Kellerism

, , , , , , , , ,

New podcast: Coronavirus crisis claims life of NYC doctor who had a 'calling,' not just a job

, , , , , , , , ,

Some people talk about their “jobs” and their “careers.”

People who discuss this topic in faith-based terms will say that they have “vocations” or “callings.”

How do you know the difference between these two ways of thinking?

That was the subject that loomed in the background this week when “Crossroads” host Todd Wilken and I discussed news coverage of the suicide of Dr. Lorna M. Breen, medical director of the emergency room at New York-Presbyterian Allen Hospital. The final weeks of her life were dominated by the coronavirus crisis since — in addition to her work at the center of the New York City crisis — she contracted the disease, beat it and then went back to the ER.

The hook for the podcast (click here to tune that in) was my post: “Faith played major role in life of New York ER doctor who took her own life: What was it?” A fine New York Times story about her death featured moving testimonies about her leadership and self-sacrifice during this emergency, including her own efforts to increase safety for her team. Then, way down in the story, there was this:

Aside from work, Dr. Breen filled her time with friends, hobbies and sports, friends said. She was an avid member of a New York ski club and traveled regularly out west to ski and snowboard. She was also a deeply religious Christian who volunteered at a home for older people once a week, friends said.

The faith reference — with its connection to her volunteer work with the elderly — was like a door that opened for a second and then closed.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Note that the “friends said” attributions are plural. Apparently several people who knew Breen thought that her faith was linked, at the very least, to her volunteer work. I think it’s safe to say she was volunteering her services as a doctor, as a kind of companion and healer (in several senses of that word).


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Slavic Pentecostals, coronavirus and California politics make a confusing mix at Sacramento Bee

, , , , ,

It isn’t often that a newspaper does such an awful job on a coronavirus story that it has to run several more stories correcting the initial report.

Let’s work our way through this case slowly.

A few weeks ago, I became aware of stories in the Sacramento Bee that blamed one megachurch for the spread of coronavirus among several dozen individuals. It’s the country’s largest Slavic Pentecostal church and, judging from one of the Bee’s pieces, a center of dangerous activity because of past opposition to gay rights. So when the church is linked to 71 coronavirus infections and one death and counting, it’s game on.

We’ll start with the Sacramento Bee’s initial April 2 piece on the virus’s spread. It had four bylines. What you see here is a second version of the story, which has the church’s response. But the original did not.

One church in Sacramento County is now the epicenter of a major outbreak of coronavirus, and frustrated county officials say church leaders are refusing to listen to their demands to stop fellowship meetings.

Seventy-one members of the Bethany Slavic Missionary Church near Rancho Cordova or people associated with congregation members have been afflicted with the virus, county officials say, making this one of the larger outbreak clusters in the country. One parishioner has died, officials said, and the pastor is sick.

Hmm … that second sentence is a cover-all-your-bases kind of statement. The region’s Slav community, which the Bee says numbers 90,000, is a close-knit one. So to say “people associated with congregation members” throws a pretty wide net.

Bethany is a large church at 3,500 members (but with up to 10,000 attending) but there are actually 103 other Slavic churches in the region. Was Bethany the main source of this problem or were there other churches involved? Or were there ethnic Slavs involved who weren’t members of any church at all?


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

No #SURPRISE -- Another Womenpriests story offers public-relations ink instead of news

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

How many times have your GetReligionistas written about one-sided mainstream press coverage of the tiny Womenpriests church, or movement, or association, or denomination, or independent church?

We have already noted that no one seems to know if the proper journalistic style for the movement’s name is Womenpriests, WomenPriests or Women Priests. Wait, are there now two organizations at work here, Roman Catholic Women Priests and the Association of Roman Catholic Women Priests, Inc.? What’s up?

We have already published a post (“Surprise! It's time for another one-sided look at the birth of a new church — the Women Priests”) that opens with six essential journalism problems to look for when evaluating mainstream media coverage of this issue. Here are the first two and, yes, (2) is really a two-fer:

(1) As Mollie “GetReligionista emerita” Hemingway used to say, just because someone says that he or she plays shortstop for the New York Yankees does not mean that this person plays shortstop for the world’s most famous baseball team. Only the leaders of the Yankees get to make that call.

