Tony Carnes

, , , , , , , , , ,

Redeemer Presbyterian's Tim Keller: An outsider who came to New York City -- to stay

, , , , , , , , , ,
Redeemer Presbyterian's Tim Keller: An outsider who came to New York City -- to stay

On the Sunday after 9/11, thousands of New Yorkers went to church, with many joining a line stretching outside the Redeemer Presbyterian services in a Hunter College auditorium.

The Rev. Tim Keller asked his staff if they could manage a second service -- doubling the day's attendance to 5,300. Keller's sermon, "Truth, Tears, Anger and Grace," began with Jesus weeping before raising Lazarus from the dead.

Many Americans were "coming to New York to fix things," he noted. "We are glad for them. They will try to fix the buildings. We need that. And eventually they will leave. But when Jesus weeps, we see that he doesn't believe that the ministry of truth -- telling people how they should believe and turn to God -- or the ministry of fixing things is enough, does he? He also is a proponent of the ministry of tears. The ministry of truth and power without tears isn't Jesus."

This sermon contained major themes from the life and work of Keller, who died on May 19 death at age 72, after a three-year battle with Pancreatic cancer. Instead of seeking quick fixes, especially through politics, he kept urging conservative Protestants to stress compassion and face-to-face ministry, while continuing to defend centuries of Christian doctrine.

In Keller's case, that meant building a church for New Yorkers that addressed their blunt, exhausting, even cynical, concerns about life.

In that first sermon after 9/11, Keller noted that everyone had an opinion about New York City and America as a whole. Some were claiming that "God is punishing us" because of rampant immorality. Others said America had been judged because of social injustice and greed. Instead of blaming the victims, Keller said it was time to ask who would stand their ground and love their neighbors.


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

New podcast: Top Godbeat story of 2021? Look for Jan. 6 religion hooks (#DUH)

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
New podcast: Top Godbeat story of 2021? Look for Jan. 6 religion hooks (#DUH)

beat stories.

Trust me, I understand that preparing the ballot for this poll is a thankless job. One of the hardest tasks is finding a way to describe some of the broader trends during any given year. It’s easier — most of the time — to describe singular events.

During this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), host Todd Wilken asked me to describe some of the patterns that I have seen in the RNA poll results through the decades.

Trend No. 1 is clear: Name the biggest political story of the year and look for a religion angle. After all, politics is the true religion of many folks who run newsrooms.

Trend No. 2 works about 76% of the time: What did the pope do this year, especially if it has any implications for U.S. political fights over moral and social issues (see trend No. 1).

Trend No. 3 comes and goes: What did liberal leaders of the Seven Sisters of Mainline Protestantism proclaim about sex and did it cause new revolts that might split their churches? Every now and then, the Southern Baptists slip in with battles over sex, race or politics (newsworthy topics, in other words).

In light of these trends, it was easy to predict that the RNA poll’s top story for 2021 would be:

Religion features prominently during the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol by pro-Trump insurrectionists. Some voice Christian prayers, while others display Christian or pagan symbols and slogans inside and outside the Capitol.

That’s actually a careful wording and, in particular, note that the RNA leaders refrained (this must have been hard) from including a reference to “white evangelicals.”

The key, in this description, is the tension between “prominently” and “some,” as in the folks saying “Christian” prayers. It’s safe to assume that this is the rebel that they had in mind (as quoted in one of my “On Religion” columns):


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

Yes, there were overlooked religion angles in today's biggest U.S. political news story

, , , , , , , , , ,
Yes, there were overlooked religion angles in today's biggest U.S. political news story

Well what do you know. Evangelical Anglicans and the Salvation Army had a big night in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

That’s probably not the first thing that leaps to mind today, for political junkies who spent most of the night (the World Series finale was a big deal) watching political pundits express shock and, sometimes, grief watching a Republican newcomer upset name-brand Democratic Party candidate.

Lots of people talked about Donald Trump, of course. Some people dug a bit deeper and focused on how governor-elect Glenn Youngin managed to affirm some themes from the Trump revolution, while striving to stay as far away as possible from personal contact with Orange Man Bad.

