Lauren Winner Extended Interview

Below are excerpts from an interview about religious conversions with Lauren Winner:

My parents were the first intermarriage in either of their families. My mother was from a pretty devout Southern Baptist family, although she moved away from that by college. And my father grew up in a classical Reform Jewish household — no yarmulkes allowed in the synagogue, and so on. They both grew up in Ashland, North Carolina, and their first date, I think, was the junior prom.

conversionpt2-post02-winner

My mother went to church with her mother on Christmas, but we didn’t go. When I was 11 or 12, which was after my parents divorced and after my mother and I moved to Virginia, I began to be more involved in Judaism just of my own impetus.

Ever since I was a small child, I really believed in God. I really had some unshakable God thing. And I haven’t always been able to be very articulate about it, but I really wanted to harness that and engage it and be in a relationship with God. Everything was to that end. Community really appealed to me, but in part it appealed to me as a way to get to God.

I did formally convert to Judaism. Under Orthodox Jewish law, you’re not Jewish if you’re mother’s not Jewish. So I did convert.

I came to New York City and Columbia University specifically because there is a large Orthodox Jewish community, both in the city and at Columbia — 350 people at a Friday night Jewish Orthodox service on campus. I leapt into that community and was mostly embraced by it. There were a few people in the Orthodox Jewish community who were wary or not respectful of a convert. For most of college, I dated an Orthodox Jewish man whose family was not thrilled that he was dating a convert.

Jewish law dictates what shoe you put on first in the morning, and what types of fabrics your clothing can be. I would get up, and I wouldn’t always make it to the 7 a.m. prayer service. But if I didn’t make it to that service, I would pray at home. For a couple of years I had a morning study partner. We would get up and do our Jewish text study in the morning. I went to class, and I ate kosher food at all my meals, which meant that I didn’t eat at most of the campus establishments. (Columbia does have a kosher dining hall.) Most of my friends in college were in the Orthodox Jewish community. I had one very close friend who was not. And almost all of my extra curricular campus activities were through the Jewish student union. I was on the executive board.

I had always been intellectually interested in Christianity. In high school, even as I was moving personally toward Orthodox observance, I read some Christian theology and history, just because I was interested in religion … and I was studying American history in college. The history of Protestantism is pretty important to American history, and I just loved studying it. I thought it was intellectually fascinating. That was also part of my Southern identity, I think. I loved reading contemporary Southern literature, and there’s a lot of Christianity shot throughout it.

My boyfriend thought I was incredibly incoherent. He just thought I was crazy. The first inkling of actively moving toward Christianity was that I became interested in the doctrine of the Incarnation. I just thought it was really smart that someone had invented this idea of God actually becoming a person so that we can relate to Him better.

At the time, it seemed like this great, brilliant thing; it just was clearly untrue. I could be interested in it; I could study it. But Jesus wasn’t the Messiah. He didn’t do the things the rabbis said the Messiah would do, and that was the end of it.

My sophomore year of college, I had a dream that I took to Be, upon waking up, a dream that came from God and was about Jesus and his reality. In the dream, my friend Michelle, who is one of the women that I studied the Talmud with every week, and I and a bunch of other women (whom I didn’t know in the dream or in real life) were kidnapped by a group of mermaids. We were taken to live underwater with them. After about a year, this group of men came to rescue us. Most of the men were 50-something and silver-haired. There was one beautiful, Daniel Day Lewis-like 30-year-old man. And I knew that he had come to rescue me, and that while he was there he would participate in the collective rescue effort. But he came to rescue me.

And that was it. I woke up, as certain as I had been of anything before or since that this dream was about Jesus. Jesus was this man.

I told the dream to three people: my Orthodox Jewish roommate, my Orthodox Jewish boyfriend, and one Christian friend. The Orthodox Jewish roommate said, “Oh, you must have been dreaming about Elijah the prophet,” which I thought was a close interpretation but not quite there. My boyfriend thought I was dreaming about another man and got very upset. And my Christian interlocutor said, “Whom do you think you might have been dreaming about?” I thought, “Well this is ridiculous if she doesn’t get it. I understand why my roommate and my boyfriend don’t get it, but surely she gets it.” So I said, “Well, I think that I was dreaming about Jesus.” And she said, “That’s clear to me, too. I just didn’t know if you would be able to see that, given that you are an Orthodox Jew.” And in a certain way she was right, because nothing happened. I ignored the dream. In fact, I actively fled from this knowledge for a few years. It did not fit into my life. I was engaged in this Orthodox community; my identity was very much about that. I was gradually getting my family accustomed to this fact. I was very much in love with this Orthodox man. So there was not a lot of room for Jesus in that life. That is the dramatic moment. There isn’t much drama after that.

The colossal theological hindsight is that I was being saved from original sin. I certainly wouldn’t have articulated that then, but I have come to believe something about the exclusive saving power of Jesus.

The summer before senior year, I stumbled upon a novel, Jan Karon’s AT HOME IN MITFORD. I started reading the book in the bookstore. I had vowed not to buy any books that day, but I got hooked and bought it and the sequel, and left the bookstore with my friend. That next week, when I was meant to be working on graduate school applications, I read those two books probably six times and was just hooked by the faith that the characters had. I was really compelled. These are not literary novels; they are not great novels. But the characters had a faith that I was drawn to.

I was envious. I felt that for several years I had been locked in a commitment that I took very seriously. And I was constantly struggling to keep taking seriously the commitment to Orthodox Judaism. These characters had difficulties; they had problems, but not many of them had very many doubts, which is a failing of the book. But they seemed to have a fundamental serenity.

I read the novels and began to think I really needed to pursue this in some way. I went to talk to a Columbia chaplain I had known since the beginning of college. I did not know him well, but I knew him a little bit. I called him and said, “I need to meet with you and talk about some things.”

He was a Presbyterian minister. We met at a cafe, and I said, “I’m really thinking a lot about Jesus. I feel that I’m being called in some way to move toward that. I don’t really know what to do.” His response was, “When you converted to Orthodox Judaism, you entered a marriage you can’t get divorced from. So you’re kind of stuck.”

I felt like I’d been punched in the stomach. I was really put off by that response, and I have not spoken to him since.

I don’t know if I can date it to that evening. But that was really the moment when I began to understand that this was something I really had a personal stake in, and I really had to do this. I had to do this with my life. I knew that I wasn’t going to be able to do it in New York. I didn’t have the personal fortitude to really pursue this in some nondilettantish way in a community where I was known as an Orthodox Jew. That’s what my identity was primarily.

I hadn’t stopped going to synagogue. I had certainly become less consistent. I wasn’t eating shrimp. I was not keeping kosher the way I used to keep kosher.

laurenwinner-ext-post02

Then I received a fellowship to go to England for two years. And that was a real gift, because it provided space in a place where almost no one knew me or anything about my background. I didn’t lie about my background, but there just wasn’t a set of expectations.

I thought that the primary purpose of my going to Cambridge was intellectual … but that was not the primary experience. The primary growth, the primary movement was spiritual. On a more superficial level, it was in England that I was baptized. It was in England that I was confirmed. It was in England that I was identifying publicly and consistently as a Christian. It was in England that I learned to pray as a Christian. That was where the ferment was.

