Several publications recently published lists of their top stories of 2010, but The Economist tries to predict next year’s trends with its “The World in 2011” edition. You can already see this trend coming from upcoming books: marking the 400th anniversary of the King James Version of the Bible. Here’s The Economist’s prediction: “Prepare for a celebration of biblical proportions.”

[It’s the story of the King James Version of the Bible, which celebrates its 400th anniversary on May 2nd 2011, that is likely to provide the greatest spread of cultural events. Produced during the lifetime of William Shakespeare and John Donne, it has long been viewed as the most elegantly written and poetic of the many English translations, and has given the language some of its best-known phrases: “lamb to the slaughter”, “skin of our teeth”, “chariots of fire”. The King James, also known as the Authorised Version, remains one of the most frequently used Bibles in the English-speaking world, especially in the United States. Barack Obama took the oath of office on the same King James Bible that had been used by Abraham Lincoln in 1861.

Because the 2011 predictions didn’t include many religion stories, it was nice to see The Economist at least acknowledge the upcoming anniversary, though I wish it would have provided a little more history of why the Bible was so significant besides its influence on language and presidential use.

I grew up in a church that used the King James Version almost exclusively, so I became used to the thees, thous and begats. Others aren’t so fond of the translation and prefer updated versions, so the anniversary will likely set off never ending translation debates.

We’re already seeing a few stories with a hook to the anniversary, including one from the U.K.’s Daily Mail on how 51 percent of people under the age of 35 do not know what the King James Version is, according to one survey. NPR looked at how the translation ‘begat’ English idioms.

One story I enjoyed over the weekend comes from Marc Ramirez of The Dallas Morning News on an artist who has a fatal heart condition and is working on an illustrated copy of the King James Version.

The seventh-generation Texan is patiently crafting a handwritten, illustrated King James Bible, one page at a time. The “illuminated manuscript”—a type of work associated with the Middle Ages before technology made it largely obsolete—is a laborious process, blending calligraphy and illustration: The New Testament’s four Gospels took him an average of 18 months each to complete.

It’s a Sisyphean task, one compounded by the fact that Pepper, who lives in northeast Dallas, has a typically fatal heart condition that has dogged him since childhood.

So far, in addition to the Gospels, he’s finished the Old Testament books of Proverbs, Ruth and Ecclesiastes. He hopes to complete the book of Psalms by Easter.

Further down in the story, you’ll see quotes from his United Methodist pastor. On the art/books front, artist Makoto Fujimuru has an illustrated edition of the four gospels coming out and on display in New York City for the next two weeks.

So watch for the King James Version anniversary stories in 2011. Please.

Reporters could always look at the money it makes publishers, the ever-present literary influence, and its historical impact on culture, language, education and religion. Of course, there will be anniversary celebrations, but it will be interesting to see any unique angles they find.

Let me start by offering a “Merry Christmas” to all of you pro-tradition Christmas lovers who are celebrating the full season between Dec. 25th and the all-to-overlooked Feast of the Epiphany on Jan. 6th. We are talking about two crucial days that form bookends that support one another.

This brings me to a “Houses of Worship” article that ran in the Dec. 24th issue of the Wall Street Journal. I have received quite a few emails and Facebook messages about this, for reasons that will soon be apparent. I hesitated to write about this here, except that it actually focuses on a few issues of history and fact that affect reporters who cover both the ancient churches and the many Protestant flocks that place little or no emphasis on the Christian calendar.

The article was written by a Protestant writer named John Wilson who edits the respected bimonthly called Books & Culture, which is part of the wider world of the company best known for publishing Christianity Today. Here’s the headline:

Do Christians Overemphasize Christmas?

Some theologians claim that Easter is more important. That’s wrong. When we celebrate one, we celebrate the other.

Part of the problem is tied up those words “some theologians,” especially when linked with the words “more important.” Here’s the extended opening of this piece:

One of the hallowed Christmas traditions is the Anti-Christmas Rant. It takes many forms, and anyone reading this newspaper will be familiar with most of them. But unless you routinely hang out with people who argue about theology the way many Americans argue about politics or football, you may not have encountered one variant of the Rant that has been gaining momentum in recent years.

It goes like this: Christmas isn’t simply bad for all the usual reasons — the grotesque materialism that its celebration encourages, the assault of sentimentality and kitsch that somehow seems to grow worse every year, and the smarmy wrapping of it all in the most inflated spiritual rhetoric.

On top of all that, says the Ranter, there is a grievous theological error. In placing so much emphasis on Christmas, Christians fail to grasp the meaning of their own story — in which Easter clearly should take pride of place. This complaint isn’t new, but it’s been voiced more frequently of late. And not from the fringes, where members of tiny sects patiently explain that Christmas and Easter are pagan holidays that conscientious Christians must boycott. Well-respected voices are making the argument.

There’s Terry Mattingly of getreligion.org, for one, and N.T. Wright, a former Bishop of Durham in the Church of England. And Rodney Clapp, who presides over Brazos Press, a major Christian publisher.

