Godbeat

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

Plug-In: Lots of news about Southern Baptists, U.S. Catholic bishops and even a modern Jonah

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Plug-In: Lots of news about Southern Baptists, U.S. Catholic bishops and even a modern Jonah

One.

Two.

This makes three straight weeks that the Southern Baptist Convention’s big meeting in Nashville, Tennessee, has topped Plug-in.

Want an impossible challenge? Try highlighting the best coverage out of the plethora of headlines produced in Music City this week.

Some of the big news:

• The surprise election of “moderate” (if you’re OK with that term from the SBC past) pastor Ed Litton from Alabama as the SBC’s president.

Religion News Service’s Bob Smietana, the Washington Post’s Sarah Pulliam Bailey, Christianity Today’s Kate Shellnutt, the New York Times’ Ruth Graham, The Associated Press’ Travis Loller and Peter Smith and ReligionUnplugged’s own Hamil R. Harris all offer insightful coverage on that. (Even the Los Angeles Times weighs in, via Atlanta bureau chief Jenny Jarvie.)

• The skirmish over critical race theory, which Chris Moody describes in an in-depth narrative piece for New York Magazine.

Also, don’t miss The Tennessean’s Wednesday front-page report by Katherine Burgess, Duane W. Gang and Holly Meyer.

For more on the CRT angle, see Adelle M. Banks’ RNS story and Greg Garrison’s Birmingham News coverage.

• The major action to confront sexual abuse in the denomination, as the Houston Chronicle’s Robert Downen, CT’s Shellnutt, the Memphis Commercial Appeal’s Burgess and RNS’ Smietana detail.


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

#SBC21: Press wrestles with Twitter-niche labels as Southern Baptists choose a new leader

, , , , , , , , ,
#SBC21: Press wrestles with Twitter-niche labels as Southern Baptists choose a new leader

If you have followed mainstream coverage of religion (and politics) in recent decades, you know that many journalists tend to make liberal use of the vague term “moderate.”

This has certainly been true of coverage of warfare inside the Southern Baptist Convention.

Since “liberal” is kind of scary, journalists have long divided the SBC into “moderate” and “conservative” camps. With very few exceptions, your typical “moderate” Southern Baptist would be a “fundamentalist” in the world of mainline Protestantism.

Thus, in the great SBC civil war of 1979 and the years thereafter, the term “moderate” came to mean Southern Baptists that mainstream journalists thought were acceptable. These were the folks in the white hats who backed abortion rights, women’s ordination and, at first, were silent or vague on LGBTQ issues. Most of all, they were the enemies of those Southern Baptists who fit under the Religious Right umbrella.

With that in mind, consider the tweaked double-decker headline on The New York Times report after the fireworks at the SBC national meetings in Nashville:

Southern Baptists Narrowly Head Off Ultraconservative Takeover

Ed Litton, a moderate pastor from Alabama, won a high-stakes presidential election with the potential to reshape the future of the country’s largest Protestant denomination.

The original headline stuck with the old-school “moderate” vs. “conservative” language.

The leadership of the Conservative Baptist Network may have been sad about their candidate, the Rev. Mike Stone of Georgia, losing the election. But they had to be elated at how the Times described this event in terms that meshed with their views on SBC life. Here is the top of that report:

NASHVILLE — In a dramatic showdown on Tuesday, Southern Baptists elected a moderate pastor from Alabama as their next president, narrowly heading off an attempted takeover by the denomination’s insurgent right wing.


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

UFO buzz raises (once again) big religion question: Will aliens erase belief in Christianity?

, , , , , , ,
UFO buzz raises (once again) big religion question: Will aliens erase belief in Christianity?

THE QUESTION:

Would proof that intelligent life exists on distant planets overturn the Christian religion?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

Religious skeptics say very likely yes.

