Obama outs himself as ordinary liberal Christian

May 10, 2012 By

In what can only be called a stunning defeat for those who still considered him a Muslim, President Barack Obama yesterday confirmed that he is, in fact, a perfectly ordinary liberal Protestant Christian.

So far, the content of the media storm accompanying the president’s endorsement of the legalization of same-sex marriage has been very predictable. Those of us who subscribe to The New York Times must wait with fear and trembling to learn why he did not go far enough in this pronouncement. I predict the next wrinkle will have to do with that whole states vs. federal thing (that and, of course, whether this is the new and improved litmus test for U.S. Supreme Court nominees). Americans have Obama’s pledge that his views will be coupled with a defense of religious liberty, but I don’t expect that profession to settle much.

The key, however, is that the president chose to frame this as a highly personal religious conviction, one consistent with his approach to faith and, one must assume, his views on centuries of Christian doctrine. At some people, reporters in the mainstream press will need to unpack that a bit. The same, by the way, goes for Mitt Romney. If he brings it up, plunge in there with questions.

Thankfully, the editor in charge of the journalism side of the On Faith equation at The Washington Post put together an online news report that started this journalistic process. I plan to keep looking there for updates. Here’s the top of Elizabeth Tenety’s wrap-up:

President Obama threw his support behind same-sex marriage Wednesday after years of “evolution” on the issue, and invoked Christ and the Golden Rule in detailing how he has changed.

In an interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts, the president painted his endorsement of same-sex marriage as an outgrowth of his Christian beliefs:

“ … [Michelle and I] are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the
views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is not only Christ sacrificing
himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a dad and a husband and hopefully the better I’ll be as president.”

Obama also acknowledged the religious issues at play in his previous hesitance to embrace gay marriage:

“I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people, the word ‘marriage’ was something that evokes very powerful traditions,
religious beliefs and so forth. …”

In terms of fallout, journalists will be focusing on how this decision affects a number of different groups, starting with active churchgoers in African-American denominations and, perhaps, spreading into charismatic and traditional Catholic parishes in heavily Latino zip codes. Once again, the “pew gap” will almost certainly be vindicated — the fact that the more people attend worship services, the more likely they are to vote for culturally conservative Republicans or Democrats.

We can expect more coverage of “emergent” evangelicals and how their approach to moral issues (which means biblical authority) differs with that of older evangelicals. As GetReligion has long stressed, the left side of the evangelical world deserves more coverage and not simply as a political phenomenon. Someone needs to focus on how an evangelical approach to faith — with its tension between personal experience and largely undefined concepts of biblical authority — allows a surprising amount of wiggle room on moral theology. Ask Bill Clinton about that.

(Speaking of needing to hear from voices on the left side of the Baptist world — as I requested yesterday — here’s an Associated Baptist Press report quoting Baptist leaders on both sides of the North Carolina Amendment 1 vote.)

In addition to the usual suspects on the right, the Associated Press (quoted by Tenety) talked to key figure in the middle of the evangelical world:

The Rev. Joel Hunter, who Obama calls his spiritual adviser, told the Associated Press that Obama called him before the announcement and that he told the president he disagreed with his interpretation of what the Bible says about marriage. Hunter, who leads the 15,000 member Northland church near Orlando, said it is now harder for him to support Obama, but that he would continue to do so. He said the president reassured him he would protect the religious freedom of churches that oppose gay marriage.

So far, nothing specific about this development on Twitter from the Rev. Rick Warren, other than the following — which I take as cryptic, timely advice to reporters.

Rick Warren ? @RickWarren

Generalizations are generally wrong — especially about churches, pastors, or members of a generation. Each is unique.

Amen. When in doubt, let believers provide the details of their own beliefs.

Meanwhile, please help your GetReligionistas look for serious coverage of this rather predictable development, by which I mean coverage that moves beyond the simple rounding up of reaction quotes. In particular, I will be interested in comments from — of course — the religious left, especially liberal Catholics, Baptists and others aligned with the world of liberal Protestantism. The goal is to find coverage that takes the president’s statement seriously as a faith statement, not as an act of political chess.

It goes without saying that, before punching “comment,” readers should ask if what they have to say is linked to journalism, as opposed to simply praising or attacking Obama, his supporters or his critics.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Godbeat, Mainline, Marriage & family, Politics, Same-sex marriage

Abusive Presbyterians?

May 10, 2012 By

Reuters runs a piece about how a “Gay-led Los Angeles parish breaks with Presbyterian Church.” It begins with some dramatic language:

As throngs of religious conservatives break from the U.S. Presbyterian Church over the ordination of gay ministers, a small gay-led California parish is staging a schism of its own, saying the church has done too little to accept homosexuality.

