Social Issues

, , , , , , , , , , ,

New podcast: Early clue that Liberty may return to being a 'normal' Christian university?

, , , , , , , , , , ,
New podcast: Early clue that Liberty may return to being a 'normal' Christian university?

Here’s a question for journalists and news consumers who remain interested in the future of the complicated, complex world of evangelical Protestantism: Now that Donald Trump is out of office, does it matter who becomes the next president of Liberty University?

Note that this question assumes that the future of Liberty is important — as a mainstream news story — if it is linked to politics, as opposed to questions about the future of Christian higher education.

There is another way to state this question: Would it be important if Liberty returned to the conservative Christian style and image of its founder, the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, instead of the high-energy, openly political agenda of Jerry Falwell, Jr.? In other words, the focus would be on conservative Christian beliefs and education, as opposed to political clout. That’s the question that was at the heart of this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in).

If you followed the life and work of Jerry Falwell, Sr., you know that he was (#DUH) quite political. But this wasn’t an agenda that dominated the daily life and academic priorities of his university. Liberty was a conservative Baptist university and, for the most part, acted like one.

That changed under Jerry Falwell, Jr., of course. Consider this chunk of an “On Religion” column about that:

… Falwell Jr. developed a swashbuckling style that caused heat, especially when linked to race, guns, jets, politics, yachts and his specialty – real estate. Controversies about his de facto partnership with President Donald Trump thrilled many Liberty donors, alumni, parents and students, while deeply troubling others.

Many Christian college presidents are super-pastors who provide ties that bind to denominations, churches and networks of believers. Falwell Jr. — a lawyer — turned into a dynamic entrepreneur who courted powerful conservative politicos.

On regular Christian campuses, there "are higher expectations for presidents than members of the faculty, and members of the faculty live with greater expectations than students," noted religious-liberty activist David French, writing at The Dispatch.

"Liberty flipped this script. The president lived life with greater freedom than his students or his faculty. …”

This brings me to a fascinating news feature that ran the other day in The New York Times under this double-decker headline:

Conservative Activist Charlie Kirk Leaves Liberty University Think Tank

The Falkirk Center, named for its founders, Jerry Falwell Jr. and Charlie Kirk, was the center of evangelical Trumpism. Now, both are gone.


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
, , , , , , , , ,

This is a religion question: How many kinds of 'nones' are there and what do they believe?

, , , , , , , , ,
This is a religion question: How many kinds of 'nones' are there and what do they believe?

THE QUESTION:

How do the three main categories differ among America’s rising non-religious “nones”?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

Political scientist Ryan Burge of Eastern Illinois University (a contributor here at GetReligion) has lately emerged as the most prolific analyst of the religion factor in U.S. politics, The Religion Guy contends. He’s now out with a book examining the biggest trend of our times within U.S. religion: “The Nones: Where Thy Came From, Who They Are, and Where They Are Going.”

“Nones” refers to Americans who say they have “none” when pollsters ask about their religious affiliation or religious identity. Since the turn of the century they’ve grown rapidly and make up around a fourth of the U.S. adult population, so this book is highly recommended for anyone interested in contemporary American religion.

Burge is an interesting figure. On the one hand, he’s a hard-nosed, objective observer of poll-driven facts, while on the other a religious practitioner as a long-serving, part-time pastor of a American Baptist congregation. His local flock typifies our era’s second major trend, the unprecedented membership decline in aging white “mainline” Protestant denominations that in former times dominated the national culture, as distinguished from conservative “evangelical” Protestantism.

The most revelatory material in this data-rich survey of all things “none” is the distinctions among the three subcategories of non-religious people carefully marked out by Pew Research Center surveys. Atheists are those who are certain God does not exist, and the same for all supernatural aspects. Agnostics say we do not or cannot know such things. By far the largest segment of nones, however, choose Pew’s third option of “nothing in particular” (NIP).

Burge thinks the NIPs “might be the most consequential religious group in the United States, and no one is talking about them the way they talk about atheists or agnostics.” NIPs are one-fifth of the population and “the fastest-growing religious group in the United States.” On point after point, they are notably different from both atheists and agnostics. Lumping all the non-religious together as the same “glosses over vast differences in the lifestyles, occupations and political worldviews.”