Where to start with what’s wrong with this analysis?

First, let me join in the views of many of my online correspondents who noted that I should be proud to be included as a “Ranter” in this lofty circle. Indeed, that is true!

What does Wilson say is the key content of our rants? Well, here is one of the key quotes selected from Clapp:

“The climax of the four Gospels is not Christmas … but the events we celebrate as Easter.”

Now, as it turns out, my ranting views are not actually quoted in the WSJ piece.

However, I know from correspondence with Wilson that it was a GetReligion post written last Easter that underlined our sincere differences of belief. Click here to read the whole “What’s Easter about, anyway?” piece, if you wish. Here is an early chunk of material that includes my alleged rant.

My family returned to Baltimore last night after celebrating a joyful Pascha (that’s Easter in the ancient churches of the East) at a church in Salem, Mass., with family and soon-to-be family. Anyway, as we drove home from the airport we made a tiny detour to buy some fried chicken — which is the kind of thing that Orthodox people do when they have a teen-aged son and the family has gone vegan for all of Great Lent.

As we walked in the store, there was an interesting dialogue going on between a patron and the young man behind the counter. To cut to the chase, they were listing all of the reasons that they dislike Easter.

Well, you know, the holiday kind of messed up some people’s work schedules, there weren’t any good parties to go to and, other than the odd chocolate bunny or two, the whole thing was a bit of downer in the gifts department. And then there was the fact that it was so much more religious than Christmas. What was that all about?

Chicken in hand, I joined in for a minute or two. There isn’t any doubt, I noted, that Easter is the single most important day in the Christian calendar.

This statement drew puzzled looks. Easter, asked the guy behind the counter, is more important than Christmas? Why? Christmas is about the birth of Jesus, he said. Easter was about “all that rising from the dead stuff. Right?”

Right, I said.

Please note that in this rather humble exchange I referenced the traditions and rites of the Christian calendar. It’s also crucial that the marketplace apologist with whom I was arguing was offended by the intensely Christian content of the Easter season.

What? As opposed to the faith-free season of Christmas?

Here is the ultimate irony. I have, in the past few decades, poured out oceans of ink arguing that — in the context of post-Christian America — hardly anyone is celebrating the actual 12-day Christmas season, as defined in Christian doctrine and traditions. In fact, I may have written more articles and posts about this subject than any other linked to worship life in the modern church. I mean, click here or, if you dare, here.

In short, I am about as pro-Christmas and Epiphany as a guy can get. I would argue that Christmas — the actual season — doesn’t get enough MSM coverage, as opposed to “The Holidays,” the cultural phenomenon in the marketplace.

I would go even further the say that the other great feasts of the Incarnation — especially that of the Annunciation — are sinfully overlooked in most churches, especially in Protestant sanctuaries (but sadly in Catholic and Orthodox settings as well). Thus, these feasts get very little news coverage, as well.

But that isn’t the real issue here, methinks.

Based on the content of the WSJ article (included material that was edited out), I am confident that Bishop Wright and Clapp would join me in wanting to ask Wilson this question: So simply noting the historical fact that Christmas is the faith’s second-ranked feast (with Advent/Nativity Lent as the second-longest penitential season), in comparison with Pascha as the great feast of feasts (preceded by Great and Holy Lent as the longest and most intense penitential season) is a rant against Christmas?

One more question: Saying things like this will get you lumped, even tangentially, in the Wall Street Journal with fringe folks who claim that Christmas should not be celebrated at all?

Now, I think I had better stop right there — before I am tempted to rant.

Meanwhile, let me once again urge GetReligion readers to be alert to mainstream-media coverage of the 12-day Christmas season and/or Epiphany. And, once again, let me offer to those who are celebrating this great fast of the Incarnation: Merry Christmas. And to the Orthodox: Christ is born! Glorify Him!

Even in a health care bill that was unpopular, the panels that would make end-of-life recommendations in order to save the government on health care costs (said recommendations being passed on by paying doctors to share them with patients) were even more unpopular. Some people call these panels that make end-of-life recommendations “death panels.” Others, thought the term inaccurate and prefer terms like “end-of-life planning” and “consultation” and “directives.”

These end-of-life panels in Section 1233 of the health care legislation were so unpopular, in fact, that they were removed from the bill after outcry from folks on the left and right.

But whatever you call these panels that make end-of-life cost-cutting recommendations that doctors are paid to pass on to patients — the New York Times just broke a huge story: they’re ba-a-ck. And somehow they’re even more intense. Whereas the House had passed a version of the bill that would arrange for consults once every five years, now target populations will have these chats with incentivized doctors every year.

How? Behold the mighty, mighty power of regulation:

When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill.

WHOA. The story is somewhat sympathetic, as you might expect, to this rule by regulatory fiat. Still, it’s the kind of article that leaves the reader speechless. Among many fascinating details, the reporter got a hold of some emails from members of Congress basically pleading with others to keep hush hush about what had happened. Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon found out in November that the Obama administration planned to institute this rule but purposely kept the news hidden. I assume this must have been in the Federal Register at some point, but all the reporters missed this huge news. It does make you wonder what other news we miss, doesn’t it.

