Kellerism

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

Why are United Methodists at war? Readers need to know that sexuality isn't the only fault line

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Why are United Methodists at war? Readers need to know that sexuality isn't the only fault line

If you read most of the mainstream news coverage about chaos inside the United Methodist Church, then you know that this war centers on LGBTQ issues.

Readers who use niche websites offering the views of conservative United Methodists, in the United States and around the world, will learn that the war is about sex, salvation, biblical authority and core doctrines in ancient Christian creeds. Hold that thought.

Before we look at recent events in the divided United Methodist Church, let’s consider an important political-science term — “condensation symbol” — that journalists may want to ponder. In a 2021 post (“Queer Santa As A Condensed Symbol Of Progressivism”) — blogger Rod “Live Not By Lies” Dreher offered this material from a reader:

A condensation symbol is “a name, word, phrase, or maxim which stirs vivid impressions involving the listener’s most basic values and readies the listener for action,” as defined by political scientist Doris Graber. Short words or phrases such as “my country,” “old glory” “American Dream,” “family values,” are all condensation symbols because they conjure a specific image within the listener and carry “intense emotional and effective power.” … Graber identified three main characteristics of condensation symbols, as they: (1) Have the tendency to evoke rich and vivid images in an audience. (2) Possess the capacity to arouse emotions. (3) Supply instant categorizations and evaluations.

With that in mind, consider the ministry of Isaac Simmons — currently associate pastor at Hope United Methodist Church in Bloomington, Ill. — who has been accepted as a candidate for UMC ordination. Simmons (they/them) is best known as the drag-queen preacher Penny Cost.

At first glance, it would appear that Penny Cost is a perfect example of the LGBTQ issues causing the UMC split. However, I would argue that Simmons is a “condensed symbol” of the wider concerns of the global United Methodist coalition that wants to retain and defend the denomination’s current doctrines on a host of issues.

Consider the following from The American Spectator piece with this headline: “Methodist Church’s First Drag Queen Pastor: ‘God Is Nothing’.” This is, of course, a conservative publication. However, the following passage focuses on direct quotes from a new slam poem posted online by Penny Cost:

“God is nothing,” the self-described “dragavangelist” repeats throughout the poem, adding, “the Bible is nothing” and “religion is nothing.” In the end, he concludes God and the Bible are nothing “unless we wield it into something.”

“God must be f***ing nothing,” he says, “if her boundaryless, transubstantiated bodies of color are run down, beaten, and strewn in the streets of America instead of ruling the runways of life.”


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

Pew gap in blue America? David French and Ryan Burge offer much to think about

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Pew gap in blue America? David French and Ryan Burge offer much to think about

If you have followed GetReligion over the past decade or two then you have probably spotted some common themes linked to ongoing news trends (and I’m not talking about the musings of one Bill “Kellerism” Keller).

Here is a quick refresher with a few big ones:

* The press tends to ignore the RELIGION side of liberal faith groups, focusing only on their political stands.

* One of the biggest news stories of the late 20th century was the demographic implosion of Mainline Protestantism, leaving a public-square void filled, for the most part, by evangelicals.

* The rise of nondenominational evangelicals, with zero ties to existing evangelical power structures, has really confused lots of political reporters.

* It’s hard to do accurate, balanced, fair-minded journalism in an age when the technology pushes people into concrete media silos full of true believers. Preaching to the choir, alas, is good for business (but not for America).

* Newsroom managers need to hire experienced, trained religion-beat pros. That helps prevent lots of tone-deaf mistakes.

Here is one more. The political “pew gap” is real. Citizens who are committed members of traditional faiths tend to have radically different beliefs than those who are not. All together now: “Blue Movie.”

This brings me to a rare business-week “think piece” built on a remarkable David French piece at The Dispatch that will be helpful to journalists who are — to name one trend GetReligion jumped on in 2016 — trying to make sense of the changing choices of Latino (as opposed to Latinx) voters. After watching the chatter on Twitter, I have added two relevant tweet-charts from Ryan Burge, a helpful scholar who cooperates with GetReligion. That French headline:

The God Gap Helps Explain a 'Seismic Shift' in American Politics

The most important religious divide isn't between right and left, but between left and left

The Big Idea: A funny thing happened on the way to that Democratic dream of dominating the future with a multiethnic coalition fighting a lily-white GOP.


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

Associated Press: Today's Supreme Court contains too many pro-Catechism Catholics

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Associated Press: Today's Supreme Court contains too many pro-Catechism Catholics

A long time ago, in Internet years, I got tired of trying to define “liberal” and “conservative” during discussions of Catholic life.

Truth is, the teachings of ancient Christianity (I am Eastern Orthodox) don’t fit neatly into the templates of American politics. If you believe, for example, that human life begins at conception and continues through natural death the you are going to be frustrated reading the Republican and Democratic party platforms.

