It’s fair to say that nine-term Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak is not a poster boy for conservatives, even for conservative Democrats. An opponent of the Iraq war, active on environmental issues, watch him being skewered above by radio host Rush Limbaugh for his criticism of advertising by the pharmaceutical industry.

But Stupak, a former police officer, does represent the bread-and-butter, working/middle-class constituencies which once provided the backbone of the Democratic Party — and included many who strongly opposed abortion. Remind you of someone else? It sure does the Wall Street Journal’s Main Street columnist Willam McGurn.

Someone ought to tell the president and the speaker of the House that they are creating a new Bob Casey problem for their party. And his name is Bart Stupak.

The Bob Casey in question is the late governor of Pennsylvania, so famously humiliated at the 1992 Democratic convention. Party officials who denied the podium to the pro-life Democrat somehow found speaking slots for several pro-choice Republicans. That moment helped tar the Democrats as a party of abortion intolerance — a problem the party thought it put behind it in 2006 when the governor’s son, Democrat Robert Casey Jr., was elected senator as a pro-life Democrat.

Now party elders are making the Casey mistake all over again. A nine-term congressman from northern Michigan, Mr. Stupak is the kind of Catholic who once constituted the heart of the Democratic Party. Just like Gov. Casey before him, Mr. Stupak’s stand for life — in this case, his fight against tax dollars for abortion — is making him a thorn in the side of a Democratic president.

It’s not that Stupak hasn’t been in the news — Terry praised an article by the New York Times’ David Kirkpatrick last week that noted Stupak’s crucial role in pushing for restrictions on federal funds in the House. It’s not even that Stupak is one of a tiny handful of Democrats — though they are still very much in the minority, last year’s elections added more anti-abortion Democrats to the rolls in the House.

What McGurn picks up on is the Casey connection — and the relative silence from the Congressman’s normal allies on topics that include life issues on the religious left. That includes “progressive” (oy, can’t we find another word?) Catholics who both supported Obama and are anti-abortion. The question, of course, is why. We’ll have to wait to hear from some of them to find out — or someone in the media will need to ask!

Given that the White House has been relatively silent on the issue, that the House and Senate are so polarized, and that the Hyde amendment banning Federal funds for abortion is debatably being challenged, McGurn focuses on what may turn out to be a crucial moment for both the Obama administration and anti-abortion Democrats. Good get.

A few more comments.

I’d be very surprised if the coming debate on these bills in the Senate and House doesn’t bring increased focus on abortion, and other controversial parts of the bill (want to talk Medicare?) from the American public. For an interview with Stupak that explains some of the fiendishly complex issues around the health care debate, read Dan Gilgoff’s God & Country blog.

But one moral angle that McGurn doesn’t discuss (Got business?) is that the health care bills under discussion effectually subsidize policies hawked by the mega-insurance companies — which is an issue that I would think would concern those on the religious left. Almost half of private insurance companies provide insurance for elective abortion.

To only provide access and government money to those who don’t insure abortions, or to ask insurance companies who want to compete to stop insuring them, would be government regulation in private industry. Republicans classically are loathe to do that, and, when push comes to shove, so are many Democrats. I wonder why so few, on the religious left or right, are talking about that angle? Any guesses?

Let me own up to being on the losing side of the great American dialogue about guns. Linked to my pro-life beliefs is a deep skepticism that the answer to violence on American streets is owning guns to use in self-defense. Thus I find it unsettling when pollsters, as Pew did last spring, track a rise in anti-abortion sentiment — and a call for less regulation of guns. Is there a connection?

The way the media covers the “keep your laws off my guns” disputes that roil Congress periodically (and are now heading to the Supreme Court again) and gun violence tragedies often leaves out voices that really ought to be heard in these debates. We don’t often get good quotes from shopkeepers and other workers striving to make a living in communities plagued by gun violence, and bystanders traumatized by the aftermath of it. Those who witness shootings may be asking some pretty fundamental questions: why did this happen on holy ground? Why was that man or woman killed or hurt? Why was I spared?

Underneath our belief that a place of worship is sacred space (that makes it so shocking when that space is torn asunder by violence) is another narrative — that many Americans subscribe to the Second Amendment as a secular article of faith. In the following story, it helps to be aware of both. A writer for the Associated Press takes a look (I cribbed from their punny headline) at how some pastors are coping in high-crime Detroit: bringing their guns to church with them. The AP story puts the incongruity of having clergy bring a gun onto sanctified ground right up in the lede:

The Rev. Lawrence Adams teaches his flock at the Westside Bible Church to turn the other cheek. Just in case, though, the 54-year-old retired police lieutenant also wears a handgun under his robe.

