, , , , , , , , ,

Once again, secular science commends a religious instinct and outlook (think compassion)

, , , , , , , , ,
Once again, secular science commends a religious instinct and outlook (think compassion)

Here’s new secular social science research that’s drenched with religious significance just waiting for examination by journalists.

Over the years, a substantial body of evidence from blue-ribbon universities and medical schools has demonstrated the physical and psychological benefits of regular religious involvement. A January Guy Memo here at GetReligion featured one such new study and then there’s that pioneering Mayo Clinic report from 2001 (.pdf here).

Note to journalists: The impact on life outcomes of youths who are raised in religious homes is especially striking.

Consider the 2019 book “Compassionomics: The Revolutionary Scientific Evidence That Caring Makes a Difference” by physicians Anthony Mazzarelli and Stephen Trzeciak, who are administrators and researchers at New Jersey’s Cooper University Health Care and Cooper Medical School. They reported evidence that health care staffers’ compassion toward patients has a powerful impact on improving both patient outcomes and the workers’ own well-being.

No kidding.

A new book by the same co-authors, going on sale June 21, dramatically extends the concept: “Wonder Drug: 7 Scientifically Proven Ways That Serving Others is the Best Medicine for Yourself” (St. Martin’s Essentials; contact publicity@stmartins.com). The Guy has not read the book but the news potential is obvious from a CNN interview with Mazzarelli last Saturday (click here for transcript).

Think of it as doing well by doing good.

From biblical times to the present, people have been urged to be helpful to others because (1) your Creator requires it and (2) it’s the right thing to do. The two clinicians tell us that a consistent commitment to helping other people is great for you in all kinds of medically provable ways and is thus the “wonder drug” of their title.


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

What responsibility do journalists have when covering incendiary wars about religion and culture?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
What responsibility do journalists have when covering incendiary wars about religion and culture?

We tend to pay attention to news that impacts us most directly. So for Americans, the culture war playing out between religious (and some non-religious) traditionalists and social progressives is most compelling.

Half-way around the world, however, another ongoing war about religion and culture has heated up yet again. This one has direct international ramifications and has the potential to negatively impact global religious-political alignments perhaps as much or more than America’s nasty cultural war.

It also contains an important lesson about the possible consequences of governments employing divisive culture war tactics for political gain (more on this theme below.) I do not think it absurd to fear that our homegrown culture war could become just as bad, or worse.

I’m referring to India, a constitutionally secular nation wracked by inter-religious conflict between majority Hindus and minority Muslims (Christians have been caught in this imbroglio, too, but put that aside for the duration of this post).

Here’s a recent overview of India’s situation from The Washington Post. And here’s the top of that report:

NEW DELHI — After a spokeswoman for India’s ruling party made disparaging remarks about the prophet Muhammad during a recent televised debate, rioters took to the streets in the northern city of Kanpur, throwing rocks and clashing with police.

It was only the beginning of a controversy that would have global repercussions.

Indian products were soon taken off shelves in the Persian Gulf after a high-ranking Muslim cleric called for boycotts. Hashtags expressing anger at Prime Minister Narendra Modi began trending on Arabic-language Twitter. Three Muslim-majority countries — Qatar, Kuwait and Iran — summoned their Indian ambassadors to convey their displeasure. The governments of Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Afghanistan on Monday condemned the spokeswoman, Nupur Sharma, as did the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

Inflammatory comments by right-wing activists and political leaders in India often make headlines and spark outrage on social media. But rarely do they elicit the kind of attention that Sharma drew in [early June], which sent her political party — and India’s diplomats — scrambling to contain an international public relations crisis.

Let’s step back from the news coverage for a moment to consider some underlying dynamics and their impact on journalism.


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

Nowhere to hide: Los Angeles Times hit job focuses on one side of Biola University tensions

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Nowhere to hide: Los Angeles Times hit job focuses on one side of Biola University tensions

If you have followed trends in academic and student life at Biola University over the past 25 years or so — I have spoken there about 10 times in that period — you know that this is a complex campus, with all kinds of divisions on theological, moral, political and cultural issues.

