About that Christian trans teen report -- Washington Post ignored all the inconvenient voices

About that Christian trans teen report -- Washington Post ignored all the inconvenient voices

A lot of folks in the religious world don’t know quite what to do with the trans movement. The holy writings of the monotheistic religions have nothing that directly address transsexuality, so it’s been a rough go for many clergy. However, Pope Francis has made some strong statements, which journalists seem to have forgotten.

When in doubt, religious authorities have likened it to homosexuality -– about which there is plenty of commentary in biblical writings and the Quran — but the shoe doesn’t completely fit. Nevertheless, media coverage has engaged transexuals as another sexual minority about whom traditional religious believers will eventually see the light and change their doctrines.

What’s ignored are deep questions on the nature of the creation and male- and femaleness being at the basis of one’s being, as opposed to the current “assigned at birth” term that implies that sex is more a social construct than a biological fact. DNA? That isn’t relevant for many.

If you’re going to write a story on religion and the gender wars, you need the theological chops to understand that for the major world religions the division of humanity into two sexes: male and female, goes to the beginning of creation and how this is a non-negotiable for several religions.

A story in the Washington Post that ran several weeks ago — “Transgender or devoutly Christian? An Iowa teen refuses to choose” — ignores that fact and debates about it. It’s also appropriate to ask: Is this a “news story,” a work of “analysis” or an editorial that openly argues one point of view, while ignoring others?

It is about an 18-year-old girl who now calls herself “Sid,” and presents as a boy. As the story opens, Sid and her family are listening to a sermon on YouTube.

People misgendered Sid at work, and teenagers posted mean comments on the TikTok page where he lip-syncs to “Pumped Up Kicks” and other pop songs. Even some of his fellow Christians were becoming more intolerant. Nearly 70 percent of White evangelicals think society has gone too far in accepting trans people, according to data the Pew Research Center released in the summer. That’s up from 61 percent five years ago.

“But Jesus was determined,” the pastor said. “He loves these people that will end up rejecting him. … Let’s have a prayer, shall we?”

Sid closed his eyes. He knew people thought you couldn’t be both Christian and trans, but as the country grew more divided, he found himself growing deeper in his faith. Maybe, he thought, he could do what Jesus had. He could move forward bravely in the face of danger, refuse to stop loving and spread a message of hope.

The story continues in that vein, chronicling the brave teenager who decides she’s trans at the age of 12.

Her family joins a Methodist church a year later. This is where the topic of sexuality, scripture and Christian tradition is openly addressed.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Concerning Prince Harry, Episcopalians and the choices faced by millions of 'nones'

Concerning Prince Harry, Episcopalians and the choices faced by millions of 'nones'

If low-church Anglican evangelicals were active in the whole naming-saints thing, you know that the process would already be in motion to honor Queen Elizabeth II. The quiet dignity of her Christian faith was at the heart of her long life of service.

This brings us to what I would argue is a valid religion-angle story linked to “Spare,” the tell-all confessional memoir Prince Harry has released from the media-friendly alternative palace that he is creating with Meghan Markle here in America.

Here is the basic question: In what church will Harry and Meghan raise their children?

This points, of course, to broader questions about the seismic changes inside England’s Royal Family after the passing of Elizabeth the Great. Yes, some of these questions are linked to the complex ecumenical history of King Charles III (see “The Religion of King Charles III” at The National Catholic Register). But it’s pretty clear that there is another divide — in style and content — between the king and Prince Harry.

This brings us to a good news-bad news situation for one of America’s most symbolic denominations.

The good news: Prince Harry would make a great Episcopalian.

The bad news: Prince Harry would make a great Episcopalian, or he could be another “none” or “nothing in particular.”

In a way, Prince Spare faces choices about faith — even liberal Protestant faith — linked to the great exodus of Americans from established religion and, in particular, from the fading “Seven Sisters” of liberal Protestantism. Will the Duke of Sussex and his family become active, vocal Episcopalians or will they become examples of trends described in the book “Nonverts: The Making of Ex-Christian America,” by Stephen Bullivant.

Think about this for a minute. If you sort through the 17,900,000 or so stories in a Google News file about “Spare,” it’s hard to find a better high-point in this drama than the 2018 wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. And who was the rock star of that media circus? It was the preacher — the leader of the Episcopal Church in the United States. You can hear the hosannas in the overture of this celebratory New York Times feature:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Two leaders of the new U.S. House could put Baptist diversity in the news spotlight

Two leaders of the new U.S. House could put Baptist diversity in the news spotlight

There could hardly be a greater contrast than New Yorker Hakeem Jeffries’ glide into leadership of the U.S. House Democratic minority and that of California Republican Kevin McCarthy’s agonizing 15-ballot crawl to barely become House Speaker in the worst such Capitol Hill fuss since the Civil War.

