Religious Pluralism Coexisting with Religious Polarization?

Last night I got home from Bible Study to find a copy of American Grace lying in the entryway (graciously provided by the publisher, Simon and Schuster).  It is a massive book, that I think will have a profound impact on our conversations going forward.  I've just read a few pages in, but already recognize it to be an important contributor to the discussion of the religious situation we find in America today. 

The subtitle of the book -- "How Religion Divides and Unites Us"  -- is helpful, in that it reminds us that religion can have both effects.  Early in the first chapter the authors, Robert Putnam and David Campbell, note the change that occurred between 1960 and 2004.  In 1960 John F. Kennedy ran for President and garnered the vast majority of Roman Catholic votes, even though he differed from his church on a number of issues, and won a close election against the Protestant Richard Nixon, who garnered much of the Protestant vote (remember that Charles C. Morrison, the longtime Editor/Publisher of the Christian Century warned that a Kennedy victory would make the nation subservient to Rome).  In 2004, another Roman Catholic ran for President, and he too differed from his church -- especially on one particular issue -- and a majority of Catholics voted for his opponent, an Protestant Evangelical.  What had happened?  Well, back in 1960 denomination mattered, in 2004 it was a matter of how religious you actually were.  That is piety not affiliation.  

There is much to wrestle with, and I've only read about 19 pages -- but the authors raise the issue that will transfix us -- how do pluralism and polarization coexist?  They write:

The answer lies in the fact that, in America, religion is highly fluid.  The conditions producing that fluidity are a signal feature of the nation's constitutional infrastructure.  The very first words of the Bill of Rights guarantee that Congress -- later interpreted to mean any level of government -- will favor no particular religion, while ensuring that Americans can freely exercise their religious beliefs.  In the legal arena, debates over such matters as whether the Ten Commandments can be displayed on public property hinge on the interpretation of the Constitution's words.  More broadly, the absence of a a state-run religious monopoly combined with a wide sphere of religious liberty has produced an ideal environment for a thriving religious ecosystem.  Religions compete, adapt, and evolve as individual Americans freely move from one congregation to another, and even from one religion to another.  In the United States, it seems perfectly natural to refer to one's religion as a "preference" instead of as a fixed characteristic. (American Grace, p. 4).   

This fluidity allows for both the pluralism and the polarization.  And if we don't like one version we can move to another, and if none works, then we can join the increasing number of "nones," who form, according to the authors, the third largest grouping after Evangelicals and Catholics -- and growing.  And just as a reminder, the "nones" are highly present in the under 40 crowd.   That fact has religious and political implications -- in case you are wondering.     

American Grace -- Sightings

The United States is a rather paradoxical place.  We can combine quite easily attitudes and beliefs that seem at face value contradictory.  That seems to be the premise of a new book by Robert Putnam (of Bowling Alone fame) and David E. Campbell, called American Grace.  I caught the tail end of a conversation with the authors on NPR, and so the book has been on my radar, though I've yet to see it.  I have a copy of a Wall Street Journal Review on my desk, which was given to me by a church member who takes the Journal, and now Martin Marty picks up on the book as well.  Marty's focus is on the book's sub-title, which suggests that religion in America both divides (that seems so true today, doesn't it -- left right; Christian, Muslim, etc) and apparently unites us as well.  I'm going to let Marty start the discussion.

**************************************************************

Sightings  10/18/2010

American Grace 
- Martin E. Marty

American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us by Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell is the religion-and-culture blockbuster book this season. Awaited for several years, especially given Putnam’s prominence since he patented the concept captured in his earlier book Bowling Alone, it is being reviewed and written about as few publications in this field could ever hope to be. It would be futile for me to write a book review or detail the contents of the book. It is fat, full of good stories, and crammed with data: the authors seem never to have found an opinion poll they didn’t like, and readers will be well served by the array of graphs which can be put to work in ways that relate to their interests, prejudice, and hopes.

