, , , , , , , , , ,

Can someone please report on the real Ginni Thomas? The truth is out there

, , , , , , , , , ,
Can someone please report on the real Ginni Thomas? The truth is out there

If it’s late winter, it must be time to report on the U.S. Supreme Court, its upcoming decisions and particularly about its most senior justice, Clarence Thomas.

Thomas is also the lone Black justice, although that may change in that President Joe Biden is poised elect the first black woman to the high court.

Two investigative stories have come out recently about Ginni Thomas, the second wife of the Supreme Court justice, and how her political activities are allegedly compromising her famous husband. One was this New Yorker piece and the other is this lengthy New York Times Magazine piece. I’ll be critiquing the latter in a moment, but I do want to excerpt one paragraph from the New Yorker piece:

Ginni Thomas has complained that she and her husband have received more criticism than have two well-known liberal jurists with politically active spouses: Marjorie O. Rendell continued to serve on the appeals court in Pennsylvania while her husband at the time, Ed Rendell, served as the state’s governor; Stephen Reinhardt, an appeals-court judge in California, declined to recuse himself from cases in which the American Civil Liberties Union was involved, even though his wife, Ramona Ripston, led a branch of the group in Southern California.

She may have a point. When I read the adulation that that the Times accords to people like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who made no secret of her political leanings) or Hillary Clinton (who wrote the book on activist wives), Ginni Thomas may be justified in complaining.

This is not to say she doesn’t have her issues, even with her Republican friends, and I’m not objecting to the reporting on Ginni Thomas’ activities about town. Fair is fair, but I simply don’t see the same disdain and suspicion meted out to activist spouses on the Left. Whenever the latter is politically active, that’s laudable. But if it’s someone on the cultural Right –- well, they’re compromisers.

I am no expert on anything pertaining to the U.S. Supreme Court; I’ve covered two or three hearings in person over the years and that’s that. So I’ll stick to the religious content of the piece. Here are two paragraphs that appear in the middle of the piece:


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

Eastern Orthodox thinking on Ukraine? Reporters can't settle for the predictable voices

, , , , , , , , , ,
Eastern Orthodox thinking on Ukraine? Reporters can't settle for the predictable voices

For the past week or so, I have been getting quite a few emails and messages from people wanting to understand what “the Orthodox” think about the invasion of Ukraine.

That’s a massive question. In my experience, the Orthodox are praying for a ceasefire and negotiations, seeking a Ukraine that is militarily independent of the United States-European Union and, certainly, Vladimir Putin’s Moscow regime.

At this point, no one should be surprised that Orthodox leaders aligned with USA-EU and Turkey are releasing fierce statements against Putin’s arrogant and evil invasion of Ukraine. At the same time, no one should be surprised that Patriarch Kirill of Moscow has tried to call for peace, while avoiding any language that openly clashes with the autocrat next door. You end up with language such as:

As the Patriarch of All Russia and the primate of a Church whose flock is located in Russia, Ukraine, and other countries, I deeply empathize with everyone affected by this tragedy.

I call on all parties to the conflict to do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties. I appeal to the bishops, pastors, monastics, and laity to provide all possible assistance to all victims, including refugees and people left homeless and without means of livelihood.

The Russian and Ukrainian peoples have a common centuries-old history dating back to the Baptism of Rus’ by Prince St. Vladimir the Equal-to-the-Apostles. I believe that this God-given affinity will help overcome the divisions and disagreements that have arisen that have led to the current conflict.

Note this meek language — “I call on all parties to the conflict to do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties” — that still manages to condemn the current actions of Russia’s leaders.

Anyone seeking the “Orthodox mind” on this matter needs to remember that Eastern Orthodoxy, no matter what Western media think, has no pope and that its (I should candidly say “our”) conciliar approach to settling disputes moves very slowly, with good cause.


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

Plug-In: Why some experts insist Vladimir Putin is motivated by history and religion

, , , , , , , , ,
Plug-In: Why some experts insist Vladimir Putin is motivated by history and religion

What’s religion got to do with Russia’s attack on Ukraine?