Is Hinduism next? I obviously don’t know. I can’t say anything that will convince anyone else of this. There are certainly people out there who think five years from now I may be sitting Zen or something. It’s evident to me that that will not be the case. It’s evident to me that this is where I’ve landed.

The primary thing that Christianity has given to me is a sense of a personal relationship with God, a sense of God’s presence and involvement in my day-to-day life in a way that Jews might certainly theoretically affirm, and many Jews might experience. But that is not something that I really lived as an Orthodox Jew. That, to me, is the key. It’s hard to separate all this from the fact that I really do believe in Jesus. I really think that it’s true. And I’m amazed and grateful that I know that.

It actually just felt really cool. That’s not terribly sophisticated. The first time my father came to visit me in my apartment a little less than a year ago, I don’t think I had all of these crosses and Jesuses up, but I had some of them. I thought about taking them down while he was here, because I knew that it would be really upsetting for him.

I always wear this silver cross. I don’t take it off. When I go to my father’s house usually I tuck it under my sweater or blouse, not because I’m embarrassed by my Christian witness, but because it doesn’t seem there’s any reason to upset him unnecessarily. I’m commanded to honor him, and I love him.

I lost contact with a lot of Jewish friends, just out of my cowardice. I couldn’t bring myself to tell very many of them what was going on. But the Orthodox Jewish community is small, and people talk a lot with each other. Word got around pretty fast, even though I was on the other side of an ocean, that I had become a Christian. People didn’t necessarily have the details of what exactly had gone on, but all of my Orthodox friends knew long before I told them.

My close friends have been more accepting than I imagined they would be. Some of them are hurt that they invested a lot of time and energy in my Jewish spiritual formation. Probably some of them are worried about the state of my soul. But I think they love me and don’t want the relationships to end. There are still a few people I have not reconnected with, people who know I’ve become a Christian. I just haven’t the courage to face them. It’s been my more secular Jewish friends and relatives who have, in a certain way, had a harder time with the conversion. Just as my family, for example, couldn’t imagine I really believed that God had given the Torah, word for word, to Moses on Mount Sinai, so, too, they can’t really believe that I believe that God became a person.

I certainly believed that Orthodox Judaism was true. And I believed that was what I was supposed to be doing and what God wanted me to do. Christian friends of mine occasionally ask me, “Don’t you regret all that time you spent learning Aramaic so you could read the Talmud, or all that time you spent making your kitchen kosher or all those long skirts you bought?” I don’t, because I see it all as one unfolding.

People ask me all the time about evangelizing the Jews. Do Jews need to know Jesus to be saved? My feeling is that the Bible is pretty clear that God has a special relationship with the Jews. That’s His business. Christians have a lot of problems to address in the world, and it seems that evangelizing Jews is not among them. Go feed the poor or evangelize someone else.

At the risk of sounding full of hubris, I believe that God has something particular for all of us to accomplish. I do think the Church has a lot to learn from Judaism. And if I can be one of the people to help enlighten the Church or help the Church understand something about its Jewish roots, that would seem like a great accomplishment.

In New York there was an Orthodox family on the Upper East Side that basically adopted me. I haven’t been in contact with them in three years.

They know that I’ve become a Christian. One day soon I hope I have the personal fortitude to go talk to them. I miss them, and I don’t think they’re going to reject me. I think they’re probably hurt and maybe bewildered — although maybe they predicted it. I don’t know. But they really formed me just from having me over all the time on Shabat and embracing me in their family — adopting me, as I say. Both the parents and the four kids were all phenomenal people whom I really miss, and I feel ashamed that I am so cowardly that I can’t walk two miles south from my apartment at Columbia and go see them.

I miss them. I would like to be in a relationship with them again.

laurenwinner-ext-bottombanner

Laura Winner is a columnist and editor at Beliefnet.com. She was interviewed by Stephen J. Dubner, the author of TURBULENT SOULS: A CATHOLIC SON’S RETURN TO HIS JEWISH FAMILY.

Conversion, Part 2

 

BOB ABERNETHY, host: And now the second of our two reports from correspondent Stephen Dubner on religious conversion. Last week, the story of a convert to Judaism; this week Lauren Winner, the child of a mixed marriage, a woman raised as a non-observant Jew who then became an Orthodox Jew, and then converted to Christianity.

Professor LEWIS R. RAMBO (Author, Understanding Religious Conversion): Some people have one and only one conversion in their lifetime. But I would say in the last 15 years or so, it’s not uncommon to meet people who had a series of conversions. I see these people as very serious questers and that they go through these, because they’re wanting to find the religious path that is best for them or, in theological terms, path that is true.

conversionpt2-post01-parents

Ms. LAUREN WINNER: Well, my parents were the first intermarriage in either of their families. My mother was from a pretty devout Southern Baptist family, although she herself moved away from that by college. And my father grew up in a sort of classically reform household in terms of, like, no yarmulke allowed in their synagogue, etc. They both grew up in Asheville, North Carolina. First date, I think, was junior prom. Then when I was 11 or 12, which was after my parents divorced, I began to be more involved in Judaism, just of my own impetus. Ever since I was a small child, I really believed in God, really had some unshakeable God thing.

I did formally convert to Judaism, having an Orthodox Jewish conversion, since, under Orthodox law, you’re not Jewish if your mother’s not Jewish.

STEPHEN DUBNER: And describe briefly a day in the life, a week in the life of you as an observant Jew.

Ms. WINNER: I would get up and I wouldn’t always make it to the 7 AM morning prayer service, but if I didn’t make it to that service, I would pray at home. I had a — for a couple of years, a morning study partner. We would get up and do our Jewish text study in the morning, and, you know, then I lived a life.

DUBNER: Tell me about your first inklings, leanings, thoughts about Jesus and/or Christianity.

Ms. WINNER: Well, I had always been intellectually interested in Christianity. In high school, even as I was moving personally towards Orthodox observance, I read some Christian theology and read history, just because I was interested in religion. I became really interested in the doctrine of the incarnation, and I just thought it was really smart that someone had invented this idea of God actually becoming a person so that we could relate to him better. I just thought that was really savvy.

DUBNER: Where does it deepen? Where does that curiosity deepen?

conversionpt2-post02-winner

Ms. WINNER: Well, my sophomore year of college, I had a dream. In the dream, my friend Michelle, who was one of the women that I studied the Talmud with every week — Michelle, I and a bunch of other women whom I didn’t know in the dream or in real life were kidnapped by a group of mermaids. And then there was this one totally beautiful Daniel Day-Lewis-esque, you know, 30-year-old gorgeous man, and I knew that he had come to rescue me. And that was it. I woke up certain, as certain as I had been before or since of anything, that this dream was about Jesus, that Jesus was this Daniel Day-Lewis guy.

I went to talk to a Columbia chaplain, Presbyterian minister. And I said, “I’m really thinking a lot about Jesus. I feel that I’m being called in some way to move towards that. I don’t really know what to do.” And his response was, “When you converted to Orthodox Judaism, you entered a marriage you can’t get divorced from. So you’re kind of stuck.”

DUBNER: Were you surprised by that response?

Ms. WINNER: Yeah, I felt like I’d been punched in the stomach.

DUBNER: What’d you do with that frustration?

Ms. WINNER: That was really sort of the moment when I began to understand that this was something I really have a personal stake in and I really had to do this. I had to do this with my life.

conversionpt2-post04-rambo

Prof. RAMBO: Many a people I’ve talked to over the years have said that they have never been so happy that they’ve found a home or they’ve found a sense of roots or connection. In many cases, they will report, “I’m no longer afraid. I’m not afraid of dying. I’m not afraid of what people think of me. I’m not afraid of guilt, because it can be transformed by God’s forgiveness.” All these things just unleash the energy of people.

Ms. WINNER: I then received a fellowship to go to England for two years, and that was a real gift, because it provided space in a place where almost no one knew me. I did land in the Episcopal Church, the Anglican tradition. It was in England where I was baptized. It was in England where I was confirmed. It was in England where I was identifying publicly and consistently as a Christian. It was in England where I learned to pray as a Christian and so forth and so on.

DUBNER: When a person spends so much of her young life searching for God, it raises this question: For a true seeker, how do you know when to stop?

(to Winner) In the first quarter of your life, you’ve gone from being born to a Jewish father and a Baptist mother and being raised as a nominal Jew and becoming an Orthodox Jew on your own, and then converting to Orthodox Christianity. Do you have any sense — ?

conversionpt2-post03-reading

Ms. WINNER: Is Hinduism next? I obviously don’t — I can’t say anything that will convince anyone else of this. There are certainly people out there who, I’m sure, think, you know, five years from now I may be sitting Zen or something. It’s evident to me that that will not be the case. It’s evident to me that this is where I’ve landed.

Prof. RAMBO: Taking on religion can be a way of burning bridges and establishing a sense of independence and distance. But motivations change, just as someone might fall in love with someone merely because they were good looking and there was a great sexual attraction, but then later on, if the marriage or the relationship lasts, it’s because they’ve come to know the person, trust the person, love in a way that’s not just sexual and for the moment so that romantic passion gets transformed into something that is much more lasting. And I see that happening a lot in conversion.

Ms. WINNER: The primary thing that Christianity has given to me is a sense of a personal relationship with God, a sense of God’s presence and involvement in my day-to-day life in a way that Jews might certainly theoretically affirm and many Jews might experience that. That is not something that I really lived as an Orthodox Jew. So that, to me, is the key. It’s hard to separate all this from the fact that I really do believe in Jesus. I really think that it’s true, and I’m amazed and grateful that I know that.

DUBNER: For RELIGION & ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY, I’m Stephen Dubner.

Church Architecture

 

The National Conference of Catholic Bishops have approved the first national guideline for church art and architecture. Titled “Built of Living Stones,” the document advises parishes, priests, and architects on appropriate church styles, which reflect solid theological foundations.

Correspondent Deryl Davis takes a look at the new guidelines that require prominent placement of the tabernacle (a receptacle for the consecrated elements of the Eucharist) and baptismal font. He also talks to Archbishop Oscar H. Lipscomb, chair of the Bishops’ Committee on Liturgy and Duncan Stroik, editor of SACRED ARCHITECTURE MAGAZINE and associate professor of architecture at the University of Notre Dame.

churcharchitecture-post01-lipscomb

DERYL DAVIS: Which is more conducive to worship … grandeur or simplicity? A sense of the past, or a glimpse of the future? The bishops’ document responds to these questions in an attempt to build consensus on appropriate church styles.

Archbishop OSCAR LIPSCOMB: “Built of Living Stones” is an effort on the part of the body of bishops to address in a contemporary, and I think, effective fashion, developments in art, architecture, and the building and restoration of churches for the present.

DAVIS: The bishops’ new document is a response to decades of architectural experiment and debate which followed the sweeping reforms of Vatican II in the 1960s. Reflecting a new emphasis on communal worship, churches moved the altar forward from the back wall and began to incorporate non-traditional elements such as semicircular, or angular, seating.

In a bid for simplicity, some congregations removed statues, images, and stained glass windows, traditional elements of catholic worship. Others moved the tabernacle, which houses the communion bread, blessed as the body of Christ, from the heart of the sanctuary to a less central location. Conservative critics say these changes were more than cosmetic — that they stripped churches of the element of transcendence, or mystery, so important to Catholic tradition. Church architect Duncan Stroik has problems with the new style.

churcharchitecture-post03-stroik

DUNCAN STROIK (Church architect): It tends to focus on the assembly, that the church is the people, and therefore transcendence, really, there’s no place for that. It tends to be focused more on the people of God than on God himself.

DAVIS: “Built of Living Stones” endorses no specific architectural style, but emphasizes the theology and symbolism inherent in church structures. It makes suggestions, but not requirements. Still, some liberal critics worry the document signals a backward shift to the more conservative architectural style and liturgy of the pre-Vatican II era. The document’s sponsors say such views are wrong.

Archbishop LIPSCOMB: One complains, one side, that we’re repudiating all that has been done since Vatican II and going back to an earlier form of art and architecture, and the other is, as you say, that we’re even going farther off to the austere and the barren … I think both are wrong, like most extremes.

DAVIS: Architects and planners say a general directive on church architecture is long overdue. But, there is disagreement about how effective “Built of Living Stones” will be, since it offers theological principles and not architectural blueprints.

Archbishop LIPSCOMB: Our document is doing its best to stay in the mainstream of where the Catholic Church wants to direct and guide its worshippers, and those who will construct the edifices for worship so that they’ll be both contemporary and effective and do what a church is supposed to do for people who are praising and worshipping God.

DAVIS: However parishes choose to interpret “Built of Living Stones,” Catholic leaders say the central issue is clear: not whether a church is modern or traditional, but whether it works.

For RELIGION & ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY, I’m Deryl Davis.

Election Analysis: The Religious Vote

 

LUCKY SEVERSON (guest anchor): Kim Lawton has been covering the impact of religion and religious voters in this election. She spoke with Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, about what the exit polling showed.

KIM LAWTON: It’s been a pretty interesting election. How did religion play into all of this?

religiousvote-post02-kohut

ANDREW KOHUT: (Pew Research Center for the People & the Press) Well, the religious voting patterns were clear in this election. Absent a compelling case between Gore and Bush from a voter point-of-view, or absent big issues or proposals from the candidates. What the pattern of the vote really reflected are the ideological and partisan fault lines in the electorate, among them religion. So, the most religious voters in this sample interviewed in the exit poll on Tuesday night found religious people voting at a rate of 62 percent for George W. Bush. The least religious people, people who never attend church or religious services voted only 31 percent for Bush.

LAWTON: How did you measure the religiosity of the voters?

KOHUT: Well, in terms of frequency of religious attendance and also in terms of the denominations — the specific denominations of the people that were interviewed by the exit polls.

LAWTON: Prior to this election, we heard a lot about the Catholic vote and that Catholic voters could be one of the most important swing votes. Were they?

KOHUT: They were indeed. The Catholic vote divided just about evenly between Gore and Bush, tipping a little bit toward Al Gore. But going a little bit less Democratic than they did four years ago, as the Catholic vote slowly becomes a little less Democratic and a little more Republican seemingly with each election.

LAWTON: And that is a trend we’ve been seeing, isn’t it? At one time, Catholics were considered sort of the stronghold of the Democratic Party — that’s shifting now?

KOHUT: Well, it certainly was and it is shifting. They were part of the old New Deal coalition reflecting the ethnicity of many American Catholics in the ’30s and ’40s. But as these groups of voters became more assimilated, they have become more mainstream and therefore divide more evenly between the Republican and Democratic parties.

religiousvote-post01-kim

LAWTON: And in an election as close as this one, does that make a big difference in certain areas?

KOHUT: Well it sure does because in a close election, all swing groups — among them Catholics and other groups who have a close partisan division — make a big difference in the vote.

LAWTON: What about the religious right? They were a little less visible this time around. Did they play a role in this?

KOHUT: Well, this was an election where both candidates tried not to be too ideological, and therefore, we didn’t hear George Bush talking about a lot of things that would turn on the religious conservatives, yet they really voted for him at a high level, something like 79% of the self-described religious conservatives said they voted for George W. Bush. Absent that vote, Al Gore wins the election by — with a 52% majority.

LAWTON: So, have they become indeed a permanent part of the Republican Party base?

KOHUT: I think there’s little question that Christian conservatives — white Christian conservatives — are a permanent part of the Republican base just like African-American evangelicals are an awfully important part of the Democratic base.

LAWTON: And I was going to ask you about that. To what extent did black churchgoers go for Gore?

KOHUT: Over 9 in 10 backed the Democratic candidate which is as high a level as was the case for Clinton in 1996.

LAWTON: And that reflected the African-American community generally?

KOHUT: I think it reflected the African-American community generally and studies that will be ongoing will try to assess how good a job the African-American churches did in turning out the vote for Al Gore and how crucial they were to his victory or near-miss.

LAWTON: OK, thank you.

KOHUT: You’re welcome.

Lewis Rambo Extended Interview

Read excerpts from R & E’s interview with Lewis Rambo, author of the book UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS CONVERSION:

LEWIS RAMBO: Defining religious conversion is one of the most perplexing and difficult tasks of the scholar, as well as of religious people. There are so many different aspects of conversion that have to be taken into account, and different religions define conversion in different ways.

conversionpt1-post02-rambo

Converting to Judaism is seen as a very intellectual task or process. One seeks out a rabbi. One learns Hebrew. One goes through a process in which, in many cases, the rabbi will actively discourage the person: “What? Why do you want to become a Jew?”

At the other end of the spectrum are evangelical Christians who are eager to have you come in, who invite you in and try to persuade you to become a Christian. For Jews, it would be a much more intellectual, behavioral transformation, [with] cultural changes. But for some Christians it might be a very emotional experience — a person struggling with guilt, with meaning in life might be told by an evangelical Christian, “Invite Jesus into your heart.”

Traditionally, conversion meant a dramatic, sudden transformation. It was often received as a passive experience — “God came into me and made this happen,” not a rational process — “I”m searching and changing behavior, changing attitudes.” Defining conversion is a very difficult and onerous task, I’m afraid. In my research over the years, I have found that the paths to conversion are remarkably diverse. A Jewish woman in California went to a worship service because her boyfriend, who was not a Christian or a Jew, happened to be an organist at a Catholic Church. Once she was at this Church, something captivated her. She had no idea why it was so appealing to her, but that began the path.

One Jew doing his Ph.D. began to read, as an academic, the works of Augustine. He studied Augustine and then the Confessions, as well as The City of God, and it became an intellectual journey that he did not want or invite. But he was drawn into this somehow by the power of Augustine and his thinking.

One woman was taking a bath, and a radio that had been plugged into the wall fell into the bathtub. She thought she was going to be electrocuted and die. But she believed (and she had no previous interest in religion at all) that God lifted her out of the bathtub, sat her beside the bathtub, and saved her instantaneously. That experience triggered her to read the Bible insatiably for the next few months, as though she had been starving in the desert for years. And then she became an evangelical Christian.

Another person I interviewed at one point told me that he had taken some bad drugs. He had taken drugs for many years, but in this particular case, he was absolutely terrified. Something had gone wrong. He went into the bathroom, looked in the mirror, and saw this monster. He cried out instinctively, “Help me, Jesus.” Then he felt a hand on his shoulder that he believed was Jesus, miraculously coming to heal him.

The point is that the paths are stunningly different — drug experiences, dreams, friends, a random comment. And, of course, many converts say that God intervened in a way that would get their attention and draw them to God.

There are not many things that scholars of conversion agree on. But one thing they do agree on is that most conversions — not all, but most — take place through kinship and friendship networks. In other words, most scholars believe that through a connection with another human being, converts come to have a different view of the world, a different view of self, and a different view of God, or the Divine, or the spiritual world. There is something about us human beings that we need to be able to trust someone, and the message from a trusted friend often has more impact, because we are rooted in a world in which we want someone we can trust, who can then lead us or guide us into a new way of living.

The other generalization that can be made — and again, it is not a hundred per cent — is that often some kind of crisis triggers a new way of viewing things: a death in the family, failure in business or, paradoxically, even success in business. I often have people tell me that [conversion came] at the point in their lives when they had achieved every goal they had, but were still not satisfied: “Is that all there is?” So then they began a search. Often they would look at religion or their past or their spiritual orientation in the past and say, “This did not work for me. I want to try something new, something different.”

Taking on a religion can be a way of burning bridges and establishing a sense of independence. But when the original motivation is just the immaturity of rejecting parents or the past, then the occasion for the conversion is rarely what sustains the quality of the conversion later on. Motivations change. Someone might fall in love with someone else merely because they were good looking, and there was a great sexual attraction. But then later on, if the marriage or the relationship lasts, it is because they come to know the person, trust the person, love the person in a way that is not just sexual and for the moment. Romantic passion is transformed into something that is much more lasting. I see that a lot in conversion. One of the parallels to conversion that many people have drawn is the experience of falling in love.

In the past, people would talk about conversion as being sudden and dramatic. The influence of the conversion of Saul of Tarsus to Paul the Apostle is paradigmatic, whether people know much of the Bible, whether they are Christians or Jews. Everybody knows about Paul. But most of the research now shows that conversion, while having dramatic events within it, is a process over time. Even Paul or Saul had preparation to his conversion.

In my research, I have devised a model of this sequence of events, and I talk about context. What is the milieu in which a person’s spiritual journey begins? The actual beginning is often a point of crisis. Something bad happens. Or, in some cases, there is a mystical experience. Or something so good happens [so that] they want to thank someone: “Whom do I thank for this wonderful bit of good fortune?”

The crisis often triggers searching, or what I call the quest. The quest then often leads someone to an encounter with a missionary or rabbi or teacher or just someone in the workplace. It is as if we have radar working in our lives to find someone who can help us. Most converts will talk about someone who is a guide, or a teacher, a guru. That process leads to interaction. The interaction phase is more focused on what it means to be a new spiritual being. In some cases, they need to learn how to pray. They need to learn how to study the Bible or scriptures. Then the process reaches the point of the commitment. In traditions that require a radical break, commitment often involves rituals that burn the bridges from the past. But in other traditions (and in our tolerant American environment), rather than repudiating the past, you affirm a new identity (without necessarily negating the past) by saying that God was even at work in that. You then have rituals that create a new identity, a new set of relationships, a new set of roles that lead to a new and different kind of life.

