theconversation.com

Celebrities, monarchs, politicos, clergy and sacramental ghosts in coronation of Charles III

Celebrities, monarchs, politicos, clergy and sacramental ghosts in coronation of Charles III

If you read the main Associated Press report about the coronation of King Charles III then you know, in summary material near the top, that the rites were attended by “celebrities including Judi Dench, Emma Thompson and Lionel Richie.”

You would not, however, know that — for the first time in history — the monarch processed into Westminster Abbey behind a new Cross of Wales which, because of a recent gift from Pope Francis — contained two fragments from the “true cross” of Jesus discovered in 312 A.D. by the Empress Helen, mother of Constantine. We are talking about a relic reverenced by the early church and, ever since, by the ancient churches of East and West.

I know. It’s all about priorities. Was the coronation of Charles III a religious rite, a political ceremony or a mega-watt event in mass pop culture?

The obvious answer to this question is "Yes.” The issue, as usual, is which angle received the most accurate and informed attention in the AP report. Want to guess?

Before we go on, let me make a confession. I am, at the moment, high in the mountains of North Carolina and access to solid WiFi is, to be blunt, near zero. I drive into a small town about once day. Thus, I am going to focus on the religion details (and lack thereof) in the AP report alone — since that is what will be read by most news consumers in Middle America and elsewhere.

I will end with some questions about the rite that I have not been able to answer, questions linked to the ecumenical and interfaith content of the ceremony — details that appear to be close to the heart of the new king (background here from TheConversation website). But first, here is the overture:

LONDON (AP) — King Charles III was crowned … at Westminster Abbey, in a coronation ceremony steeped in ancient ritual and brimming with bling at a time when the monarchy is striving to remain relevant in a fractured modern Britain.

In displays of royal power straight out of the Middle Ages, Charles was presented with an orb, a sword and scepter and had the solid gold, bejeweled St. Edward’s Crown placed atop his head as he sat upon the 700-year-old oak Coronation Chair.

In front of world leaders, foreign royals, British aristocrats and stars, Charles declared: “I come not to be served but to serve.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

This keeps making news: Why do images of Prophet Muhammad so deeply offend Muslims?

This keeps making news: Why do images of Prophet Muhammad so deeply offend Muslims?

THE QUESTION:

Why do images of the Prophet Muhammad so deeply offend Muslims?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

This issue has erupted unexpectedly at Methodist-related Hamline University in Minnesota. Last October, adjunct art teacher Erika Lopez Prater showed an online class two medieval paintings in which pious Muslims had portrayed the Prophet Muhammad receiving Quran revelations from the angel Gabriel.

Lopez Prater warned Muslim students in advance so they could avert thir eyes. Nonetheless, the president of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) complained that Lopez Prater’s “trigger warning” itself showed she had committed an offense against Islam. Hamline’s President Fayneese Miller called Lopez Prater’s deed “Islamophobic” (she later apologized for that word) and the school decided not to renew the teacher’s contract.

The faculty, alarmed over academic freedom, called January 24 for Miller’s resignation in a lopsided 71 – 12 vote of no confidence. Then in response to that response, 13 leaders from campus groups like the MSA, Student Congress, and diversity committee endorsed Miller’s leadership and accused the faculty of betraying students.

Meanwhile, Lopez Prater is suing the university for defamation and religious discrimination.

Christiane Gruber, a well-known professor of Islamic art at the University of Michigan, entered the fray to defend and explain her Hamline colleague’s classroom behavior in this article at TheConversation.com.

Whatever current scruples, Gruber said, Muslim artists centuries ago did in fact depict Muhammad and both Muslim and non-Muslim art historians regularly teach about this. Paintings of Muhammad are collected at Istanbul’s renowned Topkapi Palace Library, among other places.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Once again, journalists need to ponder this question: What is an 'evangelical'?

Once again, journalists need to ponder this question: What is an 'evangelical'?