Instead of being comprehensive (at one-page length!), I will pick out one feature which inspires curiosity and debate. It relates to the sub-title. Reviewer Wilfred M. McClay in the Wall Street Journal lifted it up in these lines: “How Religion Divides and Unites Us.” He asks, “Which is it?” At the beginning of the book the authors write—and who could disagree?—that “Americans have become polarized along religious lines.” Near the end, they write that we are “not so divided after all,” and “America’s grace” overcomes religious divisions. Again, McClay writes, “How can both of these things be true?”

The data in American Grace and what one’s eyes and ears reveal and record if one pays attention to mass communication in all its forms or to the talk and manners of neighbors is that the answer to the question “Which is it?” is “Both.” “How can both of these things be true?” Not easily, says the voice of logic; relatively easily, answers the observer of experience. In this case as in so many others, the words of an underground philosopher of yore, Emmett Grogan, is as appropriate as it is frustrating: “Anything anybody can say about America is true.” I get flak when I quote that without disfavor, because professionals know that there are many kinds of “anythings,” “anybodys” and “truths,” and Grogan’s words sound cynical, defeating, and even nihilistic. Still. . . .

Perhaps we can reacquire a grip on reality by shifting the terms a bit and speaking of American life, especially American religious life, as being paradoxical, its signals often contradictory. The authors cite polls and opinion surveys by the scores to demonstrate this. For instance, “Americans” can be dogmatic about the exclusive paths to salvation which millions affirm but then also in many circumstances they talk as if they can issue free passes to heaven for almost everybody. 

Noting the paradoxes and contradictions does not end inquiry and conversation. It inspires them, and in many ways it is curiosity about them which motivates Putnam and Campbell. Even on the basic point we ask, are Americans highly religious or highly secular? Answer: Yes. Foreign visitors regularly seem baffled by the combination of these adjectives within the same people and among groups. I’ve tried to patent the term “religiosecular” to address this. The term is inelegant and may not fly, but it captures a feature observable in most American lives and sub-cultures. Hence, Putnam and Campbell will not run out of topics and work. So, still half-baffled, we can await something like an American Grace II. And it will again inspire curiosity and conversation, as does this landmark book.

References

Wilfred M. McClay, “For God and Country: Are Religious Believers Good Neighbors and Tolerant Citizens?” Wall Street Journal, October 8, 2010.

Robert Wright, “Religious Persuasion,” New York Times, October 8, 2010.

Martin E. Marty's biography, current projects, publications, and contact information can be found at www.illuminos.com.

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Turning the Page

I didn't watch the President's speech from the Oval Office the other evening.  I knew what he would say, and I knew I stood behind him (in some ways I feel like the last man standing in this regard).  I knew that he couldn't win for losing, that the Right would go after him because he had opposed the war in Iraq (as well as the surge) and the left would go after him because he didn't pull all the troops out the moment that he took office -- and now because he commended his predecessor -- not because they agreed on the war, but because the former President was a man who loved his country and is a patriot.  During President Bush's term I admit taking swings at him, but he's no longer President and to his credit he's pretty much stayed out of the way.

Although my ideology tends toward the left, my instincts have always been centrist.  I grew up Republican and voted for Gerald Ford in my first opportunity to vote.  I opposed entrance into both of the current wars -- writing to my Senators at the time to register my views -- but I also believe that its time to move on -- or as the President said, turn the page.  

One of the most disheartening thing about the current political climate is the fresh polarization.  We're witnessing a civil war within the Republican Party, which is being orchestrated by a far right fringe that is reminiscent of the John Birch Society, and whose voices are people like Rush, Sean, and Glenn.  It is important to note that the central influence on Glenn Beck is a shadowy character named Cleon Skousen, a Mormon who is so extreme that the LDS establishment distanced itself from him.  Skousen had connections with the John Birch Society and proffered conspiracy theories, many of which Beck now spreads, that the conservative establishment leaders like William Buckley feared would taint the conservative movement.   On the left, you have a dispirited Democratic Party unhappy with its President because he's made too many compromises in the hope that he could achieve his goals.  One of the fallacies that lies behind the supposed opposition to the recently passed health care bill is that 60% oppose health care reform.  Yes, many do, but many opposed this bill because it didn't go far enough.  So, we have extremes defining the political moment.

