Evangelicals

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

Yahoo! podcast: Jon Ward offers lots of questions about evangelicals falling for QAnon

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

There is no “Crossroads” podcast during this short work week, but there is another GetReligion-related podcast for those with ears to hear.

Jon Ward, senior political correspondent for Yahoo! News, contacted me after seeing some of the social-media fallout from the recent trilogy of GetReligion posts about the Atlantic Monthly “Shadowland” project, especially the content about white evangelicals and the mysterious QAnon movement.

For those who missed them, those posts were: “The Atlantic probes QAnon sect and finds (#shocking) another evangelical-ish conspiracy,” “New podcast: The Atlantic needed to interview some evangelical leaders about QAnon heresy” and “Thinking about QAnon: Joe Carter sends strong warning to evangelicals about new heresy.”

If you have not followed his work over the years, Ward describes himself this way:

I write about politics, culture and religion. I'm pro-complexity, pro-nuance, and pro-context. I've covered two White Houses and two presidential elections. I'm the author of "Camelot's End," a book released in 2019 about the epic clash between Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter in 1980. I'm trying to understand how our politics is broken and how to fix it, and host a podcast on that topic called "The Long Game." I live in D.C. with my wife and our kids.

I ended up spending an hour-plus online with Ward, recording material for an episode of his “The Long Game” series.

The podcast that grew out of our conversation (“Religion reporter Terry Mattingly on White Evangelicals and the Qanon political cult”) in part of an effort by Ward to explore the broader world of conspiracy theory life, with some extra attention devoted to the anti-vaccine movement.

During our conversation, Ward noted that he grew up in evangelicalism (as did I, on the way to Eastern Orthodox Christianity). This entire discussion, he said, has reminded him of the famous book by historian Mark A. Noll entitled, “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind”

Here is a key comment from Ward:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Could Democrats win more Latter-day Saint Votes? Here's where they diverge from evangelicals

, , , , , ,

I’ve long been fascinated by the dynamic between Mormons and white evangelicals.

On the surface, the two groups look remarkably similar. Both communities are religiously devout, remain focused on evangelizing while maintaining strong social ties within their faith community and tend to lean to the right in American politics.

Under that veneer there’s been a lot of turmoil. It’s been my impression that Mormons have always felt a bit ostracized from the general American public. To combat this, the LDS church (or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) put together a media campaign called “I’m a Mormon” with the goal of normalizing their faith to the average American. I think, in some ways, that Mormons wanted to be seen as evangelicals.

But, many evangelicals want to ensure that doesn’t happen. Some of the leading voices in conservative American evangelicalism have labeled Mormonism a “cult.” Even the Billy Graham website once described Mormonism in cultish terms before the nomination of Mitt Romney in 2012. External similarities papers over the fact evangelicals and Mormons are some strange bedfellows, to be sure. But, do they really see politics in the same way? The data tells a pretty complicated story.

Let’s start broadly, with a look at partisanship and political ideology. In both cases, white evangelicals tend to be more apt to identify with the right side of the spectrum. For instance, 73.3% of white evangelicals identify as Republicans. It’s a bit lower for Mormons at 65.7%.


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

The Quran, round 2: Publishing commentary based on Christian perspectives makes news

, , , , , , ,
The Quran, round 2: Publishing commentary based on Christian perspectives makes news

Only a month ago, The Religion Guy proposed that people with COVID-imposed time on their hands take this opportunity to study Islam’s holy book, the Quran, which is so vital for 21st Century faith and also for national security and politics in both Muslim and non-Muslim countries.

The Guy Memo especially recommended “The Study Quran” (HarperOne), with its fresh new translation and elaborate commentary. This work was produced by a team of North American Muslim scholars led by Seyyed Hossein Nasr of George Washington University.

Now, by coincidence, The Guy alerts fellow writers to the release of an equally path-breaking publication: “The Quran with Christian Commentary” (from the Zondervan line at HarperCollins). The Guy believes this is a first for a Christian publisher, and quite a bold innovation.

