TV-Radio

Is celebrity culture eroding American evangelicalism? This publishing insider says 'yes'

Is celebrity culture eroding American evangelicalism? This publishing insider says 'yes'

Evangelical Protestantism, by most accounts the largest camp in American religion, has run into various troubles lately, as The Guy and many others have chronicled.

Now there’s ample Internet buzz about Katelyn Beaty’s diagnosis of one factor in a new book from a major evangelical publisher that’s well worth coverage: “Celebrities for Jesus: How Personas, Platforms, and Profits are Hurting the Church.”

Make that hurting the “White Evangelical” church.

The type of personality cults she describes are pretty much absent in “mainline” Protestantism, Black Protestantism (there are some glaring exceptions in the health-and-wealth world), Catholicism and other U.S. religious bodies. By coincidence, Rodney Palmer, an American Baptist who teaches preaching at Palmer Theological Seminary, echoed her concerns just last week in an article for the progressive Baptist News Global website.

Inevitably, Beaty has much to say about the media that we practitioners and consumers should ponder.

She’s a well-marinated evangelical as author, former print managing editor of flagship Christianity Today magazine and currently a New York-based acquisitions editor with Baker Publishing Group, one of the majors whose Brazos Press division published “Celebrities.” (Note the company’s other book imprints: Baker Books, Baker Academic, Bethany House, Chosen, Revell.)

For this reason, The Guy finds especially newsworthy — and gutsy — Beaty’s chapter treating the evangelical book industry, which is said to pour “jet fuel” on the type of fandom, branding and marketing she decries.

The bottom line, here: This bite-hand-that-feeds angle alone offers a strong story theme that journalists could draw from this book.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Bonus podcast: Return of hot debates about ancient Psalms vs. contemporary praise hits

Bonus podcast: Return of hot debates about ancient Psalms vs. contemporary praise hits

Here is a truth that many religion-beat professionals (a) haven’t really thought through or (b) they totally get it, but their editors do not.

Obviously, churches from coast to coast and around the world are engaged in heated debates, if not outright financial wars, about centuries of church teachings about marriage and sexuality. This makes headlines. These battles often reach the local level (ask United Methodists and, previously, Episcopalians).

Editors like that, since these battles can be framed as “politics.”

But there is another subject that frequently causes divisions in the pews (or megachurch folding chairs) — music. These battles rarely make headlines, even though they stir deep emotions between various generations of believers. In recent decades, this has led to discussions of “worship wars.”

I recently wrote a column — “Open Bible to Psalms: What messages are seen there, but not in modern praise music?” — that was, shall we say, “worship wars” adjacent. This led to me being invited as a guest on the national “Connections” podcast, with hosts Mike Thom and Colleen Houde. If you want to listen to that, CLICK HERE.

During that discussion I mentioned that I had another column coming up that was related to this subject. It later appeared with this headline: “Hillbilly Thomists — Dominicans tracing their roots into Appalachian music and faith.”

But the Psalms column was the hook for the podcast and it didn’t take long to veer into “worship wars” territory and the subject of commercialized music in the modern church. That made me flash back a decade-plus to a column with this headline: “FM radio reality in church.”

Maybe the best way to intro this bonus podcast is simply to reprint that column. So here goes.

The clock is ticking and soon Jeff Crandall while face the challenge of selecting the right music for the Christmas services at High Desert Church.

This will be tricky, because Christmas is what the 70-member staff at this megachurch calls a "federal" event.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Do the math: Was Archbishop Rembert Weakland a flawed hero or an erudite heretic?

Do the math: Was Archbishop Rembert Weakland a flawed hero or an erudite heretic?

Writing obituaries about controversial — but to many people beloved — public figures is a difficult task that involves some complicated mathematics.

The death of former Catholic Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee is a classic example and, here is the crucial point in this post, this was not a simple matter of “left” vs. “right.”

That said, there is no question that for decades — during the papacies of St. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI — Weakland was a liberal Catholic superstar, with the word “liberal” in this case defined in political, cultural and doctrinal terms. But then there were revelations about his ethics and private life.

