing religious questions and voices out of stories that — for millions of people in America and around the world — are “haunted” by religion. This is, of course, what GetReligion is all about.

So here are the bare bones of the story, as covered in faith-free USA Today story with this headline: “ ‘Who lives and who dies': In worst-case coronavirus scenario, ethics guide choices on who gets care.” The overture states:

In a worst-case scenario of ventilator shortages, physicians may have to decide “who lives and who dies,” said Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist and chairman of the University of Pennsylvania’s department of medical ethics and health policy.

“It’s horrible,” Emanuel said. “It’s the worst thing you can have to do.”

Respiratory therapists, who take care of patients who struggle to breathe, are aware of the pressures that comes from a swift, sudden need for ventilators

This story contains tons of valid information. However, it’s clear that the team that produced it didn’t include anyone with a background in religion reporting or debates about “whole life” doctrines in moral theology.

The only mention of faith may have been an accident — through an interview with a prominent scientist who also happens to be an articulate Christian.


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

Atlantic feature on Francis Collins covers lots of COVID-19 territory, but gets the faith angle, too

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

One of the most important religion stories in America right now are the tensions inside many religious organizations — usually between high-ranking clergy and laypeople in the pews — over the extreme forms of “social distancing” that are shutting down worship services or, at best, sending them online.

Ironically, these tensions would fade, to some degree, if American Christians were willing to listen to some of the coronavirus lessons learned by believers in other parts of the world, especially Asia. Click here for a recent GetReligion post on that topic.

Like it or not, these arguments are also being shaped by politics, more than theology, as political scientist and mainline Baptist pastor Ryan Burge has been demonstrating in some of his recent work dissecting some older poll information. See the recent post entitled, “Faith in quarantine: Why are some people praying at home while others flock to pews?”

At the same time, the pew-level arguments about COVID-19 and congregational life may contain themes that are common in many arguments about faith and science. One way to address that divide — as Clemente Lisi said the other day — is to focus on people of faith whose work in labs and hospitals is helping shape the global response to this crisis. See his GetReligion post: “The quest for religion and science coverage of COVID-19 — in the same news report.”

If GetReligion readers want a strong summary of some of this material — viewed through the lens of science — they can turn to a strong Peter Wehner feature at (#NoSurprise) The Atlantic. Here’s the double-decker headline:

NIH Director: ‘We’re on an Exponential Curve’

Francis Collins speaks about the coronavirus, his faith, and an unusual friendship.

This long, long interview is worth reading — top to bottom. It’s packed with newsy material and how Collins views what is going on. Note, in particular, the reference to remdesivir and the tests that are underway to see if this drug is as effective as it appears to be in fighting, even curing, COVID-19. Can you think of a bigger potential news story right now than that?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

About that rich young Seattle millionaire: Wasn't there some Bible in there somewhere?

, , , ,

Remember the rich young entrepreneur in Seattle who took a drastic pay cut so that all his employees could make at least $70K and then buy houses and start families and things like that?

Odds are good that you do. Now, do you remember how a ton of media outlets did stories on this guy and nearly all of them somehow never got around to mentioning that this benevolent entrepreneur is an evangelical Christian?

Well the pros at BBC just did an update on the man that was thorough and entertaining. But guess what part of the story the Beeb team barely mentioned?

In 2015, the boss of a card payments company in Seattle introduced a $70,000 minimum salary for all of his 120 staff — and personally took a pay cut of $1m. Five years later he's still on the minimum salary, and says the gamble has paid off…

Raised in deeply Christian, rural Idaho, Dan Price is upbeat and positive, generous in his praise of others and impeccably polite, but he has become a crusader against inequality in the US.

"People are starving or being laid off or being taken advantage of, so that somebody can have a penthouse at the top of a tower in New York with gold chairs.

"We're glorifying greed all the time as a society, in our culture. And, you know, the Forbes list is the worst example — 'Bill Gates has passed Jeff Bezos as the richest man.' Who cares!?"

It would help if this BBC reporter looked at a map.

Price attended a Christian high school in Nampa, Idaho, which is right on I-84. It’s right next to Boise and hardly a rural outpost like, say, places like Caldwell, Sandpoint or Stanley.


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

Memory eternal: Religion-beat pro Roy Larson escaped stereotypes and became a pioneer

, , , , , , ,

During the 1981-82, I spent most of my time at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign — taking graduate seminars, teaching reporting labs, writing my weekly column on rock music for the local daily and burying myself in graduate-project research.

The topic of that thesis — a condensed version ended up on the cover of The Quill — was the beleaguered status of religion writing in most American newsrooms. Over and over again, I heard editors give two reasons (in one form of another) for why they avoided covering religion: (1) Religion news was boring and (2) religion news was too controversial.

That’s the ticket. There were just too many boring and controversial religion stories out there.

Then a story broke in The Chicago Sun-Times that had everyone talking. It certainly was controversial, but no one thought that it was boring. The opening was a blockbuster, focusing on the most powerful leader in America’s largest Roman Catholic archdiocese:

A federal grand jury in Chicago is investigating whether Cardinal John P. Cody illegally diverted as much as $1 million in tax-exempt church funds to enrich a lifelong friend from St. Louis.” It went on to report: “The grand jury has issued a subpoena for Cody’s personal banking records as well as one seeking financial documents of the Archdiocese of Chicago dating back to the mid-1960’s.

Church officials were not amused. A member of Cody’s legal team said that the “Cardinal is answerable to Rome and to God, not to the Sun-Times.”

The religion writer on that investigative team was Roy Larson, a former Methodist minister who became a newspaper reporter.

On one level, he fit a religion-beat stereotype that was common when I first started considering this line of work: That of the tired liberal Protestant minister who retired from his pulpit to run a newspaper religion-news section. In the case of Larson, the problem with this stereotype is that his skills as a mainstream hard-news journalist were real and immediately obvious.


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

UPDATE: CNN sort of repents on 'fetus' language in story about Senate born-alive bill

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

Year after year, debates about abortion continue to raise questions about ethics, politics, morality and science — as well as arguments about language and style in journalism.

The latest, of course, focuses on the legal status of a baby that is born accidentally — perhaps during a botched abortion — as opposed to being delivered intentionally. If you think that is a relatively black-and-white issue, then talk to Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam. Meanwhile, what role should the beliefs of doctors and parents, secular or religious, play in this discussion?

Some readers may flinch because I used the term “baby” in that previous paragraph. However, in this case we are discussing the status of a human being who has already been born. Meanwhile, the Merriam-Webster online dictionary continues to define “fetus” as:

[Click to the next page for update on this post.]


Please respect our Commenting Policy