Godbeat

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

Talk about burying the lede! Knox officials wanted to 'open up,' while banning Holy Communion?

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

If you have been following the ecclesiastical shelter-in-place wars, then you know that the most interesting stories — in terms of journalism and debates in the public square — as moved on to debates about safe worship that includes social-distancing principles.

Evangelicals and other low-church Protestants have a distinct advantage here, with their emphasis on preaching and small-ensemble praise music. It’s harder to distribute Holy Communion from a distance, even if worshipers in liturgical churches are six feet or more apart while sitting in their pews.

Some state and local officials seem to be struggling with these coronavirus issues. This is also true of for journalists, who really need to be listening to shepherds in Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran churches. It may even be possible to interview them.

In a recent “On Religion” column, I noted these interesting remarks by a high-profile archbishop:

New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, in an online essay, stressed that whenever Catholic priests approach their altars the saints and "all God's people" are spiritually present. He also praised clergy who have found ways to carry on with their work – while following social-distancing guidelines.

"Our parish priests have risen to the occasion, with innovative ways to distribute Holy Communion, expose the Blessed Sacrament for adoration, hear confessions and anoint and visit the sick," noted Dolan. "They assemble at graveside to bury our dead. Our courageous chaplains in hospitals and nursing homes are on the front lines."

I bring this up because of a recent story in my local paper, The Knoxville News Sentinel, that ran with this headline: “Are church services allowed Sunday in Knoxville? Yes, but it's not encouraged.” It described a rather typical conflict between a rather lenient state governor and strict local officials — strict to the point of potential First Amendment clashes.

The problem? Some of the most shocking details were buried — quite literally — at the end of this story. Hold that thought. First, here is the overture:

There is nothing stopping worshipers from congregating for services, but no official is recommending churches, synagogues and mosques throw open their doors right away.


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

British tabloids use online reach and clickbait stories to intensify tale of warring popes

, , , , , , , , , ,

Where do you get your news? This is a question I often ask of my journalism students. If being aware of the world around us hinges on the websites we read, then the answer to this question often reveals a lot about a person’s worldview.

Political polarization and news consumption is a real. For example, even during a pandemic, Republicans and Democrats remain starkly divided in their attitudes toward journalists. Pew Research found recently that while 66% of Democrats say the news media’s COVID-19 coverage has been largely accurate, just 31% of Republicans. The viral Plandemic video has fueled conspiracy theories on platforms where users generate content like YouTube and Reddit.

Toss in decades of liberal media bias, the growing influence of conservative talk radio, advocacy social media and tweet-storms from President Donald Trump and it combines for a lethal cocktail of mistrust. It has gotten more difficult to differentiate between trustworthy news sources on Facebook and Twitter.

This brings me to a news outlet not afraid of covering religion (great!), but one that often fails in its delivery (that’s the bad part). What happens when journalists in this kind of newsroom take one the pope? How about two popes at the same time?

I’m referring to The Daily Express, a newspaper headquartered in London that was founded 120 years ago. You may have not heard of it, but you’ve certainly seen their stories in your Google News stream or retweeted by a friend on both the left and right. Like most online newspapers, the tiny “About us” section at the very bottom of the homepage reveals the following:

Express.co.uk is the digital arm of the Daily Express and Sunday Express – one of Britain’s most famous and trusted news brands.

Since 1900 the Express has been at the forefront of the news, and a fundamental part of the fabric of British life, crusading for truth and dignity and bringing millions of readers informed coverage of the most important world events in both print and online.

The Express has stood up for Britain, talked common sense, and fought for the rights of hard-working men and women across the country.


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

YouTube thinker: Methodist conservative chats with RNS' Jack Jenkins about religious left

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

Every few years, like clockwork, American newspapers roll out pre-election features about a revival of activity on what can accurately be called the “Religious Left” — even if few journalists have granted it the upper-case-letter status of the ominous Religious Right.