(2) The doctrine of “apostolic succession” involves more than one bishop laying hands on someone. Ordination in ancient Christian churches requires “right doctrine” as well as “right orders.” Also, it helps to know the name of the bishop or bishops performing the alleged ordination. Be on the alert for “Old Catholic” bishops, some of whom were ordained via mail order.

Also, we have issued this challenge to readers, which — so far — has drawn zero responses:

Would your GetReligionistas praise a mainstream news story on this movement that offered a fair-minded, accurate, 50-50 debate between articulate, informed voices on both sides? You bet. Once again: If readers find a story of this kind, please send us the URL.

We are still waiting. However, a reader recently sent a URL for yet another story that repeats almost all of the errors we have seen so many times. It is clear that, while the Womenpriests church is small, it has a fabulous press-relations team.

This latest Gannett press release on this subject was published by the Daytona Beach News-Journal, under a very typical headline stating, “Defiance in DeLand: Woman ordained Roman Catholic priest.” The reader that sent this in noted:


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

Covering 'mainline' faith: Why do the old Protestant churches get so much news ink?

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

Soon after I left the newsroom of the Rocky Mountain News to teach at Denver Seminary, in the early 1990s, a general-assignment reporter was asked to do a story about a trend in religion. It was something to do with prayer, if I recall, and editors wanted to run it on Easter.

The reporter went to three or four nearby churches in downtown. As you would expect, these were old flocks linked to Mainline Protestantism and one Catholic parish. All were, to one degree or another, both historic and struggling, in terms of attendance and membership. The city’s biggest churches were in the suburbs, especially in the booming territory between Denver and Colorado Springs — already a nationally known evangelical power base. The state included at least five internationally known centers on spirituality and prayer, one evangelical, one charismatic Episcopal, one Buddhist and two Roman Catholic.

The story ended up with voices from the dominant flocks of Denver’s past, when liberal Protestant voices were the statistical norm.

Many times, through the years, religious leaders have asked me: Why do the oldline Protestant churches receive so much news coverage? During my Denver years, Episcopalians and United Methodists did make lots of national news — as doctrinal wars escalated about sex and marriage.

These were subjects that editors considered news. Evangelical Presbyterian churches growing to 6,000-plus members in their first five years of existence? That might be worth a column. It’s not big news.

I thought of these discussions the other day when I read a Religion News Service — a long feature with lots of valid material — that ran with this headline: “As a pandemic peaks at Christianity’s Easter climax, churches adapt online.” Here’s the opening anecdote:

On Palm Sunday (April 5), the Rev. Ted Gabrielli, a bespectacled Jesuit with a bushy beard, stood in the bed of a roving pickup truck that traveled through Boyle Heights, a mostly Latino neighborhood on Los Angeles’ east side.

Gabrielli, a pastor at Dolores Mission Church, greeted neighbors from the truck and blessed the homes, alleys and streets he passed. He greeted many by name. One neighbor, caught on a Facebook livestream of the procession, stood from her home waving palms, the symbol of Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem in the week before he was crucified.


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

This week's podcast: Are all those COVID-19 stories about rebel preachers fueled by bias?

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

Veteran GetReligion readers will remember that I grew up as a Southern Baptist preacher’s kid in Texas and then, as an undergraduate, did a double major in journalism and history at Baylor University, along with a master’s in church-state studies.

Why bring up my Baptist credentials, right now? Well, they’re relevant to the topic that “Crossroads” host Todd Wilken and I discussed during this week’s podcast. (Click here to tune that in.)

You see, I have been listening to Bible Belt folks argue about journalism for a long time. My parents backed my career choice, but trust me when I say that I can quote chapter and verse on why many people think that “Christian” and “journalist” are words that don’t go together.

The bottom line: If you ask why so many journalists struggle to do accurate, balanced coverage of religion you’ll hear lots of conservatives in pews (and pulpits) say: “Well, journalists hate religious people.”

That’s a straw-man argument and simplistic, to boot. I have seen, and heard about, some strong examples of prejudice against religious folks in newsrooms, but I have never thought that negative prejudice was the biggest problem that skews religion coverage. For starters, I’ve met some journalists who don’t care enough about religion to, well, hate it. There’s way more journalists who think that there’s good religion and then there’s bad religion and they are pretty sure which is which.

