Scriptures

, , , , , , , ,

Tips of the trade: How to cover religion news, even if this is not your regular beat

, , , , , , , ,

The National Press Club, like others, is well aware that reporting staffs are shrinking. Thus, full-time religion-beat specialists are considered even more a luxury than usual.

Savvy newspapers will make sure someone cultivates the field at least part-time, as far as feasible. However, managers in too many news shops even neglect that necessity. Magazines are iffy. Radio and TV are even worse off. The Internet is a zoo.

What should writers do when they’re thrown into coverage about religion, which they may know little about -- and perhaps care little about even though sizable chunks of their audiences do care? Some guidance for such drop-ins and greenhorns might also provide good reminders for religion-beat specialists who will share shop talk September 24-25 at the Religion News Association conference (virtually this year). The RNA also posts a wealth of tips and resources on trending topics here at its ReligionLink website.

Religion can be pitfall hell, so The Guy’s No. 1 point is rather obvious, which is to make absolutely certain everything you write is accurate.

Don’t just assume what we think everybody knows. Articles often say the Catholic Church forbids priests to marry. Truth is, Catholicism forbids “most priests” to marry and in “most situations.” But what about the Eastern Rite clergy? Or men who swim the Tiber from Anglicanism?

Or take the respected columnist who stated confidently that whatever the Bible may teach on male homosexuality it says nothing about lesbianism. With a quick phone call or email check, almost any cleric would have cited Romans 1:26 and avoided an embarrassing correction.

The press club’s Journalism Institute helps out with advice from an interview with Elizabeth Dias, a full-time religion correspondent with The New York Times. (The video at the top of this post is a speech on related issues, drawn from her days at Time magazine — where The Guy worked for many years.)

Dias stresses the importance of simply “listening and asking open questions” with sources because the topic at hand “may be the most important part of their lives.” She explains that “religion at its heart is about people, not just ideas” so she spends more time talking with folk than “reading social media commentary.” On the latter point, The Guy would underscore the value of meaty books and articles about the issue at hand. Too much reportage is thinly informed.


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

What is 'biblicism'? A mere academic term or something that affects the news?

, , , , , , , ,

THE QUESTION:

What is “biblicism”?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

This question is the title of an article this month on Patheos.com by Michael Bird, an Anglican priest who teaches theology at Australia’s Ridley College and is also a visiting professor at Houston Baptist University.

More on Bird in a bit, but first let’s lay some groundwork for the discussion and why it is newsworthy..

The dictionary definition of biblicism is adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Merriam-Webster dates the first known use of this term to 1805. Note that this was a century before the rise of the literal-minded U.S. Protestant movement called “fundamentalism,” named after “The Fundamentals” of the faith, a series of conservative ecumenical booklets on the Bible and doctrine published from 1910 to 1915.

Literal interpretation is bound up with the belief that the entire Word of God is free from error. This was the first of the so-called “five points of fundamentalism” that originated as “essential” Christian beliefs defined by a U.S. Presbyterian General Assembly in 1910.

People sometimes distort literal interpretation. There’s a useful explanation in the “Chicago Statement” issued by 300 Protestants at a 1978 meeting of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. They stated that God used each human writer’s cultural milieu in inspiring the Scriptures, and that while “history must be treated as history,” Christians should also treat “poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are.”

That working principle, of course, does not settle all debates. Classic examples involve the creation of the world, which begins the Book of Genesis. Did the famous six “days” of the process last 24 hours, as some literalists contend, or are the “days” poetic or symbolic references to vast phases of time? Is the account meant to be historical and did the events occur in this precise order? On the discussions rage, frequently affecting public debates and, thus, news.

The “fundamentalist” label often carries negative connotations and should not be applied to people who reject and resent that label. Similarly, the conservative folks at gotquestions.org say, “biblicism” and “biblicist” are sometimes applied to cast aspersions against literalists.


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

Hey SI: Is this an important fact? Why does Lamar Jackson wear the number 8 on his back?