Adams is one of several Detroit clergymen who have taken to packing heat in the pulpit. They have committed their lives to a man who preached nonviolence and told followers to love their enemies. But they also say it’s up to them to protect their parishioners in church.

“As a pastor, I’m referred to as a shepherd,” Adams said. “Shepherds have the responsibility of watching over their flock. Do I want to hurt somebody? Absolutely not!”

Hurting someone isn’t a theoretical conundrum for Adams, who has already shot a would-be burglar.

This is one of those articles where readers get more strung-together facts than a cohesive story. Are we talking about a trend or a few maverick Detroit clergy? Are clergy taking another look at what it means to “shepherd” the flock as a result of the highly publicized fatal shootings of the past few years? How about quoting a clergyperson who has theological reasons for not bringing deadly force into the sanctuary? I have no idea why the writer brought in the national statistics, since he or she doesn’t use them to explore other facets of the story.

In comparison, last week’s Washington Post ran a beautifully written, tragic story by William Wan that illustrated, from many angles, the plight confronting many congregations who fear an eruption of violence in their sanctuaries. Wan begins his story by recalling a fatal shooting in a Maryland suburb — and its aftermath in the eyes of a parishioner who tried to help a dying woman.

Months later — long after the ambulance rushed her to a hospital, long after the 52-year-old legal secretary was pronounced dead — Fuller found himself constantly replaying this scene in his head. He had lost patients before, but this was different.

He had known this woman, exchanged greetings with her at services for years before her blood came to be smeared on his hands, mouth and suit.

Plagued by the vision, Fuller asked God to restore peace at his church and in his heart. But just as peace seemed within grasp, Kelly’s trial and conviction this month and his approaching sentencing this week have stirred everything back up.

The doctor still doesn’t understand why God let Patricia die, why He had placed Fuller so nearby if not to save her.

“I’ve prayed and asked,” Fuller said. “I haven’t received an answer yet. I don’t know if I ever will.”

There isn’t any neat ending here — no comforting resolution. Just the stark, naked questions of theodicy (why God permits, or doesn’t always intervene, in suffering and evil). Wan includes some evocative quotes from the pastor of New Life Church, where a gunman killed two people. It’s compelling, unsettling reading — particularly in light of quotes from those who believe that church shootings are rising across the country.

One caveat — Wan doesn’t present much evidence that the culture wars incite shootings. That’s a provocative enough assertion that readers should get a more detailed examination.

But generally the writer is doing what journalists with some religious savvy do so well after a tragedy — honoring the pain and courage of survivors as they try to get on with living while asking — where are you, God? Their question becomes, if but for a painful moment, your question, the human question.

Is the U.S. public moving towards a more conservative, or perhaps a less generally permissive, attitude towards legalized abortion?

There’s some really fascinating new information out from the Pew Research Center, suggesting such a shift. But not so fast, mes amis. As soon as the data arrived, so did the deconstructionists. I found reading this different pieces both helpful and troublesome — some media outlets accepted the new information as solid evidence that a significant shift has occurred without question, and others immediately challenged its significance.

Read the Pew summary before you jump into the articles. Here’s a fuller version. I found these opening paragraphs most helpful when viewing the article — and again, found it odd that most of the stories didn’t lead with what seem to be the most significant results.

Polls conducted in 2009 have found fewer Americans expressing support for abortion than in previous years. In Pew Research Center polls in 2007 and 2008, supporters of legal abortion clearly outnumbered opponents; now Americans are evenly divided on the question, and there have been modest increases in the numbers who favor reducing abortions or making them harder to obtain. Less support for abortion is evident among most demographic and political groups.

The latest Pew Research Center survey also reveals that the abortion debate has receded in importance, especially among liberals. At the same time, opposition to abortion has grown more firm among conservatives, who have become less supportive of finding a middle ground on the issue and more certain of the correctness of their own views on abortion.

So are we really seeing a big change, some general movement towards a more conservative stance, more polarization among white guys and the more observant or — let’s not get our knickers in a twist yet? Prominent among the skeptics is New York Times pro Laurie Goodstein.

