, , , , , , , , , ,

Plug-In: Minichurches and burned-out pastors -- four crucial COVID-19 trends to follow

, , , , , , , , , ,
Plug-In: Minichurches and burned-out pastors -- four crucial COVID-19 trends to follow

COVID-19 rages on.

So does the pandemic’s big impact on American religion.

From in-person attendance declining to pastors burning out, here are four related trends to watch:

(1) Churches changed during the pandemic and many aren’t going back (by Janet Adamy, Wall Street Journal)

“The number of churchgoers has steadily dropped in the U.S. over the past few decades,” Adamy reports. “But Covid-19 and its lockdown restrictions accelerated that fall. In-person church attendance is roughly 30% to 50% lower than it was before the pandemic, estimates Barna Group, a research firm that studies faith in the U.S.”

(2) Why the minichurch is the latest trend in American religion (by Bob Smietana, Religion News Service)

Smietana profiles a small church in Wisconsin, noting, “Cornerstone is part of the fastest-growing group of congregations in America: the minichurch. According to the recently released Faith Communities Today study, half of the congregations in the United States have 65 people or fewer, while two-thirds of congregations have fewer than 100.”

(3) The pastors aren’t all right: 38% consider leaving ministry (by Kate Shellnutt, Christianity Today)

“Pastoral burnout has worsened during the pandemic,” Shellnutt explains. “A Barna Group survey released (this week) found that 38 percent of pastors are seriously considering leaving full-time ministry, up from 29 percent in January.”

See related coverage from the Washington Times, by former GetReligionista Mark A. Kellner.

(4) Most churches find financial stability in 2021 (by Aaron Earls, Lifeway Research)

“Emerging from the pandemic, most churches don’t seem to be underwater financially, but many are treading water,” Earls reports.


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

From Off Broadway to movie screens: The complicated conversion story of C.S. Lewis

, , , , , , ,
From Off Broadway to movie screens: The complicated conversion story of C.S. Lewis

While historians argue about what C.S. Lewis did or didn't say, it can be stated with absolute certainty that the Oxford don never patted down his rumbled, professorial tweed jacket before exclaiming, "Where's my phone?"

That line occurs at the start of "The Most Reluctant Convert," as actor Max McLean enters a movie set preparing for the first scene. Seconds later, the camera follows him into the real Oxford, England, where Lewis was a scholar and tutor at Magdalen College.

At first, the famous Christian writer explains how he became an atheist. When he walks into the real White Horse pub, he orders two pints of beer, with one for the viewer. Soon, scenes from his memories spring to life, with Lewis striding through them as a narrator.

"Lewis is in his imagination. He's personified in his thoughts. … I do think that the structure emerged out of the fact that Lewis had a lot to say," said McLean, laughing.

Thus, director Norman Stone -- a BAFTA winner for BBC's "Shadowlands" -- let the "voice of Lewis articulate his struggle, his passion. He is one of those rare individuals where one's intellect, one's emotions and one's spirituality are completely intertwined," said McLean.

All of this is second nature to McLean since the film covers much of the same territory as his own "C.S Lewis Onstage." This was a one-man show at the Fellowship for Performing Arts in New York City, an off-Broadway company McLean founded and guides as artistic director. It has staged other Lewis works, such as "The Screwtape Letters" and "The Great Divorce," drawing warm reviews from The New York Times and other major publications.

The first-person narration, explained McLean, was primarily drawn from Lewis' autobiography, "Surprised by Joy," and the many volumes of his personal letters.

The jump from stage to screen, of course, allowed the film's creators to seek permission to film in some of the most important sites linked to Lewis' life.


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

Many like to speculate: What was the biblical 'thorn in the flesh' that plagued St. Paul?

, , , , , , ,
Many like to speculate: What was the biblical 'thorn in the flesh' that plagued St. Paul?

THE QUESTION:

What was the biblical "thorn in the flesh" that so plagued St. Paul?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

We'll never be sure. But the question is perennially fascinating.

"Thorn in the flesh" is one of many commonplace phrases we take from the Bible. It appears in 2 Corinthians chapter 12, where St. Paul writes that he knew "a man" -- modestly referring to himself -- who was "caught up into Paradise and heard things that are not to be told." He describes the aftermath of his powerful experience in verses 7-9:

To keep me from being too elated, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I appealed to the Lord about this, that it would leave me, but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.” So, I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. (New Revised Standard Version)

Other English translations say "arrogant," "conceited," "lifted up," "proud" or "exalted" instead of "elated."

Christians through history have pondered what so plagued this New Testament writer and Christian founder (though we can imagine his close colleagues knew). Some say it was a interior spiritual or psychological challenge, while others see opponents, obstacles or persecution his pioneer missionary work coped with.

Many focus on the telltale word "flesh" and insist it must have been some physical malady.


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

Podcast: Why was the New York Times so interested in Marvin Olasky? Take a guess ...

, , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Why was the New York Times so interested in Marvin Olasky? Take a guess ...