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

Why are Latinos veering into GOP? It's all about money, money, money (and zero faith)

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Why are Latinos veering into GOP? It's all about money, money, money (and zero faith)

I know, I know. If you have read GetReligion for the past four-plus years, you know that we’re convinced that the rise of the Latino evangelical voter (often paired with traditional Catholic Latino voters) is an emerging story in American public life.

Part of this story is the rise of Pentecostalism in the Spanish-speaking world (classic Pew Research Center study here) and another part is linked to the defense of Latino family values (to use a loaded phrase).

There’s much more to this story than the role these voters played in Donald Trump’s surprising (to some) showings in some Florida and Texas zip codes. Click here (“New York Times listens to Latino evangelicals: 'Politically homeless' voters pushed toward Trump”) and then here (“Concerning Hispanic evangelicals, secret Trump voters and white evangelical women in Georgia”).

To be blunt about it, it appears that political-desk reporters are struggling with this issue, in part because it undercuts some themes in long-predicted demographic trends backing Democrats. You can see that in the recent, oh-so-predictable New York Times story that ran with this massive double-decker headline:

A Vexing Question for Democrats: What Drives Latino Men to Republicans?

Several voters said values like individual responsibility and providing for one’s family, and a desire for lower taxes and financial stability, led them to reject a party embraced by their parents.

The story is getting some Twitter attention because of this magisterial statement of woke Times doctrine:

Some of the frustrations voiced by Hispanic Republican men are stoked by misinformation, including conspiracy theories claiming that the “deep state” took over during the Trump administration and a belief that Black Lives Matter protests caused widespread violence.

But it’s more important to focus on the bigger picture, which is that this trend is all about Latino men wanting to get rich by being part of the American dream. The overture is long, but essential:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Embracing LGBTQ adoptive parents: Was Bethany's change of heart (and doctrine) a surprise?

, , , , ,
Embracing LGBTQ adoptive parents: Was Bethany's change of heart (and doctrine) a surprise?

Ever since she joined the New York Times last summer, Ruth Graham has been breaking stories left and right. Yesterday’s revelation of a revered Christian adoption agency agreeing to allow in gay parents is the latest of many.

Judging by her piece — and those of several other outlets — the decision must have been known for several days but was embargoed until that all-important email went out to the ministry’s staff.

Ever since the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in 2015, it was only a matter of time before these newly legalized couples wanted to adopt kids.

This time around, state officials could be supporting them and any agency not complying would stand to lose financially big time. The story begins:

One of the country’s largest adoption and foster care agencies, Bethany Christian Services, announced on Monday that it would begin providing services to L.G.B.T.Q. parents nationwide effective immediately, a major inflection point in the fraught battle over many faith-based agencies’ longstanding opposition to working with same-sex couples.

Bethany, a Michigan-based evangelical organization, announced the change in an email to about 1,500 staff members that was signed by Chris Palusky, the organization’s president and chief executive. “We will now offer services with the love and compassion of Jesus to the many types of families who exist in our world today,” Mr. Palusky wrote. “We’re taking an ‘all hands on deck’ approach where all are welcome.”

What that means is that the amount of orphans is so great and the number of available parents are so few, that anyone available –- even if gay, single, older, etc. –- is needed to adopt these kids.

The announcement is a significant departure for the 77-year-old organization, which is the largest Protestant adoption and foster agency in the United States. Bethany facilitated 3,406 foster placements and 1,123 adoptions in 2019, and has offices in 32 states. (The organization also works in refugee placement, and offers other services related to child and family welfare.) Previously, openly gay prospective foster and adoptive parents in most states were referred to other agencies.

The decision comes amid a high-stakes cultural and legal battle that features questions about sexuality, religious freedom, parenthood, family structure and theology.


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

Ryan Burge day: Political tensions rise as secularism grows (yet faith numbers stay strong)

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Ryan Burge day: Political tensions rise as secularism grows (yet faith numbers stay strong)

Anyone who has followed GetReligion for nearly two decades knows that we have — over, and over, and over — stressed that the safe middle ground in American life seems to be vanishing.

