Podcasts

Podcast-blitz: RBG black swan, global fertility, decades of Catholic sin, religious liberty and more

Where were you when the Ruth Bader Ginsburg news hit the screen of your smartphone?

When I saw the news, the first thing I thought about was that recent Jess Fields podcast in which political scientist and data-chart-maestro Ryan Burge was working through some key points about the 2020 White House race and last-minute factors that could come into play.

This brought him to his “black swan” prediction. If you didn’t check out that podcast several weeks ago, you are going to want to flash back to it now. It’s the one with this headline, “Jess Fields meets Ryan Burge: As you would image, they're talking 'nones,' 'evangelicals,' etc.” If you prefer audio only, click here.

So what is a “black swan”? Here is that online definition from the previous post:

A black swan is an unpredictable event that is beyond what is normally expected of a situation and has potentially severe consequences. Black swan events are characterized by their extreme rarity, their severe impact, and the widespread insistence they were obvious in hindsight.

So do I need to tell you what Burge picked as his ultimate 2020 black swan?

He dropped me this note last night:

I was actually in the middle of taping a podcast and switched over to Twitter during the middle of the conversation and saw it. And I had to interrupt the host and tell them. I don't have the video of it, but I bet the color drained out of my face.

I think this is the most precarious position our country has been in since I was born (1982). The government of the United States runs on norms more than it does on laws. And both parties seem ready and willing to violate norms in a tit for tat fashion in ways that only do damage to the future of our country.

So that’s one podcast you need to check out this morning. Before that political earthquake, I had already written a post centering on a blitz of podcasts that I knew would interest GetReligion readers-listeners.

That’s not your normal newsy Monday GetReligion, of course. However, I had a medical reason for getting something ready to go in advance.

On Friday, I headed into the hospital for one of those “minor surgery” operations. But you know the old saying: Minor surgery is surgery on somebody else.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

New podcast: Yes, it will be big news if COVID-19 closes 20% of America's churches

New podcast: Yes, it will be big news if COVID-19 closes 20% of America's churches

This week’s “Crossroads” podcast — click here to tune that in — starts with a rather obvious question linked to the coronavirus crisis.

The question: Would it be a major news story if 20% or more of America’s religious congregations were forced to shut down during the next 12-18 months?

Clearly that would be a huge development in American life — not just on the religion-news beat. On top of that, it would be a story that would almost certainly unfold in every zip code in America. There would be newsworthy hooks at the local, regional and national levels.

What kinds of stories?

Hold that thought.

The hook for this week’s discussion was my latest “On Religion” column for the Universal syndicate, which grew out of recent comments by David Kinnaman, the leader of the Barna Group — which does polling and research with a variety of churches and denominations.

Here is a key passage:

The question religious leaders are asking, of course, is how many people will return to their pews when "normal" life returns. But it may be several years before high-risk older believers decide it's safe to return, even after vaccines become available. Younger members may keep watching their own local services, switch to high-profile digital flocks elsewhere or do both.

In talks with clients, Kinnaman said he is hearing denominational leaders and clergy say they believe that, in the next year or so, some churches will simply close their doors. Early in the pandemic the percentage of insiders telling Barna researchers they were "highly confident" their churches would survive was "in the high 70s," he said.

"Now it's in the 50s. … Most churches are doing OK, for now. But there's a segment that's really struggling and taking a hit, week after week."

After reviewing several kinds of research -- including patterns in finances and attendance -- Kinnaman sent a shockwave through social-media channels with his recent prediction that one in five churches will close in the next 18 months. In "mainline" churches, he is convinced this number will be one in three, in part because these rapidly aging Protestant denominations have lost millions of members -- some up to 50% -- since the 1960s.

These mainline churches are the “Seven Sisters” of progressive Protestantism. In descending order, by size, that would be the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Episcopal Church, the American Baptist Churches USA, the United Church of Christ and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: USA Today Network study of chaplain in COVID crisis avoids big, eternal questions

For the last decade of his ministry, my father — the Rev. Bert Mattingly — was the Southern Baptist chaplain at the Texas Children’s Hospital. He assisted at several other facilities in the Texas Medical Center in downtown Houston, working with chaplains representing a number of other churches and traditions.