As a rule, campus administrators there are just as uncomfortable with strong conservative voices as they are with candid evangelical progressives. Thus, all kinds of Biola believers have learned to state radically different convictions in language that can be called “evangelical” to one degree or another. The goal is to keep painful fights out of publications read by parents, donors and even trustees.

It’s important to keep this in mind while reading the Los Angeles Times morality-tale sermon that ran the other day with this headline: “CRT, Trumpism and doubt roil Biola University. Is this the future of evangelical Christianity?” The headline failed to include the key issue in this story — clashes over the validity of 2,000 years of Christian doctrine on sexuality and marriage.

For additional insights on political and theological diversity found Christian campuses, it will help to read this classic 1995 essay at The Atlantic — “The Warring Visions of the Religious Right” — by the liberal Baptist scholar Harvey Cox of Harvard Divinity School (author of the ‘60s bestseller, “The Secular City”).

Oh, and speaking of liberal Baptist scholars, one of the defining voices in the new Los Angeles Times feature is David Gushee of Mercer University. It was totally valid to include his voice in this story, but it was interesting that he is quoted as a neutral academic expert on these matters, as opposed to being an articulate spokesman for activists on one side of the doctrinal war being covered in this story.

After all, it was Gushee who opened a classic 2016 essay for Religion News Service with these lines:

Middle ground is disappearing on the question of whether LGBT persons should be treated as full equals, without any discrimination in society — and on the related question of whether religious institutions should be allowed to continue discriminating due to their doctrinal beliefs.

It turns out that you are either for full and unequivocal social and legal equality for LGBT people, or you are against it, and your answer will at some point be revealed. This is true both for individuals and for institutions.

Neutrality is not an option. Neither is polite half-acceptance. Nor is avoiding the subject. Hide as you might, the issue will come and find you.

Thus, the Los Angeles Times has come to confront the leaders of Biola University.


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

As Roe clock ticks, press avoids news about another big story -- attacks on Catholic churches

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
As Roe clock ticks, press avoids news about another big story -- attacks on Catholic churches

There have been at least 41 incidents of attacks against churches and crisis-pregnancy facilities since the May 2 leak of the Supreme Court draft decision that revealed the potential fall of Roe v. Wade.

The attacks have included property theft, vandalism, arson and property destruction.

How do we know this? A front page New York Times investigation this past Sunday?

No.

A round-up story in The Washington Post, USA Today, the Associated Press? Coverage on CBS, CNN or another major network?

No, no, no and, alas, no.

We know this because of The Washington Stand, which is described as the Family Research Council’s “outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview.” In other words, these events are “conservative” niche news (as opposed to, let’s say, attacks on “sanctuary movement” churches because of their activism on immigration).

This awful trend should come as no surprise. At least it wasn’t to me. I wrote a story recently at Religion Unplugged on the rash of vandalism — especially acts against Catholic churches — throughout this spring. I opened my news account with the theft of a tabernacle at a Brooklyn, N.Y., church (see this related GetReligion piece). Here’s an excerpt from my piece:

The desecration was the latest in a string of incidents across the United States, triggering fears of future vandalism given the supercharged political climate around abortion, LGBTQ rights and bishops denying politicians Communion.

The vandalism may not necessarily be tied to one or more of these factors — rising crime rates is also a possibility in the wake of the pandemic — but church officials remain vigilant as the summer approaches. While the motivations remain a mystery, the outcome has rattled Catholic churches across the country. Some have resorted to increased security measures, like locking doors when Masses aren’t taking place, installing security cameras and even erecting barbed wire and fences to avoid being targeted.

As we await a final Supreme Court ruling, we could be in for a long summer of violence and vandalism.

My criticism here is not in the news coverage this issue has received. Instead, it’s the lack of coverage.


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

Plug-In: Faith groups continue to debate solutions to blitz of mass shootings in America

, , , , , , ,
Plug-In: Faith groups continue to debate solutions to blitz of mass shootings in America

God and guns.

After a string of mass shootings nationwide, conversations with people of faith inevitably turn to that subject.

Ken Factor and Lawson Vaughn are friends and fellow Christians. I met both while in Tulsa this past weekend to report on their church mourning the massacre of four people.

