Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Plug-In: The March On Washington, 60 years later -- looking back with faith

Plug-In: The March On Washington, 60 years later -- looking back with faith

Is it time for fall yet? We’re enduring yet another triple-digit day in my home state of Oklahoma, and I’m ready for cooler temperatures.

But you signed up for religion news, not a weather report, so let’s start with this: Belief in the prosperity gospel is on the rise among churchgoers, according to a Lifeway Research report by Marissa Postell Sullivan.

Meanwhile, yet another Roman Catholic diocese in California has filed for bankruptcy, the Washington Post’s Paulina Villegas reports.

“The San Francisco Archdiocese is the third Bay Area diocese to file for bankruptcy after facing hundreds of lawsuits brought under a California law approved in 2019 that allowed decades-old claims to be filed by Dec. 31, 2022,” The Associated Press’ Olga R. Rodriguez notes.

At Christianity Today, Kate Shellnutt explains how the Christian Standard Bible has found its place in a crowded evangelical market.

This is our weekly roundup of the top headlines and best reads in the world of faith. Our big story concerns Monday’s 60th anniversary of the Aug. 28, 1963, March on Washington.

What To Know: The Big Story

Evolution of activism: “The March on Washington of 1963 is remembered most for the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s “I Have a Dream” speech — and thus as a crowning moment for the long-term civil rights activism of what is sometimes referred to as the ‘Black Church.’”

That’s the lede from The Associated Press’ David Crary, who adds important context:

At the march, King indeed represented numerous other Black clergy who were his colleagues in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. But the march was the product of sustained activism by a broader coalition. Black and white labor leaders, as well as white clergy, played pivotal roles over many months ahead of the event.

Moreover, the Black Church was not monolithic then — nor is it now.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

United Methodist conflict hits Bible Belt pews, while Tennessean report omits crucial facts

United Methodist conflict hits Bible Belt pews, while Tennessean report omits crucial facts

If you have followed United Methodist warfare for the past 40 years or so, as I have, you know that this is a local, regional, national and global story that is only getting more complex now that it has reached pews in local churches.

For years, the key battles were between activists in the global UMC majority (primarily growing churches in Africa and Asia) and the North American UMC establishment (rooted in agencies, seminaries and shrinking blue-zip-code flocks).

At the moment, the fiercest battles are in parts of the Midwest and the Bible Belt where doctrinally conservative churches (usually rural and suburban) will square off with establishment leaders based in big-city-friendly regional conferences. You can see this drama in a recent Tennessean story: “As United Methodists in Tennessee navigate schism, 60 churches leave denomination.” Here’s the overture:

As 60 churches in West and Middle Tennessee leave the United Methodist Church, churches in East Tennessee are so far sticking around but passionately debating denomination policies.

The departures and disagreements were features of recent annual meetings for Tennessee’s two UMC conferences, illustrating the regional variation of the ongoing schism in the UMC.

In May, the split within the UMC solidified when a new "traditionalist" denomination splintered from the UMC for churches with more conservative theological and cultural views, including on sexuality and gender.

When the new Global Methodist Church launched, the pace of churches leaving the UMC was expected to intensify.

Yes, there is that problematic word once again — “schism.” In this recent post — “In terms of church history, should the United Methodist break-up be called a 'schism'?” — I argued, for several reasons, that it’s more accurate to call what is happening a “divorce.”

Without repeating all of that, the crucial point is that group given the “traditionalist” label is, in fact, the majority in the GLOBAL denomination that has, for several decades, won tense votes defending the doctrines in the UMC’s Book of Discipline. The group seeking to change these doctrines is the entrenched North American establishment. According to the Tennessean framing, the majority is creating the “schism,” while the establishment minority represents the doctrinal heart of the denomination.

Instead of a “schism,” many in the denomination — a coalition on the doctrinal left and right —negotiated is a “divorce” plan that could save years of additional pain and millions of dollars in legal fees. That plan is the “Reconciliation and Grace Through Separation” protocol, which remains in limbo after establishment leaders twice delayed the vote, citing COVID-19 fears.

This Tennessean story never mentions this important document.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Many media pros have missed a mega-money source backing some big Christian causes

Many media pros have missed a mega-money source backing some big Christian causes

Follow the money.

Those three little words guide journalists and prosecutors alike. And that explains the news potential of the Georgia-based National Christian Foundation (NCF), www.ncfgiving.com/ which to date has quietly given $14 billion to 71,000 non-profit groups, $1.3 billion of that last year, in both tiny and huge grants. An Atlanta Journal-Constitution piece recently noted that "mysterious" operation is "one of the most influential charities you've never heard of."

Writing last week for Ministry Watch (a news website that reporters should follow), GetReligion alumnus Steve Rabey reports that NCF became "the world's largest Christian foundation" largely through word-of-mouth referrals rather than promotional efforts. The Chronicle of Philanthropy, which posted antagonistic coverage in February, ranks NCF as the nation's eighth-largest charity.

NCF calls itself a "ministry," and though it aids a wide range of secular non-profit charities it's a particularly important vehicle for religious donations from wealthy conservative Protestants who share its belief that "the entire Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God." The foundation's 26 offices around the U.S. handle donations -- contact info posted here -- so local angles for the media abound. (At national headquarters, Dan Stroud is C.E.O and Steve Chapman the media contact via info@ncfgiving.com or 404-252-0100.)

Rabey's piece includes a helpful link to the Guidestar.org posting of NCF's 593-page IRS Form 990 filed for 2019, with a listing of grant recipients that reporters will want to eyeball. The largest categories of donations ranged from local churches ($215 million) on down to medical care ($21 million). Major causes included evangelism, relief, education, children and youth work, museums, spiritual and community development, media and publishing, orphan care, Bible translation and ministry to the homeless.

NCF typifies the rising importance of "donor-advised funds" in U.S. philanthropy. The basic idea has existed for a century and was devised as a vehicle for Christian donors in 1982 by pioneering Atlanta tax attorney Terry Parker, still a board member, along with evangelical financial gurus Ron Blue and Larry Burkett.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Plug-In: This Woodward-and-Bernstein fan's way to strengthen ministries? Investigate them!

Warren Cole Smith wants to strengthen Christian ministries.

A major way he intends to do that: through investigative journalism.

Smith, 61, has served since October as president of the independent donor advocate MinistryWatch.com.

“Our overarching goal is to create transparency and accountability in the Christian ministry world,” the 1980 University of Georgia journalism graduate told me.

Rusty Leonard, who founded the nonprofit with his wife, Carol, in 1998, serves as board chairman. Leonard reached out to Smith after a donor provided funding for the new position.

Smith’s past experience includes serving as vice president and associate publisher of World, a leading evangelical magazine, and owning a chain of Christian newspapers. He is working on a book titled “Faith-Based Fraud,” which MinistryWatch hopes to publish in August.

His interest in reporting stretches back nearly five decades to the 1970s Watergate scandal uncovered by the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.

“When we’re doing investigative journalism, there are two audiences that I care most about,” Smith said. “What do donors need to know to make them more effective stewards? And how can we serve the victims?

“There’s an old saying that I use a lot in this kind of work: Ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have victims,” he added. “So we want to be an advocate for the victims, which is why we will not only cover financial abuse, but we will also cover sexual abuse as well.”

See examples of Smith’s recent work here, here and here.

Power Up: The Week’s Best Reads

1. DNA points to former suspect in 1985 church murders: Here’s a real whodunit with a major break in the 35-year-old case, thanks to digging by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

In Atlanta newspaper story on fired Catholic music minister, the villain and bad doctrine are clear

A reader sent us a link to a piece in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on a Catholic church music minister who was fired, presumably because he married another man.

The reader pointed out that the piece appears to be a personal column, which gives the writer some leeway in voicing opinions. At the same time, though, “the way it’s written is a real gray area.”

In other words, it looks and feels in a lot of ways like news reporting, not an op-ed. On the other hand, it’s clear from the beginning that the writer has chosen a hero and a villain in this scenario. The hero is the fired music minister. The villain is any church that would have a problem with two consenting adults of the same gender falling in love and exchanging wedding vows.

From a journalistic perspective, the question is: Does the writer — regardless of whether her article is opinion writing or news reporting or a hybrid combination of both — have any responsibility to demonstrate a basic understanding of Catholic theology?

More on that question in a moment.

First, though, let’s start with the top of the story. It gives a pretty clear idea of the writer’s point of view:

CHATTANOOGA, TENN. — If this were any other year, John Thomas McCecil would be busy prepping for another weekend service, planning Advent, the annual children’s program and Christmas Eve celebration near here at Our Lady of the Mount Catholic Church.

But after a decade as the minister of music at the church in Lookout Mountain, Georgia, and in a sad turn of events a few months ago, John Thomas says he was forced to resign because, in church parlance, he was in a “questionable” relationship.

Let that simmer for a moment.

If you’re still wondering what that means exactly, here it is in more simple terms: John Thomas is happily married to a man. He’s gay.

That fact was known by church administrators at Our Lady, and as far as he could discern, no one really cared.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

'Christian' councilman in Ga. doesn't believe in interracial marriage; what's obvious follow-up?

In today’s entry under the heading of "There’s (Almost) Always a Religion Angle,” let’s turn to the lead story on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution home page.

It’s an investigative piece on a small-town Georgia mayor under fire for allegedly withholding a candidate from consideration for city administrator because he was black.

In the story from Hoschton, a 90 percent white community 50 miles northeast of Atlanta, the Journal-Constitution reports:

According to documents obtained by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and interviews with city officials, Mayor Theresa Kenerly told a member of the City Council she pulled the resume of Keith Henry from a packet of four finalists “because he is black, and the city isn’t ready for this.”

The AJC’s investigation into the controversy revealed not only a deeply flawed hiring process, but also hard racial attitudes inside Hoschton’s government. All of this occurs as the city of fewer than 2,000 people just outside Gwinnett County is poised for dramatic growth with the construction of thousands of new homes.

