Kellerism

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

Never forget: There are more than two strategic camps in the global United Methodist war

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Never forget: There are more than two strategic camps in the global United Methodist war

It’s time for another religion-beat journey beyond “whataboutism” and the basic assumption that all controversial subjects have “two sides,” and that’s basically that.

Of course, we live in an age in which many elite newsrooms decline to cover “one side” of a story if, according to newsroom doctrines, it’s already obvious which side is good and which side is bad. Here at GetReligion we have a term for this — “Kellerism,” a nod to candid remarks once made, on the record, by former New York Times editor Bill Keller.

In this case, we are looking at a religion-beat superstory at the local, regional, national and global levels — the break-up of the United Methodist Church, the second largest Protestant denomination in America.

To get the big picture, please see this recent GetReligion post by Richard Ostling: “The latest United Methodist bombshell will create news throughout 2022 and beyond.” To see how long this battle has been going on, check out this “On Religion” column that I wrote in 1998: “United Methodists — Breaking up is hard to do” and two more on a related topic, “Old fault lines can be seen in the ‘seven churches’ of divided Methodism” (and then part II).

Here are Three Big Ideas for today. Remember that I have, as a reporter, been wrestling with this ongoing story since the early 1980s.

(I) Never forget the unique element of this story, which is that the United Methodist Church has a GLOBAL structure that includes the growing churches of Africa and Asia, as well as the splintering (and usually shrinking) congregations in the United States. Readers should question news reports that fail to mention — or even stress — the racial and cultural diversity of the global conservative United Methodism coalition.

(II) While fights about LGBTQ issues make headlines, the United Methodist wars have — behind the scenes — included clear divisions on basic, even credal, issues in Christian theology. In addition to clashing views of biblical authority, we’re talking about splits on salvation, sin, heaven, hell, the Resurrection and the very nature of Jesus Christ. Reporters need to ask questions about issues other than sex.

(III) There are, at the very least, three major groups involved in this story. Let’s call them the “candid left,” the “establishment left” and then the “traditional” United Methodists, as in the defenders of the existing laws and doctrines in the United Methodist Book of Discipline. However, there are subgroups on the right. Never assume that the global conservatives have precisely the same views as their American counterparts.

To see that these issues look like “in the wild,” consider this recent Religion News Service story: “Vote delayed again, some United Methodists say they quit. Now what?”


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

'Gender affirming?' Texas press keeps backing one side in battles over trans therapies

, , , , , , , ,
'Gender affirming?' Texas press keeps backing one side in battles over trans therapies

Texas is definitely at the forefront of the culture wars these days, with legislation restricting abortion past six weeks, addressing concerns about critical race theory and now a state directive nixing hormone treatments aimed at changing a child’s gender.

Naturally, media have been all over these issues. The latest, which has to do with sex changes for kids, has gotten a lot of people riled up on both sides. In the Lone Star state, all of these debates have obvious religious and moral implications.

However, only one side ends up in newspapers like the Houston Chronicle, from whose March 4 story I’ll quote from here:

Texas Children’s Hospital has stopped prescribing gender-affirming hormone therapies — a move that could affect thousands of transgender children in Texas — in response to a controversial directive from state leaders to investigate medical treatments for transgender youth as child abuse.

The nation’s largest pediatric hospital revealed the decision Friday, dealing a blow to parents of transgender children who were seeking access to medicine that slows the onset of puberty or hormone treatments that help older children develop into bodies that match their identities.

A few paragraphs down, we learn that a state agency was investigating the parents of a 16-year-old “who underwent gender-affirming care.”

“Gender-affirming care” means puberty blockers that block the hormones — testosterone and estrogen — that cause periods and breast growth, or voice-deepening and facial hair growth. It’s not known their effect on fertility, bone marrow density or brain development. Supposedly there are no bad long-term effects, but we don’t know everything at this point, do we?

We do know that there are strong voices on both sides of these debates and, as tmatt noted the other day, not all of them (“Top Trans Doctors Blow the Whistle on ‘Sloppy’ Care”) fit neatly into the familiar right-left, straight-LGBTQ niches.