From Day 1 here at GetReligion, I have argued that activity on the theological and political left is one of the most overlooked stories of recent decades. I have at least three reasons for saying that:

(1) The demographic implosion of the denominations known as the Seven Sisters of liberal Protestantism — the decline escalated in the late ‘70s and the ‘80s — left room in the American public square for the emergence of modern evangelicalism. Religious progressives, however, maintained crucial high ground in elite institutions of the left and right coasts.

(2) Progressive Catholics have always played a crucial role in the Democratic Party, even as — at the ballot box — it was easy to see a growing divide between liberal “cultural Catholics” and more conservative Catholics who worship once a week or even more.

(3) Journalists tend to focus on religious liberals as a political force, while paying little or no attention to THEOLOGICAL trends on that side of the church aisle (other than changes that affect LGBTQ issues).

Theological questions will be even more important for the Religious Left in the future, as the political left grows more and more secular (think atheists, agnostics and “nones”). How will this affect, for example, crucial ties to African-American churches, which tend to be more conservative on moral issues? And while we are at it, check out this new chart from political scientist (and progressive Baptist pastor) Ryan Burge, a GetReligion contributor (whose Twitter feed has been on fire the past couple of days).

I bring all of this up because of a fascinating video chat that took place the other day between United Methodist conservative Mark Tooley of the Institute on Religion and Democracy and veteran progressive scribe Jack Jenkins — formerly of ThinkProgress and the Center for American Progress — who now covers national news for Religion News Service. The subject is a new book by Jenkins with the logical title, “American Prophets: The Religious Roots of Progressive Politics and the Ongoing Fight for the Soul of the Country.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Plug-In: Investigation into Amish, Mennonite sexual abuse honored as Pulitzer finalist

, , , , , ,

It’s a heavenly time for the Godbeat.

For the second year in a row, journalism’s most prestigious awards have recognized the transcendent work of Pittsburgh Post-Gazette religion editor Peter Smith.

Smith and two colleagues — Stephanie Strasburg and Shelly Bradbury — were honored this week as Pulitzer Prize finalists for “an unprecedented investigation of child sexual abuse and cover-ups in the insular Amish and Mennonite communities.”

Just last year, Smith was a key part of the Post-Gazette team that received a Pulitzer for its “immersive, compassionate coverage of the massacre at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue that captured the anguish and resilience of a community thrust into grief.”

I asked Smith, who is president of the Religion News Association, for his takeaway on what the latest Pulitzer nod means for the Godbeat.

Here’s what he told me:

Religion journalism is vital, just as local journalism is vital, and both are central here. Our newspaper recognized the importance of this story and committed to investing our time and resources into understanding the problem in its unique cultural context, then reporting and telling the story through word and image.

I think that having a background in covering the Plain churches helped me as I got to know and understand the sources in our stories. More than one reader has expressed appreciation that we maintained a respect for the Plain culture even while addressing how aspects of the culture itself can be factors in the abuse. (For example, the Amish and Mennonites are widely admired for their magnanimous forgiveness, but that same virtue has been used to pressure a victim into reconciling with a predator, and to spare the latter from the legal consequences of criminal acts.)

There can also be a multiplier effect when a news organization commits to religion journalism. A religion reporter can team up with other journalists on other beats, and they can build on each other’s expertise.


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

Awkwardly timed issue: Should hard-pressed churches still want to be tax exempt?

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Awkwardly timed issue: Should hard-pressed churches still want to be tax exempt?

THE QUESTION:
Should hard-pressed churches want to be tax-exempt?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

“Religion Q & A” has pondered tax exemption three times already, in items posted on November 9, 2013; January 22, 2017; and then on October 25, 2019, when stripping of tax exemption from houses of worship erupted as a surprise issue in the Democratic campaign for president.

The 2019 round involved CNN’s “Equality Town Hall” when anchorman Don Lemon asked candidate “Beto” O’Rourke if “colleges, churches, charities” that “oppose same-sex marriage” should lose their tax exemptions. O’Rourke said yes, that no tax break should be granted to “any institution, any organization” holding that belief. No-one else on stage (Biden, Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, Harris, Klobuchar, Steyer, Warren) expressed disagreement.