Anyway, like I said, the article is rather typically sympathetic to the panels, directives, consults, what have you. And that weakness manifests itself by generally failing to get much feedback from those Americans who are less-than-elated about having the government pay doctors to do these health care cost-cutting consults. Instead the article goes out of its way to mention any interested parties that support such end-of-life consults (without noting what their financial interests might be, I might add).

Just to give you an idea of the types of objections that are out there, here’s what the health care bill-supporting liberal Charles Lane of the Washington Post wrote about the panels over a year ago:

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive — money — to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic.

What’s more, Section 1233 dictates, at some length, the content of the consultation. The doctor “shall” discuss “advanced care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to”; “an explanation of … living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses” (even though these are legal, not medical, instruments); and “a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families.” The doctor “shall” explain that Medicare pays for hospice care (hint, hint).

Admittedly, this script is vague and possibly unenforceable. What are “key questions”? Who belongs on “a list” of helpful “resources”? The Roman Catholic Church? Jack Kevorkian?

Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life’s end would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it’s good to have a doctor’s perspective. But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party — the government — recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.

These types of concerns — shared by liberals like Lane as well as conservatives and moderates — aren’t prevalent in the article. But among religious conservatives, there’s also not enough accurate discussion of their concerns about having a financially interested party encouraging particular end-of-life decisions for individual patients. Note the way the lone religious opponent is quoted:

Elizabeth D. Wickham, executive director of LifeTree, which describes itself as “a pro-life Christian educational ministry,” said she was concerned that end-of-life counseling would encourage patients to forgo or curtail care, thus hastening death.

“The infamous Section 1233 is still alive and kicking,” Ms. Wickham said. “Patients will lose the ability to control treatments at the end of life.”

I assume the clunkiness in the description of LifeTree is about realization that the standard rewriting of “pro-life” as “anti-abortion” doesn’t work even remotely well in this case (something about which should give the copy editors general pause about the term “anti-abortion.”). But the set up of the quote also reads like the reporter didn’t exactly have a command of what Wickham and other pro-lifers’ objections are to such government-controlled counseling.

Of all the decisions we make that are haunted by religion, how we approach death has to be one of the biggest and most important. It’s almost impossible to talk about life-and-death decisions, such as end-of-life directives and hospice care, without discussing religious doctrines. I have to think that most Americans would like to make these decisions in consult with their rabbi, imam, pastor and priest at least as much as with their government-funded doctor working off a cost-saving script.

And we haven’t even gotten into other issues, such as how doctors’ religious views affect their end-of-life advice and care. What role will religion play in the advice put forth by government accounting panels? What role will religion not play?

Death and dying are intricately tied to the subjects of God, religion and faith. Stories about paying doctors to communicate the “guidance” from “end-of-life” advisory panels whose aim is to “cut costs” are haunted. As this story progresses, I hope we see stories that engage these religious ghosts. The fact is that there is a wealth of theology surrounding death and dying. How to die a good death has been a topic that theologians have given more thought to than Health and Human Services bureaucrats have. Let’s hope the New York Times and other outlets remember that in their coverage in days to come.

There is a religion story that has haunted me for years. It was based on an idea I picked up during a weeklong Gralla Fellowship at Brandeis University. A story I started working on when I was at the LA Daily News, one that I pitched soon after I joined The Jewish Journal, and one that in the end I was never really able to execute.

I thought I had mentioned the story here, but it doesn’t look like it. The gist of the story was essentially this:

Intermarriage isn’t the only phenomenon leading to a Jewish population crisis. A death rate that outpaces the birthrate is also taking a toll. Compounding the situation is the reality that Jews tend to be more highly educated, which leads to being more career-oriented, than members of other religions. That, in turn, means higher numbers of Jewish women are not trying to start a family until their biological clocks are working against them. Being that Jews have a religious obligation to be fruitful and multiply, how do thirtysomething Jewish couples cope with, or push back against, infertility?

Religion News Service recently picked up where my theoretical news feature — i.e. the one I never wrote — left off with “International adoptions changing face, identity of American Judaism.” It starts by talking about Anne Suissa, who when she was in her late 30s adopted two children from Guatemala after doctors told her fertility treatment likely would not succeed.

The general track of Suissa’s life is not unusual among Jewish American women. As a group, they’re highly educated — a fact demographers say contributes to their relatively low fertility rates.

Still longing to be mothers, they often adopt, and frequently, their children are of Latino, Asian or African descent. And that, in turn, is slowly changing the face of American Judaism.

Those who study American Jewish families can’t point to formal surveys to document the trend, but clergy and congregants say they are noticing more of these children.

(skip)

But if the idea of an increasingly diverse community is embraced by American Jews, a key reason for it is not: the relatively low fertility rate.

The number of childless Jewish women in their early 30s is 54 percent, compared to 28 percent for American women in general, according to the most recent National Jewish Population Survey.

