Scriptures

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

Thinking along with Stephen L. Carter: What's at stake in Salvation Army culture wars?

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

We live in an age, alas, of predictable reporting and predictable opinions coming from the keyboards of predictable writers.

However, Yale University law professor Stephen L. Carter has, for a couple of decades, been one of the pundits who — in his essays, columns and books — very, very rarely fit into the predictable molds seen in the chattering classes.

This weekend’s think piece is a perfect example of Carter doing that thing that he does, in a Bloomberg column that ran under this double-decker headline: “The Salvation Army's Actions Speak Louder Than Its Theology — Judge volunteers on their actions, not their religious beliefs.”

The hook for the piece is, logically enough, the Thanksgiving weekend and the appearance — from coast to coast — of the familiar Salvation Army red kettles and the bell ringers asking shoppers to make donations to help the poor and needy.

This image of American life and community has, of course, become controversial in recent years for a simple reason — the Salvation Army is a church that clings (hello President Barack Obama) to traditional Christian teachings on the Bible, marriage and sex. Toss in the decision by Chick fil-A leaders to add some waffling to their chicken and you have a mess in the public square.

So what does Carter have to add to this discussion?

… (In) keeping with the season of giving thanks, I want to focus on a different problem: the effects on the volunteer sector of any boycott based on the teachings of a religion. 

Religious groups, regardless of their theology, provide assistance to millions who are unable to help themselves. Without religiously motivated volunteers, we would have scarcely any volunteer sector at all.


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

Big-think story: What does religious faith have to do with slumping global birth rates?

, , , , , , , , , ,

“The End of Babies.”

That was the arresting headline on a hefty and significant lead article in The New York Times Sunday Review section for Nov. 17 about spreading international “reproductive malaise,” a.k.a what some are now calling the Baby Bust.

This is big stuff. Yes, there are religious implications here.

The Guy is old enough to remember apocalyptic journalism about a lethal “population explosion” heading our way. Now social analysts are issuing the opposite warning for some countries. Among other ills, when average ages rise this causes labor shortages, lack of children to care for aged parents and deficits in public and private pension funds with fewer younger wage-earners to carry the oldsters.

Government interventions to skew population can cause trouble.

China feared increasing hordes and long forced couples to have only one child. Combined with open abortion and gender favoritism, that has produced a dire shortage of marriageable women. David French of thedispatch.com notes the National Bureau of Economic Research found that California’s paid family leave, which you’d think would encourage more births, apparently reduced childbearing.

To keep the population from shrinking, a nation needs an average of 2.1 births per woman resident. Numbers fall well below that in e.g. Taiwan (1.13), Japan (1.42), Thailand (1.52), China (1.6), the United States (an all-time low of 1.7) and numerous well-off European nations like Denmark (also 1.7).

Denmark is a major puzzle in the Times piece by Anna Louie Sussman, working in partnership with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting. Affluent Danes are better able to cover the costs of child-rearing than parents in many countries. Denmark’s welfare state makes it as easy as possible to have children, with 12 months of family leave after birth, government funding for in vitrofertilization, and heavily subsidized day care.

So what gives?


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

Let's give thanks that it's Dolly time, even if New York folks don't get all that faith stuff

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

Greetings and a Happy Thanksgiving nod from here in the mountains of East Tennessee, a unique and proud region that includes the kingdom of Dollywood.

I think that folks in these parts — the ones who pay attention to elite media — are a bit bemused about the current wave of Dolly Parton-mania in places like New York City and Los Angeles. I mean, lots of people in these hills have thought, for ages, that Parton deserved more attention and respect as an artist, songwriter and business maven.

There are mysteries about Dolly, of course, and I’m not just talking about all those questions about whether her arms are covered with tattoos and where she heads every now and then — under cover — with her husband in their RV. This is one colorful lady.

But here is another mystery: It’s clear that Parton’s intense Christian upbringing is still a part of who she is, but it’s hard to know what she actually believes. This is a subject that, like politics, Parton is very careful with in public remarks. Then again, one can always listen to what she says in her music.

But this brings back to the current Dolly-mania, which recently reached the ultimate high ground — The New York Times. Once again we face the same issues that I wrote about the other day in a post with this headline: “LA and New York scribes ask: How does Dolly avoid politics while embracing gays and church folks?”

In that post I wrote the following, which also fits with this New York Times article (“Is There Anything We Can All Agree On? Yes: Dolly Parton”):

How good, how complete, is this article? How you answer that question will probably pivot on which of the following questions matter the most to you: (1) How does Parton appeal to Democrats and Republicans at the same time? Or (2) how has Dolly, for a decade or two, managed to be a superstar with both LGBTQ and evangelical audiences?