This is true in religion and it is certainly true in politics.

Now, journalists and news consumers can prepare to dig into two books related to these trends — both linked to the work of names that will be familiar to GetReligion readers.

The first, by GetReligion contributor Ryan Burge, is entitled, “The Nones: Where They Came From, Who They Are, and Where They Are Going.” It will hit the market March 9th. We will come back to Burge in a moment, with links to some of his omnipresent charts and commentary.

The second book is entitled, “Secular Surge: A New Fault Line in American Politics,” and it was written by David Campbell, Geoffrey C. Layman and (here’s the familiar name to most GetReligion readers) John C. Green.

Yes, that John C. Green, the man from the 2007 seminar at the Washington Journalism Center who told a circle of journalists from around the world about emerging research about “religiously unaffiliated” Americans and how this would impact politics and, in particular, the shape of the Democratic Party. The line-graph he sketched on our write-on-wall that day was a foretaste of the stunning 2012 Pew study on the rapid rise of the “nones.”

The key was that the “nones” were the natural political partners of secular voters and believers in the shrinking world of the Religious Left. At some point, however, he said there would be tensions with moderate and even conservative Democrats in the Black church and in Hispanic pews, both Catholic, evangelical and Pentecostal. As I wrote in an On Religion column:

The unaffiliated overwhelmingly reject ancient doctrines on sexuality with 73 percent backing same-sex marriage and 72 percent saying abortion should be legal in all, or most, cases. Thus, the “Nones” skew heavily Democratic as voters — with 75 percent supporting Barack Obama in 2008. The unaffiliated are now a stronger presence in the Democratic Party than African-American Protestants, white mainline Protestants or white Catholics.

“It may very well be that in the future the unaffiliated vote will be as important to the Democrats as the traditionally religious are to the Republican Party,” said Green, addressing the religion reporters. “If these trends continue, we are likely to see even sharper divisions between the political parties.”


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

Ryan Burge day: Black church believers and Black ‘nones’ show little Ideological divide

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Ryan Burge day: Black church believers and Black ‘nones’ show little Ideological divide

There are a number of narratives that have emerged from the 2020 election season, many of which will take years to fully unpack.

One of the most important actually began to take root in December 2017 when Alabama held a special election to fill the Senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions who became Attorney General in the Donald Trump administration. Alabama, one of the most conservative states in the nation, elected a Democrat — Doug Jones — to a statewide office for the first time in 25 years.

The reason for the victory was quickly attributed to the African-American community who turned out in large numbers for the Democrats. This same thread has run through coverage of the 2020 presidential election, when Joe Biden bested Trump in Georgia. Observers noted that the deep history of civil rights activism in the state energized the African-American base to repudiate the Trump presidency.

That bore out again on Jan. 5, 2021 when the Democrats won both Senate run-off elections in the state, defeating two Republican incumbents.

The Rev. Raphael Warnock’s win has garnered the most headlines. The pastor of one of America’s most historic churches — Ebeneezer Baptist — Warnock’s sermons featured prominently in the campaign. One of the results of this coverage is that it pulled back the curtain a bit on the Black church experience for many White Americans who have never had a lot of exposure to other religious traditions.

Yet, despite the fact that a lot of the chatter about the Black vote has centered on people of faith — it’s important to recognize that the Black community is not a religious monolith. While the largest share of African-Americans identify as Christian (63.5%), nearly a quarter indicate that they have no religious affiliation (22.1%) and another 15% identify as part of another faith group (Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.)

While these religious differences generate huge political divides among the White community, is the same true for Black Americans? The data indicates that race generates a unifying identity for Black Americans much more so than it does for White America, and religious differences at the ballot box are often small or non-existent when comparing Black Americans of different faith traditions.

In terms of political partisan and ideology — the differences between Black Christians, Black Nones and those of other faith traditions is relatively small. However, it’s worth pointing out that Black Christians are clearly the most likely to identify with the Democratic Party.