The survey also shows about 5 percent of American Jewish households with children include adopted children, compared to the national rate of 3.7 percent. But unlike Americans in general, the survey notes, Jewish Americans are not having enough children to replace themselves.

Those NJPS numbers are the same decade-long stats that I noted in this post about a story on intermarriage. But, to be sure, Suissa is no anomaly.

A story like this requires a real strong human hook, which is why I was never able to deliver. In the RNS piece, I would have liked a deeper exploration of how Suissa and her husband coped with the news that even IVF likely would not make her fertile. But RNS, like the AP, is constrained by limited space.

Overall, I thought this was a good story that did a nice job putting the issue of Jewish child rearing in a religious and sociodemographic context.

One question that I would have like to have had explicitly answered was the religious implications of adopting non-Jewish children. My understanding is that the parents would still be doing their Jewish duty to grow the Jewish people so long as any adopted child converted to Judaism. But I’m not certain about that.

When I think back on Christmas coverage in the past few years, stories about the plight of Christians in Iraq always stand out for me. Things have been unbelievably bleak for a while and yet somehow this year they took a turn for the worse. It was only Oct. 31 that Muslim terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda seized the Syriac Catholic cathedral in Baghdad. Some 44 worshipers, two priests and seven security personnel died and 60 were wounded.

You can look back to some of our questions about or praise of previous coverage Iraqi Christians at Christmas here and here.

The New York Times offers up an account of the most recent holy day:

As they gathered to celebrate the birth of Jesus, the congregation here first contemplated death, represented by a spare Christmas tree decked with paper stars, each bearing a photograph of a member of a nearby church killed in a siege by Islamic militants in October.

The congregants on Friday night were fewer than 100, in a sanctuary built for four or five times as many. But they were determined. This year, even more than in the past, Iraqi’s dwindling Christian minority had reasons to stay home for Christmas.

“Yes, we are threatened, but we will not stop praying,” the Rev. Meyassr al-Qaspotros told the Christmas Eve crowd at the Sacred Church of Jesus, a Chaldean Catholic church. “We do not want to leave the country because we will leave an empty space.”

He added: “Be careful not to hate the ones killing us because they know not what they are doing. God forgive them.”

The story does a nice job of attempting to quantify what’s happening to Christians, as this excerpt demonstrates. And it fills in some blanks regarding Christians who worship elsewhere — as well as Christians who are not members of the Chaldean Catholic church.

Quoting from the sermon and describing the worship of the congregation is something that seems so basic but occasionally gets overlooked or poorly done. The reporter did a good job of taking a poignant and relevant portion of the sermon. I wonder, too, if the quote isn’t also a reference to St. Stephen, proto-martyr, who uttered these words as he was stoned to death. I’m not sure about the calendar differences, but we commemorate him today in the Lutheran church.

On the numbers issue, this story says Iraqi Christians used to number 1.4 million. This Agence France Presse story, however, says it was only about 800,000 before the war. It might be nice to have some sourcing for any and all numbers. Either way, the plight of the Iraqi Christian diaspora seems to be noticed more by those in Europe than those in the United States. At least, that’s what the coverage indicates.

Here’s a story about the European Parliament welcoming a delegation of Christian leaders from Iraq and Lebanon to discuss these Iraqi Christians who have been forced to flee from Muslim terrorists in Iraq. And here’s a story about German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s administration urging Germany to do more to help Iraq’s Christian minority.

Christians in Iraq aren’t the only ones whose Christmas was less than peaceful. Reuters is covering the story of Christmas in Nigeria:

Explosions in Nigeria’s central region killed 32 people on Christmas Eve and six people died in attacks on two churches in the northeast of Africa’s most populous nation, officials said on Saturday.

On Friday night, a series of bombs were detonated during Christmas Eve celebrations in villages near the central city of Jos, killing at least 32 people while 74 were in a critical condition, the state police commissioner said.

Nigeria’s army chief said the blasts were not part of religious clashes which flare up sporadically as tensions bubble under the surface in a country where the population is split roughly equally between Muslims and Christians.

“It (Jos explosions) was caused by a series of bomb blasts. That is terrorism, it’s a very unfortunate incident,” Azubuike Ihejirika said in the southern city of Port Harcourt.

It’s a fine point but the piece discusses how there’s a governing agreement between the north and south of the country. The north is largely Muslim, the south largely Christian. The northern leader died in office so a southern leader took over. Some northerners are upset. Fighting is being instigated to exploit some of these existing tensions. On the other hand, some of these attacks really are just about killing Christians, the article points out:

“What happened (in Jos) was not religious it was political … the aim of the masterminds is to pit Christians against Muslims and start another round of violence,” the governor of Plateau state said.

In a separate incident, at least six people were killed in what appeared to be religiously motivated attacks on two churches in the northeastern city of Maiduguri.

Attackers threw petrol bombs late on Friday at a church in the city, killing five people, including a Baptist pastor. A security guard at a nearby church died in a similar assault.

There’s another helpful article here.

While it is hard to explain to outsiders, one of the most fascinating battles in the American Catholic church today is the one that pits the kneelers vs. the non-kneelers. I refer, of course, to the issue of whether bishops should — bowing to the modernization of ancient rites — attempt to prevent the faithful from kneeling before the altar as they receive Holy Communion during the Mass.

Let me explain: If people are allowed to kneel, that would mean that the Latin Mass is coming back and the next thing you know the pope will be seeking draconian student-life codes on Catholic campuses that prevent student funds from being used for activities that directly attack Catholic doctrine. It would be like the reforms of the Second Vatican Council never happened (or the spirit of the council has been quenched or something like that). Horrors. Then again, I am Eastern Orthodox, so I am biased.

This liturgical war is the subject that looms behind this fascinating, but consistently shallow, Washington Post piece that ran under the headline, “Pope’s master of liturgy helps Benedict restore traditions.”

The bad guy in this piece is Monsignor Guido Marini, the relatively young Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations for Pope Benedict XVI. The good guy is Archbishop Piero Marini, who held this post for two decades. The young man is into all (or most) things ancient. The older man is into all (or most) things modern and progressive.

The battle ground? The sights, sounds, smells and rubrics of the rites celebrated by the man who sites in the throne of St. Peter. Why does this matter? Change the words and the rites and you eventually change the doctrines. Both Marinis know that. Using the most loaded of images, the Post even suggests that the young liturgist is, with this pope, attempting a “counter-reformation.” Is that with our without a large “R”?

Here’s a sample of the warfare:

Since the Marini II era began in October 2007, the papal Masses clearly have a stronger traditional element. Guido Marini, who has degrees in canon and civil law and a doctorate in the psychology of communication, caused considerable consternation among some progressive Catholics in January when he talked to English-speaking priests about a “reform of the reform.”

In an interview Thursday, he argued that the changes should not be seen as a liturgical backlash to modernity but as a “harmonious development” in a “continuum” that takes full advantage of the church’s rich history and is not subject to what he has called “sporadic modifications.” Liturgical progressives, like Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pa., are concerned that Marini considers the reforms of the 1960s ecumenical council known as Vatican II as being among those sporadic modifications.

At most papal Masses, a large crucifix flanked by tall candles is now displayed on the altar, even though many progressives say the ornaments block the view of the priest and the bread and wine. They argue that this obstructs the accessibility urged by liturgical reforms associated with the Second Vatican Council. Marini responds by saying that the crucifix reminds the faithful of who is really front and center in the Mass. He also says that the pope cannot sit in front of the altar when it bears the crucifix because “the pope can’t give his back” to sacraments on the altar.

Keep reading. It’s all here — Gregorian chants, fancy vestments, a few Latin rites, etc.

What is NOT here is the crucial third level of the drama. The story demonstrates that a battle is going on and even gives a few insights into what the battle is about. What is missing? That would be voices on the left or the right (but mainly the right) who can explain what the symbols represent. Readers are not allowed to listen to the doctrinal debates that add substance to the symbols.

In other words, what do these liturgical changes MEAN? Why are these fights packed with so much substance and emotion? Take this passage for example:

Piero Marini, who stepped down in 2007 after serving as the master of celebrations for 20 years, has championed the Vatican II reforms, including the simplification of rites that he believes facilitates active participation.

In the name of “inculturation,” or integrating church rites with local customs, the silver-haired Marini in 1998 accepted the request of local bishops to allow a troupe of scantily clad Pacific islanders in St. Peter’s Basilica to honor the pope with a dance during the opening liturgy of the Synod for Oceania. During John Paul II’s visit to Mexico City in 2002, Marini likewise granted a local bishop’s wish to let an indigenous Mexican shaman exorcise the pope during a Mass there.

Now that is a quick glimpse of true substance, a window into the third layer of the issues addressed in this news report.

Note: A practitioner of another religion — Catholic, polytheistic or some fusion of the two? — is allowed to exorcise demons from the pope, during a Mass. The Post flies right by this. Where are the voices that interpret the meaning of this extraordinary moment? Which divine power is casting out evil forces from the leader of the Catholic faith?

Methinks that the discussions behind closed Vatican doors about the theology built into that act probably lasted for more than a few moments. This was not idol chatter.

This is a great subject for a story. It contains many details linked to topics that are genuinely newsworthy. But where is the substance, other than the old theme that nasty people locked into the past still want to crush the brave voices of the new?

Slate published a piece this week that I’ve wondered for a while now: Did Facebook Kill the Christmas Card? Many people reveal their most significant moments of the year through a Facebook status or photo, perhaps eliminating the need for the annual letter or photo card. It seems like even e-cards are disappearing.

Part of me enjoys this annual tradition because Christmas cards are one of the only fun pieces of mail we get anymore. We enjoy hearing from our friends and relatives across the country and put picture ones on our fridge. The other part of me wonders about the money, time, trees, and, well, we just don’t have any puppies or babies to photograph. Thanks to Picasa, Facebook, text messaging, and e-mail, I can view pictures of my little nieces to my heart’s content.