Thus, it was not surprising to see a double-decker New York Times headline with this kind of content:

Archbishop Rembert Weakland, Critic of Vatican Orthodoxy, Dies at 95

In his long career, he was an intellectual touchstone for progressive Catholic reformers. But he resigned after the disclosure of a long-ago love affair.

The Gray Lady’s obit also included this block of background material:

In the 1980s and ’90s, Archbishop Weakland had been a thorny problem for the Vatican. Addressing issues that troubled many of America’s more than 60 million Catholics, he championed new roles for women; questioned church bans on abortion, birth control and divorce; and challenged the Vatican’s insistence on celibacy for an all-male priesthood.

He also became a leading critic of America’s economic and social policies during the administration of President Ronald Reagan, drafting a landmark 120-page pastoral letter on the economy that called for reordering the nation’s priorities to cut military spending and attack poverty and inequality.

However, let me stress that the Times placed that salute to Weakland AFTER a pretty solid, accurate look at his scandalous fall and other revelations that emerged about his behavior and decisions, for decades, during the Church of Rome’s hellish clergy sexual abuse crisis.

If you want to dig into the hard facts about Weakland’s role in that crisis, click here for crucial material — “Deposition of Archbishop Emeritus Rembert G. Weakland, O.S.B.” — by the independent Bishop Accountability organization. That is an organization that defied a simple “left” or “right” tag.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Relevant fact? The great broadcaster Vince Scully had a rosary and he knew how to use it

Relevant fact? The great broadcaster Vince Scully had a rosary and he knew how to use it

OK, here we go again. Sports and God. God and sports, and that old question: Why do many journalists ignore the faith component in the lives of some sports heroes and celebrities?

If you read GetReligion, you know that Vin Scully — the greatest sports broadcaster ever (click here for a collection of his greatest hits) — was a faithful Catholic and that this was a big part of his life, that is if you paid attention to the actions of the man himself. Bobby Ross, Jr. — one of several baseball fanatics who have written for GetReligion — has written about Scully’s faith several times (click here and then here).

It also helps to click on this YouTube link and then close your eyes as you listen to that famous Scully voice speak these words, probably from memory:

Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

I don’t know about you, but I think that the whole “pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death” thing might have been relevant when writing a mainstream media obituary for Scully.

Sure enough, readers who dig into the lengthy New York Times obit for the legendary Dodgers broadcaster — Brooklyn before Los Angeles, of course — will learn that Scully went to a Catholic prep school, played for a Catholic baseball team and graduated from a Catholic University. All of that, without a single mention of the word “Catholic.” How did the Gray Lady pull that off? Here’s a hint:

For all the Dodgers’ marquee players since World War II, Mr. Scully was the enduring face of the franchise. He was a national sports treasure as well, broadcasting for CBS and NBC. He called baseball’s Game of the Week, All-Star Games, the playoffs and more than two dozen World Series. In 2009, the American Sportscasters Association voted him No. 1 on its list of the “Top 50 Sportscasters of All Time.”

Mr. Scully began broadcasting at Ebbets Field in 1950, when he was a slender, red-haired 22-year-old graduate of Fordham University and a protégé of Red Barber.

Ah, the word “Fordham” stands in for “Catholic,” in several crucial references. That’s the ticket.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Let the palace intrigue over at Disney+ palace begin

Let the palace intrigue over at Disney+ palace begin

Screenwriter and director Tony Gilroy, showrunner off “Andor” in the Star Wars universe (premiers Sept. 21 on Disney+), spoke recently to a Television Critics Association event.

If even one member of the Religion News Association had been present, we might have an encyclical to discuss.

But let’s give credit where it’s due to Lance Gose of CBR.com (Comic Book Resources). Gose captured a few sound bites from Gilroy, who compared the guardians of Star Wars canon with the Vatican.

“If you think about Star Wars as the Roman Catholic Church, if you think about it as a religion, it has all kinds of factions, groups, and within it, there are all kinds of canon,” Gilroy said.

