, , ,

Is anyone really surprised that Paula White got this White House job?

, , ,

For all you reporters covering the Rev. Paula White’s ascension to a paying job at the White House (which just got announced), there’s a few facts you might want to know.

The most important one is that little is going to change in terms of White’s job duties. She’s unofficially been part of the White House staff for three years now. Maybe it’s about time she went official and got paid. It is also time for her to get more respect from the media as a government appointee than she now enjoys as a mere megachurch pastor.

In the story that ran Thursday in the New York Times (and repeated by other outlets), the lead sentence was the headline and the opening paragraph simply refers to her as “Ms. White.” Technically, she is Paula White-Cain, a name she’s been increasingly using since her 2014 marriage to songwriter Jonathan Cain.

Then again, she is ordained. Does the Times believe in the ordination of women on the left, but not the Pentecostal-charismatic right?

Ms. White, a controversial figure even among evangelical Christians, will be overseeing a White House division that conducts outreach to key parts of the president’s base.

Paula White, a televangelist based in Florida and personal pastor to President Trump whom he has known since 2002, has joined the Trump administration in an official capacity, according to a White House official.

Ms. White will work in the Office of Public Liaison, the official said, which is the division of the White House overseeing outreach to groups and coalitions organizing key parts of the president’s base. Her role will be to advise the administration’s Faith and Opportunity Initiative, which Mr. Trump established last year by executive order and which aims to give religious groups more of a voice in government programs devoted to issues like defending religious liberty and fighting poverty.

This isn’t super-new, folks. In the lengthy profile I did on White for the Washington Post back in November 2017, it was clear even then that she was going to be given some sort of official role. She’s been commuting to the White House from her home in central Florida more than once a week at her own expense.

For those of you hoping to find out more about White’s role, here’s a few questions to ask.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

The single-most important word in WSJ's fascinating portrait of Southern Baptists' generational divide

, , , , ,

The Washington Post’s Sarah Pulliam Bailey called it a “fascinating read.”

To which I say: Amen!

I’m talking about Wall Street Journal national religion writer Ian Lovett’s story this week on a generational divide shaking Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.

The recent turmoil (recent as in the last year and a half) at that seminary is not breaking news, of course. But Lovett explores an angle that does seem fresh, especially for a major secular newspaper such as the Journal.

The lede sets the scene by outlining the news that has captured headlines and then putting it in a larger context:

FORT WORTH, Texas — After the Rev. Adam W. Greenway stepped to the lectern during his inauguration as the ninth president of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he acknowledged the tumult that had engulfed the school in recent years.

The previous president was fired. Enrollment plummeted, and the training ground for many of the nation’s most famous pastors found itself at the center of a debate over the treatment of women in the church.

“I cannot change the past,” he said. “For any way in which we have fallen short, I am sorry.”

A generational gulf is threatening to split evangelical Christianity.

While older evangelicals have become a political force preaching traditional values, younger ones are deviating from their parents on issues like same-sex marriage, Israel, the role of women, and support for President Trump.

And then the Godbeat pro offers his nut graf:


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

CBS offers a love song on 'polyamory,' which is not that religious thing called 'polygamy'

, , , , , , , ,

Not that long ago, I asked a media-savvy friend to quickly name the first thing he thought of when he heard the word “polygamy.” As you would expect from someone here in the Bible Belt, he responded: “Mormons.”

The guy was being honest. He knew that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints long ago changed its stance on that issue. But that was still what he thought of, first. It was a religion thing.

Then I asked him to do the same thing with this term: “polyamory.” Just as quickly, he responded: “NPR.”

Well, that has been a logical choice in the past. Now, reporters who follow updates on the Sexual Revolution can look to CBSN Originals for the latest one-sided coverage on that topic. Oh, and this new feature — “Not just ‘one big orgy’: Fighting the stigma of consensual non-monogamy” — avoids any religious questions that might be linked to love, sex, marriage and family life (other than hints at conservatives with hangups).

The big idea: There are lots of ordinary Americans who have been forced to hide in closets because they want to love who they love, while creating new kinds of families without fear of legal and cultural complications. They need government recognition.

That sort of sounds like three- or four-person marriages, but CBS never really goes THERE. Check out this passage:

It is illegal in all 50 states to be married to more than one person — which is known as polygamy, not polyamory. Polyamorous people who try different kinds of arrangements — such as a married couple with steady outside partners — run into their own legal problems. 

There is no legal framework for polyamorous families to share finances, custody of children or the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage. Likewise, there are no legal protections against people facing discrimination for being in a non-monogamous relationship.

So the “legal framework” goal is civil unions of some kind, as opposed to marriage?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Reporters: Forget the evangelicals. Will white Catholics dump Donald Trump in 2020?

, , , , , ,
Reporters: Forget the evangelicals. Will white Catholics dump Donald Trump in 2020?