This brings me to a headline this morning at A Journey Through NYC Religions, which is one of those niche-news websites that many religion-beat pros have in their browser favorites — because of its heady mix of hard facts and hard-to-label commentary.

Here’s the headline: “Faith trumps Trump in Virginia.”

Say what?

I think many journalists would assume — if they thought about religion angles in the Virginia race — that the members of the victorious GOP team probably came from White megachurches. But that’s not what veteran editor Tony Carnes found when he looked for the ties that bind, in this case. Here is his overture:

Most of the media attention in the Virginia elections has been on Trump and his influence. The Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe tried unsuccessfully to tag his opponent Glenn Youngkin as a Trumper.

However, under the surface of politics, there was a deeper spiritual culture and social network that connected the top three candidates in Virginia. This characteristic made the GOP effort in Virginia more winsome (indeed, that is the first name of Winsome Sears, the next Lieutenant Governor.)


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

The U.S. Census story and its hooks for religion news (plus a personal note about Rachel Zoll)

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
The U.S. Census story and its hooks for religion news (plus a personal note about Rachel Zoll)

The first round of 2020 U.S. Census data (with much more to come) is big news as states gain and lose seats in the U.S. House and politicos enter the wild decennial joust to gerrymander federal and state district lines to their advantage.

But here's another journalistic thought: What does the Census mean for religion?

Tony Carnes of the "A Journey Through NYC Religions" website provides an early example, analyzing possible implications for New York City that other writers could emulate for their own cities, towns or regions.

Editor Carnes (disclosure: a personal friend) is a professional sociologist leading a team that has spent years tracking religion developments in Gotham, notably at the neighborhood level. Despite the town's secular image, Carnes and company have documented that, starting in the late 1970s, thousands of new churches, synagogues, mosques and temples have been built. Such activity was continuing until the COVID-19 pandemic struck.

Carnes counts the populations moving in and moving out from the American Community Survey between 2010 and 2014 as updated by Census numbers for 2018. This shows a city gradually becoming less African-American (population down 96,000) and Hispanic (down 50,000). The gainers are non-Hispanic Whites (up 200,000) and Asians (up 97,000). We'll soon know if these trends continued in 2020.

Carnes calls that "a startling change in the racial/ethnic profile of the city, and it is also found in other cities in the United States."


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

Did the January 6th riot at the U.S. Capitol involve Christian 'heresy' or was it 'apostasy'?

, , , , , , , , ,
Did the January 6th riot at the U.S. Capitol involve Christian 'heresy' or was it 'apostasy'?

THE QUESTION:

Did the January 6th Capitol riot involve Christian “heresy” or “apostasy”?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

The U.S. Senate may have debated whether ex-President Donald Trump bears responsibility for the Jan. 6 riot at U.S. Capitol, but certain conservative Christians focused instead on his followers. They propose that the final day of Trump’s campaign to overturn President Biden’s December 14 Electoral College victory involved religious “heresy” or “apostasy.”

Those leveling this charge are not #NeverTrump politicians or pundits but devout and conservative Christians. That may seem surprising because in the media and the public mind the “religious right” fuses with devotion to Trump. But such thinkers take doctrine and biblical teaching seriously (unlike religious liberals who define political sins while ignoring theological errors).

A survey by the conservative American Enterprise Institute shows 63% of white evangelicals think Biden’s win was illegitimate, despite the numerous federal and state court rulings that found no evidence for Trump’s claim of a “sacred landslide.” But to what extent were Christians implicated in the Capitol mayhem?

As weeks roll on, we’re learning how a radical fringe planned the Capitol attack in advance and energized the crowd that Trump assembled and addressed.

Terry Mattingly of GetReligion.org distinguishes among four groups: The horde that Trump assembled to hear his demand that Congress and Vice President Mike Pence somehow overthrow Biden’s election; those who obeyed Trump’s plea to march on the Capitol; the militant marchers who broke into the security zone, but only protested outside the Capitol; and the smaller, violent, and foul-mouthed mob that desecrated this potent symbol of democracy across the globe.

Regarding that fourth group, Tony Carnes, editor of the A Journey Through NYC Religions website observed that, “no pastors, priests, or other organized religious leaders have been identified so far as part of the riot.” Mattingly wondered where’s the evidence that links a legal protest that evolved into insurrection with “evangelical networks and institutions.” And yet, videos do capture some incongruous Christian symbols and prayers that mingled with the homicide, threats to kill national leaders, injuries to 138 police, vandalism and theft.


