'Where there is incense there is fire.' True, but reporters can seek voices in middle of that war

'Where there is incense there is fire.' True, but reporters can seek voices in middle of that war

Raise your hand if you are old enough to remember the Vietnam era.

That may sound like a strange question to ask after a weekend of reading the tsunami of online reactions to the decision by Pope Francis to all but crush the 2007 Summorum Pontificum apostolic letter by the now retired Pope Benedict XVI, the document defending the use of the old Latin Mass, now called the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

Now the fighting — another sign of real divisions between Catholic bishops almost everywhere — will almost certainly be turned up to 11. As Father Raymond J. de Souza of the National Catholic Register put it: “Where there is incense there is fire.”

This brings me back to Vietnam. Here’s the phrase that jumped into my mind, about an hour or two into watching the firestorm on Catholic Twitter: “We had to burn the village in order to save it,” the popular paraphrase of a line in an Associated Press report from that era stating, “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”

There appear to be people on both side of the Latin Mass war who are ready to do something like that. Pope Francis has clearly stated that he believes the “ordinary” modern form of the Vatican II Mass cannot live peacefully with rules allowing many Catholics to embrace the faith’s earlier liturgical traditions.

This is an unbelievably complex story and I feel only compassion for the wire-service reporters who had to write short hard-news stories about this action by Pope Francis.

Why? At one point, I started listing some basic facts built into the foundations of this story.

Truth be told, there are:

* Latin Mass activists who reject Vatican II and, from time to time, refer to this pope simply as “Bergoglio,” meaning they still consider him to be Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina — not the real pope. They reject Vatican II, period. Pope Benedict XVI has never been in this camp.

* Progressive Catholics whose hatred of the traditional Mass and its proponents is so fierce that they are willing to roll the dice on schism. They believe the “spirit,” not the actual teachings, of Vatican II must be defended at all costs. Some of these liberal Catholics are openly sympathetic to the doctrinal “reforms” sought by German bishops, which could lead to schism in some form.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Hot Takes: Ryan Burge on return of debates about evangelicals and QAnon (etc.)

Hot Takes: Ryan Burge on return of debates about evangelicals and QAnon (etc.)

Well, Bobby Ross, Jr., is taking the week off.

Thus, I went looking for another list of religion-news material featuring short punchy takes on lots and lots of different topics.

I settled on this VICE News chat with GetReligion contributor Ryan Burge — that must-follow guy on Twitter who is also well known for his work at the Religion in Public weblog.

To say that this punchy little video report includes some Hot Takes is an understatement. Yes, there is a flashback to the whole QAnon and evangelicalism wars.

However, let me stress that there are some producers at VICE News who are sincerely interested in the complex world of American evangelicalism and they are doing their homework. I know this because I sent about three hours with one of their production teams several months ago and I know the wide range of materials that we covered.

That video is still in a vault somewhere. It would be interesting if they turned bites of it into a bullet-list collection of takes similar to this one with the always quotable Burge.

So what shows up in this Burge blast? He put this list out on social media:

Things I discuss in this Vice News video:

QAnon

John Darby

Dispensationalism

Thomas Jefferson as the anti-Christ


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Story worth covering? Life and death challenges tested faith of Suns coach Monty Williams

Story worth covering? Life and death challenges tested faith of Suns coach Monty Williams

A reporter tossed a standard question at coach Monty Williams after the Phoenix Suns won the Western Conference finals, asking how he managed to be a tough NBA coach and a sympathetic mentor.

"I tell every new player … that the essence of my coaching is to serve," said Williams, the National Basketball Coaches Association's 2021 coach of the year. "As a believer in Christ, that's what I'm here for. … I tell them all the time, if I get on you, I'm not calling you out -- I'm calling you up."

That message meshes well with what superstar Chris Paul writes on his sneakers game after game: "Can't Give Up Now." That's a popular Gospel song with this chorus: "I just can't give up now. I've come too far from where I started from. Nobody told me the road would be easy and I don't believe He's brought me this far to leave me."

Williams and Paul have known each other for a decade, with professional and personal ties strengthened by pain and frustration. While Paul's on-court struggles are well documented, it's impossible to understand their bond without knowing the details of his coach's life as a Christian, husband and father of five children.