Then there is the consequences stage. For some people, the conversion doesn’t take. Lots of people go through many different religious combinations and permutations and don’t stay in one particular one. For others, though, over a period of time they begin to see their lives transformed, and that transformation can take place emotionally and intellectually. Their lives can be changed in many different ways, and at that point, if the changes are perceived by the person as good, that consolidates the conversion process so they then become a life-long Jew or Christian or Catholic or whatever they happen to be.

It is important to distinguish between an outsider’s view of conversion and the insider’s view. Much of what I’ve tried to say and much of what I’ve written in the past had to do with psychology, sociology, and anthropology, or viewing from the outside — making generalizations, understanding cultural factors, personal factors, and so forth. And all that is very good. But the insider’s point of view must always be kept in mind — that the experience of conversion, at its deepest level, is a profound and pervasive reorientation of one’s entire life, starting in many cases with self image: Who am I as a human being? Who is God? What is the nature of reality? People who are serious converts, people who really explore this in depth and whose lives have been transformed will look profoundly different from merely changing labels, changing hats, changing rituals, but rather a deep reorientation that goes to the very foundation of who they are as human beings.

All of the religious traditions, at their best and deepest, say that conversion or spiritual transformation is a process that makes a person different: What are my goals? What are the ways in which I live? How do I relate to people? How do I relate to God? How do I relate to death? Those things are transformed in the spiritual journey that we call conversion.

In the United States, we have a wonderful situation. The tolerance in our society provides what I call “the ecology of conversion.” The ecology of conversion allows for people to examine different options: What is best for me? What is true for me? This has dangers of becoming too private, but the good thing about it is that it does allow people to search for a relationship with God or the Divine in a way that makes them feel at home. God is truly meeting them where they are.

One danger is that people become entranced with their own private perceptions of what is good. One of the crucial things that religious tradition teaches us is that we need a community. Communities can guide and nurture, but they can also help us discern when we may be a little bit too weird in our own private orientation to religion, or that we can simply use God for our own purposes. Many years ago, a writer described God as being “in a box” for many people: “God is there for my purposes. God is kind of a cosmic bellboy who does my bidding.” All the religious traditions teach that God is not for my personal gratification but, rather, for personal transformation, so that I can make a contribution to the wider society, serving the needs of those who are poor and oppressed.

Many of the people I’ve talked over the years have said that they have never been so happy, that they have found a home or a sense of roots or connection. In many cases, they will report, “I am no longer afraid. I am not afraid of dying. I am not afraid of what people think of me. I am not afraid of guilt, because it can be transformed by God’s forgiveness.” All these things just unleash the energy of people. Often sheer exuberance is a result of the conversion process.

Some people have one, and only one, conversion in their lifetime. But in the last fifteen years or so, it is not uncommon to meet people who have a series of conversions. In fact, the literature even talks about some people being the “convertible” type-people who go through one conversion after another after another. My interpretation is a little bit different. I see these people as very serious “questers,” and they go through these [conversions] because they want to find the religious path that is best for them — or, in theological terms, the path that is true. That may lead them through several different options.

Lots of people in the past would say, “I have found the Truth. This is it, this is God’s will.” More recently, I have the sense that people’s interpretation of Truth is “It is true for me. It is true, as I understand it. It fits my orientation to life better.” Many scholars describe this as post-modernity: We live in a time when there are no absolutes. Of course, this creates all kinds of conflicts within religious traditions, because many would say, “No, we have the Truth.” The relativistic approach can deviate into personal approaches that just say, “It is true because it feels good for me, and that’s it.”

Conversion research shows that often people have experiences that are appropriate to the particular group that they may be converting to. It is not unusual for some conservative Christians, or people who want to become orthodox Christians, to have experiences that people within that tradition will then validate and say, “Yes, you are a legitimate convert.” People who convert, say, to Judaism or mainline Protestantism rarely report mystical experiences, visions, dreams, or whatever, because those traditions expect [conversion] to be rational and behavioral, over time.

It is probably easier for a Christian to become a Jew than for a Jew to become a Christian, and it is pretty obvious why. Many Jews have experienced the horrible things that Christians have heaped upon Jews for centuries, so that even the image of a Jesus is almost a curse to Jews, because of the role that Christians have played in the Holocaust and pogroms over the centuries. My sense is that unless one comes from a very orthodox Christian family, people will see conversion to Judaism as an interesting eccentricity or curiosity, but not [see converts] as crazy and then define them as dead. Many times, if a Jew becomes a Christian, it is a betrayal of the community.

When I look back on my own interviews with converts, there are a series of things that people are looking for. Some would have all of them, and some just one or two. One of the major things they are searching for is meaning in life — not just some vague sense that life has a purpose, but a very clear sense of who I am and what my life means in connection to other people. Meaning is very, very important both cognitively and emotionally.

Other people find emotional gratification in conversion. For some it is relief of guilt. For some it is a way of dealing with grief. For some it is a way of overcoming fear and, indeed, in some cases, the terror of death or other emotional experiences that may be motivating them. For others, it is community. [Church historian] Martin Marty often says that religion is “meaning and belonging incorporated.” That captures a lot of it; for some, having a connection or a surrogate family that provides a sense of sustenance in everyday life is a crucial variable.

Many of us in modern society feel powerless — in our jobs, our families, the stock market, world wars, or whatever may be approaching us. The sense of God’s being, connected to me and giving me the energy to do something with my life, the sense of the power of being connected to the Creator of the Universe is very comforting and liberating and enables people to no longer be passive and simply the flotsam and jetsam of the evolutionary process.

Another motivation for conversion is the yearning for transcendence. As we get older, we realize finitude is the human lot. We ask, what can provide me with something beyond? It doesn’t even necessarily mean life everlasting, but a connection with the universe, with God, with other people that transcends my frail body that will soon be gone.

One of the best secular analogies to conversion is falling in love, because falling in love is such a wonderful experience. It is dramatic; it is intense. The world looks different; you feel different. For many converts, that early phase is a wonderful liberation that comes of being in love with God or the Church or the Jewish community or whatever you are now in love with. But just as in marriage, sometimes there is a letdown once you start seeing the realities — that not all Jews or Catholics are nice people. Then the reality of what you have done begins to take effect.

In many cases, one of the saddest things about conversion is that it often causes families to split. Now, fortunately, the attitude of most people in twenty-first century America is more tolerant.

Lewis Rambo is professor of psychology and religion at San Francisco Theological Seminary and the author of UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS CONVERSION (1993). He was interviewed by Stephen Dubner, the author of TURBULENT SOULS: A CATHOLIC SON’S RETURN TO HIS JEWISH FAMILY (1998).

