Podcasts

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

Podcast: Strategic cardinal floats trial balloon, saying Catholic LGBTQ doctrines are wrong

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Strategic cardinal floats trial balloon, saying Catholic LGBTQ doctrines are wrong

If you follow political news, you’re probably familiar with the concept of a “trial balloon.”

One online dictionary definition states: “A trial balloon is a proposal that you mention or an action that you try in order to find out other people's reactions to it, especially if you think they are likely to oppose it.”

Here’s a famous example. Let’s say that the Obama White House wants to shift its stance on gay marriage, once the president has reached a point — in 2012 — where he may or may not need strong support from social-conservative Black church leaders. Thus, it was a surprise, kind of, when Vice President Joe Biden, went on “Meet the Press” and said that he was “absolutely comfortable” with same-sex marriages.

The White House needed to know (1) how other Democrats would respond, (2) how Black-church leaders would respond and (3) how potential conservative critics would respond, including Catholic leaders in America. Central to all of this, of course, is how this “trial balloon” is framed in the coverage by elite media. It took very little time for Barack Obama to get on board.

During this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), we looked at a complex drama unfolding in the European leadership of the Catholic church. The key player is Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, archbishop of Luxembourg, and a leader — the term is “relator general” — in the Pope Francis team leading the Synod on Synodality on the future of the Catholic faith. Depending on who one talks to, this synod is either a chance to listen to Catholics around the world or the front door to Vatican III.

But here is the key quote from Hollerich, drawn from an interview with the German Catholic news agency KNA.) This is part of a collection of blunt, verbatim statements from Hollerich collected at L’Espresso:

“The Church’s positions on homosexual relationships as sinful are wrong. I believe that the sociological and scientific foundation of this doctrine is no longer correct. It is time for a fundamental revision of Church teaching, and the way in which Pope Francis has spoken of homosexuality could lead to a change in doctrine.


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

Podcast: As it turns out, it was totally logical for Jerry Falwell, Jr., to embrace Donald Trump

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: As it turns out, it was totally logical for Jerry Falwell, Jr., to embrace Donald Trump

When reading That. Vanity. Fair. Article, it will help to focus on the obvious answer to the big question that will immediately pop into your head (especially if you happen to be a journalist).

The question: Why did Jerry Falwell, Jr., choose to talk to a magazine with a solid footprint on the American cultural and journalistic left?

The answer: Falwell is a lawyer who, at the moment, has a number of pressing legal issues in his life. To put this in D.C. Beltway lingo, he appears to be “hanging a lantern” on his problems. Here is one online definition of that term:

"Hang a lantern on your problem” was entered into the political lexicon in the 1980s by Chris Matthews, a former chief of staff to Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O’Neill. Matthews explained “hang a lantern on your problem” to the New York (NY) Times in 1987: “The first step is, admit you have a problem; that gives you credibility. The second step is to use that credibility to redefine your problem, or use the problem for your own purposes.”

As I explained during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), it is interesting to read the Vanity Fair piece and, with a mental highlighter pen (a real one if you get the analog magazine), mark the questions that Falwell chooses to answer and the ones that he declines to answer. Then, repeat the process with the questions that are answered and rejected by other key voices — think Giancarlo “pool boy” Granda and legal representatives for Liberty University.

This process will yield insights into two of the most obvious plot lines in this soap-opera mess, as in its steamy Miami-angle sex scandal and the ugly legal wars between Jerry Falwell, Jr., and the shamed leaders of Liberty University.

Once you’ve done that, you’re read to dig into the deeper elements of this story, which are clearly visible in the long, long, long second deck of it’s double-headline:


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

New podcast: Sex, marriage and babies are now topics too hot for preachers to handle?

, , , , , , , , , , ,
New podcast: Sex, marriage and babies are now topics too hot for preachers to handle?

Hey religion-beat reporters (and even pros who cover politics): Want to find some really interesting stories?

Ask this question: What are the subjects that clergy are afraid to address in the pulpit? This was the big idea looming in the background during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

For example, lots of people interpreted the silence of many super-preachers on the ethics and affairs of Donald Trump as evidence of support for him. It is much more likely (see some of the info in this “On Religion” column) that they knew the people in their pews were divided on this topic.

Thus, they were afraid to discuss it. They didn’t want to start a war.

Here’s another case study, one so old that my reporting on it predates the Internet. But I addressed the topic in this 2016 post here at GetReligion. Remember the “True Love Waits” phenomenon?

