GetReligion
Monday, April 07, 2025

Baptist Press

When covering Moore's exit from SBC power, scribes should ponder what made him 'liberal'

When covering Moore's exit from SBC power, scribes should ponder what made him 'liberal'

This may be a strange place to start when discussing early news coverage of the Rev. Russell Moore moving from the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission — the crucial Southern Baptist camp in Beltway land — to what looks like a Christianity Today think tank on theology and public life.

So be it. This is where we will start — with the whole Moore is “too liberal” thing.

What does “liberal” mean in that curse that has been tossed about in Baptist social media?

Remember that one of Moore’s primary duties in Washington, D.C., has been to help Southern Baptists defend against attacks on religious liberty and the First Amendment in general. With that in mind, let me return to a question that I have been asking here at GetReligion — while focusing on the role that labels play in American journalism — for a decade or so. This is from a 2015 post:

What do you call people who are weak in their defense of free speech, weak in their defense of freedom of association and weak in their defense of religious liberty (in other words, basic First Amendment rights)?

The answer: I don't know, but it would be totally inaccurate — considering the history of American political thought — to call these people "liberals."

So what do you call someone, like Moore, who has been defending free speech, defending the freedom of association and defending religious liberty?

Wait. For. It. You can accurately call him a “liberal” in that context. In this framework, the New York Times editorial pages and, in many cases, the American Civil Liberties Union, are now — what? What is the accurate term, these days?

Note that this struggle to define “liberal” was at the heart of the celebrated clash between Bari Weiss and the Times. I would argue that it was part of the newsroom warfare that led to the ousting of Liz Spayd as the Times public editor (when she dared to ask if the newspaper was committed to fair, accurate coverage of half of America). It’s at the heart of the growing tensions between gay-rights icon Andrew Sullivan and the LGBTQ establishment. I could go on and on.

But back to another cluster of issues linked to Moore.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Sports Illustrated almost asks: Is Trevor Lawrence too serious about his faith to be a great QB?

Sports Illustrated almost asks: Is Trevor Lawrence too serious about his faith to be a great QB?

If you’re into sports, you know that the National Football League player draft took place a few days ago. And if you’re into football — college or professional — you know that the name called as the first pick in this draft was a foregone conclusion.

The Jacksonville Jaguars won the race to the bottom of the 2020 standings, which allowed them to select one of the most highly rated quarterback prospects ever — Trevor Lawrence of Clemson, a 6-foot-6, 220-pound superstar who lost a total of two games in college.

The assumption was that Lawrence had everything that any NFL executive or coach would want.

Then again, maybe not. Shortly before the crowning ceremony, Sports Illustrated published an eyebrow-raising feature on the quarterback with this double-decker headline:

The Unrivaled Arrival of Trevor Lawrence

The best quarterback to come into the draft in nearly a decade, Lawrence will enter the NFL with the billing of a generational signal-caller, a keen sense of self and a burning desire to prove absolutely nothing.

Now, what did that final phrase mean, the statement that Lawrence had a “burning desire to prove absolutely nothing”?

Maybe it had something to do with his father saying that he told his gifted son: “God has given you a great gift. But you know, at some point when the game’s taken more from you than it’s giving to you, you need to step away.” Or maybe it was this statement by his high-school coach in Georgia: “[Trevor] will play as long as God wants him to.”

Clearly religious faith was a problematic part of this young man’s mental and emotional make-up.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Obvious question: Maybe Christian faith played a role in the Scott Drew and Baylor hoops story?

Obvious question: Maybe Christian faith played a role in the Scott Drew and Baylor hoops story?

Frankly, I am not the most enthusiastic of Baylor University alums (I once passed up a request to apply for a faculty slot by telling the president that I had already died once in Waco wasn’t anxious for a reprise).

Still, you didn’t think that the Baylor basketball team was going to win the national championship (after being a favorite in the COVID-canceled 2020 dance) without a word of comment here? I mean, I have heard from other Baylor grads who worked their way through lots of the mainstream news coverage of the March Madness finale while thinking “ghost,” “ghost,” “another religion ghost.”

Yes, this was the Texas Baptists vs. Jesuits matchup that hoops fans wanted. And then you had the simple reality that Baylor (for better and for worse) is the world’s most prominent Baptist academic institution.

But how could the press ignore or short-change the fact that the story of coach Scott Drew and his underdog Bears was packed with valid religion facts and themes? Would all fans care that Final Four MVP Jared Butler teaches a Sunday School class for little kids? Probably not. But millions of people would.

