The Atlantic

Latest dissection of Trump-Era evangelicalism offers one dose of insider savvy

Latest dissection of Trump-Era evangelicalism offers one dose of insider savvy

What if Donald Trump wins? That’s the big question in half of the United States.

The Atlantic magazine unleashed an unhappy New Year package of 24 essays forecasting that Trump 2.0 will be an American hellscape on abortion, “anxiety,” “autocracy,” “character,” China, civil rights, climate, courts, “disinformation,” “extremism,” “freedom,” immigration, journalism, the military, misogyny, NATO, partisanship, science, etc. etc.

Spot something missing in that list?

Yep, that would be religion, despite its profound impact on the wider culture, and vice versa.

This odd omission (where are you when we need you, Emma Green?) is somewhat compensated for with a separate item by staff writer Tim Alberta (alberta.reports@gmail.com) excerpted from his new book “The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism” (Harper). It’s a religious follow-up to his 2019 “American Carnage: On the Front Lines of the Republican Civil War and the Rise of President Trump” (also from Harper).

There’s a pile of other recent books and articles that bemoan the sprawling U.S. evangelical movement over the militant politicization of a Trump-Era growth sector. Some of this literature reminds one of outside anthropologist Margaret Mead scrutinizing teens in American Samoa.

Alberta’s opus thus commands special attention because he’s been immersed in the evangelical subculture since his boyhood as a Michigan preacher’s kid. He’s no “ex-vangelical” dropout, and aspires to “honor God with this book,” just as Southern-Baptist-in-exile Russell Moore sought to do in last year’s “Losing Our Religion: An Altar Call for Evangelical America” (Sentinel/Penguin). Alberta here is simultaneously a journalistic chronicler and a conservative Protestant lay preacher who applies numerous Bible verses in favor of good old 20th Century evangelicalism over against the newfangled 21st Century’s New Right.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Thinking about Hamas and its doctrines? It helps to have a document to quote

Thinking about Hamas and its doctrines? It helps to have a document to quote

One of my journalism mentors once said something that turned out to be very wise.

That gem: The more controversial the story, the more a reporter should search for a document (on letterhead, even) that backs you up.

This is especially important, in my experience, when selling a controversial story to an editor.

At the moment, I cannot think of a topic that is more controversial than Hamas — specifically, whether Hamas is, at its heart, a terrorist group.

Thus, I would like to offer a rather unusual “think piece” this week. This is an actual document that, I believe, should be in the news, as in a source for questions and content in stories linked to the hellish Oct. 7 Hamas raid into Israel.

The document in question is the 1988 Hamas covenant explaining the organization’s doctrines and goals. As I will mention later, there is a revised 2017 Hamas charter that is more political and, frankly, less doctrinal. The key is that the 1988 covenant has never been disavowed. Thus, it remains must reading.

Will it be controversial to quote this covenant? Probably. But it’s real, it’s important and it is a valid launching point for questions about present realities. If you want a journalism report linked to this covenant, then check out this new piece at The Atlantic: “Understanding Hamas’s Genocidal Ideology — A close read of Hamas’s founding documents clearly shows its intentions.”

Once again, note that this headline uses “ideology,” when the accurate term for the most controversial passages in this covenant would be “theology.” You know the drill: Politics is real. Religion? Not so much.

You can find the 1988 Hamas covenant in quite a few places, often with commentary. But let’s seek a basic academic source for the document itself, care of Yale Law School.

I have chosen, for this post, a few quotations that are directly linked to questions I have seen addressed in some of the mainstream news coverage of the Oct. 7 blitz. For starters, this is from the preamble:

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Beer drinkers and soccer moms -- changes in boycott 'woke' corporations wars

Podcast: Beer drinkers and soccer moms -- changes in boycott 'woke' corporations wars

In the summer of 1997, the Southern Baptist Convention called for a boycott of the Walt Disney Company, acting in response to some early power mouse gay-rights decisions.

Eight years later, the leaders of America’s largest non-Catholic flock quietly called off the boycott, which was a bit of a dud. The news coverage was, well, joyfully muted.

Why did this boycott fail? Well, for one thing, lots of SBC guys probably found it hard to ditch ESPN and lots of parents who were “conservatives” found it hard to stop using Disney movies as babysitters.

This brings us to the current headlines about Bud Light and Target, which served as the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in).

Baptists vs. Disney? Kind of a big deal, but not really. Then again, Disney executives may be aware of box-office issues with some of their recent LGBTQ+ themes in big-screen products for children. You think?

Ah, but what about beer drinkers vs. Bud Light? That battle over in-your-face corporate support for trans performance art appears to have legs. See this update from NBC News: “'Nobody imagined it would go on this long': Bud Light sales continue to plummet over Mulvaney backlash.”

Suburban parents (especially in red states) vs. Target? That’s a more complex subject, but there are signs that Tarjey executives have started doing homework on the watered-down beer battles.

This raises a perfectly valid question: Are there religion ghosts in the Bud Light and Target backlash stories? I mean, how many Southern Baptists are Bud Light fans?

The actual question is this: Are there religion ghosts in the neverending wars between Middle America and “woke” corporate support for the ever-changing doctrines of the Sexual Revolution?

I would say, “yes.” But it’s clear that the cultural battles now involve armies larger than people in conservative pews.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Latter-day Saints back proposed same-sex marriage law, but other flocks remain concerned

Latter-day Saints back proposed same-sex marriage law, but other flocks remain concerned

More than a decade ago, I wrote a piece for Christianity Today headlined, “Should the marriage battleground shift to religious freedom?”

In that article, University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock made the case that Christian conservatives who opposed same-sex marriage should shift their focus to fighting for their First Amendment religious-liberty rights.

I was reminded of that discussion when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — in what the Salt Lake Tribune characterized as “a stunning move” — “gave its support to a proposed federal law that would codify marriages between same-sex couples.”

The story by the Tribune’s Tamarra Kemsley and Peggy Fletcher Stack notes:

The Utah-based faith’s doctrine “related to marriage between a man and a woman is well known and will remain unchanged,” the church stated in a news release. “We are grateful for the continuing efforts of those who work to ensure the Respect for Marriage Act includes appropriate religious freedom protections while respecting the law and preserving the rights of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters.”

At Religion News Service, Bob Smietana traces the Latter-day Saints’ surprise backing of the federal law to the fallout from the church’s 2008 support for Proposition 8. That California ballot measure was aimed at banning same-sex marriage.

Smietana writes:

Voters narrowly approved Proposition 8, but their victory proved short-lived. A California court ruled that any ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

The church’s public image took a beating, said Benjamin Park, a scholar of Mormonism at Sam Houston State University. “Church leaders recognized the writing on the wall,” said Park.

The defeat led LDS leaders to back the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill that would protect same-sex marriage that Congress is now expected to pass this week with bipartisan support. In Wednesday’s 62-37 vote in the U.S. Senate to end debate on the bill and advance it, Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah was among the yeas.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Concerning the right-wing rosary attack -- was that Atlantic feature really 'news'?

Podcast: Concerning the right-wing rosary attack -- was that Atlantic feature really 'news'?

No doubt about it. The early favorite for the wild headline of 2022 has to be “How the Rosary Became an Extremist Symbol” atop that viral feature from The Atlantic. And that now-deleted graphic with the rosary made of bullet holes? That will show up in media-bias features for years (maybe decades) to come.

Yes, I know that the editors tried to tone that down with a replacement headline — but it’s the original screamer that perfectly captured the article’s thesis. Oh, and the editors updated a mistake in the second line of the original headline with that new sub-headline: “Why are sacramental beads suddenly showing up next to AR-15s online?”

Attention Atlantic editors: Here is a quick guide to the seven Roman Catholic sacraments. Correction, please.

So here was the first question in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). It’s a question your GetReligionistas have been asking more often in the past decade (even before Orange Man Bad): What WAS this thing? A news feature? A piece of blunt analysis? An opinion screed? And here’s the question I saw several people ask: Did the Atlantic editors set out to publish an anti-Catholic classic?

Here’s my hot take: I think the Atlantic editors thought they were publishing a PRO-Catholic piece that set out to defend GOOD Catholics who want to change centuries of church teachings from the BAD Catholics who want to defend those teachings, especially orthodox doctrines on marriage, sexuality, abortion, etc.

Why do I think that? Here is the crucial part of the article, from my point of view, starting with the overture:

Just as the AR-15 rifle has become a sacred object for Christian nationalists in general, the rosary has acquired a militaristic meaning for radical-traditional (or “rad trad”) Catholics. On this extremist fringe, rosary beads have been woven into a conspiratorial politics and absolutist gun culture. These armed radical traditionalists have taken up a spiritual notion that the rosary can be a weapon in the fight against evil and turned it into something dangerously literal.

Their social-media pages are saturated with images of rosaries draped over firearms, warriors in prayer, Deus Vult (“God wills it”) crusader memes, and exhortations for men to rise up and become Church Militants.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: America is splitting, says trending Atlantic essay. This is news? Actually, it's old news

Podcast: America is splitting, says trending Atlantic essay. This is news? Actually, it's old news

In case you haven’t heard, controversial Supreme Court decisions are causing dangerous divisions in the United States of America.

Yes, I know. If you’re old enough you have been hearing people say that since 1973. And there is, of course, an element of truth in these statements, then and now. SCOTUS has become the only branch of government that matters when it comes to forcing one half of America to accept the legal, cultural and moral changes sought by the other half. Study several decades worth of presidential elections.

However, when it comes to mainstream media coverage, not all controversial Supreme Court decisions are created equal. If you have followed Twitter since the fall of Roe v. Wade, you know that large numbers of professionals in major newsrooms are freaking out.

Is this “new” news or old news? Truth is, arguments about red America (“Jesusland”) and blue America (“The United States of Canada”) have been getting louder and louder for several decades. This was the topic that dominated (once again) this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), which focused on this Ronald Brownstein essay at The Atlantic: “America Is Growing Apart, Possibly for Good.”

What’s interesting about this piece is that it says America’s divisions have nothing to do with traditional forms of religion, culture, the First Amendment or the U.S. Constitution (especially Federalism). No, this is a war about racism, period. SCOTUS has been seized by the enemies of reason and freedom and, thus, America’s future is at risk. This is a concept with serious implications for news coverage.

IT MAY BE TIME to stop talking about “red” and “blue” America. That’s the provocative conclusion of Michael Podhorzer, a longtime political strategist for labor unions and the chair of the Analyst Institute, a collaborative of progressive groups that studies elections. In a private newsletter that he writes for a small group of activists, Podhorzer recently laid out a detailed case for thinking of the two blocs as fundamentally different nations uneasily sharing the same geographic space.

“When we think about the United States, we make the essential error of imagining it as a single nation, a marbled mix of Red and Blue people,” Podhorzer writes. “But in truth, we have never been one nation. We are more like a federated republic of two nations: Blue Nation and Red Nation. This is not a metaphor; it is a geographic and historical reality.”

The bottom line:

To Podhorzer, the growing divisions between red and blue states represent a reversion to the lines of separation through much of the nation’s history. The differences among states in the Donald Trump era, he writes, are “very similar, both geographically and culturally, to the divides between the Union and the Confederacy.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Did the Washington Post profile of Karen Swallow Prior help critics understand her or not?

Did the Washington Post profile of Karen Swallow Prior help critics understand her or not?

It’s hard to do a critique of an elite-media feature about someone who is a real online friend.

But, in this case, there’s an issue that — at least to me — cannot be avoided in the glowing Washington Post religion-desk feature that ran the other day with this headline: “Karen Prior has worked for Roe's overturn for decades. This isn't what she'd hoped to feel.

Most fans of the “Notorious KSP,” I would imagine, loved this piece.

At the same time, I’m sure her worst critics loved it as well — for reasons linked to the journalism issue that I would like to spotlight in this post. It helps to understand that Prior has critics (and friends) who disagree with some things that she says and does and then she has critics that basically don’t want her to exist.

Meanwhile, anyone — worthy critics and supporters — who has followed KSP’s work through the years with any kind of an open mind knows the strength of her logic and (dare I say it) art when defending centuries of Christian doctrines about life issues, as well as marriage and sexuality. But to grasp that side of her life, and how it fits into the total package of her apologetics, people need to actually read or hear her address those topics.

This Post piece focuses, for the most part, on her actions and beliefs that have fueled controversy about her among some evangelicals (like me, she was #NeverTrump #Never Hillary in 2016). A more balanced profile of her would have included quoted material that would have — with good cause — offended, well, most Post readers and editors. Hold that thought, because I will come back to it.

The piece starts with Prior’s feelings of elation at the news that the U.S. Supreme Court appears to be poised to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Prior was shocked and thrilled. But within minutes the deep divisions and differences in priorities among antiabortion advocates came into view. After being put aside for decades as they worked together to overturn Roe, they had become impossible to ignore. While Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took pains to say the leaked opinion may not be the final one, experts on abortion in America say even the potential of Roe’s demise is a turning point for the movement. If Roe falls, what does it mean to be for life now?

For Prior, it means much more than overturning Roe. It means more support for child care and pregnant women as well as supporting sex abuse victims, vaccinating as many people as possible against the coronavirus, and helping start and run an inner-city high school in Buffalo. But not all antiabortion activists agree and lately have begun splintering over next steps, such as whether to classify abortion as homicide and restrict contraception, as well as whether issues outside of reproduction even qualify as part of the “pro-life” cause.

Once again, this is an old, old story that is presented as something essentially new and, thus, linked to COVID-19, the Trump era and all kinds of “now” things. In reality, debates among evangelicals, and especially Catholics, about what it means to be “consistently pro-life” go back to the 1980s or earlier.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: A growing post-Roe divide between 'Jesusland' and the 'United States of Canada'?

Podcast: A growing post-Roe divide between 'Jesusland' and the 'United States of Canada'?

Over the past week or so, I have received several emails — while noticing similar messages on Twitter — from people asking: “Why is The Atlantic publishing the same story over and over?” Some people ask the same question about The New York Times.

It’s not the same SPECIFIC story over and over, of course. But we are talking about stories with the same basic Big Idea, usually framed in the same way. In other words, it’s kind of a cookie-cutter approach.

The key word is “division,” as in America is getting more and more divided or American evangelicalism is getting more and more divided. A new Ronald Brownstein essay of this kind at The Atlantic — “America’s Blue-Red Divide Is About to Get Starker” — provided the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

The villains in these dramas are, of course, White evangelicals or, in more nuanced reporting, a radical wing of the White evangelicals. Just this week, I praised the New York Times for running a feature that offered a variation on one of these templates: “Bravo! The New York Times reports that evangelicals are divided, not united on politics.” That piece showed progress, in part, because it undercut the myth of the evangelical political monolith on issues such as Donald Trump, COVID vaccines, QAnon, etc.

Let me make this personal. There is a reason that all of these stories written by journalists and blue-checkmark Twitter stars sound a big familiar to me. You see, people who have been paying attention know that the great “Jesusland” v. the “United States of Canada” divide is actually at least three decades old. It’s getting more obvious, methinks, because of the flamethrower social-media culture that shapes everything,

So let’s take a journey and connect a few themes in this drama, including summary statements by some important scribes. The goal is to collect the dots and the, at the end, we’ll look at how some of these ideas show up in that new leaning-left analysis at The Atlantic.

First, there is the column I wrote in 1998, when marking the 10th anniversary of “On Religion” being syndicated (as opposed to the 33rd anniversary the other day). Here’s the key chunk of that:

… In 1986, a sociologist of religion had an epiphany while serving as a witness in a church-state case in Mobile, Ala.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

What is religion's role if powerful social media trends are endangering America?

What is religion's role if powerful social media trends are endangering America?

Whew! Within a matter of days Elon Musk bids $44 billion to get full control of Twitter, Netflix's market value plummets $54 billion, Florida's conservative version of "cancel culture" penalizes the Disney empire, and CNN kills off its streaming service in a month after investing $300 million -- perhaps the worst industry flop since Time Warner's 2001 merger with AOL.

Anchor Kasie Hunt, who left MSNBC for CNN+, embraced a life-goes-on attitude: "The news is the news is the news is the news." (She was quickly named CNN's Chief National Affairs Analyst.)

By the way, a certain influential newspaper in New York City also named a new team of top editors. Did you see those photos of incoming editor Joseph Kahn?

Maybe all that media turbulence is far less important than the inexorable accumulation of 21st Century cultural power by Twitter and other "social media: giants.

Thus, readers will want to consider this warning from Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University's business school, in the May issue of The Atlantic: “Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid.”

American democracy is now operating outside the bounds of sustainability. If we do not make major changes soon, then our institutions, our political system, and our society may collapse during the next major war, pandemic, financial meltdown, or constitutional crisis.

Religion writers: Despite Haidt's imagery of failed communication taken from the biblical Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9), his article sidesteps whether faith groups could help restore societal calm and how they're being reshaped by ubiquitous media. Perhaps he'll get into that in his book "Life After Babel Adapting to a World We Can No Longer Share," due from Penguin next year.

Though critics often say conflicting religions erode social cohesion, is it only coincidence that organized religion's slump to near-Depression status since A.D. 2000 occurred simultaneously with the disintegration Haidt decries?


Please respect our Commenting Policy