Why? They argue that given the unimaginably vast number of planets throughout space, there seem to be heavy odds that life would have evolved on some or many of them. If so, we earthlings no longer stand at the center of God's plan for the cosmos, and that overturns the biblical viewpoint.

The answer is “no,” according to the consistent view of Christian thinkers who've pondered this since ancient times. The Bible naturally focuses on homo sapiens, not theoretical species elsewhere.

Space is red hot just now. It's Roswell 1947 all over again. The latest fuzzy videos and reports from the Pentagon suggest something may be going on up there that's not merely the stuff of science fiction novels. Are we no longer alone in the universe? Are aliens from another galaxy spying on us from those UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects)? Is SETI (the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) poised for its devoutly desired breakthrough?

Even strict Bible literalist Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis sees a chance because "the Bible does not state whether life exists elsewhere in the universe," though he "strongly" suspects it does not.

University of Rochester astrophysicist Adam Frank pooh-poohs the current UFO buzz because the real story is that super telescopes may well bring us proof of life by other means, for instance spotting light gleaming on the dark sides of distant planets. He also poses a common-sense objection. If we're really being visited by aliens "why don't they just land on the White House lawn and announce themselves?"

That "I" in SETI is all-important.


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

What to read, and why, as Catholic bishops mull plan to deny Biden Holy Communion

, , , , , , , , , ,
What to read, and why, as Catholic bishops mull plan to deny Biden Holy Communion

This is a week that could change Catholic life in this country. That is not an exaggeration when you consider what the bishops will be debating.

Barring an intervention from Pope Francis himself, the U.S. bishops will consider, and vote on Thursday, a plan for a document about Holy Communion that includes denying the sacrament to politicians who repeatedly support policies advocating abortion rights. That includes President Joe Biden, only the country’s second Catholic commander in chief ever.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops will gather virtually for their three-day Spring General Assembly starting tomorrow. The public sessions are available on the USCCB website for all to watch. While the bishops will have a busy agenda ahead of them, the biggest issue — in terms of news coverage — is this question of whether the sacrament of Communion can be denied to Catholic politicians with a history of backing abortion rights.

What can we expect from the news coverage?

This has been an issue that was pushed to the forefront by many bishops following Biden’s election last November. This is an issue that has been covered by both the mainstream press as well as Catholic media. The arguments and decisions made this week will have a lasting impact on Catholicism and those who practice it. The opinions many will form this week will come directly from the coverage they read.

Here is the debate in a nutshell: Some bishops want politicians who identify as Catholic to hold public policy positions that are not at odds with church teaching on abortion, marriage, LGBTQ rights and other issues in moral theology. Others argue that these politicians can hold political positions that clash with the church — while expressing private support for church teachings — and continue to attend Mass and receive Holy Communion.

That this division also happen to match with how these Catholics vote will dominate the coverage. it also comes at a time when the Supreme Court will take up a major abortion rights challenge.


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

#SBC2021, CRT and sexual abuse: Are compromises possible in this complex showdown?

, , , , , , , , ,
#SBC2021, CRT and sexual abuse: Are compromises possible in this complex showdown?

When most journalists, and thus most news consumers, think of Southern Baptists it’s highly likely that “compromise” is not one of the first words that leaps to mind.

But think about this for a moment. The current firestorm surrounding the Southern Baptist Convention’s national meetings in Nashville (tomorrow and Wednesday) centers on recent efforts by the convention’s leaders to find working compromises on two explosive issues in church life — racism and sexual abuse. In both cases, forces have pulled at convention leaders to move further to the right or to pursue more “progressive” options that would clash with realities in SBC life and polity.

Consider the hellish realities of racism and, in particular, the complex secular doctrines of “Critical Race Theory.” The SBC could praise CRT and embrace it or totally reject this school of thought. A compromise? That would stress listening to conservative Black church leaders and saying that CRT makes some points about racism in America that are valid, but that it also contains secular views of evil and race that do not mesh with traditional Christian beliefs. Hold that thought.