But they key to everything was this big question: Why was Drew at Baylor in the first place? Why did he pack up and head to Waco 18 years ago, when the program was dead, dead, dead or worse. Here’s the top of a long CBS Sports feature: “Scott Drew never let others change his story, path or program, and that's how he led Baylor to its first title.”

Leaping into the arms of his staff. College basketball's happiest coach on his happiest night. When it was over, Drew brought everyone into a huge circle on the court. They kneeled and said a prayer.

The greatest program reinvention in men's college basketball history was complete.

Drew took the Baylor job in 2003 when the program was near disintegration. The job Drew's done at Baylor in the 18 years since – impressive is an understatement. There was no set of instructions when he got there, because there wasn't even a drawer to put them in. This was not a rebuild; what Baylor could be, in 2003, was a figment of Drew's imagination.

Drew is described in all kinds of upbeat, but strange, ways. This is one happy, upbeat, positive-thinking weirdo. Does it matter that, when he describes his bond with Baylor, he talks in terms of Christian faith, family and a sense that God called him to this job? Is that part of this national news story, just because Drew says so and there is tons of evidence that he means it?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Which issue drew more ink? SBC on Trump-era rifts, race, #ChurchToo abuse, gay marriage

Which issue drew more ink? SBC on Trump-era rifts, race, #ChurchToo abuse, gay marriage

Here’s a question for GetReligion readers, including journalists: Are you surprised that the Southern Baptist Convention still believes sex outside of marriage is sin and, yes, that marriage is defined — by two millennia of Christian teaching — as the union of man and woman?

All of you who are surprised, please raise your hands.

There shouldn’t be many hands in the air on that one.

Now, would you say that SBC action on that question is, well, sexier than the decision by the national convention’s executive committee to oust two congregations for violating guidelines on sexual abuse, following in the wake of many #ChurchTwo revelations (especially in major Texas newspapers)?

Meanwhile, SBC President J.D. Greear offered up a blistering speech to the executive committee in which he addressed what he called demonic attacks on SBC unity, attacks centering on two hot-button topics — racism and (to be blunt) Donald Trump-era politics.

Of these four issues, want to guess which drew mainstream-press headlines? That’s the question that host Todd Wilken and I discussed during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast. Click here to tune that in or head over to iTunes to subscribe.

According to the Associated Press, the biggest news was that totally predictable decision linked to marriage and sex. Meanwhile, I am happy to report that The New York Times produced a story that, while the headline was predictable (“Southern Baptists Expel 2 Churches Over Sex Abuse and 2 for L.G.B.T.Q. Inclusion”), was updated to become a solid look at the tensions surrounding Greear and some of these issues. We will come back to both of those stories.

But first, I think GetReligion readers need to read a large chunk of the (edited) text from the Greear broadside. (Click here for Baptist Press coverage and, most of all, here for a file that includes the full video.)

The key: Greear sets out to affirm the 1980s SBC move to the right on issues of biblical authority, while repudiating what he calls the “leaven of the Pharisees” emerging on the SBC’s right flank. The following is long, I know, but essential to understanding what is happening right now in America’s largest Protestant flock:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

New podcast: 'Screen' culture tied to loneliness; can clergy build bridges with same tech?

New podcast: 'Screen' culture tied to loneliness; can clergy build bridges with same tech?

The coronavirus pandemic has created a wide variety of religion-beat stories — from empty local pews to the U.S. Supreme Court debating how many people can occupy local pews. And sometimes it feels like all roads during this crisis, for better or worse, lead to the internet.

Yes, we had lots of ground to cover in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in).

Empty local pews have, in some cases, led to near-empty offering plates. Leaders in religious groups that were struggling before COVID-19 — look for closing congregations, seminaries, colleges and even cathedrals — are now hearing the demographics clock tick, tick, tick even louder.

We’re talking about huge stories, but they are also stories that are hard for journalists to cover, simply because they require information at the local, regional and national levels.

It was easy to cover local clergypersons as they learned to mount smartphones atop camera tripods and stream worship services to their locked-down flocks (as opposed to megachurches that already had cameras and massive websites). It was also easier to cover black-sheep clergy that rebelled against social-distancing guidelines than it was to report on the remarkable efforts of leaders in entire denominations and religious traditions seek ways for their people to worship as best they could within constantly evolving (and often hostile) government guidelines.

Journalists, of course, were also being affected by lockdowns and, in some cases, budget cuts. This was an equal-opportunity crisis.