“We are constantly in touch with the Vatican about what we do, we are constantly checking everything we do,” he added. “We have a very complicated relationship with how we deal with everything that exists. We’re telling a story that we want to tell, and we are not violating the grand canon, let’s put it that way.”

Gilroy’s comparison prompts a few immediate questions for me. These are just for fun, but there may be some perfectly valid religion-beat hooks in here. As people frequently say here at GetReligion: Hold that thought.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Thinking about Internet-age ethics with J.D. Flynn, especially rumors about dead popes

Thinking about Internet-age ethics with J.D. Flynn, especially rumors about dead popes

Everyone was talking about this story last week: Pope Benedict XVI is (a) dead, (b) not dead or (c) come on, what’s up with this tired Internet game again?

In that final category, I offer you the following mini-think piece from J.D. Flynn of The Pillar, that must-bookmark source of Catholic news, commentary and Canon law-specifics.

This whole circus was a classic example of people being tempted to report, as semi-news, the fact that online people were TALKING ABOUT something that was being reported with zero creditable attribution. Thus, Flynn starts with this basic equation:

… Pope emeritus Benedict XVI is still not dead. …

Why is that news?

Because last night an Italian schoolteacher named Tommaso De Benedetti created a moral panic online, with a hoax that seems to have been in the works for nearly a year.

“Moral” panic?

That’s an interesting choice of words. The key is that journalists had to stop and ponder whether they had the fortitude to not push the “RETWEET” button on a story that was essentially about Internet chatter.

Let’s keep walking through Flynn’s piece as he works his way through this:

Back in August 2021, the guy created a Twitter account for Bishop Georg Bätzing, who is president of the German bishops’ conference. The account managed to amass thousands of followers. He didn’t use the account, but he built that following by strategically following the right people, and allowing the Twitter algorithms to do the rest.

Then yesterday evening, he tweeted in German, English, and Spanish that Pope emeritus Benedict XVI had died.

The tweets took off like wildfire. Several media outlets picked them up, and a lot of producers and journalists retweeted them. My phone started blowing up — priests, bishops, and other journalists were all asking me if it was true.

What to do?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Norm Macdonald's 'Nothing Special' -- final thoughts on mortality while the clock was ticking

Norm Macdonald's 'Nothing Special' -- final thoughts on mortality while the clock was ticking

Comedians frequently take shots at taboo targets, but that wasn't what Norm Macdonald was doing when he addressed Down's Syndrome while solo recording what became the new "Nothing Special" on Netflix.

"I love people with Down Syndrome," said Macdonald, in a no-audience performance packed with his familiar pauses and bemused expressions. "I wish I had Down Syndrome, and I'll tell you why. They're happy. You know what I mean? …

"What's wrong with that? … People get mad at them … and they pity them. Now, who's the bad person in that scenario?"

The former Saturday Night Life star -- who died September 14 after a secret nine-year fight with cancer -- recorded nearly an hour of material during the coronavirus pandemic, before yet another operation in the summer of 2020. He said he "didn't want to leave anything on the table in case things went south."

This Netflix finale offers fresh musings on mortality and morality that, with Macdonald's blunt language and haunting images, evolve into meditations on how modern people deceive themselves. The X-factors in his art were religious faith and his love of literature ranging from Mark Twain to Fyodor Dostoyevsky.

"Macdonald showed respect for basically everyone, with the exception of himself and people like O.J. Simpson and Bill Clinton," said Rich Cromwell, a television professional and essayist for The Federalist. "He was not a Christian comedian -- that's clear. But that was part of who he was, and he treated faith with respect. …

"This Down's Syndrome material is a perfect example. He didn't turn that into an overt argument about abortion, but it's clear that he is saying all life is worthy of respect, even if some people don't judge that life to be worthy. He's saying people with Down's Syndrome are God's children, no matter what."

"Nothing Special" ends with an A-list reaction panel -- David Letterman, Adam Sandler, Conan O'Brien, Dave Chappelle, David Spade and Molly Shannon -- who knew Macdonald as a friend and colleague. This special was full of "third-rail stuff," noted O'Brien.

