, , , , ,

What were the sources for biblical accounts of the birth of Jesus?

, , , , ,

THE QUESTION:

What were the sources for the Bible’s accounts of Jesus’ birth?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

If it’s Christmastime, we expect the media will look around for material to deconstruct cherished church traditions. One 2019 example is a series of December articles about Jesus’ Nativity on this very interfaith site — www.patheos.com/blogs/messyinspirations — from a Catholic “channel” contributor who for some reason wants anonymity and calls himself “fellow dying inmate.”

The “inmate” is correct to debunk some sentimental Christmas folkways. Typical cradle scenes to the contrary, the shepherds and wise men did not worship the baby Jesus together but appear in separate incidents told in Luke and Matthew respectively. With the wise men, we’re not told there were three, only that whatever their number they presented three gifts. Nor were they “kings” as that carol claims.

The series highlights the intriguing reality that among the four gospels only Matthew and Luke say anything about Jesus’ birth. How come?

Mark begins with John the Baptist in the wilderness, preparing the way as cousin Jesus appears. John starts by echoing the Book of Genesis with the cosmic concept of Jesus as the “Word” who was with God “in the beginning,” then turns to John the Baptist.

The articles dive into the many differences between Matthew and Luke.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

What's the one thing journalists need to learn from the Christianity Today firestorm?

, , , , , ,

Let’s consider this an educational moment. Since journalists are paying lots of attention, right now, to Christianity Today and other things linked to the late Billy Graham, let’s do a flashback to some poll numbers published in the fall of 2018.

This polling was done by the Billy Graham Center Institute at Wheaton College, working with LifeWay Research. One of the goals was to understand why evangelicals voted the way that they did in 2016.

Lots of things grabbed my attention, but here are some numbers that I think journalists need to ponder at the moment in light of the recent CT editorial by departing editor Mark Galli. You may have heard about it. The headline proclaimed: “Trump Should Be Removed from Office.”

But back to CT in 2018. The bytes that jumped out at me:

* Only half of the evangelicals polled voted for the candidate that they truly wanted to support in the White House race.

* One out of three said that they voted AGAINST Hillary Clinton or AGAINST Donald Trump.

* One in four white evangelicals said that they voted AGAINST Trump. One in three black evangelicals said the same thing.

* At least 20% of evangelicals didn’t vote (and I’ve seen figures as high as 40% elsewhere).

Put it all together and a high percentage — 77% in this poll — of white evangelicals did said that they voted for Trump. However, echoing earlier CT reporting, only about half of them said that they wanted to do so.

I wrote a national column about that with this headline: “Complex realities behind that ‘81 percent of evangelicals love Trump’ media myth.” Here’s how it ended:

Waves of news about this 81 percent vote have “created a simplistic, negative caricature of who evangelicals are, right now,” said Ed Stetzer, director of the Billy Graham Center. “It allows lazy people to keep saying that all of those evangelicals are ‘all in’ for Donald Trump. ... They’re trying to turn Trump voters into Trump.

”Trump voters are not Trump, and that’s certainly true for most evangelicals.”

So what’s the Big Idea that journalists need to learn from all of this, including the Galli editorial?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Who would Jesus cheer for? S.C. paper explores the evangelical ties of Dabo Swinney’s Clemson Tigers

, , , ,

The College Football Playoff games are this weekend.

My No. 4 Oklahoma Sooners (12-1) are two-touchdown underdogs to the No. 1 LSU Tigers (13-0). But OU coach Lincoln Riley said, “We are going to go ahead and show up.” So, friends, feel free to go ahead and pray for a miracle!

In the other semifinal, the No. 3 Clemson Tigers (13-0 and defending national champions) face the No. 2 Ohio State Buckeyes (13-0).

In advance of Clemson’s fifth straight CFP appearance, the Post and Courier of Charleston, S.C., wrote about “How Dabo Swinney’s Christian evangelism boosts Clemson recruiting.”

The piece opens this way:

CLEMSON — The journey from high school football stardom to Clemson passed through NewSpring Church for some of Dabo Swinney’s latest recruits. Visits started not in the head coach’s office or the Tigers’ $55 million training facility that includes a bowling alley and miniature golf course, but in a church parking lot 2 miles away.

Cars parked, players and their families then boarded a shuttle to the facility, where, many say, God’s presence was clear. 

“Before we do anything, we’re going to pray,” said Sergio Allen, a highly rated linebacker from Fort Valley, Ga., who signed Wednesday as part of Clemson’s No. 1-ranked recruiting class.  “Somebody’s going to pray, whether it be coach Swinney, one of the staff members, another coach. It might even be us. We’re going to pray.”