I asked Factor and Vaughn about possible solutions following the recent attacks at a Buffalo, New York, supermarket, an Uvalde, Texas, school and a medical office in their own community.

Factor stressed that he has been a registered Republican for nearly 40 years.

But he said, “I think we need some kind of restrictions on guns. I don’t know that the Second Amendment applies to things like me deciding, ‘I’m going to go get an AR-15 today.’”

In Vaughn’s view, though, firearms aren’t the real problem.

“I think there’s something to be said just for the erosion of the home, the family,” he said. “I mean, it starts with raising kids to respect others and having families that go to church.”

As The Associated Press’ Deepa Bharath and Holly Meyer report, the recent shootings have exposed divisions on the gun issue in faith communities and raised this question: “Are you pro-life if you are pro-gun?”

At The Oklahoman, Carla Hinton offers in-depth coverage of religious views on gun control — including a letter signed by more than 50 leaders that was recently delivered to Tennessee’s Republican governor, Bill Lee.


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

Just before I hit the road, I did this bonus podcast with veteran evangelical thinker John Fischer

, , , , , , , , ,
Just before I hit the road, I did this bonus podcast with veteran evangelical thinker John Fischer

Truth be told, I was on the road most of this week and away from my alleged “office” in the Tennessee Hills.

Thus, I took a very rare break from writing the “On Religion” column for the Universal syndicate. I say “rare” because I literally went 20 years before I took a vacation at all. Well, I did miss one week because I was unconscious during a kidney-stone attack. Things happen.

Just before charging up the car and heading out, I did spend some time with veteran evangelical writer and folk musician on his weekly podcast called “The Catch.” Thus, I will offer this bonus podcast as a substitute for the column that normally fills this weekend slot here at GetReligion.org and, a day or so later, at Tmatt.net, even though this is not a media-criticism feature (for the most part).

Listeners can find this episode at Apple podcasts (click here) or at BlogTalkRadio (click here).

The topic? I have known Fischer since the 1980s and I tried to pull him into a flashback chat about music, the late (and great) Mark Heard, acoustic guitars, guitar strings, etc. I did work in a famous Heard lyric about his dilemma in the “Christian marketplace.” That would be: “I’m too sacred for the sinners and the saints wish I would leave.” Preach it.

Fischer had other ideas for the conversation — as in another discussion of how the word “evangelical” turned into a political label, with “evangelical voters” playing a crucial role at the ballot box, especially for GOP folks in heated primaries.

Naturally, old guy that I am, I flashed back to my history as a Jimmy Carter campaign volunteer at Baylor University in the 1970s, back in the era when — to be blunt about it — many evangelicals were culturally conservative Southern Democrats.


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

Thinking, with Aaron Renn, about the 'three worlds' shaping American evangelical debates

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Thinking, with Aaron Renn, about the 'three worlds' shaping American evangelical debates

f you have been paying much attention to evangelical Twitter in the past year or so, you may have noticed quite a few heated arguments involving the word “elite.”

If you doubt this, run a basic Google search for “Tim Keller,” “evangelical” and “elite.” Then try “David French,” “evangelical” and “elite.”

What you’ll find is more evidence of the relevance of this recent GetReligion “Memo” by religion-beat patriarch Richard Ostling: “Is evangelical Protestantism breaking into five factions in the United States of America?”

You may want to click a few of these links if you are planning to read, write or report about the upcoming Southern Baptist Convention, which is June 12-15 in Anaheim, Calif.

There is a very good chance that, at some point, one or more Baptists taking part in speeches or in floor debates will use one or more of these terms — “Positive “World,” “Neutral World” and “Negative World.” Most people will “get” the references being made.

However, I think that it would be good — as a weekend “think piece” — to point to the source of those terms as they were used earlier this year in a First Things essay by social-media scribe Aaron M. Renn. The logical title: “The Three Worlds of Evangelicalism.” Here is the overture:

American evangelicalism is deeply divided.

Some evangelicals have embraced the secular turn toward social justice activism, particularly around race and immigration, accusing others of failing to reckon with the church’s racist past. Others charge evangelical elites with going “woke” and having failed their flocks. Some elites are denounced for abandoning historic Christian teachings on sexuality. Others face claims of hypocrisy for supporting the serial adulterer Donald Trump. Old alliances are dissolving.