Anyway, I continue to hear from GetReligion readers who are mad about all those news stories on independent preachers who ignore coronavirus crisis “shelter in place” orders requiring them to avoid business-as-usual worship. Here’s a chunk of the GetReligion post that served as the hook for the podcast:

… (The) question looks like this: Why are the few pastors who reject “shelter in place” orders getting so much ink with their face-to-face worship services, while the vast majority of clergy who have moved their rites online — often for the first time — are getting little or no coverage? I have already written about this twice at GetReligion — look here and then here. …

Here is what people are feeling: How come some angry preacher deep in the Bible Belt is getting all this coverage and, well, online efforts by the still massive Southern Baptist Convention are ignored?


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

Yes, there's still a November election and propaganda about religion will merit examination

, , , , , , ,

Despite the dormant U.S. campaign and 24/7 news coverage on COVID-19, political verbiage continues unabated, some of it religious in flavor.

Writers are unlikely to scan this scene at the moment, but The Religion Guy thinks it merits examination sometime before Election Day seven months hence.

The overriding trait of U.S. political propaganda in our time — from left and right — is that it ever more narrowly “preaches to the choir,” as the old saying goes, reinforcing prior mindsets and allegiances rather than trying to persuade fence-sitters or people with opposite views. Ditto with religious verbiage.

There are two categories of propaganda. (1) Promotional material disgorged by political groups themselves. (2) Opinion journalism that drifts toward the rabidly partisan newspapering of the Adams-Burr-Hamilton-Jefferson days. Click here for a sample.

A typical example of appeals to hidebound attitudes is a direct-mail plea that Ralph Reed’s Faith & Freedom Coalition says went to 10 million Christians. They were asked to donate $22.5 million to register 5 million new voters in 16 battleground states, re-elect President Donald Trump, and maintain Republicans’ Senate control.

The mailer said 81% of “conservative Christians” voted for Trump, which signaled that the intended audience here was white evangelical Protestants, not minority Protestants or Catholics who resent it when the “Christian” label is co-opted this way.

Reed’s mailer came in mid-March, just before the president shifted to sterner warnings about COVID-19, so that looming crisis went unmentioned while the then-booming economy was touted. The pitch cited federal judge appointments but notably skipped past other evangelical concerns like support for Israel, religious liberty, LGBTQ and gender identity disputes, the drug epidemic and abortion.

Instead, believers were told to combat the “OPEN BORDERS, socialist, anti-God, anti-family agenda of today’s Democrat Party” whose “VOTE FRAUD” threatens democracy, all of this abetted by the “dishonest media.” The enemy would “erase Christianity from America” and have the U.S. “governed by the United Nations” instead of its Constitution. Those “vicious and unhinged” liberals “can destroy America forever” so it becomes “a failed, corrupt, one-party socialist country like Cuba or Venezuela.” Etc.

With propaganda via journalism, let’s start at the elite level with Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate, emeritus economics prof at Princeton and New York Times columnist. His March 28 opus accusing the Trump administration of inadequate COVID-19 response blamed its “denialism” in part upon “the centrality of science-hating religious conservatives.”


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

Court frees Cardinal Pell: Washington Post offers basic journalism. And the New York Times?

, , , , , , , , , ,

This will be a very simple post about a very complicated religion-news story.

I am referring to the news that lit up Twitter the other day, when the news broke that Australia’s highest court had — with a 7-0 vote — overturned controversial (I need a stronger word) decisions by two lower courts convicting Cardinal George Pell of sexually assaulting two choirboys at the Melbourne cathedral in the 1990s.

I will not attempt to hash out the many ways that the secret nature of these Aussie court proceedings affected the news coverage. I will not discuss the details of the victim’s testimony against Pell and whether it was possible for a bishop, wearing many layers of thick, complicated vestments and almost certainly accompanied by an aide, to have committed these crimes in a public place.

No, my goal here is to contrast the journalism in two elite-media reports — in The Washington Post and then The New York Times — about this final court decision, which set Pell free and unleashed hurricanes of online arguments (yet again).

In terms of journalism, what is the essential difference between these two stories?

First, let’s look at the Post story, which ran with this headline: “Cardinal George Pell is released from prison after court quashes sexual abuse conviction.” If you read this story, you will find several passages like this:

In a written statement, Pell said he felt no ill will toward his accuser and did not want his acquittal to add to the bitterness in the community.

"There is certainly hurt and bitterness enough," he said. "However, my trial was not a referendum on the Catholic Church, nor a referendum on how church authorities in Australia dealt with the crime of pedophilia in the church.

