Russia, the Kurds, Trump and some Syrian Jews: When in doubt stress the political angle

A common complaint from those steeped in religious belief is that the mainstream media generally pay scant attention to religion issues unless there’s a political angle to exploit (or even better, a scandal; the sexier the better).

As a mainstream media member, mark me down as among the often guilty. But unapologetically so. Because to quote a certain White House acting chief of staff (as of this writing, that is), “Get over it.”

That’s just the way it is in our material world and no amount of high-minded whining will change it. So critics: it’s disingenuous to deny that religion and politics are not frequently entwined, for better or (more often) worse.

GetReligion head honcho Terry Mattingly tackled this question in a recent post and podcast devoted to Russia’s self-proclaimed role as chief protector of Middle East Christians — in particular those with Orthodox Christian bona fides. His point was that religion was an essential part of the equation, in addition to the obvious political and economic realities.

Syria, where Russia has taken over as the major outside power broker now that President Donald Trump has relinquished the United State’s role there, is a current case in point.

But Christians are not the only faith group of concern to the Kremlin. Syrian Jews, despite being few in number, have also stirred Russia’s interest. It’s as clear a case of politics overshadowing religious connections as you’ll find.

This recent analysis published by the liberal Israeli English-Hebrew daily Haaretz alerted me to the situation. (Paywall alert.)

The piece was thin on just what Syrian Jews Russian President Vladimir Putin indicated, during a recent trip to Hungary, he is concerned about. Was he referring to the less than two-dozen Mizrahi Jews (Jews long connected to Arab lands) estimated to still reside in Syria?

How can journalists begin to comprehend all those labels that divide Christians?

WENDI’S QUESTION (paraphrased):

Denominational. Non-denominational. Fundamentalist. Baptist. Mormon. Methodist. Assembly of God. Etc. Etc.: How do we know what type of beliefs these are? Why or why not claim to be ‘Christian’ without anything else added? This is confusing me.

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

Wendi has good reason to be confused, especially about the incredibly complex situation in the United States this article will seek to unscramble. By contrast, one or two churches often denominate in European countries and there are fewer minorities. The same was once generally true in developing nations that now have an ever-increasing variety of churches.

Contrast that with the New Testament, where followers of Jesus Christ were simply “Christians” or adherents of “the way.” Jesus himself prayed to God the Father that his followers “may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that You sent me and loved them even as You loved me” (John 17:23).

On the church’s founding day, Pentecost, barriers of language and ethnicity miraculously vanished (Acts 2). The Apostle Paul taught that “there is neither Jew nor Greek” in God’s kingdom “for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28) and that Christians share “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5).

Such is the Christian ideal. But does this spiritual unity require membership within one organization, as the ancient churches -- Catholic and Orthodox -- believe (though they have many distinct subgroups)? Are separate organizations based on culture or doctrinal details appropriate?