On sexual abuse, there are progressives who want the SBC to start some kind of national agency that would be granted powers to yank abusive clergy and congregations into line. This would clash with Baptist teachings on the autonomy of local churches. At the same time, others say SBC leaders have already gone to far while trying to create a centrist, compromise, stance — providing some guidelines for churches facing accusations of sexual abuse, as well as best-practices materials on how to help victims.

So, here is the journalism question to ponder in the next few days: Can national-level religion reporters find a way to avoid the classic two-army, left vs. right, template that dominates most news coverage of clashes of this kind? This would allow readers to see the larger picture — the attempt to find compromises between two extremes that please enough conservatives to prevent a damaging explosion in SBC life.


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

Plug-In: How hot will SBC meetings get in Nashville? Sexual-abuse fights are Round 1

, , , , , , ,
Plug-In: How hot will SBC meetings get in Nashville? Sexual-abuse fights are Round 1

Look for a little thunder today, but I don’t see any rain in the Nashville, Tennessee, forecast for next week.

That’s probably a good thing because I’m not sure how many more leaks the Southern Baptist Convention can take.

The heat will be turned up, though, as 16,000 Baptist messengers converge on Music City for the denomination’s (yes, I’m going to use that word) biggest annual meeting in a quarter-century.

Last week’s Plug-in set the scene, but the headlines just keep coming.

The new developments start with Washington Post religion writer Sarah Pulliam Bailey’s scoop last Saturday on a leaked letter detailing allegations that Southern Baptist leaders mishandled sex abuse claims.

Next up: That would be the leaked audio Thursday of SBC officials showing reluctance to take action against churches accused of mishandling abuse, as The Associated Press’ Peter Smith and Travis Loller, Religion News Service’s Bob Smietana and Adelle M. Banks and The Tennessean’s Holly Meyer report.

More to read:

• Pressure mounts for an independent investigation of SBC Executive Committee handling of abuse (by Bob Smietana, RNS)

• Tensions erupt among Southern Baptists ahead of their big meeting in Nashville. Here's why (by Holly Meyer, The Tennessean)

• Sexual abuse pushed to top of agenda for Southern Baptist Convention (by Terry Mattingly, Universal syndicate columnist)

• Southern Baptist pastors demand inquiry into handling of sex abuse cases (by Yonat Shimron, RNS)


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

Weekend thinking: Concerning Southern Baptists and the fracturing of evangelicalism

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Weekend thinking: Concerning Southern Baptists and the fracturing of evangelicalism

All together now: Can the word “evangelical” be defined in doctrinal terms or is it time to admit that “evangelical” is a political term and that’s that?

A related question: Is the war between the alleged “woke” conservatives and the “real” conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention based on serious disagreements about essential Christian doctrines or leftover resentments and anger from the 2016 rise of Donald Trump?

The way I see things, religion-beat pros can do some groundbreaking research on these questions this coming week during the SBC’s tense national meetings in Nashville.

If you have been following SBC life for a half-century or so, you know that what goes around comes around. Only this time it is really, really hard to find concrete doctrinal differences between the generals in the two warring camps. That was the subject of this week’s GetReligion podcast: “Will SBC politicos answer questions about doctrinal clashes in this new war?”

But here is one more question for this weekend: Is there anything really new about this conflict?

A fascinating piece at MereOrthodoxy.com — “The Six Way Fracturing of Evangelicalism” — believes that we are watching a religious and cultural earthquake that will change evangelicalism forever. The piece was written by the Rev. Skyler Flowers of Grace Bible Church in Oxford, Miss., a graduate of Reformed Theological Seminary.

Before I point out a few crucial pieces of that puzzle, I’d like — once again — to flash back to a 1987 interview I did with the Rev. Billy Graham, a man who knew a thing or two about evangelicalism. I asked him: “What does the word ‘evangelical’ mean?”