The following assumes that President Donald Trump will be impeached by the Democratic House, kept in office by the Republican Senate and then will appear on the November 2020 ballot.

The key is that are are already some hints of softening support for him in a Public Religion Research Institute survey released October 17.

To be blunt, 27 percent of those who identified as Republican or leaned Republican would prefer a different nominee. Only 39 percent of Americans approved of his job performance as president in this poll, though he did notably better with white (non-Hispanic) Catholics (48 percent) and white mainline Protestants (54 percent) -- and of course white (non-minority) evangelicals (77 percent).

Just under three-fourths (73 percent) of Americans wished Trump’s speech and behavior followed the example set by prior presidents and so did 70 percent of all Catholics and 72 percent of white mainline Protestants.

PRRI provoked the usual commentary about why-oh-why all those white evangelical Protestants favor the president. Certain evangelical thinkers fret that association with his embarrassments is damaging the Christian witness for years to come. That’s an important topic for journalism, since evangelicals are the nation’s largest religious bloc.

But just now reporters are necessarily consumed by 2020 and PRRI reports that white evangelicals favor Trump.

Ho hum. They vote for Republicans, period. By Pew Research data, in 2004 they voted 78 percent for the born-again George W. Bush. In 2008 they slipped to 74 percent for the less overtly pious John McCain, who had tangled with “religious right” preachers. In 2012 they went 78 percent for the devout Mitt Romney despite aversion toward his Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints faith. In 2016 they gave 81 percent to the secularized Donald Trump, a proud vulgarian.

But The Guy keeps emphasizing that white Catholics gave Trump 59 percent support, and similarly for Romney.


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

Catholicism at doctrinal crossroads: Three takeaways from tense Amazonian Synod

, , , , , , , ,

It’s been one very busy month at the Vatican. The three-week Pan-Amazon Synod that came to a conclusion this past Sunday in Rome could very well mark the beginning of some major changes within Roman Catholicism.

The battle for the future doctrinal direction of the church was played out among the bishops and others who participated in the synod aimed at addressing issues affecting Catholicism in a region that encompasses a great swath of South America. This synod, however, is likely to have ramifications that will impact the global church. Both conservative and progressive Catholics agree on that.

“We are a bit like tax collectors because we are sinners, and a bit Pharisees because we are presumptuous, able to justify ourselves, masters of the art of self-justification,” Pope Francis said during his homily this past Sunday to close the synod. “This may often work with ourselves — but not with God.”

Those comments underscore the fractious nature of the synod. Indeed, the gathering wasn’t without controversy.

Even before the synod got underway, there were disputes between progressive and conservative factions about the recommendations the synod could ultimately put forth. Some traditionalists warned that any acceptance on the part of Pope Francis to do away with priestly celibacy, a part of the Latin Rite for over a millennium, was heresy.

The synod released a list of recommendations this past Saturday, after three weeks that included debate owner whether married men should become priests (to address the shortage of ordinations in the region) and whether women could be ordained to serve as modern deacons. External forces also played a role in the debate, including a series of missteps by the Vatican press office highlighted by the controversy over wooden Pachamama idols (dumped in the nearby Tiber River and later recovered) that had originally been placed in a Rome church.

Like the press coverage regarding impeachment swirling around the actions of President Donald Trump, so too has the synod been plagued by such partisan bickering in the media. In the case of the synod, conservative websites such as EWTN focused on certain aspects, while the ones on the progressive end of the spectrum, like America magazine, celebrated the changes.


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

Bitter clash between LGBTQ orthodoxy and Orthodox Christianity? Press should ask about that

, , , , , , , , , ,

Over the past week or two, I have probably received more emails about the bitter divorce and custody case surrounding a 7-year-old child in Texas than any other topic.

The father, Jeffrey Younger, calls his son James. The child’s pediatrician mother, Anne Georgulas, has transitioned to the name “Luna,” since she believes her child has sent clues that, while identified as male at birth, “Luna” has shown evidence of gender dysphoria and should begin transitioning to life as a female.

The topic has roared through social media for some time now, as trans cases involving young children tend to do.

In the emails I have received, quite a bit of attention has been focused on the mother’s very Greek name — Georgulas. The question many are asking is quite simple: Is this a battle inside an Eastern Orthodox family?

I have delayed writing about this case, since I was waiting to see what would happen when it broke out of social-media and into elite media. Now the New York Times and the Washington Post have spoken.

The bottom line: The fact that the father, and his supporters, think that Christian faith is relevant in this case isn’t an viewpoint that is worthy of discussion. This case is rooted in politics, law and modern medicine. And that’s that. This is all about fake news.

Thus, here is the double-decker headline at the Times:

Texas Father Says 7-Year-Old Isn’t Transgender, Igniting a Politicized Outcry 

A bitter custody battle grabbed the attention of Gov. Greg Abbott, Senator Ted Cruz and other conservative lawmakers.

That fits perfectly with the overture:

A bitter custody battle in Dallas that centers on the gender identity of a 7-year-old child provoked an outcry among conservatives this month. 


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Pastor in Columbia, Mo., trashed by local paper for preaching about gender dysphoria

, , , , ,

I’ve only been through Columbia, Mo., once and that was in 2013 — at night — and I remember it as being kind of hilly. It’s best known as the home of the University of Missouri, which has one of the best journalism schools in the country, many of whose graduates no doubt work at the Columbia Daily Tribune, one of two newspapers in town.

A few weeks ago, the Tribune made a foray into religion coverage with a piece about the city’s largest megachurch, The Crossing, and its pastor’s decision to preach on the transgender issue.

As you may imagine, that sermon did not go over well in a college town. And, as you would imagine, the newspaper’s coverage devoted zero effort to understanding what this church believes and why its leaders defend these doctrines. You were expecting basic journalism?

Many in the local LGBTQ+ community are outraged this week over what they say was a transphobic sermon delivered Sunday at a Columbia church, which has since apologized and stated the message was not intended to be discriminatory.

Pastor Keith Simon of The Crossing delivered a sermon on gender dysphoria where he referred to transgender people as “broken,” compared intersex individuals with eunuchs and in one instance displayed Nazi propaganda imagery, comparing the Third Reich to LGBTQ+ “culture.”

His oration has so far caused a local art gallery to cut ties with the church and spurred a petition calling on another nonprofit to do the same. Simon could not be reached at the church on Friday and a staff member suggested emailing him, to which he did not respond.

The art gallery has been receiving donations from the church for some time, by the way. In a statement, the gallery objected to the preacher’s backing of “heteronormative philosophy.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Scoop and solid coverage: Joe Biden denied Holy Communion over abortion support, paper reports

, , , , ,

Way to go, Florence Morning News.

The South Carolina newspaper — specifically government and politics reporter Matthew Christian — got a scoop this week on a Catholic priest denying Holy Communion to former Vice President Joe Biden.

But the paper didn’t just get the news, it got it right.

This is solid, solid coverage by the Florence paper:

FLORENCE, S.C. — Former Vice President Joe Biden, a candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2020 presidential race, was denied Holy Communion on Sunday morning at a Florence church.

Father Robert E. Morey of Saint Anthony Catholic Church confirmed Monday afternoon that he had denied the presidential candidate Holy Communion because of his stance on abortion. Biden, a lifelong Catholic, had attended the church’s 9 a.m. Mass.

Communion is one of seven sacraments in the Roman Catholic Church. The others are baptism, reconciliation, confirmation, marriage, anointing of the sick and holy orders.

In communion, parishioners receive the Holy Eucharist, a wafer and wine that when consecrated become the body and blood of Jesus, according to Catholic doctrine. In order to receive it, a Catholic must be in the state of grace, have gone to confession since his or her most recent mortal sin, have a belief in the doctrine of transubstantiation (a belief that the wafer and wine become the body and blood of Jesus), observe the Eucharistic fast and not be under censure.

Serious question: When’s the last time you saw that level of important religious detail that high up in a daily newspaper story?


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

Were they Pachamama statues? Some journalists declined to quote Pope Francis on that point

, , , , , , , , ,

The question for today, after a whirlwind of Vatican news: When historians write about the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon region, will they call it the “Amazonian” synod or the “Pachamama” synod?

While the synod handled complex issues of Catholic tradition (ordaining married men) and the theology of holy orders (women entering the modern diaconate), it also veered into ancient questions about Christians being tempted to worship other deities. At this point, Catholic progressives and conservatives were arguing about the first item in the Ten Commandments, as in: “You shall have no other gods before me.”

But what about other gods that are, to use a progressive term, in “dialogue” with the Holy Trinity?

Journalists became involved in this debate for a simple reason: Vatican press aides kept sending mixed signals about the role of Pachamama statues in some synod rites. Some mainstream news reports — we will look at The New York Times — declined to name the woman portrayed in these statues.

That’s an interesting editorial stance, in light of remarks by Pope Francis. Here are some key sections of a report in The Catholic Herald:

The statues, which were identical carved images of a naked pregnant Amazonian woman, had been displayed in the Carmelite church of Santa Maria in Traspontina, close to the Vatican, and used in several events, rituals, and expression of spirituality taking place during the October 6-27 Amazonian synod.

The pope said they had been displayed in the church “without idolatrous intentions,” according to a transcript provided by the Vatican press office. …

Let’s keep reading:

According to the transcript provided by the Vatican, the pope referred to the statues as “Pachamama,” the name traditionally given to an Andean fertility goddess, which can be roughly translated as “Mother Earth.”

While it is unclear whether he was using it colloquially, the pope’s use of the term “Pachamama” will likely further ongoing debate regarding the exact nature of the statutes, and what they represent.


Please respect our Commenting Policy