"The point was whether I had committed these awful crimes, and I did not."

Readers will also read passages like this one:

The decision is likely to upset Pell's many detractors, who hold him responsible not just for the alleged assault on the choirboys but for the broader record of the Catholic Church in Australia, where some 4,444 people reported being abused in recent decades, according to an official inquiry. Their average age was about 11 years old.


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

A baseball flashback (sort of): Kudos to MLB.com for getting some Tebow details right

, , , , , , , ,

So does anyone else miss baseball right about now?

I really do. I especially love, near the end of spring training, following the stories of the minor-league stars who suddenly get hot and rise into the major leagues. Is there anything more inspiring than watching a rookie who is 28, 29 or even 30 run down the red carpet on opening day and be introduced to The Show?

With that in mind, I would like to mix that story — tragically cut off this year, of course — with another ongoing story. That would be the evolving life and career of one Tim Tebow.

This MLB.com story ran quite some time ago, before our world turned inside out, but I filed it away since it managed to gracefully handle an interesting development in the Tebow story. I saw some other news reports that, as usual, were cranked out by journalists who seemed to go out of their way to turn this story into another chance to mock this man or ignore relevant facts about his life.

So here is a small dose of baseball news. Do you remember the news when this story broke? Here’s the MLB.com headline: “Tebow to represent Philippines in WBC qualifiers.” I am sure the lead-ups to the 2021 World Baseball Classic have been messed up — but let’s hope that our world is sorted out by next summer. Here is the overture:

PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. -- Calling the opportunity “a really cool thing,” Tim Tebow has agreed to play for the Philippines in 2021 World Baseball Classic qualifiers.

Tebow, a former Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback who has spent the past four years as a Mets Minor League outfielder, was born in the Philippines. When the country’s national baseball team invited him to participate in WBC qualifiers, Tebow ran it past Mets general manager Brodie Van Wagenen and manager Luis Rojas, who signed off on him leaving this year's Spring Training to play.

“I’ve just got such a heart for the Philippines,” Tebow said. “I’ve just really had a love for the people for a long time. To be able to represent them will be really cool -- really, really cool. You don’t get a lot of chances to represent people or places that mean something to you.”

Many journalists left it at that — Tebow was born in the Philippines. End of story. The implication was that he was some kind of baseball hired gun for a day.


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

Rank these stories: Falwell rolls dice with virus or potential collapse of some small colleges?

, , , , , , , , , , ,

What we have here are two stories about Christian higher education during the coronavirus crisis.

One is set in a rather remote part of America, but it involves — kind of — Citizen Donald Trump. The other is a national-level story with news hooks that will affect institutions (and thus newsrooms) in several hundred communities spread out from coast to coast.

So which of these two stories is grabbing national headlines, including chunks of time on TV news?

That isn’t a very hard question, is it?

Here is the main New York Times headline on the latest chapter in the saga of Jerry Falwell, Jr., and his mano y mano fight with the coronavirus: “Liberty University Brings Back Its Students, and Coronavirus Fears, Too.” We can expect all kinds of updates and national coverage about this issue, of course.

LYNCHBURG, Va. — As Liberty University’s spring break was drawing to a close this month, Jerry Falwell Jr., its president, spoke with the physician who runs Liberty’s student health service about the rampaging coronavirus.

“We’ve lost the ability to corral this thing,” Dr. Thomas W. Eppes Jr. said he told Mr. Falwell. But he did not urge him to close the school. “I just am not going to be so presumptuous as to say, ‘This is what you should do and this is what you shouldn’t do,’” Dr. Eppes said in an interview.

So Mr. Falwell — a staunch ally of President Trump and an influential voice in the evangelical world — reopened the university last week, igniting a firestorm. As of Friday, Dr. Eppes said, nearly a dozen Liberty students were sick with symptoms that suggested Covid-19, the disease caused by the virus. Three were referred to local hospital centers for testing. Another eight were told to self-isolate.

Note that Falwell is an “influential voice” in “the evangelical world” — as opposed to one corner of a large and complex movement. At the very least, this implies that he is an “influential voice” in the larger world of evangelical and conservative Protestant higher education — which is a hilarious statement. He’s “famous,” for sure. “Influential?” For some people, yes, but for most evangelicals — statistically — the answer is “no.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy