Got news?

The latest United Methodist bombshell will create news throughout 2022 and beyond

The latest United Methodist bombshell will create news throughout 2022 and beyond

Yet another United Methodist bombshell will create news throughout 2022 and beyond

In this, the 50th anniversary year of the 12.9-million-member United Methodist Church's fierce debate over the Bible and sexuality, a late summer General Conference was set to settle how to split. But a March 3 bombshell announcement cancelled this all-important meeting, already postponed twice due to COVID. Without plans for an orderly and respectful breakup, rancor will persist till delegates finally do assemble, presumably in May, 2024.

Here's some lay of the land for the media through 2022 and beyond.

"The only problem with [cancellation] is everything," remarks Religion News Service commentator Jacob Lupfer. "Every major faction in the church agrees on the need for schism. The status quo is untenable." The liberal Reconciling Ministries Network supports the delay, but "this lengthening test of our patience" postpones "the road to justice for our LGBTQ+ kin" who want a policy change that regularizes weddings and clergy ordinations for Methodists in same-sex relationships.

Conservatives are more upset, so much so they immediately rushed to launch a new "Global Methodist Church" (GMC) on May 1. Mark your calendars: GMC supporters will hold a "global gathering" in Avon, Indiana, just afterward on May 7. The GMC will combine U.S. conservatives with sizable groups from the Methodists' flocks in Africa, the Philippines and elsewhere in the diverse Global South. (Most other "mainline" denominations exist in the United States only.)

Crucially, the breakup "protocol" on the 2022 General Conference agenda would have approved a temporary time window until 2024 during which congregations could quit the UMC and keep ownership of their buildings and other assets. The 2024 General Conference could still OK such an escape clause, but by then the schism will be in full swing.

Here is the key for journalists working at the local and regional levels: Without a mutually agreed pact, Lupfer expects expensive, "chaotic, unruly litigation."


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Will Russia listen to Orthodox voices praying for ceasefire? How about journalists?

Will Russia listen to Orthodox voices praying for ceasefire? How about journalists?

During Sunday rites, worshippers in the Orthodox Church in America are led through a tour of the faith's music, with hymns from Russia, Romania, Georgia, Bulgaria and beyond.

The faithful know many by heart, including the ancient Trisagion hymn -- "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us" -- in a haunting setting that for centuries has simply been called "Kievan Chant."

With Great Lent approaching, Archbishop Alexander Golitzin of the Diocese of Dallas and the South instructed parishes (including my own in East Tennessee) to add prayers for Ukraine in every Divine Liturgy: "Again, we ask Thy great mercy on our brothers and sisters who are presently involved in conflict. Remove from their midst all hostility, confusion and hatred. Lead everyone along the path of reconciliation and peace."

The OCA's Metropolitan Tikhon, leader of a church that began with Russian missionary work in 1794, has urged that "hostilities be ceased immediately and that President Putin put an end to the military operations. As Orthodox Christians, we condemn violence and aggression."

In Slavic Orthodox history, all roads lead to Kiev, now called Kyiv in the West.

Orthodox leaders with ties to the European Union and highly European Western Ukraine have issued fierce statements after the Russian invasion. Metropolitan Epiphanius I of the independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church, launched in 2018 by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Istanbul, has said the "spirit of the Antichrist operates in the leader of Russia."

However, it's significant that leaders of many Orthodox churches with roots in Russian Orthodoxy have also condemned the invasion and urged a ceasefire. The leader of Ukraine's oldest Orthodox body -- one with centuries of ecclesiastical ties to Moscow -- condemned the invasion in a statement addressed directly to Vladimir Putin.

"Defending the sovereignty and integrity of Ukraine, we appeal to the President of Russia and ask him to immediately stop the fratricidal war," said Metropolitan Onuphry, primate of Kiev and all Ukraine. "The Ukrainian and Russian peoples came out of the Dnieper Baptismal font, and the war between these peoples is a repetition of the sin of Cain, who killed his own brother out of envy. Such a war has no justification either from God or from people."


Please respect our Commenting Policy

The New York Times fails to ask a key 'parental rights' question linked to Texas trans wars

The New York Times fails to ask  a key 'parental rights' question linked to Texas trans wars

No one in his or her right (or left) mind would expect the college of journalism cardinals at The New York Times to write a balanced story about one of the latest battles in Texas over core doctrines of the Sexual Revolution.

In this case, I am not referring to Gray Lady coverage of the state’s efforts to ban most abortions after unborn children have detectable heartbeats, which is about six weeks into pregnancies.

No, I am referring to a massive new story about Gov. Greg Abbott call for child-abuse investigations of parents who back appeals by their children and teens to begin medical efforts to transition to another gender. The double-decker headline is rather restrained, when one considers the level of outrage among the vast majority of Times-persons.

Texas Investigates Parents Over Care for Transgender Youth, Suit Says

The investigations by the state’s Department of Family and Protective Services started last week with an employee of the agency, according to the suit, after Gov. Greg Abbott called for such inquiries.

As I said, no one would expect the Times to do a balanced story on this kind of subject, one that is so close to the newspaper’s doctrinal heart.

I was, however, surprised that this story didn’t include (a) some kind of reference to the newspaper’s involvement in an important discussion of a related topic by two of America’s leading trans activists and medical professionals and (b) some input from religious conservatives — major players in Texas life — discussing whether Abbott’s actions limit parental rights in decisions affecting their children. Religious conservatives have been very concerned, in the past, about government efforts (see this ongoing Canada case) to punish parents who oppose transition efforts by their children (usually backed by a former spouse).

Back to the Times report. Here is some crucial material:

The investigations by the state’s Department of Family and Protective Services, which have not been previously reported, were started in response to an order from Mr. Abbott to the agency, the lawsuit says. The order followed a nonbinding opinion by the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, that parents who provide their transgender teenagers with puberty-suppressing drugs or other medically accepted treatments — which doctors describe as gender-affirming care — could be investigated for child abuse.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

When ancient texts meet high tech, behold, will we get near-instant Bibles? 

When ancient texts meet high tech, behold, will we get near-instant Bibles? 

The Religion Guy has touted the investigative chops of the Ministry Watch website and its usefulness as a story source for journalists. Let’s re-up that message.

Along with assorted financial and moral scandals, President Warren Cole Smith has been examining what he calls the "Bible translation industry" (which prefers to call itself a "ministry"). This is a very popular cause among U.S. Protestants, with revenues of around $500 million a year. The biggest group, Wycliffe Bible Translators, took in $227 million in 2020.

In articles here (“Outsourcing Bible Translation?”), here (“Translation Service Providers Could Be Paradigm-Changing For Bible Translation Industry”) and finally here (“Just How Broken Is the Bible Translation Industry?”) Smith has been criticizing translation groups for taking so long and spending so much money to produce a Bible translation in a new language when the need is so great.

To force a massive speedup, Smith promotes the fascinating idea of applying the technology used widely by businesses and governments for necessary rapid translations of contracts, diplomatic exchanges, scientific articles, movie scripts and the like. Such biblical projects are already under way, and that provides a solid feature idea for reporters to pursue.

A consortium of traditional Bible translation organizations, illumiNations, figures the planet has around 7,000 languages currently being spoken, of which 3,700 have little or no scripture. It seeks to fill that gap by 2033, and states that it typically takes seven years to render the New Testament and 16 years for a complete Bible. At the present rate, Smith comments, the task will take till at least A.D. 2150.

As a former business executive, Smith argues that Christian donors should reasonably expect 10 times the new Bibles than are actually being produced and, while chiding groups for lack of financial transparency, estimates it takes not only many years but many millions of dollars to produce a new translation. He says the current experimental phase of the new high-tech scheme indicates radically shortened time frames are possible at a cost of a mere $350,000 per new Bible.

Big, if true. That’s a news story.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Cooper Kupp's spiritual vision: Well, it's hard not to pay attention to the Super Bowl MVP

Cooper Kupp's spiritual vision: Well, it's hard not to pay attention to the Super Bowl MVP

It’s hard not to pay attention to what the winner of the Most Valuable Player award has to say after the Super Bowl.

Thus, a few mainstream media features after the Los Angeles Rams’ victory focused on a bit of very personal testimony by superstar wide receiver Cooper Kupp. In a way, what he said resembled the kind of stereotypical Godtalk that filters into the news when believers are asked to express their first reactions after a major event — glorious or tragic — in their lives.

Long ago (pre-Internet), I interviewed the late, great Dallas Cowboys coach Tom Landry about all of this. People tend to think that believers pray to win football Games and either God hears them or not, he said. The reality is more complex than that and, most of the time, players and coaches are trying to make sense of these events — wins and loses — in the context of how God is working in their lives.

In the case of Kupp, this win in The Big Game linked into what he claimed was a vision after a Super Bowl loss. Here is the top of a story from The Athletic: “How the Rams’ Cooper Kupp’s quiet vision became reality in front of the whole world.” This is long, but essential:

INGLEWOOD, Calif. — The vision arrived with unbelievable clarity. Cooper Kupp long ago saw an unmistakable image of himself not only playing in and winning a Super Bowl but also earning the Most Valuable Player award.

But what was notable about this visualization was its peculiar timing. It came as Kupp was walking off the field at Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta after watching — not playing in — the Rams’ Super Bowl LIII loss to the Patriots. Kupp missed that game with a knee injury, but he says he received confirmation that night that he’d be back.

“What it was is just this vision that God revealed to me that we were going to come back and we were going to win it and somehow I was going to be the MVP of the game,” Kupp said. “I shared that with my wife because I couldn’t tell anyone else, obviously. But from the moment that this postseason started, there was such a belief in every game. It was written already, and I just had to play free knowing that I got to play from victory, not for victory.”

Kupp finally shared his vision with the world Sunday night. By then, the world had already seen the manifestation of it all. It was no longer was a vision. It was Kupp’s incredible reality.

Note this phrase: “I couldn’t tell anyone else, obviously.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Strategic cardinal floats trial balloon, saying Catholic LGBTQ doctrines are wrong

Podcast: Strategic cardinal floats trial balloon, saying Catholic LGBTQ doctrines are wrong

If you follow political news, you’re probably familiar with the concept of a “trial balloon.”

One online dictionary definition states: “A trial balloon is a proposal that you mention or an action that you try in order to find out other people's reactions to it, especially if you think they are likely to oppose it.”

Here’s a famous example. Let’s say that the Obama White House wants to shift its stance on gay marriage, once the president has reached a point — in 2012 — where he may or may not need strong support from social-conservative Black church leaders. Thus, it was a surprise, kind of, when Vice President Joe Biden, went on “Meet the Press” and said that he was “absolutely comfortable” with same-sex marriages.

The White House needed to know (1) how other Democrats would respond, (2) how Black-church leaders would respond and (3) how potential conservative critics would respond, including Catholic leaders in America. Central to all of this, of course, is how this “trial balloon” is framed in the coverage by elite media. It took very little time for Barack Obama to get on board.

During this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), we looked at a complex drama unfolding in the European leadership of the Catholic church. The key player is Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, archbishop of Luxembourg, and a leader — the term is “relator general” — in the Pope Francis team leading the Synod on Synodality on the future of the Catholic faith. Depending on who one talks to, this synod is either a chance to listen to Catholics around the world or the front door to Vatican III.

But here is the key quote from Hollerich, drawn from an interview with the German Catholic news agency KNA.) This is part of a collection of blunt, verbatim statements from Hollerich collected at L’Espresso:

“The Church’s positions on homosexual relationships as sinful are wrong. I believe that the sociological and scientific foundation of this doctrine is no longer correct. It is time for a fundamental revision of Church teaching, and the way in which Pope Francis has spoken of homosexuality could lead to a change in doctrine.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Relevant question for modern Democrats: Are agnostics just 'light' versions of atheists?

Relevant question for modern Democrats: Are agnostics just 'light' versions of atheists?

It’s something that I’ve said before during presentations that felt right, but I wasn’t 100% sure — “Agnostics are a light version of atheists.”

Agnostics seem to get overlooked when it comes to talking about the nones. I know that when I’m writing about the extremes of American religion, I tend to focus on atheists the most. And, in evangelical media circles, there’s never an agnostic philosophy professor — it’s always an atheist.

So, are agnostics just a slightly more religious, slightly less liberal version of atheists? I dug through some data and I think I can say that the answer is pretty clear — “yes.”

A quick aside about the theological differences between the two groups. Atheists, by definition, believe that there is no Higher Power. They contend that everything in the world has scientific explanations and not Divine ones.

Agnostics are a bit more ambivalent about that. While atheists state, “There is no God,” agnostics would say that they don’t know if God exists and there’s no way to prove that either way. The term agnostic was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869, when he stated “(agnostic) simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.”

Let’s compare those two groups on the religious questions that exist on the Cooperative Election Study to get a sense of their theological differences.

When asked how important religion is to their lives, 92% of atheists say “not at all” while another five percent say “not too.” Agnostics are a bit more ambivalent with 74% saying “not at all” and 20% saying “not too important.”

When it comes to church attendance, the same general pattern emerges — neither group goes to services that much but atheists are even less apt to admit to any church attendance (88% say that they never go vs. 72% of agnostics).

Finally, when it comes to prayer, the gap grows larger.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Reporters who ask the right questions will find lots of NFL religion stories

Podcast: Reporters who ask the right questions will find lots of NFL religion stories

Several days before former Miami Dolphin head coach stunned the National Football League with his class-action lawsuit alleging racial discrimination and other sins, I read a very interesting profile at The Athletic about one of my sports heroes.

The headline summed things up: “Bears Hall of Famer Mike Singletary is hungry for a second chance to be an NFL head coach, but will it ever come?”

Singletary was a legend in Chicago and, before that, at Baylor University — where I met him because of a mutual friend. Singletary was a highly articulate preacher’s kid from Houston with a voice that sounded like he was auditioning to be the next James Earl Jones. He was a leader from Day 1 at Baylor and demonstrated all the characteristics that made him the face, brain and soul of the greatest defensive unit in NFL history.

This is where the Singletary feature became relevant during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), which focused on why journalists struggle to spot “religion ghosts” in so many sports stories, such as the life of Los Angeles Rams superstar Cooper Kupp (“Emerging NFL superstar — Cooper Kupp — puts his faith on his hat, not that reporters notice”) and the beliefs that appear to be putting the steel in the spine of Flores.

Why hasn’t Singletary had a second shot at being an NFL head coach, after his tumultuous tenure in San Francisco (not the best city for his views on faith and culture)? It may have something to do with Singletary trying to “stand for what he had been preaching” with the 49ers. Read this long passage carefully:

… 49ers owner John York, CEO Jed York, director of player personnel Trent Baalke and other executives called Singletary to a meeting. They had a trade in place with the Steelers for Ben Roethlisberger, who had recently been accused of sexual assault. Singletary vetoed the deal. …

“I had been telling the team I wanted a team of character,” he says.


Please respect our Commenting Policy