, , , , , , ,

First things first: I’m a Ravens fan and have been since my first move to the Baltimore area in 1999.

Second, I find the team interesting for reasons linked to religion news. We are not just talking about the life and times of “God’s linebacker,” Hall of Famer Ray Lewis.

As long as I have followed this team, there have been fascinating Ravens storylines linked to religion, culture and even politics. When your team’s CENTER can make faith-based headlines — Matt Birk skipped the White House visit with the Super Bowl champs because of Barack Obama’s abortion stance — you know things are getting interesting.

Then there is head coach John “mighty men” Harbaugh, a Roman Catholic whose outspoken style would be right at home in many African-American pulpits.

Two years ago, Harbaugh and Raven executives made the stunning decision to build their team around a very unconventional quarterback — Lamar “not bad for a running back” Jackson. Then they started talking about his unique, very cool blend of humility and swagger, his commitment to teammates and to helping the city of Baltimore. The team embraced his “Big Truss” slogan, with his emphasis on having trust and faith in teammates and, well, other things.

This brings me to a long, long Sports Illustrated cover story about Jackson and the future of the quarterback position in professional football. The headline: “Lamar Jackson: Quarterback, Redefined.”

It’s a great feature if you want to know about Jackson, the football player. No complaints, there. However, SI finally spotted the strong religion “ghost” in this story and devoted all of two paragraphs to it — several thousand words into the text. Hold that thought and, as you read the piece, note the many references to the number “8” that Jackson wears on his back.

Here’s a solid chunk of the text focusing on Jackson and his impact on those around him.

… Coach John Harbaugh had shown up at a press conference wearing a hoodie from Jackson’s Era 8 apparel line, emblazoned — like many of their items — with an African wild dog. A donut chain sold pastries printed with the “Big Truss” team motto based on a Jackson catchphrase, loosely defined as mutual trust (and since changed to “Big Truzz,” to avoid a trademark dispute).


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

Newsweek: Core doctrine of Christianity is something 'evangelists' may or may not believe

, , , , , , , , ,

In recent years, your GetReligionistas have had quite a few discussions of the following question: Should today’s Newsweek continue to be treated as the important newsmagazine that it once was?

Hear me out. I know that Newsweek contains some interesting and provocative commentary pieces and, every now and then, the magazine publishes an interesting essay on a news topic that appears to have been written by someone in the newsroom.

The day-by-day norm, however, appears to consist of quick-hit pieces based on the work of others, often showing signs of work by inexperienced interns. Some of these online pieces can be considered “aggregation” pointing readers to other sources of news and information.

Please don’t read that as an automatic put-down. GetReligion publishes its share of “think pieces” that introduce readers to articles we have seen linked to religion news. The goal is to write a worthy intro and then show readers bites of the article — clearly identifying the source — that lets them see key insights or information. At the end, we encourage folks to “read it all,” with a URL to the source.

The problem, to be blunt, is when there is evidence that the journalists doing this work have little or no understanding of the material they are “writing about.” Consider this overture in a Newsweek piece with this headline: “52 Percent of Americans Say Jesus Isn't God but Was a Great Teacher, Survey Says.”

A slight majority of American adults say Jesus was a great teacher and nothing more during his lifetime, which several Christian leaders say is evidence today's faithful are "drifting away" from traditional evangelist teachings.

As earlier reported by The Christian Post, the 2020 survey conducted by Ligonier Ministries, a Florida-based Reform Church nonprofit, found 52 percent of U.S. adults say they believe Jesus Christ is not God — a belief that contradicts traditional teachings of the Bible through the Christian church, which state Jesus was both man and God.

Nearly one-third of evangelicals in the survey agreed that Jesus isn't God, compared to 65 percent who said "Jesus is the first and greatest being created by God."

Where to begin?


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

Words or deeds? Catholics will be discussing Joe Biden's actions during fall campaign

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Words or deeds? Catholics will be discussing Joe Biden's actions during fall campaign

In the summer of 2016, two White House staffers -- Brian Mosteller and Joe Mahshie -- tied the knot in a rite led by one of America's most prominent Catholics.

The officiant was Vice President Joe Biden, who later proclaimed on Twitter: "Proud to marry Brian and Joe at my house. Couldn't be happier … two great guys."

Leaders of familiar Catholic armies then debated whether Biden's actions attacked this Catholic Catechism teaching: "The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. … Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament."

Conflicts between bishops, clergy and laity will loom in the background as Biden seeks to become America's second Catholic president. Combatants will be returning to territory explored in a famous 1984 address by the late Gov. Mario Cuomo of New York, entitled "Religious Belief and Public Morality."

Speaking at the University of Notre Dame, he said: "As a Catholic, I have accepted certain answers as the right ones for myself and my family, and because I have, they have influenced me in special ways, as Matilda's husband, as a father of five children, as a son who stood next to his own father's death bed trying to decide if the tubes and needles no longer served a purpose.

"As a governor, however, I am involved in defining policies that determine other people's rights in these same areas of life and death. Abortion is one of these issues, and while it is one issue among many, it is one of the most controversial and affects me in a special way as a Catholic public official."

It would be wrong to make abortion policies the "exclusive litmus test of Catholic loyalty," he said. After all, the "Catholic church has come of age in America" and it's time for bishops to recognize that Catholic politicians have to be realistic negotiators in a pluralistic land.

Cuomo also noted polls indicating that American Catholics "support the right to abortion in equal proportion to the rest of the population. … We Catholics apparently believe -- and perhaps act -- little differently from those who don't share our commitment. Are we asking government to make criminal what we believe to be sinful because we ourselves can't stop committing the sin?"


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

Washington Post ponders the future of Sen. Tim Scott (all but avoiding the word 'Christian')

, , , , , , , , ,

Let’s see, am I at liberty — after a week of big-time PTL scandal flashbacks — to discuss a completely different kind of religion story?

I have not been watching the major-party political conventions (for mental-health reasons, let’s say), but I have been spending a few moments watching reactions on Twitter. I tend to prefer baseball over the live visuals of advocacy media slugfests.

I saved a few links to materials about the interfaith strategies of the Democrats. I also looked for signs of the role that issues of religion and culture could play in the post-Donald Trump GOP. And in that context, I looked at some of the quotes from the short speech by U.S. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina.

It’s obvious why this man once considered going to seminary. He’s a fine orator and has a knack for making references to Christianity in ways that are more graceful than, well, posing with a Bible for news cameras. It’s impossible to dig into Scott’s career without paying serious attention to his faith.

However, a recent lengthy Washington Post Magazine profile of Scott came close to doing just that. Here’s the epic double-decker headline:

The Burden of Tim Scott

As the only Black GOP senator, he has walked a delicate line between schooling his colleagues — and the president — on matters of race and remaining silent. Has that helped his political future?

I understand that this was a political piece and that Scott is tiptoeing through the Trump-Twitter era. The long opening anecdote in about Scott asking the president to take down the infamous “white power” tweet is totally justified.

However, to be blunt, I think that the word “Christian” should have been just as important in this long, long story as the word “token.” Read it all and see what you think. I think this story would have been completely different, if a religion-beat pro had been asked to take part in the reporting or editing.

So here is the political angle that is at the heart of this story:


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

Democrats embrace interfaith America, while a few DNC caucuses cut 'under God' from pledge

, , , , , , , , , ,

Did the Democrats “get” religion or not?

Certainly, lots of headlines coming out of this week’s virtual Democratic National Convention had strong faith elements.

But a different storyline gained attention, too.

The words “under God” were left out of the Pledge of Allegiance at the DNC’s Muslim Delegates & Allies Assembly and its LGBT Caucus Meeting, as first reported by David Brody, the Christian Broadcasting Network’s chief political analyst.

“NOT the way to win rust belt culturally centered Dems,” Brody tweeted.

Victor Morton of the Washington Times noted:

The phrase was not part of the Pledge when Congress first officially codified it in 1942 (it dates back in various forms to 1906). It was added in 1954 under a bill signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

“From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty … In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource, in peace or in war,” Eisenhower wrote.

