Lawsuits

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

Why have evangelical magazines risked pursuing the ongoing Ravi Zacharias scandals?

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

After a weeks-long probe, Christianity Today magazine on September 29 published the #ChurchToo blockbuster that three anonymous massage therapists at spas co-owned by the late evangelical apologetics star Ravi Zacharias said he sexually harassed them. Lurid details here.

Two days, later World magazine, also working the story, added corroboration from a named, on-the-record source.

These articles are landmarks for journalists who write about religion.

First, this will be a big developing story because Zacharias -- though not famous in the general media like, say, Liberty University's scandal-scarred Jerry Falwell Jr. -- was far more influential religiously due to decades of books and worldwide speaking tours defending Christian beliefs.

Second, it's notable that two solid evangelical magazines (which are useful sources of information for reporters in the general media) showed a willingness to hold to account fellow evangelical personalities and institutions.

Given religious periodicals' limited finances and resources, and the risk of losing advertisers, subscribers and donors, this commendable blast of journalism required more gumption than investigations by secular newspapers and magazines.

So why dig up dirt on preachers who share your beliefs, especially when the figure is deceased, as with Zacharias?

Christianity Today posted an explanation, one that World doubtless embraces, which mainstream journalists should read (right here). There's also this podcast with the reporter, News Editor Daniel Silliman.

The religious rationale: "Our commitment to seeking truth transcends our commitment to tribe. And by reporting the truth, we care for our community."


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

Global COVID-19 parables: What responsibility do faith groups have to the larger society?

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

I’m a great fan of a magical sense of awe, that heightened state of awareness during which the transcendent feels most palpable. However, I am decidedly not a fan of magical thinking that denies the seriousness of the coronavirus pandemic.

I consider the latter delusional at best. The pandemic will not end because some — particularly those in positions of authority — wish it away. It can only be tamed, I believe, by limiting its spread until medical researchers develop a dependable vaccine or cure.

Until then, our responsibility as members of a highly interdependent society is to protect ourselves and each other via responsible social distancing and by always wearing a mask when adequate distancing is impossible. Anything less, in my book — speaking as someone who due to age and preexisting medical conditions is at great risk — is selfish and irresponsible.

Nor do I care whether the deniers are bikers in South Dakota, frat boys on any number of university campuses who can’t resist a keg or political libertarians who insist that their individual choices are at least as, if not more, important than the communal good in a national health emergency.

Ditto for the most sincerely devout of fatalistic religious believers who think their faith will protect them and their co-religionists. Or who insist that government — any secular government — lacks the authority to limit their religious expression in any way.

My news feeds have been replete with such examples. Here are three that have particularly aroused my pique. I consider each a clear example of self-aggrandizing, potentially deadly religious entitlement.

One story is from Israel and concerns a group of ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jews who have insisted on making their annual Rosh Hashanah pilgrimage to a Ukrainian city where their deceased spiritual leader is buried. This, despite the probability that they’re likely to bring the pandemic with them.

A second from, South Korea, tells the tale of a megachurch that found itself at the center of a coronavirus cluster, which it blames on misleading figures released by government opponents.

The third involves the Rev. John MacArthur of Los Angeles’ Grace Community Church, who recently claimed that the number of American COVID-19 deaths is way below the generally accepted figures reported by mainstream news outlets. MacArthur claimed that there is no pandemic.


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

What next for Liberty University? Press should watch future campus worship services

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
What next for Liberty University? Press should watch future campus worship services

Liberty University's decision to close its philosophy department didn't make big headlines in May 2020, at least not when compared with the its coronavirus policies and the latest comments from President Jerry Falwell, Jr.

After all, liberal arts programs were shrinking while Liberty's online education programs prospered, along with job-friendly undergraduate degrees. Christian colleges everywhere are wrestling with similar issues.

But the philosophy department was symbolic because it once was crucial to "what made Liberty unique" -- an emphasis on blending faith with core academic disciplines, said Karen Swallow Prior, who taught there for 20 years. This summer she moved to Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C., to teach English literature, as well as Christianity and culture.

"That department was top notch and produced students who went straight to the Ivy League and had great success," she said. "Philosophy was larger when I first got there, and it was clear this discipline was seen as part of Liberty's mission. Then things started changing."

