, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: Thoughts on a third of a century as a columnist (and a symbolic SCOTUS ruling)

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Thoughts on a third of a century as a columnist (and a symbolic SCOTUS ruling)

This week marked a rather symbolic anniversary for my national “On Religion” column, which I have been writing now for (#GULP) a third of a century.

As you would imagine, I spend some time thinking about the subject for this week’s column: “Why 'religious liberty' has ended up inside quotation marks.” This column was also the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

Anyone who has followed my work with GetReligion and “On Religion” will not be surprised that I chose to write about the First Amendment and and a highly symbolic religious liberty case (no scare quotes there) at the U.S. Supreme Court.

But hold that thought. I’d like to walk through what are, for me, four symbolic columns I have written in the past, as I head into year No. 34.

That first column in 1988 was rather newsy: “Pat Robertson, evangelicals and the White House.” Here’s the lede on that:

On the morning before Easter, Pat Robertson stood in a pulpit under an American flag and a banner that read, "King of Kings, Lord of Lords."

Alas, change the name of the candidate and that still sounds rather relevant, considering the state of warfare inside American evangelicalism these days (see this must-read Richard Ostling post).

On the 10th anniversary of the column — that seemed like a long time, back then — I focused on a classic book by sociologist James Davison Hunter (“Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America”) that has greatly influenced my work as a journalist and as a professor. The column opened by describing an interesting trend at political and religious rallies at that time:


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

Is evangelical Protestantism breaking into five factions in the United States of America?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Is evangelical Protestantism breaking into five factions in the United States of America?

Let’s start with two quotes.

A weary grievance from the Bible: "Of making many books there is no end" (Ecclesiastes 12:12). The same can be said about endless journalistic articles trying to figure out what's with U.S. evangelical Protestantism in the age of Donald Trump -- saith The Religion Guy himself.

"A successful political movement must incorporate both elites and the people. Only intermittently, however, has the American right been able to achieve such a synthesis. That is why its victories have been so tenuous." So writes Matthew Continetti in "The Right," his new opus about U.S. political conservatism.

The Guy has taken Continetti's view regarding U.S. conservative Protestantism and is far more interested in the gap between its intellectual elite and the grassroots than e.g. the current hullabaloo over The New York Times describing worship mingling with Trumpified politicking by a segment of evangelicals (see tmatt post here).

Which brings us to a must-read article entitled "The Five Emerging Factions in Evangelical Higher Education" by Daniel K. Williams (contact: 678-839-6034 and dkwillia@westga.edu). He's a history professor at the University of West Georgia and author of "God's Own Party" (2010), and "The Politics of the Cross" 2021).

Williams reflects on the recent convention of the Conference on Faith and History, an association of Christians who teach this subject at both secular and religious colleges. Crucial: He writes only about diverse camps among evangelical scholars and schools. But does this breakdown characterize U.S evangelicalism as a whole? He depicts five factions.

Culture warriors -- These political conservatives actively oppose socialism, critical race theory, feminism, the new sexuality and "cultural liberalism in all its forms," while embracing "Trumpist conservative partisanship." Such teachers at e.g. Bob Jones, Liberty and Regent Universities; Patrick Henry and Saint Andrews Colleges; and elsewhere rarely interact with "the rest of Christian academia."

Anti-nationalists -- These evangelicals mostly agree with the culture warriors on the issues but don't want to be "adjuncts of the Republican Party" and are anti-Trump.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

That missing piece, again: Why edit the faith factor out of Scheffler's win at the Masters?

, , , , , ,
That missing piece, again: Why edit the faith factor out of Scheffler's win at the Masters?

I’m sorry, but there will be no apologies here.

Yes, I realize that it has only been a week or so since I wrote a piece asking why mainstream sportswriters ignore the spiritual component in global-level events — even when the winner at the press-conference microphone openly discusses the role that faith plays in his life. Here’s that previous post: “What happened when this 2022 Final Four hero was asked to explain his heart, mind and soul?”

To add insult to injury, that post even opened with me waving a non-apology flag:

OK, faithful GetReligion readers, you know the drill.