Let me give you an example of an important story that everyone knows is unfolding right now. Consider this Baptist Press headline: “Pandemic division causing pastors to leave ministry, pastoral mentor says.” Here is the overture:

Brian Croft jokes that masks are the new “color of the carpet argument” in churches, with similarly poor outcomes. Pastors are resigning from the stress “kind of in a way I’ve never really seen.”

The founder of Practical Shepherding transitioned from fulltime pastoring to lead the shepherding outreach fulltime in January, pulled by a need for coaching and counseling that has steadily increased among pastors over the past decade.

Then came COVID-19.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

New podcast: New York Times says 'Christian nationalism' tied to white 'evangelical power'

New podcast: New York Times says  'Christian nationalism' tied to white 'evangelical power'

At the 2016 Southern Baptist Convention, messengers from churches across the nation approved a resolution calling for Americans to “discontinue the display of the Confederate battle flag as a sign of solidarity of the whole Body of Christ.”

The speaker of the Mississippi House of Representatives, Philip Gunn, was there (full Baptist Press report here) as chair of the Southern Baptist Seminary board of trustees. He went home determined to help do something about his state’s flag. Mississippi’s new flag dropped the Confederate symbolism of the old, replaced by a magnolia blossom and the phrase “In God We Trust.”

This is clearly an example of a major evangelical institution using its clout — “power,” if you will.

This brings us — using a back door, I will admit — to this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to listen to that), which focuses on the waves of coverage about Christians symbols and banners among participants in both the “Save America March” backing Donald Trump and the deadly riot outside and inside the U.S. Capitol. How did some F-bomb screaming rioters end up chanting “Hang Mike Pence!” while others nearby played loud Contemporary Christian Music?

The hook for this rather complicated podcast discussion with host Todd Wilken was one of those voice-from-on-high, magisterial New York Times passages — with zero attribution to sources — that speaks for the Acela Zone ruling elites. The double-decker headline proclaimed:

How White Evangelical Christians Fused With Trump Extremism

A potent mix of grievance and religious fervor has turbocharged the support among Trump loyalists, many of whom describe themselves as participants in a kind of holy war.

Are we talking about ALL Trump loyalists? Or is it simply MANY of them? Hold that thought, because we will return to it shortly.

But here is the key passage that needs to be read carefully, more than once:

The blend of cultural references, and the people who brought them, made clear a phenomenon that has been brewing for years now: that the most extreme corners of support for Mr. Trump have become inextricable from some parts of white evangelical power in America. Rather than completely separate strands of support, these groups have become increasingly blended together.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Yearenders-palooza: What do a swarm of religion websites want you to read about 2020 news?

Yearenders-palooza: What do a swarm of religion websites want you to read about 2020 news?

Once upon a time, it was normal for news organizations to produce lists of the Top 10 stories of the year, usually with the emphasis on their city, region or nation. Others focused on the concerns of their readers or the unique editorial viewpoint of the publication. Some focused on the whole world or a specific kind of news in the world.

That was then. This year, I can’t even find a hard-news Top 10 list at The Associated Press mega-promotional page for “The Year in Review.” If I missed that list somewhere, please let me know.

Here at GetReligion, we have published several items looking back and also looking forward:

* Of course the pandemic was top 2020 religion-news story: But which COVID-19 story?

* So what went wrong in #2020, other than that whole coronavirus pandemic thing?

* Final #2020 podcast: The year when religion news went viral, and that was a bad thing

* New year and many old issues: Catholic storylines journalists need to keep an eye on in 2021

* Pondering 'Things to Come,' with help from savvy thumbsuckers and backgrounders

We will have a collection of Bobby Ross, Jr., items on 2020 — from several different angles — this coming Monday.

What happened to the old Top 10 list format?

It got lost, of course, in the need to point niche readers toward specific links of topical news, features and commentaries, hoping that they will click, click, click there way through a specific website’s offerings.

There’s nothing wrong with that, of course. After all, I just hit readers with a blitz of #2020 GetReligion URLs.

Now, let me point readers toward lots of other features of this kind elsewhere, all with specialty religion-news hooks. If I missed some good ones, please let me know in our comments pages.

First, there is “Our best religion stories from a terrible year” at Religion News Service. Summary:

It’s no news that 2020 will go down as one of the worst years in recent memory. But the triple-whammy of pandemic, economic crisis and demonstrations for racial justice that left many Americans beleaguered and angry also yielded some inspiring and profound stories of faith and spiritual connection. Here are 11 stories by our staff and frequent contributors that captured moments of resilience and perseverance, and even a few moments of celebration.

Looking ahead, there is this: “RNS reporters on the big stories they expect to cover in 2021.” As a sample, here is the item from veteran religion-news scribe Bob Smietana:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Pondering 'Things to Come,' with help from savvy thumbsuckers and backgrounders

Point of personal privilege. "Things to Come" is the title of a Religion Guy favorite, Dizzy Gillespie's jazz pulse-pounder from 1946 that's ever contemporary. Check out this remarkable high school performance just last year.

Turning to our beat's things to come in 2021 and beyond, here are some savvy thumbsuckers and backgrounders you might have missed.

Evangelicals and the ineludible Donald J. Trump — The outgoing President, who told Religion News Service this year he's "a non-denominational Christian," hopes to control the Republican Party through 2024 with attendant media visibility. His politically crucial following among white Catholics may well fade, but what will his digital dominance mean for those ultra-loyal white evangelical Protestants?

GetReligion contributor and political scientist Ryan Burge, who emerged as never before this year as the go-to guy on religion and U.S. politics, says the evangelical "brand" is not as tarnished by Trump as many suppose. Two major surveys show little variation in Americans identifying with the movement – currently 34.6% – over the past decade. Another Burge opus reinforces The Guy's observation on Trump-era political and moral chasm between evangelical leadership and the grassroots.

Speaking of evangelical leaders, none has done more significant work than attorney David French in two decades defending freedom for religious groups and individuals, especially on secular campuses. He says he's seen up front the "astonishing intolerance and even outright hatred" that a relentless "illiberal left" is aiming against good-hearted believers. (Did that help the Republicans in November?)

French's weekly religion column for TheDispatch.com has become a must-read, though few fellow conservatives will cheer when he turns to fiery anti-Trump sermons. One column branded "Christian Trumpism" as "idolatry" that threatens American law and order. Another contended that evangelicals bring hostility upon themselves over issues like race and immigration that face the U.S. in the 2020s.

An election eve reflection by Christianity Today's new CEO Timothy Dalrymple took a more temperate approach to these issues.

American Christianity in “free fall”? — Last year's big Pew Research report on the decline of U.S. Christianity provoked historian Philip Jenkins to respond that those "nones" who tell pollsters their religion is "nothing in particular" are surprisingly religious.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Would third SCOTUS win allow some reluctant evangelical Trump voters to abandon ship?

During this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), host Todd Wilken and I focused on this question: Will the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court help President Donald Trump on Election Day 2020?

The answer, you would think, is pretty obvious: Yes, since it would be another example of Trump keeping a campaign promise from 2016. Remember that famous list of potential justices he released during that tense campaign?

It’s also true that Barrett would be filling a third open chair on the high court during a single four-year term, a stunning development that few would have anticipated. Thus, Barrett’s confirmation would enthuse the Trump base and help get out the evangelical vote. Correct?

Maybe not. Consider the overture of this think piece — “The Supreme Court deal is done: Would this SCOTUS win mean that all those reluctant Trump voters could abandon ship?“ — that ran the other day at The Week. Bonnie Kristian’s logic may upset some Trump supporters, but she has a point:

The necessary and compelling reason to vote for President Trump in 2016, for many white evangelicals and other conservative Republicans, was the Supreme Court. That reason is now gone.

Or it will be soon, if Republican senators can manage to avoid COVID-19 infections long enough to confirm Amy Coney Barrett's nomination. … Her confirmation can and probably will be done before Election Day, at which point Trump's SCOTUS voters can — and, on this very basis, should — dump him as swiftly and mercilessly as he'd dump them were they no longer politically useful.

The Supreme Court vote for Trump was never a good rationale for backing him in the 2016 GOP primary, because every other candidate would have produced a very similar SCOTUS nomination shortlist. But once Trump was the party's chosen champion against Democrat Hillary Clinton, the certainty that the next president would fill at least one seat (replacing the late Justice Antonin Scalia) made the Supreme Court, in the words of pundit Hugh Hewitt, "Trump's trump card on the #NeverTrumpers."

Ah! Someone paid attention to the fault line in the white evangelical vote that Christianity Today spotted early on, and that your GetReligionistas have been discussing ever since.

So, once again, let’s consider that 2016 headline at CT: “Pew: Most Evangelicals Will Vote Trump, But Not For Trump.


Please respect our Commenting Policy