So, yes, it is time to turn the page, to get realistic so that we can solve important problems.  We'll not all agree.  But, let's stop the conspiracy theories of left and right, and get busy dealing with the issues that trouble the nation and the world.

I appreciate a piece written today by Allan Bevere.  Allan would agree with me that I'm much more liberal and more partisan than is he.  I'm not a political independent, I am a Democrat.  And yet we agree that its time to put aside the bickering and get to work.  Allan did listen to the President and offers an appreciative statement in that regard.  He's disheartened by the dismissals left and right of the President's statement, and then points us to another President who was criticized on all sides, but whom history has lifted up as a man of honor and wisdom -- Abraham Lincoln.  As the war ended, and the nation began turning its focus to rebuilding after the devastation of four years of war, Lincoln said:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Even then partisans didn't want to see this happen.  Conspirators moved to murder the President, and succeeded, removing the wise hand from the tiller.  Radicals from the north sought to punish the south in ways that led to a hundred years of segregation and resistance to change.  Let us heed the words of that wise President, whose life was cut short by violence, but whose voice still rings its clarion call to finish the work we're on.

On Not Polarizing Too Much: The Challenges of Prophetic Hospitality (Bruce Epperly)

As we near the Fourth of July holiday, a weekend in which citizens and residents of the United States of America will celebrate 234 years of independence, we also live at a time of increasing political and cultural polarization.  The political bases of the two parties have moved further and further from the center, so that less that civil statements and actions have come to the fore.  Bruce Epperly writes as a theological progressive and political liberal -- I note that both these terms are considered "unAmerican" in some circles."  Just today, I heard Jeff Sessions ask, with derision in his voice, whether Elena Kagan is a "progressive."  So, where are we as a nation when "birthers" and Tea Partiers seem to have taken hold of the imagination?  Bruce addresses some of these questions in what should prove to be one of his most provocative contributions to this blog.

****************************************

On Not Polarizing Too Much:

The Challenges of Prophetic Hospitality

Bruce G. Epperly

This week’s contribution includes affirmations, concerns, and confessions in responding to the growing polarization of our political and religious worlds. I begin with a concern: I believe that there are growing movements of political and religious polarization in our national life today. I believe these movements threaten the gains we have made as a nation in terms of health care, diversity, environmental protection, and human rights. These movements are motivated by a vision of reality that clearly and dramatically separates persons and policies in terms of good and evil, black and white, in and out, and us and them. When these movements draw on religious resources, they articulate a vision of God which is defined primarily in terms of judgment, power, exclusion, and destruction, rather than love, healing, and acceptance. In a world of diverse visions of reality and lifestyles, these groups believe that God is the ultimate divider, and calls us to do likewise. I will also make a confession: Many of the members of these movements of the religious and political “right” assume that people like me are the enemy, representing something that is destructive of true Christianity and the USA’s best interests.

While we progressives and liberals can be polarizing as well, seldom do progressive and liberal Christians or political activists threaten violence, insurrection, or question the patriotism of those with whom we disagree. I cannot recall among the many progressive and liberal diatribes against President Bush (which involved more than a little impolite conversation and words of demonization) calls for his assassination, the de-legitimization of his second election to the presidency, or the overthrow of the government. I suspect this was because in spite of their occasional vitriol, progressives and liberals are inherently big picture, inclusive, and global thinkers. I have concerns in terms of the growing influence of political and religious polarizing groups, especially in the context of their attempts to become the dominant voice of the Republican Party.