Especially those of you who are among the small circle of our readers who join millions and millions of ordinary Americans in caring about sports news and personalities.

Why keep writing about this issue? Frankly, I think this is one of the biggest signs (and there are many) of the gap between elite journalists and ordinary people (sports fans included) in flyover country. The key, once again, is this journalism question: When probing what makes a superstar tick, why not heed what this athlete says when asked questions about precisely that question?

This time around, we are talking about the Masters and young Scottie Scheffler’s stunning rise to become the No. 1 ranked golfer in the world. Facing the world’s press, he offered this response to a question about his goals and motivations:

“The reason why I play golf is I’m trying to glorify God and all that He’s done in my life,” he said. “So for me, my identity isn’t a golf score. Like Meredith told me this morning, ‘If you win this golf tournament today, if you lose this golf tournament by 10 shots, if you never win another golf tournament again,’ she goes, ‘I’m still going to love you, you’re still going to be the same person, Jesus loves you and nothing changes.’ All I’m trying to do is glorify God and that’s why I’m here and that’s why I’m in this position.”

As one would expect, that is a quote from a story at the religion-market Sports Spectrum website.


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

Blue states vs. red ones: Does the New York Times team get why the two are parting?

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Blue states vs. red ones: Does the New York Times team get why the two are parting?

Recently I was talking with a friend who is homeschooling her daughter in the eastern part of Washington state, which is far more conservative than the Seattle area, where I live. She was agonizing over whether to return her child to public school.

She’s not afraid of Covid; Washington state was one of the most careful states on that score, and masks were mandated longer here than most other places. What she really feared was the state’s liberal sex ed law, passed when Covid was beginning to ravage the local population. Washington state was the first place in the nation to have Covid, but what was our governor, Jay Inslee, doing at the time? Pushing through a graphic sex ed curriculum. The floor debate on it went on until 2 a.m., as I described here.

A recall election to zero out the curriculum failed.

Which is all to say that when the New York Times ran a piece headlined, “New Laws Moves Blue and Red States Further Apart,” it didn’t mention some of the more obvious reasons why people are walking away. Guess what? Many of these reasons are linked to issues are linked to morality, culture and religion.

SACRAMENTO — After the governor of Texas ordered state agencies to investigate parents for child abuse if they provide certain medical treatments to their transgender children, California lawmakers proposed a law making the state a refuge for transgender youths and their families.

When Idaho proposed a ban on abortions that empowers relatives to sue anyone who helps terminate a pregnancy after six weeks, nearby Oregon approved $15 million to help cover the abortion expenses of patients from out-of-state.

The Idaho ban is slated to begin April 22, unless some federal judge knocks it down. Abortion clinics in Oregon, particularly Bend, are expecting a deluge, as the central Oregon clinic is the nearest one to Boise that has easy abortion access. (Other nearer cities, like Walla Walla, Wash., have a Planned Parenthood clinic, but that clinic doesn’t do abortions after 10 weeks. And clinics in Salt Lake City require a 72-hour waiting period.)


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

White evangelicals, again: New York Times urgently probes praise music on political right

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
White evangelicals, again: New York Times urgently probes praise music on political right

At this point, it’s safe to say that some New York Times editors are still engaged in a passionate quest to find a large group of Americans to blame for the 2016 general-election victory of Donald Trump of Queens.

There’s an obvious answer: White evangelicals. And it’s certainly true that independent and, especially, Pentecostal Protestants played a strategic role in the shocking rise of Orange Man Bad. It’s also true that independent evangelicals, fundamentalists, charismatics and Pentecostal believers have played high-profile roles in video-friendly pro-Trump events, including the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol to hunt down Vice President Mike Pence — a mainstream White evangelical if there ever was one.

However, White evangelical voters were not the crucial Rust Belt voters that put Trump in the White House, although Latino evangelicals and charismatics were a major force in Florida

Therefore, what are discerning religion-beat readers supposed to make of that long, vague Times sermon that ran the other day with this dramatic double-decker headline? (Sorry for the delay getting to this piece, but surgery slowed me down last week.)

