Jackson Free Press

Passionate speaking and powerful music are expected this weekend when the Colorado-based Promise Keepers organization (http://www.promisekeepers.org) brings its 2003 Men's Conference series to the Mississippi Coliseum. Founded in 1990 by former football Coach Bill McCartney, Promise Keepers evangelizes men to follow Jesus Christ and to become spiritual leaders in their churches, communities and families—and to keep the promises they've made to their wives and children. Race and denominational boundaries are ignored as the organization strives for racial and sectarian reconciliation. Approximately 6,000 men attended the kick-off rally in Lubbock, Texas, on May 3-4, and the Jackson conference should be as large.

Despite the positive-sounding goals of evangelism and racial healing, Promise Keepers has attracted criticism on several fronts. Many women, including members of the National Organization for Women (NOW), believe Promise Keepers' true goals are to roll back the advances women have made in society over the past few decades by getting them to trade household equality for their husbands' promise not to stray. NOW's Web site (http://www.now.org) quotes Promise Keepers' national speaker Tony Evans of the Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship in Dallas as saying to men about their head-of-the-household position: "I am not suggesting that you ask for your role back, I am urging you to take it back. There can be no compromise here."

While evidence of a particular political motivation may be difficult to prove, a 1995 survey by the National Center for Fathering revealed that 85 percent of Promise Keepers attendees are Republican. David Love of the Center for Constitutional Rights does not believe the group is truly interested in racial healing. "Reconciliation," he notes, "is quite different from equality and justice."

Controversy continues to surround the Promise Keepers organization. Supporters and critics can agree on one aspect of the upcoming conference, though—if 6,000 men descend upon Jackson the first weekend in June, there will be a much-needed positive economic impact. Hallelujah for that.

Previous Comments

ID

63929

Comment

Gosh, here is a group coming to our city to help make things better and you villify them. Instead of praising them, or even encouraging them, for trying to keep families together you claim they are anti-women and, God forbid, Republicans. Isn't this the type of group we need here in Jackson helping our men learn how to be better mentors to our young men, better family men and better husbands? Isn't the Jackson Free Press urging people to reach out and lend a hand as a means to helping ease our crime problem? Promise Keepers is not coming to Jackson on some kind of insidious mission. Yes they are recruiting. They are recruiting for Jesus Christ and trying to keep our families whole and to better the world we live in. On one hand, you find some redeeming value in David Banner's vulgar lyrics but the only thing you can write that you find redeeming about Promise Keepers is that they will boost our local economy. I don't get this liberalism. You urge people to help make things better but when a group of people don't fit your mold you villify their efforts. Thanks for the material for my Sunday school class this week. We will pray for you.

Author

TC Stein

Date

2003-05-29T15:41:22-06:00

ID

63930

Comment

TC, what's wrong with a report that has both sides of the story?

Author

Knol Aust

Date

2003-05-29T16:05:12-06:00

ID

63931

Comment

Both sides of the story? With all due respect are you joking me? What is the story? Is the story that Promise Keepers, a group trying to better our world, is coming to town. Or is the story to watch out for a group called Promise Keepers that is coming to our city claiming that they are trying to make ours a better place but that we should be suspicious about their true aims. There was no other side of the David Banner story. It was all praise and encouragement. There was no open acknowledgement that a lot of his words are extremely vulgar, offensive, demeaning and negative about women. I picked up a copy of the paper today while at lunch and I didn't see any follow-ups about the downside of Banner's lyrics such as was discussed on the web site. There was no effort to explore the other side. The story about President Clinton at Tougaloo was positive but there was no reminding everyone that he lied under oath and is a serial adulterer. There are the digs at President Bush on page 10 about his No Child Left Behind program and then the request from JPS to sponsor children for summer school. So, if the group is secular it is okay to help but if it is a religious effort then we must cast a wary eye? Secular mentoring Yes, religious mentoring No? Wouldn't it have been great to tie the Promise Keeper's meeting in with local church efforts to mentor our youth and help our families? Isn't that a positive for fighting crime? Wouldn't it have been great to interview some of our local ministers who will be in attendance at the Promise Keepers meetings and talk to them about their hopes and goals for the conference and beyond? There will be 6000 men there. Isn't that goodness? Couldn't this have been hailed as an example of the kind of activity we need to reach out to all of those who are hurting in Jackson and lend them a helping hand? Isn't this the type of healing and help I've heard Chief Moore say with my own ears that we need more of to make our city better and safer? Isn't this the same guilt by association issue as Nefertari Moses' pointed out in her letter? There's no consistency. The David Banner story had a silver lining. The short Promise Keepers hit piece warned of storm clouds and ulterior motives.