At one point, I started using this term — pro-Catechism Catholics. I soon heard from readers who were upset that I was linking Catholic identity with the idea that Catholics were supposed to believe and even attempt to practice the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

This brings me to a new Associated Press story with a very familiar, in recent years, theme. The headline: “Anti-Roe justices a part of Catholicism’s conservative wing.” Here is the overture, which includes — #SHOCKING — a reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade at a time when it has an unprecedented Catholic supermajority.

That’s not a coincidence. Nor is it the whole story.

The justices who voted to overturn Roe have been shaped by a church whose catechism affirms “the moral evil of every procured abortion” and whose U.S. bishops have declared opposition to abortion their “preeminent priority” in public policy.

But that alone doesn’t explain the justices’ votes.

U.S. Catholics as a whole are far more ambivalent on abortion than their church leaders, with more than half believing it should be legal in all or most circumstances, according to the Pew Research Center.

The problem, you see, is that there are justices who appear to embrace the Catechism, on issues linked to the Sexual Revolution, of course. They are clashing with generic “U.S. Catholics,” who are not defined, as usual, in terms of Mass attendance or other references to belief and practice (such as choosing to go to Confession).

What we have here is yet another clash between American Catholics and dangerous Catholics.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Angry about Roe, many journalists focus on crisis pregnancy centers as villains behind it all

, , , , , ,
Angry about Roe, many journalists focus on crisis pregnancy centers as villains behind it all

Before the overturning of Roe v. Wade a little more than a week ago, crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) were considered by mainstream media to be the dregs of the pro-life movement, one of the last stories that anyone wanted to cover.

Now that abortion access is heading toward the deep-blue coastal regions with a few blue islands in the middle, a villain must be found. And voilà; the once despised CPCs are to blame for it all. Now, CPCs are worse than a non-story.

Apparently these places are pretty effective, judging from the editorial hate being poured down on them. They’re the bricks and mortar of the pro-life movement. Instead of reporting about how these CPCs — and the churches that tend to support them — have been defaced, set on fire or otherwise attacked, we have hit pieces like this Associated Press article about a “so-called” crisis pregnancy center in Charleston, WV.

The piece is so front-loaded with trash quotes from its opponents — with no rejoinder allowed from leaders or volunteers at the CPC itself — that you almost miss the story about the woman who visited the center back in 2014 planning to abort her child. She was (very reluctantly) dissuaded from doing so and now is “very happily” raising her 7-year-old son.

So, what’s the moral of this story? That this particular mother should have decided that this kid should be dead? The two reporters who did this disaster of a story don't want to go there.

Considering the invective tossed at these CPCs by places like Planned Parenthood, why aren’t reporters treating this more like a business story?

Like, the CPCs have outwitted the abortion clinics when it comes to figuring out what many pregnant women really want and it’s clear the abortion facilities have suffered financial losses as a result. How about asking people at the latter hard questions about the clients they’ve lost to the CPCs and whose bad marketing decision that was?

Hint: It might have to do with the free ultrasounds offered by the CPCs. Offering this service was a trend that began a decade or more ago and it really cried out for coverage.


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

Podcast: America is splitting, says trending Atlantic essay. This is news? Actually, it's old news

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: America is splitting, says trending Atlantic essay. This is news? Actually, it's old news

In case you haven’t heard, controversial Supreme Court decisions are causing dangerous divisions in the United States of America.

Yes, I know. If you’re old enough you have been hearing people say that since 1973. And there is, of course, an element of truth in these statements, then and now. SCOTUS has become the only branch of government that matters when it comes to forcing one half of America to accept the legal, cultural and moral changes sought by the other half. Study several decades worth of presidential elections.

However, when it comes to mainstream media coverage, not all controversial Supreme Court decisions are created equal. If you have followed Twitter since the fall of Roe v. Wade, you know that large numbers of professionals in major newsrooms are freaking out.

Is this “new” news or old news? Truth is, arguments about red America (“Jesusland”) and blue America (“The United States of Canada”) have been getting louder and louder for several decades. This was the topic that dominated (once again) this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), which focused on this Ronald Brownstein essay at The Atlantic: “America Is Growing Apart, Possibly for Good.”

What’s interesting about this piece is that it says America’s divisions have nothing to do with traditional forms of religion, culture, the First Amendment or the U.S. Constitution (especially Federalism). No, this is a war about racism, period. SCOTUS has been seized by the enemies of reason and freedom and, thus, America’s future is at risk. This is a concept with serious implications for news coverage.

IT MAY BE TIME to stop talking about “red” and “blue” America. That’s the provocative conclusion of Michael Podhorzer, a longtime political strategist for labor unions and the chair of the Analyst Institute, a collaborative of progressive groups that studies elections. In a private newsletter that he writes for a small group of activists, Podhorzer recently laid out a detailed case for thinking of the two blocs as fundamentally different nations uneasily sharing the same geographic space.

