Plug-In: Five key story angles linked to Texas synagogue where hostages were taken

Plug-In: Five key story angles linked to Texas synagogue where hostages were taken

When I first saw news on social media of a ranting man taking hostages at a Texas synagogue Saturday, I immediately clicked the link to an Associated Press report.

To my shock, I discovered that the standoff involved Congregation Beth Israel in Colleyville, Texas.

I first wrote about that suburban congregation nearly two decades ago when I covered religion for AP in Dallas.

In 2004, I did a national feature on “frequent-flier rabbis” filling a need at then-fledgling Congregation Beth Israel and other small Jewish congregations across the nation. That same year, I wrote about Anna Salton Eisen, one of the congregation’s founders, and her Holocaust survivor father, George Lucius Salton.

Just this past October — 17 years later — Eisen trusted me to tell her family’s story again. I wrote a follow-up piece for AP on a surprising “reunion” between Eisen and the children of several Holocaust survivors who were in concentration camps together.

“I started this synagogue with two other families and am heartbroken and fearful,” Eisen wrote on Facebook on Saturday. “What has become of the world?”

I shared her status on my page and asked my friends to pray for a peaceful end. I was so relieved when Rabbi Charlie Cytron-Walker and two other hostages escaped unharmed Saturday night. A fourth hostage was released earlier. The FBI hostage rescue team shot the gunman.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Anglicans are wrestling with 'climate change' in their pews: Will they adapt and survive?

Anglicans are wrestling with 'climate change' in their pews: Will they adapt and survive?

Journalist Michael Kinsley famously added a twist to American politics when he redefined a "gaffe" as when "a politician tells the truth -- some obvious truth he isn't supposed to say."

As the Rev. Neil Elliot of the Anglican Church of Canada discovered, this term also applies to religious leaders.

After seeing 2018 General Synod reports, the denomination's research and statistics expert produced an analysis that included this: "Projections from our data indicate that there will be no members, attenders or givers in the Anglican Church of Canada by approximately 2040."

Reactions to his candor varied, to say the least.

"I think of it very much like … people's responses to climate change," said Elliot, updating his earlier remarks in a video posted by Global News in Canada.

Signs of church "climate" change? In the early 1960s, Anglican parishes in Canada had nearly 1.4 million members. But that 2018 report found 357,123 members, with an average Sunday attendance of 97,421. The church had 1,997 new members that year, while holding 9,074 burials or funerals.

Canada's national statistics agency reported that 10.4% of all Canadians were Anglicans in 1996, but that number fell to 3.8% in 2019.

People have one of three reactions when faced with these kinds of numbers. The first "is denial. People are saying, 'We're, we're … It's not happening,' " said Elliot, while counting the options on one hand. "Then there's people who say, 'We can stop it.' And then there's people who say, 'We can adapt.'

"The adapt language is much more rare and I'm only starting to hear it on the media in the last few months. … That's what I'm trying to get us to do within the Anglican church. It's, 'How do we adapt to it?' not, 'How do we stop it?' or … people burying their heads in the sand."


Please respect our Commenting Policy

New podcast: Sex, marriage and babies are now topics too hot for preachers to handle?

New podcast: Sex, marriage and babies are now topics too hot for preachers to handle?

Hey religion-beat reporters (and even pros who cover politics): Want to find some really interesting stories?

Ask this question: What are the subjects that clergy are afraid to address in the pulpit? This was the big idea looming in the background during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

For example, lots of people interpreted the silence of many super-preachers on the ethics and affairs of Donald Trump as evidence of support for him. It is much more likely (see some of the info in this “On Religion” column) that they knew the people in their pews were divided on this topic.

Thus, they were afraid to discuss it. They didn’t want to start a war.

Here’s another case study, one so old that my reporting on it predates the Internet. But I addressed the topic in this 2016 post here at GetReligion. Remember the “True Love Waits” phenomenon?

Anyway, I realize that for many people the whole "True Love Waits" thing was either a joke or an idealistic attempt to ask young people to do the impossible in modern American culture. …

What fascinated me was that, according to key "True Love Waits" leaders, they didn't struggle to find young people who wanted to take vows and join the program. What surprised them was that many church leaders were hesitating to get on board because of behind-the-scenes opposition from ADULTS in their congregations.

The problem was that pastors were afraid to offend a few, or even many, adults in their churches — even deacons — because of the sexual complications in many lives and marriages, including sins that shattered marriages and homes. Key parents didn't want to stand beside their teens and take the program's vows.

This brings me to some amazing Gallup Poll data that —as far as I can tell — didn’t receive any news coverage when it came out in 2020. There was a Twitter flurry about it the other day, which led to some people re-upping this “story” that wasn’t a “news story.”