I went to work with him several times. During one visit, we passed a small sitting room and my father said this was his private “crash” spot where he would go when he was overwhelmed and needed to pull himself together. Each of the chaplains had a safe place like this and only the chaplains receptionist knew these locations. (This was before cellphones were omnipresent.)

I also remember lots of prayers and the big questions. A hospital chaplain prays all the time, especially in a facility full of families with children facing cancer or leukemia.

There’s no way around the fact that most of a chaplain’s prayers are linked to big, eternal questions that never go away. Questions like this: Why is this happening to my child? Where is God in all of this pain? Does God understand that I’m scared? What do I do with my guilt and my anger? Is heaven real?

I thought about my father (and a beloved uncle who was a hospital chaplain for half a century) as we recorded this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in). That’s easy to understand, since we were talking about a massive USA Today Network feature — from The Louisville Courier-Journal — that ran with this title: “ 'Hurry, he's dying': A chaplain’s journal chronicles a pandemic's private wounds.”

This is a remarkable feature story, in terms of human drama and suffering. It was built on the kind of source reporters dream about, in terms of a body of written material packed with dates, times, places and human interactions — a chaplain’s personal journal of the coronavirus crisis.

Yes, this is a stunning story. The writing is first rate. However, it’s strangely silent when it comes to the content of this chaplain’s ministry — in terms of the big questions and the prayers that follow This Norton Healthcare chaplain has no specific faith tradition, church or approach to theology. Readers never even learn if Adam Ruiz is ordained and, if so, by whom. My research online found a clue that he might be part of the mainline Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Here is a crucial chunk of the intro material in this feature:

Like colleagues across the country, Ruiz’s already tough job providing spiritual care amid loss had grown exponentially more difficult. Illness and death multiplied. Fear and uncertainty gripped front-line doctors and nurses. Visitor restrictions meant suffocating isolation for patients and families. Grief was interrupted, funerals denied. A mountain of need sprang up overnight.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Was Chadwick Boseman's faith a crucial part of his struggles and triumphs?

One of the most powerful roles that mass media play in modern life is the ability to determine who is “cool” and who is not.

During this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), host Todd Wilken and I discussed how this “cool” factor is not just a matter of style. In the modern world, “cool” tells us who is worthy and who is unworthy, who is smart and who is not, who is wise and who is ridiculous, who is a leader worthy of trust and who is not.

That was a key factor in my post this week about Baltimore Ravens superstar Lamar Jackson and the massive Sports Illustrated profile about his life and talent that didn’t seem very interested in his faith and the biblical reasons for the number on his jersey. Maybe his faith just isn’t “cool”? (Click here for “Hey SI: Is this an important fact? Why does Lamar Jackson wear the number 8 on his back?”)

With that in mind, let me do something that isn’t the norm here at GetReligion, which is turn to scripture. In this case, read the following from 1 Corinthians, chapter 3:

Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.

Now, let’s turn our attention to the some of the coverage of the recent death of Hollywood superstar Chadwick Boseman, who died of cancer at age 43. In particular, I want to praise a pair of stories at Religion News Service.

But, first, invest some time and watch the amazing commencement address Boseman delivered two years ago at his alma mater, Howard University (or scan this CNN transcript). As the speech builds, in a quiet but strong crescendo, watch Boseman’s eyes.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Steamy Jerry Falwell Jr., story will get lots of ink: But what happens now at Liberty University?

Steamy Jerry Falwell Jr., story will get lots of ink: But what happens now at Liberty University?

It will not surprise readers that this week’s “Crossroads” podcast is about the Jerry Falwell Jr., scandal at Liberty University (click here to tune that in). However, I hope that this podcast focuses on a different angle of the crisis than what most news consumers are seeing in print and on television.

From my perspective, there are two important stories unfolding here — not one scandal. How journalists cover these stories will, in large part, be based on whether they only care about Falwell the celebrity (and Donald Trump, of course), as opposed to what went wrong at Liberty University and what the school could become in the future.

So what happens next? What happens with the scandals surrounding Falwell and his wife Becki? This is where I see so many parallels to the Jim and Tammy Bakker PTL scandal in the 1980s. All week long I’ve been having flashbacks to the many telephone calls I received at The Charlotte News (RIP) from alleged insiders wanting to share dirt about the Bakker’s financial and sexual misadventures.

As it turned out, one anonymous caller was telling the truth, or a small part of it. That caller was the bisexual Rev. John Wesley Fletcher, who was doing his best to crash the Bakker empire. Fletcher was telling part of the truth about Jim Bakker, while conveniently editing out his own sins in that torrid melodrama.

What did I learn from the PTL scandal that is relevant here?

The accusers on both siders were hiding crucial information, while sharing some information that was accurate. I think that’s true with the Falwell scandal, as well. Meanwhile, it helps to remember that Falwell is a lawyer, not a minister. I suspect that he knows most of the evidence that accuser Giancarlo Granda has in hand. So reporters need to watch carefully: Do either of these men actually want a day in court? Who wants to testify under oath and endure the rigors of the legal discover process?

The other crucial question, of course, is this: What did leaders of the Liberty board of trustees know and when did they know it?

This is a stunningly complex set of stories. It’s interesting that, in the mainstream coverage, the Washington Post pointed to almost all of the crucial issues on Monday night in an understated and solid early story.

By the way, please note that the Post has religion-beat pros and a higher-education specialist working on this mega-story. Attention managers of other elite newsrooms: Go thou and do likewise.

Here are two crucial passages, in terms of tone and content:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Biden 2020: 'Devout' Catholic? 'Cuomo' Catholic? 'McCarrick' Catholic? 'Pope Francis' Catholic?

Biden 2020: 'Devout' Catholic? 'Cuomo' Catholic? 'McCarrick' Catholic? 'Pope Francis' Catholic?

Joe Biden is a Catholic.

This is a statement of fact, because of his baptism. Vice President Mike Pence is a Catholic, too, by the way. Each man — as is the case with all Catholics — is one Rite of Confession away from full participation in the sacraments of his church. What is Biden’s status? That’s between Biden and his confessor.

Now we get to the tricky question, during an election campaign in which — as always seems to be the case — Mass-attending Catholics are the crucial swing vote across the Rust Belt.

What is the accurate adjective to put in front of “Catholic” in the following equation? Joe Biden is a ______ Catholic. This question was the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in).

If you read the mainstream press, the operative words appears to be “devout.” See this typical overture for a recent USA Today piece: “Donald Trump claims Joe Biden is 'against God;' Biden calls attack 'shameful'.”

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump unleashed another strident attack on Joe Biden over religion … saying his Democratic opponent, a devout Catholic, is "against God" and even religion itself — comments Biden denounced as “shameful.”

“No religion, no anything," Trump told supporters at a brief airport rally in Cleveland as he visited Ohio for an economic speech. "Hurt the Bible, hurt God. He’s against God, he’s against guns, he’s against energy, our kind of energy.”

Biden, who has often talked about how his Catholic faith helped him survive the death of his first wife and their daughter in a 1972 car crash, described Trump as a hypocrite making a cynical appeal to religious conservatives.

Trump’s oh-so-typical blast makes zero sense and was similar to the old claims that President Barack Obama was not a Christian. Obama was, of course, active in the United Church of Christ, an oldline Protestant denomination that has long helped define the bleeding left edge of Christianity in America.

So, again: Joe Biden is a ______ Catholic and constantly talks about the role that his faith has played in his life. Has anyone spotted Biden’s chosen adjective? I have not.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Portland Bible (or Bibles) was just 'kindling' for fire, saith The New York Times (#SoThere)

Podcast: Portland Bible (or Bibles) was just 'kindling' for fire, saith The New York Times (#SoThere)

Let’s say that it’s a cold summer night and you need to start a fire during your #AltRight demonstration that includes quite a bit of violent behavior.

There are, of course, television cameras present.

How many Qurans would you need to burn — just as “kindling” — to create a news story worthy of coverage by what used to be called the mainstream press? You are, of course, going to burn an American flag, as well, since it is a symbol of the liberal state that is your enemy. You are flying your own banners — such as a Rebel battle flag from the War Between the States.

Do you need to burn one Quran to create headlines around the world? How about two? You are, of course, not showing hostility to Islam. You just need some kindling to start a fire. It also helps to open the cover up so that the camera catches the title page of the holy book.

This was one of the questions discussed during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in). We were discussing that recent New York Times story that ran with this headline: “A Bible Burning, a Russian News Agency and a Story Too Good to Check Out.”