For most of the last two decades, a clear majority of Americans has supported the right to abortion. A new poll, though, suggests that support for abortion may have declined, with the public almost evenly divided over the issue.

The apparent shift, which contradicts some other recent polls, appears in a poll by the Pew Research Center released on Thursday. A 2008 poll by Pew researchers had found that those in favor of keeping abortion legal outnumbered opponents, 54 percent to 40 percent. In the new Pew poll, the gap has narrowed: 47 percent of those surveyed said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and 45 percent said it should be illegal in all or most cases — a difference within the poll’s margin of sampling error.

Note Goodstein’s use of the words “suggests”, “apparent” and “contradicts some other recent polls.” Goodstein goes on to look at data from some previous polls, that support her assertion that the data is “inconclusive.” That’s fair, although it is possible, given the ever-shifting sands of the health care debate and other hot-button issues, that indeed attitudes have shifted since last spring, when some of the previous polls were taken (note that even last spring Pew found a move towards more conservative attitudes towards both guns and abortion). I wish she’d done more analysis of the Pew data — and her use of the word “complacent” to describe current liberal attitudes towards abortion seemed to imply that liberals better wake up and smell the coffee. Goodstein is right on about the sensitivity of questions on the issue of abortion.

Count “The Pollster” at the Washington Post among those who question the import of this new data. The writers do use a very recent Virginia poll to support their argument for restraint — but it’s also possible that the shift isn’t occuring in Virginia, as swinging a state as it is. But take a look at Dave Cook over at the Christian Science Monitor website. He reports the data without question.

I really don’t like the lede on the CNN.com story by Richard Allen Greene. I have tremendous respect for Pew, and Pew data, but is this really a “dramatic shift?” However, I was intrigued by some of the revealing quotes he gives readers later in the story — particularly the one from N.O.W. President Terry O’Neill.

But Terry O’Neill, the president of the National Organization for Women, firmly rejects religious opposition to abortion.

“Abortion is a blessing when it is chosen freely by a woman who needs it. It is a blessing,” she said, citing the Rev. Katherine Ragsdale, dean of the Episcopal Divinity School.

O’Neill has been in that position herself, she said.

“When I was in my early 20s, I thought I needed an abortion. I was escaping a very violent marriage that lasted about eight months,” she said. “The young man I was married to exploded and severely battered me.”

Wow. Does the language of “blessing” represent the religious left’s (far left) new language on abortion? Readers, keep your eyes open.

So, how about some stories that don’t lede with questions about the reliability of the data, but take a closer look at the results, get some quotes from analysts, not partisans, and then contrast apples and apples? Do you have to either buy the new results hook link and sinker, or question their importance without engaging them? Ah, the disappearing middle ground — the Pew researchers may be unto something.

Let’s return to one of my favorite hot-button topics, the role of religion in the public schools. Whether it sets a precedent or not, the question of how to teach religion in the Texas schools is roiling the State Board of Education, schools, and activists concerned either that religion isn’t getting a fair shake or that a certain viewpoint (read: Christian) is being promoted.

So, under the circumstances, it seems that reporters could give readers clear explanations of the issues and opinions. After all, many readers pay taxes for these schools and send their children to them.

Or maybe not. Maybe we could just have another spitting contest with the eeeevil conservatives on one side and the rabid secularists on the other.

Cynicism aside, as I’ve said, every time you push the church-state button, from local boards of education to the United States Supreme Court, you are getting into the realm of opinion, in which there isn’t a clear consensus. So it’s not easy for a reporter to mark out the landscape of battle. But adding to the confusion isn’t a great idea, either, as did this recent, uneven piece from the Houston Chronicle.

Texas schoolchildren should know how God and religion greatly influenced the country’s Founding Fathers more than 230 years ago, say some of the experts reviewing the state’s social studies curriculum.

It is a viewpoint that troubles others who worry that a controlling majority of conservatives on the State Board of Education may go too far in pushing Christianity in public schools.

To characterize the origins of this country as a Christian nation would be wrong, said Steven Schafersman, who routinely attends SBOE meetings as president of Texans Citizens For Science.

“It is absolutely false,” Schafersman said. “That kind of belief is dangerous.”

He is among several who argue that many of the Founding Fathers actually were deists — they believed in God as creator, who permits the universe to operate according to natural laws rather than continued intervention. As such, they did not believe the Bible or Jesus were divine.

Eh, this really isn’t about “God and religion.” To date, it’s apparently been focused on whether there is or can be a Judeo-Christian perspective (emphasis on the Christian) in teaching materials. Look at the Peter Marshall quote later in the article, and you’ll see that seems to be his perspective.

“Controlling majority” — is that another way of saying that this is a group of conservatives who have the votes? Who are they? Are they all in agreement or do they represent diverse points of view?

And Schafersman isn’t one of “several” who believe that many of the Founding Fathers were deists. Many of them were deists. Or is Gary Scharrer saying that Schafersman only one of several in the state of Texas who believe that? Some Christians believe that the Bible is without error, but they don’t believe it is divine.

And then we have Marshall, head of Marshall Ministries. I’d have a lot of questions as to how a clergyman and the head of a ministry organization got appointed to review curricula for a school board.

That’s not addressed here.

For some reasons there are scare quotes around “expert reviewers when Marshall is being quoted, but the lede mentions experts without the quotes. It’s possible that the reviewers all reflect Marshall’s point-of-view (I can’t believe that anyone is still teaching that Columbus “discovered” America), but it’s also possible that some of them could have added light to the controversy as well as heat. The Schafersman quote right after Marshall’s doesn’t explain what he means by “live and let live.” Or is he just spitting back?

And, by the way, is this Founding Father story only about the guys who signed the Declaration of Independence and crafted the Constitution, or does it include influential men like the Puritan Cotton Matther (see picture above)? It is certainly possible to argue that American exceptionalism is as strong a strain in public life as is the predominant deism of our founding documents.

Interesting that the end of the article is so much clearer and more compelling than the beginning. Readers might not agree with Cynthia Dunbar or Richard Hughes, but at least they might gain some greater understanding of the profound questions here. From what I can tell, the religion wars in the Texas schools are being fought on many fronts, and reporters are trying to keep up with changing battlegrounds. This week it’s the Founding Fathers — next week, it might be the faith of Abraham Lincoln.

Another, less concrete idea — I have the sense that the entire framework in which these stories are reported (secularists versus religious, right versus left, conservative Christians versus liberal Christians) really needs to be evaluated, and possibly tossed out — in the interest of truly educating readers, rather than titillating them. I’m not sure what would replace it, but I do think that as the American religious culture changes, journalists need to find ways to keep up with how to write about it.

Picture of Cotton Mather from Wikimedia Commons

In an era in which the definition of journalism itself seems to be up for grabs, it’s a pleasure to praise Godbeat journalists recognized for superior writing by their own colleagues in the Religion Newswriters Association. Troll the list of the 2009 RNA awards, and you will see a few names you may know, either because they comment on the blog, or we often praise them for being examples of accurate reporting — Julia Duin (who won in multiple categories!), and Bob Smietana. Another award recipient was Sarah Pulliam, the younger sister of our own Daniel Pulliam.

Here are a few highlights:

Selected as Religion Reporter of the Year, Moni Basu, now with CNN, wrote an ambitious, multi-faceted series about Fort Stewart Chaplain Darren Turner and his work here and in Iraq. Read “Chaplain Turner’s War” for yourself. Basu also won the Suplee Religion Writer of the Year Award.

Jeff Brumley of the Florida Times Union won first place among reporters for mid-sized papers for stories on how faith meets modern life. Melanie Smith of the Decatur Daily was elected Reporter of the Year from publications with workday circulations of 50,000 or below.

The Salt-Lake Tribune ,edited by Lisa Carricaburu, won an award for its religion pages, which we here at GetReligion have often found a good source for reporting on the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints.

Religion & Ethics Newsweekly Special Correspondent Kim Lawton won Television Religion Reporter of the Year for a piece she did on the continuing legacy of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. And the radio religion Reporter of the Year award went to Stephanie Martin of KQED in Northern California.

I have to admit that I wasn’t familiar with all of these names. Were you? All over the nation, reporters in media both large market and small continue to work to bring us religion news. That gives me hope for the profession! Please let us know what you think of the stories (some of the content is subscription only, however) and which others ones you might have nominated.

Sometimes religion stories are about what happens at the sweeping level of doctrine, traditional and denominational controversy. And sometimes journalists have the chance to inspire readers to ponder the question —could I do that?

A story about a Chicago family of eight who has recently adopted two children from Ethiopia is another home run for Chicago Tribune religion writer Manya Brachear, and a sensitive exploration of the realities of what can happen when believers take their faith seriously.

Behind the doors of a modest Rogers Park frame house, Pete and Patty Mueller are acting out their own reality show of “Pete and Patty Plus 8.”

Home-schooling all eight of their children and surviving on one income, the Muellers have not sought the reality show spotlight that helped pop culture icons Jon and Kate Gosselin raise their brood and eventually broadcast the end of their marriage.

Still, there has been a fair share of drama surrounding the Muellers’ adoption of two children from Ethiopia — a process that started four years ago before anyone could have guessed Pete Mueller would lose his job.

The Muellers could have backed out of the adoption. But they didn’t. They believed they were answering God’s call in the New Testament to look after orphans in distress.

The Muellers have truly chosen a countercultural path — but also, apparently a sometimes messy one. There’s a lot that is wonderful about this article. Brachear examines the real life problems (job loss, home repairs, lack of time) that plague not only the Muellers, but many families. But she also highlights the qualities that impelled them to make decisions which many others might not have made.

I wish that she’d explained the normal meaning of “epiphany” (its not lightning bolt) but that seems like a quibble. Particularly interesting is the way Brachear reveals the way in which Muellers view their commitment to social justice as an expression of their faith —readers too often see the faith-works divide. It would have been interesting to have Brachear widen her article a bit to tell readers about the Mueller’s church (this one?) and denomination. I’d like to know- how do the other children feel about two new additions?

Brachear portrays a couple facing many real challenges, but forced, in Patty Mueller’s words “to live by faith, forced to need God.”

Pete Mueller’s evocative end quote, as does the whole piece, invites the reader to look at the families’ ordinary choices and Patty and Pete’s extraordinary sense of divine calling and ask themselves not “why?” but “why not”? To this reader, that’s a real achievement.

About eight years ago I went with a group of congregants in a previous church to partner in work for a week with a West Virginia congregation down near Kentucky in the “hollers”. I don’t eat meat, so I was eager to get to a grocery store and buy some lettuce and other vegetables to supplement the carb-heavy fare at the church.

Trolling the supermarket aisle, in which iceberg lettuce was the main vegetable offering, I realized that what many nutritionists tell us is true: part of the reason the poor suffer from so many health-related problems is that they either can’t afford or have to travel way out of their neighborhoods to find healthy foods.

That’s part of the reason why, as I wrote my colleagues, when I read this article about the produce market started by First African Methodist Church in South Los Angeles, I was moved. The other reason, of course, is that it’s an article in which the religious motifs are woven throughout in a way that feels appropriate to the topic.

Teresa Watanabe begins with the story of Dorothy Carson, who is visiting the produce market after a health scare impelled her to change her lifestyle:

So there she was this weekend, scooping up fresh cucumbers, avocados, green beans, grapes and other produce she said she never would have dreamed of eating before. Carson said she now consumes about six daily servings of fresh fruits and vegetables. Her weight and cholesterol levels are down.

“It’s like an angel brought this to me,” Carson, 58, said of the market. “It has really helped the community… . Now we are finally eating well.”

Watanabe doesn’t spell it out in capital letters, but it’s clear that First African Methodist Episcopal Church is very influential in the local area. The fact that its nonprofit arm is launching programs in ten other churches reminds readers of the church’s still central role in the African-American community. I’m curious as to why (lack of men in churches?) the initiatives target women and children.

FAME Assistance Corp. plans to expand healthful-foods education to 10 churches in the surrounding area under a three-year, $500,000 state grant targeting African American women and children, according to the nonprofit’s president, Denise Hunter. Possible initiatives include church forums and workshops, support groups, a cookbook, bulletin boards providing nutritional information and success stories about people who had changed their diets and improved their health.

More than two-thirds of African Americans in California are overweight or obese, more than 40% have cardiovascular diseases, and their high blood pressure rates are among the highest in the world, according to the state Department of Health Services. African Americans are also more likely to have diabetes than whites of similar ages.

The statistics are disturbing. But Watanabe then offers readers these inspiring quotes, suggesting the ways in which faith weaves in and out of this urban narrative:

…So FAME hooked up with Coast Produce Co., a Los Angeles firm that had donated fruits and vegetables to the church’s summer enrichment program for youth.

The firm is setting up a nonprofit arm, Fresh Hope, to take fresh produce to underserved communities and eventually supply local jobs, long a vision of its owner, John Dunn. He said his philanthropic impulses were in part fueled by his Christian faith, adding that finding a partner like FAME seemed divinely ordained.

“For us to find a counterpart with the same passion and belief as us — I do believe there’s a higher power that brought us together,” Dunn said.

Rooted, as many are, in a history in which African-Americans suffered from the weight of prejudice and economic disadvantage, black churches have for centuries tried to look after the spiritual and physical health of their parishioners — perhaps seeing them as one and the same. In recent years, this has meant forming nonprofit organizations to reach the larger community. This story is inspiring because it shows a community uniting around a shared vision — a vision rooted in religious values, but big enough to embrace those who may not subscribe. And you have to love the quote from the Rev. John Hunter near the end. If the church outreach can covert the pastor, who knows what might happen next?

Asparagus stars thanks to Wikimedia Commmons

I’m saving the best (Got News?) for last. But first, let’s cover culture war news from the Values Voter Summit held in D.C. And right off the bat I wanna say (yeah, that’s how we talk in Philly — you gotta problem with that?) that I’m ambivalent about any journalist who uses that term as a descriptor rather than the title of the Family Research Values conference. The term implies that conservative activists are the only ones with values, or that those on the left are value-free, or that voters who fell into the middle of the spectrum don’t take their values to the voting booth. In general, the reporters below tend to be clear that this is a term of choice, not of reality.

A few tidbits from the Summit: if you are looking to 2012 and the Presidential candidates, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee was first choice of the approximately 600 delegates who voted (Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty made a strong showing among the more marquee names). Former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin chose to welcome her son home from Iraq rather than attend (sounds like a good move to me, but somehow this became controversial). Former Miss California Carrie Prejean gave a speech (which got sympathetic treatment in the Los Angeles Times) that had some delegates in tears.

So why does it matter that fewer than 2,000 voters came to a meeting in Washington, D.C.? For a few reasons. Folks who show up at such meetings tend to be highly engaged. Politicians recognize their importance by courting them. And activists, in the hyperdemocratic environment aided by the Internet and the turmoil in the mainstream press, are more adept than ever at getting the message out to the faithful and adulterous alike.

But some in the mainstream press did consider the Summit worth a mention. Among them was New York Times political reporter Adam Nagourney.

Some of the issues with Nagourney’s article are highlighted by this high-snark-factor piece from the Powernetblog.com (we don’t need to know that Nagourney is gay anymore than we need to know that conservative analyst Juan Williams is black — and targeting his “special pleading”? — schoolyard stuff). Conservatives could only be “nearly politically wiped out” if a liberal Great Awakening had occurred last year, sweeping away the right, and it didn’t. Poster John Hinderaker also takes on this statement by Nagourney:

Many Republicans have been arguing that the party’s focus on social issues is a mistake at a time when voters are concerned about the economic downturn and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But the emphasis at the summit, sponsored by the Family Research Council, was still decidedly on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. The crowd rose to its feet to applaud Carrie Prejean, the former Miss California who caused a furor by denouncing same-sex marriage at the Miss USA contest, as she declared that “God chose me” to make the case she made

The blogger points out that, at a “Value Voters” meeting, attendants are predictably going to have a high level of interest in social issues, however much other groups are concerned about economic ones. I’m not sure I’d agree with Hinderaker that the focus on social issues in the Republican party is purely Nagourney’s, however — sedate as they might be, Summit attendees have ‘values’ that represent those of a large U.S. minority and in some cases cross party lines — particularly with some of the moderates and independents who voted for Democrats in last year’s election.

The main problems I have with Nagourney’s piece (but he does cover politics, after all) is that an overarching narrative (conservatives!! back from the dead!! (perhaps) ) takes over, mowing down any potential distinctions between attendees. And although one can assume that faith is a driver for many attendees, there’s almost no mention of it.

At ‘the vote blog’ of the website CSmonitor.com, the writers are also guilty of making sweeping generalizations (i.e., that the “tea parties’ and social conservatives are just two faces of the same group). But they do at least seem to get some of the religious tensions in the social conservative movement.

Many younger evangelicals — the type quite likely to be seen tea-partying or at this weekend’s conservative summit— apparently have a noticeably different set of values than their elders. For example, 44 percent favor a larger government offering more services — nearly twice the percentage of older evangelicals. They’re also more likely — 52 percent to 34 percent — to approve of same-sex marriage and civil unions.

Possibly. How do these guys know that the tea parties are either driven by evangelicals or that the younger ones were protesting last week? Some protesters aren’t religious — and not all the religious ones are evangelicals. But the bloggers link to a Washington Post OnFaith “Guest Voices” commentary that is by far one of the better pieces of analysis of “Value Voters Summit” values that I’ve seen. If you want to read something worthwhile and you don’t have much time, this commentary, written before the fact, by Public Religion Research’s Robert P. Jones is excellent because it reveals some of the internal fault lines, and the theological/doctrinal issues that drive many conservatives. That’s exactly what’s missing from the stories I’ve read.

By far the most revealing piece was Politicsdaily.com columnist David Gibson’s dissection of a survey on religious activists. The beginning sums up the thrust of his theme — that activists on both sides are much more alike than they would ever care to admit.

If you’ve ever stood in a pet shop and watched Siamese fighting fish attack their reflection in a glass tank, then you know what it’s like to read a fascinating new survey of more than 3,000 religious activists on the left and the right.

Extra! Extra! Read all about it. Activists on both ends of the spectrum have strong theological beliefs. They are generally better-off than most citizens in America, older, better-educated, mostly white. In other words, if the word has much meaning anymore, they are “elite.” If you were splitting hairs, you might argue that conservative activists are a bit more “elite” by virtue of income, but it’s pretty much a wash.

But one thing the conservatives and “progressives” have in common — they are convinced that they are right, and most invested in having you believe it, too.

The next time you are reading a story about these activists, it might help to remember that in many respects they are more alike than different. Kudos to Gibson for highlighting this survey, and a big hole in news coverage in general — much more invested in conflict than in sometimes disturbing similarities.

They sing! They chant! They swing (the thurible)!

For years there’s been a move among some in the emergent and evangelical churches, conservative churches reaching out to the young, and some mainline congregations to adapt and retool (if that’s not too irreverent) ancient liturgical practices in a way that reaches contemporary congregants. (See the late Dr. Robert Webber’s work on this topic.)

And, of course, Orthodox, Roman Catholic and some Anglican congregations have been worshipping according to the liturgical practices of the early church for centuries, if not millenia.

So the idea of services grounded in traditions isn’t news. But what rituals a church adapts, and the doctrinal reasons behind it, could make for a fascinating article. Unfortunately, the topic gets the oh-wow, “When Harry Met Sally” treatment in an article a few weeks ago on the LJWorld.com website.

When introducing a new service these days, most churches seem to go the rock ‘n’ roll route — something new to bring in a younger crowd.

To say that Trinity Episcopal Church went in another direction might be a bit of an understatement.

When the church decided to add a new service in fall 2006, instead of looking forward, it looked back.

Way back. As in the fourth century.

The result is a unique celebration of Christianity referred to as the Solemn High Mass. A mystical meeting of old traditions in a setting where blue jeans and T-shirts are appropriate, the Sunday night service features incense, music and what the church, 1011 Vt., refers to as all of the “major propers” including the Kyrie Eleison, the Gloria in Excelsis, the Credo, the Sanctus and Benedictus and the Agnus Dei, which are chanted.

What exactly did the church draw from the fourth century? From the liturgy of St. James? Of the Apostles? Other extant liturgical traditions? From ones used by the Orthodox? Or the Roman Catholic Church? Perhaps I’m being picky. But there’s nothing in this article to indicates what separates this service from any other high church, smells and bells liturgy in other Episcopal Churches.

Read some of the interesting comments here in the Episcopal Cafe. One of the commenters picks up on a mistake in the pictures. The priest isn’t waving lit incense sticks at the congregations — he’s using holy water to asperge (cleanse) them. Does Trinity have a choral or a chorale tradition?

The story closes with a rather quote from interim rector Ronald Pogue in which he comments on an “emerging global cultural shifts” impellling growing interests in ancient/meditative liturgies.

What on earth is he talking about? There’s potential news here — why is this service is drawing crowds among college students? Why did the Episcopal move in this direction? Does this church have a historic relationship with the University? What’s bringing in people from Kansas City? Do the newcomers get involved in church life?

Yes, this is a local article. But residents don’t learn much new — and what they do learn isn’t neccesarily correct. The writer passed up an opportunity to educate her readers about what’s sparking interest in traditional liturgies among the young a victory of “old-style” over substance.

Picture of thurifer from Wikimedia Commons

Sometimes we seems like a society that has a desire to major in the minors. Why spend more than five minutes (OK, 10) discussing whether it was appropriately presidential (in fairness, he thought his words were off the record) for President Barack Obama to call rapper Kanye West a “jackass”? Why focus on some nondenominational pastor’s sexual misbehavior when so many other churches are grappling with issues around mission, doctrine or social justice?

Although I’m as enthralled by scandal as many journalist, I am also, as I’ve said here a lot, a big fan of the bread-and-butter stories about the less spectacular decisions most of us need to make — assuming most of us aren’t Taylor Swift. That’s why I am a little puzzled as to why the announcement of a new NIV translation hasn’t gotten more mainstream attention. Fair to say that the new Bible translation isn’t coming out until 2011. But the storm clouds may gather a lot sooner as church leaders and parishoners remember the last time the NIV, the world’s most popular translation, was revised in a translation that substituted gender-neutral language for many male pronouns. Although the NIVi was only released in the U.K. (the later TNIV was released by publishing house Zondervan) outrage ensued among some conservative Christians.

Kudos to USA Today’s Cathy Lynn Grossman for picking up on the story and for providing some links to previous stories and Faith & Reason blogposts.

The scholars and publishers behind the world’s leading English language evangelical Bible announced Tuesday that they would publish a updated translation in 2011.

“And we’ll make sure we get it right this time,” says Keith Danby, president and chief executive officer of Biblica, once known as the International Bible Society.

Biblica, the Committee on Bible Translation and evangelical publisher Zondervan jointly announced the newest New International Version Bible — and acknowledged they were still singed by the fire and brimstone cast down on earlier update efforts.

One question that I wish had been addressed in both Grossman’s and Associated Baptist Press Bob Allen’s article on the topic is: which pronouns? As far as I know, the NIV Committee is examning male pronouns for human beings, not for God. So then the question becomes what does it mean to “get it right”? It seems as though it doesn’t mean leaving the NIV untouched — and that there may be some gender-neutral changes.

There are some really complex issues here with which reporters must struggle. Obviously, the NIV Committee can’t say what they will do before they do it, no matter how much we might like for them to do that. The Danby quotes suggest that he sees the problem as strategic (the TNIV wasn’t well marketed and defended) as well as cultural and doctrinal. Of course, the whole issue of gender-neutral language is also intensely complex, linked as it is to questions about the role of women in conservative churches — as Allen points out. Changes in language are iconic —symbols of social, political and theological forces impinging on liberal and conservative churches.

Last fall Crossway Books released the ESV Study Bible, reviewed by the conservative Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood as “unapologetically complementarian.” Complementarians believe men and women are created equal, but for different — or complementary — roles in both church and home. Generally, complementarians believe in wifely submission and oppose women serving as pastors or in other important positions of church leadership and governanc.e

Allen clearly reflects the conservative perspective, which sees a wider message in gender-neutral pronouns. Yet as Grossman points out in one of her linked stories, Gallup polls revealed in 2008 that fewer than one in three Americans believe that the Bible is word-for-word God’s word, and one in five believe it’s a collection good advice or a fable. So I’d hope that future stories also reflect the perspective of middle-of-the-road evangelicals and progressives who use the NIV because it is so readable.

The best article/post on this topic that I’ve seen is written by Ted Olsen, and posted on the ChristianityToday.com website. Olsen includes extensive quotes from Douglas Moo, head of the committee that will do most of the work. Olsen’s got some revealing quotes that indicate the gender-neutral issue isn’t black and white — as is the broader one of societal usage in general.

We felt certainly at the time it was the right thing to do, that the language was moving in that direction,” Moo said. “All that is back on the table as we reevaluate things this year. This has been a time over the last 15 to 20 years in which the issue of the way to handle gender in English has been very much in flux, in process, in development. And things are changing quickly and so we are going to look at all of that again as we produce the 2011 NIV.”

I don’t think any member [of CBT] would stand by the NIVi today,” Moo said. “But we feel much more comfortable about the TNIV.” He expects many of the TNIV’s changes to appear in the updated NIV.

That’s almost a guarantee of controversy ahead. Whenever mainstream writers start to focus on this story, let’s hope they interview not solely scholars but a spectrum of those in the pews who have strong opinions and pastors who will preach from the new version. Bread-and-butter — but much more important than who is up or down in, say, a little denomination called the Episcopal Church.