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

Question for New York Times scribes and others: Did Vladimir Putin dream up the Kievan Rus?

, , , , , , , ,
Question for New York Times scribes and others: Did Vladimir Putin dream up the Kievan Rus?

If you know anything about the New Testament, then you know that St. Paul spend a lot of time and energy in the great cities of Greece.

It would seem logical for one of the ancient patriarchates of Eastern Orthodoxy to be located in Greece, perhaps in Athens, Corinth or Thessaloniki. So who is the patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church? Why are the great churches of Greece led by archbishops, instead of their own patriarch?

That’s a complicated question (click here for Orthodox Wiki timeline) and, as always, the Orthodox will argue about many historical twists and turns. But the big idea is that over the centuries Constantinople grew to become the great city of the wider Greek world and, thus, the leader of Greek Orthodoxy remains in Istanbul. That’s where the Ecumenical Patriarch’s few remaining churches have faced crushing persecution by the Turks. Consider the plight of Turkey’s only seminary, in Halki, which has been shuttered for half a century. Halki is a tragic and sad place. I’ve been there.

Thus, the archbishops in Greece are powerless and without influence? Tell that to the Greeks.

What does this have to do with a simplistic, laugh-to-keep-from-crying paragraph of unattributed information — written in classic “omniscient anonymous" voice — in another New York Times story about the religious tensions in Ukraine? Here is that paragraph:

The Russian church … has made no secret of its desire to unite the branches under a single patriarch in Moscow, which would allow it to control the holiest sites of Orthodoxy in the Slavic world and millions of believers in Ukraine. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church, for its part, has been slowly asserting itself under its own patriarch, reviving a separate and independent branch of Eastern Orthodoxy, after the independence of Ukraine in 1991.

Where to begin?

If you know anything about Orthodox Christianity in the Slavic world, you know that the story begins in Kiev in 988 with the “Baptism of Rus“ in the waters of the Dnieper River, after Prince Vladimir embraced Orthodox Christianity as the faith of his lands. The famous Lavra of the Kievan Caves was founded in 1051, marking the birth of monasticism in what would become the Russian world.

Kiev was the key city in Slavic Orthodoxy. However, Moscow grew in importance and, eventually, became the base for the Russian Orthodox Church, much as Constantinople became the great city of the wider Greek world.


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
, , , , , , , , , ,

Can someone please report on the real Ginni Thomas? The truth is out there

, , , , , , , , , ,
Can someone please report on the real Ginni Thomas? The truth is out there

If it’s late winter, it must be time to report on the U.S. Supreme Court, its upcoming decisions and particularly about its most senior justice, Clarence Thomas.

Thomas is also the lone Black justice, although that may change in that President Joe Biden is poised elect the first black woman to the high court.

Two investigative stories have come out recently about Ginni Thomas, the second wife of the Supreme Court justice, and how her political activities are allegedly compromising her famous husband. One was this New Yorker piece and the other is this lengthy New York Times Magazine piece. I’ll be critiquing the latter in a moment, but I do want to excerpt one paragraph from the New Yorker piece:

Ginni Thomas has complained that she and her husband have received more criticism than have two well-known liberal jurists with politically active spouses: Marjorie O. Rendell continued to serve on the appeals court in Pennsylvania while her husband at the time, Ed Rendell, served as the state’s governor; Stephen Reinhardt, an appeals-court judge in California, declined to recuse himself from cases in which the American Civil Liberties Union was involved, even though his wife, Ramona Ripston, led a branch of the group in Southern California.

She may have a point. When I read the adulation that that the Times accords to people like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who made no secret of her political leanings) or Hillary Clinton (who wrote the book on activist wives), Ginni Thomas may be justified in complaining.

This is not to say she doesn’t have her issues, even with her Republican friends, and I’m not objecting to the reporting on Ginni Thomas’ activities about town. Fair is fair, but I simply don’t see the same disdain and suspicion meted out to activist spouses on the Left. Whenever the latter is politically active, that’s laudable. But if it’s someone on the cultural Right –- well, they’re compromisers.