Once again, we are talking about Parton as safe ground in the Donald Trump era.

Once again, there are nods to her unique stance in cultural no-man’s land between drag-queen culture and Pentecostal hillbillies.


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

Podcast thinking: Fred Rogers, Tom Hanks, the Good Samaritan and the ties that bind

, , , , , , , , ,

Anyone who wanted to know why the Rev. Fred Rogers did what he did needed to pause and think about two of the central facts in his career.

First, there was the name of the show that made him a television legend: “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood.”

Then there was the rite that opened every episode — the transition into the trademark sweater and comfy shoes — and the song that went with it. The crucial line was the thesis statement at the end: “Please, won’t you be my neighbor?”

That was a strange question to ask children. Why not ask them to be friends? Isn’t “friend” a more common word among kids than “neighbor”? In this day and age, many adults are struggling to be “neighbors,” a term with all kinds of implications linked to helping people simply because they are nearby and need help.

But Rogers had very specific reasons for doing what he did. His goal was was to deal with the kinds of big questions that sent him to seminary in the first place, before he was ordained as a Presbyterian minister, serving in a public ministry expressed in television broadcasting. He wanted to handle the kinds of subjects that trouble, and even frighten, children (and honest adults). We are talking about death, divorce, war, racism and, over and over, questions about why bad things happen to good people. The theological term is, of course, “theodicy.”

During this week’s “Crossroads” podcast, host Todd Wilken and I talked about the convictions that powered the work of Mister Rogers. Click here to tune that in.


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

The Rev. Fred Rogers was a remarkably kind man. So is Tom Hanks. Any religion content here?

, , , , , , , , ,

It’s the big question journalists ask when investigating the life of the Rev. Fred Rogers, the ordained Presbyterian minister who became one of the most iconic figures in television history.

Was this man as stunningly kind and compassionate as he seemed to be when he gazed through a television lens and into the minds and hearts of millions of children? Was he real? This was, of course, the question at the heart of a brilliant 2018 documentary entitled, “Won't You Be My Neighbor?”

Now, only a year later, the same question is the hook for the plot of a new feature film entitled, “A Beautiful Day In The Neighborhood.”

Further complicating matters is the fact that Mister Rogers, in this film, is played by actor Tom Hanks, an actor whose career — especially the second half of it — has been haunted by similar questions: Could Hanks truly be as nice, as kind and as sensitive as his coworkers say that he is? Is Hanks real?

These two questions come together in a long, first-person New York Times arts feature by Taffy Brodesser-Akner that ran under this rather meta double-decker headline:

This Tom Hanks Story Will Help You Feel Less Bad

Hanks is playing Mister Rogers in a new movie and is just as nice as you think he is. Please read this article anyway.

It’s a must-read story, even though it has — #Surprise — a massive God-shaped hole in the middle of it.

What role did faith play in the work of the seminary-trained Rogers? Apparently none.

What did Hanks — a churchgoer — think about the faith-driven side of Rogers life and work, a topic that Rogers talked about on many occasions? Once again, the answer seems to be — nada.

Are these questions relevant in a Times feature in which the pivotal moment, in the real story behind the movie plot, was Mister Rogers pausing to pray with a troubled journalist? Yes, we are talking about real, personal prayer. Here is a long chunk of the Times piece that is hard to edit or shorten:


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

Surprise! National Geographic's definitive issue on women gives religion short shrift

, , , , , , , , , ,

This month’s issue of National Geographic is a special issue on women that appears to be the start of a yearlong project. All the contributing writers, photographers and artists were female.

So here is a rather obvious fact to note right up front. Being that women lead the way in religious observance around the planet, I thought there would be at least some representation of women in religion.

So I read through the entire issue. Answer: There is and there isn’t.

Since the text of the issue isn’t online yet, I can’t cut and paste much. So what did they include?

There’s a picturesque double-page spread of five nuns from Kerala, India in their brown habits. The text says:

Their superiors keep pressuring them to keep quiet and stop making trouble, but they refuse. When a nun in Kerala told church leaders multiple times that a bishop had raped her repeatedly, nothing happened, so she turned to the police.

Months later, in September 2018, these fellow nuns joined a two-week protest outside the Kerala High Court. The bishop, who maintains his innocence, eventually was arrested…Instead of supporting the nuns, the church cut off the protesting nuns’ monthly allowance.

That was the only mention I could find of any Christian women in the entire issue.

Much better represented were Muslim women, such as France’s first black Muslim woman mayor Marième Tamata-Varin (p. 58); the anti-hijab movement in Iran (p. 59) and Meherzia Labidi, the Tunisian politician who likes being veiled (p. 72).


