Marriage & Family

, , , , , , , ,

#BlackLivesMatter: Are church leaders fighting about a slogan, a movement or an organization?

, , , , , , , ,

Journalists covering the demonstrations and riots after the killing of George Floyd have struggled with a number of issues and several are directly linked to religion.

For starters, I’ve been stunned at the lack of coverage of the African American church. It would appear that the traditional leaders of Civil Rights Movement-style marches and protests have been replaced by anonymous leaders, many of them young, white and linked to colleges and universities.

My question: Is this true? Have black church leaders been silent or has the press been looking the other way, in part because violent protests and riots are “more newsworthy” than peaceful demonstrations that play by the rules of a civil society? I’m genuinely curious about this.

There is another issue that really needs to be addressed head-on in mainstream coverage. When we talk about #BlackLivesMatter — and cover disputes inside religious groups about supporting #BlackLivesMatters — are we talking about:

(a) The ideas and concerns expressed in a slogan?

(b) A movement that is planning specific demonstrations inspired by that slogan (it would appear there is no one unified movement, as noted earlier)?

(c) The actions, goals and doctrines of a specific organization that calls itself Black Lives Matter?

Journalists cannot accurately cover controversies inside religious groups linked to these issues without settling, or discussing, that issue.

With that in mind, I want to point readers to a long and very detailed feature at The Christian Chronicle written by Bobby Ross, Jr., a long, long-time contributor here at GetReligion. Here is his double-decker headline, which is quite revealing:

Why the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement is so controversial to many Christians

Some believers point to a radical, anti-Christian agenda. Others see racism at play in the slogan’s opposition

You can see the main theme right up top:


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

New England city votes for polyamory: Does religion have anything to do with this news story?

, , , , , , , , ,

So what does “conservative” mean in American these days, when journalists are talking about cultural debates in the public square? How about the term “culture wars”?

While there are moral libertarians out there, I would assume that they are rarely called “conservatives.” There are people — think Andrew Sullivan — who are liberal on most social issues (not all), but journalists tend to identify them as conservatives because they defend basic First Amendment rights for all, even “conservatives.”

Too see what that looks like in practice, check out this new Sullivan commentary at NPR:

I believe in life. I believe in treasuring it as a mystery that will never be fully understood, as a sanctity that should never be destroyed, as an invitation to experience now what can only be remembered tomorrow. I believe in its indivisibility, in the intimate connection between the newest bud of spring and the flicker in the eye of a patient near death, between the athlete in his prime and the quadriplegic vet, between the fetus in the womb and the mother who bears another life in her own body.

I believe in liberty. I believe that within every soul lies the capacity to reach for its own good, that within every physical body there endures an unalienable right to be free from coercion.

That sound you hear, on left and right, is people saying: “But what about … ?”

This brings me to a haunted (click here for context) news story that ran the other day in The New York Times with this epic double-decker headline:

A Massachusetts City Decides to Recognize Polyamorous Relationships

The city of Somerville has broadened the definition of domestic partnership to include relationships between three or more adults, expanding access to health care.

This raises all kinds of questions, including this one: “How did these public officials define ‘relationships’?” The lede simply notes that this “left-leaning Massachusetts city expanded its notion of family to include people who are polyamorous, or maintaining consenting relationships with multiple partners.”


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

Thinking with Ratzinger and Burge: Concerning sex, marriage, doctrine and church decline

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

When historians write about the career of Pope Benedict XVI I predict that they will include a sobering quote that dates back to his life and work as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany.

I am referring to that 2001 interview when — looking at trends in postmodern Europe — he put all of his hopes and fears on the record. I thought of this exchange during a Twitter dialogue the other day with GetReligion contributor Ryan Burge. Hold that thought.

Ratzinger had been candid before. German journalist Peter Seewald probed on this topic by noting an earlier quote in which Ratzinger said that the future church would be "reduced in its dimensions; it will be necessary to start again." Had the leader of Rome's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith changed his views?

That led to this famous reflection by the future pope. This is long, but essential:

[The Church] will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. As the number of her adherents diminishes … she will lose many of her social privileges. … As a small society, [the Church] will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members. …

It will be hard-going for the Church, for the process of crystallization and clarification will cost her much valuable energy. It will make her poor and cause her to become the Church of the meek. … The process will be long and wearisome as was the road from the false progressivism on the eve of the French Revolution — when a bishop might be thought smart if he made fun of dogmas and even insinuated that the existence of God was by no means certain. … But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church. Men in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely. If they have completely lost sight of God, they will feel the whole horror of their poverty. Then they will discover the little flock of believers as something wholly new. They will discover it as a hope that is meant for them, an answer for which they have always been searching in secret.

And so it seems certain to me that the Church is facing very hard times. The real crisis has scarcely begun. We will have to count on terrific upheavals. But I am equally certain about what will remain at the end: not the Church of the political cult, which is dead already, but the Church of faith.