Author

TC Stein

Date

2003-05-29T17:08:42-06:00

ID

63932

Comment

Because the above is not a "report" by any journalistic stretch of the imagination-new journalism, civic journalism, or otherwise. A report interviews people like Micheal Humphreys of Crossgates Baptist Church in Brandon and Doug WIlson of Jackson who have worked for a year on bringing this conference here--neither of whom are even mentioned here. A report interested in giving "both sides of the story" finds people to interview who have attended an event and reacted negatively instead of quoting previously published material from professional political snipers. A report lists who the speakers are, what time the event is, and how to get tickets--none of which the above does. Where is the indepth reporting JFP is trying to do with the crime stories and other events?

Author

JW

Date

2003-05-29T17:16:35-06:00

ID

63933

Comment

Calm down, all. No one's trying to villify the Promise Keepers here. The truth is, the Promise Keepers are already very controversial in much of the country, with or without a Free Press blurb. I used to work in Colorado where they were founded, and they were extremely controversial in that state. We're not making that controversy up; any news database search will turn up similar points about them. Many people (including me) admire much of what they do (family-building and multi-racial outreach), while questioning the motives of some of the founders and participants. That certainly doesn't mean no one who supports the group has good motives; it would be jump in logic to argue otherwise. This is a quick "Talk" blurb written by a man who is familiar with the groupóadmittedly, not a word-for-word reprint of a glowing press release as you might find elsewhere, JWóthat is meant to give a sense that it's not just a one-dimensional story. Regardless of where individuals come down on the group, I think Jacksonians can handle the knowledge that the group is controversial, don't you guys? And even though it wasn't my story, I certainly find ignoring "race and denominational boundaries" admirable in any context. I've always found Bill McCartney's group fascinatingóespecially the way race and gender issues can both co-exist and collide in their teachingsóand I expect their Jackson visit will lead to some very interesting discussion that we won't get to if we simply ignore their controversial past and their detractors. By the way, the event's details are listed on the Web site, which Lawrence included in the story. If you investigate the site, JW, you'll see that the event is sold out, so there's no reason to give further ticket info, times, etc., in the story.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-05-29T18:15:34-06:00

ID

63934

Comment

MORE ... TC, being that one of your posts was a virtual laundry list of specific complaints about this issue of the JFP--thanks for reading word for word, by the way, and I mean that--I'll quickly respond to a few: 1. I didn't write the Clinton piece. Not every story here reflects my personal bias. The magazine is meant to include a diversity of voices. I, for instance, wholeheartedly supported President Clinton's impeachment, vocally and in my published work. 2. The Banner story (actually a Q&A I asked the questions) indeed showed complexity. Like the PKs, I personally see both positives and negatives in what he is doing. 3. The "digs" you mention about "No Child Left Behind" are supported by very serious facts, which you'll hear more about in upcoming issues. The largely unfunded federally mandated testing requirements are already starting to leave a lot of children behind--and without federal assistance to help children to suddenly start meeting those standards. This is going to affect a lot more than urban children--although kids in private schools will not have to pass those same federal tests to get their diplomas. We are only beginning to see the havoc sure to result from an act that most people do not understand very well. Its application is going to be very dramatic. 4. Your (and JW's) suggestion for interviewing local preachers who recruited PKs here is a good idea when we have more space to devote to it--maybe "Tough Questions" as we did with David Banner. To be honest with you, I had thought the PKs were coming after our next issue and Father's Day and realized the dates at the last minute, so we squeezed something in to give a sense of the reaction, positive and negative, they've gotten elsewhere. But from the tone of your post, I suspect you would have reacted in the same way had the detractors to the group been mentioned in that piece as well. I suspect you'd rather just not hear about the criticism, which I respect. 5. Chief Moore may be a Promise Keeper; I don't know. He's certainly talked publicly a lot about his Christianity, as well as families taking responsibility for their children. 6. "Guilt by association"? I don't get that point. This piece isn't saying a particular person is guilty of something by being associated with the PKs. So, no, I don't think so, but as always you're welcome to challenge my take on it. I welcome the discussion and debate, y'all. Please keep it up.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-05-29T18:35:54-06:00

