Paul Djupe

, , , , , , , , ,

Should women serve as pastors? Big majorities of modern evangelicals say, 'Yes'

, , , , , , , , ,
Should women serve as pastors? Big majorities of modern evangelicals say, 'Yes'

The Southern Baptist Convention is holding its annual national meeting right now in New Orleans. About 12,000 messengers are assembled to chart the direction of the convention for the next year. There are lots of issues that are being discussed these next few days that are really about a schism in the SBC between the very conservatives and the pretty conservatives.

The most public aspect of that conflict is allowing women to be pastors in Southern Baptist Churches. In the last year, Saddleback Church, in Southern California was disfellowshipped from the SBC for ordaining women. Their former pastor is the Rev. Rick Warren, who is one of the most famous evangelicals in the United States.

He’s been mounting a social media campaign the last few days, trying to make the case for a return to fellowship for Saddleback.

But really what is happening is Warren is trying to steer the SBC in a slightly less conservative direction while groups like the Conservative Baptist Network’s rallying cry is “change the direction” — which I will argue is code for this: become more conservative in the coming years.

What does polling say about Warren’s view of women serving as pastors?

I can answer that with some polling data that I collected with Paul Djupe and Andrew Lewis in March of 2020 when COVID-19 was just ramping up. We asked folks if a woman could operate in certain capacities in a church given that they had training and certification. The results here are restricted to just those who self-identify as evangelical.

Yeah —-there’s overwhelming agreement among evangelicals that women can teach Sunday School, lead morning worship and preach at a women’s conference. Even in the case of women preaching from behind the pulpit on Sunday morning there is very little resistance.

Nearly three quarters of evangelicals agree that a properly trained and certified woman can preach on Sunday morning. Just 12% disagree with that statement and 15% have no opinion.


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

Black Americans are as likely to be 'nones' as other racial groups (but with a difference)

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Black Americans are as likely to be 'nones' as other racial groups (but with a difference)

One of the most difficult things to describe to the average person about religious classification is Black Protestants.

In 2000, a group of scholars created the RELTRAD classification scheme which divided Protestants up into three categories — evangelical, mainline and Black Protestant. Why are Hispanic and white evangelicals grouped together, but Black Protestants get their own separate category? What about Black evangelicals, Black Pentecostals and Black mainline Protestants?

It’s not an easy question answer, really. 

Paul Djupe and I tried to answer that a few years ago in a post at Religion in Public. The answer will not shock GetReligion readers.

In short: politics. But, it’s a bit more than just how they vote on election day. Anyone who has ever worshipped with a predominantly Black congregation knows that it tends to be a bit different than how the United Methodists and lots of other folks do things on a Sunday morning.

I’ve always been fascinated by the role that the church plays in Black culture and was wondering if the rising tide of secularization had been blunted in a bit among African Americans — or if they were seeing the same trend lines as other racial groups.

In 2008, Black Americans were noticeably less likely to report no religious affiliation compared to their White counterparts. About one in five Black Americans were nones in 2008. That’s no different than Hispanics and three points less than White respondents.

But over the last few years, that gap has essentially disappeared.


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

(Still) thinking about Americans wanting other people's religion to stay out of politics

, , , , , , , , ,
(Still) thinking about Americans wanting other people's religion to stay out of politics

How old does a “think piece” need to be for people to stop thinking about it?

Let me state that another way: What if a “think piece” is a year old and I am still thinking about it?

Part of my logic, in this case, is that discussion of certain topics linked to this particular Religion in Public blog piece have, if anything, only heated up in the 12 months since it was published. Consider the urgent push for reporting, publishing and polling about “Christian nationalism,” which has almost turned into an industry of its own, especially in certain niche corners of the press.

Oh, has the Associated Press ruled on whether the “n” in that term is upper- or lower-case? If this is a movement, it really needs its own website and corporate headquarters, or is that like asking for official contact information about the Mafia?

Anyway, this brings me to a really interesting piece by researcher Paul A. Djupe of Denison University, who is best known in these parts as a frequent co-writer with Ryan Burge, a contributor to this website. Here is the headline: “Congregations are Doing Acceptable Amounts of Political Engagement.”

The question at the heart of the essay: Do people who claim to want churches to stay out of politics include their own for of organized religion (and maybe unorganized sort-of religion)? Djupe is reacting, in part, to a Pew Research study posted online with this headline: “Americans Have Positive Views About Religion’s Role in Society, but Want It Out of Politics.”

So here is the first major chunk of material that readers — journalists especially — need to think about.

In October 2020, at the height of the voting phase of the presidential election, we asked 1,306 worship attenders about the level of political engagement in their house of worship, soliciting whether the congregation needed to be less political, more political, or had just the right level of political engagement. The (weighted) response is almost the exact opposite of the Pew result from a few years ago — 60 percent believe their congregation was just right or should be more political, while 40 percent say it should be less (or way less) political.


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

Ryan Burge at RNS: Thinking about the impact of political sermons, on left and right

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Ryan Burge at RNS: Thinking about the impact of political sermons, on left and right

Hey churchgoers: How long has it been since you heard a political sermon?

Wait. We need to pause and discuss what a political sermon might sound like. For example, I think everyone would agree that an open endorsement of a political candidate from the pulpit would be “political.”

But what if a congregation or a denomination invited a political leader to speak in a worship service or some other event? This is something that happens on the political left and right. For generations, to name one example, Democrats have accepted warm, strategic invitations to speak — or perhaps simply exchange greetings — in African-American churches. It makes headlines when GOP leaders address major evangelical bodies (think Vice President Mike Pence and the Southern Baptist Convention).

More questions: What if a bishop or a preacher addresses issues that are clearly both doctrinal AND political, such as right-to-life concerns or threats to the environment? What about a conference focusing on ways religious groups can defend First Amendment rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religious practice? Is a liberal rally on abortion more “theocratic” than one organized by believers on the doctrinal right?

I ask these questions because of a piece GetReligion contributor Ryan Burge, he of the omnipresent charts and info on Twitter, wrote for Religion News Service. Here’s the newsy headline “When preachers get political, do they change minds? Preachers tend to risk political speech only when they know it will receive a warm reception.” The overture:

One of the most important and difficult questions among those who study religion and politics is just how important a pastor, rabbi, imam or other religious leader is when it comes to shaping the worldviews of their congregation. These figures get a weekly chance to dominate the attention of the people who come to listen to their sermons. They have a nearly unique opportunity to mold their congregants’ view of the theological, social and political world around them.

How often do pastors actually use that opportunity to speak out about the pressing issues of the day? Some new data gives us a look.

A Pew Research Center poll fielded in March of 2021 asked people if they had heard sermons that contained references to the fallout from the 2020 presidential election in the previous month. The survey asked about four topics specifically: the possibility that the 2020 election was rigged, former President Donald Trump’s inaccurate statements about election fraud, as well as support for or opposition to those who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

That is certainly a rather Donald Trump-era dominated list, but that reflects several years of headlines. Meanwhile, it’s safe to say that President Joe Biden is in the White House, in large part, because of support from voters in Black churches during several primaries. But I digress.


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

People keep asking: Why does press say 'religious left,' as opposed to 'Religious Left'?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
People keep asking: Why does press say 'religious left,' as opposed to 'Religious Left'?

Every now and then, readers — or people I meet in daily life — ask this question: Why do journalists write so much about the Religious Right (capital letters), while devoting way less digital ink to the actions, policies and beliefs of the religious left (no capital letters).

That is a complex question and you can hear me struggling with it all the way through this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in). The hook for this episode was my post that ran with this headline: “Thinking with David Briggs and Ryan Burge: Whoa, is religious left really on rise (again)?”

For starters, people tend to ask this question every four or eight years (hint, hint), when the mainstream press does another round of stories about the religious left surging into action in an attempt to counterbalance the nasty Religious Right.

The Religious Right, you see, exists all the time — because it is one of the largest camps inside the modern Republican Party. The religious left doesn’t play the same role in the Democratic Party, unless we are talking about the importance of politically (as opposed to doctrinally) liberal black-church leaders in strategic primary elections. You can ask Joe Biden about that this time around.

I guess the simple answer to the “RR” vs. “rl” question is that journalists tend to capitalize the names of groups that they see as major political or social movements — like the Civil Rights movement or the Sexual Revolution.

The religious left, you see, isn’t a “movement” that exists all the time — in my experience — for many mainstream journalists. The religious left is just ordinary, good, liberal religious people doing things that are positive and logical in the eyes of gatekeepers in newsrooms. This is “good” religion.

The Religious Right, on the other hand, is a powerful political movement consisting of strange, scary evangelicals who keep coming out of the rural backwoods to threaten normal life in American cities. This is “bad,” even dangerous, religion.

Now, there is another big irony linked to press coverage of progressive forms of faith.


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

Thinking with Ryan Burge: God 'anointing' presidents -- a Trump thing or an American thing?

, , , , , , , , , ,

Maybe something strange leaked into the American water system a dozen years or so.

I am not a Republican, so I wasn’t part of the choir that sang the praises of Ronald Reagan. I do remember that journalists and historians were nervous about Reagan referring to America as an “anointed” land (example here). However, I don’t remember his followers using similar “anointing” language to describe the president. Ditto for George W. Bush.

I do remember (I was still a Democrat at the time) the wave of interesting semi-religious images and language in press coverage of the young Sen. Barack Obama as he started his bid for the White House. Folks who have been around will remember the online feature — “The Obama Messiah Watch” — that Timothy Noah launched at Slate. Here is the overture for the first post in that series:

Is Barack Obama — junior U.S. senator from Illinois, best-selling author, Harvard Law Review editor, Men’s Vogue cover model, and “exploratory” presidential candidate — the second coming of our Savior and our Redeemer, Prince of Peace and King of Kings, Jesus Christ? His press coverage suggests we can’t dismiss this possibility out of hand. I therefore inaugurate the Obama Messiah Watch, which will periodically highlight gratuitously adoring biographical details that appear in newspaper, television, and magazine profiles of this otherworldly presence in our midst. …

Readers are invited to submit … details — Obama walking on water, Obama sating the hunger of 5,000 with five loaves and two fishes — from other Obama profiles.

I bring this up to point readers to an interesting feature entitled “Trump The Anointed?” at the Religion In Public blog — written by Paul A. Djupe and GetReligion contributor Ryan P. Burge.

Here is how that post opens, referring to people who — in polling nearly a year ago — believed that Donald Trump was “anointed by God to be president of the United States”:

Just 21% believed this, but evangelicals were more likely to believe it (29%), and pentecostals were the most likely (53%). This belief didn’t come out of nowhere, it was making the rounds of conservative media, with figures such as Rick Perry suggesting that Trump is “the chosen one,” a label Trump embraced and used (while pointing toward the clouds) in an August 2019 presser. Others used variations on the theme; he was compared to King Cyrus; “God was behind the last election;” and Trump is the “King of Israel,” and the “second coming” according to Wayne Allen Root.

Now, there is a theological point that needs to be made here.


Please respect our Commenting Policy