Dana Robert Extended Interview

Read more of Betty Rollin’s interview about reverse missionaries with Dana Robert, Truman Collins Professor of World Christianity and History of Mission at the Boston University School of Theology and co-director of its Center for Global Christianity and Mission. She is also the author of Christian Mission: How Christianity Became a World Religion (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009):

Why are foreign missionaries coming to the United States and building churches?

This has always happened. This is the American way. Every group of immigrants brings their own religion, and we’re a nation of immigrants. Swedish Lutherans brought Swedish ministers; Polish Catholics brought Catholic priests, etc., so these immigrants are bringing their own passions with them.

But this is a little different, isn’t it? Isn’t this a little bigger?

What’s different is that since 1965 whole different groups of immigrants have come to the US, so it’s more visible because these are not northern Europeans.

Let’s talk about the Nigerians first. What’s going on there, because it’s not only that they’re preaching to Nigerians when they come here.

Well, one thing about Nigerians, they’re very entrepreneurial. They’ve spread all over the world, and the Nigerians in the United States are very highly educated. African immigrants are one of the most highly educated group of immigrants, and with the technologies we have today their visibility is partly because we can see them on the Internet. We’re in a context of globalization. The means of seeing this kind of immigrant religion is so much greater than it used to be that the visibility is higher.

post02-danarobertTo what extent are they acting like missionaries? There’s a little irony here, isn’t there?

We are now in an age where we used to talk about missions to migrants and now it’s by migrants, and that’s because of the demographic shift in Christianity. Now there are over 450 million Christians in Africa. A century ago there was only 8 million, so the huge growth of Christianity in Africa and Latin America and parts of Asia means that when they come here they think of themselves as missionaries. It’s actually the full circle, so it’s an irony if you don’t know the history of Christianity and recognize that it’s always been a migrant religion. Same with Islam.

How have the Nigerians been able to grow to the extent that they have? There are so many churches.

Well, right, for one thing there are a lot of them, and they come from a huge, overcrowded English-speaking country, so they can land with their feet on the ground and get up and running with outreach, churches, building schools, building homes very quickly. They don’t have the language barrier many other immigrants have when they get to the United States.

They’re preaching not only to other Nigerians, however. What is the attraction for Americans?

I think it’s because a lot of new Christians have a live, vibrant faith that takes the supernatural seriously, that takes miracles seriously, that takes changing your life seriously, and North American Christians have gotten old in their faith and complacent and secular, so this refreshing of the Gospel is attractive to a lot of people.

And in what sense are they changing the face of Christianity?

Absolutely, this huge growth of Christianity around the world has occurred in my lifetime at the same time that European Christianity is dying, and so you have this demographic shift where Christians of European extraction are only one-fourth of Christians in the world today. So we’re looking at a completely multicultural church that in the early 21st century has roughly the same proportions: Europeans, Africans, Asians, Latin Americans.

Their beliefs are different.

Oh, yeah. One thing we’ve seen is that Pentecostalism has swept all over the world in the last several decades, so the immediacy of the supernatural, the emotional worship style, the focus on lifestyle and holiness, these are things that American churches have gotten soft on. Maybe in the 1800s there was a lot more exuberant religion, using the church for setting morality and boundaries, but that’s what happening in these new churches in the US today.

They believe the devil is behind homosexuality, among other things.

That’s why it’s a paradox that these are such highly educated people, but their substratum of African traditional religion has a very vigorous spiritual life of spirits, evil spirits, ancestors, and those are real problems for them, so there’s a way in which their worldview, their cosmology has to deal with living spirits if only to fight those spirits. That’s largely what’s happening here, that things that are perceived as evil or negative have to be vigorously fought in the church, and that’s consistent with African traditional religion.

post05-danarobertIt’s not the American religious tradition.

Actually, it is if you scratch deep enough. If you scratch it’s only been a few generations since North Americans believed in these spirits, and most people today believe in angels, for example. If you take an opinion poll about, I think, 40 percent or so of Americans believe in creation as in the Book of Genesis. These are our beliefs. It’s just that they’ve been driven underground by this veneer of secularism in the last half-century. Another issue is it’s the end of secularism. We’re now in a postmodern age where we know science is not the answer. Science does not have all the answers, and people are looking within and without for spiritual answers to life’s major issues of meaning.

We all read the Bible through our own culture, and if you’re from a culture where homosexuality is not spoken of, is underground, is not considered real, then you read the Bible through that lens. Most churches today in the US have divorced ministers or divorced people in the churches, yet the Bible’s clearly against divorce. So somehow, somewhere along the way North Americans began to read the Bible in a different way and say, “But divorce is okay, though not great.” Well, Africans say, “How can you accept divorce when Jesus was against it but not accept polygamy, for example, when Abraham had more than one wife? Polygamy is in the Bible.” In other words, the relationship between culture and politics or the relationship between culture and how you read the Bible is intertwined.

And can their views of homosexuality succeed in this country?

One thing is that churches are always changing, and I’m a historian, and I never predict the future, so who will win this one I don’t know, but most of the major religions in the world don’t accept homosexuality. One thing about views of homosexuality preached through the pulpit is that it’s the role of the religious professionals to call people to what their ideals are. Whether actual people uphold the various things preached at them from the pulpit is another story. There’s always a disconnect between the religious professional, i.e. the minister whose job it is to uphold the “values” and the activities of the people. If you preach about homosexuality a lot, it may be because you have a “problem” with homosexuality. In other words, practice and rhetoric don’t line up necessarily. The Bible says many things, and all people who are Christians see their values as coming from the Bible. Since they’re against homosexuality, they read the verses that are against homosexuality in a literal way, but they might not read other verses in a literal way. We all pick and choose what in the Bible to read literally, but one thing that’s interesting is African Christian groups are very interested in things like the Book of Leviticus, because it’s got certain similarities with traditional religion. And how many American Christians say the Book of Leviticus is really important? Not that many, but it’s very important for these new African churches.

Because?

Because there are so many purity laws in the Book of Leviticus, and purity is a really important piece coming from African traditional religion that they’re carrying into Christianity.

Why is purity so important?

Because if you come from a primal society, and you don’t do things exactly a certain way, you are not aligned with the spirits or with the cosmic forces, and you can’t succeed in life. This is how Europeans were when missionaries went from the Mediterranean. The very first thing northern European kings wanted was a book of laws. That’s how Latin spread. Monks came and gave them their traditional law written down for them. Purity is essential for dealing with the spirits which are around you and being aligned with God’s will so that you prosper. Purity is what sets people apart from other people. It’s part of your distinctiveness. Think of Orthodox Jews and dietary restrictions. That, for Jews, is a kind of purity. So it can be evidenced by wearing certain clothes, by eating certain things, by not having intercourse during time of menstruation. Purity encompasses many human practices, and it sets you apart as a special people of God against other people. One of the things about the sense of purity is that they’re reading out of the Hebrew Bible or the Old Testament. Purity isn’t actually something that’s a main feature of European Christianity this day and time, but when new groups of Christians get the Bible, they are reading right through the Old Testament where purity to distinguish the people Israel as they’re on their journey is really significant. In a sense, a lot of these African indigenous churches you can see as Old Testament-type churches. It’s actually coming from Judaism, you see. Not current Judaism, but it’s coming from the people of Israel. Jesus violated one purity law after another. Jesus wasn’t into that, I mean in some ways, but the tradition comes right through the whole of the people of Israel right through the Bible. And then it dovetails with African traditions. It sets you apart or feels special, feels that you’re doing God’s will.

Tell me about speaking in tongues.

Speaking in tongues has multiple levels. One is prayer language where you enter not quite an altered state of consciousness but you’re suspending your rational mind and just letting your tongue loose, and there’s a way in which that has a similar sense about it as the Latin Mass, for example. By releasing your conscious mind it lets mystery flow into you. Speaking in tongues is really important for people who are moving from one place to another, who feel linguistically challenged. If you think about it, if your worship service has speaking in tongues, you can be speaking at home ten different languages but still share a common group experience, so it’s both individual and corporate. It’s a way of praying, predominantly, it’s a way of praying. Now some people have believed in the past that people were speaking actual foreign languages for the purpose of evangelization. I don’t know that there is any documentation that that has actually taken place, though it is claimed over and over. But it’s mostly for personal worship and for a kind of sense of personal well being, personal empowerment.

post06-danarobertThere’s something antirational about it—is that the appeal?

It is antirational, but so is listening to music, if you think about it. I think the analogy is if you’re caught up listening to music, you’re tapping parts of your brain, not the rational part, so those kinds of things throughout the history of our religions are what allow you to let the experience of God come in. We can know about God or we can know God, and you see that experience of knowing God you have to release your own rational mind that’s locking you into just your verbal language. I think that’s the idea behind many mystical practices, of which speaking in tongues is a fairly easy, accessible, common, group-oriented mystical practice.

Can you explain the entrepreneurial zeal of the Redeemed Christian Church? They want to grow, and they are growing.

They are growing. Growth equals life equals health equals prosperity at its most basic. Religion is about living an abundant life either here or the hereafter. Growth is necessary for that. The other thing is, to put this in the context of immigrant religion, in Boston, a supposedly highly secular city, a new church has been founded every 20 days. Most people don’t realize this. They think New England is secular. These are immigrant churches, storefront churches. This is the American way of building civic society, coming together for voluntary groups, helping each other, and then growth becomes a way to be prosperous in this American context of capitalism, competition, and so on.

In order to grow they have to have American followers as well as their own?

Yeah, though I don’t have the numbers, but there are hundreds of thousands of Nigerians in the United States, so you can start with Nigerians and work outwards. It can also be a unitive experience among Nigerians of different ethnicities. You have to remember Nigeria is a multiethnic country. So first if you can start with your own ethnic group of Nigerians and then expand outward, you can first build out to other Nigerians and then to Ghanains or people of other West African countries and keep moving out to North Americans.

Is part of their goal to change us?

Part of the goal is to change us, though I think the real goal is they see they are being faithful to God and all—think of Madison Avenue, everyone has a slogan, every church has a slogan, everyone has an advertising campaign. You have to look at a lot of this as their rhetoric. It’s also consistent with Jesus’ final command to go throughout the world and make disciples. Well, its very interesting historically that the people who rediscover that command, “go into all the world,” are usually people who are already on the move. So if you’re an immigrant and you want to be an immigrant, and God tells you to answer that command, “go out to all the world,” there’s a very convenient alignment of the spiritual, the biblical, and your personal effort to prosper.

Where does all their money come from?

Well, remember these are highly educated people. They tithe. Followers tithe a large percentage of their income, and also many people start poor, and poor people give a much higher percent of their income. I mean the most generous state in the country is Mississippi and Alabama, poor people, and so those northern New Englanders are stingy compared to poor southerners.

post02-reversemissionariesWhat’s going on with other immigrant missionaries?

I see where I live in Somerville, Massachusetts, I’ve got at least six immigrant churches within a block of my house, and they double and triple up in church buildings or community centers. There’re Haitian churches. There’re Brazilian churches. They go out to the park across the street and have revival services. This is the way immigrants have always organized themselves socially, and the voluntary group is the basis of American civil society. So it’s very American to move here and with your own group start your voluntary group around a common purpose. That’s how you become an American.

And you try to get other Americans involved?

You can, but that’s usually not as easy. That might be the goal, but the actual success is typically with other immigrants of a same or similar culture.

Of all the immigrant groups, which are most attractive religiously to Americans?

I think it is a lot of African Christians because they have this vibrant, outgoing faith that’s a compatible personality type with North Americans. Asian Christian groups are more, in some sense, foreign if they don’t speak English, but I know people who worship at big Chinese churches, for example, that have an English service and a Chinese service, so I think the African immigrant, because we already have African Americans. I mean, you know, Barack Obama is president of the United States, and an African coming in and spreading Christianity is a very familiar trope in American life. Think of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., think of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton. We have a big tradition of African-American leadership within Christianity, so an African coming here doesn’t have to cross any boundaries of people’s acceptance to be in ministry. That is a familiar thing for North Americans.

The Nigerians we spoke to place a great emphasis on spiritual healing.

Healing is one of the main things that attract people into churches all over the world. It is not just Nigerians. Even mainline churches, you know, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, are holding healing services. There are these healing movements of memory. Healing is one thing religion does. That doesn’t mean healing is successful. We have to distinguish healing as something fundamental to what faith brings you and being cured. Being healed and being cured are not necessarily the same thing.

Our society is so oriented toward doctors and medicine.

Yeah, well, look who doesn’t have health care, and if you look around the world you see these churches spring up where people don’t have access to health care, and it coexists with health care. Western health care is expensive, it’s impersonal. Now that’s changing, but healing has to do with healing your relationships with other people. That helps people recover.

Are there any other immigrant groups you want to describe or points you want to make?

The Chinese immigrants, this is extremely interesting. There are more people worshipping in China than in Europe each Sunday. That’s an estimate. Chinese are very evangelistic-oriented and see their movements as moving back along the Silk Road from whence Christianity came to China, and moving back toward Jerusalem, so the Chinese mission movement is absolutely fascinating. The top three Christian countries in the world, in terms of active Christianity, are the US, Brazil, and China.

One thing that’s underreported and under-recognized is the role of women in these churches. A lot of these new immigrant churches have a male-female pastoral team, and much of the traditional spirit life of Africa has been carried by women. There are women right at the core of it, and throughout Christianity there are mostly women worshipping. So we see maybe the big man, you know, the big male pastor, but next to him, behind him, underneath, around him are women that make the wheels turn, and so we must recognize that these churches are women’s movements.

Immigrant religion today is coming here to evangelize us and then to go back out to evangelize where they’re from, so it is two-way traffic, so a lot of people come to the US and then migrate back, so the church founding and the evangelization is part of globalization. It’s going in both directions, so these immigrants might stay here today but be back in their home countries tomorrow, so we must look at it as a two-way street. It’s not a one-way “I’m going to evangelize America.“

They think we’re morally weak.

Yes, but, again that’s a Christian trope. You know, if there’s not something immoral or bad or evil or weak that you’re trying to fix, you don’t have a reason to exist. Remember the competition. Think of the TV evangelists in the US. They’re always pointing fingers at the mainline churches as being bad or evil or wrong or full of Satan. Without that, you don’t have a reason to try to fix something.

newpost05-reversemissionariesIn what sense is Christian theology changing because of these immigrant groups?

One thing is these churches emphasis holiness and purity. This comes out of their African traditional need for purity and that is not particularly an emphasis of most mainstream churches, personal purity. Another difference in theology is if you come from a culture that has an active life of sacrifice, like you sacrifice a chicken and sprinkle the blood around, the idea that Jesus is a sacrifice for your sins makes a lot of sense, but for North Americans who are so far away from their rural roots and from those cultural norms, the idea of Jesus as a sacrifice is a lot less relevant to your typical Euro-North American than to the immigrant churches. So we see a reaffirmation of some traditional Christian views and a strengthening of trends that maybe died down or died out in American Christianity.

Are these changes taking hold?

Yeah. Especially one thing that’s changing, it’s not just new immigrant churches, is the non-Western percentage of mainstream denominations are changing. The second highest ranking [Anglican] bishop in the world below the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, is named John Sentamu. He’s a Ugandan, and his brother is the founder of a big, huge Pentecostal church in Uganda. Now you know then African culture is right there in the mainstream heart of Anglicans worldwide, which are over half African now. So you see the change in theology that causes fighting, it’s not some African causing change in the Church, it’s when people come and they’re part of Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, or whatever, and they’re saying, “Wait a minute, you folks are wrong. We’re interpreting the Bible correctly.” It’s the fighting within those churches that’s also very interesting.

Who is going to prevail?

Well, it depends on whether you believe that numbers win or you believe the historical cycle—that the child of an evangelical is a liberal, the child of a liberal is a secularist, and the child of a secularist becomes an evangelical. There’s a life cycle. Today’s conservative begets tomorrow’s moderate and so on.

What about the sense of American churches that this is their territory, the sense of competition?

I think the most negative reaction one sees to African churches is from African Americans, because this is their territory that’s being impinged on. The African pastor might start in a poor urban neighborhood where the African-American church has been dominant, so one hears about all kinds of tensions in the grass roots, in the urban areas, between Africans and African Americans.

Are they just competitive for business, or is that it that they’re theologically different, or both?

There’s a theological compatibility, but the immigrant mentality is one of push forward, get educated, progress, and they’re entering neighborhoods that have got generations of poor people who haven’t been able to climb out of their poverty. Usually immigrants are on their way up, and an African immigrant might look at an African American and say, “Why haven’t you moved out of that ghetto after three generations?” And an African American says, “Yeah, but you haven’t experienced the racism we’ve experienced.” So you see you get Africans coming in with no racial chip on their shoulder, living alongside and competing with African Americans who have the weight of their communal history which in some respects is dragging them down, and there’s tension right on the ground.

And what about the prosperity gospel?

Well, you know, the prosperity gospel is really easy to criticize by middle-class Americans who have a house, and a car, and a job. I don’t criticize the prosperity gospel because I recognize how privileged I am, but often groups who are trying to pull themselves up economically have a kind of prosperity gospel. What’s offensive about it to North Americans is when they see pastors in designer suits driving Mercedes and their poor parishioners have given them money. That’s what bothers North Americans. We’re individualists. We think individuals ought to earn what they get, but if you have a more communal mentality, you see the leader representing your group, and of course you want your group to be led by someone in a nice suit with a good car.

Inner-City Funeral Director

 

LUCKY SEVERSON, correspondent: The middle-aged woman cleaning up the big motorcycle is Charlene Wilson-Doffoney who’s on her way to work at her funeral home in South Philly. She says she took up cycling to get away from the dying. Philadelphia may be best known as the City of Brotherly Love, but Charlene says her neighborhood has also been called “Killadelphia” because there have been so many murders, so many young victims of drive-bys, gang warfare, drug deals gone bad, and simple disagreements—333 killings overall in 2008.

CHARLENE WILSON-DOFFONEY: A little boy got shot.

SEVERSON: A little boy got shot right here?

WILSON-DOFFONEY: Well, yeah. This park here, it is named after a young man who got killed as well.

SEVERSON: Did you bury him?

WILSON-DOFFONEY: We did him. We did Hanna. I just passed his family home around the corner.

SEVERSON: Why do you do this? It just seems to be so sad to do this.

WILSON-DOFFONEY: Well, I am a caregiver to their family. I watch over their children that passed away. My job is to protect them.

SEVERSON: She knew a lot of the victims whose names are on the mural. She buried a number of them. She buried her brother-in-law who was murdered recently. She buried the three sons of a close friend. She’s buried so many gun-shot victims she tore up her own gun permit. One funeral she recalls in particular.

WILSON-DOFFONEY: I remember breaking down because I was tired of seeing young boys get killed, and you tell the young men, they don’t get it, that we tired. They just don’t know the pressure for a mother. When I see that mother who lost her son I wish I could bring him back. I wish I could bring him back to her. I wish that they got a better chance.

SEVERSON: Police say fourteen-year-old Tykeem Law was shot by an eighteen-year-old who was angry because Tykeem didn’t move his bicycle out of the way fast enough.

(speaking to Wilson-Doffoney): You like to have these young men be there while you are preparing the body and serving as pall bearers.

Charlene Wilson-Doffoney, a funeral director in PhiladephiaWILSON-DOFFONEY: Yes. I don’t think they know it’s real. They think they get back up, and I remember somebody dying near the funeral home, like man “get up, get up.” Well, they’re not going to be back up. They don’t get back up.

SEVERSON: Charlene says she got the call to be an undertaker when she was 23 and a single mom with a very dim future. Although it’s been a difficult struggle, she now owns her own funeral parlor. She is a woman of abiding faith, but rather than preach to kids in the hood, she tries to lead by example.

