, , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: New York Times talks to a Catholic 'star' and (#triggerwarning) things went OK

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: New York Times talks to a Catholic 'star' and (#triggerwarning) things went OK

It isn’t everyday that I get emails from Catholic readers, of one tribe or another, praising a New York Times article, especially one in which a Catholic leader is asked tough questions about some controversial points of doctrine.

That’s strange, in a sad kind of way. This phenomena was almost worth a “Crossroads” podcast in and of itself (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

But there are other worthwhile reasons to discuss the New York Times Magazine feature that ran with what was clearly meant to be a grabber headline: “A Catholic Podcasting Star Says Theocracy Is Not the Way.”

Yes, yes, we all know that there are armies of Catholics out there who believe that this diverse and rapidly secularizing nation can be turned into some kind of Catholic or ecumenical Christian theocracy. Try to imagine either of those political options in a culture dominated by Big Tech, Big Academia and Hollywood.

Before we get to the “theocracy” discussion, let’s note the identity and the credentials of the priest featured in this interview. In the end, we want to know: Why was this priest able to emerge relatively unscathed by this dance with the Gray Lady, to the degree that many Catholics were pleased with this encounter? Here is some of the introduction:

Since it was introduced by the Catholic priest Mike Schmitz, who goes by Father Mike, in January 2021, the little-heralded “The Bible in a Year (With Fr. Mike Schmitz)” has been the most popular Apple religion podcast for a majority of 2021 and 2022 and has even, on two occasions, reached the No. 1 spot among all podcasts on Apple’s platform. The show has been downloaded 350 million times and an average of 750,000 times a day.

That’s credibility, in our tech-defined world — even to Times-people. Let’s continue:

Each 20-to-25-minute installment … features two or three short scriptural readings and a pithy reflection by Father Mike, an affable 47-year-old Midwesterner whose upbeat and self-deprecating manner — not to mention regular-guy good looks — exude strong Ted Lasso vibes. The staggering success of the podcast has helped turn its host, whose day job is as a chaplain at the University of Minnesota Duluth and the director of the youth ministry for the Duluth diocese, into a kind of celebrity. He travels the country giving speeches, and some of his YouTube videos have racked up millions of views.

Now, on to the content that provided that click-bait headline for faithful New York Times readers.


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

Elizabeth the Great: Why do many journalists choose to edit faith out of her Christmas talks?

, , , , , , , , , ,
Elizabeth the Great: Why do many journalists choose to edit faith out of her Christmas talks?

The Queen is dead. God save the King.

It’s hard to edit the religion content out of that equation. However, when journalists are asked to deal with the death of the queen who was, it can be argued, the most famous woman of the past 100 years, there are plenty of important, “real,” issues to deal with other than the state of her soul and her Christian faith.

I spent most of yesterday afternoon and evening watching the BBC Global coverage of the death of Queen Elizabeth II, as opposed to, shall we say, American “telly.” The BBC focused on the death of one of the greatest, if not “the” greatest, monarchs in Great Britain’s history. There were many references to her Christian faith. American television, for the most part, offered discussions of the death of a great celebrity. If I have been too harsh with that judgment, please send me some quality URLs.

How to approach this totally justified tidal wave of coverage? I think the easiest way to search out the religion-beat content is with two specific online searches.

First, search Google News for “Queen Elizabeth” and “Christmas.” Elizabeth the Great was known, of course, for her dignified and timely Christmas addresses — an essential part of the season for Brits and those who love all things British. The vast majority of the mainstream-media obits for the queen contain references to her Christmas talks — sort of.

What did she say in these very personal messages? That’s the key.

This leads to my second Google News search, for “Queen Elizabeth” and “Christian.” This is where the mainstream press — unless I have missed something, somewhere — offer, well, something like this. In the religious press, readers will find many, many pages of content, such as this feature from Premier Christianity, a niche UK religion website: “Queen Elizabeth II served Christ.”