A whole lot, according to some experts.

Writing at GetReligion early this month (then republished by Religion Unplugged), Richard Ostling stressed that journalists shouldn’t neglect the importance of the Byzantine histories of the two rival Orthodox churches in Ukraine. Readers will also want to see tmatt’s Feb. 19 “think piece” building on that: “Thinking about Orthodox history and the complex West vs. East divisions in Ukraine.”

Ostling, retired longtime religion writer for Time magazine and The Associated Press, noted:

Russia and Ukraine contain, by far, the two largest national populations in Eastern Orthodox Christianity. The new World Christian Encyclopedia edition — which belongs in every media and academic library — counts 114 million Orthodox in Russia, for 79% of the population, and 32 million in Ukraine, for 73%.

Terminology note for writers: “Eastern Orthodox” is the precise designation for such churches — related historically to the Ecumenical Patriarchate based in Turkey — that affirm the definition of Jesus Christ’s divinity by the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451). The separate branch of so-called “Oriental Orthodox” is non-Chalcedonian; its largest national church is in Ethiopia.

Ukraine’s ecclesiastical history, like its political history, is highly complex. The saga began with the A.D. 988 “baptism of Rus” in Kyiv — Russians prefer “Kiev” — when Prince Vladimir proclaimed Orthodoxy the religion of his realm and urged the masses to join him in conversion and baptism.

Russians see Christendom’s entry into Eastern Europe as the origin of their homeland and the Russian Orthodox Church. Russian President Vladimir Putin cites this history to support his claim for Ukraine as a client area within greater Russia instead of a validly independent nation. His post-Soviet Kremlin maintains close bonds with the Russian Church’s Moscow Patriarchate, which in turn has centuries of ecclesiastical authority within Ukraine.

At Religion News Service, religion author Diana Butler Bass makes the case that “Kyiv is essentially Jerusalem, and this is a conflict over who will have control of Orthodoxy — Moscow or Constantinople.”

Bass writes:

While the secular media tries to guess Vladimir Putin’s motives in Ukraine, one important aspect of the current situation has gone largely ignored: religion.


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

Behind #MeToo headlines: Denhollander keeps advising church leaders about sexual abuse

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Behind #MeToo headlines: Denhollander keeps advising church leaders about sexual abuse

In this age of small-group ministries, most pastors would know how to handle a crisis that affected significant numbers of believers in their pews.

"If you had one in four members of your congregation actively battling cancer or one in four members … experiencing being widowed or losing a spouse, chances are that you would have some level of intentional ministry to those individuals," said Rachel Denhollander, in a recent Trinity Forum event focusing on how churches respond to sexual abuse. "Maybe you would have a support group or a Bible study for them. You would have meal trains to help provide for their physical needs."

But many sexual-abuse victims hesitate to speak out, she said, because churches act as if they don't exist. Thus, they have little reason to believe the sins and crimes committed against them will be handled in a way that offers safety and healing. Far too many religious leaders act as if they haven't grasped the magnitude of this crisis.

"There is an astonishing perception gap and it's really inexcusable at this point in time," she said, speaking to victims, clergy and activists online -- including participants in 24 nations outside the United States. "We've had the data, literally, for decades. … Even what we know is dramatically undercounted.

"The statistic has stayed right around one in four women, for sexual violence, by the time they reach age 18. … The rate continues to rise and there really isn't any excuse, at this point in time, for not knowing that data. But sometimes, it's emotionally easier to not know that data and all of us have that intrinsic desire to not have to see the darkness that's around us."

Sexual abuse is a hot-button issue everywhere, from small fundamentalist flocks to the Roman Catholic Church. Revelations from #MeToo scandals have rocked the careers of A-list players in entertainment, politics, sports, academia and business.


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

That word always gets surprising media attention. What does biblical 'inerrancy' mean?

, , , , , , , , , ,
That word always gets surprising media attention. What does biblical 'inerrancy' mean?