The setting for this drama, of course, is Portland. Here’s a key passage:

The story was a near-perfect fit for a central Trump campaign talking point — that with liberals and Democrats comes godless disorder — and it went viral among Republicans within hours of appearing earlier this month. The New York Post wrote about it, as did The Federalist, saying that the protesters had shown “their true colors.” Senator Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican, said of the protesters, “This is who they are.” Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, tweeted that antifa had moved to “the book burning phase.”

The truth was far more mundane. A few protesters among the many thousands appear to have burned a single Bible — and possibly a second — for kindling to start a bigger fire. None of the other protesters seemed to notice or care.

Were the Russians tipped off about the random Bible burning? Where were the CNN cameras? Fox News pros weren’t there to join the conspiracy?

Let me be clear: I have no doubt that advocacy media on the right jumped on this story. That is what they do in this new era of biased news on both sides of America’s cultural divide. I have no doubt that Russian operatives seek to cause division.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Talking Black Swans: Burge and Fields on religion and politics 2020 (tmatt on the road)

It’s a bit of a slow week here at GetReligion, even though lots of things are happening in the world of religion news and politics.

There’s great stuff to read, but that’s happening with the solid work of the rest of the GetReligion team since I am on the road this whole week — out in the plains of Kansas to visit with family and speak to a forum at America’s greatest religion book store (click here for info). I’m speaking about C.S. Lewis and a scholar named George Sayer.

Meanwhile, I am trying to ignore politics. I’m the kind of guy who gets depressed when there isn’t a single person on either major-party ticket who can be described, accurately, as an old-school First Amendment liberal. I’m talking about folks who care about the rights of religious minorities and independent journalists and are committed to the First Amendment rights of everyone, even their political enemies.

So I am going to let other folks talk about the scary side of religion and politics, right now.

In this case, we have another long, long podcast by a friend of this weblog — Jess Fields of Houston — and GetReligion contributor Ryan Burge (who seems to be everywhere these days, with good cause).

You may recall that I wrote a post about Fields when I visited his podcast: “Jess Fields got tired of short, shallow news interviews: So he started doing loooong podcasts.”

Then Burge visited with Fields in this totally logical episode: “Jess Fields meets Ryan Burge: As you would image, they're talking 'nones,' 'evangelicals,' etc.”

Now we have a straightforward Fields-Burge 2.0 about religion and the 2020 election year. For those who prefer audio-only, click here.

You’ll want to hang on for the whole thing.

Why? Does the term “black swan” mean anything to you?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

People keep asking: Why does press say 'religious left,' as opposed to 'Religious Left'?

People keep asking: Why does press say 'religious left,' as opposed to 'Religious Left'?

Every now and then, readers — or people I meet in daily life — ask this question: Why do journalists write so much about the Religious Right (capital letters), while devoting way less digital ink to the actions, policies and beliefs of the religious left (no capital letters).

That is a complex question and you can hear me struggling with it all the way through this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in). The hook for this episode was my post that ran with this headline: “Thinking with David Briggs and Ryan Burge: Whoa, is religious left really on rise (again)?

For starters, people tend to ask this question every four or eight years (hint, hint), when the mainstream press does another round of stories about the religious left surging into action in an attempt to counterbalance the nasty Religious Right.

The Religious Right, you see, exists all the time — because it is one of the largest camps inside the modern Republican Party. The religious left doesn’t play the same role in the Democratic Party, unless we are talking about the importance of politically (as opposed to doctrinally) liberal black-church leaders in strategic primary elections. You can ask Joe Biden about that this time around.

I guess the simple answer to the “RR” vs. “rl” question is that journalists tend to capitalize the names of groups that they see as major political or social movements — like the Civil Rights movement or the Sexual Revolution.

The religious left, you see, isn’t a “movement” that exists all the time — in my experience — for many mainstream journalists. The religious left is just ordinary, good, liberal religious people doing things that are positive and logical in the eyes of gatekeepers in newsrooms. This is “good” religion.

The Religious Right, on the other hand, is a powerful political movement consisting of strange, scary evangelicals who keep coming out of the rural backwoods to threaten normal life in American cities. This is “bad,” even dangerous, religion.

Now, there is another big irony linked to press coverage of progressive forms of faith.


Please respect our Commenting Policy