Throngs suggests that we’re talking about a ton of people. And yet the only quantification for that number is at the end of the piece where we’re told that a conservative advocacy group lists 35 congregations that have begun the process of leaving. We do learn that West Hollywood Presbyterian Church is the first to leave in order to join a more liberal church. In this case, that’s the United Church of Christ. On that note, I was a bit confused by the way Reuters describes which denomination is in question. I mean, I knew it was the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) but the “U.S. Presbyterian Church” language kind of threw me.

The reader who sent it in did so because he thought the quotes in the story deserved a response from “the other side” of the debate. Here’s a sample:

“I can’t wait” said the Reverend Dan Smith, a gay pastor who has led the congregation with 57 members since the 1980s. “It’s like being released from an abusive relationship,” he said. “We’re ready to be set free.”

Clearing a last hurdle for the defection, a regional governing body called the Presbytery of the Pacific voted on Tuesday to let the 99-year-old parish keep property belonging to the parent church when it makes the move.

West Hollywood is the first congregation to leave the fold to join a more liberal church under a so-called “gracious-dismissal” policy church elders devised to avoid contentious lawsuits over congregations seeking to leave the denomination.

The reader felt that allegations of abuse deserved a response. And that seems right. Particularly since the story itself fails to substantiate those claims. Not only do we learn about the “gracious-dismissal” policy but the only quote from someone supportive of the Presbyterian Church — which we’ll look at in a second — isn’t supportive of the abuse claim.

The story does a nice job of explaining the views of the departing congregation, though more of a discussion on doctrine than emotions would have been helpful. Or doctrine in addition to emotions. We simply never learn the justification for either the Presbyterian Church’s position on same-sex marriages or the departing congregation’s, a missed opportunity.

A pastor and her partner were married by another Presbyterian pastor, who was rebuked. We learn that the couple attends the church in question and that the pastor, Rev. Lisa Bove, was sad about her church’s move:

“But I’m not sad for the congregation,” she said. “All people deserve the chance to be loved, to know that their parent church body is proud of them and celebrates their gifts.

“The United Church of Christ is proud to have us. Presbyterians are just waking up to tolerate us. We want our gifts celebrated, not just simply tolerated.”

Then we hear from a remaining Presbyterian who says that his church body is a hostile environment for gays and lesbians. Yet we don’t learn what that means or why the environment is viewed as hostile. In other words, there’s kind of a surprising lack of religious content in this story about a religious dispute.

Anyway, here’s the solitary quote from the mean, abusive and hostile side:

The Reverend Mark Brewer, also a member of the group that negotiated the dismissal, supports the parent church’s opposition to same-sex marriage and said he thought the congregation would “find the peace in the United Church of Christ that they wouldn’t find in the Presbyterian Church.”

Yes, all the quotes — whether we’re talking about this one or the ones from the departing side — are about this substantive. I found myself wanting to know more about the euphemisms and language used. What is a “rightful place at Christ’s table” in the context of this sexual issue? What does “progressive” mean, in this context? And so on.

I love that Reuters is highlighting the departure of this small congregation, but a bit more substance would have been nice. And, of course, if you quote people attacking others for being hostile and abusive and what not, it’s only proper reporting to go ahead and get the other side’s perspective in the dispute, too.

Gay Rights image via Shutterstock.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Journalism, Mainline, Same-sex marriage

Missing voices (on left) in North Carolina vote

May 9, 2012 By

The general consensus in the press this morning was that the North Carolina marriage amendment vote was all about religion. This is certainly the theme that emerges in some of the stories and photographs featured in The Politico email round-up.

LOCAL COVERAGE HIGLIGHTS RELIGIOUS CELEBRATIONS AS AMENDMENT ONE PASSES: The lead centerpiece photo on the front of the Raleigh News and Observer is an African-American pastor cheering the returns showing a ban on gay marriage over the sub-headline: “State to become 31st to Constitutionally forbid same-sex marriage”: http://bit.ly/JvJ9v9. The lead image on the front of the Shelby Star is a Baptist pastor holding a sign supporting the ban as cars drive by under the headline “Voters say ‘I do’”: http://bit.ly/L9UtOX. The Wilmington Star-News headline is “Marriage defined” with a photo of a Methodist Church sign in front of a polling place that says “A true marriage is male and female and God”: http://bit.ly/Jd98ft. The two-column banner headline in the Fayetteville Observer is “Amendment One sails to easy passage” with pictures of cheering religious women: http://bit.ly/IKptHx.

United Methodists? Yes, in the Bible Belt there were even United Methodist congregations that backed the amendment. That said, I would think the odds are good that this was either an African-American congregation, a heavily evangelical congregation or “both/and.”

Which brings us to the wrap-up that ran in The Charlotte Observer, the state’s most powerful newsroom. Starting with the lede, the Observer‘s editorial team did a good job of jumping right on the big idea that this was a vote that crossed all kinds of political, racial and cultural lines — in large part because of religion. Here’s the top of the story:

Riding a Bible-influenced coalition that cut across political and racial lines, the marriage amendment stormed to approval Tuesday, making North Carolina the latest state to put stronger legal barricades before same-sex unions.

With 90 percent of the counties reporting, the constitutional amendment to make marriage between a man and a woman the “only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized,” won resoundingly, 61 percent to 39 percent.

It goes into effect Jan. 1. North Carolina has had a law banning same-sex marriages for 16 years. Turnout, fueled largely by the marriage debate, was the largest for a primary in decades, election officials said.

The story, as you would expect, contains quite a few religious voices and that’s one of its strengths, kind of.

However, speaking as the former religion-beat guy at the Observer, back in the early-to-mid ’80s, I thought the voices featured in this report were a bit too predictable. In particular, the story didn’t do enough to show the variety of voices on the religious left that opposed this amendment. Charlotte is a very complex town, when it comes to religion and this story was, on religion, a bit too simple.

The first person quoted, naturally enough in the Bible Belt, was the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Charlotte, a leader in the drive to pass the amendment. No surprise there. A few paragraphs later, readers heard from leaders on the other side of the church aisle.

The Rev. Robin Tanner of Charlotte, a leader in the effort to defeat the amendment, looked beyond Tuesday’s loss.

“Hope lives on in this place we all call home,” the pastor of Piedmont Unitarian Universalist Church said in a prepared statement. “Hope is our promised companion, and equality for all our promised land.”

Added the Rev. Murdoch Smith, pastor of St. Martin’s Episcopal Church: “The goal is not destroyed, just delayed for the moment.”

Now, raise your cyper-hands if you are surprised that the local Unitarians and (most of the) Episcopalians opposed the amendment.

What was I looking for? The story does a great job of showing how this issue divided people in unpredictable ways in terms of politics — quoting Republicans who opposed the amendment and Democrats who supported it. But things became much more predictable when the focus was on religion.

For example, I know from experience that Charlotte has many powerful, powerful “moderate” Baptist churches in which this amendment would have inspired fierce debates. There are even Baptist churches (my wife and I sort of got run out of one long ago) that can, on matters theological, accurately be described as “liberal.”

This is also a city and region in which the entire alphabet soup of Presbyterian life (PCUSA, PCA, EPC, ARPC, OPC, etc., etc.) is represented. When I moved to Charlotte in 1982, it was the only Southern city in which there were more Presbyterians than Baptists. Many of these churches would have been opposed the amendment, while many others would have been in favor.

And then there are the previously mentioned divides within United Methodism in the Carolinas.

Please know that I realize that the Observer team did not — on election night — have the time and space to dedicate an entire story to the role of religion in this vote. The odds are quite good, I would imagine, that precisely that kind of story will hit the newspaper’s front page on Sunday. Nevertheless, I think that, in this case, the newspaper left readers with the impression that this vote came down to, well, Billy Graham and the Baptists vs. the Unitarians and Episcopalians.

That’s too simplistic, especially on the religious left. The situation on the ground was much more complex than that and the story needed a few more voices — especially in terms of capturing the divisions among Baptists and Presbyterians.

For example, consider this quote toward the end of the story:

Charlotte area voters didn’t necessarily follow party affiliations in taking sides on the amendment.

At the Forest Hill Church precinct in south Charlotte, Democrat Don Hawley, 57, voted in favor. “I don’t know that we need to start protecting another class of citizens,” he said.

Mary Settlemyre, 49, a Republican, voted no. “My understanding of the Republican Party is it’s limited in your personal life,” she said. “That (intrudes) in the parts of your personal life they need not be in.”

That “Forest Hill Church” precinct reference brought back some memories for me. I would predict that this is the church formerly known as Forest Hill Presbyterian Church, a large congregation that left the oldline Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) way back in the mid-1980s. And what were the issues way back then that led to the church’s departure from the PCUSA? Let’s just say that, when push came to legal shove, there were three of them and many GetReligion readers would consider them very old news.