Jeffries, of course, wins news renown as Congress’s first African-American party leader. But here’s a factoid has gotten little media notice. Yes, this is a religion angle.

By coincidence, both party leaders are now Baptists, a faith that outside the South has generally been underrepresented among the political elite. Catholics (think Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Paul Ryan) monopolized the speaker and minority leader posts for much of the 21st.Century.

There would be good feature potential in comparing the two Baptists’ congregations.

Though Jeffries has an Arabic first name (meaning “wise”), he’s a lifelong worshiper at Cornerstone Baptist Church,  a prominent African-American congregation in Brooklyn. Senior Pastor Lawrence Aker III and his wife Cynthia have the distinction of holding diverse divinity degrees from both “evangelical” Dallas Theological Seminary and “mainline” Yale.

McCarthy’s congregation is the equally well-known Valley Baptist Church in his hometown of Bakersfield. Senior Pastor Roger Spradlin, who trained at Criswell College, has served Valley since 1983 and now leads a team of eight clergy. This is a typical white evangelical fellowship and affiliated with the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, which Spradlin has served as chairman of the national executive committee.

Speaking of religion on Capitol Hill, reporters will want to keep on file the official religious affiliations of all 534 members of the incoming House and Senate (with one vacancy due to death) accessible by clicking here. The handy list is compiled every two years by the Pew Research Center from information the legislators themselves file with CQ Roll Call.

Labels may say little.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Another day, another RNS First Amendment story with zero focus on the First Amendment

Another day, another RNS First Amendment story with zero focus on the First Amendment

Another day, another Religion News Service report about clashes between the First Amendment and the doctrines of the Sexual Revolution.

As is the norm, this news story about a crucial First Amendment issue does not include the term “First Amendment.”

As is the norm, this RNS story does not include material about how many, not all, private faith-based schools — they exist on left and the right — require students, faculty and staff to sign covenants in which they choose to join a community that is defined by a set of core doctrines that members promise to follow or, at the very least, not to attack.

It is always crucial for journalists, when covering these stories, to ask if a private school has a covenant of this kind. If one does not exist, then this radically strengthens the case of students who argue that the school is discriminating against them.

As is the norm, the RNS story includes one tiny bite of information from the bad-religion people, while framing the conflict in the arguments of the good-religion people. In this case, alas, the bad-religion people won. The headline: “Federal court dismisses LGBTQ students’ class-action discrimination lawsuit.

As always, let me stress that there is an important story here. Some Christian schools do a bad job — when recruiting and orienting students — of being honest about their covenants or handbooks. As I said, there are schools that do not have covenants, which means students (and parents) may not know what they are getting into when they choose to enroll at one of these private schools that are“voluntary associations” under the First Amendment. Hold that thought. Here’s the overture:

There is no legal remedy for LGBTQ students who claim they were discriminated against at their religious universities, an Oregon federal district court ruled in a high-profile case late Thursday (Jan. 12).

The judge dismissed the class-action lawsuit filed in March 2021 on behalf of about 40 students and former students at religious schools nationwide. The case, Hunter v. the U.S. Department of Education, claimed that the department failed to protect LGBTQ+ students at religious schools from discrimination.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Plug-In: Texas synagogue hostage-crisis anniversary and a new anti-Semitism report

Plug-In: Texas synagogue hostage-crisis anniversary and a new anti-Semitism report

We have seen another Friday the 13th come and go.

Well, I’m still your Weekend Plug-in columnist and I’m not at all superstitious about dates.

But I am totally shameless, so look for two of my own stories in today’s roundup of the best reads and top headlines in the world of faith. Let’s jump right in!

What To Know: The Big Story

Think hostility or prejudice toward Jews is fading in America? Think again.

“Classical fascist” anti-Semitic views are widespread in the U.S., according to a new survey by the Anti-Defamation League. Veteran religion writer Michelle Boorstein details the findings for The Washington Post.

At the same time, rising anti-Semitism in the U.S. is seeping into the workplace, according to Bloomberg’s Arianne Cohen.

“It’s not just high-profile incidents,” Cohen’s story notes. “Jewish workers say they’re experiencing more overt discrimination.”