So what’s the religion angle?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

What is 'medical futility'? Reporters covering 'heartbeat' bill need to ask an essential question

In yet another U.S. Supreme Court ruling on abortion — City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health in 1983 — Justice Sandra Day O’Connor found herself pondering the potential impact of advanced medical technology on the trimester framework at the heart of Roe v. Wade.

Hang in there with me for a moment. I am bringing this up because the information is highly relevant to news coverage of the bitter debates surrounding efforts to pass a “heartbeat” bill in Georgia. That was the subject of recent post by our own Bobby Ross, Jr., that ran with this headline: “Culture war winner: Atlanta newspaper delivers fair, nuanced coverage of anti-abortion 'heartbeat bill'.”

Just to be clear: I agree with Bobby that this particular Atlanta Journal-Constitution article contained a wider than normal range of voices explaining how different groups view that abortion legislation. That’s good. However, there was one crucial, and I mean CRUCIAL, point in the article that confused me. Digging into that topic a bit, I found more confusion — at AJC.com and in some other news outlets, as well.

In the end, I will be asking a journalism question, not a question about law or science.

Let’s walk into this carefully, beginning with this long quote from Justice O’Connor in 1983:

Just as improvements in medical technology inevitably will move forward the point at which the state may regulate for reasons of maternal health, different technological improvements will move backward the point of viability at which the state may proscribe abortions except when necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother. … In 1973, viability before 28 weeks was considered unusual. However, recent studies have demonstrated increasingly earlier fetal viability. It is certainly reasonable to believe that fetal viability in the first trimester of pregnancy may be possible in the not too distant future.

The Roe framework, then, is clearly on a collision course with itself.

This is, of course, precisely what is happening. At this point, it is commonly accepted that the viability of unborn children — weight is crucial — has moved back to between 22 and 24 weeks into a pregnancy. Will science make even more progress there, in terms of helping premies survive outside the womb?

Now, onto the “heartbeat” bill debates. When can scientists detect the heartbeat of an unborn child? That would be six weeks into the pregnancy. Parents can usually hear the heartbeat, with assistance, at nine to 10 weeks. Note this passage in the story that Bobby critiqued:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Culture war winner: Atlanta newspaper delivers fair, nuanced coverage of anti-abortion 'heartbeat bill'

Earlier this month, I praised the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s coverage of legislation pitting religious freedom vs. gay rights.

In particular, I complimented the fair manner in which the Journal-Constitution reported on a subject that often begets scare quotes and slanted headlines (against the religious freedom side) in mainstream news stories.

I stressed in that post:

Since I don’t read the Atlanta paper regularly, I can’t say if this is typical of how that news organization handles this topic. But this particular story, in my humble opinion, deserves kudos.

I stand by the previous caveat, but I have another example of an equally balanced, nuanced report from the Journal-Constitution that I want to highlight.

Maybe — just maybe — we’ve stumbled upon a positive trend? (I know, I know: We need a third example to make it a real trend.)

The Atlanta paper’s latest culture wars story concerns abortion, a topic on which — as we’ve noted repeatedly — news media bias against pro-life advocates frequently runs rampant.

But once again, the Journal-Constitution treats both sides — all sides, actually, since there aren’t just two sides — in what impresses me as an impartial manner.

The basics from the top of the story:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Religious freedom vs. gay rights: Debate is back in Georgia, and so are the scare quotes

Georgia’s legislative fights over gay rights vs. religious freedom have made headlines before.

In fact, I wrote a 2016 post headlined “Down in Georgia, here's what the news media's love of 'religious liberty' scare quotes tells you.”

I noted then that most major media insisted on scare quotes around "religious liberty" or "religious freedom.”

By the way, Dictionary.com defines scare quotes this way:

A pair of quotation marks used around a term or phrase to indicate that the writer does not think it is being used appropriately or that the writer is using it in a specialized sense.

Fast-forward to present day, and a similar bill is making news again in Atlanta. The differing treatments of that bill by The Associated Press and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution are interesting.

On the one hand, scare quotes still seem to be in vogue at AP, which has this headline:

'Religious liberties' bill renews a recurring Georgia debate

AP’s lede also relies on scare quotes:

ATLANTA (AP) — A ‘religious liberties’ bill that aims to add greater protections for personal beliefs has renewed a recurring debate in Georgia about discrimination and religious freedom.

Republican state Sen. Marty Harbin of Tyrone said Thursday his proposal was drafted to mirror the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by Congress in 1993 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

“I believe that Georgians need to be fully protected under the First Amendment from not only federal law, but also state and local law,” Harbin said at a news conference.

But critics say the bill would allow discrimination against the LGBT community.

Republican Gov. Brian Kemp pledged during his election campaign last year to sign “nothing more, nothing less” than a mirror image of the federal law. His predecessor, GOP Gov. Nathan Deal, vetoed a similar bill passed by lawmakers three years ago amid threats by major companies to boycott Georgia if the measure became law.


Please respect our Commenting Policy