Missionaries

, , , , , , , , ,

Did Winston Churchill believe in God? Why did Churchill urge his nation to pray?

, , , , , , , , ,
Did Winston Churchill believe in God? Why did Churchill urge his nation to pray?

THE QUESTION:

Did Winston Churchill believe in God?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

Sorta. Maybe. Depends what you mean.

The question and that answer are raised in the new book "Duty & Destiny: The Life and Faith of Winston Churchill" (Eerdmans) by Grove City College historian Gary Scott Smith, whose prior works include "Faith and the Presidency from George Washington to George W. Bush."

It's fair to say that during World War Two Churchill saved the United Kingdom and with that the broader prospects for democracy and the defeat of tyranny. In the prior century, the Civil War President Abraham Lincoln had saved the United States and the very possibility of democracy. These two great statesmen, the subjects of an immense number of books, are rather similar -- and similarly mysterious -- when it comes to religious faith.

Lincoln's story is well told in "Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President" (also from Eerdmans) by Princeton Professor Allen Guelzo. Never a baptized church member and a youthful skeptic, Guelzo wrote, Lincoln when leading the nation through unprecedented crisis experienced a spiritual turn. This convinced him that only a moral revolution to end slavery could bring meaning to the war's horrid slaughter.

Thus he wrought the Emancipation Proclamation, announced in 1862 and proclaimed in 1863 and then, definitively, the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery as of December 6, 1865, after he had been assassinated.

Churchill (1874-1965) underwent conventional baptism and confirmation in the Church of England. In the upper-crust mode, his neglectful and non-religious parents left his upbringing to boarding schools (with their mandatory chapels) and especially to his beloved nanny. Elizabeth Everest, a devout Christian, immersed the lad in prayer and study of the Bible, which through life he would quote at length by memory.


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

Another trial by media: In defense of Mother Teresa and why she is a saint, not a 'cult leader'

, , , , , , , , , ,
Another trial by media: In defense of Mother Teresa and why she is a saint, not a 'cult leader'

Historical figures are going through another mass-media reckoning. They have been for some time. Some with good reason.

Christopher Columbus? Understandable given what was unleashed by his arrival from Europe.

Thomas Jefferson? A paradox that’s worth examining given his ability to pen the Declaration of Independence and also own slaves. In some cases, there is evidence that he fathered children with them.

Other figures haven’t been so obvious. Following the tragic murder of George Floyd last May, many statues were toppled or removed across the United States, including those of 18th century Spanish priest Junipero Serra, Abraham Lincoln and Mahatma Gandhi. These weren’t so obvious to explain. I’m not sure those who damaged them knew either.

This takes me to the latest reckoning: Mother Teresa, now known as Saint Teresa of Calcutta.

Yes, that Mother Teresa. The diminutive woman who dedicated her life to helping “the poorest of the poor” in India. And the same one who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 and Pope Francis canonized a saint in 2016. Turns out she was a cult leader.

Michelle Goldberg penned an opinion piece in The New York Times, which ran Saturday on its website, under the headline: “Was Mother Teresa a cult leader?”

With a headline like that, is it possible the thesis will be that she wasn’t?


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

With all due respect, reports about Biden, the 'McCarrick doctrine' and Mass are not stupid

, , , , , , , , , , ,
With all due respect, reports about Biden, the 'McCarrick doctrine' and Mass are not stupid

“The Biden Communion stories are stupid,” proclaims the headline atop a Religion News Service column by Father Thomas J. Reese.

The opinion by Reese, a Jesuit priest and RNS senior analyst, follows a flurry of news reports — which we first mentioned last week — about whether the nation’s second Catholic president might be denied Communion because of his support for abortion rights.

“This is a stupid story for canonical, theological and political reasons,” Reese writes. “First, and foremost, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops does not have the canonical authority to tell (President Joe) Biden that he cannot go to Communion.”

For insight on the canonical, theological and political issues, I’d highly recommend Reese’s column. As for his claim that the news stories are stupid, I’d respectfully disagree. From a journalistic perspective, they are, in fact, highly newsworthy.

Even if much of the coverage could be better, as Clemente Lisi explained here at GetReligion, with the essay then appearing at Religion Unplugged. A key topic being avoided? The role of fallen cardinal Theodore “Uncle Ted” McCarrick in developing the awkward compromise currently in effect here in America.

Another helpful read at Religion Unplugged: Stephen P. Millies, an associate professor of public theology at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, dissects the power struggle behind the U.S. bishops’ move.

Among this week’s related headlines:

• Pelosi’s archbishop says prominent Catholics who support abortion rights should be denied Communion (by Reis Thebault, Washington Post)

• How faith groups feel after Biden’s first 100 days (by Kelsey Dallas, Deseret News)

• New bishop of Biden’s hometown mum on Communion question (by Nicole Winfield and Luis Andres Henao, Associated Press)

• Catholic bishops who want to deny Biden Communion may have to reckon with the pope (by Jack Jenkins and Claire Giangravé, RNS)


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

GQ's religion-focused cover story is (clickbait) worth reading -- even for non-Beliebers

, , , , , , , , , , ,
GQ's religion-focused cover story is (clickbait) worth reading -- even for non-Beliebers

Let’s open this week’s roundup with Justin Bieber — and not just for the clickbait.