Meanwhile, here’s hoping that the Observer team — after talking to the usual suspects — dedicates some coverage to some of the less obvious voices on the left side of the Charlotte scene, especially the Baptists, and also on the right side, especially the various brands of Presbyterians and those United Methodist folks, too.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Baptists, Evangelicals, Journalism, Mainline, Marriage & family, Politics, Race, Religion, Same-sex marriage

Doing that Bill Maher gay marriage Obama thing

May 8, 2012 By

I have three questions, after reading the latest New York Times news report about why President Barack Obama is hurting his chances in the upcoming election with his ongoing reticence to let his beliefs on marriage completely evolve into agreement with, well, the great Gray Lady herself.

(1) Is the Times editorial staff, essentially, doing a Bill Maher riff here, chiding the president with story after story of wink-wink material that essentially says, “We think you’re lying on this issue, so you might as well come clean” or words to that effect?

(2) Is the goal, in this kind of coverage, to change the minds of traditional Christians in African-American churches, to shame them or merely to ignore them? To use the term popularized by the Poynter.org crew, the Times team does seem to be deliberately ignoring a major group of “stakeholders” in this debate.

(3) Is this another case, after the great Bill Keller confession in Austin, in which readers are simply supposed to assume that it is now Times policy that it is no longer necessary for the newspaper’s urban, sophisticated scribes to even attempt to accurately represent the views of leaders on the opposing side of a moral, cultural and religious issue such as this one?

The key to the timing of this story, of course, is that Vice President Joseph Biden, Jr., came within a whisker of endorsing same-sex marriage this past Sunday (during a talk show, as opposed to greeting reporters after Mass). White House aides said the statement was consistent with those previously made by the president, while gay-rights leaders (outside the administration) said Biden’s words were unique and newsworthy.

Once again, this meant that the Times story needed to offer an explanation — political, of course, not religious — for Obama’s silence. As usual, this background material mentioned religious beliefs, but did not explore them.

The political considerations for the White House and the Obama re-election campaign are complicated, and advisers are on both sides of the issue. But Mr. Obama’s senior strategists like David Axelrod and David Plouffe, confronting the prospect of a close election, are loath to raise a subject that could cost votes in swing states like Virginia, North Carolina and Colorado, say Democrats familiar with their thinking.

Yet Mr. Obama risks alienating gay Americans who have been among his strongest supporters and biggest donors, and same-sex marriage is strongly supported among many of the young and college-educated voters whom the campaign courts. But it is opposed by socially conservative blacks, particularly politically influential ministers, whose strong turnout Mr. Obama needs.

At the same time, some Democrats say that Mr. Obama, by continuing to straddle an issue that many supporters and gay activists believe he privately favors, risks looking politically calculating, even cynical.

Note, as usual, the lack of attributions for the ticklish statements in this part of the story.

Those who choose to read on will then note the complete absence of voices — even pro-Obama voices — explaining the point of view of these “politically influential” African-American ministers (as opposed to African-American ministers who are religious leaders and, thus, not all that important). Do Times editors realize how offended many African-American pastors are when told that they are important simply because of their political clout, and not their roles as pastors and community leaders?

Later on, the Times does offer this additional background on the North Carolina scene:

In North Carolina, polls indicated that the proposed state amendment banning same-sex marriage would be approved on Tuesday. While North Carolina has a law against same-sex marriage, Republican lawmakers said they worried that without an amendment, the law was in danger of being struck down by the courts.

The issue divides nearly all demographic groups, with ministers, lawyers, business executives, as well as black and white voters falling on both sides of the debate. …

Christopher Cooper, a political science professor at Western Carolina University, said of the issue, “I think the less it’s talked about in a state like North Carolina, the better it is for Obama.”

The story accurately notes that ministers — white and black — can be found on both sides of this debate in North Carolina and nationwide. Once again, the goal here at GetReligion is to note that there are religious stakeholders on both sides and their views need to be covered fairly and accurately.

Meanwhile, over at The Washington Post, the same story received coverage that was just as one-sided and even more faith-free. In this case, the gay-rights side of the equation was backed by six sources (not including Biden) and there were no voices, in terms of new interview material, featured on the other side.

In this case, the big idea of the story is that Obama is attempting to balance African-American votes vs. the power of gay money:

Several people close to the White House said the episode has exposed internal tensions within Obama’s team between those who want the president to say he favors same-sex marriage before the November election and others who worry about a political backlash if he does — not just among conservatives and working-class voters but among African Americans who are Obama’s most loyal support bloc but tend to oppose such unions.

About one in six of Obama’s top campaign “bundlers” are gay, according to a Washington Post review of donor lists, making it difficult for the president to defer the matter. Activists are planning a campaign for the adoption of a pro-gay-marriage plank in this year’s Democratic Party platform.

Stay tuned. I predict new and/or renewed coverage, soon, of how young African-American pastors are clashing with old African-American pastors on this issue. Also, if any GetReligion readers are faithful Maher watchers, please keep us posted on his news coverage of this issue.

Meanwhile, the Post also reports — in a blog item — that the White House press conference exchanges on this “evolving” issue were almost certainly worthy of Saturday Night Live — with little or no editing needed. That is, if SNL still does skits gently poking Obama.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Baptists, Evangelicals, Journalism, Marriage & family, Pentecostalism, Race, Same-sex marriage

Billy Graham speaks out (says a good source)

May 4, 2012 By

Back in the days when I was a full-time religion reporter (soon after the cooling of the earth’s crust), the annual event that pulled the most religion writers into the same zip code was the annual slugfest between the left and right wings of the Southern Baptist Convention. This was especially true in the years before the conservatives firmly took control, back when one hold-up-your-red-cards vote to name a convention president could literally determine who appointed the trustees that ran the whole shooting match.

During one of those tense affairs, I think it was in Dallas (correct me, folks), Louis Moore of The Houston Chronicle walked into the press room with a smirk on this face, the kind of smirk a reporter has when he or she knows something that nobody else knows.

Everyone in the room noticed this smirk, of course. Beat reporters aren’t dummies.

When asked what was up, Moore declined to answer — of course. All he said was this cryptic phrase: “It’s a nuclear bomb.”

As things turned out, Moore was the only person who had learned that, at this crucial stage of the game, the Rev. Billy Graham had done something he rarely if ever did. He had chosen to endorse one of the candidates.

Do YOU want Billy Graham on your side in a Bible Belt tussle?

I thought of this when reading the following Associated Press report, which is (in my opinion wisely) the story that is running in many of the nation’s major newspapers:

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) – The Rev. Billy Graham urged North Carolina voters Wednesday to support an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage, a move that an observer said was highly unusual but another said was in keeping with the minister’s moral beliefs.

“Watching the moral decline of our country causes me great concern,” said Graham, 93, who lives near Asheville. “I believe the home and marriage is the foundation of our society and must be protected.”

His complete statement about Amendment One will be part of full-page ads slated to appear in 14 North Carolina newspapers throughout the weekend. …

“At 93, I never thought we would have to debate the definition of marriage,” Billy Graham’s statement said. “The Bible is clear — God’s definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. I want to urge my fellow North Carolinians to vote for the marriage amendment” Tuesday.

Now, my point here is not to start a debate about Graham’s statement or even the wisdom of the world’s most famous Protestant making that statement. Don’t click “comment” to talk about that.

The purpose of this post is to praise two specific journalism points in this ticklish, “nuclear” story.

First of all, note the balancing act in the second half of the lede. It notes, accurately, two crucial points about Graham’s history in public life, especially in the second, post-Watergate part of his life. Graham rarely enters politics and, when it does so, it’s when he believes a Christian doctrine demands that he do so. His stance on nuclear weapons, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, is a perfect example.

Second, the AP team (Godbeat veteran Rachel Zoll was involved) got the right source to nail this down.

William Martin, who wrote the authorized Graham biography “A Prophet With Honor,” couldn’t recall another effort by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association like the one the ministry plans in support of Amendment One. The elderly evangelist preached often on the need for sexual purity, but rarely spoke about same-sex marriage, Martin said.

“I am somewhat surprised that he would take that strong a stand,” said Martin, professor emeritus of religion and public policy at Rice University. “In the past, I have heard him say with respect to homosexuality, there are greater sins. … (It) sounds as if this is Mr. Graham expressing his own will.”

Martin, of course, is a mainstream, if not progressive, scholar who is the author of one of the essential studies of Graham’s career — “A Prophet With Honor.” While he is not part of the evangelical world, he speaks the language fluently. Martin is also accurate in his statement that Graham never spoke about sexuality issues without stressing that all of American culture been reaping what it has sown, when it comes to sexual ethics. I have never heard of the elder Graham address sexual issues without framing the discussion in terms of the moral status of all sexual acts outside of marriage — period.

In other words, the Associated Press got the right source in terms of giving information that added another layer of complexity to this report. Everyone knows what conservatives are going to say on this matter and the story, as it should, quotes one or two, including Graham’s daughter (and in many ways, his heir in terms of pulpit talent) Anne Graham Lotz.

Getting Martin’s voice into the story was crucial for mainstream and progressive readers. Kudos.