But later, Pete Buttigieg (himself in a gay marriage) clarified that such religious colleges and social-service agencies should lose exemptions — but it would be too divisive to penalize religious congregations.

He didn’t mention it but there’d be a major legal tangle if churches and other non-profit groups that favor gay marriage retain tax exemption, but it is denied to those who dissent. The courts say it’s illicit for government to discriminate this way on the basis of viewpoint or to get entangled in one side of doctrinal disagreements.

Now there’s a new twist. Instead of complaints from liberal politicians, secularist lobbies or cities hungry for revenue (which in the Covid era means all of them), a cover story in the January-February issue of the evangelical magazine Christianity Today said churches should not even want to be tax exempt.

Talk about awkward timing. Only weeks later, COVID-19 slammed everything, churches included.


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

Podcast: Do journalists doubt that the Little Sisters of the Poor are doing ministry work?

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

It should be an obvious question for journalists who have been covering the Little Sisters of the Poor drama at the U.S. Supreme Court.

What do the sisters do in their ministry work that downgrades their First Amendment rights? What are they doing that undercuts their vows to follow the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church?

There has to be something that creates a legal gap between Catholic parishes and a religious order like the Little Sisters of the Poor, who specialize in taking care of the elderly and the poor.

Maybe the problem is that they do something other than “worship” inside the doors of a chapel or convent? Maybe the problem is that they hire other people to assist them in their ministries? Is that what turns them into a vaguely religious non-profit organization?

These are some of the questions discussed during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), which dug into some of the news coverage of this order’s latest visit to SCOTUS. This is, of course, linked to the order’s rejection of the Obamacare mandate requiring most “religious institutions” to offer their employees, and often students, health-insurance plans covering sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including "morning-after pills."

What’s the problem? Consider this passage from the NPR coverage of the sisters and the high court:

At issue in the case is a Trump administration rule that significantly cuts back on access to birth control under the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare, the massive overhaul of the health care system, sought to equalize preventive health care coverage for women and men by requiring employers to include free birth control in their health care plans.

Houses of worship like churches and synagogues were automatically exempted from the provision, but religiously affiliated nonprofits like universities, charities and hospitals were not. Such organizations employ millions of people, many of whom want access to birth control for themselves and their family members. But many of these institutions say they have a religious objection to providing birth control for employees.

Maybe the problem is that all churches and synagogues do is “worship,” inside the doors of their sanctuaries, while schools, charities and hospitals (often called “ministries”) do “real” things, like education, medicine and social activism. Thus, even if religious doctrines are at the foundation of their work, these groups are not as “religious” as houses of worship?


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

Jess Fields got tired of short, shallow news interviews: So he started doing loooong podcasts

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

Jess Fields is a small businessman (ask him about cigars), an Eastern Orthodox family man and a news consumer who is especially interested in stories about religion. He has also worked in nonpartisan think tanks linked to issues in state and local governments. He is enthusiastic about life in Houston (due to personal Texas Gulf Coast history I will have no further comment on that).

All in all, Fields is not a logical guy to start a podcast about religion, politics and other subjects that interest him. So why did he do exactly that?

Well, he told me that he “grew tired of the edited mudslinging that passes for ‘interviews’“ and decided that he “could do better.” His goal is to produce “long-form interviews with guests from multiple perspectives, providing a neutral platform for different views to be heard and considered in a respectful manner.” In other words, his interviews are really long.

Fields got off to a hot start with a newsworthy chat with the Rev. Tony Spell of Life Tabernacle Church just outside of Baton Rouge, La., the man behind a blitz of coronavirus headlines because of his rejection of “shelter in place” orders. Spell has been arrested and faced all kinds of questions when it appeared, on video, that he backed a church bus dangerously close to a protestor.