ID

63935

Comment

Being that y'all found the PK piece without it even being on the front page, yetóI was going to save it until next weekóI've brought it to the front page to promote more discussion. I know y'all can Google just as well as I can, but here are several links to pieces and discussions that address different sides of the issue. This is a quick sample; nothing scientific here; just some links to what other folksófrom the Christian Science Monitor to Jesse L. Jackson Jr. to evangelistic groupsóare saying about the PKs. Feel free to add your own links. http://www.promisekeepers.org/faqs/core/faqscore24.htm http://www.now.org/issues/right/promise/jackson.html http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showarticle?item_id=225 http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1997/10/03/edit/edit.1.html http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/pk.html http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/issues/v76/n30/tipton.30v.html http://cnview.com/on_line_resources/promise_keepers_roman_catholic.htm http://www.midtod.com/9603/promise.phtml http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/dec95diamond.htm http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/promkeep.html

Author

ladd

Date

2003-05-29T19:05:05-06:00

ID

63936

Comment

Dare I suggest that Mr. Silver's reporting (if it can be called that) leaves a great deal to be desired? Granted, we can probably find out who is speaking and what sort of entertainment will be provided at the Promise Keeper's meeting by going online, but that aside, why wasn't a member of the organization interviewed and given a voice of their own in this forum? A more well-rounded article about the organization would have been much more fair, provided you could have spared the space, of course. Perhaps Mr. Silver needs to employ a researcher (without pay, if he can find one) in order to make his articles less biased and certainly far more interesting.

Author

simon

Date

2003-05-29T19:54:43-06:00

ID

63937

Comment

Donna--I wouldn't ha' got s' hot under the collar if it hadn't been for the flip response to TC's original post. I understood Dr. Silver's article was likely meant to be a blurb announcing the event with the placement it got in the paper. I like Dr. Silver personally and know that he's not a journalist by trade--but Knol's attempt to rattle TC's cage about fairness in post #2 just went right up my backbone and made my hair curl.

Author

JW

Date

2003-05-29T20:21:15-06:00

ID

63938

Comment

Simon, I must insert myself here between your daggers and Lawrence. He did what I asked him on the day we went to press: a quick piece about the PKs coming, including both their positive message and a summary of the controversy that has followed them for years. He did exactly what I asked, so pray for me, not him. ;-) Will it win a Pulitzer? Probably not. But it summarized both sides in the space allotted and, most important, it opened another rigorous discussion, which is always our primary goal. I'm pleased with Lawrence's work on it, especially after seeing the quick and passionate response his piece drew. But we are a magazine--and, for all you know, there could be a 35,000-word piece coming on every intricacy of the group. Keep an eye out. ;-D