Now, Liberty leaders are wrestling with the undeniable impact Falwell Jr. had as president, after the 2007 death of his father, the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Facing years of red ink, the founder's heir soon pushed for $500 million in campus updates and expansions, along with profitable online programs. The university now has 15,000 on-campus students and roughly 100,000 online. Liberty claims an endowment of $1.6 billion.

At the same time, Falwell Jr. developed a swashbuckling style that caused heat, especially when linked to race, guns, jets, politics, yachts and his specialty -- real estate. Controversies about his de facto partnership with President Donald Trump thrilled many Liberty donors, alumni, parents and students, while deeply troubling others.

Many Christian college presidents are super-pastors who provide ties that bind to denominations, churches and networks of believers. Falwell Jr. -- a lawyer -- turned into a dynamic entrepreneur who courted powerful conservative politicos.

On regular Christian campuses, there "are higher expectations for presidents than members of the faculty, and members of the faculty live with greater expectations than students," noted religious-liberty activist David French, writing at The Dispatch.

"Liberty flipped this script. The president lived life with greater freedom than his students or his faculty. The message sent was distinctly unbiblical -- that some Christian leaders can discard integrity provided their other qualifications, from family name to fund-raising prowess, provided sufficient additional benefit."

All of this led to a soap-opera collapse, after flashes of risqué social media


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

Steamy Jerry Falwell Jr., story will get lots of ink: But what happens now at Liberty University?

, , , , , , , , , ,
Steamy Jerry Falwell Jr., story will get lots of ink: But what happens now at Liberty University?

It will not surprise readers that this week’s “Crossroads” podcast is about the Jerry Falwell Jr., scandal at Liberty University (click here to tune that in). However, I hope that this podcast focuses on a different angle of the crisis than what most news consumers are seeing in print and on television.

From my perspective, there are two important stories unfolding here — not one scandal. How journalists cover these stories will, in large part, be based on whether they only care about Falwell the celebrity (and Donald Trump, of course), as opposed to what went wrong at Liberty University and what the school could become in the future.

So what happens next? What happens with the scandals surrounding Falwell and his wife Becki? This is where I see so many parallels to the Jim and Tammy Bakker PTL scandal in the 1980s. All week long I’ve been having flashbacks to the many telephone calls I received at The Charlotte News (RIP) from alleged insiders wanting to share dirt about the Bakker’s financial and sexual misadventures.

As it turned out, one anonymous caller was telling the truth, or a small part of it. That caller was the bisexual Rev. John Wesley Fletcher, who was doing his best to crash the Bakker empire. Fletcher was telling part of the truth about Jim Bakker, while conveniently editing out his own sins in that torrid melodrama.

What did I learn from the PTL scandal that is relevant here?

The accusers on both siders were hiding crucial information, while sharing some information that was accurate. I think that’s true with the Falwell scandal, as well. Meanwhile, it helps to remember that Falwell is a lawyer, not a minister. I suspect that he knows most of the evidence that accuser Giancarlo Granda has in hand. So reporters need to watch carefully: Do either of these men actually want a day in court? Who wants to testify under oath and endure the rigors of the legal discover process?

The other crucial question, of course, is this: What did leaders of the Liberty board of trustees know and when did they know it?

This is a stunningly complex set of stories. It’s interesting that, in the mainstream coverage, the Washington Post pointed to almost all of the crucial issues on Monday night in an understated and solid early story.

By the way, please note that the Post has religion-beat pros and a higher-education specialist working on this mega-story. Attention managers of other elite newsrooms: Go thou and do likewise.

Here are two crucial passages, in terms of tone and content:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

What is a priest worth? Latest Ted McCarrick news says it depends on the lawsuit

, , , , ,

There’s a book out there asking: “What is a Girl Worth?” Written by former gymnast Rachael Denhollander, it asks who is going to tell little girls that the abuse done to them years ago was monstrously wrong and that it actually matters that their perpetrators are punished.

There also needs to be a book asking “what is a priest worth?”

For two years now, we’ve been looking at the news reporting about the sex scandal that surrounded the now-former Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and how “everyone” knew he was dallying with seminarians and sharing beds with them at his New Jersey beach cottage back in the 1980s.

After the news about McCarrick broke on June 20, 2018, it took the MSM a month to get all the major details together — and still they missed a few. This New York Times piece says the sexual activity that McCarrick carried on with his protégé Robert Ciolek stayed above the waist. The paper hinted in the next paragraph that another seminarian or young priest involved with McCarrick had endured far worse sexual abuse, but unless you knew how to read between the lines, you missed it.

But the late Richard Sipe, a Benedictine priest-turned-psychotherapist, had posted on his web site 10 years beforehand accounts of very R-rated sexual activity McCarrick foisted on his underlings. Many journalists read it, but we didn’t know how to prove it. At the time, the church attitude I picked up was that nothing happened at that cottage and that the seminarians and young priests involved should get over it.

The thought that some could be scarred sexually for life never occurred to anyone. Who could they talk about this with? Who’d believe them? Because of what had been done to them, they were abandoned to mull over some very dirty thoughts while at the same time berating themselves for not fighting back.

Finally, last week, a bunch of media, including a consortium of New Jersey newspapers, reported a juicy lawsuit against McCarrick that threatens to expose some of the nastier details. Written by Newark Star-Ledger reporter Ted Sherman on the NJ.com site, the story was worth the wait.

He is known only as “Doe 14.”

Raised in a devout Catholic family, he attended St. Francis Xavier in Newark and Essex Catholic in East Orange in the Archdiocese of Newark, participating in church and youth activities.

And by the time he was a teenager, his lawyers say he was being groomed for a role in what they called a “sex ring” involving then-Bishop Theodore McCarrick, the 90-year-old now defrocked and disgraced former cardinal who was cast out of the ministry last year over decades-old sexual abuse allegations.


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

More insights and information about future conflicts between religious and LGBTQ rights

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Since the July 9 Guy Memo about how to cover future conflicts between religious and LGBTQ rights there have been significant further comments that reporters will want to keep in mind.

In addition, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s cancer recurrence at age 87 underscores for the media that the president and Senate elected in November will choose any future Supreme Court and other judicial appointees who will act on such cases. Pundits think this factor helped victories in 2016 by Republican Senators and President Donald Trump.

The tensions here are evident with Secretary of State Michael Pompeo’s Commission on Unalienable Rights, which issued its first report July 16 (tmatt post on that topic here). Liberals decried this panel’s formation due to the members’ supposed ideological tilt. The panel is chaired by a devout Catholic, Harvard Law School’s Mary Ann Glendon (the daughter of a newspaper reporter).

The New York Times reported that Pompeo’s speech presenting this report was “divisive” because he emphasized that the commission believes “property rights and religious liberty” are “foremost” in consideration. (The report also defies current protests by lauding Founding Fathers even while admitting they owned slaves.)

Writers will want to analyze this lengthy text (.pdf here) for themselves. It does seem to The Guy that the commission’s focus on the Bill of Rights guarantee of “free exercise” of religion, ratified 228 years ago, suggests this might — as a global statement — outweigh recent LGBTQ rights that the Supreme Court has vindicated alongside its defense of religious liberty claims in other cases.

Reactions worth pondering have come from, among others, evangelical lawyer David French, who writes for thedispatch.com and, in this case, Time magazine, University of Virginia Law Professor Douglas Laycock in a National Review interview and Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation, a leading critic of the transgender cause as in his book “When Harry Became Sally.”

French, who has done yeoman work on rights claims by religious groups, is surprisingly optimistic.


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

AP explains why it was wrong for local-level Catholic employees to get coronavirus relief money

, , , , , , , , , , ,

That Associated Press headline the other day certainly was a grabber: “Catholic Church lobbied for taxpayer funds, got $1.4B.” Let’s start with three statements about this in-depth report:

(1) The headline and the lede both assume there is such a thing as the “U.S. Roman Catholic Church” and that someone can write a check that will be cashed by that institution. This is like saying that there is an “American Public School System,” as opposed to complex networks of schools at the local, regional and state levels.

(2) There are national Catholic organizations that speak — and even lobby — for Catholic groups and causes, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. This doesn’t wipe out the reality of local parishes, ministries, schools, religious orders, regional dioceses, etc.

(3) It was completely valid to do an in-depth report on how Catholic nonprofit groups campaigned to receive coronavirus relief money for their employees — for precisely the same reasons journalists can, and should, investigate similar activities by other huge nonprofits and companies with complex national, regional and local structures. Maybe start with Planned Parenthood, just to provide some balance?