THE QUESTION:

What does biblical "inerrancy" mean?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

A February article by Stephen Young of Appalachian State University in North Carolina pulls the "inerrancy" of the Bible into a surprising media spotlight.

Writing in the liberal ReligionDispatches.org, Young blames this concept for American Christian racism and "white patriarchy" that subjugates women. By coincidence, days before Young's posting Michael F. Bird of Ridley College, an Anglican seminary in Australia, contended via the interfaith Patheos.com that his fellow evangelicals in the U.S. advocate a version of inerrancy that's a bit skewed.

Hold those thoughts while the Memo sketches some background.

Merriam-Webster defines inerrancy as "exemption from error," with "infallible" as a synonym. However, the modern debate distinguishes between those two words, as we'll see below.

Churchgoers may simply view the Bible as trustworthy because, after all, it's the Word of God, but "inerrancy" is a more sweeping contention meant to cover every detail of the events depicted in the Bible.

Inerrancy came to the fore, especially among U.S. Protestants, through Princeton Theological Seminary professors such as B.B. Warfield (1851-1921) who believed Christianity had always taught the Bible is error-proof.

As theological "modernism" made inroads, the largest Presbyterian denomination in 1910 defined five tenets as "essential doctrine" required of clergy candidates. The first one stated that "the Holy Spirit did so inspire, guide and move the writers of the Holy Scriptures as to keep them from error." The 1910 platform evolved into the "five points of Fundamentalism," embraced by that militant new movement even as the Presbyterians themselves moved away from their requirement.


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

Podcast: What's the SCOTUS story? New Colorado case focuses on free speech, not religious liberty

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: What's the SCOTUS story? New Colorado case focuses on free speech, not religious liberty

Here we go again?

That’s a logical question, in light of the news that — once again — church-state activists on left and right are preparing for more U.S. Supreme Court arguments involving the state of Colorado, a traditional Christian believer, LGBTQ rights and the First Amendment.

That was the news hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). But to understand that conversation, it really helps to dig into a key passage or two in the majority decision in that 2019 SCOTUS case focusing on Masterpiece Cakeshop and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (full text .pdf here).

So, all rise. The writer is, of course, then Justice Anthony Kennedy:

The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression. While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.

The result was one of those narrow decisions much beloved by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Then, what you hear in this next passage is the sound of Kennedy punting the crucial religious-liberty decision in this First Amendment case into the mists of the future:

The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.


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

When ancient texts meet high tech, behold, will we get near-instant Bibles? 

, , , , , , , , , ,
When ancient texts meet high tech, behold, will we get near-instant Bibles? 

The Religion Guy has touted the investigative chops of the Ministry Watch website and its usefulness as a story source for journalists. Let’s re-up that message.

Along with assorted financial and moral scandals, President Warren Cole Smith has been examining what he calls the "Bible translation industry" (which prefers to call itself a "ministry"). This is a very popular cause among U.S. Protestants, with revenues of around $500 million a year. The biggest group, Wycliffe Bible Translators, took in $227 million in 2020.

In articles here (“Outsourcing Bible Translation?”), here (“Translation Service Providers Could Be Paradigm-Changing For Bible Translation Industry”) and finally here (“Just How Broken Is the Bible Translation Industry?”) Smith has been criticizing translation groups for taking so long and spending so much money to produce a Bible translation in a new language when the need is so great.

To force a massive speedup, Smith promotes the fascinating idea of applying the technology used widely by businesses and governments for necessary rapid translations of contracts, diplomatic exchanges, scientific articles, movie scripts and the like. Such biblical projects are already under way, and that provides a solid feature idea for reporters to pursue.

A consortium of traditional Bible translation organizations, illumiNations, figures the planet has around 7,000 languages currently being spoken, of which 3,700 have little or no scripture. It seeks to fill that gap by 2033, and states that it typically takes seven years to render the New Testament and 16 years for a complete Bible. At the present rate, Smith comments, the task will take till at least A.D. 2150.