Swinney, an evangelical Christian, is reluctant to elaborate with reporters about his faith; he declined an interview request for this story. But in the moments after Clemson’s 44-16 win over Alabama in the College Football Playoff national championship game Jan. 7,  he made a bold statement in front of a global audience.

“We beat Notre Dame and Alabama. We left no doubt. And we walk off this field tonight as the first 15-0 team in college football history,” he said. “All the credit, all the glory, goes to the good Lord.”

For those paying attention, the faith emphasis of Swinney and his team isn’t exactly breaking news.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

Tick, tick, tick: Days leading up to Jan. 1 (and beyond) will be extra strange for GetReligion

, , , ,

The Christmas and New Year’s season is always a bit of a strange time here at GetReligion, with people coming and going and getting their work done when they can. We do strive to take a few days off, of course. Sort of.

Frankly, this year is going to be extra strange.

Regular readers may have noticed the recent post in which I explained that, as of Jan. 1, GetReligion will have a new home base. Let me repeat some of that information, in case some people missed it. This will help explain some of the extra strangeness in the next few weeks:

For several years now, I have known that I would retire from full-time work here at GetReligion when the clock struck midnight and we reached Jan. 1, 2020. The question — logically enough — was whether this weblog would shut down or evolve back into something that I could do part-time, which was how things started out long ago.

The good news is that, well, we ain’t dead yet. The bad news is that we will have to do some major downsizing. … Readers will not be surprised to know that — a sign of the times in which we live — the work we will be doing here in the future will require some fundraising. …

But the big news today is that GetReligion will soon have a new home base, one linked directly to First Amendment studies, which means work tied to freedom of the press and freedom of religion.

As of Jan. 1, we will be based at the Overby Center for Southern Journalism and Politics, which is next door to the School of Journalism and New Media at the University of Mississippi. The chairman of the center is Charles L. Overby, for 22 years the CEO of the Freedom Forum, a non-partisan foundation focusing on the press, religious freedom and the First Amendment.

Or, as I summed things up at the end, we are talking “journalism, the First Amendment, good friends and barbecue.”

However, a big question remains — because of the role that fundraising now plays in our future. That question: What will GetReligion look like after Jan. 1?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

BBC tells us where the next clash with radicalized Islam will be: In the Sahel

, , , , , ,

It was a small news article about Niger, a country almost no one has heard of.

There’s been an attack on a base there that leaves 71 soldiers dead, BBC wrote. This area of the world has been heating up in a major way as a brew of toxic Islam mixed with the possibility of yet another caliphate being declared in the area at some point.

All this is taking place in the Sahel, the southern edge of the Saharan Desert.

How many news readers could find that on a map?

Militants have killed at least 71 soldiers in an attack on a military base in western Niger - the deadliest in several years.

Twelve soldiers were also injured in the attack in Inates, the army says.

No group has yet said it was behind the killings. But militants linked to al-Qaeda and the Islamic State group (IS) have staged attacks in the Sahel region this year despite the presence of thousands of regional and foreign troops.

Security analysts say the insurgency in Niger is escalating at an alarming rate.

Is the word “militants” these days so clear that everyone automatically knows that the adjective “Muslim” or “Islamic” goes with it? And what happens to those they attack?


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

This weekend 'think piece' is not about l'affaire Christianity Today: Please read it anyway

, , , , , , , , , ,

Believe it or not, I had already selected a Dallas Morning News essay by Baylor University historian Thomas about evangelicals and politics as this weekend’s “think piece” before l’affaire Christianity Today rocked the chattering classes that live on Twitter.

The double-decker headline proclaims, “When political pollsters talk about ‘evangelicals,’ they aren’t talking about all of us: The evangelical leaders whom the president cites are actually a small group.”

Kidd has been everywhere in recent weeks, with due cause, because of his new Yale University Press book: “Who Is an Evangelical?: The History of a Movement in Crisis.”

Somebody, somewhere, really needs to buy a truckload this book and distribute copies to every journalist in America (and maybe the world) who plans to cover the 2020 White House race. And not just because of Trump! There are crucial “evangelical” plot lines unfolding linked to African-American evangelicals (ask Mayor Pete Buttigieg) and the growing number of evangelical Latinos (think suburban voters in Florida).

But, wait, is the word “evangelical” a political term? Here is a bite from a recent column I did on Kidd’s work:

Some journalists and pollsters are now operating on the assumption that white evangelicals are the only evangelicals that matter, noted Kidd. … A few have, however, started to realize that many Americans who self-identify as "evangelicals" are not walking the talk. 

That has been common knowledge since the late 1970s, when Gallup researchers began asking hard questions about religious beliefs and the practice of those beliefs in daily life. Gallup cut its estimate that "evangelicals" were 34% of America's population to 18% – a number that would shock many journalists, as well as GOP activists.