Hostage anniversary: Sunday marks one year since the FBI gunned down a pistol-wielding captor at Congregation Beth Israel in Colleyville, Texas.

“Let’s be blunt: We’re healing. We’re not healed,” Jeff Cohen — who was taken hostage along with Rabbi Charlie Cytron-Walker and two others — told me in an interview for The Associated Press.

More: The Washington Times’ Mark A. Kellner — a former GetReligion team member — delves deeper into the Colleyville anniversary, while The Washington Post’s Danielle Paquette profiles a Chicago street artist who painted a mural of Kanye West — and then heard from a rabbi.

Power Up: The Week’s Best Reads

1. Controversial prayers: A sacred Jerusalem site has become a flashpoint with Israel’s rightward shift, The Wall Street Journal’s Shayndi Raice and Aaron Boxerman report.

Jewish activists are “gaining more support for praying at the Temple Mount, called the Noble Sanctuary by Muslims, who have controlled the site for centuries,” according to the Journal.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Before reaching Rome, Cardinal Ratzinger put modern Europe in the rear-view mirror

Before reaching Rome, Cardinal Ratzinger put modern Europe in the rear-view mirror

In a rite before the funeral of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, Vatican officials placed unique symbols of his pontificate inside his cypress casket, along with a scroll in Latin describing his ascent to the Chair of St. Peter.

"His faith and family upbringing prepared him for the harsh experience of the problems connected with the Nazi regime, aware of the climate of strong hostility towards the Catholic Church," said the English translation of this "rogito," or deed. "In this complex situation, he discovered the beauty and truth of faith in Christ."

After deserting the German army without firing a shot, Josef Ratzinger began his theology studies and, in 1951, was ordained a priest. He emerged as an intellectual voice preaching hope, as opposed to mere optimism. The future pope's sobering views on modern Europe would affect his entire career -- as well as debates about his legacy when he died.

"This so-called Christian Europe … has become the birthplace of a new paganism, which is growing steadily in the heart of the Church, and threatens to undermine her from within," said Ratzinger, in a 1958 lecture. This modern church "is no longer, as she once was, a Church composed of pagans who have become Christians, but a Church of pagans, who still call themselves Christians."

Four years later, the 35-year-old priest advised Cardinal Joseph Frings of Cologne during the historic Second Vatican Council, emerging as a "progressive" on reform issues, yet one who saw painful challenges ahead.

"From the crisis of today the church of tomorrow will emerge – a church that has lost much," he warned, on German radio in 1969. "As the number of her adherents diminishes, so it will lose many of her social privileges. In contrast to an earlier age, it will be seen much more as a voluntary society, entered only by free decision. As a small society, it will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members."

Ratzinger envisioned a "more spiritual church" with no political mandate, "flirting as little with the left as with the right. … It will make her poor and cause her to become the church of the meek."


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Why do 21st Century Christians favor, or oppose, same-sex marriage? (Clue: doctrine)

Why do 21st Century Christians favor, or oppose, same-sex marriage? (Clue: doctrine)

THE QUESTION:

Why do 21st Century Christians favor, or oppose, same-sex marriage?

THE GUY’S ANSWER:

Just before Christmas, a top Donald Trump-loving conservative on New York City talk radio professed disbelief that some Americans persist in opposing same-sex marriage because of some book (unnamed) written ages ago.

Obviously, The Guy again realizes that journalism has important work to do explaining the basics of centuries of Christian thinking, both con and pro.

The teaching against gay and lesbian sexual relationships stood essentially unquestioned for 2,000 years but now that’s changing.

Still, on the global level some 2 billion people belong to Catholic, Orthodox, conservative Protestant, and Independent indigenous churches where there’s no prospect of any major change, though individual members dissent. (The same for a billion Muslims.)

In the U.S., the traditionalists are on defense with gay and lesbian marriage legalized by the U.S. Supreme Court and now Congress. They seek recognition by courts and government agencies of their conscience claims, hope to avoid penalties, and worry that ostracism from polite society may lie ahead.

Many “mainline” Protestant churches in North America and Western Europe recently enacted historic breaks with tradition, approving same-sex marriages for clergy and parishioners. U.S. landmarks: Change was first formally proposed to Presbyterians in 1968 and the United Methodist Church in 1972. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Lutherans published four major books advocating change between 1983 and 1999. The Episcopal Church consecrated its first openly gay bishop in 2003, deepening an international divide among Anglicans.

Among resulting walkouts, the biggest may be the United Methodist one that is finally erupting.