“The Redemption of Justin Bieber,” GQ’s May cover story by senior writer Zach Baron, really is a fascinating read.

As Christianity Today’s Daniel Silliman put it on Twitter, “If you don't care at all about Justin Bieber, this is still a good story about someone who was young, stupid, powerful, privileged, destructive, and sad and nevertheless found grace.”

Not interested in Bieber?

Try $300 Bibles.

Religion News Service’s Emily McFarlan Miller delves into the marketing of an expensive, “modern version of God’s Holy Word.”

Miller explores not just the price tag but also the history behind so-called “premium” Bibles.

After Bieber and Bibles, I feel like I need one more “b” item to round out the set. What about ballgames?

Juggling church and football isn’t just for NFL fans anymore, writes AP sports writer Teresa M. Walker, with whom I worked during my time with The Associated Press in Nashville, Tenn.

“Thanks to the coronavirus pandemic, it became the norm for college fans like the Mosleys as most Football Championship Subdivision leagues moved their schedules to the spring,” Walker explains.


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

Luis Palau: New York Times dug deeper than the 'Billy Graham of Latin America' label

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Luis Palau: New York Times dug deeper than the 'Billy Graham of Latin America' label

It was the kind of question that general-assignment television reporters asked Billy Graham, since they didn’t realize that it had become a cliche: Who will be the “next Billy Graham?”

I heard Graham answer this question several times (and discussed it in depth with him in a 1987 one-on-one interview) and his response almost always included three key points.

First of all, he would say that he really didn’t know how or why he became “Billy Graham,” as in the world’s most famous evangelist (click here for his famous “turtle on a fencepost analogy). Second, Graham thought it was strange that reporters seemed to assume that he would know who the “next Billy Graham” would be. And finally, why did evangelists in other parts of the world need to be compared to him?

Take Luis Palau, for example. Graham said he didn’t consider him the “Billy Graham” of Latin America or anywhere else. Luis Palau, Graham told me, was Luis Palau, and that was who God wanted him to be.

I bring this subject up, of course, because of the double-decker headline that ran atop the recent New York Times obituary for this singular figure in modern evangelical history: “

Luis Palau, the ‘Billy Graham of Latin America,’ Dies at 86

He rose from preaching on street corners in Argentina to ministering to millions around the world, then focused his ministry on liberal corners of the U.S.

I’m not blaming the Times for using that image, since it appeared — to one degree or another — in almost every major news feature about his passing. In fact, the key to the Times feature is that dug deeper than that cliche and showed why Palau was a major player, in his own right, in global evangelicalism.

Still, everyone knows where this story will begin. But note the transition in this key summary passage near the top of the Times obit:

Though his headquarters were in Oregon, Mr. Palau was often called “the Billy Graham of Latin America.” He addressed that region’s 120 million evangelicals through three daily radio shows (two in Spanish, one in English), shelves of Spanish-language books and scores of revival crusades, in which he might spend a week, and millions of dollars, preaching in a single city. The Luis Palau Association estimates that he preached to 30 million people in 75 countries.


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

New York Times considers free speech wars in Hong Kong, while ignoring religious issues

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The locals had few illusions, back in 1997, when I spent a week in Hong Kong during the days just before the handover ceremonies that put one of Asia’s most important cities under the control of Chinese authorities.

The purpose of my trip was to attend a conference about religion and the news (click here for the text of my presentation during that event), so it was understandable that participants talked to quite a few leaders in Hong Kong’s diverse and prominent religious community.

But that really didn’t matter. Secular human-rights people I met were saying the same things as the church leaders. They were all digging into the fine details of the new Special Administrative Region's Basic Law and seeing ominous loopholes.

Article 23, for example, was causing concern, with its language stating that Hong Kong's new leaders "shall enact laws ... to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition (or) subversion against the Central People's Government, ... to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies".”

Did that include the Vatican? Would Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans and others be allowed to maintain ties to their global fellowships or communions?

Global issues were sure to surface, activists told me. But that would not be the first place where the hammer would fall. Activists warned that free-speech issues would be the first war zone — free speech about politics, of course, but also about religion, an area of life that troubled government leaders.

This brings me to a recent New York Times feature — a mix of text and graphics — that ran under this headline: “What You Can No Longer Say in Hong Kong.” Surely this story about the impact of new laws in Hong Kong would address religious speech issues as well as politics? Here is a crucial summary:

The police have since arrested more than 20 people under the new law, which lays out political crimes punishable by life imprisonment in serious cases, and allows Beijing to intervene directly if it wants.

Hong Kong was once a bastion of free speech. It served as a base for the international news media and for rights groups, and as a haven for political refugees, including the student leaders of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests in Beijing. Books on sensitive political topics that are banned in mainland China found a home in the city’s bookstores.


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

New York Times offers update on India's gay prince: Yes, there are big religion ghosts

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

Anyone who makes a list of nations in which religion plays a major role in public life would have to include India, land of a stunningly complex tapestry of faiths.

Visitors to India who seek answers to questions about the role of religion in modern India will find their heads spinning as they try to follow all the plots and subplots in the answers.

Hinduism is everywhere, of course, both in terms of religion and secular culture that remains haunted by Hindu traditions.

Right now, the “conservative” Bharatiya Janata Party offers a confusing mix of religion and politics that attempts to make Hinduism the crucial element of what it means to be a citizen in India. Then again, Islam is a powerful force that cannot be ignored and Pakistan looms in the background. In terms of history, it’s also impossible to forget the Church of England and generations of missionary work.

So, would you assume that religion would play some kind of role when the New York Times international desk covers a story with this double-decker headline?

In India, a Gay Prince’s Coming Out Earns Accolades, and Enemies

Prince Manvendra’s journey from an excruciatingly lonely child to a global L.G.B.T.Q. advocate included death threats and disinheritance

So let’s search this story for a few key words. How about “Hindu”? Nothing. Well, then Islam? No. So religion played no role in this man’s story or in the passions of those who wanted to kill him?

As it turns out, religion did play an important role at a crucial moment in his life. The Times team just isn’t interested in the details. That’s strange, when dealing with international coverage — where GetReligion often praise the Times. But, apparently, LGBTQ content trumps all other concerns.


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

Next big pandemic news story: Missionaries brace for coronavirus in the Third World

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Next big pandemic news story: Missionaries brace for coronavirus in the Third World

While fighting the coronavirus, medical professionals have offered a strategy now seen everywhere in America, Europe and other First World cultures.

Here's the battle plan: Stock up on food and other essentials and then stay home. Wear masks when in public and practice safe social distancing. Everyone should wash their hands frequently for 20 seconds using soap and hot water. People with fevers or other symptoms should go into quarantine.

There's more. City and state lockdowns are essential to "flatten the curve" of new cases. Governments encourage waves of coronavirus tests. Hospitals collect ventilators to save critically ill patients. Mass transit is discouraged. Scientists rush to create a vaccine and develop new treatments, such as transfusions of antibody-rich blood serum from recovered COVID-19 patients.

Now, imagine selling those plans to the million-plus people jammed into the Kibera shantytown near Nairobi, Kenya -- Africa's largest urban slum.

“Our solutions are primarily for those who can afford it," said Dr. Mike Soderling, organizer of the Health for All Nations network for the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization. "To whose advantage? … The big question: What are we going to do -- what can be done -- in the slums of Kibera?"

In America, news coverage of the crisis continues to be dominated by infection rates and death statistics, while politicos focus on the New York Stock Exchange and political polling about the 2020 elections. The lockdown-weary public celebrates any signs of normality witnessed in restaurants, big-box stores and sports stadiums.

Missionary doctors and activists active in Third World lands have a different point of view. Thus, 200 or more took part in a recent Lausanne webinar focusing on strategies for the COVID-19 battles they know will eventually reach the people they serve. Participants in this discussion kept asking painful questions, such as:

* How do slum-dwellers practice "universal hand-washing hygiene" without running water?

* Is it possible to practice respiratory hygiene in cultures in which masks are a stigma -- signs that individuals are carrying a life-threatening disease?


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

New podcast: Franklin Graham comes to Central Park, earning solid quotes in Gray Lady

, , , , , , , , ,

It’s easy to argue about Franklin Graham.

For starters, he is the heir of much of the ministry of the Rev. Billy Graham, and it’s hard to name a figure in mainstream Christianity who was more beloved than Billy Graham.

At the same time, Franklin Graham has openly aligned himself with Donald Trump, turning away from even the modest criticisms he offered during the primary season before the 2016 shocker. His theological critique of all of this has been blunt, to say the least.

That’s his style, and people love to argue about that. As I said in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), Franklin Graham has rarely used a flyswatter when a baseball bat will do.

But the fact that so many people ARGUE about Franklin Graham implies that there are good things to say about him (from multiple points of view) as well as bad things to say (from multiple points of view). It should be easy to write provocative, balanced news stories about him because there are so many people, with so many different perspectives, who have strong opinions about him.

However, mainstream press coverage of Franklin Graham tends to portray him as — let me state this mildly — the tacky son of a great man who is now one of the bigoted evangelical vandals who want to sack the American Rome (that would be New York City).

This brings me to an interesting, and in many ways admirable, New York Time story that ran the other day with this sprawling two-deck headline:

Franklin Graham Is Taking Down His N.Y. Hospital, but Not Going Quietly

His critics accuse him of discriminating against L.G.B.T. people. “Just because I don’t agree doesn’t mean I’m against them,” he said.

This lengthy story contains quite a bit of material in which Graham defends his organization and his own beliefs. It helps that he came to New York City — there is a lesson here for other religious leaders, especially evangelicals — and was willing to stand in front of microphones and answer questions.

The story, however, doesn’t include much in the way of information about what Samaritan’s Purse does and how long Graham and his team has been doing what they do.

Does that matter?


Please respect our Commenting Policy