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

Happy birthday (I guess): GetReligion will keep highlighting 'religion ghosts' in the news

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Happy birthday (I guess): GetReligion will keep highlighting 'religion ghosts' in the news

Growing old is complicated.

This is especially true during these bizarre COVID-19 days in which one day runs into another and sometimes it’s hard to remember what is what and when is when.

Oh well, whatever, nevermind. I being this up because GetReligion.org launched on Feb. 2, 2004 (even though the first post was written a day earlier). I think that means we just turned 17 and are headed into year No. 18, but my aging mind goes rather numb just thinking about it.

This blog has always had two essential goals.

The first is to highlight what we call “ghosts” in mainstream news coverage, as in essential facts and themes about religion that journalists — on lots of beats — frequently miss when covering news stories, big and small. A side effect of that task has been urging newsroom managers to hire experienced religion-beat reporters to strengthen their newsrooms.

Goal No. 2 is related to that. We have tried, year after year, to defend what is frequently called the American Model of the Press (see this .pdf) — with its emphasis on accurate, fair-minded, even balanced coverage of stories in which there are competing, or even clashing, viewpoints. For a taste of what that sounds like, check out this famous 2003 memo by the late, great, Los Angeles Times editor John Carroll. Here’s a crucial chunk of that, after his critique of a one-sided story:

The reason I'm sending this note to all section editors is that I want everyone to understand how serious I am about purging all political bias from our coverage. We may happen to live in a political atmosphere that is suffused with liberal values (and is unreflective of the nation as a whole), but we are not going to push a liberal agenda in the news pages of the Times.

I'm no expert on abortion, but I know enough to believe that it presents a profound philosophical, religious and scientific question, and I respect people on both sides of the debate. A newspaper that is intelligent and fair-minded will do the same.

In recent years, economic, cultural and political forces have greatly weakened the American Model of the Press (see this recent Celemente Lisi post on that topic). Some people say this model is outdated, in a digital age in which opinion is cheap and information is expensive and the safest business model — producing mouse-clicks and loyal subscribers — is to tell your niche audience what it wants to hear.


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

Creative ways to cover abortion stories near Roe v. Wade anniversary: Here's a few ideas

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Creative ways to cover abortion stories near Roe v. Wade anniversary: Here's a few ideas

I always get frustrated with the lack of original thought when it comes to covering abortion stories connected to the anniversaries of Roe v. Wade. Last week’s reporting for the 48th anniversary was no exception.

There was the predictable updates (which I am not criticizing), such as President Joe Biden’s intent to codify Roe v. Wade, which the Catholic-news website Crux covered here. And Fox News ran a piece about a restrictive abortion law passed by the state of Tennessee last summer , and how that has become ensnared in the courts.

Now I know that, with the inauguration on the same week and all, there wasn’t a lot of energy out there to come up with Roe v. Wade stories that covered new ground. But the stories are out there, folks. It’s just that many of those in the media don’t feel like ferreting them out. Let’s suggest a few:

(1) Since Black Lives Matter has been a major newsmaker this past year, how about a revisit on black abortion rates? About a year ago, the Arizona Capital Times ran this opinion piece by a black member of the state house of representatives. I’ll pull out one paragraph:

The impacts on our black communities are hard to fathom. According to the Guttmacher Institute, which generally supports abortion, in 2011 360,000 black babies were aborted. CDC statistics for 2011 show that 287,072 black deaths occurred from all other causes excluding abortion. By these numbers, abortion is the leading cause of death among blacks.

Shouldn’t there be more reporting on something that kills more black children than police brutality ever has? Can’t say I’ve seen a whole lot. This story is also linked to debates in the Black church about politics, social issues, family, etc.

(2) Personality profiles. The pro-choicers get loads of them, such as this 2018 Washington Post piece about a black gynecologist who went from being anti-abortion to pro-abortion rights — and why. This was Willie Parker. The Atlantic, however, went more creative and much deeper in a feature about a war in the abortion movement where Parker is being accused of sexual assault, and the nasty infighting that’s resulted from that. Insider politics is always an interesting read, must say.

But where are the profiles of folks like Lila Rose and Joan Andrews Bell and many other lesser-known folks?


Please respect our Commenting Policy