The extensive verse-by-verse commentary is by Mennonite Brethren scholar Gordon D. Nickel (Ph.D., Calgary), who directs the Islam program at the South Asia Institute of Advanced Christian Studies in India and he formerly taught in Pakistan. His chief consultant was J. Dudley Woodberry (Ph.D., Harvard), an Islamic studies professor and former dean at Fuller Theological Seminary with research experience in 35 Muslim countries.

This work arrives with fond blurbs from experts at universities in Birmingham (U.K.), Bonn, Brussels and Oxford. Nickel’s commentary, and topical articles from a dozen other specialists on Islam, accompany the well-regarded English translation of the Quran by A. J. Droge of the University of Toronto at Scarborough (Equinox Publishing, 2012).

Obvious news angles abound.

The commentary explains and responds to Islam’s viewpoints on Jesus (yes a prophet and messiah, but neither crucified nor divine) and on Jews and Christians, and attacks upon the Bible’s veracity. There’s important discussion of interpretations in Islam’s minority Shi’a branch and of the complex history of Quran texts, which were standardized at a crucial 1924 conference in Cairo.

From the standpoint of religious knowledge, those are central questions. Nickel’s tone seeks to be friendly and respectful but — important for journalism and for cultural awareness otherwise — he clearly defines the substantial differences in belief between the world’s two dominant religions.


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

New York Times asks what 'hardcore' New Yorkers miss during pandemic (hint: no steeples)

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

It is one of the most famous covers in the long, rich history of The New Yorker.

“View of the World from 9th Avenue,” by illustrator Saul Steinberg, is one of the first images that come to mind when many New Yorkers of a certain age and, perhaps, social class, describe the alpha city they call home. The drawing is also known as “A Parochial New Yorker's View of the World.”

I am not a New Yorker, but I gained a little bit of experience in that world while teaching journalism, religion and mass media there for roughly two months a year over the past five years. This period of my life that is now, sadly, over, and the coronavirus had nothing to do with this departure.

I claim no great insights into New York, but I really enjoyed this experience.

Everything of substance that I learned during that time came from New Yorkers and that shaped what I saw happening around me. But here is one of the most important things I learned from the set of New Yorkers that I came to know — New York City contains some absolutely amazing churches and religious flocks of every size and shape. This website will tell you lots of what your need to know about that: “A Journey Through NYC Religions.”

Now, please notice that this statement undercuts a popular myth among New York haters in other parts of America. Yes, the Big Apple is a rather secular and liberal place, especially in Manhattan. But in reality, it’s hard to tell the story of Manhattan — past or present — without including religious faith in the mix.

Now, with that in mind, look again at the “View of the World from 9th Avenue.” What is missing from this iconic New York City image that is actually present in real life (other than, of course, the existence of the rest of the United States of America out in flyover country)? What is missing from this picture of New York City life that is so popular with a certain brand of New York insider?

Here’s a clue. It’s the same thing that is missing from a recent feature in The New York Times that ran with this double-decker headline:

What Hardcore New Yorkers Really Miss

Wistful words from the actor Alec Baldwin, the comedian Amber Ruffin, the Rev. Al Sharpton, the chef Amanda Cohen, the assemblywoman Yuh-Line Niou and more.

Note the phrase “hardcore New Yorkers.”

What does that adjective mean? Apparently it refers to people who live in a city with no steeples, no cathedrals, no synagogues, etc.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

FX documentary on Norma McCorvey omits key Catholic sources who knew her best

, , , , , ,

Years ago, a pro-life activist told me that her movement had several dirty little secrets — as in people who had been on the abortion-rights side of the equation, then flipped to the other side but were impossible to deal with or had weird lifestyles.

One such personality was Norma McCorvey, the “Jane Roe” of the famous 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Shortly before McCorvey died in 2017, she consented to being part of a documentary that just aired on FX Networks (I saw it on Hulu) last week. McCorvey’s “deathbed” assertions first hit the Los Angeles Times:

When Norma McCorvey, the anonymous plaintiff in the landmark Roe vs. Wade case, came out against abortion in 1995, it stunned the world and represented a huge symbolic victory for abortion opponents: “Jane Roe” had gone to the other side. For the remainder of her life, McCorvey worked to overturn the law that bore her name.