Anyway, I realize that for many people the whole "True Love Waits" thing was either a joke or an idealistic attempt to ask young people to do the impossible in modern American culture. …

What fascinated me was that, according to key "True Love Waits" leaders, they didn't struggle to find young people who wanted to take vows and join the program. What surprised them was that many church leaders were hesitating to get on board because of behind-the-scenes opposition from ADULTS in their congregations.

The problem was that pastors were afraid to offend a few, or even many, adults in their churches — even deacons — because of the sexual complications in many lives and marriages, including sins that shattered marriages and homes. Key parents didn't want to stand beside their teens and take the program's vows.

This brings me to some amazing Gallup Poll data that —as far as I can tell — didn’t receive any news coverage when it came out in 2020. There was a Twitter flurry about it the other day, which led to some people re-upping this “story” that wasn’t a “news story.”

The headline on the feature at Gallup: “Is Marriage Becoming Irrelevant?” Here is a chunk of the information that should have raised eyebrows, for reporters and preachers — including clergy who face people sitting in “red,” “conservative” pews.


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

New podcast: Reformed Church in America split points to rising tensions in Calvin country

, , , , , , , , , ,
New podcast: Reformed Church in America split points to rising tensions in Calvin country

Growing up as a Texas Baptist (long ago) I was predestined to know next to nothing about what some have called the great “northern kingdom” of American evangelicalism. Yes, we can debate whether “evangelical” is an accurate description of the Calvinist world based in Grand Rapids, Mich., and other cities and towns in the Midwest.

I had to learn some of this lingo when I moved to Central Illinois and then when I broke into religion-beat work in Charlotte, N.C., a city with every imaginable form of Presbyterian and Reformed church life.

As I mentioned in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to listen), I quickly learned that the Reformed Church in America was a rather centrist flock, while the Christian Reformed Church was much more conservative, in terms of doctrine and culture. I would not have called either of these bodies a “Mainline Protestant” denomination.

Things change. Eventually, the RCA started arguing about the familiar subjects that have divided so many religious bodies — biblical authority and sex. This leads us to a Religion News Service report: “Reformed Church in America splits as conservative churches form new denomination.” Here is the overture:

(RNS) — On New Year’s Day, 43 congregations of the Reformed Church in America split from the national denomination, one of the oldest Protestant bodies in the United States, in part over theological differences regarding same-sex marriage and the ordination of LGBTQ clergy.

The departure of the theologically conservative congregations to the new group, the Alliance of Reformed Churches, leaves some who remain in the RCA concerned for the denomination’s survival. Before the split, the nearly 400-year-old denomination had fewer than 200,000 members and 1,000 churches.

At least 125 churches from various denominations are in conversation with ARC leaders about joining.

“Various denominations?” Hold that thought.


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

New podcast: Are the bitter wars over the Latin Mass about politics or Catholic doctrine?

, , , , , , , , , ,
New podcast: Are the bitter wars over the Latin Mass about politics or Catholic doctrine?

I like hearing from readers. I really do.

However, every now and then I write a national “On Religion” column and I just know that I am going to hear from readers about a specific angle that — for reasons of space — I had to leave out. This happens less often here at GetReligion, since length is not an issue in online forums of this kind.

Anyway, this week’s “On Religion” column was about the tensions among Catholics about Pope Francis and his crackdown on use of the old Latin Mass. I focused on developments in the Archdiocese of Chicago, where it is clear that there’s more to these “worship wars” than use of the Tridentine rite.

That column is already online in some mainstream newspapers, with headlines such as this: “Latin Mass meets Chicago rules.” That column served as the launching pad for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), which also looked at an important analysis piece at Crux about five kids of Pope Francis stories — both doctrinal and political — that readers can expect to see in 2022.

When I clicked “send” on that column (including my private listserv to family and friends), I knew that some Catholics would ask why I didn’t address a, well, colorful Mass that recently took place at the progressive St. Sabina Parish in Chicago. Here is the top of the Catholic News Agency story about that:

Outraged by a freewheeling Christmas Eve Mass that featured jazz musicians, choreographed dances around the altar, and theatrical lighting effects, some Catholics are calling on Cardinal Blase Cupich to crack down on liturgical abuses in Novus Ordo Masses in the Archdiocese of Chicago, rather than imposing severe restrictions on reverential Traditional Latin Masses.