The key, once again, is a concept that came up the other day at the U.S. Supreme Court — “equal access.” Under these legal principles, part of the legacy of a liberal-conservative coalition in the Clinton-Gore years, government entities are supposed to treat religious organizations (think nonprofits) the same way they treat similar secular groups. They can work with all of them (sacred and secular alike) or they can turn all of them down.

They key is that they are treated the same. The bottom line: Religion is not a uniquely dangerous force in American life. This topic is discussed — sort of — way down in the AP feature.

But here is the overture of this follow-the-money investigative piece:

NEW YORK (AP) — The U.S. Roman Catholic Church used a special and unprecedented exemption from federal rules to amass at least $1.4 billion in taxpayer-backed coronavirus aid, with many millions going to dioceses that have paid huge settlements or sought bankruptcy protection because of clergy sexual abuse cover-ups.

The church’s haul may have reached -- or even exceeded -- $3.5 billion, making a global religious institution with more than a billion followers among the biggest winners in the U.S. government’s pandemic relief efforts, an Associated Press analysis of federal data released this week found.

Note that nice neutral noun there in the second paragraph — “haul.”


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

Are the Sexual Revolution vs. religious liberty wars over at Supreme Court? Let's ask Bluto ...

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

Want to hear a depressing question?

How many years, or even months, will it take for someone to pull the Little Sisters of the Poor back to the U.S. Supreme Court for another case linked to the status of Obamacare’s contraception mandate?

That’s right. The odds are good that we can brace ourselves for yet another Little Sisters of the Poor vs. the United States of America (or maybe the leaders of a blue-zip-code state or local government).

I predict that we will see Little Sisters of the Poor Round 4 in the headlines sooner or later, for reasons that host Todd Wilken and I discussed during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in).

For starters, in this recent case the high court upheld an executive order from the Donald Trump White House, as opposed to grounding its decision in the defense of a specific piece of legislation — as in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. You may recall that this bill defending a liberal (in the old sense of that word) take on religious freedom passed with an impressive margin — 97-3.

One of the sponsors of that legislation — which was backed by a Clinton-Gore era coalition of liberals and conservatives — had this to say about its importance:

Today I am introducing legislation to restore the previous rule of law, which required the Government to justify restrictions on religious freedom. …

Making a religious practice a crime is a substantial burden on religious freedom. It forces a person to choose between abandoning religious principles or facing prosecution. Before we permit such a burden on religious freedom to stand, the Court should engage in a case-by-case analysis of such restrictions to determine if the Government’s prohibition is justified. …

This bill is needed because even neutral, general laws can unnecessarily restrict religious freedom.

That was U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden, of course, during an era when he was considered a moderate who tended to stand with the U.S. Catholic Bishops on quite a few social and moral issues.

The question now is this: What are the odds that one of the first things President Joe Biden’s team will do is erase most, if not all, of the Trump-era executive orders linked to religious liberty and the First Amendment?


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

Plug-In: What does this landmark LGBTQ ruling mean for traditional religious institutions?

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling Monday barring workplace discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender workers certainly seemed to catch some by surprise.

Take USA Today, for example.

The URL on the national newspaper’s story indicates that the court denied protection to LGBT workers. Oops!

Kelsey Dallas, national religion reporter for the Salt Lake City-based Deseret News, closely follows high court cases with faith-based ramifications.

“Genuinely shocked,” she tweeted concerning the 6-3 decision. “I had prewritten only one version of this story and predicted a ruling against gay and transgender workers based on debate during oral arguments.”

Why was Dallas so surprised?

I asked her that in a Zoom discussion that also included Elana Schor, national religion and politics reporter for The Associated Press; Daniel Silliman, news editor for Christianity Today; and Bob Smietana, editor-in-chief of Religion News Service.

Watch the video to hear Dallas’ reasoning. (Hint: It’s not just that Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion.)

Learn, too, what all the panelists think the decision means for religious hiring practices, the court’s 5-4 conservative split and the Nov. 3 presidential election.

Among related must-read coverage: Schor’s AP story on why the religious right laments the ruling but sees opportunities, Yonat Shimron’s RNS story on conservatives looking to the next cases on religious liberty and Elizabeth Dias’ New York Times story on the “seismic implications.”

Why did the decision rattle Christian conservatives? The Washington Post’s Sarah Pulliam Bailey explains.

At the Deseret News, Dallas asks, “Are we headed toward a federal version of the Utah Compromise on LGBTQ rights?”


Please respect our Commenting Policy