The Growing Religious Fervor in the American Right: ‘This Is a Jesus Movement’

Rituals of Christian worship have become embedded in conservative rallies, as praise music and prayer blend with political anger over vaccines and the 2020 election.

Here is one strong opinion that is drawn — with his permission — from an email I received from Kenneth Woodward, for decades the religion-beat pro at Newsweek and the author of “Getting Religion: Faith, Culture, and Politics from the Age of Eisenhower to the Ascent of Trump.”

This is the most naive religion story I’ve read in decades and illustrates precisely why the Times still does not get religion. … Only the Times could publish a piece as misinformed as this one.

Why does Woodward think that? To some degree, he is blaming a newspaper story for lacking the kind of depth seen in interpretive magazine pieces produced during the glory years of religion-beat work at Newsweek and at Time by GetReligion patriarch Richard Ostling. For a short period of time, Emma Green was allowed to do similar work at the Atlantic.

Depth is an issue here. But this Times feature is quite long and has lots of room for anecdotes, when what is missing is a hard skeleton of facts that link (if this is possible) these vague trends and illustrations to actual denominations, publishing houses, parachurch groups, think tanks and academic institutions at the heart of American evangelicalism.


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

Five faith facts about the life of Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman at SCOTUS

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Five faith facts about the life of Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman at SCOTUS

Faith. It’s an important part of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s story.

Here are five religion facts about the 51-year-old judge who on Thursday became the first Black woman confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court:

1. Jackson will be “the first-ever nondenominational Supreme Court justice,” as Christianity Today’s Kate Shellnutt points out.

2. She’ll become the second current Protestant on the court (along with Neil Gorsuch), joining six Catholics (Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas) and one Jewish justice (Elena Kagan), according to Christianity Today’s Megan Fowler.

But Religion News Service’s Jack Jenkins tweets that Jackson will be “the only current Supreme Court justice who publicly IDsas Protestant.” “Gorsuch attended an Episcopal church before joining SCOTUS,” Jenkins explains, “but grew up Catholic and how he personally IDs is unclear.”

3. Jackson “has put her religious faith front, center — and vague,” notes The Associated Press’ Peter Smith. “She’s spoken strongly of the role of her faith in her life and career but hasn’t gotten into the specifics of that commitment.”

RNS’ Adelle Banks offers more details on Jackson’s past statements about her faith in God.

4. At a hearing last month, Jackson was pressed on her faith by Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, ReligionUnplugged.com’s Hamil R. Harris reports.

The Deseret News’ Kelsey Dallas recounts this exchange between Graham and Jackson:

“On a scale of 1 to 10, how faithful would you say you are in terms of religion? I go to church probably three times a year so that speaks poorly of me. Do you attend church regularly?,” Graham said.

Jackson declined to give a rating, noting that she worried about the message doing so would send to Americans watching at home.


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

Bishops meet in secret about 'culture war' stuff: What does this mean for Catholics?

, , , , , , , ,
Bishops meet in secret about 'culture war' stuff: What does this mean for Catholics?

While Pope Francis was presiding over a ceremony at the Vatican to consecrate Ukraine and Russia on March 25, a group of high-ranking American bishops met in Chicago.

That could be a news story.

The gathering at Loyola University — entitled “Pope Francis, Vatican II and the Way Forward” — was co-sponsored by Boston College’s Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life and Fordham’s Center on Religion and Culture. Its aim was, according to what news coverage there was, to create a dialogue between theologians and bishops.

“We want to show that opposition to Pope Francis — not universally, but to a large extent — is opposition to Vatican II,” said Father Mark Massa, a priest and historian of the American Catholic Church, to describe the goal of the meeting. “Francis is trying to cash the check that Vatican II wrote — synodality was the big thing.”

Synodality is an invitation to build deeper communion within the body of Christ, according to the Vatican, and part of a process the pope has embarked on this year to create dialogue between Catholic believers and clergy. Or a certain type of clergy.

In other words, moving forward into the spirit of Vatican II. That is a big news story.