THE QUESTION:

One more time: What is an "evangelical"?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

Last month the Public Religion Research Institute reported that its latest polling shows white U.S. Protestants who identify as "evangelical" are now outnumbered by whites who do not do so. That upended the usual thinking on numbers, and analysts raised doubts. The discussion led Terry Shoemaker of Arizona State University, writing for theconversaation.com, to again mull the perennial question of what "evangelical" means.

In the American context, this term essentially covers the conservative wing of Protestantism, a variegated constellation of denominations, independent congregations, "parachurch" ministries, media outlets, and individual personalities that is organizationally scattered but religiously coherent.

There are three ways of defining and counting U.S. evangelicals -- by belief, by church affiliation and by self-identification. Shoemaker's analysis (which is open to some nitpicking) started from the belief aspect and a four-point definition by historian David Bebbington in his 1989 work "Evangelicalism in Modern Britain." In summary, these points are:

(1) a high view of the Bible as Christians' ultimate authority,

(2) emphasis on Jesus Christ's work of salvation on the cross,

(3) the necessity of conscious personal faith commitments and changed lives (often called the "born again" experience) and

(4) activism in person-to-person evangelism, missions and moral reform.

Problem is, those four points overlap with the definition of "Protestant" or even "Christian."


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Ask any church-state lawyer and you'll hear that this is a hard question: What is religion?

Ask any church-state lawyer and you'll hear that this is a hard question: What is religion?

THE QUESTION:

What is religion?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

Oddly, “Religion Q&A” entered its ninth year online before getting around to this question.

It’s not an easy one.

During the tax season, we may not feel particularly fond toward the IRS but can pity the staffers who spent years on a long-running dispute that ended in 1993 when the godless Scientology system was finally defined as a “religion” and thus eligible for the tax exemption benefit.

Then there are the federal and state disputes — beloved of journalists and too numerous to summarize here — over tax exemption for the “Universal Life Church,” and whether marriages performed by its clergy are legit. The ULC provides instant internet ordinations, sometimes for the likes of comedian Conan O’Brien, with no questions asked and no requirements of training, creed, or church. The ordination itself is free but the group sells such paraphernalia as a “Doctor of Divinity” certificate, a bargain at $20, and a $59.99 kit for performing weddings.

Let’s back up for the basics. Whatever the IRS might think, here are definitions of “religion” from the authoritative Merriam-Webster folks :

* “The service and worship of God or the supernatural.”

* “Commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance” (which is certainly a circular definition. Religion is religious.).

* “A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.” (Again, religion is religious.)

* “A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” (This means devoutly embraced atheism or Communism can be deemed a de facto religion although, as “Religion Q & A” has learned over the years, this terminology can provoke atheists’ fury.)

Another definition, labeled “archaic,” is “scrupulous conformity” to something.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Pondering 'Things to Come,' with help from savvy thumbsuckers and backgrounders

Point of personal privilege. "Things to Come" is the title of a Religion Guy favorite, Dizzy Gillespie's jazz pulse-pounder from 1946 that's ever contemporary. Check out this remarkable high school performance just last year.

Turning to our beat's things to come in 2021 and beyond, here are some savvy thumbsuckers and backgrounders you might have missed.

Evangelicals and the ineludible Donald J. Trump — The outgoing President, who told Religion News Service this year he's "a non-denominational Christian," hopes to control the Republican Party through 2024 with attendant media visibility. His politically crucial following among white Catholics may well fade, but what will his digital dominance mean for those ultra-loyal white evangelical Protestants?

GetReligion contributor and political scientist Ryan Burge, who emerged as never before this year as the go-to guy on religion and U.S. politics, says the evangelical "brand" is not as tarnished by Trump as many suppose. Two major surveys show little variation in Americans identifying with the movement -- currently 34.6% -- over the past decade. Another Burge opus reinforces The Guy's observation on Trump-era political and moral chasm between evangelical leadership and the grassroots.

Speaking of evangelical leaders, none has done more significant work than attorney David French in two decades defending freedom for religious groups and individuals, especially on secular campuses. He says he's seen up front the "astonishing intolerance and even outright hatred" that a relentless "illiberal left" is aiming against good-hearted believers. (Did that help the Republicans in November?)