But it was all a lie, McCorvey says in a documentary filmed in the months before her death in 2017, claiming she only did it because she was paid by antiabortion groups including Operation Rescue.

“I was the big fish. I think it was a mutual thing. I took their money and they’d put me out in front of the cameras and tell me what to say. That’s what I’d say,” she says in “AKA Jane Roe,” which premieres Friday on FX. “It was all an act. I did it well too. I am a good actress.”

Many of us religion reporters who were working in the 1990s also interviewed McCorvey. There is no way she was putting on an act when I talked with her and I know other journalists who’d say the same thing. The most gaping hole in this story is linked to McCorvey’s conversion to Catholicism and the wealth of evidence that she sincerely practiced that faith.

After watching the movie on Hulu, it’s hard to tell what’s true and what’s false about this woman. She’s switched personas more than once in this battle.


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

Plug-In: Faith vs. COVID-19 -- Restrictions prompt clashes over churches reopening

, , , , , , , ,

Culture wars, meet the coronavirus.

In the nation’s latest religious freedom battle, church leaders in numerous states — from New York to Oregon — are clashing with governors over how and when to resume in-person gatherings.

President Donald Trump entered the fray today, saying he has deemed houses of worship “essential.” He called on states to allow the reopening of churches, synagogues and mosques despite lingering concerns over the spread of COVID-19, according to The Associated Press.

Just one example of the debates happening nationally: The Boston Globe reported on Thursday’s front page that Gov. Charlie Baker allowed Massachusetts worship gatherings to resume because he knew courts might force his hand.

In California, more than 1,200 pastors have vowed to hold in-person services May 31, defying Gov. Gavin Newsom, according to the Los Angeles Times. The U.S. Justice Department has warned the state that its coronavirus rules might violate religious freedoms.

In Minnesota, Catholic and Lutheran churches have informed Gov. Tim Walz of their plans to begin meeting again despite his executive order limiting religious services to 10 people, the Star-Tribune reported. Church groups are divided on the governor’s order, according to the newspaper’s religion writer, Jean Hopfensperger.

“It’s hard to see how under any reading of the First Amendment the Mall of America can be allowed to reopen while churches must keep their doors closed to all but a handful,” the Wall Street Journal said in an editorial.

In related news:

* Federal guidance for reopening houses of worship was put on hold after a battle between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the White House, the Washington Post reported. (Update: President Donald Trump said Thursday that his administration would release guidelines for reopening places of worship by today, according to NBC News.)


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

Thinking about QAnon: Joe Carter sends strong warning to evangelicals about new heresy

, , , , , , , , ,

This weekend’s think piece is, the final piece of a kind of evangelical-QAnon trilogy, in the wake of the must-read — even if you disagree with parts of it — “Shadowlands” package at The Atlantic Monthly.

By the way, I wonder if anyone in management at the Atlantic realized the religious implications that the term “Shadowland” would have for millions of C.S. Lewis readers. That’s the first thing I thought of when I saw the title. Just saying.

Early this week, I wrote a post about the “The Prophecies of Q” piece of the package and followed up with this week’s “Crossroads” podcast and post. In both, I argued that the Atlantic piece was essential reading — especially in terms of politics and technology. The religion angle — with QAnon as an essentially “evangelical” subculture — wasn’t as solid, in part because of next to zero input from evangelical leaders, including mainstream evangelical leaders, academics and writers who view QAnon as a dangerous heresy that catching on with some grassroots evangelicals. Thus, I argued:

It needed material drawn from major evangelical leaders who are concerned about QAnon and who can critique this trend, drawing on deep wells of evangelical history and doctrine. Baylor University historian Thomas Kidd leaps to mind, author of the recent book “Who Is an Evangelical? A History of a Movement in Crisis.” Or how about former GetReligionista Joe Carter of The Gospel Coalition? Karen Swallow Prior, now of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, is a well-known voice online.