There was, however, this Washington Post feature with a hopeful title: “Queen Elizabeth II, in her own words: Her most memorable remarks.” After all, it did include a section with this title: “Annual Christmas speeches.” These talks were, readers are told, “peppered with words of wisdom, faith and occasionally personal reflections from the nonagenarian.” However, this is what the Post offered:

“In the old days the monarch led his soldiers on the battlefield and his leadership at all times was close and personal. Today things are very different,” she said in her first televised Christmas broadcast in 1957. “I cannot lead you into battle, I do not give you laws or administer justice but I can do something else, I can give you my heart and my devotion to these old islands and to all the peoples of our brotherhood of nations.”


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

Is celebrity culture eroding American evangelicalism? This publishing insider says 'yes'

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Is celebrity culture eroding American evangelicalism? This publishing insider says 'yes'

Evangelical Protestantism, by most accounts the largest camp in American religion, has run into various troubles lately, as The Guy and many others have chronicled.

Now there’s ample Internet buzz about Katelyn Beaty’s diagnosis of one factor in a new book from a major evangelical publisher that’s well worth coverage: “Celebrities for Jesus: How Personas, Platforms, and Profits are Hurting the Church.”

Make that hurting the “White Evangelical” church.

The type of personality cults she describes are pretty much absent in “mainline” Protestantism, Black Protestantism (there are some glaring exceptions in the health-and-wealth world), Catholicism and other U.S. religious bodies. By coincidence, Rodney Palmer, an American Baptist who teaches preaching at Palmer Theological Seminary, echoed her concerns just last week in an article for the progressive Baptist News Global website.

Inevitably, Beaty has much to say about the media that we practitioners and consumers should ponder.

She’s a well-marinated evangelical as author, former print managing editor of flagship Christianity Today magazine and currently a New York-based acquisitions editor with Baker Publishing Group, one of the majors whose Brazos Press division published “Celebrities.” (Note the company’s other book imprints: Baker Books, Baker Academic, Bethany House, Chosen, Revell.)

For this reason, The Guy finds especially newsworthy — and gutsy — Beaty’s chapter treating the evangelical book industry, which is said to pour “jet fuel” on the type of fandom, branding and marketing she decries.

The bottom line, here: This bite-hand-that-feeds angle alone offers a strong story theme that journalists could draw from this book.


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

In praise of the humble news Q&A: God, Lt. Dan and spiritual motivations for public service

, , , , , , ,
In praise of the humble news Q&A: God, Lt. Dan and spiritual motivations for public service

It would be hard to name a form of journalism more “humble” than a simple Q&A piece about a celebrity or someone else who has found his or her way into the news.

The journalist produces a short introduction and then, theoretically, gets out of the way.

Yes, the news organization still controls the narrative — as in asking the questions and then publishing edited versions of the questions and the answers. In practice, readers encounter this bit of journalism-speak: “This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.” (I often advise newsmakers to record these interviews for themselves, allowing them — if necessary — to post transcripts of what went down.)

This brings me to a recent Knoxville News Sentinel feature about actor Gary Sinise, whose work with injured veterans and first responders was bringing him back to Knoxville for the 2022 Medal of Honor Celebration. His public-service work on these issues is rather logical because of his famous role as Lieutenant Dan Taylor, an angry wounded warrior who finds his way back to wholeness in the movie “Forest Gump.”

Here at GetReligion, we often ask why so many journalists, when writing about public figures of this kind, tend to leave facts about religion out of the mix. This is especially problematic when the person being profiled has, on numerous occasions, made it clear that faith is one of the defining elements of his or her life. To cut to the chase: It’s harder to do that kind of crude editing when offering what is supposed to be a verbatim transcript of an interview.

There were zero “religious” questions about in this interview, even though Sinise has for years talked openly about his faith. But the humble Q&A format allowed the actor to talk about his life on his own terms. Here is an example of that in a discussion that is at the heart of the feature:

Knox News: You've played Lt. Dan, but also directed a production of "Tracers," a story about wounded Vietnam vets, in the '80s. You've been very involved with veterans in your show career, how has that influenced your work as a philanthropist?


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

Shia LeBeouf converts to Catholicism: News coverage -- good and bad -- focuses on redemption

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Shia LeBeouf converts to Catholicism: News coverage -- good and bad -- focuses on redemption

Celebrity news coverage and religion couldn’t be more polar opposites most of the time. Coverage of actors, models and others in the entertainment industry often resembles a list for the seven deadly sins.

Every so often, the world of celebrity and faith intersect. When they do, the mainstream press doesn’t know what to do with it, creating tone-deaf coverage similar to sports stories containing what GetReligion has long called religion “ghosts.”

Meanwhile, the religious press — I’m referring to Catholic media in this case — love to jump on this kind of story. This has certainly been the case with actor Shia LaBeouf this summer and public statements regarding his conversion to Catholicism.

It’s a textbook case of the mainstream press largely ignoring such an announcement, while the Catholic press can’t get enough of it. When the mainstream press did cover LaBeouf’s interview, it was in the context of his troubled personal life. For some journalists in the Catholic press, he became a poster child for upholding tradition and the Latin Mass against the more progressive forces in the church.

Depending on who and what you read, LeBeouf’s conversion story is either a farce, something to be celebrated or something to be feared.

LaBeouf, like many in his profession, does interviews primarily to promote specific movies and their careers overall. While promoting his new film “Padre Pio,” which premiered at the Venice International Film Festival, LaBeouf announced that he had converted to Catholicism. The movie is based on the life of Padre Pio, an Italian Franciscan Capuchin friar famous for exhibiting stigmata most of his life. He was canonized as a saint by Pope John Paul II in 2002.

The former “Transformers” star made it known that he was now a practicing Catholic during an Aug. 25 appearance on Bishop Robert Barron’s show “Conversations at the Crossroads.” The YouTube link alone has generated over 1.3 million views.

Here is where the celebrity news coverage got interesting.


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

Bonus podcast: Return of hot debates about ancient Psalms vs. contemporary praise hits

, , , , , , , ,
Bonus podcast: Return of hot debates about ancient Psalms vs. contemporary praise hits

Here is a truth that many religion-beat professionals (a) haven’t really thought through or (b) they totally get it, but their editors do not.

Obviously, churches from coast to coast and around the world are engaged in heated debates, if not outright financial wars, about centuries of church teachings about marriage and sexuality. This makes headlines. These battles often reach the local level (ask United Methodists and, previously, Episcopalians).

Editors like that, since these battles can be framed as “politics.”

But there is another subject that frequently causes divisions in the pews (or megachurch folding chairs) — music. These battles rarely make headlines, even though they stir deep emotions between various generations of believers. In recent decades, this has led to discussions of “worship wars.”

I recently wrote a column — “Open Bible to Psalms: What messages are seen there, but not in modern praise music?” — that was, shall we say, “worship wars” adjacent. This led to me being invited as a guest on the national “Connections” podcast, with hosts Mike Thom and Colleen Houde. If you want to listen to that, CLICK HERE.

During that discussion I mentioned that I had another column coming up that was related to this subject. It later appeared with this headline: “Hillbilly Thomists — Dominicans tracing their roots into Appalachian music and faith.”

But the Psalms column was the hook for the podcast and it didn’t take long to veer into “worship wars” territory and the subject of commercialized music in the modern church. That made me flash back a decade-plus to a column with this headline: “FM radio reality in church.”

Maybe the best way to intro this bonus podcast is simply to reprint that column. So here goes.

The clock is ticking and soon Jeff Crandall while face the challenge of selecting the right music for the Christmas services at High Desert Church.

This will be tricky, because Christmas is what the 70-member staff at this megachurch calls a "federal" event.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Plug-In: Has Nashville become the 'new frontier' of today's religion news universe?

, , , ,
Plug-In: Has Nashville become the 'new frontier' of today's religion news universe?

Twenty years ago, I moved to Nashville, Tennessee, to work for The Associated Press.

I spent less than a year in Music City before transferring to Dallas, but oh, what a fun 11 months for a religion reporter (and country music fan).

I covered the fight over a proposed Tennessee lottery and a prayer service on the night the Iraq War began, but some of my favorite stories were less weighty:

• A profile of a man who paid children $10 each to learn the Ten Commandments (until 15,000 “memorization affidavits” from across the nation flooded his mailbox after my story ran).

• A feature on Gospel Music Week, when some of Nashville’s most popular bars and nightspots traded lying-and-cheating songs for hymns about prayer and redemption.

• An interview with the 104-year-old widow of a famous Black traveling evangelist.

Blame Liam Adams, The Tennessean’s religion reporter, for this trip down memory lane.