Why was The New York Times so interested in Marvin Olasky and his views on journalism and Christian faith?

That’s a question that I heard several times this week from readers and others.

Actually, the Times published a previous article on Olasky, which I mentioned in a post here earlier this week (“Wut happened? Tensions behind World's move to push Olasky out of his editor's chair”). So let’s tweak that question a bit, to get to the point that host Todd Wilken and I discussed in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to listen to it).

Why was the Times team so interested — it’s a long, complex feature — in Olasky right now?

Actually, the answer to that question is pretty clear. Read the headline: “His Reasons for Opposing Trump Were Biblical. Now a Top Christian Editor Is Out.” Now,. read the thesis statement:

At one level, Mr. Olasky’s departure is just another example of the American news media sinking deeper into polarization, as one more conservative news outlet, which had almost miraculously retained its independence, is conquered by Mr. Trump.

It also marks the end of a remarkable era at a publication that has shaken evangelical churches and related institutions with its deeply reported articles. … At a time when hot takes get the clicks, these articles offered something old-fashioned and hard for any community to take: accountability reporting.

That’s actually two answers, isn’t it.

Answer No. 1: Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump. Answer No. 2: Olasky has built a magazine known for producing hard-news articles. That’s rare, in today’s digital world dominated by a quick-click business model that loves opinions and commentary work. The editorial approach at World was shaped by cultural, religious conservatism, more than partisan politics.

Think of this magazine as an evangelical version of the late, great New Republic.


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

How will media cover the secretive Afghan mullah who will shape Islam's global status?

, , , , , , , , ,
How will media cover the secretive Afghan mullah who will shape Islam's global status?

Showing his age, The Guy notes with amusement that early in his career "Afghanistanism" meant "the practice (as by a journalist) of concentrating on problems in distant parts of the world while ignoring controversial local issues" (per the authoritative Merriam-Webster)!

Today, many will argue that no nation is more important in news terms than the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, which affects both international turmoil and Islam's global status and cultural direction.

Journalists may ask, “Why?” This is probably the most heavily Muslim of nations and the Taliban who regained power in August proudly proclaim totalist governance based upon strictly interpreted and enforced Sharia (Islamic religious law). This example of Islam in action presents a huge challenge to the world religion.

A two-page (paywalled) Wall Street Journal status report by chief foreign correspondent Yaroslav Trofimov last weekend said the militantly Sunni Taliban have yet to impose the harshest policies that provoked wide condemnation during the prior Taliban years in power.

But the future is iffy.

For the moment, females seem able to attend primary school, but mostly not high school and college. Rigid bans on women leaving home unless accompanied by male relatives have not reappeared, and some women continue careers though many do not.

Public spectacles of beheading of opponents, and street beatings by religious police, have not resumed (though there are social-media rumors), nor have music and visual art yet been restricted. Shia and Sufi Muslims, and the tiny enclaves of non-Muslims, are understandably anxious, along with Christians, both coverts and missionaries who chose to remain after the exodus. (Other aspects of autocratic rule are commonplace in that part of the world.)


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, ,

Believe it or not: A story that gives decent coverage to a Catholic crisis pregnancy center

, ,
Believe it or not: A story that gives decent coverage to a Catholic crisis pregnancy center

I’ve been so used to reading snide MSM articles about pro-lifers in Texas who are reveling in the state’s new anti-abortion regs — and the lengths women in that state are going to have abortions.

So, when I saw a positive take on the head of a crisis pregnancy clinic, I did a double take.

On Saturday, the Washington Post profiled Tere Haring’s crisis pregnancy clinic in San Antonio and her assertion that: Give a woman some diapers and you’ll save a baby.

The best quote in the piece:

“I always tell people, ‘Diapers save a lot more babies than ultrasounds.’ ” Haring said. “I don’t want an ultrasound machine. I want tons of diapers. Buy me $20,000, $40,000, $50,000 worth of diapers because if you have a woman who comes in with four kids — yeah, looking at the baby, she realizes it’s a human being. But if you tell her, ‘I’m going to give you diapers for all four kids,’ believe me, the diapers for all four kids is going to save that baby a lot quicker than a little pennant on the screen.”

Wow — a piece about a Catholic woman doing the unglamorous work of helping the pregnant and poor through a crisis pregnancy center — written with no snark whatsoever.

That’s historic. And against the grain, judging from the horrible comments appended to the piece, many written by some really demented people who can’t conceive of someone out of the goodness of her heart doing such a work.

It’s been my position that there are tons of religious folks all over the globe who do valiant work for unpopular causes. It just takes a little digging to find them. And reporter Casey Parks, who worked for the Oregonian 11 years before coming to the Post this past September, found one.

SAN ANTONIO — Tere Haring worked the math. Already, the antiabortion nonprofit she runs had given away a record number of baby items during the pandemic. She’d helped five women a day in 2020, and she’d handed out 71 car seats, 45,569 diapers, and $71,000 in rent assistance. Then, in September, a state law banning abortions after six weeks went into effect. By late October, Haring was seeing seven or eight clients a day. The phone rang, then rang again.