Sandra M. Jones’ piece Chicago Tribune gives the latest numbers and sneaks in a little bit of history of the Christmas card.

Although Christmas remains the holiday that sparks the most greeting-card sales, fewer people send cards each year, according to Unity Marketing. The percentage of consumers buying greeting cards for Christmas fell from 77 percent in 2005 to 73 percent in 2007 and to 62 percent in 2009, according to the Stevens, Pa.-based market research firm.

…British businessman Henry Cole is credited with creating the Christmas card in 1843 - as a way to save time. Too busy to write a personal holiday greeting, Cole hired a well-known London artist to design a card he could send to all his acquaintances, according to a version of the story recounted by greeting-card maker Hallmark Cards Inc. Louis Prang, a German immigrant, is said to have brought the Christmas-card tradition to America in 1875, printing a card depicting Killarney roses and the words “Merry Christmas.”

…Although greeting cards have faced competition from the Internet for years, online or e-cards still represent less than 1 percent of the estimated $11 billion annual greeting card market, according to Mintel.

I’d be curious whether certain kinds of people (more religious, less religious, middle class, older, younger, etc.) are more likely send Christmas cards. While some might dislike the monetary or environmental cost, perhaps others see Christmas cards as an outlet for evangelism. Adelle M. Banks of Religion News Service reports that retailers are seeing a higher demand for religiously-themed Christmas cards.

Target, which would not disclose sales figures, said demand for religious Christmas cards is increasing, with higher sales this year than last. …Hallmark officials also declined to give specific sales statistics, but said religious-themed cards featuring the artwork of Thomas Kinkade are usually among their top 10 best sellers.

DaySpring Cards, a Hallmark subsidiary and one of the largest manufacturers of religious Christmas cards, say demand has remained steady. Christmas cards comprise 73 percent of the company’s sales of boxed cards, said spokeswoman Brenda Turner.

…Overall, Christmas cards—both secular and religious—remain the mainstay of all greeting cards sold, with about 30 percent of them featuring religious or inspirational messages or imagery, according to the Greeting Card Association.

On the other hand, The Telegraph reports the opposite trend in England.

Nativity scenes or references to the bible story feature on fewer than one in 25 cards, according to a survey by The Sunday Telegraph.

Christian groups said the findings were “disappointing” and blamed the situation on “political correctness”.

The survey of more than 2,100 card designs in four stores—WHSmith, Marks & Spencer, Clinton Cards and Paperchase—found only 82 featured any religious reference.

Most instead depicted Christmas trees, Father Christmas or non-religious messages such as ‘Season’s Greetings’. The baby Jesus was shown on only 13 cards—less than one per cent of the total.

Perhaps its part of what Pope Benedict XVI considers “aggressive secularism” in Britain and why he recorded a broadcast specifically for the BBC for Christmas. Then again, surveying the cover images of Christmas cards may not be the best indicator. For instance, a Thomas Kinkade card (sorry to make some of you shudder) probably won’t have a distinctly religious image on the cover.

One argument for hard copies of things like Christmas cards, yearbooks, newspapers, etc. is that you have a marker for that set period of time that indicates, “This is what was important during this time.” If people replace Facebook for these hard copies, are we placing less emphasis on the act of reflection?

Even though we didn’t send Christmas cards this year, we’re still planning to send thank you notes (the paper ones and everything) for gifts received. What about your family? Have you changed your Christmas card-sending habits in the past few years? Did you notice any difference in the ones you received this year, religious or otherwise?

Before we dive into the actual 12 days of Christmas — don’t forget to send URLs of any mainstream coverage — let’s look at another really interesting story from a big week for religion news in the Washington Post. The headline was crisp and to the point, if somewhat dry for such an interesting piece:

Enrollment of Muslim students is growing at Catholic colleges in U.S.

With that opener, you can see why my brain immediately linked that headline to one more than a year ago in Christianity Today, which ran atop a feature story that focused on some interesting enrollment numbers at Houston Baptist University. (That piece, I should note, was co-written by a close friend of mine, Olivet Nazarene University Provost Gregg Chenoweth. Yes, there is a Christian campus with a journalist as provost.) The headline:

Where Jerusalem and Mecca Meet

One Baptist college’s social (and evangelistic) experiment in having Muslim students on campus

Now, that content of that headline immediately concedes a major difference in these two types of campuses and, thus, these two stories. Islam is an evangelistic faith and so is Christianity, especially when one is talking about Baptists in Texas. A crucial question: Is American Catholicism, especially in academic contexts, still an evangelistic faith? More on that issue later on.

Here is the anecdote that opens the Post piece, which flows smoothly into the well-stated money quotes:

On a quick break between classes last week, Reef Al-Shabnan slipped into an empty room at Catholic University to start her daily prayers to Allah.

In one corner was a life-size painting of Jesus carrying the cross. In another, the portrait of a late priest and theologian looked on. And high above the room hung a small wooden crucifix.