WILSON-DOFFONEY: Because I am a believer. My job is to witness. Every day I walk I am a witness as you get a chance to tell somebody that they can make it. The thing for me in South Philadelphia is to let young people know if I can do it, you can, too.

SEVERSON: Even in the worst of the neighborhoods, kids treat Charlene with respect, partly because they know that she will treat them with respect in death and she will look after their moms. None of these young men grew up with a father in the home. Some have been in prison. Some have dealt drugs. All have a friend or relative who has been murdered.

(speaking to group of young men): What do you want to be in 10 years? Where do you think you are going to be?

"I want to be alive."TROY: I want to be alive.

SEVERSON: A lawyer?

TROY: Alive.

SEVERSON: So you mean you get up a lot of times and say I hope I live through the day?

GROUP OF YOUNG MEN: Yes.

TROY: You don’t know what’s going to happen to you, because half the people around here just shoot at whoever, daytime, nighttime, it don’t matter when they do it, and you don’t know when you’re going to be hit or you’re not going to be hit.

KEVIN: Any day could be your day. I see people walk by me, they get up two blocks away you see them laying out there bleeding.

WILSON-DOFFONEY: I think it goes by what you see. When I see my young boys on a corner, they want to see better but nobody takes them anywhere to see anything else.

"Stop the Violence"SEVERSON (speaking to group of young men): Do you have a responsibility with these kids who are 15 and 14 that Charlene is burying? Do you try to talk to them, or what do you say to them?

BYIEME: It is just like talking to a brick wall. You can talk but they ain’t going to listen.

WILSON-DOFFONEY: They plan for their funeral. They know. Some people do come to me and say Miss Charlene, you got me? And I am like yeah, I got you.

KEVIN: A lot of them say when I get buried I want to have this on, I want to have that on. They say at my funeral I’m going to have all the girls there.

WILSON-DOFFONEY: And you are like is there anything I can do? Can I turn you around a different way or anything, and they know that they are going to go down.

SEVERSON: The kids themselves agree that too often their problems begin at home.

NEIL: Most of these parents just run around and worry about themselves now. They didn’t want to have kids and then once they have the kid, they just let him go. They had these kids to get on welfare. They ended up with the easy way out.

WILSON-DOFFONEY: I get a chance to come into the prison a lot, and I see all them black men. Who is there for the black boy? The fathers that you see are in jail, and the kids are raising their selves, and the mothers, they got their own issues going on—not having the man around, having to provide, and they don’t have jobs.

SEVERSON: Reverend Edward Winslow ministers to the young people in the neighborhood. He says parents and their kids have stopped coming to church, so it’s difficult to reach them.

REVEREND EDWARD WINSLOW: And where we would be able to teach the kids about character building, we don’t do it anymore because they are not there anymore.

SEVERSON: Charlene says there is plenty of blame to go around—broken families, no jobs, no role models, and ministers who are missing in action.

WILSON-DOFFONEY: You have a lot of ministers today who don’t care. They don’t evangelize anymore. They are not out to save souls. They don’t care about the loss as long as it doesn’t affect them.

SEVERSON: Reverend Winslow cares about these kids, but too often he gets to know them after it’s too late.

REVEREND WINSLOW: I see more now lately in the end than in the beginning or in the middle, and that’s a sad thing. That’s what keeps this place running, the death. That’s her business, it is true, but the point is how do we get to them before that?

WILSON-DOFFONEY (speaking to police): I think the other day there was a shooting.

SEVERSON: The police, the grieving moms, the kids—they all know Charlene, but not always the way she wants them to know her.

WILSON-DOFFONEY: I know where I’ve been, and if it worked for me, the little girl from North Philly that didn’t know how she was going to make it, it will work for them, and I am just hurt to see the kids that don’t know that it works.

SEVERSON: The crime rate in South Philly has been going down. The mayor says it’s because there are more police on the streets and more citizen involvement. The business of burying is less brisk than it once was. So Charlene can spend more time doing what she would rather be doing.

For Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly I’m Lucky Severson in Philadelphia.

Judaism: A Way of Being

BOOK REVIEW
Seeing Judaism

by Juliana Ochs

Click here to view a gallery of paintings by David Gelernter.

At the core of personal trauma there is often a loss of faith in life’s order and stability. When faced with a crisis, some people turn to religion. Others turn to artistic expression. David Gelernter turned to both, and his new book Judaism: A Way of Being (Yale University Press, 2009) displays a unique entwining of the two.

Gelernter is a professor of computer science at Yale University whose scientific mind has long looked toward the future, some say predicted it. The “tuple spaces” paradigm for parallel distributed computing that he introduced in the 1980s became the basis of many computer communication and programming systems. His book Mirror Worlds (Oxford University Press, 1991) is said to have foreseen the Internet and inspired the programming language Java.

In June 1993, while going through a stack of mail in his Yale office, Gelernter opened a package he believed was a doctoral dissertation. Smoke billowed out and the package exploded. It was a mail bomb sent by Ted Kaczynski, the man the FBI dubbed the Unabomber, and it permanently damaged Gelernter’s right hand and eye.

Gelernter recovered from his injuries but emerged an impassioned conservative critic of American life and politics. In recent years, he has traced America’s moral decline to a class of intellectuals he says came to the fore as the country’s new elite in the 1960s, hijacked cultural discourse, and corrupted social values.

bookcover3-gelernterIf the bombing prompted political polemic, it also drew Gelernter closer to religion. This is not to say he was new to Judaism. David Hillel Gelernter, the grandson of a rabbi, grew up a Reform Jew. Before he decided on computer science he received a master’s degree in Hebrew Bible. The Orthodox Judaism he has turned to more recently, however, and that he celebrates in his new book is the one he sees as pure and authentic, the kind of religion capable of drawing the world back into secure order. It is Judaism without the complexity introduced by gender equality and other modern revolutions. Gelernter presents himself as a local guide to the faith, offering to lead Jewish and non-Jewish readers alike into what he calls “the inner courtyard” of Judaism to see what cannot be seen from the outside. His book, he claims, is “Judaism at full strength, straight up; no water, no soda, aged in oak for three thousand years.”

For Gelernter, to understand Judaism you must see it. Far from being allergic to images, Judaism is a religious tradition passionate about the beauty and aesthetics of life. The Hebrew Bible is itself pictorial, with stories and lessons conveyed through vivid imagery, from the dove with an olive branch in its beak to the Burning Bush. “Judaism,” Gelernter writes, “tells Jews what is right—and adorns the bare thread of human life with sanctity, jewel-by-jewel, until a Jewish life glows with soft color: warm amber and silver, cool fragrant yellow and glowing orange and translucent purple-rose.”

Gelernter is an artist, after all, and considers painting the oldest strand of his personal history. He took art lessons as a child, and as a teenager living on Long Island traveled regularly to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in Manhattan to copy Degas in pencil and charcoal. When he lost function in his right hand after the bombing, what worried him most was his ability to continue painting. Slowly, Gelernter learned to use his left hand the way he once used his right, and so painting has remained central to his identity and intellect.

Images are also central to his book, structured around four “image-themes” (separation, veil, perfect asymmetry, and inward pilgrimage) that outline the codes and aesthetics of what Gelernter says is a “common Judaism.” “My basic themes take the form of images,” he explains, “because Judaism is less a system of belief than a way of living, a particular texture of time.” Each theme conveys one central facet of Judaism and also serves as a microcosm of the religion as a whole.

The idea of separation refers to man’s struggle to transcend nature and create himself in God’s image. Many biblical images convey the essence of separation, such as the parting of the Red Sea, the waters forced apart at Creation, and the Torah scroll held wide and open in front of a synagogue congregation (a ritual called hagba). Separation, Gelernter explains, guides halakha, the set of Jewish laws that dictate religious practices and beliefs, as well as numerous aspects of daily life. Keeping kosher and setting the Sabbath apart from the work week as a day of rest are acts of separation that Jews are obliged to live by. These practices, says Gelernter, turn everyday life into a continuous process of sanctification.

The image-theme he calls “veil” conveys the principle that while one cannot see or know God, one can comprehend God’s inconceivablessness, symbolized by a sacred veil. Images of the veil in Judaism include Moses veiling his face at Mount Sinai after meeting with God, a prayer shawl or tallit draped over a person at prayer, the curtain hanging in front of the Holy Ark in a synagogue, and the mezuzah that encloses a small scroll of biblical text. These images, Gelernter suggests, can help us grasp the deeper and more elusive question of how man can engage with a transcendent, ineffable God.

There are those who will disagree with many of the views that run through Gelernter’s book, such as his claims that Judaism is the most important intellectual development in Western history; that God has withdrawn from the modern world; that Reform and Conservative Judaism do not work; and that the purpose of life is to marry and rear a family. In a chapter on his third theme, “perfect asymmetry,” on the importance of marriage and the family, Gelernter is not subtle about his social critique. He argues that the feminist effort for male and female equality “is an act of aggression against both sanctity and humanity.”

Aspects of the text are indeed narrow and partial, but the image-themes still allow for more expansive thinking. With the theme of “inward pilgrimage” Gelernter broaches the problem of how to reconcile a just God with the reality of a cruel world. Judaism tells us that lo bashamayim hi, “the Torah is not in heaven”; it must be interpreted and applied on earth. According to Gelernter, interrogation of the world around us and inner doubt are equal parts of the Jewish journey.

Eight glossy reproductions of paintings by Gelernter are tucked inside the book, products of his own journey. They are not illustrations of the image-themes, but rather colorful and delicate ornamentations of Jewish text, coming out of a tradition of illuminated manuscripts. Gelernter works with acrylic, collage, and gold leaf. Butterflies are a recurring motif. In one painting, the Hebrew phrase Ha’Mavdil bein kodesh l’chol, “Who separates between the sacred and the ordinary,” is enhanced with orange and magenta and bejeweled with a golden butterfly that helps form one of the letters. Marking the transition between sacred and secular time, this blessing is recited while holding a flickering candle at the end of the Sabbath. Gelernter’s artwork sanctifies the blessing, just as the thematic image of separation sanctifies life.

The indigo, cerulean, and crimson butterflies embedded in his paintings exemplify the delight that, for Gelernter, gives meaning to religious life. “Judaism is above all a religion of joy,” he asserts repeatedly throughout the book. At the center of “the vast, intricate, beautiful palace that is Judaism,” he writes, is “a thread of ecstasy…the whole word, space and time and suffering and all, pulled together by triumphant jubilation.”

The Judaism Gelernter lays out in Judaism may not be triumphant for everyone. While he claims to present the “whole” of Jewish life, some may find that a Judaism devoid of contemporary innovations lacks the interpretive essence so central to the religion. But Gelernter’s idea of image-themes and his own paintings succeed in areas where his text might not. They give permission to those who practice Judaism and those who study it to seek meaning and connection to the tradition not only through text but also through images, aesthetics, the senses, and the soft “glow” of color.

Juliana Ochs has written most recently for Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly on “Painting a Jewish Memory Book” and “The Story of the Hebrew Book.”

Paintings by David Gelernter:

Religious Realism and New Realities

by Robin W. Lovin

One important thing that religion brings to politics is a certain kind of realism about human nature and human possibilities.

In private life, we all exaggerate our own virtues and expect too much from our own plans. Faith helps us to keep our pride in check, and we can depend on friends and family to do it if our faith falls short.

religiousrealism_obama4

Photo: White House (Pete Souza)

Political leaders, whatever their personal piety may be, find this realism harder to achieve. Americans are idealists. Usually they are less realistic than their leaders and more likely to encourage overreaching than to restrain it. President Obama seems to have maintained a resolute realism during his first year in office. The question is whether he can communicate it to people who elected him for the audacity of hope.

Liberals are generally less realistic than conservatives in domestic politics. They put more stock in well-devised plans, and they are more confident of their ability to coalesce general dissatisfaction with the present situation into support for a specific policy. President Obama’s strategy for health care reform has thus been remarkable for its realistic self-restraint. He has been willing to let the plan take a form crafted by compromise, and he has the patience to see reform as the work of decades, rather than a single legislative session. A similar realism seems to guide his approach to the environment and energy. The victories have been limited, the compromises have been numerous, and those who hoped for greater justice in health care and a more sustainable environmental policy have been the most disappointed. But a realist knows there is no perfect plan and will settle for modest gains that open the way to further negotiations and future improvements.

The most impressive achievements of liberal realism have been in foreign policy. The Marshall Plan, Truman’s response to the Berlin blockade, and Kennedy’s handling of the Cuban missile crisis established a pattern of forcefulness, restraint, and, above all, patience that kept the Cold War on a trajectory that left the United States the dominant global power without requiring the defeat of the enemy or igniting a nuclear holocaust. President Obama’s commitment to that legacy is apparent in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, which summarized the key points of realistic world politics: In a world where we must assume the persistence of evil, peace and justice sometimes require the deployment of force. The leaders who make those decisions must be accountable not only to their own convictions, but to the historic standards of just war and the requirements of international law.

What President Obama also warned us is that we do not yet know what this legacy of successful realism means in a post-Cold War world where the greatest threat to security is international terrorism and humanitarian crises are sparked by regimes whose nationalist or religious aims know no realistic political limits. Must we question our own righteousness so much that we let genocide continue unchecked? Does restraint require us to respect the sovereignty of countries that become havens for terrorists? The realistic balance between strategic interests and international law and the fine line that separates forceful diplomacy from the diplomatic use of force have not yet been established for these new realities.