That uptick was just the beginning, Haring figured.


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

Holy Communion wars: What is news at this week's USCCB meeting depends on what you read

, , , , , , , , ,
Holy Communion wars: What is news at this week's USCCB meeting depends on what you read

What is news?

It’s the key question editors and reporters continuously ask themselves when approaching and covering a major event.

Days before a pre-scheduled event or meeting like a political convention or the Super Bowl, these same people working in newsrooms prepare for what they can expect — although much of journalism deals with the unexpected such as a scandal, a crime or natural disaster.

Reporters are not in the seeing-the-future business — but there are storylines that they look for ahead of a pre-arranged event.

One such event will be the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops annual fall meeting in Baltimore (the first in-person assembly since the pandemic struck in March 2020) that started Monday and runs through Thursday. What used to be largely overlooked week by mainstream news organizations, the meeting has been catapulted into the spotlight in recent years for several reasons.

Many prominent Catholic bishops have become increasingly vocal in the ongoing culture wars and that’s drawn more media attention. At the same time, American Catholics have increasingly become split along political and doctrinal lines on issues such as abortion during the trump years. Last year’s election of Joe Biden, the first Catholic president since John F. Kennedy in 1960, and his open advocacy of pro-abortion policies.

Thus, the USCCB meeting has become a news even that now lives outside the Catholic media ecosystem. Alas, there may even be political-desk reporters covering this event.

The main storyline since the 2020 election season has been the ongoing argument over whether Catholic politicians who openly advocate for abortion are in direct conflict with church teachings and therefore should not receive Holy Communion.


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

Wut happened? Tensions behind World's move to push Olasky out of his editor's chair

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Wut happened? Tensions behind World's move to push Olasky out of his editor's chair

First things first: Readers need to know that Marvin Olasky has been a friend of mine for yearly three decades. If I was dangling off a cliff, I’d trust Olasky to hold the rope.

Through the years, Marvin and I have disagreed on many journalism issues and had some stimulating debates. For example: He was dead right when, in the first years of Internet life, he predicted that life in the digital world — think social media in particular — would undercut old-school standards of balance and objectivity in journalism. In GetReligion terms, think “Kellerism” and much of today’s New York Times.

Back to the present, and a pretty solid Times piece that is lighting up Twitter. Here’s the double-decker headline:

His Reasons for Opposing Trump Were Biblical. Now a Top Christian Editor Is Out.

A clash over culture and politics comes to World, a groundbreaking journalistic institution that covers evangelical Christians.

There is, of course, no way to leave Donald Trump out of this story, with Olasky submitting his resignation (he was planning to retire next summer) after a coup in the World board after several years of tensions. Among the hot-button issues, readers learn, were COVID-19 masks and voter fraud (#DUH).

As I said, the story is pretty good, with Olasky — rare, this — portrayed in the elite press as a good guy. However, there is one statement that I need to challenge right up front:

At one level, Mr. Olasky’s departure is just another example of the American news media sinking deeper into polarization, as one more conservative news outlet, which had almost miraculously retained its independence, is conquered by Mr. Trump.

Has the newsroom at World been “conquered by Trump”?

I would say that we do not know that, yet. It’s clear that the World board signed off on the creation of an ambitious World-branded commentary website — without Olasky’s approval as editor. But do we know that the news team will not bravely carry on with its work?

We do not know that, do we?


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

Plug-in: Supreme Court questions inmate's demand for vocal prayers in Texas death chamber

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Plug-in: Supreme Court questions inmate's demand for vocal prayers in Texas death chamber

Last week, we set the scene for the U.S. Supreme Court’s hearing of a religious freedom case involving a Texas death-row inmate.

This week, we summarize the mixed response justices gave in that inmate’s case.

Christianity Today’s Daniel Silliman lays out the plot aptly:

If you give a man in a Texas execution chamber the right to a prayer, is he entitled to two?

Can he ask for candles?

Or Communion?

If the United States Supreme Court says a condemned man has the religious right to have his pastor touch his foot while the state injects a lethal dose of chemicals into his veins, then will the court also have to allow a pastor to touch a man’s hand, his head, or even the place where the needle pierces the skin?

The justices quizzed attorney Seth Kretzer about the slippery slope of death penalty prayer on Tuesday morning, as they weighed whether the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), passed by Congress in 2000, give 37-year-old John Henry Ramirez the right to have his pastor lay hands on him and pray aloud when the state of Texas puts him to death.

The high court was skeptical of the inmate’s “demand that his pastor be allowed to pray out loud and touch him during his execution,” according to The Associated Press’ Jessica Gresko.

Justice Clarence Thomas raised concerns “about inmates ‘gaming the system’ by asserting dubious religious claims that served to delay their executions, notes the Wall Street Journal’s Jess Bravin.

The court “seemed divided,” explains the Washington Post’s Robert Barnes, who produced a “deeply reported and evocative” advance piece on the case, reporting from Corpus Christi, Texas.


Please respect our Commenting Policy