The headline on the feature at Gallup: “Is Marriage Becoming Irrelevant?” Here is a chunk of the information that should have raised eyebrows, for reporters and preachers — including clergy who face people sitting in “red,” “conservative” pews.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Do athletes have a moral duty to protest Chinese authoritarianism? How about Elon Musk?

Do athletes have a moral duty to protest Chinese authoritarianism? How about Elon Musk?

Do elite international athletes have a moral responsibility to publicly comment or act in a way that acknowledges their awareness of oppressive — or worse — political conditions in nations in which they compete?

Do societal moral standards require them to speak up, even when criticism and confrontation jeopardize their ability to compete and may threaten to derail an entire career?

The Beijing Winter Olympics — scheduled to begin in early February in and around China’s capital city — makes this a timely question.

Several democratic nations have announced “diplomatic” boycotts of the Beijing competition. They include the United States, Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, and Japan. (To be clear: democratic claims alone do not necessarily stifle a nation’s darker impulses and render it “moral.”)

That means that no political office holders from the the boycotting nations will attend these Games, but qualifying athletes are free to make their own choices about competing.

The following paragraphs from the above linked Washington Post article explain the limits on free speech China is demanding (with International Olympic Committee acquiescence).

The IOC has said athletes will be free to express themselves during the Games as long as they abide by IOC rules barring any demonstrations during sporting events or medal ceremonies.

Athletes could raise any number of issues, including allegations of cultural genocide against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, the erasure of civil freedoms in Hong Kong, and the arrests of human rights lawyers, activists and outspoken Chinese citizens. [Note that the Post left Tibetan issues, a major international sticking point for the West, off this list.]

But Chinese authorities are extremely sensitive to criticism about the country’s human rights record, its role in the outbreak of the covid-19 pandemic, and even the country’s efforts during the Korean War.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Ask this: Why did many flocks survive or thrive in pandemic, while others were hit hard?

Ask this: Why did many flocks survive or thrive in pandemic, while others were hit hard?

Does anyone remember typewriters?

Long ago, I took my very first reporting class at Baylor University. The legendary Jprof David McHam ran this lab as a mini-newsroom. McHam would sit in the “slot” of a U-shaped desk, working with students as we turned in our rough drafts.

I heard him say this many times: “The story is all here, but you wrote it in the wrong order,” or words to that effect. McHam would take his copy-desk pica pole (the birthday cake cutter of choice in newsrooms) and rip our typewriter copy into multiple horizontal pieces, before putting them in a new order, secured with a long strip of clear tape. Then he would say: “Go write the story in that order.”

More often than not, the wise Jprof found crucial information and pulled it higher in the story — if not into the lede itself. In many cases, this was information that created a tension with a simple version of the “news” in the lede. In other words, he was pushing us to acknowledge that many stories were more complex than we wanted to think they were.

With that in mind, let’s look at an important COVID-tide story from the Associated Press: “At many churches, pandemic hits collection plates, budgets.”

Note the word “many” in that headline. I think many readers would assume that the coronavirus pandemic has caused disasters in pews and pulpits and that is that. The evidence, in this story, is more complex than that — especially with a little bit of cutting and pasting. Here is the overture:

Biltmore United Methodist Church of Asheville, North Carolina, is for sale.

Already financially strapped because of shrinking membership and a struggling preschool, the congregation was dealt a crushing blow by the coronavirus. Attendance plummeted, with many staying home or switching to other churches that stayed open the whole time. Gone, too, is the revenue the church formerly got from renting its space for events and meetings.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Is America really threatened by civil war? What is religion's role in these tensions?

Is America really threatened by civil war? What is religion's role in these tensions?

American Civil War talk is all the rage this New Year.

No, not that war, the one that cost 620,000 lives and was evoked by President Biden to castigate Senate Democrats and Republicans who are blocking passage of new election-ballot rules. Rather, The Guy refers to the drumbeat of warnings that the disunited United States may in the near future face an internal legal and economic cold war or some kind of hot war.

National Public Radio's Ron Elving reports that "not long ago the idea of another American Civil War seemed outlandish. These days, the notion has not only gone mainstream, it seems to suddenly be everywhere." He summarized anxiety-producing polls that show a polarized nation, and noted that 434,000,000 firearms are in civilian hands.

Then there's New Yorker Editor David Remnick's article "Is a Civil War Ahead?" New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg likewise wonders, "Are We Really Facing a Second Civil War?" A Times op-ed by former National Security Council staffers Jonathan Stevenson and Steven Simon offers "the worst case scenario" in which "the United States as we know it could come apart at the seams" with "insurrection, secession, insurgency and civil war."