Brody stressed that when reciting the Pledge during main sessions, the Democrats said the words “under God.”

But the exclusion of those words by certain Democratic caucuses, he suggested, harkened back to 2012 when Democrats came under fire for removing “God” from the party platform. At the request of then-President Barack Obama, the party reversed that decision.

Eight years later, former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign — in what Biden calls “a battle for the soul of America” — has put an emphasis on winning over religious voters.


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

Old news in Turkey: What does Islam teach about turning Christian churches into mosques?

, , , , , , ,

THE QUESTION:

What does Islam teach about seizing Christian churches to become mosques?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

The bitterly contested Hagia Sophia (“Holy Wisdom”) in Constantinople (the city now named Istanbul) was the grandest church in Christendom across nine centuries. Then Muslim conquerors under Mehmed II confiscated the church in 1453 and converted it into the Aya Sofia Mosque. In 1935, Turkey’s government secularized it to be an interfaith museum, but three weeks ago turned it into a working mosque once again.

Christian leaders worldwide are aggrieved by that latest development.

But apart from Christian feelings and fears for the future of the building’s celebrated artwork, in strictly Islamic terms was the 1453 takeover of a church proper? Should it be perpetuated in 2020, and are such takeovers legitimate today? Turkey’s summertime action has sparked new debate among Muslims.

A traditionalist view is well articulated at www.muslimmatters.org by Muhammad Wajid Akhter, a physician on the council of the British Islamic Medical Association who studies Islamic history.

He notes that Christian conquerors in Spain took over the Al-Hambra Palace and Cordoba Mosque, and built Granada Cathedral over the site of a mosque. That is accurate. But when was the last time Christians confiscated a mosque? Those events occurred in 1236, 1492 and 1529. In the centuries since, the world has gone through the Enlightenment, the rise of democracy and widespread support for human rights.

Tolerance-minded Muslims say Istanbul has plenty of mosques already and didn’t need to add one in 2020, Akhter, however, contends that a mosque “is owned by Allah” and Muslims have no right to simply give away “something that does not belong to us.” By the same reasoning, of course, Christians can say Hagia Sophia is sacred ground that belongs to their God, not Mehmed and his forces of 1453.

Akhter dismisses the concern some Muslims express about Christian sensitivities as “impractical” and “untenable.”


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

Veteran minister and Tennessee lawmaker fights for his political life -- as pro-life Democrat

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

As a teen, longtime Tennessee state Rep. John DeBerry Jr. integrated an all-White high school and witnessed civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr.’s final speech before his 1968 assassination.

To supporters, DeBerry — a 69-year-old Black preacher from Memphis — is a man of high integrity and strong moral convictions based on his Christian faith.

But to opponents, including Planned Parenthood, the LGBTQ Victory Fund and the Tennessee Democratic Party’s executive committee, the 13-term incumbent is an out-of-touch relic. In their view, DeBerry’s conservative positions on issues such as abortion, gay rights and school choice make him unfit to remain in office.

“I tell people all the time when they talk to me: It’s not about the elephant. It’s not about the donkey. It’s about the Lamb,” said DeBerry, who has preached nearly every Sunday since 1968 and served as the minister for the Coleman Avenue Church of Christ in Memphis for the last 20 years.

The widowed father and grandfather makes no secret that he believes life begins at conception.

That, he contends, is not a Republican stand.

“It is a biblical stand,” he told The Christian Chronicle in a lengthy, wide-ranging interview. “It is a moral stand. It is an ethical stand.”

After 26 years in the Tennessee General Assembly, DeBerry faces the fight of his political life in the November general election.

That’s because the Democratic executive committee voted 41-18 in April to remove him from the party’s primary ballot. The decision — reaffirmed 40-21 the next week — came after the filing deadline to run as a Republican or independent.

At first, it seemed as if DeBerry would have no choice but to give up his seat or wage a longshot write-in campaign.


Please respect our Commenting Policy