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

Podcast thinking: Are mainstream reporters who ask doctrinal questions aiding Catholic right?

, , , , , , , , , , ,

If you have been reading GetReligion for a decade or so, you have probably seen references to the “tmatt trio,” a set of short questions I have long used to probe the doctrinal fault lines inside Christian hierarchies, institutions and flocks.

A dozen years ago or so, a website called “Religious Left Online” — it appears that site is now dead — even offered up a fun GetReligion drinking game that suggested that these topics, and others, could win readers a shot class of adult substances:

• Terry Mattingly mentioning his TMatt trio

• Someone taking a shot at contemporary Christian music, while also trying to defend it.

• Criticizing the evil, liberal agenda of the NYT and WP, while promoting the LAT.

Isn’t that wild? That was so long ago that The Los Angeles Times was an elite source for religion-beat news.

Why bring up the “trio” right now? Well, for starters because it was discussed during this week’s Crossroads podcast (click here to tune that in). But here’s the news: Our discussion of the recent Amazonian Synod in Rome worked through the “trio” and then added a fourth doctrinal issue.

First things first: What are the “trio” questions? Let me stress that these are doctrinal, not political, questions that I have discussed over the years with many researchers, including the late George Gallup, Jr. The goal is not to hear sources provide specific answers, but to pay close attention to the content of their answers or non-answers. Here are the three questions, once again:

(1) Are biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus accurate? Was this a real – even if mysterious – event in real time? Did it really happen?

(2) Is salvation found through Jesus Christ, alone? Is Jesus the Way or a way?

(3) Is sex outside of the Sacrament of Marriage a sin? The key word is sin.

Now, there came a time — in the age of Gaia environmental theology — that I needed to turn the “trio” into a “quadrilateral.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Bible study during school time? Tennessee paper explores pros and cons — and what Satanists think

, , , , , ,

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is back in the news.

But this time the story is actually pretty good.

The Knoxville News Sentinel reports on a pilot program in a local school district that allows elementary-age children to leave their public school — with parental permission — to study the Bible at a church.

The newspaper’s lede covers the high points before the story delves into more specific details:

Once a month, some 70 students from Sterchi Elementary miss an hour of school to go to a nearby evangelistic church for a Bible lesson.

Third- through fifth-graders miss music, art or library. Second-graders miss language arts.

If parents sign a release, state law allows this — as long as the school district’s Board of Education has approved a policy.

Knox County's school board hasn’t approved a policy. Sterchi’s Bible Release Time program, approved earlier this year, is intended to be a “pilot” that board members could observe to determine if they want a countywide policy.

The Sterchi program has raised a lot of questions — and heated voices — in Knox County about the separation of church and government. That includes a slew of letters from parents to school board members, and one social media post from a Satanic organization.

That description up high of the church as “evangelistic” made me wonder if perhaps the reporter meant “evangelical.” At the same time, a church teaching the Bible to public school students no doubt would fall under the heading of “evangelistic.”

Later, the News Sentinel notes that the church didn’t return its calls, so maybe it’s not surprising that the information provided about the church seems rather sketchy. A few references are made to Christian parents complaining that the church doesn’t share their brand of beliefs.


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

Influential voice from St. Pope John Paul II era offers blunt take on Amazonian synod

, , , , , , ,

I have noticed something strange in recent weeks, when reading news coverage — mainstream and Catholic — of the recent Vatican Amazonian synod of bishops.

Increasingly, I am finding that conservative and progressive Catholics sort of agree on what is happening in their global Communion. What they disagree on is whether it is good or bad, small-o orthodox or potentially heterodox.

They may also have different views of which potential synod “reform” is the most important, but they pretty much agree on what the big three or four topics of debate were during the proceedings. Click here for an analysis of that by my colleague Clemente Lisi.

This leads me to this weekend’s think piece, which is a First Things essay by the conservative Catholic intellectual George Weigel, official biographer of the late St. Pope John Paul II. We are dealing with a conservative thinker here — obviously — but one who is frequently creatively optimistic in terms of his views of trends in the church in the age of “the new evangelization.” This is a rather different mood, for Weigel.

The title: “There’s a pony in here somewhere: A post-synodal reflection.” I will allow readers to dig into the earthy Ronald Reagan parable that led to that title.

The positive pony hidden in the synod, Weigel opines, is that, “The Cards are Now Face-up on the Table,” in terms of discussions about what is happening in Pope Francis-era Catholicism.

Here is the must reading. It is long and it will anger Catholics on the doctrinal left.

So why run it here?


Please respect our Commenting Policy