As a former business executive, Smith argues that Christian donors should reasonably expect 10 times the new Bibles than are actually being produced and, while chiding groups for lack of financial transparency, estimates it takes not only many years but many millions of dollars to produce a new translation. He says the current experimental phase of the new high-tech scheme indicates radically shortened time frames are possible at a cost of a mere $350,000 per new Bible.

Big, if true. That’s a news story.


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

Texas couple survives journey through COVID hell, apparently without clergy help of any kind

, , , , , , , , , ,
Texas couple survives journey through COVID hell, apparently without clergy help of any kind

One of my closest friends is a veteran doctor in a town deep in the Bible Belt. I’ve had lots of conversations with him about this experiences during the coronavirus pandemic. He has had COVID and so have I.

One common theme in our conversations has been a sense of mystery that medical professionals, from the beginning, have had about this evolving disease. They understand why COVID hits some people hard, especially older patients and people who, for various reasons, have respiratory problems. The mystery is why this disease strikes with deadly force in some cases — but clearly not all — involving young, healthy adults. And why does COVID attack some hearts and not others?

Readers will collide with some of these mysteries while reading a stunning Washington Post story about a family’s 139-day hospital drama that has received quite a bit of attention in social media and the mainstream press. The headline: “Chris Crouch was anti-vaccine. Now his pregnant wife had covid, and he faced a terrible choice.” Here is the overture:

KINGWOOD, Tex. — Chris Crouch had had low expectations for online dating. He was a police officer in his 30s, almost a year out from a painful divorce, and, he said, the women he had met had been “playing games” in ways that left him dispirited.

Then he met her.

Diana Garcia Martinez was 24 and a busy single mom whose sister had set up her profile without her knowing. She was intelligent, empathetic and upfront, and by the third date, he was in love. “It was just a feeling. … I felt like I knew her my whole life,” he recalled explaining to his cousin Gilbert, knowing it was a cliche but also true.

What role does religious faith play in this story? That’s a complex question.

I mean, we are talking about people in Texas. No one should be surprised by frequent Godtalk and references to prayer.

However, as the son of a Texas Baptist pastor (who spend the last decade of his ministry as a hospital chaplain), I was very surprised that the word “church” is missing. Did this couple really go through this medical hell alone, without a pastor or friends who share a pew with them? Maybe this couple is in the “Nothing in particular” demographic, but I have my doubts.


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

Pronoun wars? The 'usual suspects' quoted by the press skewed Baptism-gate coverage

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Pronoun wars? The 'usual suspects' quoted by the press skewed Baptism-gate coverage

What is the role of journalism? Above all, it is to inform and educate. We know that reliable information is needed for any society to properly work. At the very least, readers deserve accurate information.

What happens when this isn’t the case? That’s the dilemma that befell many news organizations in recent days when a big Catholic news story came across their newsroom desks.

Yes, I’m referring to the botched baptism story out of Arizona last week that made so many headlines. And that’s hard to do considering the ongoing pandemic, the Beijing Olympics and Russia-Ukraine crisis.

Yes, baptism-gate has been all the rage. News coverage of it, however, not so good. More on that later.

To summarize: a priest named Andres Arango, following a church investigation, determined that he’d incorrectly performed thousands of baptisms over more than 20 years. It meant that those who had been baptized in Phoenix, and at his previous parishes in Brazil and San Diego, needed to be baptized again.

What did he do wrong? Arango, who has since resigned after making the mistake, used the wrong pronoun. Instead of saying, “I baptize you in the name of” he used “we.” After diocesan officials found out, they said people who Arango baptized aren’t officially Catholic. That means they weren’t eligible for other sacraments like Holy Communion.

This is where the news coverage got interesting. Once again, on an issue of great importance to Catholic readers and church leaders, secular news outlets assumed the views of one side were normative — even accurate — at the expense of church doctrine. Here at GetReligion, we have a name for that approach (click here for information).

Everyone from The New York Times and USA Today to NPR and local news outlets covered the story. What we learned from the coverage was telling. It was also largely one-sided and inaccurate.


Please respect our Commenting Policy