This was not, Shabnan acknowledged, the ideal space for a Muslim to pray in. After her more than two years on campus, though, it has become routine and sacred in its own way. You can find Allah anywhere, the 19-year-old from Saudi Arabia said, even at the flagship university of the U.S. Catholic world.

The use of the word “Allah” in place of “God” is interesting, since many journalists are now striving to avoid it. However, it fits well here — especially since it contrasts with the images of Jesus, which brings the heresy of the Trinity (from a Muslim point of view) into the same context. Now on to the paragraphs that state the thesis:

In the past few years, enrollment of Muslim students such as Shabnan has spiked at Catholic campuses across the country. Last year, Catholic colleges had an even higher percentage of Muslim students than the average four-year institution in the United States, according to the Higher Education Research Institute. The influx has astonished and sometimes befuddled administrators. Some Catholic campuses are creating prayer rooms for new Muslim students and hiring Islamic chaplains to minister to them. Others are unsure how to adapt.

One of the sharpest increases in Muslims students has been at Catholic University in Northeast Washington. In the past five years, as the number of self-identified Catholics on the campus has decreased, the number of Muslims has more than doubled, from 41 in 2006 to 91 this fall. The largest group of international students by far now comes from Saudi Arabia.

Muslim students say they enroll at Catholic schools for many of the same reasons as their classmates: attractive campuses, appealing professors and academic programs that fit their interests. But there is also a spiritual attraction to the values that overlap the two faiths.

“Because it is an overtly religious place, it’s not strange or weird to care about your religion here, to pray and make God a priority,” said Shabnan, a political science major who often covers her head with a pale beige scarf. “They have the same values we do.”

So there are dorms for men and then for women. It is common for believers to fast and pray. There is an emphasis reserving sex for marriage, with marriage defined as the union of a man and a woman.

But there are questions. Do Muslim men shake hands or even hug other students, especially young women? Do you eat cafeteria meals that are not halal? How do you handle required Bible and church history classes? What if a professor opens class with a prayer? Is it possible to have a Muslim student association at a Catholic school? Well, is it possible to have a Christian student association at a Muslim school in, let’s say, Saudi Arabia?

The Post raises these issues, but does not mention issues linked to evangelism by believers in either faith. The more conservative Catholic University of America is, however contrasted briefly with another local institution that the newspaper notes is more open-minded on a host of subjects:

Many other Catholic schools with rising numbers of Muslim students have set up prayer rooms and formed Muslim student associations. Georgetown University, whose Muslim student numbers have also been climbing, has a prayer room, student association and an entire center devoted to Muslim-Christian understanding, and the school hired a full-time Muslim chaplain in 1999. Catholic administrators at colleges that have added similar features say they haven’t perceived the efforts as a challenge to their religious identity.

The story then skates bypasses another relevant issue. Do practicing, devout Muslims feel as comfortable on Catholic campuses that are more progressive — or even provocative — when it comes to moral issues? Have Muslim parents researched the differences between the Catholicism of Georgetown versus the more traditional faith and student-life code found at CUA?

An interesting question: How many Muslims live in CUA dorms? How many live in Georgetown dorms?

I ask those particular questions after talking with a Muslim student or two at Houston Baptist a few years ago when I visited that very conservative campus.

Yes, the Muslim students knew about the required chapel services, the Bible classes and the fact that some students might take a shot or two at converting them.

As a rule, other Muslim students knew all of that coming in, but were confident enough in their beliefs to enroll. Besides, they told me, the HBU students were polite and respectful. It was easier to face one or two evangelistic students than to face hundreds of secularized students who mocked their core values, especially on subjects as personal as marriage and family. As one student told me, the more morally conservative the Muslim, the more likely they were to feel at home at Houston Baptist, as opposed to other local options.

So the Post story opened an interesting door, especially with its focus on Catholic University. There are other interesting stories behind that same interfaith door, stories that affect a wide range of believers — Muslims, Catholics, Baptists, etc. — in a number of different settings. Proceed.

GetReligion was launched around the idea of ghosts — religious aspects to stories that went unexplained or ignored. Sometimes those ghosts are very straightforward. Sometimes they’re more about subtext and nuance. In this week’s Crossroads podcast, we discuss some of the lingering ghosts surrounding that provocative New York Times celebration of a marriage built on the failure of two previous marriages.

That this caused such outrage among readers indicates that the marital norms of fidelity and monogamy still mean something in this culture. That’s not necessarily religious, but religious institutions, values and cultures certainly are part of the story — the larger story about marriage, at least. I propose that the reaction to this story suggests that the way marriage has typically been covered — as the ultimate expression of personal happiness — might have caught the New York Times off guard.

I still have no idea why it was this story — and not the countless other stories that embrace the “personal happiness” motif — bothered people so much.