What we can expect, if our leaders continue to be realistic, is an extended period of testing, a time in which we will have to deal with the aftermath of our mistakes as well as engage in a rigorous evaluation of apparent successes. A troop surge may be a realistic answer to insurgency that builds support for a friendly government in Kabul. Or it may not be. Either way, we will have to deal with the outcomes of today’s policy while figuring out a realistic response to the unprecedented situations that will follow when we leave Iraq and Afghanistan. Over time, if we are both skillful and lucky, this will evolve into a new kind of realism that will enable us to maintain our interests with integrity until the war on terrorism changes into some other kind of threat, just as the Cold War did. We may want a more decisive victory or a more definitive justice, but a wise leader will not expect more than that, nor promise it.

The question, then, is whether President Obama’s realistic leadership can survive the impatient American idealism that brought him into office. So far, his realist credentials seem secure, in both domestic and foreign policy. But if the people are not as patient and self-critical as he is, they will start to hope for someone who will lead them into the future with more certainty and less consultation. A religious realism about political life suggests that is one hope we should be audacious enough to resist.

Robin W. Lovin is the Cary M. Maguire University Professor of Ethics at Southern Methodist University.

Look Ahead 2010

Over the last few weeks, we have been asking religious leaders, scholars, and others to tell us the  issues and topics they will be watching closely in the coming year. Their answers give us a glimpse of what to look for in 2010.
You may also view more interviews in our Look Ahead 2010 Web Exclusive.

Look Ahead 2010 Roundtable

BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: Welcome. I am Bob Abernethy. It’s good to have you with us. We take our look ahead now to the stories we expect to cover in the new year with the help of Jason Byassee of the Duke University Divinity School, where he directs its Faith and Leadership Project; E. J. Dionne of the Brookings Institution, the Washington Post, and Georgetown University; and with Kim Lawton, managing editor of this program. Welcome to you all. Jason, we have a recession. What’s going to happen to it, do you think, and what effect has it had and will it have on the churches, the denominations, the charities—all those people that you cover?

JAYSON BYASSEE, Duke Divinity School: I am struck by how you can’t have a conversation with a religious leader now without talking about what the financial downturn means for their organizations. This is across the board, from left to right, whatever position one has. What this means is that people are laying people off. They are cutting back on ministries. I wonder if this isn’t the story upcoming. Lots of our denominational infrastructures were built at a time when you could assume money would keep coming in. Well, it’s not now, and how do you do more with less? Nobody is quite sure how to do that.

KIM LAWTON, managing editor, Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly: Talking about doing more with less, the recession is also having a terrible impact on the people in the pews of all of these religious congregations, the people that these ministries serve. These people are hurting more than ever. They need help. They need resources. They go to the religious institutions, who are struggling. So it’s a real problem.

E.J. DIONNE, Brookings Institution: The entire not-for-profit sector has been hurt. Now, there is some hopeful evidence that sometimes some people actually step up and give a little more when they can to groups helping the very poor, because they have an even better sense than usual about “there but for the grace of God go I”—that possibility. The economy is going to be critical to so much of what happens this year. It’s going to be crucial politically to what happens in the 2010 elections. You can almost predict on a straight line if the economy feels like it’s getting substantially better by the midyear, President Obama and the Democrats are probably going to do better; if it feels like it’s not getting better it will be a large problem for them. That’ll have an effect on how we discuss all kinds of questions, including moral and religious questions, in the course of the year.

ABERNETHY: Jason, do you see people going into the ministry, or not going into the ministry, because of the recession? Do you see seminaries closing, churches closing?

jason-byassee2

Jayson Byassee

BYASSEE: The standard assumption is that when the economy is bad people go to school, because work is not good. The problem with that is, if you can’t sell your house then it’s pretty hard to move across the country and go to school. Lots of seminaries are trying to do more online education. I expect more of that to come. But there is enormous pressure, especially on small seminaries that aren’t connected to a big university, and dire predictions about how many of those may close in the coming years. That might not seem like a big thing until you realize, okay, where my minister was trained means everything for what I’m going to hear about God. This has an outsize ripple effect on institutions across the board and religion in this country, I think.

ABERNETHY: E.J., it is an election year again. What do you see as a result of that that will be of particular importance to believers?

DIONNE: I think, first of all, we may have the discussion on morality and the economy that was, I think, a little bit delayed, that people were trying to come to terms with what the downturn meant. I think there is going to be now a real look back and look forward as to why did we get into this mess—how much of it were practical problems, how much of it were about people not taking responsibilities seriously that they should have—the stewards of our economy, the people with a strong position in our economy. I think that debate will very much affect the elections. I also think we’re going to have a kind of after-effect of our big health care debate. I think what you saw among religious groups, particularly Christian religious groups, were a real difference between those who laid the heaviest stress on the moral imperative to getting everyone, or as many people as possible, covered through insurance, versus those who felt that the major emphasis on whether abortion is or is not funded and how in this health care debate. I think that’s going to have a continuing effect, because I think there is this running dialogue, certainly in the Catholic Church that I’m part of, but I think in all of our traditions, between those who believe the central emphasis of our religious group should be on a certain relatively narrow—though they would say very important—list of moral questions: abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research versus those who say that the emphasis should be on a much broader agenda having to do with social justice and how we organize our lives together in the economy. I think that discussion is going to very alive, made all the more so by the controversy of an election year.

LAWTON: It’s going to be interesting to see how involved faith-based activists get in these midterm elections. Certainly Barack Obama mobilized a very active campaign effort among especially moderate and liberal faith-based individuals. There was activity on the religious right as well against him. But will a Democratic candidate at the state level be able to get that same sense of energy? Will they come out? Meanwhile, the religious right is still really trying to figure out who they are, who’s going to lead them, and what they’re going to do. The Republicans are trying to figure out what do we do with this core of our party? So it will be fascinating to watch all of that unfold in the coming months.

DIONNE: Although I do think there’s one interesting thing that’s happened on the right, at least in the last year, which is I think the religious conservative voice has been less powerful than the voice of, whatever you want to call it, this Tea Party movement. There seems to have been a shift within the right from an emphasis on moral questions that the religious conservatives were focused on to this very strong anti-government strain. Now, obviously, there are overlaps on the conservative side, but I think this is a different sort of direction that we’ve seen on the right side of politics.

LAWTON: But we’ve seen, especially with the health care debate last year and the role abortion played within that debate, those social issues are still very important to a lot of people and will still come up, I think, in the midterm elections.

