, , , , , , , , , ,

Spiritual warfare explainer: RNS pros offered crucial context for 'Satanic pregnancies' sound bite

, , , , , , , , , ,

No doubt about it: There are people who show up in religion-beat news who are hard to quote accurately and fairly.

It’s hard, for example, to find a punchy, bite-sized quotation in your typical papal encyclical, even when you’re dealing with the work of Pope Francis. It’s possible, of course, to rip something out of context that sounds like commentary on this or that political issue that’s already in the headline. Most of the time, that context-free approach sheds more heat than light.

Then there are the charismatic and Pentecostal preachers whose words are drenched in metaphors and images mixing biblical language with their own vivid (they would say “Holy Spirit inspired”) imaginations.

This brings me that Twitter storm the other day (sorry to be late on this) about a colorful (to say the least) sermon by the Rev. Paula White, the charismatic leader best known as a spiritual advisor to President Donald Trump. She has been known to unleash storm clouds of rhetoric that sound more like rock-music lyrics more than the traditional exegesis of scripture.

For example, what — precisely — is a “satanic pregnancy”? Come to think of it, what is a “satanic womb”?

If you yanked her words out of context, as legions of her critics did, it sounded like this sermon contained some inconsistent language about abortion.

Thus, I was glad when veterans Bob Smietana and Adelle Banks of Religion News Service quickly produced a short explainer that found some context to White’s wild words. In this case, that was a really big challenge. Here’s some key material at the top of that report (“Paula White’s sermon comment about ‘satanic pregnancies’ goes viral”).


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

In the news? How Kobe Bryant's Catholic faith saved his marriage and turned his life around

, , , , , , , ,

Kobe Bryant means a lot of different things to many people. To most, the 41-year-old was the Los Angeles Lakers star and a five-time NBA champion who spent two decades wowing us on the basketball court. He may even be one of the best players to ever dunk a ball.

To others, he’ll forever be the cheating spouse, on trial in 2003 for allegedly raping a woman inside a Colorado hotel room, an encounter he claimed had been consensual. It should be noted that Bryant was married at the time. The case never made it to trial after the woman refused to testify, but she did filed a civil lawsuit against the basketball icon that was settled outside of court. Bryant later issued a public apology, saying he was ashamed for having committed adultery.

Was there more to that story, in terms of Bryant’s apology and his efforts to save his marriage? We will come back to that.

After his retirement, Bryant became known primarily as a doting father, largely shunning the chance to coach or work for the Lakers in some official capacity. It’s no surprise then that he died Sunday with his 13-year-old daughter Gianna, a budding basketball talent herself, on their way to one of her games.

All but forgotten — as well as underreported by the news media since Sunday’s tragic helicopter crash in Calabasas, Calif., that killed Bryant, his daughter and seven others — was his active Catholic faith and how his efforts to practice that faith made him a better man, husband and father.

Bryant had spent a chunk of his childhood in Italy, a majority Catholic country, and was raised in the faith. How devout was Bryant? He attended Mass regularly, including just two hours before he died.


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

Darkness returns -- Rabbi Lord Sacks on new wave of anti-Semitism in Europe and America

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Darkness returns -- Rabbi Lord Sacks on new wave of anti-Semitism in Europe and America

Andrew Neil of BBC kept asking Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn the same question -- over and over.

"Eighty percent of Jews think that you're anti-Semitic," he stressed. "Wouldn't you like to take this opportunity tonight to apologize to the British Jewish community for what's happened?"

Corbyn would not yield: "What I'll say is this -- I am determined that our society will be safe for people of all faiths."

The Daily Express called this late-2019 clash a "horror show." This BBC interview, with surging fears of public anti-Semitism, lingered in headlines as Brits went to the polls. Corbyn's party suffered its worst defeat in nearly a century.

Meanwhile, in America, a wave of anti-Semitic attacks left Jews wondering if it was safe to wear yarmulkes and symbols of their faith while walking the sidewalks of New York City. In suburban Monsey, a machete-waving attacker stabbed five people at a Hasidic rabbi's Hanukkah party. Finally, thousands of New Yorkers marched to show solidarity with the Jewish community.

The NYPD estimates that anti-Semitic crimes rose 26% last year. Anti-Semitic hate crimes in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago are expected to hit an 18-year high, according to research at California State University, San Bernardino. 

No one who watches the news can doubt that "the darkness has returned. It has returned likewise to virtually every country in Europe," argued Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, who led the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth from 1991-2013. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth in 2005 and entered the House of Lords.

"That this should have happened within living memory of the Holocaust, after the most systematic attempt ever made … to find a cure for the virus of the world's longest hate -- more than half a century of Holocaust education and anti-racist legislation -- is almost unbelievable. It is particularly traumatic that this has happened in the United States, the country where Jews felt more at home than anywhere else in the Diaspora."