The two-day meeting, by invitation only, didn’t appear to fit the description of synodality. Rather, as Massa said, it was meant to see “how we can move the American church away from these culture wars divided between conservatives and liberals … to a united position where it’s possible to be on a spectrum of positions and still be considered a good Catholic and not be called names by people who disagree with you.”

Critics in the conservative Catholic press read that statement to mean how the 70 prelates in attendance — with help from progressives within the American church in the form of academics, journalists and theologians — could bolster this pope’s agenda. Those on the Catholic left in the National Catholic Reporter billed it as a way bishops “can better support the agenda of Pope Francis.”

I reported at the end of 2021 that this year would “be the one where the battle between this pontiff and doctrinal traditionalists intensifies even further.” The culture war that is dominating our politics at the moment has spilled over into our religious institutions and the Catholic church’s hierarchy.


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

What do the latest statistics really tell us about the worldwide Catholic Church?

, , , , , , , , , ,
What do the latest statistics really tell us about the worldwide Catholic Church?

THE QUESTION:

What do the latest statistics tell us about the worldwide Catholic Church?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

The Vatican's Central Office of Church Statistics issued a summary report in February that says as of December 31, 2020, Catholicism had 1.36 billion adherents worldwide. That equals an impressive 17.7% of the world's people and keeps pace with over-all population growth. The church's gain of 16 million members over 2019 exceeds the combined populations of New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago.

The Guy would note, however, that the church counts as members all baptized infants, who as adults will not necessarily be active parishioners.

John L. Allen Jr., the editor of CruxNow.com and a go-to guy on Catholic trends, writes that these numbers counter western perceptions that "the church is shrinking" in the wake of sexual abuse scandals and other problems. Also see this tmatt post here at GetReligion on this topic: “Thinking about world Christianity, as Crux digs deep into many overlooked Catholic details.”

But Catholic expansion is centered in Africa and Asia, not western nations, and the church faces a personnel problem. The Vatican office admits that yet again there's an "obvious imbalance" in the geographical distribution of the slowly decreasing ranks of priests, currently totaling 410,219 worldwide. There's also declining enrollment in seminaries, now totaling just under 112,000, with only Africa showing an increase. Remarkably, Africa plus Asia produce 60% of the globe's seminary students. Here is another tmatt post on that trend: “Thinking about the Catholic vocations 'crisis': The Pillar asks if this is truly a global problem.”

Let's drill down on the numbers.


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

Podcast: Can the AP Stylebook team slow down the creation of new Godbeat 'F-bombs'?

, , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Can the AP Stylebook team slow down the creation of new Godbeat 'F-bombs'?

Words matter, especially when covering a topic as complex as religion.

That concept has, of course, been one of the core doctrines of GetReligion for nearly 20 years and it was the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). This episode discussed a few of the religion-language changes in the evolving Associated Press Stylebook — an update project that involved both Godbeat patriarch Richard Ostling and Bobby “Are the Rangers playing today?” Ross, Jr.

I am gung-ho about making stylebook improvements. Carry on!

But I have my doubts about whether these changes will have a major impact, when it comes to the butchering of religious language, information and history when complex religion subjects are covered by reporters (especially political-desk stars) with zero training and experience on this beat. After all, we already know that religion-news coverage radically improves when editors hire qualified writers and editors.

Thus, The Big Question, for my entire career, has been: Why don’t more newsroom managers show respect for religion news by hiring religion-beat pros?

So, will the improved AP bible help? Well, consider the many GetReligion posts over the years praising the stylebook entry for “fundamentalist,” while noting that way too many reporters ignore that advice. Why does this happen? Here is some material from an “On Religion” column I wrote on the topic (“Define fundamentalist, please”). First, the classic stylebook language:

"fundamentalist: The word gained usage in an early 20th century fundamentalist-modernist controversy within Protestantism. ... However, fundamentalist has to a large extent taken on pejorative connotations except when applied to groups that stress strict, literal interpretations of Scripture and separation from other Christians.

"In general, do not use fundamentalist unless a group applies the word to itself."

Alas, for reporters and academics, one person’s "evangelical" is another's "fundamentalist” and “fundamentalist” is basically and F-bomb.


Please respect our Commenting Policy