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

'But Gorsuch...' crashes at Supreme Court: Now watch for 'Utah' references in news reports

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

It’s no surprise that mainstream news reports about the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling on LGBTQ rights for secular workers included a strong note of celebration. To the victors go the spoils and this was a big win for the cultural left and, one can only assume, the new middle America — as defined by the Harvard and Yale law schools.

The unanswered question hanging over all of this was, of course, the same one that haunted the majority opinion written by Donald Trump’s first choice for the high court. That would be: What happens to the bigots — sexual orientation now equals race — in churches, synagogues, mosques, etc., who run schools and nonprofit organizations built on centuries of premodern doctrine? After all, it’s hard to tolerate religious believers who are intolerant.

It’s also important, of course, to ask whether grieving believers on the religious and cultural right will stay home during the 2020 elections since they can no longer say, “But the Supreme Court” when justifying votes for the Tweeter In Chief.

Expect waves of coverage of that in the days ahead, of course.

Political wars vs. religion news? No contest.

What matters the most, to readers in middle America, is how this story was covered by the Associated Press. In this case, AP stuck close to the political and legal angles of the decision, with little or no interpretation from activists on the left, the right or in the middle.

In other words, this was not a story in which First Amendment content was crucial. So there. The headline: “Supreme Court says gay, transgender workers protected by law.” Here’s the overture:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a landmark civil rights law protects gay, lesbian and transgender people from discrimination in employment, a resounding victory for LGBT rights from a conservative court.

The court decided by a 6-3 vote that a key provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 known as Title VII that bars job discrimination because of sex, among other reasons, encompasses bias against people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.


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

New York Times on young Republicans and African-American voters? Look for familiar ghosts

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

What we have here are two New York Times political stories that really needed input from (a) the religion-news desk, (b) polling experts who “get religion” or (c) both.

Both of these important reports are, to use GetReligion-speak, haunted by “religion ghosts.” If you look at them through the lens of politics, alone, then you won’t “get” what is happening with millions of voters who don’t want to vote for Donald Trump in 2020, but believe that they will have no choice but to do just that.

The headline on one story states: “Trump Pushes Young Republicans Away. Abortion Pulls Them Back.”

Oh my. I wonder if religious convictions might have something to do with this? You think?

So let’s do some familiar searches in this text. How about “church”? Zip. Maybe “God”? Zero. Surely “religion” or “religious” will show up? Nyet. How about “Christian”? Nope.

That’s strange. Look at this summary material and I think you will sense the ghost that is present.

Like millennials, who are now in their mid-20s to 30s, members of Generation Z — born after 1996 — tend to lean left. But there are still plenty of young Republicans, and the generational divide that is so apparent between younger and older Democrats is no less present on the other side of the aisle. It’s just less visible.

In interviews with two dozen Republicans ages 18 to 23, almost all of them, while expressing fundamentally conservative views, identified at least one major issue on which they disagreed with the party line. But more often than not, they said one issue kept them committed to the party: abortion.

While polling shows an age gap in opinions on abortion, it is smaller than the gaps on some other issues, and researchers say that for people who oppose abortion, that opposition has become more central to their political choices.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , ,

Indy Star sports writer spotlights wedding of Christian teens -- including a dying groom

, , ,

What if you’re a sportswriter for a major daily and you hear that two champion teen swimmers and divers had just gotten married in their parents’ front yard?

That’s just the start. And that the ceremony was put together in four days because the 18-year-old groom is dying of an incurable cancer? And that both believe that God is involved in this drama?

You hightail it over to where the couple lives and start taking notes fast. This story is what the Indianapolis Star published on Friday. Yes, this story gives the religion angle the attention it deserves, although some important details are missing.

They stood at the white altar on her parents' driveway, in the exact spot where Chase Smith had parked his truck to pick up Sadie Mills for their first date.

That spot on the driveway where the two 18-year-olds now stood to exchange their wedding vows was the same spot where six months before they'd shared their first kiss, full of sweet teenage love and new beginnings.

As Chase watched Sadie come toward him in her simple white dress, he shook his head, smiled and then started crying.

Both were — or had been — nationally ranked swimmers (him) or divers (her). They’d met just after a local swimming meet.

But then in March, the cancer that had sidetracked Chase from the pool for the past six years had shown up again in a particularly virulent form known as Ewing’s sarcoma.

More scans showed tumors all over his skull, in the fluid of the lining of his brain, surrounding the pituitary gland. With or without treatment, the prognosis for his 6-year battle with Ewing's sarcoma was the same. Chase had three to five months to live.

The wedding was planned in four days.


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

Lots of edgy thinking about 'Weird Christianity' -- in The New York Times, no less

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

I was going to let the “Weird Christianity” opus in The New York Times sail past, in part because I wondered if it was a bit too “inside baseball” for this audience.

Well, it is a major weekend piece in America’s most powerful newspaper and people keep asking me if I have seen it. I have also been asked — since it’s about people choosing ancient liturgies and non-binary politics — if this article is, in effect, about people like me.