BYASSEE: Much more quietly, along with that I am struck by how many dozens of churches in my area can’t afford a minister any more because of health care being so expensive, and yet the left has somehow not managed to have the kind of energy in favor of expanding health coverage by any stretch that the right has managed to have against it, it seems to me, because of this confluence of leadership in opposition.

ABERNETHY: Kim, what do you see coming about the all the issues around gay marriage and what jobs homosexuals can have in the churches?

kim-lawton2

Kim Lawton

LAWTON: This is going to be a very important year within the worldwide Anglican Communion. The US Episcopal Church, which is the branch here of the worldwide Anglican Communion, has moved forward. The Los Angeles diocese has elected an assistant bishop who is a lesbian. The worldwide community had asked the US church please don‘t move forward on this. She would be the second one. Her election needs to be confirmed within the next few months before she would be officially installed in May, so that’s still coming up. But the world is watching in the Anglican Communion, and many people are not happy about this, so this is going to be really important. We’ve been talking for years about is the Anglican Communion going to hold together? I think this year could be very crucial on that question.

BYASSEE: It seems like the first election, you could make space for it being a naïve move, or a misstep move, if you were in opposition. A second one, you can’t make that claim any more. The striking thing to me about this election is not so much that Mary Glasspool is a lesbian, but do you really need three Episcopal bishops in Los Angeles? Again, is it a structure set up for a time when the money was flush, and now does it make sense any more?

DIONNE: I’ve thought about this the last couple of years, where we have focused so much of the debate on the issue of gays and lesbians. It strikes me that, within the Christian Church for 100-150 years there have been episodes of modernity confronting tradition and that, right now, the center of that debate is around issues related to gay rights. But when you listen to some of the conversation—why people are for or against gay rights—it’s really part of this much deeper struggle that’s been going on within Christianity for a long time of how much its task is to resist modernity versus how much of its task is to respond to modernity, if you will, in a more dialectical way, with some opposition but also embracing some of what modernity has to give us. I think this episode is just—there is a particular passion behind this, because this is obviously a major step in this long argument.

LAWTON: Another interesting aspect to this particular debate, when you are talking about the Anglican Communion, is the demographic changes of Christianity around the world. So you have Christians in Africa and Asia who have the numbers. There’s millions of Christians in Uganda and Rwanda and Sudan. These tend to be more conservative on some of these issues—much more conservative, especially on the issue of homosexuality, and where their place is in the international Christian family is very much up for grabs in this particular debate.

DIONNE: Indeed, Christianity is growing. I think it’s a great shock for people to realize that there are many more Anglicans in Africa than there are Episcopalians in the United States.

BYASSEE: There’s twice as many Anglicans in Sudan as there are in the United States—just one big country in Africa. I don’t think we’re anywhere near catching up with what this means, not only on social issues but on doctrine, worship life, and all the rest. What’s it going to mean, not very long from now, that Christianity is essentially an African religion and not a Western one, not a North American or European one?

DIONNE: You’re seeing that, to some degree, in the debate about global warming. I do think the environment is another area where we’re going to see continuing activism and debate within the churches. The presence of a very strong group of Third World Christians in all of the denominations is going to put the focus not simply on the issue of reducing carbon in the atmosphere, but also on what kind of compensation Third World countries will get, which became a very critical issue in the discussions in Copenhagen.

ABERNETHY: Let me move to another point, Kim especially. There is an investigation going on, or a review, or whatever is the right term for it, of Catholic nuns in this country by the Vatican. Where is that going, and when will we know what comes of it?

LAWTON: The Vatican says that it wants to look into the quality of life for US sisters. That has created a huge amount of consternation here in the US, as there are questionnaires that have been sent to different communities of sisters with a lot of questions. Many of them feel like we’re not going to answer some of these. So that’s going to be moving forward throughout this year, as that sort of give-and-take moves forward. Do they answer these questions? What do they say? How do they say it? What’s really behind all of these questions in the first place? That’s what a lot of people, not just among nuns but across the Catholic community, want to know. What’s really behind this study, this investigation?

ej-dionne

E. J. Dionne

DIONNE: There’s a great danger here. I think this could prove a very, very divisive move inside the church. There is enormous affection toward nuns among people who are Catholics. Many of us owe enormous debts to them for our educations and for so many other things they did. They are among the most activist—that’s a bad term in the eyes of some conservatives—as in giving comfort to the poor, helping the sick, doing all the things the Gospel says we should do. And so they risk, I think, a real backlash, if they don’t handle this very carefully. I think they are already confronting it, to some degree. They’ve got to be very careful with the nuns. I’ve got some nuns that sent that message.

BYASSEE: It is an interesting question. If you have an enormously radical form of life, based on what Jesus said we should do, can you be liberal doctrinally? It sounds like the answer may be no, right? That’s a very risky answer…

DIONNE: The answer from the Vatican may be no. It’s not clear to me that there is, first of all, any consistent sort of liberal doctrinal positions, and to the extent that they are somewhat more liberal—for example, in asserting that perhaps there is a bigger role for women to play in the authority structure of the church—it shouldn’t surprise that perhaps that the nuns, who have taken so much responsibility for helping run the church, just might have a view like that.

BYASSEE: My wife, who is a pastor, would “Amen” your claim. I think that’s right.

ABERNETHY: Jason, you study and help identify future leaders in the churches. What do you see? Some of the familiar old names are no longer so familiar. Oral Roberts died. Where is it going? Who do you see out there who’s going to succeed the people we used to hear about so intensively with the religious right?

BYASSEE: One thing that interests me is that there’s less of an emphasis, if you’re a younger evangelical leader, on starting a parachurch ministry like Billy Graham did, and more of an emphasis on being a pastor. I’m not exactly sure why this shift has happened, but if you’re a young pastor, you’re charismatic, what you want to do is plant a church usually and grow it big and have that be where your ministry is. So I see a lot of pastors of enormous churches—in places like Seattle and Grand Rapids—who have churches of 20-30,000 people. You don’t hear about them in the national news yet. You don’t hear Rob Bell’s name. You don’t hear Mark Driscoll’s name. You’re hearing Tim Keller’s name in Manhattan more because he’s writing books that have gotten attention. Same with Rob Bell. But these are pastors who are sort of a half-generation after Rick Warren, or Bill Hybels at Willow Creek, who are going to have an enormous impact, because if you want anyone to catch a religious allusion in politics in 20-30 years, it’s likely to be because one of these pastors helped teach a congregation to hear the Scriptures, right? If people are going to be serving the poor, it’s going to be because churches like this—like Adam Hamilton’s church in Kansas City, Church of the Resurrection—encourage people to do that and made space and structure for them to do it. So I think that’s an enormous shift.