NOTE: Once again, we are here to talk about the content of the AP story, not the North Carolina amendment and the arguments for or against it. Take your political comments elsewhere.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Baptists, Evangelicals, Journalism, Marriage & family, People, Same-sex marriage, Social Issues

Why is Obama silent on Tar Heel gay rights?

April 24, 2012 By

So what is the mainstream press to do with President Barack Obama’s refusal — so far — to take a clear stance on gay-rights issues, especially same-sex marriage?

Well, there are basically two options — one journalistic and the other, well, not so journalistic.

First of all, it is possible to write news pieces that are based on the president’s own words and actions, including the public stances taken and defended by his own church and/or religious denomination, which is the United Church of Christ. Then it would be possible to focus on his political reasons for not taking a clear stance, which would almost certainly lead journalists into a religious thicket as well, one centering on the beliefs of most African-Americans and Latinos who frequent church pews.

Then again, it is also possible to write stories that merely hint at the above factors and then focus totally on why people on the political and moral left are disappointed with his lack of courage.

I guess one could also assume, with Bill Maher, that the president is a simply lying (video clip here) until after the 2012 election votes are cast, but that wouldn’t be very journalistic.

What we have in the following Washington Post story is a classic example of the second approach. Here’s a sample, taken from a story that basically says Obama is hurting his standing with young people by being silent on North Carolina’s Amendment One that would ban civil unions and domestic partnerships:

The issue is particularly complicated in historically conservative North Carolina. Obama scraped together a razor-thin victory there four years ago with a multicultural coalition that included independents, African Americans and Hispanics — constituencies that are less uniformly enthusiastic about expanding gay rights than campus activists.

North Carolina is widely seen as a bigger challenge this year for Obama than it was in 2008, when he won with a margin of roughly 14,000 votes. Not only does the state’s unemployment rate continue to hover near 10 percent, but its Democratic Party is in disarray and is expected to be of little help to president. …

None of these challenges have stopped Obama from planting a flag in North Carolina, as he did by deciding to hold his party’s national convention in Charlotte this year. His campaign has opened more than a dozen offices around the state. In fact, Obama’s grass-roots organization never really dismantled four years ago — and actually as grown since then, state campaign officials said.

And in case you missed the main point (I can certainly understand why even careful, well-informed readers might miss it) there is this:

It will … be up to Obama to navigate the political crosscurrents of a complicated state in which he must court multiple constituencies that do not all agree on all the same issues.

The fate of Amendment One, for instance, is uncertain, with one public poll predicting that it will pass easily and another projecting a loss. Quietly opposing Amendment One, but keeping his distance from on-the-ground efforts to defeat it, could be an essential strategy for Obama to pull back together the diverse coalition that elected him last time.

The story presents all of this as a political issue — alone. Clap your hands if you are surprised.

This is a political issue, of course. I get that. But the key is that Obama is trying to skate over the fact that most African-American and Latino churchgoers are not convinced that, in terms of civil rights laws, sexual orientation truly equals race. I would imagine that the White House has very specific data on this reality and that Amendment One must, at this stage, be polling well with people of color. Thus, the president is smart to remain silent, until he is reelected (as Maher would say).

Here is my main point: Here at GetReligion, we have long insisted that the voices and views of leaders on the religious left are inadequately covered in the mainstream press. Would it have strengthened this story to note that Obama is part of the United Church of Christ, the liberal Protestant denomination that has, in the actions of its national leaders, long served as a trailblazer in the field of gay rights? Is that relevant to this story? Why not talk to UCC leaders in North Carolina?

Also, in terms of the pro-Amendment One viewpoint, why didn’t the Post ask African-American and Latino pastors WHY THEY believe Obama has elected to remain silent? Call me old-fashioned, but I really think this news story needed to include voices from both sides of that debate. It’s a journalism thing.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Journalism, Mainline, Marriage & family, Politics, Same-sex marriage, Sex

Skeptical about ‘stunned’ sisters

April 24, 2012 By

Yesterday, as we were discussing a particularly helpful, if brief, discussion about the Vatican document regarding the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, reader Martha wrote that she agreed that the PBS discussion I highlighted was good:

But how many news reports are going to take this approach to consideration of both sides? What newspaper has asked, for example, Sr. Simone Campbell, why exactly she was “stunned” by the CDF document, given that this whole process formally began back in 2008? So far, if your impression of the affair was garnered from the papers, you would imagine that some secret Vatican task force snooped around and suddenly sprang this smack-down on American nuns who had been innocently going about their business with no idea they were about to be censured – all tied in with the American bishops’ politicking in this election year, no doubt.

It reminded me that I, too, found this particular framing to be surprising. I mean, I’m not a sister and I’m not Catholic, but precisely nothing about this document stunned or surprised me. I’d like a little bit more explanation of why people in the biz claim surprise.

What are Martha and I talking about? How about the Sydney Morning Herald: Nuns left stunned by Vatican rebuke for ‘radical feminist’ tendencies and Chicago Tribune/Reuters: Catholic nuns group “stunned” by Vatican slap and Press Herald: Nuns group ‘stunned‘ by Vatican order for overhaul? and MSNBC: Catholic nuns group ‘stunned‘ by Vatican scolding for ‘radical feminist’ ideas and Bangor Daily News: American nuns stunned by Vatican crackdown. And that doesn’t count the stories that merely mentioned up high that the nuns were “stunned,” such as this one by the Los Angeles Times.

In fact, so many stories took this angle that many of the pieces all kind of blurred together. I remember thinking one was particularly bad but I can’t even find it in the hundreds of stories that pop up when you do a Google search for “stunned” sisters and the Vatican.

The Washington Post had a piece headlined “American nuns stunned by Vatican accusation of ‘radical feminism,’ crackdown.” And the article is actually great as a whole. But I want to focus mostly on how it handled this stunned business. The top of the story goes:

American nuns struggled to respond Friday to a Vatican crackdown on what it calls “radical feminism” among the women and their purported failure to sufficiently condemn such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage.

Some nuns in the Leadership Conference of Women Religious characterized the disciplinary action announced Wednesday as an “ambush,” but others — including the leadership — said they couldn’t publicly comment on a system that mandates their obedience. The 1,500-member conference represents the vast majority of the country’s 57,000 nuns.

“People are stunned,” said Sister Pat McDermott, president of the 3,500-member Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, based in Silver Spring. “They’re outraged, angry, frustrated, they don’t know where this came from and how to hold it.”

OK, there is no doubt that this is the media response that some nuns in the LCWR are going with. And it’s important that their side of the story be told, which is particularly difficult considering that many are not exactly speaking on the record about the specifics of what they oppose in the Vatican document.

But considering that the national media has for years been covering widespread concern with the theological drift on display among some women religious, I need more specifics about why this group was stunned. Are they saying they didn’t know the Vatican was concerned? That people had reported many concerns about the speakers at various conferences? Are they saying they didn’t realize they’d been silent about sanctity of life issues? Are they saying this is the first they heard about any theological disagreements between the “moving beyond the church, even beyond Jesus” folks and the Vatican folks?

We get a couple of answers to this question. Here’s the first:

Tensions have publicly flared recently between the bishops and the leadership conference — along with a few other large prominent nun-led groups — over public-policy issues. Some bishops were angry when the leadership conference supported the White House’s health-care reform, which the bishops’ conference had vigorously opposed. The bishops also have focused on opposing a White House mandate that employers, including religious ones, offer birth control, while the nuns accepted a compromise from President Obama.

The Vatican report didn’t focus on public positions the women took but rather on the private conversations they had at their own meetings and comments they made in private letters to Vatican officials about such issues as how to minister to gays and lesbians.

That seems to suggest we could use some follow-up questions to the sisters. If tensions have been flaring publicly, why is it a surprise that the Vatican cracked down? I’m sure they have a reason for surprise but I haven’t seen it discussed, I don’t think.

Also, is it true that the Vatican report didn’t focus on public positions the women took but, rather, on their private conversations and letters? First off, I’m not entirely sure that conference meetings should be treated as private, although I am willing to be persuaded on that point. But the Vatican document said:

The documentation reveals that, while there has been a great deal of work on the part of LCWR promoting issues of social justice in harmony with the Church’s social doctrine, it is silent on the right to life from conception to natural death, a question that is part of the lively public debate about abortion and euthanasia in the United States. Further, issues of crucial importance to the life of Church and society, such as the Church’s Biblical view of family life and human sexuality, are not part of the LCWR agenda in a way that promotes Church teaching. Moreover, occasional public statements by the LCWR that disagree with or challenge positions taken by the Bishops, who are the Church’s authentic teachers of faithmorals, are not compatible with its purpose.

If the group took a public position of silence on important church teachings regarding abortion and euthanasia and family life and human sexuality and so on, and if they were called out specifically for that public position of silence, wouldn’t you say that the Vatican report did focus on the public positions the women took rather than their private conversations and letters?

OK. The second thing that speaks to the “stunned” reaction of the sisters is here:

Sister Julie Vieira, a member of the Michigan-based Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, said the fact that the directive came without warning was jarring.

“Whatever we engage with in ministry … we check in with others about it, and together as a sisterhood we make decisions,” she said. “To encounter this kind of action that did not come with that contemplative discernment that I, as a woman religious, am used to engaging with in all of my life was deeply disturbing to me.”

However, she said, “our vow of obedience applies to God … it doesn’t reside in a bishop, a body of bishops or even the pope. For us, that sense of obedience has to do with listening deeply to the call of the spirit.”

First off, there are just some great quotes in this piece and kudos to the reporters for getting them. In some ways, that last paragraph explains more about the divide between the Vatican and some of the women in the LCWR than a thousand additional words could.

Anyway, I realize that the sisters are claiming to be stunned, and that is an extremely important thing to mention in reaction stories. I want to be clear about that. But for people like me — who are more likely to be stunned by these sisters being stunned than by the Vatican document itself — we need more of an explanation that makes sense, don’t we? Otherwise, it’s just kind of unfair to the sisters as well as to the Vatican, no? I’m curious what other readers think. Do you agree with Martha that reporters should have drilled down more on the “stunned” language? I should note that this article does a much better job on contextualizing those claims than other articles I read.

The WashPost story also has a bunch of interesting stuff about the weakening relationship between priests and nuns. There’s a mention of the Twitter drive that used the hashtag #whatsistersmeantome as well as helpful context about how not all sisters took the Vatican document negatively. The shrinking and aging population of the LCWR is mentioned — and not just that — but that traditional, habit-wearing nun groups are growing.

Which brings us to another issue. I feel kind of badly about it because while I’m pointing fingers out there at others, some fingers are pointing right back at me.

Here’s how one reader put it:

I know that some of your commenters have already noted this, but it really says a lot about shoddy editorial standards that so many press sites are using erroneous and misleading pictures to illustrate their stories about the Vatican action on the LCWR.

This one, for example. I know it’s an opinion piece, so the problem isn’t with the content. But the picture shows the Sisters of Life, who are not even members of the LCWR, and who are just about as far as you can get from being typical of LCWR members. They could have found that out with one phone call (either to LCWR or the Sisters of Life).

Seriously, in a sports story about the Yankees, would they show a picture of a Red Sox player?

There’s no hard and fast rule here, but in general the women who are on the receiving end of the crackdown from the Vatican are not habited. They’re wearing the clothes you would likely find on most women of their age group. The habited nuns tend to be younger and much more traditional.

We all know that it’s much more fun and infinitely easier to illustrate a post with a habited sister than one wearing a cardigan and slacks, but it paints an inaccurate picture and it needs to stop.

To end on a high note,  I did find one awesome exception to the framing of stunned sisters. It came from Reuters — with a byline of one Stephanie Simon(!) — and the headline tells you much of what makes the story a cut above the rest “Vatican crackdown on U.S. nuns a long time brewing.” Oh yeah. And we get some nice 40-year perspective on the whole battle with actual theological differences and anecdotes about sisters escorting women to their abortions and opposing the all-male priesthood. With proper names attached and everything. It’s packed with context for the casual reader and is just a great and balanced piece that explains where this document came from.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Catholicism, Journalism, Same-sex marriage, Social Issues, Worship

Pod people: Case of the missing ‘W’

April 23, 2012 By

On this week’s Crossroads, host Todd Wilken and I talk about one of my favorite subjects: journalism.

Oh, we mix in a little religion, too.

More specifically, we review the five W’s and H.

That discussion relates to my recent GetReligion post on a Seattle story:

In the Pacific Northwest, some Roman Catholic churches in the Seattle area have declined to circulate a petition calling for a referendum on Washington state’s new same-sex marriage law.

From Reuters to ABC News, the churches’ decision to steer clear of the political battle has drawn national media attention.

The key news peg: Seattle Archbishop J. Peter Sartain, citing the “critically important”nature of the issue, encouraged — but did not demand — the gathering of signatures in parishes.

In general, the Seattle coverage missed perhaps the most important “W,” as in “Why?” Why did the parishes go against Archbishop J. Peter Sartain’s desire to see signatures collected?

Sticking with the journalism theme, Wilken and I also discuss the religion ghost that I identified in a post on a Texas lottery story. Despite a prominent mention of Baptists in newspaper headlines, coverage focused on the political and economic reasons with no mention of moral objections.

Finally, what podcast would be complete without a question or two related to the media coverage of a pastor who used a lion and a lamb (live, breathing ones!) in his Easter sermons?

Wilken asks excellent questions, and I do my best to provide compelling answers. Enjoy the podcast. The Oklahoma twang is free.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Baptists, Business & Economy, Catholicism, Journalism, Podcasts, Religion, Same-sex marriage