Macdonald riffed on his own "degenerate" gambling sins, his fear of airplane crashes ("Ashes to ashes, stuff to stuff, as the scriptures say"), cannibalism, slut-shaming, racism, transgenderism and his fear of dying and discovering that he picked the wrong religion. He also discusses living wills and giving doctors explicit instructions not to yank "that plug in the wall" in the event of a coma.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Just before I hit the road, I did this bonus podcast with veteran evangelical thinker John Fischer

Just before I hit the road, I did this bonus podcast with veteran evangelical thinker John Fischer

Truth be told, I was on the road most of this week and away from my alleged “office” in the Tennessee Hills.

Thus, I took a very rare break from writing the “On Religion” column for the Universal syndicate. I say “rare” because I literally went 20 years before I took a vacation at all. Well, I did miss one week because I was unconscious during a kidney-stone attack. Things happen.

Just before charging up the car and heading out, I did spend some time with veteran evangelical writer and folk musician on his weekly podcast called “The Catch.” Thus, I will offer this bonus podcast as a substitute for the column that normally fills this weekend slot here at GetReligion.org and, a day or so later, at Tmatt.net, even though this is not a media-criticism feature (for the most part).

Listeners can find this episode at Apple podcasts (click here) or at BlogTalkRadio (click here).

The topic? I have known Fischer since the 1980s and I tried to pull him into a flashback chat about music, the late (and great) Mark Heard, acoustic guitars, guitar strings, etc. I did work in a famous Heard lyric about his dilemma in the “Christian marketplace.” That would be: “I’m too sacred for the sinners and the saints wish I would leave.” Preach it.

Fischer had other ideas for the conversation — as in another discussion of how the word “evangelical” turned into a political label, with “evangelical voters” playing a crucial role at the ballot box, especially for GOP folks in heated primaries.

Naturally, old guy that I am, I flashed back to my history as a Jimmy Carter campaign volunteer at Baylor University in the 1970s, back in the era when — to be blunt about it — many evangelicals were culturally conservative Southern Democrats.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: So many questions after that symbolic Tampa Bay Rays conflict over 'Pride' logos

Podcast: So many questions after that symbolic Tampa Bay Rays conflict over 'Pride' logos

Symbolism often plays a major role in tense clashes between people with competing religious beliefs (or secular beliefs, for that matter).

You could see evidence of this fact during and after the recent kerfuffle about a small group of Tampa Bay Rays players who declined to wear special rainbow-logo uniforms during the team’s recent celebration of Pride Month. The media coverage of this clash was the subject of this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), in part because the stories raised more questions than they answered.

I’ll get to some of those questions, but first let’s look at the Washington Post coverage. Note that this means the Rays conflict was a national story, since the Post doesn’t cover mere regional stories and disputes (see this classic M.Z. Hemingway post about the newspaper’s MIA stance on covering the trial of Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell).

The headline on this sports-desk story: “Rays players make ‘faith-based decision’ to shun Pride Night logos.” Yes, it’s important to note that there are doubts about the nature of this “faith-based” angle. Let’s look at some important passages in this:

A member of the Tampa Bay Rays said he and several teammates made a “faith-based decision” to not wear rainbow-colored logos on their uniforms during a “Pride Night” home game Saturday that recognized the LGBTQ community.

Most Rays players, per accounts from the game, wore the special uniform designs that had a rainbow pattern over the “TB” on their caps and over a sunburst logo on their right sleeves. The team, which has staged Pride Night for several seasons but had not previously included uniform changes, reportedly gave players the option to display the logos or go with the usual look.

The crucial fact there is that team management decided to allow players some degree of free-will in this case. Hold that thought.

Apparently, team management asked pitcher Jason Adam to make a statement on why he, and four others, elected to wear their usual jerseys for this symbolic event. Thus, he said:

“A lot of it comes down to faith, to like a faith-based decision,” said Adam, a 30-year-old in his fifth major league season.


Please respect our Commenting Policy