So, what do Southern Baptists have to do to get some ink?

A couple of years ago the Southern Baptist Convention explored the option of changing their name to better reflect the national and international nature of the denomination. I thought at the time that it might be helpful to change the name to the “The Episcopal Church” so that the national news media would finally acknowledge the massive SBC’s existence.

Well, tmatt once offered some helpful theories for explaining why Episcopalians get so much ink by the elite press, but I’ve yet to hear a reasonable explanation why America’s largest non-Catholic flock is all but ignored.

A prime example is a story that has — so far — only been picked up by one mainstream media organization, The Tennessean in Nashville, the city in which the SBC headquarters is located:

Two Southern Baptist leaders said Monday that they reject conspiracy theories that the U.S. military will punish Christian soldiers who share their faith.

But they are worried about religious freedom in the military.

Kevin Ezell, head of the Baptist’s North American Mission Board, which endorses military chaplains, and Russell Moore, president-elect of the Nashville-based Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, issued a statement Monday about religious freedom in the military.

The full statement (which can be found at the Baptist Press news site) offers a number of hooks for reporters who are late writing about the story that was discussed in churches and on military bases across the country.

The fact that such sober-minded, media-friendly and thoughtful Baptist leaders as Kevin Ezell, president of the SBC’s North American Mission Board, and Russell Moore, president-elect of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, felt compelled to write about this issue is a signal that there’s a story out there that needs some calm, nuanced, informed reporting.

What, for instance, are the conspiracy theories they’re attempting to debunk?

If you’ve been following Smietana at The Tennessean you’d know.

In fact, The Tennessean has published four articles on the topic: one on the Baptist website being blocked, an A1 story on the controversy over the ban on proselytizing, a story when the Defense Department clarified that policy, and now the response by these key Southern Baptist leaders. In his most recent article, Smietana provides a helpful summary of the controversy:

The two leaders said they plan to talk with military leaders about their concerns.

The online controversy over the ban on proselytizing came after the Washington Post reported about an activist who met with Air Force officials to demand that soldiers who spend too much time talking about Jesus be booted from the military.

Mikey Weinstein, president of the Albuquerque, N.M.-based Military Religious Freedom Foundation, claimed that officers who try to convert their subordinates should face a court martial.

Weinstein’s demands caused a stir on Twitter after the Pentagon told Fox News about the ban on proselytizing.

How many other news outlets have covered it so thoroughly or connected the dots in the way that Smietana has done? And why is a story with so many juicy angles in need of clarification and/or debunking — government conspiracy! oppression of military chaplains! religious freedoms quashed! — being underplayed?

The story is still fresh so maybe we’ll see more journalists playing catch-up. Perhaps we just need to get some leaders from The Episcopal Church to weigh in so that that it can get some coverage in elite news publications in blue zip codes.

Print Friendly

  • Bison70

    “religious freedoms quashed! — being underplayed?”

    I think many don’t see a story here because many view religious freedom as ending outside the church building. Simply put, many believe that you don’t have the right to bother other people with your religious views, so a potential ban on religious talk in the military is not seen as a big deal.

    • fredgill

      If you don’t have the right to “bother” other people with your religious views then you really don’t have the right to bother anyone with any type of speech. What will be next, politics? Sports? One’s views on literature or art? But of course people must speak so what we will ultimately end up with is the banning of only certain kinds of views on religion or other subjects. But I’m sure we can trust our little crackpot progressive busybodies to manage our speech wisely. I love Big Brother.

  • tmatt

    Bison70:

    So, basically, you are saying there IS a story here because the First Amendment no longer applies to speech that is in any way offensive? Speech can be prohibited even if the offense is taken after only one offensive remark?

    • RayIngles

      Note that a lot of activity between officers and subordinates is prohibited in the military. Sexual relationships are one obvious example, but ongoing business relationships (more than just selling a used car or something) are also banned. Indeed, the military fraternization codes specifically prohibit giving the appearance of pressure, bias, or unfairness.

      The First Amendment is already curtailed for those in the military, particularly officers. They are not supposed to use their positions to promote political or religious positions, for example (though some do). I’m kind of sad Smietana didn’t include that point.

      In that context, Weinstein’s concern about “officers who try to convert their subordinates” doesn’t seem that out of line. How comfortable might a Christian recruit feel if their CO tried to get them to convert to Islam or Wicca?

      • Chas S. Clifton

        Well put. What started this whole thing off was when lower-ranking personnel felt that their military superiors were pressuring them to take part in certain religious activities. When power relationships are that unequal, you are not talking simply about “sharing Jesus.”

  • Common Sense

    Ask any Mormon or Catholic: Ink is way overrated.

    I prophesy that if your wish is granted, you will live to regret it.

    “The press . . . just doesn’t get religion.” — William Schneider

  • Padre David Poedel

    As a Lutheran of the Missouri variety I too wonder how “ink” is overvalued. Besides my family trying to understand how I became a “Missouri” Lutheran in Arizona.

    I recommend a name change for us too….something that the folks who would read our “ink” might actually find an orthodox, catholic, liturgical Synod attractive and not get hung up on a silly name like “Missouri”,

  • cken

    All the Baptists have to do to get ink is continue to be the same hard headed, dogmatic, I am right you are wrong anal sphincter apertures they have always been.

  • Pingback: In post-denominational age, what’s in a church name?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X