Why now?


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

Yo, Politico scribes: You might want to attend March for Life next year and count the Catholics

, , , , , , ,

Anyone who works on Capitol Hill or within a mile or two of Union Station in Washington, D.C., knows what happens on the day of the annual March for Life.

Lots and lots of folks roll into town. The streets are lined with buses packed with students — often the orange-yellow school buses used for short-range work. Then there are miles of rented buses that roll in from schools — middle schools, high schools and colleges — all over the Southeast, Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and even the Midwest.

It’s pretty easy to note that the vast majority of the buses are from Catholic institutions. It’s harder to judge the points of origin for groups that fly into D.C. to take part.

If you watch the march itself, you’ll see all kinds of unusual groups: Feminists for Life, Atheists for Life, Democrats for Life, the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, etc. There are lots of evangelical Protestants present and their numbers have risen since the marches began in 1974. following Roe v. Wade.

But the vast majority of people who arrive early — especially for the annual Vigil for Life (first photo) at the National Basilica of the Immaculate Conception — and stay late are Roman Catholics. This is fitting since the march began with the work of a Catholic Democrat named Nellie Gray who, after Roe, left her work as a Labor Department lawyer to become an activist. The symbol of the march — a rose — is also a popular symbol for St. Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Why bring this up?

Well, have you heard that 81 percent of white evangelicals just love Donald Trump? It’s safe to assume that most readers have heard that, methinks.

Somehow, that often cited (but rather complex) fact led — according to the Politico — to Trump’s historic decision to address this year’s March for Life, as seen in this headline: “Trump tries to shore up evangelical support at March for Life rally.”

Never mind that the crucial states that gave Trump the presidency — especially in the Midwest — are heavily Catholic and usually (think Ohio) are won by the candidate who wins the Sunday-morning Catholic swing vote.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

While reporting on tennis great Margaret Court, can reporters at least try to be objective?

, , , , , ,

Since last November, Australian tennis legend Margaret Court has been keeping pressure on officials at Tennis Australia to properly honor the 50th anniversary of her 1970 Grand Slam, as they did for male icon Rod Laver. She’s won more Grand Slams than any man or woman. The anniversary is today.

But there’s a catch and, as is often the case, it’s linked to religious faith.

For many people, Court is on the wrong side of the gay and trans-rights battles. On Sunday, tennis champion — and admitted loudmouth — John McEnroe slammed Court for being a “nightmare,” so the invective is still flying.

I last wrote about this in 2017, so this is a continuation of a long-running clash in major media. The Washington Post did a story recently on how Court is fighting for her legacy.

Fifty years after Margaret Court accomplished one of the greatest feats in women’s tennis, Australian Open officials face the delicate question of just how to honor a woman whose beliefs run counter to the inclusiveness promoted by Australia’s national tennis organization.

Well, the lede right there shouts out the opinion that Court is an enemy of inclusion. That said, I am not sure how I would have worded it. Maybe, “a woman whose traditional religious beliefs run counter to more modern takes on sexual mores promoted by…” etc?

Meanwhile, if the tennis organization was all that inclusive, it would include Court. Despite having a record 24 Grand Slam women’s singles titles:

 Court, 77, has drawn criticism for controversial views on same-sex marriage and transgender issues, with Martina Navratilova recently calling her comments on transgender women and children “pathetic” and saying she was “hiding behind her Bible.”


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

Plug-In: How the SBC sex abuse scandal turned a city hall reporter into a religion writer

, , , , , , , ,

Robert Downen almost burned out on newspapers and went into the insurance business.

Instead, the talented journalist, now 28, stuck it out and spearheaded what the Religion News Association chose as the No. 1 religion story of 2019.

I’m talking about the Houston Chronicle’s bombshell investigation that revealed more than 700 victims of sexual abuse in the Southern Baptist Convention and spurred reforms by the nation’s largest Protestant denomination.

Come April, Downen’s work on the “Abuse of Faith” project could earn him and his colleagues a Pulitzer Prize. For now, it has resulted in a new gig for the former City Hall reporter. As of last week, he’s covering religion full time for the Houston newspaper. This is wonderful news for Downen and Chronicle readers.

“Mr. Downen has already demonstrated the importance of the beat with his impactful investigative work,” said Peter Smith, the RNA’s president and the veteran religion writer for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “Houston will benefit from his attention to the religiously diverse population of this major American city.”

Texas’s largest daily newspapers — including the Chronicle, the Dallas Morning News and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram — all used to have full-time Godbeat pros.

But no more. At the Chronicle, Downen steps into an important role that has been unfilled for a while. (Here’s hoping those other papers decide to keep up with the competition.)