Protestant disputes always center on the Bible


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Prayers and NFL life? That's old news -- but the Damar Hamlin drama was on live TV

Podcast: Prayers and NFL life? That's old news -- but the Damar Hamlin drama was on live TV

Hello, old folks who are National Football League fans.

If you are a young reader and podcast listener, hang in there with me. I am going to work my way into a discussion of the fascinating and poignant explosion of public prayer and mass-media Godtalk that surrounded the stunning injury and recovery of defensive back Damar Hamlin of the Buffalo Bills. This was the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

The Big Idea? The “Pray For Damar” story got “out of control” because it happened on live TV. Hold that thought, as we begin a newsy flashback.

Back in the 1980s, NFL fans regularly saw something symbolic at the end of games, something so obvious that it even appeared in the background of sideline interviews on telecasts. What was happening? Players from both teams formed circles — often at the midfield logo — on their knees. Mostly, they offered prayers of thanksgiving for a safe game or prayers for anyone who was injured.

I remember that because I tried to write about this phenomenon during my Rocky Mountain News (#RIP) days. Team chaplains and parachurch leaders linked to this movement asked me, quite candidly, not to write about this subject — because it was so controversial with NFL officials.

Soon, TV images of the kneeling players vanished, although I believe that these rites continue to this day. But NFL fans no longer see them, unless they have tickets to the actual games.

In 1988, this topic broke into headlines during the media circus surrounding the Super Bowl. That was the year when I — prophetically, if I say so myself — wrote a memo to my editors detailing why I should be included in the Super Bowl coverage team. To be blunt, I argued that devotion to the Denver Broncos was so intense that it functioned as an organized religion.

Lo and behold, that was the year when the head coaches for the two teams, both outspoken Christians, unleashed a media storm by planning a two-team prayer meeting the day before the contest. I ended up assisting in the coverage — long distance, of course. The New York Times shock headline: “SUPER BOWL XXII; Rivals Will Pray Before They Play.

Oh. My. God. Here’s the overture:

Most of the Denver Broncos and the Washington Redskins will join Saturday in a prayer meeting that is believed to be the first to bring together National Football League players from opposing teams on the eve of any game — much less a Super Bowl.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Thinking about those sad, old Vatican II 'fundamentalists' -- such as Pope Benedict XVI?

Thinking about those sad, old Vatican II 'fundamentalists' -- such as Pope Benedict XVI?

If religion-beat journalists looked carefully enough, they could see an interesting question lurking inside the rhetoric of the current Latin Mass wars.

That question: What does it mean to be “pro-Vatican II”? If reporters flip that question around it turns into this: What does one need to do to be “anti-Vatican II”?

For example, see this language at the top of a Catholic News Agency report this past summer with this headline: “Pope Francis: There are many ‘restorers’ in the US who do not accept Vatican II.

There are many “restorers” in the United States who do not accept the Second Vatican Council, Pope Francis said. …

Speaking to the editors of Jesuit journals, he criticized what he called “restorationism” in the Church, which he defined as the failure to accept Vatican II, the ecumenical council held from 1962 to 1965. He said: “Restorationism has come to gag the Council. …”

Note the tension between “accept the Council” and “gag the Council.” What, precisely, does it mean to “gag” the Second Vatican Council? Let’s keep reading:

“The problem is precisely this: in some contexts, the Council has not yet been accepted. It is also true that it takes a century for a Council to take root. We still have 40 years to make it take root, then!”

Pope Francis cited opposition to Vatican II when he issued the motu proprio Traditionis custodes in July 2021, limiting celebrations of the Traditional Latin Mass.

This leads to a logical question: What ARE the teachings of Vatican II? Are they the actual contents of the Council documents or are these teachings an evolving body of work with current and future Catholic leaders deciding what the Council meant to say? Yes, note how these questions echo decades of academic warfare about, well, everything from the U.S. Constitution to the New Testament.

This is a timely subject, in light of the recent death of Pope Benedict XVI — one of few remaining Vatican intellectuals who, as an advisor to a cardinal in the Vatican II sessions, had direct exposure to the debates that led to its final documents. Benedict stressed a strict reading of the contents of Council’s teachings on a host of subjects — such as liturgy and the future role of Catholic tradition.

That leads us to a Religion News Service think piece written before shortly before the death of Benedict XVI. The author, Jesuit Thomas Reese, is a priest who for decades has been one of the most powerful voices (think “usual suspects”) shaping news coverage of American Catholicism.


Please respect our Commenting Policy