"The real reason to watch" the playoffs this year, said former ESPN commentator Jason Whitlock, in his "Fearless" podcast, is "that God has placed a messenger inside the NBA's secular madness. Monty Williams might be the most important man in sports. The 49-year-old former Notre Dame and NBA player is the leader and example that America needs right now."

The coach's story, he added, "belongs in a new Bible. Five years ago, a 52-year-old White woman high on meth drove her car headfirst into the car driven by Williams' wife Ingrid. Three of Williams' children were also in the car. The White woman died at the scene. … Ingrid Williams died a day later. Williams' children survived."

Williams was a promising Notre Dame freshman when Ingrid -- before their marriage -- stood by him after doctors said he had hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Long before experts cleared him to play, Ingrid kept praying and offered this message: "Jesus can heal your heart."

Drafted by the New York Knicks, Williams began -- with a defibrillator courtside -- a nine-year NBA career that led into coaching. He quickly became known for his ability to inspire hope and teach leadership.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Newsy question that won't go away: Should Southern Baptist Convention change its name?

Newsy question that won't go away: Should Southern Baptist Convention change its name?

THE QUESTION:

After 176 years, does the Southern Baptist Convention need a new name?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

This question has simmered over the years within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), which is by far America's largest Protestant body. How long? Check out the video at the top of this post (and note the name of the local pastor who was interviewed).

Discussions heated up a decade ago and are now more pertinent than ever, in part due to the growth of African-American churches in the SBC. Some Baptists hope this step toward a fresh new image might help overcome public relations disasters over SBC mishandling of sexual abuse cases, misogyny, racial insensitivity and partisan politicizing of the Gospel -- at a time when slow membership decline follows decades of impressive growth.

One reason to keep the old name is that the SBC has had what historian Bill Leonard calls "a powerful denominational self-consciousness" more than other Protestants. Its clear identity has long been associated with biblical conservatism in belief and energetic evangelistic effort at home and abroad. And yet the SBC faces the general move of U.S. Protestants away from loyalty and identity with a particular denomination. Some SBC congregations no longer emphasize their affiliation or even shun "Baptist" in their name.

Then again, is the Southern Baptist Convention even “southern” any longer? If not, the name is misleading even as it announces a narrowly sectional identity.

The answer to this is “yes” and “no.”

On the one hand, for a generation domestic missionaries and southern expatriates have extended the SBC's presence across the North and West to create a truly nationwide denomination. On the other, about four-fifths of members still live in the traditional turf extending southward from the arc of Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri and Oklahoma.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

New podcast: Spot any 'ghosts' in New York Times story about aid for (large) U.S. families?

New podcast: Spot any 'ghosts' in New York Times story about aid for (large) U.S. families?

At first glance, it looks like another New York Times story about all those public policy debates between the entrenched Republicans and White House, along with the narrow Democratic majorities on Capitol Hill.

But if you look carefully, there is a reason that this Gray Lady update about the arrival of the expanded Child Tax Credit was, to use a turn of phrase from “Crossroads” host Todd Wilken, a “haunted house” of religion-news ghosts. He was riffing on a term your GetReligionistas have used since Day 1 at this blog. (Click here to tune in this week’s GetReligion podcast.)

OK, let’s play “spot the religion ghost.” First, here is the double-decker headline on this report:

Monthly Payments to Families With Children to Begin

The Biden administration will send up to $300 per child a month to most American families thanks to a temporary increase in the child tax credit that advocates hope to extend.

Nine out of 10 children in the United States will be eligible for these payments, which are linked to the COVID-19 crisis, but call back memories of policies from the old War on Poverty. The program will expire in a year, at which point the debates over its effectiveness will crank into a higher gear. Here’s the Times overture:

WASHINGTON — If all goes as planned, the Treasury Department will begin making a series of monthly payments in coming days to families with children, setting a milestone in social policy and intensifying a debate over whether to make the subsidies a permanent part of the American safety net.

With all but the most affluent families eligible to receive up to $300 a month per child, the United States will join many other rich countries that provide a guaranteed income for children, a goal that has long animated progressives. Experts estimate the payments will cut child poverty by nearly half, an achievement with no precedent. …

While the government has increased many aid programs during the coronavirus pandemic, supporters say the payments from an expanded Child Tax Credit, at a one-year cost of about $105 billion, are unique in their potential to stabilize both poor and middle-class families.

As you would expect, many Republicans oppose what they consider a return to old-style “welfare” payments of this kind.

That’s many Republicans, but not all.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Journalists covering Canadian church arsons need to ask: Who's behind these attacks?

Journalists covering Canadian church arsons need to ask: Who's behind these attacks?

We’ve been here before, unfortunately. The “here” to which I am referring is a rash of suspicious church fires. We saw it pre-pandemic across France, during the COVID-19 outbreak in this country last summer and now in Canada just as the virus seemingly dissipates amid increased vaccinations.

In all, there have been fires at 10 Canadian churches — mostly Catholic ones — and multiple acts of vandalism this summer.

Why? That’s the question more mainstream journalists should be asking. So who not ask it?

This is how the Catholic news website Aleteia reported on the incidents in a July 9 report:

The incidents followed news that Native Canadians have used ground-penetrating radar in cemeteries on the grounds of former residential schools, which were part of a Canadian program to assimilate indigenous peoples. The existence of the cemeteries had been known, but the news this spring and summer has put the controversy over the residential schools back in the limelight.

Many of the schools, which stretched across Canada and were in operation from the mid-19th to the late-20th centuries, were run by Catholic religious orders. A truth and reconciliation commission several years ago detailed the ways children were forcibly removed from their families to be educated in European traditions at the schools, forbidden to use their native languages and forced to drop elements of their Native culture.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who has called for Pope Francis to come to Canada to apologize for the Church’s role in the schools, said last week that he understands the anger behind the church burnings but said it was “not something we should be doing as Canadians.”

The way the indigenous people were treated is certainly a stain on Canada’s history and has been a widely reported news story, as it should be, in Canada as well as the United States. The vandalism churches have suffered stemming from that has been covered as well — but notably absent is any journalistic focus or investigation on who may be responsible for these acts and what motivates them.

Are these church burnings hate crimes, even acts of terrorism?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Scripture, faith, race, politics: Mississippi Today on the story behind the state's new flag

Scripture, faith, race, politics: Mississippi Today on the story behind the state's new flag

Every newsroom in which I worked kept a large hardback Bible in the copy desk’s collection of reference books (this was pre-Internet, of course).

I often wondered why this was true, since almost every time I used long quotes in a news story or column in which believers talked about the specifics of their beliefs — because the material was directly linked to crucial facts or their motivations — most newsroom pros rolled their eyes. Those quotes tended to get shortened and, sometimes, edited out. This was especially true when politicians talked about their religious beliefs, for whatever reason.

I thought of this recently when I read a strong Mississippi Today feature — part one of a five-story series — about the role that Speaker of the House Philip Gunn played in changing that state’s controversial flag.

This was a story that centered on a public action, as seen in the headline: “Why Philip Gunn became the first prominent Republican to call for changing the state flag.”

Yes, the word “Republican” is important. But the key word there is “why.” Here is block of material early on that begins to link the political action with the beliefs behind it.

Less than a week before in South Carolina, a young white man walked into a Black church in Charleston and brutally murdered nine worshippers. Because the gunman had publicly documented his obsession with the Confederate battle emblem, the murders inspired debate across the country about the government-sanctioned use of the Confederate symbol.

The TV reporter asked Gunn about the Mississippi state flag, which was the last in the nation containing the Confederate battle emblem. While the camera rolled, Gunn advocated for a new flag.

As soon as Gunn left the fundraiser, he called Nathan Wells, his then-chief of staff and longtime top political adviser. The two had been privately talking for years about their shared disdain of the state flag and how they could work to change it.

“He said, ‘Nathan, uh, I think we need to release a statement,’ ” Wells recounted to Mississippi Today in an interview earlier this year.

That official statement in 2015 said:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Any kind of turnaround for 'Mainline' Protestantism would be big news, but is it true? 

Any kind of turnaround for 'Mainline' Protestantism would be big news, but is it true? 