Conversion, Part 1

 

LUCKY SEVERSON, guest host: The famous religious conversion stories are full of high drama: Saul’s vision on the road to Damascus or Constantine’s fiery cross in the sky. Modern-day religious conversions can seem tame by comparison, but tolerant attitudes toward faith-seeking have made them more common. Still, choosing a new religion is usually a major decision — for converts and their families. In the first of a two-part series, our reporter, Stephen Dubner, himself a convert and author of the book TURBULENT SOULS, looks at the experience of John Curry, principal of a school for at-risk students in New York.

JOHN CURRY: I grew up in St. Louis, in the Bible Belt. My parents talked about religion constantly, they were in a Methodist Church … they considered themselves born again and were very strict theologically.

RUTHIE PADOWER: I experienced Judaism in two opposite ways. At home, it was this very pleasant, defining part of who we were and then we lived in a town that was not heterogeneous at all. It was purely Christian, and so, I grew up very uncomfortable with my Judaism in that setting.

conversionpt1-post01-padowercurry

STEPHEN DUBNER: You met in college. Was the fact that you came from different religions an issue?

MS. PADOWER: Once we started thinking about living together and maybe marrying and having children, it was an issue because I wanted to raise my children Jewish, and I didn’t want to raise my children in a house where Christmas was celebrated.

CURRY: Ruthie, at one point, said, well you can have a Christmas tree if you need it to be in the house … but it will be your Christmas tree and the children and I will just consider that daddy’s, and I thought, I’m gonna be sitting in the corner with my little Christmas tree. It was just ridiculous, and then I thought, well I’m gonna be like a stranger in my own family, and I couldn’t really see how to resolve it at the time.

DUBNER: Did you think at all back then about converting?

CURRY: I think I did in vague ways, but I couldn’t really imagine it. Not that it was something I would hate to do, but I guess I felt that [by] even saying it, I was gonna feel like a wannabe for someone else’s culture.

LEWIS RAMBO (Author, UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS CONVERSIONS): The experience of conversion, I think, at its deepest level, is a profound and pervasive reorientation of one’s entire life. Starting in many cases with self image — Who am I as a human being? — to, Who is God? What is the nature of reality?

RABBI MAGGIE WENIG: I think it’s as significant a decision as choosing a partner to spend many years of your life with or deciding to have a child.

conversionpt1-post06-wennig

DUBNER: We are probably in a country and at a time when conversion is at an all time high. Conversion is rampant. Is that good?

RABBI WENIG: I would have to say yes. But I believe that human beings long for meaning, a relationship with God, community, and are feeling an emptiness.

DUBNER: Tell me about this Christmas season visit to your sister’s house in Seattle.

CURRY: At this particular Christmas service, they took a baby out of the congregation and put it in the manger for a Christian ceremony.

MS. PADOWER: And that night, I had a dream that I had a child and that they took my baby out of my arms and used him or her for their Jesus, and we couldn’t get him back.

CURRY: I’d always had this idea that somehow I wanted Christmas in my family’s life because, somehow, that would bring happiness to my children. And I had this horrible experience: my mother, sister, and father not getting along; me feeling watched by my parents to see if I would go up to the altar and profess my faith in Christ; conflicts around our children. … I felt like there was this whole ball of tension and things I didn’t know how to resolve. I was lying in bed, and I thought, you know, if I converted to Judaism this would just go away. And I said to Ruthie, “Maybe I should convert,” and she said “Why would you want to do that?” My fear was that she would say, “That’s wonderful,” and I would feel this responsibility to follow through, and instead, she just put the breaks on.

conversionpt1-post03-bread

DUBNER: Did you think if you did convert how your family would react?

CURRY: That was another thing. It would be like a bombshell, … no longer being Christian was … one, and this would be even bigger.

DUBNER: A midnight epiphany, on Christmas Eve. That’s what led John Curry and Ruthie Padower from one minefield — intermarriage — to another — conversion. It used to be a rarity, but these days it’s a staple of American life. But that doesn’t mean it’s simple. A religious conversion winds its way into every corner of one family’s life.

CURRY: So, I was looking for something, and the idea of converting to Judaism, I think, subconsciously — maybe partially consciously — provided an option of rediscovering … let’s say spiritual text, the Bible … and as I continued with my study, I found more and more things that I could claim in a way that were very compelling to me. And I think it started vague, and it became more and more specific and more and more exciting for me and … helped me grow in my knowledge of Judaism.

RABBI WENIG: In the past, a lot of people would talk about conversion as being sudden and dramatic. I think the influence of the conversion of Saul of Tarsus to … Paul the Apostle is paradigmatic, whether people … know much of the Bible, whether they’re Christians or Jews or whatever.

Everybody knows about Paul. But I think that most of the research now shows that conversion, while having dramatic events within it, is a process over time.

conversionpt1-post04-candles

DUBNER: John immersed himself in Jewish learning. And it was John who became the architect of the family’s Jewish practice.

CURRY: I think, initially, when I was considering converting, what I wanted to give my kids was a history and a tradition that they could claim as their own. I couldn’t imagine having them with no spiritual tradition at all in their lives, and I wanted to be part of that.

MS. PADOWER: I think of him as a profoundly Jewish Jew. Yeah. I don’t at all think of him as a convert. It feels very — I guess the term convert, to me, sort of seems like it’s dipped in something, and he’s … from the core out, you know?

DUBNER: For now, John and Ruthie are finding a balance to their religious observance. What will be the ultimate effect of John’s conversion? That won’t be known for at least a few years, until the next generation has its say.

CURRY: My daughter has known that I’m a convert, she met my father who passed away, and my mother, and knows how Christian they are. She has a sense that things can be mutable and changeable and understands that I’m Jewish now and doesn’t really question that. I wonder if that also gives her a sense that she’s changeable. I guess one of my worst fears is that she’ll convert at some point. She expressed an interest in Christianity, although I think she has a Jewish identity pretty clearly.

MS. PADOWER: One of our children in particular loves going to services and follows along in the prayer book, even though he can’t read Hebrew. He’s a very ethical and compassionate six year old, and he’d be a fabulous rabbi.

Faith and Politics

BOB ABERNETHY: The candidates’ use of religion has been controversial throughout the campaign. In the last of our special election reports, Kim Lawton asked several leading political experts to evaluate the role of religion and religious rhetoric this election season.

Governor GEORGE W. BUSH (Republican Presidential Candidate): I know faith can lead the way.

faithandpolitics-post01-gwb

Vice President AL GORE (Democratic Presidential Candidate): I believe with all my heart that our nation has been blessed by God.

Former Secretary DICK CHENEY (Republican Vice Presidential Candidate): And to treat them, as Christ taught us, in the way we would wish to be treated ourselves.

Senator JOE LIEBERMAN (Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate): We Americans have got to have faith.

Vice Pres. GORE: The center of my life is faith and family.

Gov. BUSH: I searched my heart and recommitted my life to Jesus Christ.

KIM LAWTON: Over and over again this campaign season, the candidates have been tapping into a higher power. But despite the seemingly large amounts of God-talk, some political experts say they have been disappointed at the way religion has entered the electoral discourse.

Yale law professor Stephen Carter teaches and writes about religion. He told the Faith and Politics Institute he believes the talk has been largely superficial.