The question these groups raise for me as a progressive Christian is: “Can I be both prophetic and hospitable in relationship to the groups that judge my path as demonic, wrong, and hell-bent? Can I find ways to forcefully but lovingly respond to such groups and their belief systems?” I must confess these are challenges to me personally and spiritually, especially when I hear the comments of “birthers,” Tea Party members, libertarians, and Christian militia leaders. I am often angry, and am tempted to polarize in my own thoughts. I wrestle with how can I passionately advocate for what I believe is right for our nation and the future of our world, and what is congruent with my faith as a Christian – concern for global climate change, a greater sense of community and inclusion, welcome to strangers, health care for all persons, and affirmation of the interdependence of nations – and not demonize with whom I disagree, even when such persons see my views as demonic and dangerous to Christianity and the nation. How can I balance prophetic passion and justice-seeking with healing hospitality?

In her book Plan B, Anne Lamott admits that finding a way to envisage President Bush in a new light was her primary spiritual challenge. She passionately opposed everything about his leadership and policies, domestic and foreign. But, she came to realize that her hatred and demonizing of the President was hurting her spiritual growth and was standing in the way of following Jesus. She still continued to oppose President Bush’s policies, but began to visualize him as a child of God. This began a process of spiritual transformation that changed her life.

In many ways I feel like Anne Lamott when it comes to the rising polarizing political and religious right wing. As I seek to provide prophetic hospitality, my response is both theological and spiritual. First, as a process theologian, I believe that God influences every person to greater or lesser degree. The most vitriolic “birthers” are still touched by God; that is the meaning of omnipresence. While I suspect that they are turning their back on God’s call to a wider more creative and global vision of Shalom, God is still working within their lives, seeking wholeness and community. Second, all persons, even the most radical Tea Party persons, are God’s beloved children, deserving my basic human respect, despite the political gulf between us. Third, all persons, including myself, can experience transformation and conversion. From this perspective, my own political disagreements need to be framed as provocative alternatives, rather than attacks, grounded in the hope that “opponents” may awaken to the value of contrasting positions. Fourth, in order to avoid polarization, in the spirit of Reinhold Niebuhr, I am called to see the falsehood in my own truth, and the potential truth in the “opponent’s” falsehood. Sometimes, this is simply the recognition that your “opponent” is motivated by fear – fear of change, fear of economic insecurity, fear of otherness, fear of the inevitable decline in the American empire, and fear of losing one’s ethnic, social, or political place in society. To me, fear is the common denominator of all these groups in their quest to deport the alien, hold onto tax money, and delegitimize an African American president. Perhaps, they shout louder because they know that their cause is ultimately lost and that they are going against the grain of history and the nature of reality in its interdependence and diversity.

Theology inspires spiritual practices. I am working at “breathing deeply,” trying preserve my spiritual center when my own anger takes center stage. Gentle breath prayers break down the walls of division and open us to new possibilities for personal and communal transformation. Second, with Mother Teresa, I seek to see Christ “in all his distressing disguises,” including shouting Tea Party members, recalcitrant lawmakers, and violent militia persons.

Finally, as I seek to be hospitable to my “opponents,” I look for the truth in their falsehood even as I passionately affirm my vision of interdependence, community support, healthy diversity, equality for all persons, and ongoing evolution. I seek to experience God moving through all our lives, gently and persistently, even my political and religious “opponents.” Whether or not, we can find common cause in this time of knee-jerk divisiveness, I hope to bring forth the best in myself and my community by living by love rather than fear, imagination rather than stagnation, and hospitality rather than isolation.

Bruce Epperly is Professor of Practical Theology and Director of Continuing Education at Lancaster Theological Seminary and co-pastor of Disciples Community Church in Lancaster, PA. He is the author of seventeen books, including Holy Adventure: 41 Days of Audacious Living and Tending to the Holy: The Practice of the Presence of God in Ministry.