Father Michael L. Pfleger, a well-known social activist in Chicago, celebrated the Dec. 24 evening Mass. … Many of those upset by the Mass say it crossed the line from worship to entertainment. That view is fueled, in part, by the fact that it is not clear from the nearly 2½ hour video of the service, billed as "Christmas Eve at Sabina," when the liturgy actually begins. There is no apparent greeting, penitential act, or opening prayer, all required Introductory Rites of the Novus Ordo liturgy.

In the video, posted on YouTube, Pfleger does not appear on the altar until after nearly an hour of musical and dance performances.

Well, it is unusual for a Mass to include music by Stevie Wonder and the classic Vincent Guaraldi soundtrack from the Peanuts Christmas special.


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

New podcast: Top Godbeat story of 2021? Look for Jan. 6 religion hooks (#DUH)

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
New podcast: Top Godbeat story of 2021? Look for Jan. 6 religion hooks (#DUH)

beat stories.

Trust me, I understand that preparing the ballot for this poll is a thankless job. One of the hardest tasks is finding a way to describe some of the broader trends during any given year. It’s easier — most of the time — to describe singular events.

During this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), host Todd Wilken asked me to describe some of the patterns that I have seen in the RNA poll results through the decades.

Trend No. 1 is clear: Name the biggest political story of the year and look for a religion angle. After all, politics is the true religion of many folks who run newsrooms.

Trend No. 2 works about 76% of the time: What did the pope do this year, especially if it has any implications for U.S. political fights over moral and social issues (see trend No. 1).

Trend No. 3 comes and goes: What did liberal leaders of the Seven Sisters of Mainline Protestantism proclaim about sex and did it cause new revolts that might split their churches? Every now and then, the Southern Baptists slip in with battles over sex, race or politics (newsworthy topics, in other words).

In light of these trends, it was easy to predict that the RNA poll’s top story for 2021 would be:

Religion features prominently during the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol by pro-Trump insurrectionists. Some voice Christian prayers, while others display Christian or pagan symbols and slogans inside and outside the Capitol.

That’s actually a careful wording and, in particular, note that the RNA leaders refrained (this must have been hard) from including a reference to “white evangelicals.”

The key, in this description, is the tension between “prominently” and “some,” as in the folks saying “Christian” prayers. It’s safe to assume that this is the rebel that they had in mind (as quoted in one of my “On Religion” columns):


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

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

New podcast: Are some SCOTUS justices asking, 'Are all religious schools equal in Maine?'

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
New podcast: Are some SCOTUS justices asking, 'Are all religious schools equal in Maine?'

Let’s say that, in the state of Maine, there are two very different “Lutheran” schools. You could, in this hypothetical case, also say “Episcopal,” or “Presbyterian” or “Congregational.”

Leaders at one of these schools insist that their school is in “the Lutheran tradition,” and it may retain ties to a doctrinally liberal flock. The school has a chapel, but attendance is optional since its students (it may be an elite boarding school) come from all kinds of religious faiths or have no stated faith at all. Classes on hot-button moral issues — sexuality, for example — stress this church’s progressive doctrines.

Academic life is very different at the other Lutheran school, which draws most of its students and financial support from a conservative Lutheran body. Chapel attendance is required and classes linked to moral theology are quite countercultural — defending 2,000 years of Christian tradition.

The question, in the latest church-state case at the U.S. Supreme Court, is whether the state of Maine has the power to say that the first school is eligible for tuition support — using tax dollars — because it’s policies do not clash with those in public schools. Students at the conservative school are not eligible, because its beliefs are “sectarian.”

This is tricky territory and church-state experts on the Religious Right would certainly disagree with experts from the Religious Left and secular think tanks. The question discussed in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) is whether journalists covering this case allowed readers a chance to understand the views of activists on both sides.

Let me state, right up front, that my dueling Lutherans illustration is based on “equal access” church-state principles that emerged from a left-right coalition during the Bill Clinton administration. The big idea: If state officials create policies that affect nonprofits, they cannot back secular groups while discriminating against religious organizations. States could, however, deny aid to both. In other words, religious faith is not a uniquely dangerous form of speech or activity.

Let me state this another way. Under the separation of church and state, officials are not supposed to use tax dollars to back state-approved forms of religion. Ah! But what if some religious groups have doctrines that are consistent with state policies, while others clash with the doctrines of the state?


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