I am no expert on anything pertaining to the U.S. Supreme Court; I’ve covered two or three hearings in person over the years and that’s that. So I’ll stick to the religious content of the piece. Here are two paragraphs that appear in the middle of the piece:


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

Pronoun wars? The 'usual suspects' quoted by the press skewed Baptism-gate coverage

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Pronoun wars? The 'usual suspects' quoted by the press skewed Baptism-gate coverage

What is the role of journalism? Above all, it is to inform and educate. We know that reliable information is needed for any society to properly work. At the very least, readers deserve accurate information.

What happens when this isn’t the case? That’s the dilemma that befell many news organizations in recent days when a big Catholic news story came across their newsroom desks.

Yes, I’m referring to the botched baptism story out of Arizona last week that made so many headlines. And that’s hard to do considering the ongoing pandemic, the Beijing Olympics and Russia-Ukraine crisis.

Yes, baptism-gate has been all the rage. News coverage of it, however, not so good. More on that later.

To summarize: a priest named Andres Arango, following a church investigation, determined that he’d incorrectly performed thousands of baptisms over more than 20 years. It meant that those who had been baptized in Phoenix, and at his previous parishes in Brazil and San Diego, needed to be baptized again.

What did he do wrong? Arango, who has since resigned after making the mistake, used the wrong pronoun. Instead of saying, “I baptize you in the name of” he used “we.” After diocesan officials found out, they said people who Arango baptized aren’t officially Catholic. That means they weren’t eligible for other sacraments like Holy Communion.

This is where the news coverage got interesting. Once again, on an issue of great importance to Catholic readers and church leaders, secular news outlets assumed the views of one side were normative — even accurate — at the expense of church doctrine. Here at GetReligion, we have a name for that approach (click here for information).

Everyone from The New York Times and USA Today to NPR and local news outlets covered the story. What we learned from the coverage was telling. It was also largely one-sided and inaccurate.


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

NPR report: Americans are 'sorting' themselves into red vs. blue zones (religion ghost alert)

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
NPR report: Americans are 'sorting' themselves into red vs. blue zones (religion ghost alert)

I absolutely love specific, symbolic details in Big Picture stories based on trends in statistics and culture.

During what we could call America’s “Divided We Fall” era (let’s hope that it passes), there are all kinds of ways to illustrate the tensions between blue citizens and red citizens. NPR recently did a feature — “Americans are fleeing to places where political views match their own“ — that had a great cultural detail way down in the script that suggested there’s more to this divide than politics.

The key fact: In the 2020 election, Joe Biden “won 85% of counties with a Whole Foods and only 32% of counties with a Cracker Barrel.”

What was missing in this fine, must-read story? It’s that issues of faith, morality and culture have just as much to do with America’s blue-red schism as politics. As the old saying goes, partisan politics is downstream from culture. If you have doubts about that, check out this GetReligion commentary on the classic 2003 “Blue Movie” essay in The Atlantic. Author Thomas B. Edsall observes:

Early in the 1996 election campaign Dick Morris and Mark Penn, two of Bill Clinton's advisers, discovered a polling technique that proved to be one of the best ways of determining whether a voter was more likely to choose Clinton or Bob Dole for President. Respondents were asked five questions, four of which tested attitudes toward sex: Do you believe homosexuality is morally wrong? Do you ever personally look at pornography? Would you look down on someone who had an affair while married? Do you believe sex before marriage is morally wrong? The fifth question was whether religion was very important in the voter's life.

Respondents who took the "liberal" stand on three of the five questions supported Clinton over Dole by a two-to-one ratio; those who took a liberal stand on four or five questions were, not surprisingly, even more likely to support Clinton. The same was true in reverse for those who took a "conservative" stand on three or more of the questions.

Note the religion question in that mix. Thus, the Big Idea in this Edsall essay?

According to Morris and Penn, these questions were better vote predictors—and better indicators of partisan inclination—than anything else except party affiliation or the race of the voter (black voters are overwhelmingly Democratic).