One danger facing religion-beat veterans is that a broad trend becomes so familiar we overlook its continuing journalistic importance. One example is the year-by-year-by-year decline of America's once-influential "Mainline" Protestant churches over the past half-century, even as conservative or "Evangelical" Protestants generally kept up with population growth -- until recently.

(For additional background, please note that the June 24 Guy Memo lamented media neglect of Mainline angles in spot news coverage. See also this recent Ryan Burge post.)

The Mainline shrinkage is one of this era's momentous changes in American religion, a great void in the public square into which evangelicals moved. Other major trends include the substantial rise of unaffiliated "nones," immigration-driven increases in Hispanic Catholics and followers of Asian religions, and white Catholics' shift from loyal Democrats to pivotal Republican constituency.

It's big stuff if that Mainline Protestant slide has bottomed out or that’s any kind of upswing. And what if Mainliners now suddenly outnumber the rival white Evangelicals (leaving aside the distinctive Black and Hispanic Evangelicals). Such is the scenario in a major new survey released July 8 by the Public Religion Research Institute (contacts at press@prri.org or 202-238-9424).

PRRI tells us that white Mainliners are now 16.4% of the U.S. population, a remarkable gain from 13% as recently as 2016, while white Evangelicals have fallen to 14.5% from a 23% peak in 2006. White Catholics constitute a pretty stable 11.7%.

Politically, Mainliners are divided and thus have less clout than other groups, identifying as 35% Democrats, 33% Republicans, and 30% Independents.

As journalists ponder what to make of this surprising report, begin with what's “Mainline” in the church marketplace. The Guy (and others) say the word designates those Protestant denominations — the so-called “Seven Sisters” — born in Colonial America or the early Republic, with predominantly white memberships, that are affiliated with the National Council of Churches and are tolerant or favorable toward liberal belief. We could add that the well-educated Mainliners typically enjoy relatively high incomes and social status.

Here is the key: This PRRI survey at hand identified Mainliners by what they are not instead of what they are.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Independent, charismatic churches getting new scrutiny, but do reporters get why people choose them?

Independent, charismatic churches getting new scrutiny, but do reporters get why people choose them?

It wasn’t that long ago that I was trying to get reporters to wake up to a whole new world of charismatic/Pentecostal churches that are networked into a movement led by modern-day apostles and prophets.

I chaired a panel at a 2017 gathering of religion reporters in Nashville that had two representatives of this movement plus a third person who opposed it. But very few writers caught on. One reason is because it’s so tough to define. Observers and participants can’t even agree on a name. Some call the movement the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) and others call it the apostolic/prophetic movement.

Then Jan. 6 happened at the US Capitol. Now it seems as though reporters can’t get enough of asking: Who were these people? Every week now seems to be something new about this movement, like this piece in Christianity Today, which is a fairly decent overview of what’s happened since last fall. The reporter wrung some quotes out of reclusive former prophet Jeremiah Johnson, which is a first.

My one plaint is that the CT piece is several months late, as some of us were reporting on this in April. Plus, given the extra time the reporter had, I would have liked to have seen fresher material. And California evangelist Shawn Bolz should have been dinged for wrongly prophesying the end of the coronavirus back in April 2020. The up note the article ends on doesn’t reflect the reality that the majority of the false prophets out there have not repented nor apologized.

On the other side of the spectrum, the Washington Post has come out with two pieces, one including the “cowboy shaman” so visible in the attack on the Capitol and the other an account of a visit to Mercy Culture Church in Fort Worth.

The first piece was an attempt to explain just what these Capitol invaders believe.

Many forces contributed to the attack on the Capitol, including Trump’s false claims of electoral victory and American anger with institutions. But part of the mix, say experts on American religion, is the fact that the country is in a period when institutional religion is breaking apart, becoming more individualized and more disconnected from denominations, theological credentials and oversight.

That has created room for what Yale University sociologist Phil Gorski calls a religious “melee, a free for all.”

I’d definitely agree that it’s everyone for him or herself out there. However, non-denominational churches have been on the scene since the late 1970s. It just took scholars several decades to start tracking them. And do you think the typical church member really cares what the theologians are saying?


Please respect our Commenting Policy