"Actually, that's a question I'd like to ask somebody, too," he said, during a 1987 interview in his mountainside home office in Montreat, N.C. This oft-abused term has "become blurred. ... You go all the way from the extreme fundamentalists to the extreme liberals and, somewhere in between, there are the evangelicals."

The key, he argued, is that “evangelical” needed to be understood:


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

New podcast: Will SBC politicos answer questions about doctrinal clashes in this new war?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
New podcast: Will SBC politicos answer questions about doctrinal clashes in this new war?

Whether they’ll admit it or not, when covering conflicts and controversies many (not all) journalists seem to think that one of their main duties is to help (wink, wink) readers separate the people in white hats from those in black hats, smart people from the not-so-smart people and kind people from mad people.

There are several ways to do this. Reporters can quote calm, articulate people on one side, will seeking the most radical, scary voices on the other. I have, when covering events linked to abortion, seen TV crews rush past women who oppose abortion (including women who have experienced abortions) in order to interview screaming male protesters who are waving (literally) bloody signs.

Journalists can do long, personal interviews with people on one side, while pulling dry, boring quotes from press releases on the other. They can allow one set of activists to define all the crucial terms and questions, while ignoring or distorting the beliefs of activists on the other side.

Journalists also get to choose the labels they pin on the competing armies. That was the subject that loomed over this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), which focused on the bitter debates surrounding the resignation of Russell Moore as leader of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

The obvious other news hook: The nation’s largest non-Catholic flock will hold its 2021 national meeting next week (June 15-16) in Nashville. For more background, see this earlier post: “That SBC powderkeg: Clearly, executive committee is bitterly divided on sexual-abuse issues.”

As the old saying goes, “You can’t tell the players without a program.” Well, it’s going to be crucial how journalists label the “players” in this conflict.

For example, here is a crucial section of a new Peter Wehner essay at The Atlantic, which ran under this headline: “The Scandal Rocking the Evangelical World — The sudden departure of Russell Moore is forcing an overdue conversation about the crises of American Christendom.”


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

Many pieces in this news puzzle: New Israeli coalition reflects land's complex religiosity

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Many pieces in this news puzzle: New Israeli coalition reflects land's complex religiosity

What does it say about Israel that its founding prime minister was someone who today might be labeled a “BuJew,” a Jew strongly attracted to Buddhist philosophy? Or that it took Israel more than 70 years to produce a prime minister who identifies with Orthodox Judaism?

The BuJew prime minister was, of course, the otherwise secular David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s George Washington equivalent. Ben-Gurion actually took several days during a 1961 two-week state visit to Burma (today’s Myanmar) to attend a Buddhist retreat. I can’t imagine an Israeli prime minister doing that today given the Jewish state’s current political turmoil and Orthodoxy’s influence.

The first Orthodox prime minister is set to be Naftali Bennett, who as of this writing is scheduled to command the top spot in Israel’s nascent anti-Netanyahu governing coalition, itself tentatively set to formally assume office within days.

Again, what does all of this say? A lot, I’d argue, about Israel’s religious complexity and the degree to which religion and politics are tightly intertwined, perhaps inseparably so, in Israel (and the Middle East in general, but that’s a larger topic for another day).

I’d also argue it underscores the importance for journalists opining on Israel to be well versed on its religious politics — from its varied and often antagonistic Jewish factions, to its distinctive Arab Muslim, Christian and Druse communities — if they are to adequately explain the thinking that goes into Israeli decision making.

Consider the following. Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu, the longtime right-wing prime minister, is a secular Jew, as are most Israeli Jews. Yet he nonetheless enjoyed the support of his nation’s ultra-Orthodox parties. Netanyahu gained their support by including the parties in his ruling coalitions, giving them great access and sometimes control over public funds needed for their community institutions and economic safety nets.

Bennett, meanwhile, has gained the condemnation of several leading Orthodox Jews, even though identifies with this religious descriptor.


Please respect our Commenting Policy