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

Early arrests after U.S. Capitol riot: So were there evangelical leaders in the attack or not?

, , , , , , , , ,
Early arrests after U.S. Capitol riot: So were there evangelical leaders in the attack or not?

If you’ve worked as a reporter for any amount of time, you know what it’s like to return from covering a Big Story. Then you face your editor and get THAT LOOK.

Here is the religion-beat version of this scene. The editor asks a question that sounds something like this: “So what happened? Did (insert name of ecclesiastical group) finally make a decision about (insert hot-button topic, usually involving sex and/or politics) or not? We need to know how big a story this is.”

The reporter answers that this or that religious group passed a vague resolution calling for more study, dialogue and prayer, but the text contains slight hints — often involving scripture references — that one side or the other is making progress toward achieving this or that goal (maybe). They’ll be arguing about this newsy issue again next year (or whenever the assembly has its next legal gathering), as they have been arguing about it for 25 years.

The editor gives the reporter THAT LOOK. It says, “You have got to be kidding” (or stronger words) and/or “Why did we spend money to send you to cover this national meeting? You said this was a Big Story.” Trust me: Reporters can detect THAT LOOK in an editor’s voice, even if this encounter is on the telephone.

Editor’s don’t like to wait. They like clear results that produce a BOLD headline over a Big Story.

With that in mind, let’s look at a recent New York Times story about the slowly unfolding legal process surrounding rioters who were arrested for attacking the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” protests. The headline stated, “Arrested in Capitol Riot: Organized Militants and a Horde of Radicals.”

My question: Did the 14 reporters involved in covering this story get THAT LOOK when their reporting revealed that the kinds of people facing federal charges (as of Jan. 31) were pretty much what careful news consumers would have expected? In particular, why isn’t there evidence — at this point — linking the violent rioters with (wait for it) evangelical networks and institutions?

To dig a bit deeper into that question, I think readers should read a Tony Carnes essay — “Mysteries about the Mob in the Capitol cleared up“ — at the website called “A Journey Through NYC Religions.” (That’s a deep website that GetReligion reader should include in their “favorites” lists in online browsers.) Carnes explores lots of logical religion questions about this story.


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

Oh no! 'New Yorkers' upset about Franklin Graham's hospital tents near Central Park angel

, , , , , , , , , , ,

That didn’t take long.

Just yesterday, I wrote a post — “All megachurches are not alike: NYTimes noted Howard-Browne arrest, but didn't leave it at that” — that opened with a plea for reporters to be more careful when making sweeping, simplistic statements about niche groups in the public square.

I was discussing the wave of news about the small number of megachurch pastors who are rebelling against “shelter in place” orders — by continuing to hold face-to-face gatherings instead of asking their members to stay off and watch digital, streaming versions of the services. This important and valid topic was yet another chance for reporters to be tempted to say that “evangelicals” (or even megachurch evangelicals) were doing this or that horrible thing, instead of attempting to get inside this complex phenomenon and report hard, nuanced facts. Then I added:

You also see this equation play out with “Catholic voters,” “Jews and Israel,” “New Yorkers,” “Democrats” (and “Republicans”) and lots of other niches in public life. … Making blanket statements of that kind — about evangelicals, Jews, journalists or any other group — requires either (a) massive amounts of solid reporting or some combination of (b) ego and/or (c) hatred.

Frequently, journalists need to carefully look at the evidence and add words such as “most,” “some” or even “a few.” They may need to limit their judgmental statements to certain zip codes or subgroups of a larger whole. …

Yes, take New Yorkers, for example.

There are many different kinds of New Yorkers (at least, that has been my experience). New York isn’t Dallas, for sure, but it is a very different place than the simplistic New York City that dwells in the fever dreams of way too many right-wingers.

This brings me to a hot topic on Twitter, as summarized by a new Religion News Service report with this headline: “Franklin Graham on his Central Park field hospital: ‘We don’t discriminate. Period.’ “

It’s a good thing — as you can see in that headline — that the RNS team let Graham speak his peace about the controversy that is swirling about those emergency hospital tents that his Samaritan’s Purse relief agency has brought to one of New York City’s most iconic locations. Nevertheless, read this overture carefully:


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

Podcast talking: Would Democrats take Marianne Williamson seriously if her name was ....

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Donald Trump is not going to be beaten just by insider politics talk. He’s not going to be beaten just by somebody who has plans. He’s going to be beaten by somebody who has an idea what the man has done. This man has reached into the psyche of the American people and he has harnessed fear for political purposes.

“So, Mr. President — if you’re listening — I want you to hear me please: You have harnessed fear for political purposes and only love can cast that out. So I, sir, I have a feeling you know what you’re doing. I’m going to harness love for political purposes. I will meet you on that field, and sir, love will win.”

— Marianne Williamson’s final statement in first debate for Democrats seeking White House in 2020.

Anyone want to guess what this particular candidate might use as the anthem that plays at the beginning and end of her campaign rallies?

I’m thinking that it might be something that honors the 1992 bestseller — “A Return to Love” — that made her a national sensation back in what people called the New Age era. Something like this: Cue the music.

I focused quite a bit on that book’s old New Age theology in my recent post (“Evil, sin, reality and life as a 'Son of God': What Marianne Williamson is saying isn't new”) about a fascinating New York Times feature about Williamson and her decision to seek the White House. I thought it was appropriate that the Times gave so much attention to the religious themes and concepts in her work, instead of going all politics, all the time.

But, truth be told, the key question discussed in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast — click here to tune that in — focused on mass media, celebrity, religion and, yes, politics, all at the same time.

Look again at that debate quote at the top of this post and give an honest answer to this question: Would that quotation be receiving more attention if the candidate who spoke it was someone named Oprah? How about this person’s candidacy for the Democratic Party nomination?

Williamson is being treated as a bit of a novelty, frankly, even though millions of Americans — on the elite coasts, but also in the heartland, because of her role as a spiritual guide for Oprah Winfrey.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

On second thought, were Pat Robertson's comments on Las Vegas more newsworthy than we said?

, , , , ,

"Don't take the bait: What Pat Robertson said about Las Vegas isn't really news."

Somebody made that case the other day.

OK, maybe that somebody was me.

But after hearing some excellent feedback from respected Godbeat colleagues (more on that feedback in a moment), I've reconsidered my position. Have I actually changed my position? You'll have to read on to find out.

In case you missed my original post, a few mainstream media organizations — including the HuffPost — reported on Robertson blaming disrespect for President Trump, in part, for the Las Vegas mass shooting in which 59 people died and more than 500 were wounded. 

Others mentioning his remarks — and I discovered this only after publishing the first post (thank you, Cheryl Bacon!) — included the New York Times.

The relevant paragraph from that Times article, headlined "Terrorizing if Not Terrorism: What to Call the Las Vegas Attack?":

Then the F.B.I. knocked down the Islamic State angle, noting that the group has a history of false claims. The guessing game resumed: Was it a plot by “deep-state Democrats” (Alex Jones of the conspiracy site Infowars) or perhaps divine punishment for the “profound disrespect”shown to Mr. Trump and the national anthem (the religious broadcaster Pat Robertson)? Was it something to do with country music, given the concert crowd Mr. Paddock targeted? Could it be linked in any way to the long-ago history of Mr. Paddock’s father as a bank robber on the F.B.I.’s most-wanted list?

The gist of my original argument against turning Robertson's comments into news:

When there's a major tragedy, here's another thing you can count on: Pat Robertson opening his mouth.
So yes, Robertson weighed in on Las Vegas. Was there any doubt that he would? But is there any possibility that what he said amounted to actual news?
Probably not, as a million (only slightly exaggerating) past GetReligion posts make clear.
"The key is that there are so many people within evangelicalism who are — for better and for worse — more interesting and influential than Robertson at this point in his career," GetReligion editor Terry Mattingly wrote way back in 2005. (That same year, Poynter.org published another excellent Mattingly piece on this subject, titled "Excommunicating Pat Robertson.")

The pushback against my position came on my personal Facebook page, where I had shared a link to the post.


Please respect our Commenting Policy