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Weekend thinking with Ryan Burge: Emerging patterns in 'born again' Catholics confusion

, , , , , ,

Your GetReligionistas have been paying attention to the “born-again Catholic” debates for a long time (click here for a selection of posts).

Thus, we know this conflict didn’t originate with Vice President Mike Pence.

I’m old enough to remember when Southern Baptist (at that time) Jimmy Carter yanked the term “born again” out of religion textbooks and into American political discourse. Many reporters were confused about the term than and many still are.

I think some of the confusion is also linked to the rise of the charismatic renewal movement in Roman Catholicism. I mean, anyone who has her or his hands up in the air while praying in an unknown tongue for someone to be healed has to be “born again,” right? You mean terms like “evangelical,” “charismatic,” Pentecostal” and “born again” have actual content and definitions linked to church history?

Throw in the “Evangelicals & Catholics Together” movement — with doctrinal conservatives finding common ground on moral and social issues (think marriage and the right to life) — and some reporters began assuming that Catholics were “evangelical” or “born again” if they VOTED that way.

So there is confusion out there, However, in this week’s dose of Ryan Burge information, it’s easy to see that the confusion now points to some interesting stories. The confusion may have content, if that makes any sense. There is so much content in Burge’s new essay — “The Curious Case of Born-Again Catholics” — at the Religion in Public blog that I don’t know what to feature here.

Why not start with the reality that people are starting to pin this label on themselves?


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

Big news decades in the making: Why are United Methodists finally going to divorce?

, , , , , , , ,

THE QUESTION:

Why is the large United Methodist Church preparing to split in May?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

One of 2020’s major news events occurs May 5-15 when delegates in Minneapolis decide whether and how to break up the large United Methodist Church (UMC). The simple answer to why is that long-running conservative-vs.-liberal differences proved irreconcilable when it comes to sexual morality in general, and homosexuality in particular.  But there’s much more to be said.

The stakes are high, since the UMC is America’s second-largest Protestant denomination and biggest of the so-called “mainline” groups, which are long-established, predominantly white, active in ecumenical organizations, and allow more flexibility on belief than conservative “evangelicals.” The UMC has dealt with the gay issue for 48 years, during which membership slid from 10.3 million to 7 million. Continual and enervating haggles doubtless contributed to membership shrinkage in all of “mainline” Protestantism, even as U.S. culture and politics shifted toward gay toleration following the 1969 Stonewall Riots.

The UMC’s debate began soon after it was founded in a 1968 merger between the Methodist Church and the smaller Evangelical United Brethren Church. An official commission was appointed to collate the uniting groups’ teachings on a range of topics and report to the new denomination’s first General Conference in 1972. (The Guy covered this Atlanta event for Time magazine).

The commission proposed approval of the statement that “homosexuals no less than heterosexuals are persons of sacred worth, who need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship which enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. Further, we insist that all persons are entitled to have their human and civil rights ensured.”

Conservatives did not dispute those concepts but were wary, and seemed befuddled during floor debate. Then Texas lawyer Donald Hand jotted down wording, ran it past a state Supreme Court justice, and offered this amendment: “we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian doctrine.” The spur-of-the-moment insert passed, and remains on the books to this day.


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

This week's podcast: They shoot (or shun) old United Methodists, don't they?

, , , , , , , ,

Before we get to the story (AP headline: “Struggling Minnesota church asks older members to go away”) behind this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), I would like to share a parable.

It’s about some elderly Lutherans and an old hymnal.

In the early 1980s, while working for The Charlotte News (RIP), I wrote a feature story about the last congregation in town that was resisting the use of a new hymnal prepared for the churches that merged to form the progressive Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

Everyone called the “Service Book and Hymnal” the “red book,” and emerging ELCA elites thought it was old fashioned. Thus, the modernized “Lutheran Book of Worship” came out in 1978. It was the “green book.”

At this Charlotte church, I met with an older man who led the fight to retain the “red book.” He had a long list of reasons — historical and theological — for why the old hymnal and prayer book was superior to the new. A teacher by trade, he was very articulate and calm.

When the interview was over, we walked the center aisle toward the foyer and main exit. At the last pew, he stopped and picked up a battered red hymnal. Tears began running down his cheeks.

“I married my wife with this book,” he said. “Our children were baptized with this book. I buried my wife with this book. … They are not going to take it away from me.”

Forget his long list of defenses for the “red book.” What I was hearing was a cry from his heart, as well as his head. Church officials had ruled that his faith — his life — was out of date and he was hurting.

With that in mind, think about the press coverage that grew out of a Twin Cities Pioneer Press story that ran with this headline: “Cottage Grove church to usher out gray-haired members in effort to attract more young parishioners.” Here’s a key passage that captures the tone:


Please respect our Commenting Policy