What Journalists Should Be Asking Politicians About Religion

[Valin]

Time:

Amy Sullivan
September 2, 2011

A few weeks ago, I opened up my Twitter feed early in the morning and immediately wondered if I was being punk’d. Instead of the usual horse race speculation, my colleagues in the political press corps were discussing the writings of evangelical theologian Francis Schaeffer and debating the definition of Dominionism. The same week, a conservative journalist had posed a question about submission theology in a GOP debate, and David Gregory had grilled Michele Bachmann about whether God would guide her decision-making if she became President.

The combination of religion and politics is a combustible one. And while I’m thrilled to see journalists taking on these topics, it seemed to me a few guidelines might be helpful in covering religion on the campaign trail:

Ask relevant questions.
The New York Times‘ Bill Keller published a column last weekend calling for journalists to ask candidates “tougher questions about faith” and posing a few of his own. The essay was flawed on its own terms. It read like a parody of an out-of-touch, secular, Manhattan journalist–comparing religious believers to people who believe in space aliens, and referring to evangelical Christian churches as “mysterious” and “suspect.” But it also identified the wrong problem. It’s not necessarily tougher questions that are needed but more relevant questions than journalists normally pose. It’s tempting to get into whether a Catholic candidate takes communion or if an evangelical politician actually thinks she speaks to God. But if a candidate brings up his faith on the campaign trail, there are two main questions journalists need to ask: 1) Would your religious beliefs have any bearing on the actions you would take in office? and 2) If so, how?

(Snip)

H/T Verum Serum

[NCTexan]

"The Press" should have asked some easy questions a few years ago... like, "How could you and your family sit in his church for twenty years and not hear a thing that he said or understand anything about what he was teaching?"

[Valin]

"The Press" should have asked some easy questions a few years ago... like, "How could you and your family sit in his church for twenty years and not hear a thing that he said or understand anything about what he was teaching?"

 

 

RACIST!

[righteousmomma]

Most of Amy Sullivan's

Replying to What Journalists Should Be Asking Politicians About Religion I found surprisingly even handed but have to say in this one below she politically corrected herself right out

 

Even so, context always matters. Jeremiah Wright made some offensive statements from the pulpit of his church. But he also said some things that were well within the mainstream of African-American theology and preaching. Political observers who were unfamiliar with African-American churches often had a hard time distinguishing between the two, which allowed the story to mushroom and call into question the reputation of the entire church.

 

So lets see - Jeremiah Wright is his church. His doctrine, faith and belief reflect his church. The people who attend his church and clap and cheer for him are his people and as such reflect out to the world the same doctrines, faith and belief system.

 

So he said some things well within the mainstream of African-American theology and preaching??

True dat - and I am glad she left out the word "Christian" because they sure as hell are not.

 

God

 

Intricate and largely philosophical views of God are largely ignored in preference for the concerns of the oppressed. White Christian concepts taught to black persons are to be disregarded or ignored. The aspects of God's person, his power and authority, as well as "subtle indications of God's white maleness" are said not to relate to the black experience, to the extent of sometimes being antagonistic. While trinitarian theology is a big concern, Jesus is still considered to be God. The focus is given to God's actions, and his delivering of the oppressed because of his righteousness. Immanence is stressed over transcendence, and as a result God is seen to be "in flux" or "always changing".

 

Black theology is not bound to biblical liberalism, but is of a more pragmatic nature. Only the experience of black oppression is the authoritative standard. (So forget the Gospel and minor theological precepts like Redemption (Salvation), Reconciliation and Restoration.

 

 

Salvation is a collective freedom from the oppression and pertains to blacks in this life. Proponents of black theology are concerned specifically with the political and theological aspects of salvation more than the spiritual. In other words, salvation is physical liberation from white oppression, or "The white enemy" (Cone) rather than freedom from the sinful nature and acts of each individual person. Presenting heaven as a reward for following Christ is seen as an attempt to dissuade blacks from the goal of real liberation of their whole persons.

 

"A white man who is in power cannot be a Christian, unless he gives up that power and give it to the black man" - James Cone on Black Theology

 

 

The church is the focus of social expression in the black community where the Black church can express freedom and equality. Thus the church and politics have formed a cohesion where the theological expression of the desire for social freedom is carried out.