“When we think about the United States, we make the essential error of imagining it as a single nation, a marbled mix of Red and Blue people,” Podhorzer writes. “But in truth, we have never been one nation. We are more like a federated republic of two nations: Blue Nation and Red Nation. This is not a metaphor; it is a geographic and historical reality.”

The bottom line:

To Podhorzer, the growing divisions between red and blue states represent a reversion to the lines of separation through much of the nation’s history. The differences among states in the Donald Trump era, he writes, are “very similar, both geographically and culturally, to the divides between the Union and the Confederacy.


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

WHAT IS THIS? Looking for real news coverage of crisis pregnancy centers? This isn't it ...

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
WHAT IS THIS? Looking for real news coverage of crisis pregnancy centers? This isn't it ...

If you have been around newsrooms for several decades, especially after the arrival of the Internet, you know that Donald Trump didn’t invent the term “fake news.” Yes, he grabbed it and ran with it. Big time.

Basically, what Orange Man Bad wanted was news coverage that praised all things Trump and, whenever possible, attacked his enemies. This is the flip side of mainstream news offerings that conservatives criticized during the whole Barack “The One” Obama era, when some press people had a thrill-up-the-leg or messiah-esque approach to news.

This preach-to-the-choir ethos is, I believe, one form of “fake news” and I started hearing journalists expressing concerns about it back in the 1980s. Journalists also, as newspaper economics soured, began worrying out loud about news coverage of powerful businesses that resembled cheerleading for the home team. Many feared the line between news and public-relations was in danger.

Then there was the whole “news you can use” phenomenon. The idea is that newsrooms need to offer “news” that is, in reality, offers handy, cheerful, useful, positive guides to local services and worthy causes.

With all of that as a backdrop, let’s look at a recent headline in The Olympian, a mainstream McClatchy chain newspaper up in the deep-blue Pacific Northwest: “Anti-abortion ‘fake clinics’ exist throughout WA. Here’s what they are and how to spot them.”

Read this article and then ask: WHAT IS THIS?

While the scare quotes around ‘fake clinics’ provide a smidgen of editorial distancing, it’s clear — if you look at the sources for this article — that the newspaper is cheering for the pro-abortion-rights activists who are using that term.

But first, WHAT IS THIS? Here is what this article is NOT. It is not an editorial. It is not an opinion column. It is not even a news “analysis” feature.

I would argue that this is a “news you can use” feature for readers who want to attack — that word can be used in several ways — religious and nonprofit groups opposed to abortion and, in particular, crisis pregnancy centers. If you have scanned small headlines deep inside mainstream news outlets, you may know that some of these centers, and the churches that support them, have recently experienced vandalism and even arson.


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

Fallout from Supreme Court abortion decision: When reporters parrot partisan talking points

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Fallout from Supreme Court abortion decision: When reporters parrot partisan talking points

With emotions running high, the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade marked a cataclysmic shift in the ongoing culture wars. What it means for the upcoming midterm elections and beyond has been the topic of much speculation since the ruling was handed down.

The decision was marked by joy on one side and anger on the other, with may reporters wearing their emotions on their faces and under their bylines. However, many people I know reacted with mixed emotions. Even conservatives were uneasy about the decision, mostly because they feared the violence that could be a part of the fallout. Indeed, the National Catholic Reporter’s news account put it best in its headline: “As Court overturns Roe v. Wade, Catholics react with joy, anger, trepidation.”

We do live in a time when political decisions often inspire violence.

Lose an election? Storm the Capitol Building.

Unhappy with police misconduct? Burn down stores.

Both sides are guilty of this, although the mainstream press — which has grown ever-partisan in the Internet age — hasn’t always been good about calling out both sides for such intimidation.

The fallout from the Dobbs decision? It’s only been a few days, but there was violence in some parts of the country from Rhode Island to Iowa to Arizona. The rhetoric was vile on Twitter, quickly aimed at Christians, and that was soon on display in the streets in a variety of forms.

Again, national legacy media have not always been good about giving proper background and context to the events of the recent past, especially in terms of coverage of violence against churches and crisis-pregnancy centers.

The fissures in American public life are real. So are the distorted realities partisan news organizations like to perpetuate these days.

Just two weeks ago, Gannett, the nation’s largest newspaper chain, argued that opinion pages are alienating readers and becoming obsolete. They doubled down by warning their reporters to refrain from using social media platforms to comment on the decision. However, take a look at this morning’s news summary from USA Today. Spot any patterns?


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

Podcast: What happens at Calvin doesn't stay at Calvin. True, so what now for LGBTQ wars?

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: What happens at Calvin doesn't stay at Calvin. True, so what now for LGBTQ wars?