Author

ladd

Date

2003-05-29T20:26:07-06:00

ID

63939

Comment

No problem, JW. Reading back, I can't say how Knol meant his response, and that forceful pup sure doesn't need me to defend him--but one way to read his "flip" response is as a simple question back to TC. I actually don't see the "flip" part. It wasn't invective-filled or accusatory, and certainly wasn't telling TC that he/she needed to be prayed for because of what he/she wrote. (Personally, I never look the offerer of a prayer in the mouth, or however that jumbled metaphor goes. I'll take the prayer.) Frankly, I'm a bit surprised it was Knol's comment that raised the hair on your neck as quickly. You don't have to like the piece Lawrence wrote, but it is hard to argue that he did much more than present more than one side of a controversial topic for thought and discussion. (He may not be a trained journalist as you and I are, but he is a communicator and a professor, and professors are pretty good at this provoking-thought thing. And trained journos aren't always everything they crack themselves up to be, as we know from recent news cycles). But, I ramble. As I will keep saying, I welcome the discussion, even as I encourage less anger but know that it will come anyway as we raise difficult topics. The truth is, if we simply publish articles that no one ever takes offense to, we're wasting print and bandwidth. We're not here to just preach to any particular choir. Throughout my career, I've been skewered from the left and the right, depending on the issue and who's holding the megaphone, and I couldn't be happier about it. The truth is, I saw up close how illiteracy--the inability to read and write meaningful words--limited my mother's life and opportunities (and my hometown's) for thought and discussion, so I don't mind taking a few arrows along the way to a good conversation.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-05-29T20:46:15-06:00

ID

63940

Comment

Well, you get what you pay for.

Author

simon

Date

2003-05-29T20:52:58-06:00

ID

63941

Comment

"She (Ladd) spends her spare time lamenting the Bush administration with her significant friend Todd Stauffer . . .". http://www.shutup101.com/writethis/bios/dl_bio.html Yup, no agenda there.

Author

Reader

Date

2003-05-29T21:00:29-06:00

ID

63942

Comment

Damn, I tried so hard to hide that bio ON THE INTERNET on one of our own sites. ;-D I believe, Reader, that I've lamented the Bush administration a few times in the JFP as well if you're keepin' count. I'm also, so far at least, no fan of anyone running for governor this year in the state of Mississippi, didn't like my choices last fall for U.S. congressman, excoriated Ralph Nader in 2000, and will probably be mad at President Clinton for the rest of my days. (Call me picky.) You got me again. And Simon, we get a heck of a lot MORE than we pay for, I'm humbled to say. The creative talent in Jackson is amazing. The Arts Alliance calls this city a "sleeping giant," artistically, and I couldn't agree more. NOW, y'all, I must leave the lion's den and go do some work other than hang out with all y'all wholesome agitators, so we'll have another magazine soon to tick you off all over again. Fight among yourselves for a while. I'll check in again later.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-05-29T21:19:39-06:00

ID

63943

Comment

The good citizens of your hometown might well be grateful to you to know how their inability to read and write meaningful words limited their opportunities for thought and discussion. Perhaps you could write a letter to the Neshoba Democrat to that effect. You could even offer to hold classes on how to communicate more effectively and offer to publish their efforts without pay or credit. Really, Miss Ladd; does your condescension know no limits?

Author

simon

Date

2003-05-29T21:20:55-06:00

ID

63944

Comment

Simon, we crossed e-mails, so you'll squeeze one more outta me and then I'm out for the night. I'm certainly not trying to condescend to my hometown, and all the people (including my mother) who worked so hard to overcome illiteracy and other challengesóand the amazing teachers and the principal (and confidante) I had there in public school. And God knows, some amazing things are going on there now, thanks in part to the Choctaws' tenacity and some local folks (including the new and the last Democrat editors) determined to raise education levels and income levels and awareness there. But the truth is that, during my childhood, many people could not read or write, or could only very little. Most people I knew read very few newspapers and had little contact with the outside world, beyond the then-racist Neshoba Democrat, and did not have the tools to do much for themselves economically. This lack of education and awareness, I believe, led to the tragedies that happened there, or I should say, allowed them to happen. This was my side of Neshoba County, and I know it well. You may define it as condescension if you wish, but for me it's been *motivation* to learn everything I possibly could, and help others do the same thing in any way I can. And I'm not for just learning enough to make you comfortable in what you already believe; I'm for learning to think for yourself, aside from what any elected official or party or whatever wants you to believe. I'm sorry if this makes you so angry and accusatory -- which, I must say, rather surprises me after the very nice e-mail you sent directly to me. Have you read "The Argument Culture," I believe it's called, by Deborah Tannen? In many ways, the book changed my approach to debating and name-calling and flaming people who don't agree with me (not that I ever cruised message boards, but I'd certainly be more smart-ass in my writing). I buy Tannen's argument that angry diatribes simply squelch rigorous debate (see most anything on Talk TV). Maybe it's not very British of me, or maybe I'm just getting old, but I'm really into a nicer approach these days. So keep trying to corner me personally if that gives you a kickómy skin's as thick as my daddy's leather beltóbut I'd suggest it just makes you look like a flamer (cyberistically, speaking). I'd rather talk about issues that matter a lot more than I do.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-05-29T21:45:20-06:00

ID

63945

Comment

Wow... Let's break out the crosses and stones and start the hell raising! Sickening how this went from a discussion about the PKs into mud-slinging and personal attacks. I simply must say I think of women as equals and in no way subordinates of men or G*d(s) and will purposefully reject any organization that says otherwise. I find it sad that a group that preaches responsibility and "Christian values" reduces other humans to sinners and subordinates rather than embracing the whole as G*d's creation with a greater purpose. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_pk.htm I found the above link enlightening. Since I am not welcomed at these meetings or in their organization (due to the fact I am an "abomination"), I will have to rely on others that have investigated and attended these rallies. Sadly, the more I read about this group, the more I become concerned about many extremists that will follow blindly like sheep into a movement that requires full submission of both their own beliefs and their "women". What ever happened to church? Whatever happened to community? Since when did we need "organizations" to dictate religion? Since when was it ok for our politicians to be involved in near cult-ish organizations that espouse the Old Testament laws over our own social laws? Ironically, I agree with nearly EVERY promise this organization promotes (7 promises) but am completely turned off by the rhetoric that follows those 7 promises and the horrible history of the founder.

Author

Knol Aust

Date

2003-05-29T21:54:47-06:00

ID

63946

Comment

As for my "hair-curling response"... I had no intentions of insulting nor instigating mud-slinging and would hardly call it an attempt to rattle anyone's cage... Believe me, you'll recognize my cage rattling! ;) It was a simple question that could have been easily countered without attack on any person in this discussion (including Donna and JFP). I apologize for not making myself clearer to those that misinterpreted my statement.

Author

Knol Aust

Date

2003-05-29T22:08:17-06:00

ID

63947

Comment

The Clarion-Ledger today published an opinion piece by economist Marianne Hill criticizing the Promise Keepers (arriving today) for coupling paternal responsibility with subjugation of women: http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0306/06/lhill.html She writes: "At a time when far too many men have abandoned their duties as parents, a renewed focus on their roles as husbands and fathers is certainly welcome. Women can only benefit from responsible mates and loving relationships free of physical and verbal abuse, infidelity and other problems. Unfortunately, the calls for greater involvement by men in strengthening the family have been accompanied by an insistence on a subordinate role for women in the home. ... The poverty rate would be cut in half for female-headed families if that wage gap were closed. Where is Promise Keepers' support of women's right to pay equity and for high-quality child care?" (Marianne has apparently tried to get such an opinion piece about the PKs published in the local media market for some time with no success. We compliment the C-L for allowing her dissenting view to get through today.)

Author

ladd

Date

2003-06-06T10:46:21-06:00

ID

63948

Comment

http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0306/06/o02.html

Author

The Anti-SidB

Date

2003-06-06T13:11:05-06:00

ID

63949

Comment

Thanks, Anti. As we've discussed above, the PKs' racial diversity and outreach is one of their more admirable traits. There are a lot of links posted up above this about that, as well as other points about the group made by Jesse Jackson Jr., and others. Jackson's piece is probably the most in-depth of the ones posted, and has an entire section devoted to race: http://www.now.org/issues/right/promise/jackson.html#race

Author

ladd

Date

2003-06-06T13:35:21-06:00