Minister of Defense drew cheers and jeers

Reggie_1 Many of the mainstream obits today for the Rev. Reggie White contain a photograph taken at one of the high points of his Hall of Fame career. In the photo — which I wish we had the rights to show you — White is kneeling near mid-field moments after his team has won the Super Bowl and the man they called the Minister of Defense appears to be preaching a mini-sermon before he leads a circle of players in prayer.

The caption for this photo in the dead-tree-pulp edition of USA Today says, "Moving figure: Reggie White (92) huddles the Packers in a prayer service after their Super Bowl XXXI win against the Patriots in 1997."

Close, but this caption misses one of the major themes in White’s career. In the photo, his tree-limb-sized arms are embracing several players — from the Patriots. This is one of those post-game prayer meetings for Christians from both teams. There are Packers next to Patriots and it is very clear who is the leader of these men from both teams. Viewers have never seen one of these post-game prayer and fellowship rites, because officials at Fox, CBS and ABC have always declined to show them. But they happen and White was one of the people who started them, reminding everyone that football was football and life was life and it should be clear to everyone which was more important.

This is one of the reasons that White’s still mysterious death at age 43 stunned so many people. While the sports world is controversial for a lot of reasons — from drugs to murder to various forms of abuse — White was controversial because he was, of all things, a minister who was not afraid to preach. He was a leader outside of football. He was, for many, a role model and that made him many enemies as well as friends.

Translate that into the obit language of the New York Times and his work sounds like this:

White created a stir in March 1998 with a speech to the Wisconsin State Assembly. In it, he referred to homosexuality as "one of the biggest sins in the Bible" and used ethnic stereotypes for blacks and whites. At the time, White, considering retirement, was on a list of candidates for CBS’s N.F.L. studio show, but he did not get the job.

White’s wife, Sara, charged that CBS had "wimped out" because of pressure from homosexual groups, but a CBS spokeswoman said that the network "never had a finalized agreement" with White and that the decision not to hire him was not "influenced by outside groups."

White’s words did offend many and he apologized. But it was pretty clear what had happened. White had taken the kind of vivid images used in thousands of African-American pulpits and pulled them into the public spotlight in a progressive context. He had, in other words, spoken his mind — yes, very bluntly — in public. His words were offensive, especially the stereotypes he served up in what he said was a joking tribute to the strengths and weaknesses of various ethnic groups. Here is how I described that controversy in a column at the time.

The Green Bay Packer legend recently offended legions of people with a sermon to Wisconsin lawmakers that attacked abortion, called homosexual acts sin and offered up a colorful series of ethnic anecdotes, while arguing that all racial groups must see each other as part of God’s image.

White had, as the old Southern saying goes, "gone to meddling." He was attacking racism and defending traditional church teachings. While most obits have mentioned the Wisconsin controversy, most have said that White "blasted" homosexuals or some other combination of words that might make it sound that the NFL star singled out gays and lesbians. His words can certainly be read that way and coverage in the gay press will focus on this with good reason. However, White actually set out to make all kinds of people mad. This was not a man who was afraid to talk about sin — in all kinds of places affecting all kinds of people.

As a professor who tries to get cultural conservatives to look at the flaws in their own lives, I have always been fond of this passage from one White speech in Washington, D.C. I imagine that the White story will continue to draw ink in the days to come. There are the reports about his growing interest in Hebrew and some say that he no longer considered himself a minister. But let’s end here, for now.

… (White) stood up in the nation’s capital and said God wants to start messing with the ordinary day-to-day sins of people who think of themselves as conservatives. The man that many call the greatest defensive lineman ever even had the audacity to sack a purple dinosaur.

"How many of you wives have a hard time getting your husband’s attention when he’s watching TV?", he asked, drawing nervous laughter at a luncheon in which he and his wife Sara were honored by the conservative Family Research Council. "How many of you husbands have a hard time getting your wife’s attention when she’s on the telephone? … How many of us can get our children’s attention when they’re watching cartoons?

"Why are Barney and Mickey so much more popular than Jesus? Because the world is trying to feed us … and trying to get us to idol worship."