We also discuss that wonderful NPR story about the history and evolution of Christmas carols. It’s a great example of how a particular media — the radio broadcast — can bring a story to life with the perfect balance of editing, audio clips and expert sourcing. My favorite anecdote was about how “Hark the Herald Angels Sing” was originally written to mark the 400th anniversary of the Gutenberg press. In fact, “Hark the Herald” was originally where you’d sing “Gutenberg” and composer Felix Mendelssohn thought it would never work as a sacred tune. I love it.

Enjoy the podcast and have a wonderful Christmas!

In 2009 and the first part of 2010, I did a four-part series on Churches of Christ in Canada for The Christian Chronicle, reporting from Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver and a small town in Saskatchewan.

By the time I finished that series, I felt like I had met every Church of Christ member north of the 49th parallel. I am exaggerating, of course, but not by much: In the entire nation of 34 million people, our tiny little fellowship of believers counts roughly 150 congregations with 7,000 total members.

This was the headline on the first part of that series:

Canada: Struggle in a secular culture

This month, another newspaper ran a similar, even more dramatic headline:

Canada marching from religion to secularization

The source of that headline?:

A. Baptist Press.

B. The Anglican Journal

C. United Church News.

D. None of the above.

The correct answer would be D. The above headline came from the first part of a five-part series by The Globe and Mail, a leading national newspaper, on the “Future of Faith in Canada.” The dramatic opening of the series:

Before 1971, less than 1 per cent of Canadians ticked the “no religion” box on national surveys. Two generations later, nearly a quarter of the population, or 23 per cent, say they aren’t religious.

At a time of year when many Canadians traditionally turn to their faith, The Globe and Mail begins a look at the state of religion in Canada. What we’ve seen is a sea change in 40 years, a march toward secularization that mirrors what’s happened in Europe.

A look at the youngest Canadians suggests the transformation is gathering pace. In 2002, 34 per cent of 15-29 year olds said religion was highly important to them. Data from Statistics Canada’s 2009 General Social Survey show that number tumbling to 22 per cent.

Only the persistence of religious traditions among immigrants, whose religiosity has increased slightly over the past 25 years, has slowed the march away from our places of worship.

This demographic shift raises profound questions about our social values, about the fate of our cultural heritage, about institutions that once formed the bedrock our communities and about access to political power.

In general, I found the series — which includes reports on young people’s attitudes on faith, the crumbling state of churches in Quebec and elsewhere and the clergy shortage affecting all denominations in Canada — both riveting and revealing.

The stories are tightly written, less than 5,000 words total for the entire series. The information is presented authoritatively in a “This is what we know (or think we know) and why it matters” fashion.

Paragraphs such as this certainly get right to the point:

Religious scholars see perhaps the majority of today’s young Canadian adults as disappearing down a black hole of spiritual illiteracy from which institutional religion cannot retrieve them. The cause is also a product of young adults increasingly seeing organized religion as illogical and out of touch with reality.

From a different part of the series:

The crumbling state of the churches is a physical embodiment of the state of religious observance - and the phenomenon is hardly limited to Quebec. From British Columbia to Newfoundland, places of worship of all mainstream denominations are falling victim to dwindling attendance, rising land values and maintenance costs too onerous for congregations to bear.

The United Church, the largest Protestant denomination in Canada, closes one church a week, and has shuttered more than 400 in the past decade. The Anglican Church, which said in a report this year it was hemorrhaging members, has seen eight churches close on Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands, and placed another six on a one-year watch list.

While I enjoyed the quick reads, though, I found myself wanting more details — more context, more background, more voices to reflect and expound — as I read certain sections of the series.

For instance, this one:

On matters such as homosexuality, the role of women, sex education and religious instruction, immigrant religious groups are embracing debates that pit them against the majority public opinion. In the Anglican Church, Chinese Canadians have been at the forefront of the split over homosexual unions. Presbyterians from Korea, Ghana and Trinidad have put a conservative stamp on a church that once was liberal. At a United Church conference in Toronto a couple of years ago, Korean pastors walked out when the organizers opened the gathering with an ecumenical Buddhist prayer.

And this one:

What attracts native-born Canadians to church these days, says religion sociologist David Seljak of St. Jerome’s University in Waterloo, Ont., is the availability of parking, quality of preaching and children’s programs, in that order. It’s not doctrine or liturgy or biblical scripture - which strikes a melancholy note for next year’s 400th anniversary of the King James Version of the Bible. What some consider the greatest piece of literature in the English language is in danger of being forgotten with hardly anyone being aware that it’s missing.

In the part of the series on young people, I was especially impressed with the “real people” sources quoted: a Sikh medical student who stopped wearing his turban and maintaining an uncut beard, a Roman Catholic student who quit the church, a Chinese-born student whose faith “combines Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism in a holistic mind-body spirituality with prayers to forebears.”

Overall, however, the series seemed to lack many voices from actual people of faith — native Canadians and immigrants alike. I think their voices — and a better picture of their lives of faith in a secularized society — would have added an important, relevant perspective.

I’m still digesting all the information in the series. There’s a lot of meat and food for thought, and I certainly urge you to check it out.