Then again, Ed Stetzer — leader of the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College — has been writing about conspiracy thinking for several years now. Here is a chunk of a new piece, written with colleague Andrew MacDonald, at The Dallas Morning News. The headline: “Too many evangelical Christians fall for conspiracy theories online, and gullibility is not a virtue.”

The podcast post took a look at that Stetzer-MacDonald essay. Now, I would like to point readers toward a think piece at The Gospel Coalition by journalist Joe Carter (a former member of the GetReligion team). The headline: “The FAQs: What Christians Should Know About QAnon.”

Carter opens with one the key claims in the Atlantic piece: “To look at QAnon is to see not just a conspiracy theory but the birth of a new religion.” Carter then adds:


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

New podcast: The Atlantic needed to interview some evangelical leaders about QAnon heresy

, , , , , , , , , ,

What do you think? Is this whole QAnon conspiracy thing important or not? And should mainstream evangelical leaders be concerned?

That was the messy topic that “Crossroads” host Todd Wilken and I discussed in this week’s podcast (click here to tune that in). Looming in the background were some Twitter debates in which several people criticized my recent GetReligion post that ran with this headline: “The Atlantic probes QAnon sect and finds (#shocking) another evangelical-ish conspiracy.”

Let’s review a few things that I said in that earlier post. For starters, I do plead guilty to saying that some folks on the cultural left are a bit too fond of conspiracy theories involving scary evangelicals. Here’s how I stated that, while taking a shot at fringe folks on the right, as well:

It’s almost as if evangelicals are playing, for some strategic minds on the left, the same sick, oversized role in American life that some evangelicals assign to Hillary Clinton, George Soros, Bill Gates and all those liberal Southern Baptist intellectuals who love Johnny Cash and Jane Austen.

I was reacting to that recent “The Prophecies of Q” at The Atlantic, part of a larger “Shadowland” package about the growing importance of conspiracy theories in American politics.

Now, I think this Atlantic material is must reading, in part because the QAnon phenomenon isn’t well known in the evangelical mainstream. There are run-of-the-mill evangelical leaders who need to know more about this dark-web stuff, just as they needed to know about the twisted religious elements in the larger alt-right. When it comes to technology and politics, this “Shadowlands” package breaks new ground.

Did I attack The Atlantic — a publication frequently praised at GetReligion — and tell people to ignore this topic? Did I say QAnon has nothing to do with the big, complex world of evangelicalism? Let’s see. Here is the end of my earlier piece.


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

2020 White House race: U.S. bishops don't want to make news, but it'll be hard avoid it

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

You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

It’s like being stuck between a rock and a hard place.

No good deed goes unpunished.

Religion-beat pros will understand if cliches such as these are being muttered by members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops these days. Why? As Americans prepare to decide who will be their next president this November, members of the Catholic hierarchy are finding themselves in a no-win situation.

Do they speak favorably of President Donald Trump, helping him potentially to win re-election, or do they lend a hand to Democratic challenger Joe Biden helping the former vice president become just the second Catholic to ever serve as a U.S. president? Catholic leaders — be it the pope, cardinals, bishops or your local parish priest — don’t openly endorse candidates for political office.

There is a reason for that. The main reason is that it fosters division among a very large spectrum of people who are all part of the same denomination. IRS rules also forbid nonprofit institutions like churches from engaging in partisan politics — something some pastors avoid by saying they are speaking on behalf of themselves, not the church they represent.

While a few members of other Christian bodies choose to openly back a candidate (for example, some evangelicals and Trump; African-American church leaders and Biden), Catholic prelates see an endorsement as something that could weaken the church’s own authority and belief system.

In other words, you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t if you’re a Catholic leader. Still, this election will raise all kinds of unavoidable moral and religious questions for Trump and Biden.

Which brings us to Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York City. He was the target of outrage on the part of left-leaning Catholics for the way he spoke favorably of Trump following a phone call the president had with several U.S. bishops. Dolan, it should be noted, has also received abuse from the church’s right-wing cheering section for the way he’s handled the issue of gay priests.

Trump, on a call with bishops, called himself the best president in “the history of the Catholic Church.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy