In the "set-up" of your May 8 article, you mentioned participating in a panel discussion sponsored by an Interfaith group and stated that one example of this group's work was the successful blocking of a legislative bill written to permit local congregations to leave a parent ecclesial body or denomination. You stated that the apparent purpose of the legislation was to permit "some Episcopal congregations to break away from their diocesan leadership and keep their church buildings..." You further characterized this legislation as "misguided". I will return to this issue momentarily, but I want to respond first to your overarching question(s).

You stated that, during the panel discussion, you received questions from both theologically conservative and liberal groups who were vying for your attention. They asked, when are you going to pay more attention to us than them? In reply, you said "...readers' (and listeners' and viewers') reactions to presumed media bias are determined - in large measure - by what they bring with them to the reading." By "they", you meant the readers, listeners and viewers. I must disagree with you on this point. I would suggest that press coverage is determined - in large measure - by what the media themselves bring to the writing or speaking or televising.

No doubt you are familiar with the 1981 Lichter - Rothman study which surveyed the political attitudes and voting patterns of the working media in major US media markets. This survey included all network media as well. This study documented a heavy liberal bias in the media. For example, study data showed 90 per cent of media favored abortion on demand, 81 per cent voted Democrat in every election cycle from 1964 to 1976 and most media blamed the United States for third world poverty. Study data also showed that 93 per cent of elite TV media never attend church while 85 per cent of average media personnel never attend church. A 1985 study of 3,000 journalists and 621 newspapers conducted for the LA Times concluded, "members of the press are pre-dominantly liberal, considerably more liberal than the general public". This study's conclusions coincided with and affirmed the above Lichter - Rothman study.

The Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company also conducted a study: "American Values in the 80s: The Impact of Belief". This study was based upon 2,018 one hour long interviews of members of the public and 1,700 hour long interviews of media leaders. Study findings showed 64 per cent of media believe abortion on demand is permissable and 58 per cent of media believe homosexuality is acceptable. Conversely, the study data showed 65 per cent of the general public believe abortion is immoral and 71 per cent believe homosexuality is immoral.

These studies certainly do suggest that media have a predisposition, a bias; one that is quite obvious in their coverage, especially in religious coverage. Without question, there is NOT a conservative agenda.

In your article, you stated that the "question of covering moral values took a high profile", that "voters placed them high on their list of concerns". You then stated that it is "unclear" which "moral values" people were talking about. How can that be? Do you not read your own newspaper or other regional or national media? Do you not read or browse the hundreds upon hundreds of internet blogs or myriad religious web sites of whichever bias you choose? I would think you do. With approximately 62 per cent of the vote, the election of Mr. Bush clearly was a referendum on moral values as well as a repudiation of liberal values and practices.

"What's a reporter to do?" I would suggest going behind the news somewhat. Instead of asking "how am I doing", why not go behind the news and ferret out the real story behind the news. For example, you said the legislative bill to permit congregations to leave their diocesan leadership was "misguided". Why was it "misguided"? Who thinks this bill was misguided, the Virginia Interfaith group or you? Was this your characterization? Do you agree that it was "misguided" or were you simply using a pejorative term supplied by the interfaith group?

There are very real reasons why these Episcopal congregations want to leave the diocese and the Episcopal Church. They want to leave because the modernists in the church have seized the levers of power and are controlling everything that goes on in the church, e.g., jettisoning orthodox, biblical truths in favor of a man-centered, humanistic creed, albeit with nice buildings and pretty vestments. Contrary to Holy Scripture, the Episcopal Church has been ordaining practicing homosexuals to the priesthood. More recently, they have consecrated as bishop a man whose life is anathema to these same Holy Scriptures. This is an abomination according to the same Bible that Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals and even some Episcopalians use. That same Bible says, "Be ye not yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness", 2 Corinthians 6:14.

These good souls in Virginia who want only to worship their Lord Jesus in the beauty of holiness are now going to be thwarted (only for a while) by "misguided" people. The real story behind this legislative effort to leave the Episcopal church is this. From the time the first Anglicans came to the shores of the United States and planted the first parishes, all church property has been owned by the local parish. From the very beginnings of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, all members of these churches have built and paid for these congregations and parishes out of their own hard earned monies. Indeed, as the Church grew and congregations banded together into dioceses, the canon laws of the Church enshrined the very fact that these local churches owned their own property and further, that these properties were under the legal control and purview of the parish Vestry and no one else, especially not the diocese. In fact, the bishop of the diocese could not even come into a church unless and until he was invited by the parish rector. This was also a fact of the church's canon law. Canon law did require a bishop to visit every parish and mission congregation in his diocese at least once every three years; therefore, the invitation was extended by the priest of the local parish. Adherence to these canons was especially true of Virginia "low churchmen". For the record, local "mission" congregations were not self supporting and; therefore, under the control of the diocesan bishop. At such time when a "mission" could support itself, it became a full fledged parish and now legally able to own it's own property under the canon law of the church along with all other rights parishes enjoyed.

After World War II, the winds of liberal change began to blow through the Episcopal Church and other mainline denominations. The influence of modernism especially came to find favor in the church seminaries. Through the next several decades, the seminaries turned out increasingly more liberal clergy who became the bishops and leaders of the church. Increasingly, the church began to edit and re-write the meanings of Holy Scripture. Surely God didn't mean that only men could be priests? Nah, he would be inclusive. Let's change this. It sounds better. Sin no longer was sin. Penitence no longer was a requirement. Situational ethics became the norm. The Ten Commandments morphed into the 10 suggestions. In the Episcopal Church, in addition to the Holy Bible, the church's standard of belief was the Book of Common Prayer. Under the control of the theological liberals, it quickly became a book of uncommon prayer with novel liturgies to tickle the ears and likings of even the most jaded modernist.

The Constitution of the Church was changed to say that henceforth, any reference to "he" in the canons was also to be construed as "she". The barrier to women clergy and bishops had been banished. In short, the church began to rapidly lose her beliefs, biblical orthodoxy and practices. She also began to rapidly lose members. At the same time, the Methodist and Presbyterian churches were experiencing these same tides of modernism. At one point during the 1970s and early to mid 1980s, the Methodists' were losing nearly 50,000 members each week.

Because of these departures from orthodox Episcopal beliefs and practices, many members began to leave the local Episcopal parishes to form new parishes under the umbrella of the Anglican Church of North America. These churches, styled as "continuing churches", did not create a new church, but merely continued to worship in the same manner in which they had before departing the Episcopal Church. This posed a threat to the liberal leaders of the church and they began to fight back using the power of the church's legislative process to stymie and thwart the "dissidents".

Now I will comment on the "misguided" effort above. As I stated above, all Episcopal parishes owned their own property. This meant they enjoyed a measure of autonomy from the diocese as long as they paid their tithe to the diocese and the priest of the parish was orthodox in his teaching and personal life. Traditional parishes came increasingly under the scrutiny of the liberals and in an effort to stem the tide of parishes pulling out with their property because of the national church's departures from Anglican orthodoxy, the property canon of the church was changed.

This was done at the 1979 Denver General Convention of the church. Any changes to the church's canon law had to be aproved at two successive general conventions. The first approval previously had passed in 1976 so the second reading of the proposed property canon change had to pass if the liberals/modernists were to stop the traditionalists from leaving with their monies, buildings and considerable trust funds.

Like many state legislatures, there is a large amount of church legislation that passes through a logjam on the last day and night of the legislative session. This is apparently what happened to the property change canon. Of course, this was part of the scheming and maneuvering on the part of the liberals.

According to the two canon lawyers appointed by the church to compile and annotate all canonical changes effected by the General Convention, Messrs. White and Dyckman, "there is no record of it (the proposed change) having passed both houses". These words were contained in a 1981 or 1982 copy of White and Dyckman's Annotated Constitution and Canon of the Protestant Episcopal Church of North America (the official and legal record of all proceedings of the convention) that I personally possessed and used almost daily in my work. A priest (later a bishop) who was physically present at the general convention and who closely watched to see whether or not this specific canonical change passed told me that it did not pass.

In the period of 1984 to 1987, I must have quoted this specific passage of White And Dyckman to hundreds of inquiring Episcopalians, either in person or by letter and telephone. All of these inquirers were concerned Episcopalians who were trying to understand the ramification of the canonical change and how to respond as well as those parishes which were contemplating leaving the Episcopal Church.

In 1989, I mentioned this to a bishop in Ft. Worth. When he asked me to show him the citation in White and Dyckman, I learned to my utter amazement that it was no longer in the issue of White and Dyckman. It has been expunged from the latest version the bishop possessed. If I recall correctly, it was a 1985 edition. How then did this canonical change "pass"? Why was the explanatory note of the annotators expunged from subsequent editions of the annotated canons and constitution? In the years since this chicanery, almost all parishes dutifully, if not under pressure, slowly handed title to their property over to the diocese. Some fought it in the courts. A few won, but most lost these battles because the courts were reluctant to become embroiled in theological disputes preferring instead to rule upon neutral principles of law.

Again, you characterized (above) the legislative effort to permit parishes to leave the denomination with their property and trust funds as "misguided". Why is it "misguided" to want to retain that which is yours in the first place? What right does an interfaith group have, especially one consisting mostly of non-Christians, to work against an internal Christian concern? Who then, is "misguided" here?

What I have provided to you in this letter is a large amount of history. It is a clinical, play-by-play description of a particular reality; mine and that which I witnessed and participated in. As a religion writer, I suspect you often do the same, but is this enough? I suggest it is not.

Press coverage of Mel Gibson's, "The Passion of the Christ" is a case in point. Media extensively covered the movie's physical violence and purported anti-Semitism. Gibson was personally vilified by many in the secular media. Amazingly, many in the media did become quite passionate about something they didn't believe in. Meanwhile, average pew sitters and some non-believers alike went to the theater by the thousands. What they experienced was very real and tangible. Christ's Passion - His Atoning death for the sins of all men - affirmed, re-affirmed and renewed their faith and that Christ's death, suffering and crucifixion was a vital and important aspect of their spiritual and emotional lives. Yet many in the media did not see this. Some, apparently, could not see this, so they missed a golden opportunity to write about the deep reservoir of faith and belief of movie goers. When the Episcopal Church elected Vicki Gene Robinson, a practicing homosexual, to the office of bishop, the media, as we would expect, extensively covered the ensuing controversy. Much of the coverage took the form of liberal versus conservative, progressives versus antiquarians. In other words, most media that I read wrote from the bias they bring to the writing, e.g., church conservatives need to enter the 21st century, etc. I do not recall a single article concerning the effect that this election would have on the church or what it might do to Christians in the pews who opposed this action. I saw or heard no discussion about how the church interprets holy scripture nor do I recall seeing how other churches/denominations would react. Certainly this is an issue that is literally tearing apart many churches.

"What's a reporter to do?" I suspect you may receive a few replies to your questions asked in the May 8 article. If so, then you'll have fodder for several more columns. If you choose to go behind the news and ask how good folks try to adhere to to the tenth commandment (Thou shalt not covet), that might be informative. If you ask how people deal with stealing in their lives and how often they are tempted to take little things, perhaps that might be interesting. Is it stealing to go to the bookstore and read entire articles from magazines or newspapers and then return them to the racks without paying for them? Why do Baptists disdain liturgical churches yet are unable to see that their own worship service follows the same pattern every Sunday? Isn't that a ritual? Why are Jews identified by the Jewish religion even if they do not practice it? Conversely, why is the Presbyterian next door known as Mr. Smith and not as "he's a Presbyterian"? Why is heaven not mentioned in the New
Testament? What are the various teachings on this by denomination and why? Why do some choirs always sing off key and why are they shouting instead of singing? Oops, that is too politically correct. How many souls actually were converted by seeing Gibson's "Passion of the Christ"? Do churches do as good a job as the movie? Why do some churches preach politics from the pulpit? What is the actual effect upon the pew sitter? Is Islam really a "religion of peace"? What does it mean to really forgive someone? How difficult is it to do? How many times does it take before you know you actually have forgiven someone? Are these questions or others better suited for the pulpit? Perhaps so, but they are all questions everyone should think about. All of them can be local or national.

I know what I would do.

Most sincerely,

The Rev. Lawrence W. Thompson
Panama City Beach, Florida

Sunday, May 08, 2005

Does press accurately cover religion?

By Cody Lowe
THE ROANOKE TIMES

Who speaks for religious folks?

A little later in the column I'm going to ask you to respond to that question, but let me set it up first.

Recently, I was asked to participate in a panel discussion at the annual meeting of the New River Valley chapter of the Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy. The center, based in Richmond, is an education and lobbying organization representing a spectrum of 21 faith groups and organizations - Christian, Jewish and Muslim.

One example of its work last year was to successfully lead the fight against a misguided bill in the Virginia legislature that would have rewritten church law for several denominations by giving congregations the exclusive right to hold their property. The effort apparently was aimed at allowing some Episcopal congregations to break away from their diocesan leadership and keep their church buildings, even though Episcopal polity - like church law for United Methodist, Catholic and many other churches - vests authority over property in the larger church.

In addition to those kinds of questions, the center focuses on issues such as tax equity, poverty, health care and insurance, capital punishment, and housing and homelessness.

The organization represents such a variety of interests that it avoids taking a position on some of the more controversial social issues of the day - abortion and gay rights, for instance - on which its members have disagreements.

Nevertheless, it is often characterized as voicing a "liberal" or "progressive" Christian perspective on issues in comparison to "conservative" Christian activist groups such as the Family Policy Network.

Who is heard?

At last month's meeting of the New River Valley chapter, I was confronted with a question I don't hear all that often: "When will the media stop listening only to conservative Christian voices and hear ours?" the members asked.

It takes only a cursory reading of the letters to the editor of The Roanoke Times to know the far more common question is exactly the opposite: "When will the media stop listening only to liberal Christian voices and hear our conservative ones?"

My response, in part, was that readers' (and listeners' and viewers') reactions to presumed media bias are determined - in large measure - by what they bring with them to the reading.

If I am an advocate of abortion rights, I'm liable to be at least mildly dissatisfied with a story that presents voices against them even if it also includes supporters. The opposite likewise holds true.

The question of covering "moral values" took a high profile, of course, after exit polls following November's election found that voters placed them high on their list of concerns - and motivations for voting.

Unclear was exactly what "moral values" people were talking about. While opposition to abortion is a moral value for some, support for abortion rights is a moral value to others, to name one example.

So, what's a reporter to do?

That's our question for you. What kind of job are the media doing in covering "moral values?"

Do reporters talk to too many conservatives? Too many liberals?

Is there a media conspiracy to subvert moral values? Or one to impose a conservative agenda?

END