Not really. This Times essay — by Tara Isabella Burton of The American Interest — is about a recent trend among young Americans. I am, well, old and I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy 20-plus years ago. I did drop my registration in the Democratic Party in 2016. Here is the double-decker headline on this essay:

Christianity Gets Weird

Modern life is ugly, brutal and barren. Maybe you should try a Latin Mass.

I think it’s important to note that this “Weird Christianity” term is not new and there’s more to it than a taste for smells and bells (as Burton makes clear). There’s no question that issues of culture and aesthetics play a role in this trend, but the key is doctrine. And this trend is pre-modern, not postmodern.

To see that in practice, check out this 2015 Christianity Today piece by Sarah Pulliam Bailey, now of the Washington Post (and also a former GetReligion contributor). In this case, the term is being used in a Southern Baptist and evangelical context, as in, “Russell Moore Wants to Keep Christianity Weird: The public-policy leader for the largest US Protestant denomination isn’t worried over Christians’ loss of power. He says it might just be the best thing to happen to them.”

But back to Burton and the Times. Here is a crucial chunk (long, but essential) of her first-person piece:

… I’m not alone. One friend has been dialing into Latin Masses at churches across the United States: a Washington Mass at 11 a.m.; a Chicago one at noon.

The coronavirus has led many people to seek solace from and engage more seriously with religion. But these particular expressions of faith, with their anachronistic language and sense of historical pageantry, are part of a wider trend, one that predates the pandemic, and yet which this crisis makes all the clearer.

More and more young Christians, disillusioned by the political binaries, economic uncertainties and spiritual emptiness that have come to define modern America, are finding solace in a decidedly anti-modern vision of faith.


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

Calling BS on NC-17

, , , , , , , ,

The Ringer has published an odd report by Keith Phipps that traces the doomed path of the NC-
17 rating in a time when streaming TV has eclipsed the importance of films. Its headline is an
engaging two-sentence summary: “Thirty Years Ago, Hollywood Won the Battle Against the X
Rating. But It Lost the War.”

Phipps devotes nearly 2,600 words to this topic.

You just know that simple-minded religious people play a major role in this drama. His one reference to cultural conservatives (“a religious right eager to protest whatever they [sic] felt to be an affront to their values”) is as predictable as a media release from Americans United. He adds this:

“They didn’t lack targets and, in fairness, those targets felt closer at hand thanks to neighborhood video stores with curtained ‘adults only’ sections and scandalous music videos just a click away on cable.”

That’s as far as the fairness extends, though. This isn’t hard-news journalism, of course. Still, it would have been nice — interesting even — to see some serious discussions of the views of people on both sides of this issue. Diversity is often interesting.

Phipps makes no effort to demonstrate such eagerness or easily affronted values, but simply notes
these factors as though they were universally established realities.

But here comes an informative turn, as Phipps presents a few examples of films that were
harmed by the dreaded adjective controversial:

Though ultimately more talked about than seen, Jean-Luc Godard’s 1985 film Hail Mary — featuring a modern day retelling of the nativity story — earned protests and the condemnation of Pope John Paul II. But that was a mere prelude to what greeted Martin
Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ in 1988. …


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

Now that everybody is homeschooling, a newsworthy elite assault slams the usual version

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The COVID-19 Era has produced a temporary revolution in American education.

Call it universal homeschooling. Just about everyone from kindergarten through grad school is studying at home. Unlike usual homeschooling, where parents are teachers, Covid coursework is led by schools’ regular teachers online, though parents often manage matters.

Right at this odd moment, normal homeschooling has come under a major attack that provokes vigorous reactions. The coronavirus news hook offers an ideal moment to take a substantial look at the pros and cons of this growing phenomenon that involves some 3% of American children and young people. The story fits the education and religion beats alike, since the majority of homeschool families are religious.

The big new development here is an 80-page anti-homeschool blast in the current issue of the Arizona Law Review by Harvard University Professor Elizabeth Bartholet (click for .pdf), who directs the law school’s Child Advocacy Program. She also makes her case in an interview with Harvard magazine.

The bottom line: Bartholet wants courts and legislatures to ban homeschooling, for the most part, as Germany and Sweden do.

She thinks government should permit exceptions case by case, for instance to accommodate the regimens of talented young athletes or artists. Such permission would be reviewed annually.

Less drastically, Bartholet thinks states are far too lax and should require home schools and public schools to meet similar standards. States would set qualifications for parents to teach (she favors college degrees for high school teachers and high school diplomas for the lower grades), ensure that the curriculum meets minimum state standards, check up via home visits, and require annual standardized tests. If home schools don’t measure up, states would transfer children to public schools.

Policy-makers might see those as common-sense proposals well worth debating. But her advocacy of virtual prohibition signals a strong aversion to the whole idea of homeschooling and a particular hostility toward religious subcultures.


Please respect our Commenting Policy