LAWTON: One thing I’m watching is, with some of the folks you just referred to that already have these big megachurches, what happens when those leaders—people like Rick Warren at Saddleback Church, people like Bill Hybels in Willow Creek, built these giant congregations—what happens when they retire, though? What happens to those congregations? It’s really hard to step in to a congregation that’s already in process. That’s something I’m really going to be looking at.

ABERNETHY: I want to hear, Jason, what you have to say, and E.J.—each of you—about kind of the state of religious life and of organized religion in this country today. How is it going? Is secularism pushing it aside? What’s happening?

BYASSEE: It does seem to me that the new atheist books gave a certain permission to people to claim that they are not religious, that you don’t have to have the default be, oh yeah, I’m a Christian, even though I don’t do anything. Now it can be no, I’m not religious, and that seems to be more socially okay. Of course, being biased people in religious institutions—I spend all my time with religious leaders for whom things are very vibrant, right—but I think we shouldn’t overlook the fact that there are a whole lot of people who aren’t engaged by the church and its ministries and would much rather they go away, especially at election time.

ABERNETHY: Sixteen percent, I think, identify themselves as having no affiliation. E.J., what do you see? How is the tide running?

DIONNE: I wrote a column some years ago that ran under the headline, which I openly took from The New Republic. The headline was “God Bless Atheists.” I think one of the things about this atheist challenge that’s actually good for believers and good for Christians is that it has created a debate on the fundamentals. I don’t mean by that fundamentalists; I just mean the fundamental tenets of does God exist? How do you know God exists? What is the relationship between God and humankind? These debates have gone on for centuries. A lot of what the new atheists say are new versions of very old arguments that have been taking place. I think it’s far better to surface these arguments than to have people either pretend to believe when they don’t, or have believers not have to confront really core challenges to belief itself. And so, at bottom, if you can say this whole debate may be providential.

LAWTON: I think we need to be careful, too, when you look at some of these numbers. A lot of those people who are unaffiliated—it doesn’t mean that they’re not religious or spiritual in some way. They’re just not necessarily associating themselves with a particular organization or institution.

BYASSEE: It does seem important that these numbers bump when there is an election that people are unhappy about. It seems like there’s been some behavior from religious people that they’re displeased by, so it seems like the 2004 election, in particular, got a bunch of people book contracts to write about how bad God is.

ABERNETHY: Kim, there are some Supreme Court decisions coming down of some interest.

LAWTON: I think this coming year will see some interesting decisions about the conflict between religion and the public square. One is the Mojave cross. Can there be giant crosses in public property? Another one that I find particularly interesting is that the Supreme Court will be looking at a case with the Christian Legal Society and whether a law school can—the Christian Legal Society has a student club and they also believe that gays should not be in their leadership or their voting members, because that’s part of their religious belief. Well, the law school where they were operating said, well, if you believe that, you can’t be part of an official student group, because we don’t discriminate based on sexual orientation. So you have this clash of religious values. On the one hand, you have people who want to exercise their religious beliefs. And then you have people who say this is a matter of human rights or civil rights. Then those start clashing. Who trumps whom? So that’ll be interesting.

DIONNE: That’s a hugely important and really fascinating case, because you’re dealing with, in a sense, two conceptions of liberty, two conceptions of whether people should be free to be gay, and no organization on the campus should discriminate against them, and one can see how one gets to that conclusion, versus the right of the Christian Legal Society to constitute themselves as a group that has a very particular view on homosexuality. I think it could be a very bitter argument, precisely because each side is going to claim—they’re going to have competing goods, as each side will claim competing notions of freedom.

ABERNETHY: E.J., quickly, what are you going to be looking forward to particularly in the coming year? What stories?

DIONNE: I am going to be looking forward to a continuing moral debate about how we should organize this economy and what got us into the mess we’re in, in the first place. I think it’s going to be a real test of whether Barack Obama’s efforts to tamp down the culture wars have us get along a little better, whether that will succeed. Like everybody else, I’m going to be looking at how the test of these last two years—how the last two years are judged by the voters in November.

ABERNETHY: I’m sorry, but our time is almost up. Many thanks to Kim Lawton, to E.J. Dionne, and to Jason Byassee. Happy New Year to each of you and to our viewers.

Look Back 2009

 

KIM LAWTON, managing editor, Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly: President Barack Obama took office on a strong note of hope, and he signaled right off the bat that religion would have a role in his new administration.

Pres. OBAMA (in inaugural speech): We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers.

LAWTON: He expanded President Bush’s faith-based office and set up an unprecedented new advisory council of top religious leaders.  Many of his speeches included religious rhetoric, notably, his controversial visit to Notre Dame where he called for a new common ground on abortion, and his address while accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.  One of his most important speeches was at Cairo University in Egypt, where he pledged a new and improved relationship between the US and the Muslim world.

American Muslims praised the Cairo speech as a defining moment in their efforts to be considered part of the American mainstream. But the Muslim community also faced new challenges about extremism in its midst after the Fort Hood massacre–allegedly by a Muslim Army officer–and the arrests of five young American Muslim men who were suspected of going to Pakistan to join terrorists.

Religious activists waged aggressive campaigns for health care reform. But their efforts were hampered by a divisive battle over funding for coverage of abortions. Faith leaders actively lobbied on both sides of that question.

Lawmakers in Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and the District of Columbia all approved measures to legalize same-sex marriage. However, voters in Maine overturned that state’s law before it could take effect. The new laws put increasing pressure on religious denominations about whether their clergy should be allowed to marry gay couples.

Issues surrounding homosexuality continued to divide mainline Protestants. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted to allow local congregations to hire non-celibate gay and lesbian pastors. Opponents are now moving to split off and form their own denomination.  Delegates to the Episcopal Church’s General Convention voted to end their moratorium on gay bishops. The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles then elected a lesbian assistant bishop, whose election must still be confirmed by representatives of the entire Episcopal Church. The US actions heightened tensions within the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Meanwhile, Pope Benedict the Sixteenth made it easier for disaffected Anglicans to convert to Roman Catholicism. The Vatican announced new structures that will allow converting Anglicans to retain some of their distinctive beliefs and practices.  During a trip to the Holy Land, Benedict worked to mend fences with the Jewish community after he lifted the excommunication of a traditionalist bishop who denied the Holocaust.

The recession continued to take a toll on faith-based groups and the people they serve. Religious institutions were forced to slash their budgets and lay-off staff even as they were asked to do more to help people. The Jewish community also felt the fallout from the Bernie Madoff scandal with many Jewish organizations losing millions of dollars.

And, as the world faced a swine-flu epidemic, religious groups were among those struggling to respond.  Congregations made changes in their worship practices to help stop the spread of H1N1. New preventive policies were also instituted at this year’s hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca.