, , , , , , , , ,

If there's a U.S. evangelical 'crisis', who are the 'evangelicals' that journalists are talking about?

, , , , , , , , ,
If there's a U.S. evangelical 'crisis', who are the 'evangelicals' that journalists are talking about?

Commentators who were respected, card-carrying evangelical Protestants as of June 16, 2015 (when Donald Trump announced) are saying their movement faces a “crisis” and its very name should be shelved as too politicized, at least in the U.S. A few celebrities unite with multitudes of grass-roots voters in linking evangelicalism with the Donald Trump-ified Republican Party.

Yet there are many non-partisan leaders like the Rev. Leith Anderson, who’s retiring after 13 years as president of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). He tells the savvy Adelle Banks of RNS that “I want the standard to be what the Bible teaches, not what the polls report.”

The media won’t be dumping the E-word any time soon. But amid the confusion and rancor, we do need to know what we’re talking about. Thus the value of the new Eerdmans paperback ”Evangelicals: Who They Have Been, Are Now, and Could Be.” This anthology of old and new articles was compiled by expert historians David Bebbington of Britain and Americans George Marsden and Mark Noll.

Self-identified evangelicals form the largest U.S. religious bloc, and the book has three potential uses for journalists. First, it could focus an analytical article. Second, it offers fine introductory background for writers who are new to this terrain. Third, those who already know a lot will learn some things.

Making definitions difficult, this fluid movement crosses denominational lines and combines formal church bodies, myriad independent congregations, “parachurch” agencies, traveling personalities, media, music and more. Some folks accurately labeled “evangelical” have other primary identities. And don’t forget the minority evangelical factions within pluralistic “mainline” Protestant denominations.

Look at things this way: Groups in councils of churches and the like have shared organizations without shared belief. Evangelicalism has shared belief without a shared organization. In defining such a loose phenomenon, journalists will be reminded of Justice Potter Stewart’s remark on pornography. “I know it when I see it.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Washington Post offers look at five country music myths and misses a familiar ghost

, , , , , ,

I have been feeling my inner music-beat writer stirring a bit, as of late. Maybe, like Pete Townshend, I’m getting old. Then again, my East Tennessee home is a short drive from the birthplace of country music, and only slightly further from Nashville.

Thus, my eyes tend to focus a bit when I see this kind of headline in a blue-zip code elite newspaper, in this case the Washington Post: “Five myths about country music.”

Yes, this did run as a “perspective” piece in the Outlook section, so I am not looking at this as a news piece. Instead, I am simply noting an interesting chunk of this country-music flyover, since I would argue that it points toward a familiar news “ghost” in popular culture. I am referring to the prominent role that religion and religious imagery plays in country music and how that helps shape its audience.

Here is the overture of this piece by Jocelyn Neal, a music professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She is the author of “Country Music: A Cultural and Stylistic History,” from Oxford Press.

Love it or leave it, country music — with its whiskey-soaked nostalgia and crying steel guitars, its trains, trucks and lost love — is a defining feature of the American soundscape. This fall, Ken Burns’s documentary series, along with an outpouring of Dolly Parton tributes on NPR, Netflix and the stage at the Grand Ole Opry, has trained a spotlight on the genre. Still, myths infuse many people’s understanding of country music — and some of them are integral to its appeal.

Something seems to be missing there.

Let’s turn to an alternative summary statement, provided by someone who knew quite a bit about this topic — Johnny “The Man in Black” Cash. Asked to state his musical values, he said:


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

'The Two Popes' movie gets rave reviews and a good amount of fact checking, too

, , , , , , ,

The Christmas season is a time for both religious introspection and, of course, consumerism.

It’s also the time families go to the movies, which is why lots of them are released at this time of year.

Among the smorgasbord of films to open in the days before Thanksgiving was “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood,” the Fred Rogers bio-pic featuring Tom Hanks. That film is of particular interest because of its religion connections. See this recent tmatt post: “Podcast thinking: Fred Rogers, Tom Hanks, the Good Samaritan and the ties that bind.”

The only movie to open last week on the day before Thanksgiving was “The Two Popes.” I gave the flick a bad review over at Religion Unplugged, arguing that it needed a reality check. However, there are issues here that journalists will want to think about, as well. Here’s the key paragraph:

Where does the movie go wrong? Benedict did summon Bergoglio to Rome after the Argentine cardinal had resigned, as is custom when someone in that position turns 75. No one knew at the time how the cardinals would vote, except maybe former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. Therefore, the movie imagines what a dialogue between Benedict and Francis would be like. In taking us behind the secrecy of the Vatican, Meirelles creates a work of fiction.

“Change is compromise,” Benedict tells Bergoglio. 

“Nothing is static in nature,” Bergoglio replies.

Benedict, in response, argues: “God is unchanging!” 

The invented dialogue, like in the example above, aims at trying to convey the doctrinal divide that exists between these two men.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Mormons, in the end, fare well in Washington Post story about refugee welcome in Utah

, , , ,

Often, stories about people of faith and refugees end up casting the former in a negative light for refusing to be of help to the poor and tired, huddled masses.

But a roving reporter for the Washington Post got wind of something unusual; how a deep red state was refusing to go along with President Donald Trump’s anti-refugee policy. This happened to be Utah.

The ensuing piece makes for a very good read. My one caveat is that a major factor in refugee welcomes doesn’t get mentioned until the 30th paragraph.

Other media, such as this Vox video, got the point right away that Mormons have everything to do with Utah’s unusual refugee policy. This Wall Street Journal story made the Mormon connection in the fourth paragraph.

This fall, President Trump signed an executive order that, for the first time, gives states and cities the authority to veto refugee resettlements. The move alarms refugee advocates, who fear a wave of xenophobic demagoguery as governors and mayors seek to prove their anti-immigrant credentials by banning new arrivals.

That still may happen, adding to the strain on a once world-class resettlement program that has been crippled by cuts since Trump took office.

But in Utah — deeply conservative, deeply devout, predominantly white Utah — the response has been altogether different. The governor, a Republican who aligns with Trump on most issues, wrote the president a letter in late October.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

What's a bus got to do with religion? A whole lot when it comes to violating the Sabbath in Israel

, , , ,

As I noted here at GetReligion, I traveled to Israel earlier this year with a group of about a dozen U.S. religion journalists.

I wrote about a missile attack that occurred while I was there. I discovered that it was really no big deal.

I also gained a fuller understanding of the cozy relationship between Trump-supporting American evangelicals and the Jewish state. (Hint: Theology is involved.)

And I filled up my notebook with a lot of insights and questions that haven’t made their way into a published form. At least not yet.

During my weeklong experience through the American Jewish Committee’s Project Interchange, we stayed a few nights in Tel Aviv and the rest in Jerusalem. I was fascinated to learn of the stark differences between those major cities — one (Tel Aviv) a gay-friendly cosmopolitan metropolis and the other (Jerusalem) an old-time religious mecca still influenced by ancient Scriptures.

Suffice it say that since my trip, I’ve paid more attention to headlines from Israel, particularly those delving into the secular-religious divide that stresses modern-day Israel.

Speaking of which, maybe you saw The Associated Press story the other day on public buses running on the Sabbath in Tel Aviv. Or maybe you missed it during the Thanksgiving holidays. In either case, the AP story is worthy of note.

Read it carefully for a better understanding of the politics and religious divide in Israel:


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

Separation of church, state and pot: NYTimes says religious liberty issues here are not a joke

, , , , , , , , ,

Think of it as one of the defining mantras of America’s church-state orthodoxy: state officials are supposed to avoid getting entangled in deciding what is good doctrine and what is bad doctrine. They are, of course, allowed to worry about matters of profit, fraud and clear threat to life and health.

However, the legal powers that be have also had wrestle with other questions tied to the stunningly liberal (in the old sense of that word) framework created by the First Amendment: Who gets to decide what is a “religion” and what is not? How does the state decide who is sincere and who is, well, sleazy?

You can see all of these issues rumbling about in an important New York Times piece that I have been trying to sort out for some time now. This topic has been covered before (click here for earlier GetReligion posts), but this story — in my opinion — probes deeper. Here is the sweeping double-decker headline:

Inside the War for California’s Cannabis Churches

Illegal marijuana dispensaries outnumber legal ones more than three to one in California. What’s the role of the cannabis church?

Now, church-state experts have — at the U.S. Supreme Court and in Congress — wrestled with issues related to religious rights that involve drugs that are or have been illegal. It’s natural to ask if these religious organizations are offering rites incarnating centuries of religious traditions and doctrines (think Native Americans and peyote) or are they modern innovations to help people avoid laws they do not accept?

At first, I thought that money questions were going to completely dominate this Times piece — which is understandable. Is the Jah Healing flock a church or a cannabis storefront? I was glad when broader church-state issues entered the discussion.


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

The Times reports on Ralph Drollinger's informal diplomacy: 'I'm really in this for the coffee beans'

, , , , , , ,

In The New York Times Magazine, Mattathias Schwartz has written an amazing 7,600-word feature story on Ralph Drollinger, who leads weekly Bible studies among members of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet. “How the Trump Cabinet’s Bible Teacher Became a Shadow Diplomat” shows what excellent work can emerge when a writer emphasizes reporting over opinion and when the subject of a story responds to a trustworthy reporter with transparency.