Professor STEPHEN CARTER (Yale University Law School): While candidates are talking about their faith, they are also being extraordinarily careful not to talk about the implications of their faith for any particular issue of policy.

faithandpolitics-post02-carterpres

LAWTON: Carter says politicians who raise the issue of their religion have a moral obligation to explain what it means for their politics.

CARTER: If someone says, “I am a devout believer,” then what interests me is how does that belief affect your view about proper stewardship of wealth. How does that reflect your view about the economic system, about how we treat the worst off among us, and things like that. Now a candidate might say, “my faith matters to me, but it will not affect my decision making,” and my view is in that case, why bring it up in the first place?

LAWTON: Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer agrees.

GARY BAUER: People are interested in knowing if the candidates have a strong personal faith. But I think they are even more interested in knowing how that faith would influence the decisions they made about dealing with the poor or dealing with a possible war and peace situation or issues like life or racial reconciliation.

Vice Pres. GORE (at a Detroit church): Paul wrote twice, to Galatians, and to Second Thessalonians, ‘Do not grow weary in well doing.’

LAWTON: But others question whether theological explorations belong in a presidential race.

faithandpolitics-post06-ribuffo

UNIDENTIFIED MODERATOR: Governor Bush, a philosopher or thinker, and why.

Gov. BUSH (during debate): Christ, because he changed my heart.

Professor LEO RIBUFFO (George Washington University). As someone who has studied religion and politics all of my adult life, I would love to know what George Bush means when he says that Jesus is his favorite philosopher. I would love to know what Al Gore means when he says he tries to live every day asking what would Jesus do. But I don’t think we would get useful answers to those questions, and I don’t think that’s the sort of thing Americans really need to know to evaluate a presidential candidate.

LAWTON: In fact, Professor Ribuffo believes there are only a few circumstances where such discussions would do more good than harm.

RIBUFFO: If a major party nominated a serious believer in Bible prophecy, who thought that the European Community prefigured the coming of the anti-Christ, then I would say sure, we’d better ask, and we’d better ask fast, how does this influence policy. But since everyone plausibly nominated is well within the civil religion tradition, I don’t think asking the questions would get very good answers, and I think it’s more likely to stir animosity, which the country doesn’t need.

Gov. BUSH: I wish I knew the law to make people love one another. I would sign it.

Sen. LIEBERMAN: If you believe in God, I think it is hard not to be an environmentalist.

faithandpolitics-post07-elshtain

LAWTON: Many observers admit it can be tricky to find the right line between God-talk that is illuminating, and God-talk that is inappropriate.

JEAN BETHKE ELSHTAIN (University of Chicago): It is a hard thing to talk about and to talk about well in a political context. Because it is deeply personal. Yet, it helps to make you who and what you are. So, I think there is no law about it, there is no general rule to follow. You just have to hope that the candidates have a sense of appropriateness of the occasion, [and] remind themselves at every point about the religious pluralism of America, so they don’t exclude those who aren’t of their own faith community, and I think we should ask that of candidates and we should insist on it.

JIM WALLIS (Call to Renewal Coalition): I think it very important to get this right. In other words, I don’t think candidates, or any of us, should say “Biblical faith dictates particular policy prescriptions.” Rather we have to say, “What are the fundamental kind of moral issues here?” Vision and direction, and I would say, moral imperatives have to be there, or else faith-talk is sort of “vote for me, I’m a nice religious guy and you can trust that.”

LAWTON: Jim Wallis wrote to both presidential candidates last month on behalf of the religious leaders in his broad-based Call to Renewal Coalition. He suggested they use the issue of child poverty to further explain how their faith might impact their politics.

faithandpolitics-post08-wallis

WALLIS: Let’s now become specific, let’s be concrete. Isn’t it right? Isn’t it good, wouldn’t it be a moral goal to say, “let’s cut child poverty in half by five years.” To me that’s an appropriate thing for religious leaders to ask of politicians.

LAWTON: It’s unclear how any of this may play with the voting public. According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 70% of voters prefer a president with strong religious beliefs. But half also say they are uncomfortable when politicians discuss how religious they are.

RIBUFFO: Most Americans are satisfied with what we’ve got, and what we’ve usually had since Eisenhower: an affirmation of a civil religion, a sense that God likes America, even if he’s not quite an American, and a belief that our candidates hold some sort of theistic religiosity.

LAWTON: Stephen Carter says, he hopes voters won’t be satisfied with mere political pandering on religious issues. And, he says, the voters are the ones with ultimate control.

CARTER: In the end, in a democracy, our best security against any error is going to be the wisdom and goodwill of people, of voters, of you and me. If we have, or think we have, too much talk about religion in politics or too little, then the only real security for them is for voters to push one way or the other.

LAWTON: I’m Kim Lawton reporting.

Texas Baptist Convention

 

BOB ABERNETHY: Now, the latest battle in the long-running war between conservatives and moderates in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) — with almost 16 million members, the largest of all Protestant denominations, by far.

At its meeting in Corpus Christi, the huge Texas Baptist Convention — nearly one fifth of all Southern Baptists — sent a strong signal of discontent to the national SBC. Led by moderates, the Texans voted overwhelmingly to cut $5 million of the $25 million they send the national group each year.

texasbaptist-post01-glazener

The president of the Texas Baptists railed at what he called a “loveless, witch-hunting fundamentalism.”

Dr. CLYDE GLAZENER (President, Texas Baptist Convention): Jesus is not pleased today by religious folks who become thought police, or their followers, and dictate their belief patterns, even if they claim to be evangelicals.

ABERNETHY: The Texas Baptists also voted to open up their group to members from other states and that raised the question of a full SBC split.

Dr. JAMES DUNN (Wake Forest University): It is possible that this action by Texas Baptists could set in motion a chain of reactions that would lead to another national convention, another national denomination.

ABERNETHY: After Martin Luther preached “the priesthood of all believers,” Baptists developed their radical commitment to freedom. No hierarchy, no creed, absolute separation of church and state.

Baptists do not practice infant baptism, because they think each person should be old enough to make his or her own faith decision. Baptists speak of “soul freedom.”

texasbaptist-post02-dunn

Dr. DUNN: It means simply the right of every individual and the responsibility of every individual to come immediately to God. Any intervention — by a belief, a person, an institution, a structure, or a coercive force — any intervention between an individual and God is heresy from a Baptist perspective.

ABERNETHY: In 1979, political and theological conservatives won control of the Southern Baptist Convention. They insisted that the Bible is the true, literal word of God and that every SBC employee must affirm the Baptist Faith and Message statement.

At its convention this year, SBC leaders changed the Faith and Message in a way some moderate Baptists thought gave the Bible more authority than Jesus. Moderates charged the SBC leaders were creating a creed; conservatives denied it.

Dr. RICHARD LAND (Southern Baptist Convention): I think the charge of creedalism is nonsense.

ABERNETHY: The differences are narrow, but — in general — moderates say, their primary authority is personal experience of Jesus, and conservatives say, it is scripture.

Dr. RICHARD LAND (Southern Baptist Convention): The most important thing that I ever learned in my life, or will ever learn, I was taught in vacation Bible school in a Southern Baptist Church in Houston, Texas, and it is this: Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so.

texasbaptist-post03-ammerman

ABERNETHY: Two years ago, the SBC offended many moderates when it emphasized a wife’s duty to “submit herself graciously” to her husband. Then, at its convention last June, the SBC said that women should not be pastors of Baptist churches.