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

Podcast: So many questions after that symbolic Tampa Bay Rays conflict over 'Pride' logos

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: So many questions after that symbolic Tampa Bay Rays conflict over 'Pride' logos

Symbolism often plays a major role in tense clashes between people with competing religious beliefs (or secular beliefs, for that matter).

You could see evidence of this fact during and after the recent kerfuffle about a small group of Tampa Bay Rays players who declined to wear special rainbow-logo uniforms during the team’s recent celebration of Pride Month. The media coverage of this clash was the subject of this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), in part because the stories raised more questions than they answered.

I’ll get to some of those questions, but first let’s look at the Washington Post coverage. Note that this means the Rays conflict was a national story, since the Post doesn’t cover mere regional stories and disputes (see this classic M.Z. Hemingway post about the newspaper’s MIA stance on covering the trial of Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell).

The headline on this sports-desk story: “Rays players make ‘faith-based decision’ to shun Pride Night logos.” Yes, it’s important to note that there are doubts about the nature of this “faith-based” angle. Let’s look at some important passages in this:

A member of the Tampa Bay Rays said he and several teammates made a “faith-based decision” to not wear rainbow-colored logos on their uniforms during a “Pride Night” home game Saturday that recognized the LGBTQ community.

Most Rays players, per accounts from the game, wore the special uniform designs that had a rainbow pattern over the “TB” on their caps and over a sunburst logo on their right sleeves. The team, which has staged Pride Night for several seasons but had not previously included uniform changes, reportedly gave players the option to display the logos or go with the usual look.

The crucial fact there is that team management decided to allow players some degree of free-will in this case. Hold that thought.

Apparently, team management asked pitcher Jason Adam to make a statement on why he, and four others, elected to wear their usual jerseys for this symbolic event. Thus, he said:

“A lot of it comes down to faith, to like a faith-based decision,” said Adam, a 30-year-old in his fifth major league season.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Vatican game that never ends: Knowns and unknowns with covering next papal election

, , , , , ,
Vatican game that never ends: Knowns and unknowns with covering next papal election

It might seem ghoulish to outsiders, but the media have a duty to closely monitor news personalities’ retirement plans, health woes, aging processes and impending deaths, whether that of a British queen, U.S. president, Supreme Court justices, tycoons or even Hollywood superstars.

Or a pontiff.

Currently, there’s a season of speculation about Pope Francis’s future and whether his newly chosen cardinals to be installed August 27 are his final bid to shape the conclave that will elect the next pope.

Careful. If you figure he’s making sure it will be a fellow liberal, don’t forget that the conservative Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI named the cardinals who elected Francis.

Speaking of successors, AP Correspondent Nicole Winfield follows the Rome bureau’s legendary Victor Simpson, who covered four popes across 41 years. On Sunday, she knowledgeably sifted some Francis scenarios.

Francis has just announced that when the cardinals gather in August he’ll visit the Italian hometown of Celestine V, the pope who famously resigned in A.D. 1294.

Surprisingly, Benedict did the same in 2013. So, is this trip a signal, or only a trip? Francis has remarked that Benedict was “opening the door” for resignation by future popes, hinting he might consider the idea. But Vaticanologists figure Francis will not resign so long as another ex-pope is alive.

At age 95, Benedict is alert but frail. Francis, age 85, appears reasonably healthy but underwent colon surgery last year and recently appeared in public in a wheelchair for the first time due to chronic knee pain.

Then there’s this. The cardinals elected Francis partly in hopes he’d reform the perpetually troubled Roman Curia (as in the sprawling Vatican bureaucracy). Restructure is now set in a Francis edict that took effect on Sunday. But fully implementing the scheme may be thorny and Francis may feel a responsibility to pursue his project.

Surveying the batch of incoming cardinal electors, Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego stands out as the only American and as a mere bishop, not an archbishop (see this tmatt “On Religion” column about this drama). Francis again snubbed nearby Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez, the Mexico-born head of the nation’s largest archdiocese and the elected president of the U.S. bishops. Did membership in the Opus Dei organization count against him?


Please respect our Commenting Policy