"Evangelicals are covered, they are important, when they are a factor in politics — period," said Kidd.


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

Final 2019 podcast: Oh-so familiar Top 10 religion stories list (with a few exceptions)

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

Near the end of every year, the Religion News Association (the flock previously known as the Religion Newswriters Association) posts its list of the year’s Top 10 religion-beat stories.

It’s tough work, but somebody has to do it. I don’t envy the scribes who have to create the list of events that go on the ballot.

The archive on the RNA website only goes back to 2002, but I have been writing annual columns on this topic since forever, or close to it (click here for my Internet-era archive). As you would expect, this was the top of the final “Crossroads” podcast for 2019 (click here to tune that in).

When you’ve been studying lists of this kind for four decades, it’s easy to spot patterns. The RNA list will almost always contain:

* Some event or trend linked to politics and this often has something to with evangelicals posing a threat to American life.

* Mainline Protestants gathered somewhere to fight over attempts to modernize doctrines linked to sex and marriage.

* The pope said something headline-worthy about some issue linked to politics or sexuality.

* Someone somewhere attacked lots of someones in the name of God.

* There may or may not be a story about Southern Baptists waging war on one another for some reason linked to biblical authority.

This year’s RNA Top 10 was way more predictable than usual, in terms of offering sort-of-trend updates on old news. The No. 1 story, however, was truly big news:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , ,

'Olive, come out of that grave:' Reporters cover Bethel Church trying to resurrect a dead child

, , , ,

Ever since Sunday, there’s been this bizarre story out of Bethel Church in Redding, Calif., about the followers of this immense church trying to raise a 2-year-old from the dead.

Bethel has been an anomaly in the charismatic/pentecostal world but at the same time a place I’ve been telling reporters they need to get to know. As the days have progressed, I’ve been amazed to see all sorts of media, from the New York Post, USA Today and the Sacramento Bee to Slate and then the Associated Press jumping on this story.

Here’s what AP came out with late Thursday:

Kalley Heiligenthal stomped her feet and waved her arms, dancing her way from one side of the bright-lit stage to the other.

“Come alive, come alive!” the congregants at Bethel Church in Redding, California, shouted in expectation as they clapped and sang praises.

The faithful shared these scenes on Instagram Tuesday night as they prayed for Heiligenthal’s 2-year-old daughter, Olive Alayne, to be raised from the dead.

Heiligenthal, a worship leader and songwriter for Bethel Music, announced on social media Sunday that her daughter had stopped breathing and been pronounced dead.

Since then, she has publicly called for people to pray that her girl be resurrected.

Redding police are investigating the death, which occurred sometime between Friday night and early Saturday morning. The child’s body remains at the Shasta County coroner’s office. Sadly, NBC News, which ran the AP story, stripped the reporter’s byline from the piece, as I would have liked to have seen who wrote it.


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

Friday Five: CT's editorial, LDS church's $100 billion, Catholic priests, SBC sex abuse, holiday grief

, , , , , , , ,

Did you hear about the editor-in-chief of a leading evangelical magazine calling Donald Trump unfit to lead the nation?

But enough about the editorial that Marvin Olasky and World magazine wrote before the 2016 presidential election.

Christianity Today broke the internet — or at least crashed its own website — with retiring editor-in-chief Mark Galli’s editorial Thursday making the case for Trump’s removal from office.

Washington Post religion writer Sarah Pulliam Bailey, a former online editor at CT, tweeted that her mouth “dropped open” when Galli’s piece hit the World Wide Web.

Me? I was about as surprised as I could be without actually being surprised.

As The Atlantic’s Emma Green noted:

Within hours of the article’s publication, the magazine’s website had crashed and Galli had been invited to speak on CNN and NPR, among other outlets. To be clear, Galli’s editorial in no way signals that evangelicals are about to defect, en masse, from Trump or the Republican Party. Christianity Today, also known as CT, mostly appeals to well-educated readers who are moderate in every way, including politically and theologically. Much of its readership is international, and many older print subscribers might not even register the small, seismic event that just happened on CT’s website. And polling over the past few months has consistently shown that white evangelicals remain among Trump’s staunchest supporters.

And at the New York Times, Elizabeth Dias pointed out:

The editorial was a surprising move for a publication that has generally avoided jumping into bitter partisan battles. But it was unlikely to signal a significant change in Mr. Trump’s core support; the magazine has long represented more centrist thought, and popular evangelical leaders with large followings continue to rally behind the president.

More later.

But for now, let’s dive into the Friday Five:


Please respect our Commenting Policy