Print Friendly

The Paranoia Express rolls on and on

PolarExpressOne of the most important facts to remember in discussions of red zones and blue zones — right up there with the reality of allegedly red people pigging out on blue culture all the time — is the fact that the blue zones coalition consists of both highly religious people and people who are secularists.

The religious right has a tendency to forget that the religious left is out there and has its own way of parsing scriptures and traditions.

However, it is clear that there are some people on the blue side of the aisle who are so mad right now, in the wake of 11/2 and other cultural battles, that they are seeing the red-zone, faith-based, values-voter enemy in all kinds of places that, when you stop and think about it, seem out and out wacky. It seems, in particular, that anything in popular culture that draws stark lines between right and wrong, good and evil, and offers a glowing view of family or even (gasp!) faith is going to be labeled a White House plot.

Exhibit A in this syndrome was the wave of paranoia that greeting the smashing success of The Incredibles (and the flop of the new Alfie). That story is not over yet, of course. To add fuel to that fire, check out this National Review Online chat with one of the Pixar czars.

Now, the trend-watching folks at SlateWashingtonPostNewsweek have found another evangelical plot to sway the nation away from reason. For, you see, one of the marketing people for The Polar Express is Paul Lauer, who was one of the people who led the drive to get red-zone people to turn out for (cue theme from Jaws) that movie — The Passion of the Christ.

Thus, as a public service, Slate’s David Sarno asked the ultimate nasty question:

But wait, is The Polar Express an evangelical film?

You’d certainly think so, considering the expansive campaign of preview screenings, radio promotion, DVDs, and online resources that Lauer unfurled in the Christian media this fall. This Polar Express downloads page includes endorsements from pastors and links to church and parenting resources hosted by the Christian media outlet HomeWord. There are suggestions for faith-building activities and a family Bible-study guide that notes, for example, the Boy’s Christ-like struggle to get the Girl a train ticket. “The Boy risked it all to recover the ticket,” the guide observes. “Jesus gave His all to save us from the penalty of our sins.”

HomeWord Radio, which claims to reach more than a million Christian parents daily, broadcast three shows promoting the film. At one point, the show’s host wondered excitedly if the movie “might turn out to be one of the more effective witnessing tools in modern times.” Motive also produced a promotional package that was syndicated to over 100 radio stations in which Christian recording artists like Amy Grant, Steven Curtis Chapman, and Avalon talked about the movie as they exited preview screenings.

There’s more. The marketing troops even sent free promotional DVDs to churches, urging them to buy tickets for children, Sunday school classes, etc. These DVDs even included commentary from the evangelical superstar Max Lucado, noting how at least eight scenes in the movie affirm — oh my God — biblical principles.

Yes, it is true that the movie does not seem to contain anything that is specifically Christian, in terms of doctrine, and it certainly is not evangelistic. But the protectors of blue culture cannot be too careful. It would not be good too Hollywood try to reach out to middle America with products that affirm any of its alleged values. Stay tuned. Who knows what the GOP and the religious right will come up with next.

Print Friendly

It's Christmas Day: So what's the story?

Bethlehem_church_of_the_nativity_2Pick up the newspaper on a typical Christmas morning and you know that certain items are sure to be inside.

The local copy desk will have managed to get an early dateline story out of Rome, complete with whatever quotations the pope’s sermon included that have anything to do with politics or the peace process in the Middle East. It’s usually best to just read the sermon for yourself.

You also know that there will be a report and a photo about conditions in Bethlehem. Conditions there are almost always somewhat more bleak, or somewhat less bleak than the year before. Bleak is measured in terms of police and-or tourists.

This is particularly interesting to me, since I attend an Eastern Orthodox parish that is about 70 percent Arab. Our church has members from Bethlehem and Jerusalem, part of the great exodus of Christians out of the Holy Land. I was particularly struck, this year, by the Los Angeles Times report by Laura King. It had all of the usual political themes that one expects to see in a religion story from that part of the world. Here is a sample:

Most of the celebrants were local Palestinians, including throngs of young Muslim men and boys seeking any excuse for a night out from one of the city’s grim Palestinian refugee camps. The few foreign tourists were mostly organized church groups, rather than the travelers who could commonly be found venturing to the West Bank on their own in the years before the second intifada, or uprising, broke out in September 2000.

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestine Liberation Organization chief who is favored to win the Palestinian Authority’s Jan. 9 presidential election, attended midnight Mass in the chapel adjoining the nearly 1,500-year-old Church of the Nativity, in what aides said was a message of interfaith solidarity.

Now note, if you will, an interesting point in that last paragraph. The story covers the politically colored events in the chapel next door to the ancient church. If you have been to Bethlehem, then you know that this means that the reporter covered the Roman Catholic services in the rather modern Franciscan sanctuary that adjoins the ancient sanctuary of the Church of the Nativity (shown in photo). Let’s hope that when Christmas arrives on the Julian calendar on Jan. 7, at least a few reporters visit the ancient church for the Orthodox rites there — even if those rites are not as politically symbolic. We’ll have to see. Or perhaps we will not see, if major U.S. media fail to cover it.

Meanwhile, back to the main theme of this post. Another staple of Christmas Day newspapers is the glowing human interest story about nice people doing nice things. There will be photo packages on volunteer Santas and short accounts of volunteers helping people out in a wide variety of ways. These are the "good news" stories that consultants tell news executives that readers what to see and, every now and then, editors assign them and get them into the main pages. If GetReligion readers see any fine examples of this genre today, please leave us a comment or two.

One of my local newspapers — the South Florida Sun-Sentinel — led page one with a nice-people story of this kind, only with a twist.

Veteran religion reporter James D. Davis (a friend of this blog), came up with a Christmas feature that I have to admit I have never seen before. He focused his feature story — entitled "A Newly Found Faith" — on individuals who are seeing Christmas 2004 through a unique lens. He found people who had been converted to Christian faith in the previous year and asked them how this affected the Christmas season. The stories of these converts are not spectacular. Most, it seems, are built on quiet changes over time. But it is still clear that these lives changed and, thus, in subtle ways, Christmas changed.

However, the copy desk at the Sun-Sentinel appears to have made one major online mistake. They misplaced Davis’ prologue — which explains what the these stories are all about. Imagine that. They forgot to include his lead on the body text of his story.

So here it is. Read the lead and then you can go read this rather unique set of Christmas stories:

In a way, Christmas is always the same: a bright, joyous tide of gifts, colors, carols, festive foods. And also, of course, a rushed, stressful time; a commercial polyglot; a TV season of black and white feel-good movies from yesteryear. Yet today, it will be different for some people in South Florida: new Christians.

Print Friendly

What shark attack? The red stuff was planted by Republicans

These things used to be kind of funny (see my "mean-spirited Santa-hating liberals" entry) but I’m finally convinced that commercial and civic efforts to banish Christmas from the public square are of sufficient gravity to elevate them to a new permanent skirmish in what some call the culture wars.

This conviction is founded upon two things: (1) the axiom that Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State is wrong about everything; (2) The Washington Post carried a story today in which Lynn called anti-Christmas horror stories "the winter equivalent of those summer stories about shark attacks being on the increase."

Elsewhere in the Post, Newsweek managing editor Jon Meacham has penned a piece that I take to be a shorter version of his earlier Newsweek cover story on the Nativity. I neglected to address that one because I like to leave Episcopalian issues to our house Anglican.

However, I was sucked into the sheer vacuity of the piece. Titled "Between Faith And Reason, Room For Hope," it tries to find a via media between "the secular dismissal of the sacred" and the "conservative insistence on the inerrancy of the Bible" and also between "literalism and a more historical view of faith."

Meacham waxes faux elegant for several hundred words and then gets down to that literal/historical divide:

Was Jesus, as Christians say in the Nicene Creed, in fact "incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary"? Only the foolish or the conceited would discount the possibility of miracles . . . [b]ut faith and reason need not be constantly at war; one can believe in the truth of the Bible without taking everything in it as literally, factually accurate.

He explains that though the Christmas story may be "moving," Jesus followers came to believe that he was of divine origin "with the cross and the empty tomb rather than with the cr�che." Why, "of the four canonical gospels, only Matthew and Luke offer an account of Jesus’s earthly origins."

Further, the gospel writers shaped the tales to their readers. In telling of the Nativity, Matthew, and Luke were aiming at "target audiences: Jews who did not accept Jesus as the Messiah and gentiles in the Roman Empire." Because of this, it is somehow "impossible for us now to know which elements are historical as well as theological."

Then he contradicts himself. He insists that bits of the Nativity story mostly fit within "established Jewish tradition" and insinuates that the author of Matthew got around the fact that Jesus was from Nazareth by "simply put[ting] Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem" to fulfill Jewish prophecy. He also says the slaughter of innocents in Matthew is historically bogus.

Where to start? The literal/historical divide is such a bogus issue. I am so far from a literalist that it might scare readers, and yet even my historical-critical dark side can pick this apart:

1. Two out of four gospels ain’t bad.

2. The "silent gospels," Mark and John, begin with the creation bit of Genesis ("the beginning of"; "in the beginning") to picture Jesus as a creator and remaker of the world. It is not hard to fit the Magnificat, the Virgin Birth, angels, wise men, etc., into this framework.

3. That a story is shaped to reach an audience does not make that story any less true (or false).

4. "Established Jewish tradition" did not equal "charming fairytales" to first-century Jews.

5. Re: the death of innocents bit, "no historical evidence for" does not mean "did not happen." If you cede any historical imprimatur to the gospel accounts, and you take in the brutality of Herod, the paucity of records, and Bethlehem’s being a remote cow town, well, it’s possible.

6. Matthew and Luke share a lot of material from a common source that scholars have short-handed "Q." But the Nativity scenes are likely not Q material. They contradict in too many details. From a theological perspective, that’s a problem. From a historical perspective, that’s called independent verification.

Print Friendly

Sam Brownback's worldview

BrownbackTwo cheers for Nicholas Kristof and his realization that Christian conservatives like Sen. Sam Brownback are the “new internationalists.” Kristof assures his readers that he considers Brownback “to the right of Atilla the Hun,” and he sees the prolife aspect of new internationalism as causing more suffering than it prevents. Nevertheless, Kristof expresses a more than grudging respect for Brownback:

So, all in all, I find Mr. Brownback perhaps the most intriguing man in Washington — so wrong on so much, and yet such a leader on humanitarian issues. He is also working with liberals like Ted Kennedy to press for immigration reform, prison reform, increased funds for AIDS and malaria, construction of an African-American history museum and even an apology to American Indians.

The other day, Mr. Brownback told me enthusiastically about his trip to northern Uganda and urged me to write about brutalities there. I was disoriented — I thought I was the one who tried to get people to pay attention to remote places.

So why is a conservative Kansas senator traveling to the wilds of Uganda?

“I had a health issue a few years back, and it really made my faith real,” he said, referring to a bout with cancer. “It made me think, the things that the Lord would want done, let’s do. His heart is with the downtrodden, so let’s help them.”

Holiday blessings on Kristof for connecting the faith dots with that remark. If he spends enough energy unlocking the foreign mind of prolifers, he may also someday connect the philosophical/theological dots: It has to do with the notion that each human being is made in the image of God.

Print Friendly

Christmas Wars 2004: Hostility or eBay?

Babyjesus_1OK, here is THE strangest story of the week.

I think it is. I hope it is. I pray. The Christmas beat can’t get any stranger than this, can it?

What we have here, according to reporter Kari Lydersen of the Washington Post, is a trend story — only no one is quite sure what the trend is. The headline is very, very mild: "Seasonal Displays Being Looted: Hostility to Religion Or Profit Motive?" As a former copy editor, I can tell you that this must have been one of those stories when the folks at the desk struggled witht the temptation to come up with a more creative, colorful headline.

Why? Here is the opening of Lydersen’s story:

WOODSTOCK, Ill. — The ranch house here where Marc Moxon and his family live is a sparkling winter wonderland: trees garlanded in glittering lights, illuminated plastic penguins, polar bears and other characters dotting the lawn, even a reindeer-drawn sleigh on the roof.

But the glowing plastic Joseph and Mary and the three wise men sitting in front of the house look dejected. The manger between them is empty, as it has been since someone swiped the baby Jesus two weeks ago. Several days earlier, a sign was left at the house asking, "Would Jesus use this much electricity?"

Oh my. Environmental activists kidnapped baby Jesus? The mind doth boggle.

Anyone out there want to try a few headlines on that one? Let’s try combinations of five to seven words. Just do it.

The manger raiders hit another house nearby. The local police chief is working on several other similar cases. Sure enough, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights is on the case as well and says it has logged twice as many reports of Christ-nappings this year as in years past.

What’s it all about? Has the wrath of the blue-zone faithful come to this?

There are two basic theories. The first says that this is an expression of hostility toward Christianity, or conservative Christians, or Catholics, or evangelicals, or somebody like that. There are no reports of this specific crime — baby Jesus theft — taking place at U.S. nativity scenes in which a George W. Bush figure serves as a wise man or shepherd. I’m still checking that with Google.

Then again, there may be another way to explain this "trend" — the digital marketplace.

But Omar M. McRoberts, a University of Chicago assistant professor of sociology whose book about religion in poor neighborhoods was published last year, thinks the thefts have more to do with economics.

"It’s a function of the commodification of this holiday, of the fact that people are competing to have more and more elaborate displays outside their houses and these are things you could get a good price for on eBay," he said. "It’s ironic that a holiday which is essentially about poor people having a baby in an animal’s food trough is represented with these expensive ornaments."

Then again, another case was more primal — baseball-bat swinging teens hit one house five times in seven days. The police report could not confirm whether the culture warriors were were listening to Eminem’s "Mosh" on headphones while carrying out their crimes. OK, I made that part up.

What is the world coming to? At the life-sized Nativity scene in Chicago’s Daley Plaza, they have padlocked the baby Jesus to the manger with a metal cable.

That makes sense. Anyone out there heard anything that can top that?

Print Friendly

Jim Wallis, meet Robert Casey

Jim_wallisI’ve begun to feel empathy for Jim Wallis. First he was unable to persuade enough of his fellow evangelicals that abortion and gay rights should not have been determining issues in the 2004 presidential vote. Now he’s taking flak from the left — specifically Frances Kissling of Catholics for a Free Choice, writing in the Dec. 13 issue of The Nation.

Kissling writes:

In the case of abortion, schizophrenia abounds: First Jim Wallis, the moderate evangelical preacher who speaks frequently on behalf of religious progressives, tells us we shouldn’t focus on this issue at all; then he expounds on what the Democrats should do to attract “‘centrist’ Catholic and evangelical voters.” Wallis says the Democrats should “welcome pro-life Democrats — Catholics and evangelicals — and have a serious conversation with them” about how to reduce teen pregnancy, make adoption easier and conditions for low-income women better. It is odd for a progressive religious leader to suggest that Democrats, rather than Republicans, are the obstacle to helping teens and low-income women but perhaps not surprising from a man whose personal commitment to dialogue has included demonstrating at a nuclear plant and an abortion clinic on the same day.

That closing sentence is especially interesting. It’s not clear (to met, at least) whether Kissling intends the wording as a backhanded compliment or as further evidence of schizophrenia on abortion. For introverts who don’t readily attend political demonstrations, there’s something admirable and heroic about Wallis’ day of Seamless Garment-style activism.

Wallis is sticking to his campaign argument that Christian political engagement means being just as concerned about war and peace as about abortion, In an op-ed published Monday in USA Today, Wallis criticized both parties:

Right now, neither party gets the values question right. The Democrats seem uncomfortable with the language of faith and values, preferring in recent decades the secular approach of restricting such matters to the private sphere. But where would we be if Martin Luther King Jr. had kept his faith to himself? The separation of church and state does not require the segregation of moral language and values from public life. The Republicans are comfortable with the language of religion and values. But the GOP wants to narrow the focus to hot-button social issues it then uses as wedges in political campaigns, while ignoring or obstructing the application of such values where they would threaten its agenda.

Print Friendly

Skipping the holy season of Christmas

Now that you think of it, red is one of the primary Christmas colors and blue is not. Right?

So maybe that helps explain why the Christmas wars seem extra, extra nasty this year — or are being covered that way by the mainstream media. Perhaps this is all part of the values-based bitterness that followed 11/2. Are there really more angry Christians on the march these days or are there simply more upset reporters out there searching for angry Christians on the march, inspired by nightmare visions of dancing theocrats?

I can’t answer that question, even as I strive to keep up with some of the questions that readers are asking about my recent post about the equal access laws that affect the holidays and the public square.

Something else I can’t do right now is take the time to post the URLs for even a 10th of the Christmas madness stories I have seen in the past few days. As always, this means we should happily turn to the tireless cybercrats at the Christianity Today weblog. Wear yourselves out, people. Click away.

However, this is one of those weeks when I would like to point GetReligion readers toward my own Dec. 25 column for the Scripps Howard News Service, which went to the Washington, D.C., bureau this morning. It’s about what has happened to Christmas and I must admit I am hoping it ticks off some people — church people. It’s an interview with Loyola College scholar Joe Walsh (not the guitar slinger by the same name) and its about skipping Christmas — the 12 days of Christmas. Here is one of the key sections of the column. The key: What happened to wreck Christmas? How did it get sucked into the whole commercial, industrial black hole? Here goes.

The Puritan revolution in England played a major role, with its rejection of anything Catholic. Many liturgical and cultural traditions were weakened and never fully recovered, even if they were later celebrated by writers such as Charles Dickens. This had a major impact in the American colonies, where Christmas celebrations were frowned upon or in some cases banned.

At the same time, explosive growth of English cities during the industrial revolution uprooted millions of ordinary people, breaking centuries of ties binding families to churches, land, farms, shops and kin, said Walsh. Quaint traditions that united villages were hard to move to slums in London, Birmingham and Manchester. And what about New York City and the American frontier?

Modern suburbs do not have a church in a public square at the center of town. Most don’t have a public square at all and the true community center is the shopping mall. While many people complain that lawyers and activists have “taken Christ out of Christmas,” the truth is more complex than that. The reality is that almost everyone is skipping the 12-day Christmas season, including church people.

OK, people, let me have it. Before you click the comment button, you may also want to read this, this and even this. Just do it.

But please, please, do not get started arguing about the pagan roots of winter festivals and the corrupt adoption of some of these rites by early Christians and all of those other tired threads. Yes, I know all of that.

My goal was to explain — in a short, mainstream newspaper column — some of the history of the ancient traditions linked to the 12 days between the Feast of the Nativity and Epiphany.

The reality is that very, very few modern Christian believers even know that this holy season exists. Sadly, this seems to be as true among Catholics and the Orthodox as well as among the usual Protestant suspects in the booming suburban megachurches. We all live in the wake of a century of iconic Coca-Cola ads, superhighways, charge cards, television, cheap airfares and all of the other factors that have undercut family and community traditions. That’s the Christmas reality. Complaining about the ACLU has nothing to do with these larger Christmas issues.

UPDATED: If readers are interested in this whole topic, check out the Associated Press column this week by, of course, Richard Ostling. It covers the familiar viewpoint that the Dec. 25 date may have come from a pagan source, linked to the “Birth of the Unconquered Sun” rites.

Then, Ostling digs into the views of church-history scholar William Tighe of Muhlenberg College (featured in Touchstone magazine), who argues that the pagans may have been trying to compete with the early Christians. Some Christians may have linked the Nativity to a date already set in tradition — the Annunciation. The reasoning is interesting, so check it out.

Then there is the testimony of St. John Chrysostom, who argued that believers had marked Dec. 25 from early on. Ostling writes:

Chrysostom had a further argument that modern scholars ignore: Luke 1 says Zechariah was performing priestly duty in the Temple when an angel told his wife Elizabeth she would bear John the Baptist. During the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, Mary learned about her conception of Jesus and visited Elizabeth “with haste.”

The 24 classes of Jewish priests served one week in the Temple, and Zechariah was in the eighth class. Rabbinical tradition fixed the class on duty when the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and, calculating backward from that, Zechariah’s class would have been serving Oct. 2-9 in 5 B.C. So Mary’s conception visit six months later might have occurred the following March and Jesus’ birth nine months afterward.

In other words — do the math.

Print Friendly