That led to this:

#1 — Pastor Tony Spell — On Refusing to Comply with Coronavirus Orders

We interview Pastor Tony Spell of Life Tabernacle Church in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Pastor Spell and his congregation are refusing to comply with Louisiana's stay-at-home orders due to the coronavirus pandemic. He has been arrested for violating the orders, but continues to hold packed church services. This is the most comprehensive interview Pastor Spell has granted.

Pastor Spell has his critics, as you would imagine, so Fields decided to do a lengthy interview with one of them — Rod Dreher (who lives in Baton Rouge).


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

Key words in New York Times look at nuns killed by coronavirus? Don't look for 'Jesus' or 'God'

, , , , , , , , , ,

There are often times when it isn’t fair to compare a story from one news source with a story offered by another newsroom on a very similar topic. This may be one of those times.

I’ve been reading The Atlantic and The New York Times for decades, through good times and bad — focusing on coverage of religion. I am well aware of the ingredients that you tend to find in feature stories in these elite publications.

Earlier this week, I joined readers and religion-beat pros in pouring social-media praise on an Atlantic feature about the Little Sisters of the Poor. The key was their efforts, in a Catholic nursing home, to carry on with their ministry work — while the coronavirus kept striking down elderly sisters (and a priest) in their flock. Click here to see that post.

As you would expect, the story was packed with news information, as well as poignant details that took readers inside the prayers and rites that define life among the sisters, while discussing the deep religious challenges and questions raised by the pandemic. Yes, “theodicy” questions lurked in the background.

The bottom line: These sisters were living lives defined by the vows and traditions of their faith. There was no way for readers to avoid that — which was crucial during this life-and-death crisis.

This brings me to a stunningly faith-free report at New York Times that ran under this headline:

After Decades of Service, Five Nuns Die as Virus Sweeps Through Convent

The coronavirus outbreak was difficult to trace in the Wisconsin convent, which specializes in care for aging nuns with dementia.

This feature focuses on the School Sisters of Notre Dame, a global order that — as the name suggests — focuses on teaching, at all levels. Here is how they define their mission, shown in an excerpt from the order’s constitution:

Our Mission is to proclaim the good news as School Sisters of Notre Dame, directing our entire lives toward that oneness for which Jesus Christ was sent. As He was sent to show the Father’s love to the world, we are sent to make Christ visible by our very being, by sharing our love, faith, and hope.

How is this mission expressed in Times-speak?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

In search of news coverage of China's moral responsibility for coronavirus pandemic

, , , , ,

A slew of European and African nations, plus Australia and, of course, the United States are angrier at China than they’ve been in a very long time. To which I say, good.

The reason for all this, as you undoubtedly know, is Beijing’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, which originated on its turf in the city of Wuhan.

Bottom line: It took a direct threat to the lives of other nations’ citizens for the international community to finally react to the heavy-handed and duplicitous manner that China deals with its own people and the world.

Just how widespread this opprobrium has become is detailed in this New York Times overview piece.

My question?

When this pandemic ultimately subsides — or at least becomes relatively manageable — will the international community’s attitude toward China revert to the previous just-look-the-other-way approach because there’s lots of money involved?

Or is there a chance that, at least some Western-style democracies will view China’s morally questionable political and economic values and actions in a different and more critical light?

The realist in me — or cynic, take your choice — thinks that the passage of time and humanity’s seemingly insatiable appetite for material comforts will again serve China’s imperial designs. And that China’s ruthless authoritarianism will again be overlooked. That accepting its police-state treatment of political dissidents and religious believers will again be viewed as the price global capitalism simply must pay to have access to China’s huge markets and it’s relatively cheap consumer products. Correct?

Journalists might want to start asking these questions now. And not only of the business and political leaders in their area. But of their religious leaders and thinkers — their community’s presumed moral compasses.

Also, don’t overlook the rank-and-file religious believers (and non-believers); they represent a community’s popular moral outlook.


Please respect our Commenting Policy