Pentecostal-Charismatics

New podcast: Baptisms are in the headlines, at the moment, for better and for worse

New podcast: Baptisms are in the headlines, at the moment, for better and for worse

Believe it or not, baptism is in the news.

In this case, we have some good news and some bad news.

What do you want to hear first, the good news or the bad news? In this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) we went with the good news first.

When I say “good news,” I am referring to a New York Times story that is kind of fun and contains tons of good information. However, this is a story that takes a trend in some of those giant, modernized evangelical megachurches and tries to turn it into a Big Idea piece. Hold that thought.

The headline: “Horse Troughs, Hot Tubs and Hashtags: Baptism Is Getting Wild.” Here is a big block of the thesis material:

Performing the age-old Christian ritual in a more informal style “conveys this isn’t your grandmother’s church,” said Drake Osborn, pastor of teaching and liturgy at Grace Church in Waco, Texas. His congregation moved into a former bowling alley in 2016 but never considered installing a built-in baptistery. Instead, Grace Church uses a foam model bought online for about $2,500.

The shift has taken place as many pre-21st-century symbols of church life have fallen out of fashion in evangelical culture, especially among churches that are expanding or building new facilities. Sanctuaries are now “worship centers,” and steeples and stained glass are out. Natural light is often eschewed in favor of a black-box theater aesthetic optimized for flashy audiovisual experiences and online streaming.

It is not just the architecture that is changing. Contemporary evangelical baptisms are often raucous affairs. Instead of subdued hymns and murmurs, think roaring modern worship music, fist pumps, tears and boisterous cheering. There are photographers, selfie stations and hashtags for social media. One church in Texas calls its regular mass baptism event a “plunge party.”

Well now. It may be true that “evangelical baptisms” are getting a little bit “raucous,” but that’s a rather strange statement to make in light of baptism traditions down the years in Black evangelical and Pentecostal churches.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Plug-In: Americans favor religious exemptions for COVID-19 vaccine mandates — sort of

Plug-In: Americans favor religious exemptions for COVID-19 vaccine mandates — sort of

What a difference a year makes.

Or not.

Fifty-two weeks ago, this news topped Weekend Plug-in.

Sound familiar?

Trump calls COVID-19 vaccine ‘a medical miracle,’ but many religious people are skeptical

Guess what? Many religious people remain highly skeptical of the vaccines, despite their strong effectiveness at preventing serious illness, hospitalization and death from COVID-19.

Which leads us to this week’s news: a new public opinion poll on religious exemptions to the vaccines.

Religion News Service’s Jack Jenkins reports:

WASHINGTON (RNS) — A new poll reveals most Americans are in favor of offering religious exemptions for the COVID-19 vaccines, yet express concern that too many people are seeking such exemptions. In the same survey, more than half of those who refuse to get vaccinated say getting the shot goes against their personal faith.

The poll, conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute and Interfaith Youth Core and released Thursday (Dec. 9), investigated ongoing debates about COVID-19 vaccines as well as emerging divisions over whether religious exemptions to the shots should even exist.

According to the survey, a small majority (51%) of Americans favor allowing individuals who would otherwise be required to receive a COVID-19 vaccine to opt out if it violates their religious beliefs, compared with 47% who oppose such religious exemptions.

See additional coverage of the poll by the Washington Times’ Mark A. Kellner, a former contributor at GetReligion, and NPR’s Megan Myscofski.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Behold! The New York Times dared to explore the spiritual 'fire' inside Denzel Washington

Behold! The New York Times dared to explore the spiritual 'fire' inside Denzel Washington

Behold. It is time for me to praise — at great length — something published in The New York Times. It was even written by Maureen Dowd, of all people.

The headline on this length first-person feature: “Denzel Washington, Man on Fire.” No, this story isn’t about the stunningly violent, but at times quite biblical, 2004 movie entitled “Man on Fire.” It’s about the new film — “The Tragedy of Macbeth” — that combines the Oscar-level talents of Washington, director Joel Coen and producer-actress Frances McDormand, who is married to Coen. For Washington, playing the lead role represented a return to his theater roots with Shakespeare.

As you would expect, a Times piece by Dowd is going to include quotes from Hollywood A-listers such as Ethan Hawke, Liev Schreiber, Melissa Leo and Meryl Streep. Tom Hanks has this to say about Washington: ““He is our Brando. Nicholson. Olivier.”

However, the key to this feature is that the “fire” in the headline is both artistic and spiritual. It is, literally, a reference to Washington’s Pentecostal Christian upbringing and the Christian faith that he is not afraid to discuss in the context of his talent and his vocation.

It’s hard to know what to quote from this piece — since it covers so many bases. If you want insights into filmmaking and the complex minds of Coen and McDormand, you will find it. This isn’t a religion story. However, it’s a story that is willing to let Washington speak his mind.

The faith element enters with one of those “here I am talking to Denzel Washington” scenes that are far too common in arts and entertainment journalism. But, in this case, this tired device works. This passage is long, long, long, but essential. I will break it up, just a bit:

[Washington] said he had gotten very little sleep. He had just put the final touches on a film he directed, “A Journal for Jordan,” the true story of the romance between Dana Canedy, a former New York Times reporter and editor, and Sgt. Charles Monroe King, a soldier who was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq, after meeting their infant son only once. It stars Michael B. Jordan and Chanté Adams and also opens widely on Christmas Day.

“It’s just a beautiful story of loss and love,” Mr. Washington said, “a story about real heroes and sacrificing, men and women who have given their lives so that we have the freedom to complain.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

New podcast: Are news reports 'dunking' on the late religious broadcaster Marcus Lamb?

New podcast: Are news reports 'dunking' on the late religious broadcaster Marcus Lamb?

If you search for the word “posterized” in up-to-date online dictionaries, this is what you find: “A slang term depicting a play in basketball. In said play, a player dunks the ball over top or in front of another player, making a play so picturesque that it may appear on a poster, hence the term, posterized.”

Clearly, this is linked to another term frequently used in the nasty verbal wars that are common on social-media sites, with Twitter — dominated by liberal and conservative voices in elite zip codes — being the best example.

That term is “dunking.”

“Dunking” is relevant to the main topic discussed in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) about media coverage of the death of religious broadcaster Marcus Lamb, who died of COVID-19 after using his Daystar Television Network to criticize vaccine mandates and other anti-pandemic rules and guidelines, while advocating alternative treatments.

“Dunking” is defined, sort of, in this Slate article: “ ‘Dunking’ Is Delicious Sport — But it might be making Twitter even more terrible.” Here is a relevant passage:

Since Twitter rolled out the feature a couple of years ago, the quote-tweet has evolved into something like a pair of magic high-tops dispensed to every user on the service: Anyone can botch a tweet, and anyone can leap over him or her to score a couple of points—or a couple thousand likes and retweets.

The basketball term is apt: In a Twitter dunking, someone has made his point or said her piece, and instead of responding to it with a direct reply, perhaps in the spirit of equal-footed debate, the dunker seizes it like an alley-oop on his or her way to the basket. Maybe another player gets the unwitting assist, but the point is yours to be liked and retweeted not just as a reply but as a worthier tweet in its own right.

What does this look like in practice? Consider this example from the blitz of tweets about Lamb’s death. This dunk comes from the creator of the “America’s Best Christian” brand:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Finally, another Overby Center program: Why religion was one big factor in vaccine wars

Finally, another Overby Center program: Why religion was one big factor in vaccine wars

I have strong memories, to say the least, of the first Overby Center program in which I was able to participate, as a senior fellow for the center and as editor of GetReligion.

The topic was the role that religion would play in the 2020 presidential election. Religion-beat patriarch Richard Ostling was there and both of us stressed that, while journalists were pouring oceans of ink into coverage of (#TriggerWarning) white evangelicals, Catholic voters would play the pivotal role in swing states. I also noted the little-covered 2016 impact of Latino evangelicals and, especially, Pentecostal believers in Florida. I didn’t think to predict a starring 2020 role these Latino voters in Texas.

When was that program? Here’s a clue. As I drove home, I stopped for lunch in Jackson, Tenn. As I pulled back onto the interstate headed east, I heard a radio report noting that the mysterious virus that was causing havoc in Wuhan, China, had now been detected in Europe and, perhaps, in New York City.

Days later, the whole world turned upside down.

With social-distancing, masks and vaccines in mind, we recently gathered in Oxford for a forum addressing a logical topic — why religion was a key factor (but not the only one or even the dominant one) in America’s wars over COVID-19 vaccines. Click here to watch the event on YouTube.

In addition to Center founder Charles Overby, I was joined by three logical voices on this subject.

First, political scientist (and GetReligion contributor) Ryan Burge Zoomed in with several crucial charts full of relevant info. Take this post, for example: “Thinking about white evangelicals, COVID-19 vaccines and VERY popular headlines.” Then there was Marquita Smith of the University of Mississippi faculty, a journalist I came to know while she was teaching at John Brown University on the edge of the Ozarks. She is now the assistant dean of graduate programs at the Ole Miss J-school.

The final panelist was the Rev. Daniel Darling, who was recently named director of the Land Center for Cultural Engagement at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.

Then again, Darling may be better known in religion-beat circles because of this New York Times headline: “Fired After Endorsing Vaccines, Evangelical Insider Takes a Leadership Role.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

New podcast: Did Glenn Youngkin win the Latino vote in Virginia? Maybe ask folks in pews?

New podcast: Did Glenn Youngkin win the Latino vote in Virginia? Maybe ask folks in pews?

On the morning after The Virginia Election, I noted that the sharp folks at a must-bookmark niche-news website — A Journey Through NYC Religion — had done some old-fashioned digging and discovered some interesting religion ghosts (to use an old GetReligion term) in that political earthquake. Click here for that story: “Faith trumps Trump in Virginia.”

I sure didn’t know, from reading mainstream press coverage, that Governor-elect Glenn Youngkin was an evangelical Anglican who once was a leader in the Alpha course, an evangelism program that expanded from the Church of England into churches and denominations around the world.

I didn’t know that Lieutenant Governor-elect Winsome Sears, an African American evangelical and former Marine, had once led a Salvation Army ministry and that the state’s new attorney general, Jason Miyares, appears to be a Latino evangelical Episcopalian.

All of that showed up in my post-election piece with this headline: “Yes, there were overlooked religion angles in today's biggest U.S. political news story.”

We talk about all of that in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), but also veered off into other religion-based angles in the current political climate. One of them took us into familiar territory, at least for those who have followed GetReligion for the past five or six ears. I’m talking about the rising political clout of Latino evangelicals, traditional Catholics and Pentecostal believers.

There’s some evidence that Youngkin and the diverse GOP lineup actually WON the Latino vote in the Virginia election (click here for a totally faith-free Politico discussion of that topic).

So here is that question again: How can journalists cover shifting patterns among Latino voters — and Black voters, as well — without examining the role of religion and cultural issues?

Let’s say: Is it safe to assume that pro-life Latinos are more likely — lacking acceptable Democrats on the ballot — to opt for Republicans? How about Latinos who favor school choice? Who old traditional Christian views on gender issues?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Is this statement accurate? All true evangelicals wanted to vote for Donald Trump -- period

Is this statement accurate? All true evangelicals wanted to vote for Donald Trump -- period

As a rule, your GetReligionistas strive to avoid writing about analysis features that are published in magazines such as The Atlantic.

However, when I keep hearing people asking questions about one of these “think pieces,” it’s hard not to want to add a comment or two to the discussion.

So first, let’s start with something that GetReligion team members have been saying for nearly two decades, as a reminder to readers who have never worked in mainstream newsrooms: Reporters/writers rarely write the headlines that dominate the layouts at the top of their pieces.

Case in point: The double-decker headline on that buzz-worthy Peter Wehner commentary piece at The Atlantic:

The Evangelical Church is Breaking Apart

Christians must reclaim Jesus from his church.

Yes, I know. There is no such thing as “the evangelical church.”

Do basic facts matter? There are, of course, denominations that are predominantly evangelical. Some of them disagree on all kinds of things — such as baptism or the ordination of women. There are Pentecostal denominations that share many, but not all, doctrines with flocks that are connected with the evangelical movement. There are lots of evangelicals who still sit — though many are quite unhappy — in liberal Protestant pews.

We won’t even talk about that second line: “Christians must reclaim Jesus from his church.”

You can get to the heart of this confusion by — if you are reading the Wehner piece online — glancing at the tagline that appears in the subject line in your computer browser. That semi-headline reads: “Trump is Tearing Apart the Evangelical Church.”

Ah, that’s the heart of this matter.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

That question again: What's happening to religious believers and others stuck in Afghanistan?

That question again: What's happening to religious believers and others stuck in Afghanistan?

This is a case in which I don’t want to say, “We told you so,” but -- well — we told you so.

If you dug into this recent podcast-post — “ 'What's next in Afghanistan?' Warning: this news topic involves religion” — you’d know that the GetReligion team has been worried about what will happen to elite news coverage of human rights issues and, specifically, religious freedom, in Afghanistan under this new Taliban regime. In fact, that podcast included many themes from an earlier GetReligion podcast-post with this headline: “When the Taliban cracks down, will all the victims be worthy of news coverage?”

It appears that there are two problems.

Reality No. 1: It’s hard to cover the hellish realities of life in the new-old Afghanistan without discussing the messy exit of U.S. diplomats and troops from that troubled nation. Thus, new coverage will please Republicans, who are infuriated about that issue, and anger the White House team of President Joe Biden, which wants to move on. New coverage allows Republicans to “pounce,” as the saying goes.

Reality No. 2: There are many valid stories inside Afghanistan right now, but some are more explosive than others in terms of fallout here in America. This is especially true when dealing with stories about Americans who are still trapped there. Then there are religious believers — including Christians and members of minority groups inside Islam — who face persecution and even executions because of their beliefs. It appears that some journalism executives (and foreign-policy pros) continue to struggle with the reality that religious issues are at the heart of the Afghanistan conflict.

Thus, cases of political and religious persecution in Afghanistan are “conservative news.” For a quick overview, see this National Review piece: “In Afghanistan, ‘Almost Everyone Is in Danger Now.’ “ Note this snarky line:

The sort of headline that shouldn’t just be local news. … Those knee-jerk Biden critics over at . . . er, the Connecticut affiliate of NBC News report: “43 Connecticut Residents Still Stuck In Afghanistan.

Here is a key chunk of that NBCConnecticut.com report:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

The New Yorker torches Teen Challenge residential programs in vivid, one-sided report

The New Yorker torches Teen Challenge residential programs in vivid, one-sided report

This must be the season for exposés on Christian youth ministries.

Business Insider just came out with a huge piece on Young Life and a lot of folks are talking about the New Yorker’s recent exposé on the Christian drug rehab organization, Teen Challenge. Based on 60-plus interviews, it’s about one teen-aged girl’s story of being taken from her adopted parents’ home in the middle of the night and forced into a hellish residential program in central Florida.

The story has been framed as Teen Challenge attacking gay teens, although Emma, the central character, arrives at the school pregnant and ends up marrying a man four years later. Much of the story is about how she was forced to give up her child while sequestered at Teen Challenge.

It’s important, when reading this vivid story, to keep asking: Where are the voices on the other side of this drama?

Many of the events reported by The New Yorker took place a decade ago. Here’s how it started:

In the spring of her freshman year of high school, in 2011, Emma Burris was woken at three in the morning. Someone had turned on the lights in her room. She was facing the wall and saw a man’s shadow. She reached for her cell phone, which she kept under her pillow at night, but it wasn’t there. The man, Shane Thompson, who is six and a half feet tall, wore a shirt with “Juvenile Transport Agent” printed on the back. He and a colleague instructed Emma to put on her clothes and follow them to their car. “She was very verbal, resisting,” Thompson told me. Her parents, who had adopted her when she was seven, stood by the doorway, watching silently.

Thompson drove Emma away from her house, in Royal Palm Beach, Florida, and merged onto the highway. Emma, who was fifteen, tried to remember every exit sign she passed, so that she could find her way home, but she was crying too hard to remember the names. …

Part Scottish and part Puerto Rican, Emma was slight, with long, wavy blond hair. Her parents, whose lives revolved around their church, admonished her for being aggressive toward them and for expressing her sexuality too freely. She watched lesbian pornography and had lost her virginity to an older boy.

“Being aggressive toward them?”


Please respect our Commenting Policy