Back in the spring, we did a GetReligion podcast that was accompanied by a post with this title: “What parents (and journalists) can learn from LGBTQ debates at Calvin.”

The Big Idea in that podcast was that Calvin University isn’t just another Christian college — it’s the base camp for a kind of Reformed intellectual A-team that punches way, way, way above its weight in the Council For Christian Colleges and Universities (the global network in which I worked and taught for a quarter of a century or so). Thus, I stated: “What happens at Calvin doesn’t stay at Calvin.”

If you have followed Calvin closely in recent decades, you know that a significant chunk of its faculty believes (this is my summary) that those who truly honor and teach the great Reformed Tradition of Calvinism know that it’s time for new Reformers (that would be them) to reform the out-of-date theological conclusions of their ancestors. You can see similar streams of thought among Methodists, Anglicans, Catholics and even (in a few zip codes) the Eastern Orthodox.

With that in mind, it’s time for this week’s “Crossroads” episode (CLICK HERE to tune that in), which offers an update on Calvin and tensions inside its denomination, care of a Religion News Service story with this headline: “Christian Reformed Church codifies homosexual sex as sin in its declaration of faith.” Actually, if you read carefully, the CRC affirmed 2,000 years of Christian teaching that (a) sex outside of marriage is a sin and (b) Christian marriages unite a man and a women. Here is the overture of that RNS story:

(RNS) — The Christian Reformed Church, a small evangelical denomination of U.S. and Canadian churches, voted … at its annual synod to codify its opposition to homosexual sex by elevating it to the status of confession, or deration of faith.

The 123-53 vote at Calvin University in Grand Rapids, Michigan, caps a process begun in 2016 when a previous synod voted to form a study committee to bring a report on the “biblical theology” of sexuality.

The vote, following a long day of debate, approves a list of what the denomination calls sexual immorality it won’t tolerate, including “adultery, premarital sex, extra-marital sex, polyamory, pornography and homosexual sex.”

“The church must warn its members that those who refuse to repent of these sins — as well as of idolatry, greed, and other such sins — will not inherit the kingdom of God,” the report says. “It must discipline those who refuse to repent of such sins for the sake of their souls.”

Just asking: That “what the denomination calls” language is interesting. Doesn’t that kind of imply that these teachings belong to the CRC alone — as opposed to being doctrines affirmed by the world’s largest Christian bodies, such as the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, Third World Anglicans and most evangelical and Pentecostal believers.


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

'Forced' to bear twins: Washington Post offers morality tale about reluctant teen mom in Texas

, , , , , , ,
'Forced' to bear twins: Washington Post offers morality tale about reluctant teen mom in Texas

When I saw the headline to the Washington Post story: “This Texas teen wanted an abortion. Now she has twins,” I thought, “Here we go again.“

We were going to read about Texas, the state that had the nerve to limit abortions to around the sixth week of pregnancy and the many women who are now being forced to bear children.

There’s so many problems with this story, it’s hard to know where to start. I’ll try.

The narrative begins with a scene from the life of Brooke Alexander, who is trying to nurse two three-month-old twins in a run-down apartment with blankets as curtains. We learn quickly that she’s living in the home of her boyfriend after her heartless mother has kicked her out. This is the same mother who encouraged her to continue with the pregnancy in the first place.

Brooke found out she was pregnant late on the night of Aug. 29, two days before the Texas Heartbeat Act banned abortions once an ultrasound can detect cardiac activity, around six weeks of pregnancy. It was the most restrictive abortion law to take effect in the United States in nearly 50 years.

For many Texans who have needed abortions since September, the law has been a major inconvenience, forcing them to drive hundreds of miles — and pay hundreds of dollars — for a legal procedure they once could have had at home. But not everyone has been able to leave the state. Some people couldn’t take time away from work or afford gas, while others, faced with a long journey, decided to stay pregnant.

Nearly 10 months into the Texas law, they have started having the babies they never planned to carry to term. Texas offers a glimpse of what much of the country would face if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade this summer. …

Did the couple use birth control? Did they care? It appears that the reporter never asked many basic questions. We do know that Brooke’s dad has been missing for much of her life; she talks about feeling that she is unattractive and all of a sudden here’s this guy paying attention to her.

Here we have two teens, both 17, who have unprotected sex apparently on the first or second date. She ignores obvious signs (two missed periods) until it’s too late; the Heartbeat Law is going into effect.

Sometimes Brooke imagined her life if she hadn’t gotten pregnant, if Texas hadn’t banned abortion just days after she decided that she wanted one. She would have been in school, rushing from class to her shift at Texas Roadhouse, eyes on a real estate license that would finally get her out of Corpus Christi. She’d pictured an apartment in Austin and enough money for a trip to Hawaii, where she’d swim with dolphins in water so clear she could see her toes.

Ah, the freedom that abortion brings. And the villains in this story? We will get there in a moment.


Please respect our Commenting Policy