The new NPR piece, while stressing politics, does contain a few killer cultural details. The religious elements of the story? There are hints, but that is all.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Was the Washington Post take on supposed FGM in Washington state really a national story?

, , , , , ,
Was the Washington Post take on supposed FGM in Washington state really a national story?

It sounded like a horrendous story, with a Muslim couple wrongly accused of practicing female genital mutilation. Which is why I wanted to read it, especially since it was in my state, albeit an isolated corner on one of the beautiful –- and remote -- islands in Puget Sound.

But the more I read this story, the more I wondered if the reporter was being manipulated into creating a national narrative where none exists.

Before we start, remember that the locale of this story, the bucolic San Juan Island, has all of 6,822 residents. It’s not a large place and you can only get there by plane or (during the Covid era) by increasingly erratic ferries.

This Washington Post story notes that there are no nearby mosques, as if to make out the various islands in the San Juan de Fuca Strait as bastions of white Christian supremacy. Well, there aren’t any nearby synagogues or Hindu temples, either. There are scattered churches, an Orthodox monastery, a Catholic convent and several Buddhist retreat houses.

SAN JUAN ISLAND, Wash. — On the afternoon of July 28, the Homeland Security Investigations tip line received a call about a sensitive matter on an island off the coast of Washington state: “the suspected female genital mutilation of an infant by her Turkish mother.”

A babysitter on San Juan Island had seen what she considered an “abnormality” while changing the girl’s diaper, according to law enforcement reports. The sitter enlisted a friend to also inspect the child’s vagina, without the parents’ knowledge or consent. That friend then called the tip line, allegedly telling authorities she was acting on the sitter’s behalf.

The women, according to reports from the San Juan County Sheriff’s Office and U.S. Homeland Security, worried that the girl had undergone female genital mutilation, or FGM, an ancient ritual defined by the United Nations as the removal of external female genitalia for nonmedical reasons. FGM is a federal crime, and women’s advocates across the globe are campaigning to end the practice, which causes trauma and health complications.

I think I would use other words to describe FGM other than “ancient ritual.”


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

Once again, why avoid religious questions in the 2017 Sutherland Springs church massacre?

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Once again, why avoid religious questions in the 2017 Sutherland Springs church massacre?

Consider, for a moment, a hypothetical case in which an angry anti-abortion activist massacres worshippers gathered at a liberal church known for its advocacy of abortion rights.

What about a radicalized Muslim attacking a synagogue? A gunman decked out in Make America Great Again clothing attacking a mosque?

Would facts about the identities of these shooters, as well as their previous statements and actions, be considered relevant in follow-up stories? We are, of course, wrestling — again — with the “Why?” component in the journalism mantra, "Who," "What," "When," "Where," "Why" and "How."

In this case, we are dealing with background materials in media coverage of a development in the 2017 massacre at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Here’s the New York Times headline: “Air Force Ordered to Pay $230 Million to Victims of 2017 Church Shooting.” The overture states:

A federal judge ordered the U.S. Air Force … to pay more than $230 million to the survivors and the families of the victims of a 2017 shooting at a Texas church because the Air Force had failed to report the gunman’s criminal history.

In his ruling, Judge Xavier Rodriguez of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas wrote that the Air Force could have blocked the gunman, Devin P. Kelley, who had served on an Air Force base in New Mexico, from buying the rifle he used to kill 26 people on Nov. 5, 2017, at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas.

For its failure to report Mr. Kelley’s 2012 conviction for domestic assault, the Air Force must pay damages to the victims for their “pain and suffering, mental anguish, disfigurement, impairment and loss of companionship,” the judge wrote. He added that the case was “unprecedented in kind and scope.”

After previous commentary on this massacre, some readers noted that — reacting to detailed coverage in European newspapers — it wasn’t automatically relevant that Kelley was an outspoken atheist.

That is a valid point. However, my question is whether it is worthy of discussion (perhaps one or two sentences in news reports) that he had, in arguments on social media, expressed virulently anti-Christian beliefs and made remarks that suggested he was unstable.


Please respect our Commenting Policy