French's weekly religion column for TheDispatch.com has become a must-read, though few fellow conservatives will cheer when he turns to fiery anti-Trump sermons. One column branded "Christian Trumpism" as "idolatry" that threatens American law and order. Another contended that evangelicals bring hostility upon themselves over issues like race and immigration that face the U.S. in the 2020s.

An election eve reflection by Christianity Today's new CEO Timothy Dalrymple took a more temperate approach to these issues.

American Christianity in “free fall”? — Last year's big Pew Research report on the decline of U.S. Christianity provoked historian Philip Jenkins to respond that those "nones" who tell pollsters their religion is "nothing in particular" are surprisingly religious.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

What role does religion play in U.S. Supreme Court justices' nominations and decisions?

THE QUESTION:

What role does religion play in Supreme Court justices’ nominations and decisions?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

By a thin margin, Amy Coney Barrett won confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court without the quizzing about her devout Catholicism — like Senate Democrats Diane Feinstein raised with Barrett’s lower-court nomination and Kamala Harris with another judicial nominee.

Nevertheless, the media pushed this theme, including her involvement with People of Praise, a close-knit community of “charismatic” Catholic families.

This was perhaps the most intense discussion of a nominee’s religion since Louis Brandeis (a justice 1916-39) became the Court’s first Jew following the agony of history’s longest confirmation process, with 19 hearings. Ostensibly, critics questioned his entanglements as a Boston lawyer, but Democratic stockbroker William F. Fitzgerald gave the game away by regretting the nomination of a “slimy fellow” with a “Jewish instinct.”

A smaller dustup involved Democratic nominee Hugo Black (on the Court 1937-71). He was denied the usual automatic deference granted a fellow U.S. Senator when reports emerged that as a young lawyer he joined the Ku Klux Klan, with its hatred of African-Americans, Catholics and Jews. Journalists only proved his KKK membership after a strong Senate vote for confirmation.

The Brandeis breakthrough launched an unwritten tradition of the Court’s “Jewish seat,” also filled by the religiously agnostic Benjamin Cardozo, who overlapped with Brandeis (1932-38), Felix Frankfurter (1939-62), Arthur Goldberg (1962-65) and the unfortunate Abe Fortas (1965-69). After a long gap, Ruth Bader Ginsburg began her celebrated tenure (1993-2020). There was also a “Catholic seat” line with Pierce Butler (1923-39), Frank Murphy 1940-49), William Brennan (1956-90) and Antonin Scalia (1986-2016).

The first Catholic on the Court was Chief Justice Roger Taney (1836-1864), who is not loudly hailed because he wrote the Dred Scott decision that’s widely blamed for precipitating the Civil War.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Why are U.S. voters so wary about electing atheists? What about voting for evangelicals?

THE QUESTION:

Why are U.S. voters so wary about electing atheists?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

Political firsts are piling up!

Joe Biden was America’s first Catholic vice president elected alongside the first Black president, Barack Obama, and hopes to be its second Catholic president. Running mate Kamala Harris would be the first female, first African-American, and first Asian-American as vice president. Jimmy Carter was not the first evangelical president but the first whose faith got such scrutiny. (See note below on how Americans view evangelical candidates.)

In other landmarks on major party tickets, losing nominees for president include the first woman, Hillary Clinton, the first Latter-day Saint, Mitt Romney, the first Eastern Orthodox candidate, Michael Dukakis, and the first Catholic, Al Smith, in 1928. Vice presidential hopefuls on losing tickets include the first Catholic, William Miller, the first woman, Geraldine Ferraro, and the first Jew, Joseph Lieberman.

Ted Cruz was the first Latino to win a primary election, and Pete Buttigieg the first openly gay candidate to do so. The halls of Congress have welcomed numerous Blacks, women, Latinos and those of other immigrant ethnicities, as well as Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims.

One exception. “Why is it so hard for atheists to get voted into Congress?” That’s the title of an October article by Pitzer College sociologist Phil Zuckerman for theconversation.com that was picked up by The Associated Press, patheos.com, Religion News Service and other outlets.