Schwartz refers to this dynamic about a third of the way in: “Part of Drollinger’s charm is rooted in his straightforwardness. For years, he has been publishing his weekly Bible studies online to help the public understand his agenda. ‘It gives guys like you the confidence of what it is I’m talking about,” he told me. “That’s good transparency.’”

Drollinger’s work is volatile. People for the American Way filed a lawsuit [PDF] in August 2018 demanding documents related to the Bible studies and charging the Department of Agriculture with disregarding Freedom of Information Act requirements. “The facts of this case are simple: Cabinet officials have every right to participate in Bible study, and the American people have every right to know who is influencing public officials and how,” said Elliot Mincberg, senior counsel and fellow at People for the American Way.

The website for Americans United lists only four items about Drollinger, and two of them date to his time of working in California, before he moved to Washington, D.C.

Schwartz’s feature is neither puffery nor a screed. A skepticism is implicit at various points, and for a feature published by the Times, the implicit tone is remarkably restrained.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Serious question: Is Buttigieg being gay a reason for his low support among black voters in the South?

, , , , , ,

“If your mother says she loves you, check it out,” urges an old journalistic adage.

What about a prominent liberal pastor saying something? Should the news media check that out, too?

More on those questions in a moment. But first, I’ll back up and offer a little background: Pete Buttigieg, the South Bend, Ind., mayor who has emerged as a surprisingly strong contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, went to church Sunday in North Carolina.

As The Associated Press helpfully pointed out, Buttigieg even brought his own Bible to worship.

Along with AP, the Washington Post and the Raleigh News & Observer — and probably other news organizations that I missed — offered interesting takes on the white gay mayor’s visit to a church pastored by a prominent left-wing black activist. Give credit to the Post for noting that (1) Buttigieg is an Episcopalian, and (2) the church he visited is affiliated with the Disciples of Christ — both theologically progressive denominations.

The stories get into poverty and other crucial issues, but I’m going to focus on a specific point raised in all three articles: the connection, if any, between Buttigieg’s sexual orientation and his low support among black voters in the Bible Belt.

Let’s start with AP’s reference to that issue:

Buttigieg discussed topics from health care to climate change during the forum that followed the church’s Sunday service, to which a campaign spokesman confirmed that the mayor brought his own Bible. Even before the candidate began speaking, however, Barber sought to defuse a question that has proven thorny for Buttigieg in his struggle to break through with black voters: whether being gay plays any role in his troubles with a constituency that can trend more socially conservative.

Barber swatted away what he called the “false narrative” of division between African American and LGBTQ voters, and after the service reiterated that any portrayal of tension between the two communities is “not factual.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , ,

Old Pete Townshend asks some big questions about rock and what happens after he dies

, , , , ,

And now for something completely different.

Long, long ago, in my previous life as a weekly music columnist in Champaign-Urbana, Ill., I used to spend many enjoyable hours talking about music in that college town’s clubs and main record store. One of the hot debate topics, over and over again: Name the greatest rock band of all time.

Note the word “rock” in that equation, as opposed to “pop,” or “blues” or some other adjective.

For most people, the argument came down to an old stand-off — The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones. There were then-young idealists who made the case for The Clash.

I stood firm, arguing for The Who. My primary reasons were that this was a “rock” band (period) and that, as a writer/composer, Pete Townshend always played for higher stakes, in terms of both the personal (wrestling with his own history of abuse as a child in “Tommy”) and the political (turn it up).

Of course, Townshend didn’t die before he got old and he has pulled all of his painful questions, struggles and fears with him. If you have followed The Who over the decades, you know that many of those questions are about (a) the purpose of rock music, (b) his own broken heart, (c) religious faith and (d) all of the above.

I would never argue that Townshend has reached any conclusions about this equation. However, it is fascinating and poignant to watch his struggles, on behalf of his generation. With that in mind, let’s turn to an amazing interview in The New York Times Sunday Magazine that ran with this headline: “The Who’s PeteTownshend grapples with rock’s legacy, and his own dark past.” (This interview is also being read in the context of the usual Townshend-esque media storm about another interview, with Rolling Stone.)

So why bring this subject up at a blog about religion-news content? Well, toward the end a major ghost pops into view, one that probably deserved a follow-up question or two. What we need now is a Townshend interview conducted by former rock-beat scribe (and GetReligion writer) Dawn Eden Goldstein, author of “Sunday Will Never Be the Same: A Rock & Roll Journalist Opens Her Ears to God.”

Let’s walk into the crucial material with a sampling of Townshend talking (with David Marchese) about rock music and his generation. We will get to eternity in a moment.

Insofar as we’re now able to look back at the rock era as a completed thing, what do you see you and your peers as having achieved? 


Please respect our Commenting Policy