New January books include "The Next Civil War: Dispatches From the American Future" by novelist Stephen Marche, who sees virtually inevitable doom, and the slightly more upbeat "How Civil Wars Start and How to Stop Them" by Barbara F. Walter of the University of California San Diego. (Is it mere coincidence that The Atlantic's London writer Tom McTague is just out with "How Britain Falls Apart"?)

One typical forecaster is all the more interesting because he's Canadian. Thomas Homer-Dixon of Royal Roads University issued a New Year's Eve alarm in the influential Globe and Mail. He believes that as soon as 2025 "American democracy could collapse, causing extreme domestic political instability, including widespread civil violence. By 2030, if not sooner, the country could be governed by a right-wing dictatorship."

Outlandish?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Wall Street Journal: Catholics are losing ground -- rapidly -- in Brazil. What else is new?

Wall Street Journal: Catholics are losing ground -- rapidly -- in Brazil. What else is new?

I’ll always remember a Spanish-speaking woman I interviewed years ago when I was doing an article for the Houston Chronicle on why Catholic immigrants from Latin America switched over to Protestantism soon after they immigrated to the United States.

The answer, this woman told me, was the Rev. Jimmy Swaggart and his radio broadcasts into Central and South America. “Before, we didn’t know we had a choice on who to believe,” is approximately what this woman told me. “But once we heard Jimmy Swaggart on the radio, we knew there was something else out there other than the Catholic Church.”

In the past 40 years, much of the population of Latin America has likewise realized they have faith options and a recent Wall Street Journal piece claims that this trend of mass conversions to Protestantism — and specifically Pentecostalism — has reached a tipping point.

This is news all of a sudden?

RIO DE JANEIRO—Tatiana Aparecida de Jesus used to walk the city’s streets as a sex worker, high on crack cocaine. Last year, the mother of five joined a small Pentecostal congregation in downtown Rio called Sanctification in the Lord and left her old life behind.

“The pastor hugged me without asking anything,” said Ms. de Jesus, 41, who was raised a Catholic and is one of more than a million Brazilians who have joined an evangelical or Pentecostal church since the beginning of the pandemic, according to researchers. “When you are poor, it makes so much of a difference when someone just says ‘good morning’ to you, ‘good afternoon,’ or shakes your hand,” she said.

This has been a huge advantage that the Protestants have pressed home.

These emerging Protestant flocks don’t have a shortage of priests as does the Catholic Church does –- where parishioner-to-clergy ratio mean there’s one priest per several thousand parishioners. Let’s keep reading:

For centuries, to be Latin American was to be Catholic; the religion faced virtually no competition. Today, Catholicism has lost adherents to other faiths in the region, especially Pentecostalism, and more recently to the ranks of the unchurched. The shift has continued under the first Latin American pope.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Novak Djokovic is both Orthodox and unorthodox: Why ignore faith when covering this story?

Novak Djokovic is both Orthodox and unorthodox: Why ignore faith when covering this story?

First things first. I am not a tennis fan. I don’t think I have seriously cared about the outcome of a tennis match since the late Arthur Ashe won Wimbledon in 1975.

Also, as a Baby Boomer at high risk (asthma), I have had both shots and the booster. I am currently in semi-lockdown. I wear a mask when shopping and in jammed public places. I’m one of those folks in the middle — pro-vaccine, but anti-government mandate. What about religious exemptions? As I have written here at GetReligion, that would be a complex U.S. Supreme Court case.

This brings me to the Novak Djokovic drama. I vaguely knew that he was one of the world’s top tennis players, but knew nothing about his unique — bizarre, even — beliefs about a host of medical issues.

Then I saw an image that hit home for me, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian believer. It showed Djokovic doing what Orthodox parents do — helping his young son light prayer candles and venerate icons.

What follows in this post has nothing to do with whether readers think Djokovic is right or wrong, a liar or a Serbian hero, a lunatic or a misunderstood believer, of some kind of another. What I am doing here is asking a journalism question about mainstream coverage of this battle in the wider COVID-19 wars. I read the New York Times, of course, so that was where I immediately went for information.

The question: How could journalists try to tell the story of Djokovic and his opposition to COVID-19 vaccines without digging into his complex and, it seems to me, confusing set of Orthodox and unorthodox religious beliefs? Isn’t that a crucial and factual element of this story?

I am aware, of course, that anti-vaccine sentiment is present in some Orthodox circles — such as Serbia — but certainly not all (my own bishop has been very careful during the pandemic).


Please respect our Commenting Policy