In a Gallup Poll last year, Americans said they’re willing to elect a president who is:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Many journalists are not pursuing crucial religion angles in Black Lives Matter coverage

As with most human activities, there are significant religion angles on the Black Lives Matter phenomenon, but they’re often missed in the lavish media attention.

As a generalized cry for racial justice and action against police misconduct, the cause enjoys wide support, so one obvious aspect to cover is the extent to which church folk — Black and White — are providing support.

Pew Research says 55% of Americans sympathize with the movement as of Sept. 13, though that’s down from an impressive 67% in June, presumably because criminal mayhem and radical hostility toward policing in general mingled with the street protests. (Among Whites, support fell from 60% to 45%.) Remember the early efforts, often led by church leaders, to have police and protesters pray together?

Little press attention has focused on another religious problem. Pundit Andrew Sullivan branded the Black Lives Matter organization “explicitly atheist (and neo-Marxist).” Televangelist Pat Robertson denounced its “anti-God agenda.” A Catholic priest in Michigan, the Rev. Paul Graney, called it “anti-Christian,” “anti-family” and downright “evil.” Southern Evangelical Seminary declared that, of course, “black lives matter” (lower-case) because “all human lives are sacred,” but beliefs of the official Black Lives Matter organization and related “critical race theory” conflict with “foundational tenets of the Christian faith”

The media may have downplayed this controversy. At some point, during recent weeks, the BLM organization removed the “What We Believe” platform from its website. It it, the group complained about “patriarchal” practices and said “we disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another.”

There’s also a big problem for religious believers who dissent from the LGBTQ cause. The BLM platform decried discrimination on the basis of “actual or perceived sexual identity, gender identity, gender expression” and vowed “to dismantle cisgender privilege.” It said “we foster a queer-affirming network” to break away from “the tight grip of heteronormative thinking.”

A related angle journalists could pursue is the way in which some leaders, including executive director and co-founder Patrisse Cullors, foster a new blend of non-Christian faiths and compete with the nation’s historic Black Protestant churches.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

'Plandemic' news, et al: Why do so many religious believers quickly embrace conspiracies?

The other day, I was talking with a friend in another state over the phone about the coronavirus crisis.

Suddenly, our conversation veered in a whole other direction. The virus, she said, was the work of a cabal of billionaires and world leaders. She recommended the work of Dr. Rashid Buttar, an anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist. My friend said that she didn’t believe anything the media said anymore.

This friend is an educated woman who attends a nondenominational charismatic church. She has worked in the health care industry for many years. She was also touting “Plandemic,” the movie that alleges that the pandemic is a nefarious creation by hidden overlords in government, media and finance. Facebook, Vimeo, Twitter and YouTube have been working overtime to get it off their feeds.

Which seems very odd. Is “Plandemic” that dangerous? I can think of a lot of more objectionable stuff on those platforms, ie pornography, than a conspiracy film. I watched the movie and don’t buy the claim that it’s “harmful” to have it publicly posted.

I posted a connection to “Plandemic” atop this post, only to see it get zinged by YouTube. I’ve tried several times to post a replacement video and it’s been taken down within the hour. So here (at the top of this post) is a video about the video. Whether it will be working when this post goes public is anyone’s guess.

Meanwhile — this Atlanta-Journal Constitution story gives some helpful background on the movie. I started looking up “Plandemic,” wondering if my friend was the only conservative Christian to latch onto this. I found a piece by Marshall Allen, a ProPublica health writer (and Fuller Theological Seminary grad) who was also finding religion connections.

My brother is a pastor in Colorado and had someone he respects urge him to watch “Plandemic,” a 26-minute video that promises to reveal the “hidden agenda” behind the COVID-19 pandemic. I called him and he shared his concern: People seem to be taking the conspiracy theories presented in “Plandemic” seriously. He wondered if I could write something up that he could pass along to them, to help people distinguish between sound reporting and conspiracy thinking or propaganda.

Sensational videos, memes, rants and more about COVID-19 are likely to keep coming.


Please respect our Commenting Policy