In a fascinating deep dive published this week, Adams and his colleague Cole Villena delve into “Williamson County, the suburban ‘new frontier’ for American evangelical Christianity.”

“An already heavily Christian area is on track to become a capital of evangelicalism in the U.S.,” the story asserts, referring to the fast-growing county south of Nashville.

I pointed out to Adams on Twitter that my family lived in Williamson County — Spring Hill, to be precise — in our brief time in the Nashville area.

“All religion reporting roads lead through greater Nashville apparently,” chimed in Christianity Today’s Kate Shellnutt, herself a former Nashville resident.


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

Sam Harris take jab at those who believe in heaven: Maybe listen to some ancient voices?

, , , , , , , ,
Sam Harris take jab at those who believe in heaven: Maybe listen to some ancient voices?

When cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin returned to earth in 1961, after the first manned spaceflight, Soviet leaders claimed he said: "I went up to space, but I didn't encounter God."

Venturing into similar territory, superstar atheist Sam Harris rocked cyberspace during a recent Triggernometry YouTube appearance in which he discussed Donald Trump, faith elements in "wokeness" and the flocks of Americans who insist on believing in heaven.

Political Twitter screamed when he said there was "a left-wing conspiracy to deny the presidency to Donald Trump. … Absolutely, but I think it was warranted."

But comedians Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster pushed back, asking if Harris was justifying moral relativism. Perhaps today's truth wars, the Triggernometry team suggested, were linked to a famous G.K. Chesterton quip: "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything."

During the ensuing discussion, Harris offered another viral soundbite: "Where is heaven, exactly, given that we have multiple telescopes up there beaming back tens of billions of years' worth of information?" Yet millions of Americans still embrace the supernatural claims of an ancient faith, including that Jesus will return to "raise the living and the dead."

"You'd be surprised by the number of percent of sober, non-Bible-thumping people who would say 'yes' to that question," he said. "They might be Christian, they might be, listen, 'I love the Bible. It gives me a great moral framework. It gives my kids a great moral framework. This is the tradition I'm identified with. This is all super important to me' -- but that's kind of as far as it goes. Right? Like, I'm not going to make magical claims about flying saviors who are literally going to come down from … heaven."

While the Twitter masses raged, the French-Canadian iconographer and writer Jonathan Pageau recorded a video essay on his "The Symbolic World" channel about why materialists and religious believers keep debating the meaning of terms such as "heaven" and "earth."


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

Old debates behind the new headlines: What does the Bible teach about abortion?

, , , , , , , , ,
Old debates behind the new headlines: What does the Bible teach about abortion?

THE QUESTION:

What does the Bible teach about abortion?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

This question is raised by the assertion that the Bible “says nothing about abortion.”

So writes Melanie Howard, a scripture scholar at Fresno Pacific University, a Mennonite Brethren campus self-defined as both “evangelical and ecumenical” that “embodies Christ-centered values.” Her July 25 article titled “What the Bible actually says about abortion may surprise you” for TheConversation.com was widely distributed to Associated Press and Religion News Service clients under the three outlets’ cooperative agreement.

Later in the article, Howard is more precise, explaining correctly that though abortion was known and practiced in biblical times it “is not directly mentioned” in scripture. True, but there’s more to be said about how the Bible views unborn human lives.

The biblical passage that applies most specifically is Exodus 21:22-23, which involves miscarriage but was extended to the abortion issue by ancient rabbis. It states that if a pregnant woman is hit accidentally “when men fight” and “a miscarriage results,” the person responsible pays a negotiated fine. But “if other damage results” (understood to be the woman’s death), then the “life for life” principle requires the death penalty. (This Memo uses the 1999 JPS translation throughout).

The Jewish Study Bible (2nd edition, 2014) presents the faith’s understanding from ancient times that this passage means “abortion is permitted when necessary to save the mother.” Today, even pro-life conservative Christians mostly agree with that. Due to this passage, Judaism also teaches that “feticide is not murder” because the unborn life is not yet regarded as fully a person. Over the centuries, authoritative “responsa” from rabbis issued varied opinions on allowing abortions in specific circumstances.

Otherwise, one Christian website lists 100 Bible passages said to bear on abortion.


Please respect our Commenting Policy