Professor AMMERMAN: The issue of women pastors comes down not just to the issue of women, but to the issue of who can tell the local church what to do. That goes against the strain of independence that has always been there in Baptist life in general, and is especially alive and well in Texas, because there is nobody more independent than a Texas Baptist church.

ABERNETHY: Last month, after the SBC statement on women pastors, former President Jimmy Carter announced he could no longer be part of the SBC. Now, with the Texas vote, the question is what the repercussions will be in other states, and for Baptists in Texas.

Dr. LAND: They will become a full-fledged denomination. And I might add that when that happens, they will be much smaller than they are now because the vast majority of Southern Baptists in Texas are Southern Baptists first and Texas Baptists second.

Prof. AMMERMAN: What we see is a fragmentation. The Southern Baptists Convention will issue their resolutions, pass their motions, and make headlines, but it will be more and more clear that they do not speak for all, even all Southern Baptists as Baptists align themselves with a variety of other organizations.

The Supreme Court

 

BOB ABERNETHY: One of the greatest powers a president has is appointing new justices to the Supreme Court. In the next few years, the Court is expected to rule on a variety of closely-disputed and controversial issues, many of them of special interest to religious communities: school prayer, for instance, and other church-state questions. We asked Tim O’Brien to look ahead at Gore, Bush, and the Court.

TIM O’BRIEN: Al Gore isn’t the only one making this prediction.

supremecourt-post07-gore

Vice President AL GORE (Democratic Presidential Candidate): The next president is going to appoint three, maybe even four, Justices of the Supreme Court.

Which must come as interesting news to the Court’s current justices, all of whom appear to be in reasonably decent shape, none of whom appears to be in any hurry to go.

The history of Supreme Court nominations cuts two ways. While it is risky to predict how many appointments any president might get, it is a fair bet whoever wins the election will get at least one. With the single exception of Jimmy Carter, every president who has served a full four year term has eventually had at least one appointment to the Court.

Former President RICHARD NIXON: Judge Warren Burger.

O’BRIEN: And many a president’s greatest legacy has been in his Supreme Court appointments. A single appointment can, over the lifetime of the appointed, make a huge difference in the development of the law.

supremecourt-post02-bork

Robert Bork

Defeated nominee Robert Bork has written that had he been confirmed to the Supreme Court rather than the somewhat less ideological Anthony Kennedy, he would have voted to overrule Roe v. Wade, that he would have allowed some organized prayer in public schools, and put burning the American flag beyond the protection of the First Amendment.

Because the Court was divided 5-4, the opposite way on each of these questions, with Kennedy in the majority, a “Justice Bork” would likely have carried the day. The Bork-Kennedy difference may continue to be felt in unforeseeable areas of the law for the indefinite future.

Roe v. Wade, the decision announcing a constitutional right to abortion has become an issue in the current election even though that decision is among the least likely to be overruled. To do it, George Bush would need to replace at least two justices who support the decision with justices [who are] opposed.

But a single new appointment could turn the Court around on a host of other explosive issues on which the Court remains sharply divided — like separation of church and state.

Bush says he would try to appoint justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who favor greater government accommodation of religion, including financial aid to religious schools.

Gore’s model justices, Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan, had demanded the strictest separation of church and state.

The views of the individual justices have ranged from one extreme to the other.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist has characterized the so-called “wall” separating church and state as “a useless metaphor,” insisting all the Constitution forbids is the government establishing an official religion.

supremecourt-post04-scalia

Justice Antonin Scalia

But for almost thirty years, the Court has prohibited any government activity that:

  • has a religious purpose
  • has the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion
  • results in excessive government entanglement with religion

That test has been difficult to apply, particularly when cities sponsor Nativity scenes at Christmas time or menorahs during Hanukkah or when religious groups seek the same access to school facilities that non-religious groups have.

Despite its longevity, most of the current justices don’t like the current test for evaluating church-state issues. Justice Scalia has compared it to “… some ghoul in a late night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad … frightening little children and school board lawyers. …”

But the justices have been unable to agree on any new test. Should that change with a couple of new justices, a revolution in church-state relations could follow.

A single appointment could turn the Court around on other issues as well — like affirmative action.

George Bush is against it:

Governor GEORGE W. BUSH (Republican Presidential Candidate): It’s not the way America is all about.

Al Gore says some affirmative action can be beneficial. The issue has divided the Court 5-4.

supremecourt-post03-abortion

To Gore, and others, the integrity of the political system is also on the line this Tuesday:

Vice Pres. GORE: I will make the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill the very first measure that I send to the Congress as president.

Governor Bush says he also favors some campaign finance reform, but his appointments to the Court — if they’re like Scalia and Thomas — would be much more likely to reject most current proposals as a violation of free speech.

The impact a president can have on the Court is also a function of luck. Although Franklin Roosevelt did not get any appointments in his first term, he ended up naming eight justices to the Court and elevating a ninth to be Chief Justice. Seven of Roosevelt’s eight appointments came within a four-year span.

Of course, justices don’t always fulfill the expectations of the presidents who appoint them. From 1968 through 1992, four Republican presidents, each fiercely critical of the liberal criminal law decisions of the earlier Warren Court, failed to get a single one of those landmark decisions overruled — notwithstanding nine consecutive appointments to the Court.

No one can predict how many appointments the next president might get or gauge the impact those appointments might have. But with the Court so evenly split on so many high profile issues, a single new appointment could have a powerful impact on several aspects of our lives.

For RELIGION AND ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY, I’m Tim O’Brien in Washington.

Divination Art

 

BOB ABERNETHY: In our Belief and Practice segment this week, divination art.

African tribal religions include diviners who are believed to communicate with the gods in the spirit world. Diviners discover and then relate what the gods want, and harness the gods’ powers to help followers overcome illness and other crises. Carvings and sculptures used to capture the spirits’ attention were gathered this summer at New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art.

divinationart-post02-abiodun

We talked about divination art with curator Alisa La Gamma and Professor Rowland Abiodun, an art historian at Amherst College and a follower of Nigeria’s Ifa religion.

Professor ROWLAND ABIODUN: The Ifa divination process will start with a prayer invoking the presence of Orumila, which means the power that rectifies the unfortunate destiny.

These objects are being used to facilitate prayer. They’re being used to amplify appeals.

They’re supposed to energize. They’re supposed to make things happen.

The invocation and the citation that are delivered on this occasion helps in calming the patient, helps in healing the patient, helps in clearing shadows of doubt.

divinationart-post01-lagamma

ALISA LA GAMMA: The work that you see here is a great Nkisi Nkondo. A great power figure from central Africa. Each of these metal elements was used to draw a spirit’s attention to a matter of grave importance.

This protruding element in the area of the abdomen is actually a container full of medicinal ingredients that would have really drawn that force to this particular site when it was invoked.

A lot of the divination systems bring together healing and psychotherapy as well as religious prayer, so it’s a convergence of a lot of different kinds of approaches to remedying a situation.

Prof. ABIODUN: What we see here is more than just a beautiful work of art but something that is active.