Oklahoma's Shariah Law Ban -- Sightings

I have opined before about the recent passage of an Oklahoma law banning the use of international law and sharia law in court procedures in that state, and I published a guest posting by a member of my congregation who happens to be a lawyer.  We return to that issue again this morning.

The question that this action, which was passed by 70% of the voters, raises -- concerns why voters made this decision, and why Oklahomans aren't alone in their desire to do so.  Make no mistake, there are terrorists who take inspiration from their interpretation of the Qur'an and from other Islamic teachings, and women are mistreated in a number of Muslim countries -- but one could ask whether this is because of Islam or other cultural dynamics present in those countries.  But that's for another day.  The question is why Oklahoma's voters acted as they did?   Is it fear?  Hatred?  Ignorance?  Insanity?  That is, are Americans losing their minds?   And a further question -- do acts like this not play into the hands of extremists?    Well, Martin Marty has chosen to address some of these questions in today's Sightings column.  As usual, this is worth considering.

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

Sightings 12/6/2010

Oklahoma’s Shariah Law Ban

- Martin E. Marty

In late November Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange issued a permanent injunction on the “Oklahoma shariah law ban” leaving Oklahoma at least temporarily unsaved by the “Save our State” Question 755. The constitutional amendment had been approved by 70% of the state’s voters on November 2. Sightings blinked when debates over the proposition began. It seemed too outlandish to dignify. Next Sightings squinted and filtered out headlines about the post-election debates. To avoid losing Oklahoma subscribers from Oklahoma by insulting them? Hardly: voters like the Oklahoma majority presumably live in all states.

The debate does not die down simply because of the permanent injunction. Readers who will scan the hundreds or thousands of retrievable documents discussing the issue in print or on the web will find that the early framework for discussion revolved around two questions: was this measure inspired simply by hate or simply by fear? The measure would “forbid courts from considering” international law or, the point at issue, using Islamic religious law, known as shariah, which the Oklahoma amendment defined as being based on the Qur’an and the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.

The first explanation for the vote is fear. Fear of “the other” is so natural, so cultivated, and so exploited in recent years that, in the eyes of many, it can account for much of the support for the measure. Next, hatred of “the other,” in this case of Muslims and Islam is so patent, so palpable and contradictory to the norms about truth-telling and love held by the Christian (and other) religious majorities of the state that it can also account for the support.

More recently, however, two other factors have been at play in diagnoses. One is simply ignorance, not about terribly terrible actions against women in many shariah-based polities, for example. Innumerable stories of inhumane actions are reported domestically even though the shariah laws on which these actions are based are enforced in far-away Islamic-ruled countries. Instead, what drove Oklahomans to vote for the ban is ignorance of the nature of religious law as it is or can be effected in the United States. Thus Catholic canon law has numerous strictures against many kinds of actions by Catholics. Halakha, the Jewish code, starts with 613 laws, which are supposed to be binding on Orthodox Jews, but it holds no base or potential for civil legal action.

Some religious leaders, of course, grounded in their canon law and halakha may work to influence the mentality of voters, hoping they will vote in ways congruent with those of the religious body. But they have to persuade voters to render such preferences in civil law, something that the 30,000 Muslims of Oklahoma, whose population is 3.7 million, are not likely to achieve, even if any of them wanted to do so. (Those Muslims often include “your” Oklahoma doctor, nurse, engineer, accountant, and good neighbor.)

The other supposition by analysts of this ban is insanity. That is an uncharitable judgment, but as columnist Leonard Pitts put it, “we are gathered here today to mourn the loss of America’s mind,” a loss exemplified in the Oklahoma argument and vote. “Thoughtful people ought to be alarmed,” for these actions based on fear, hate, ignorance, or insanity give victories to terrorists, Jihadists, and others, who want us to fear. Pitts writes that they can say “America is scared stupid. Mission accomplished.” Shariah won’t do us in, and canon law won’t save us. Civil law and civil citizens, also in Oklahoma, can help do so.

References

Bill Mears, “Judge issues permanent injunction on Oklahoma Sharia law ban,” CNN, November 29, 2010.

Leonard Pitts, “Oklahoma paranoia strikes deep,” Miami Herald, December 3, 2010.

Omar Sacirbey, “Oklahoma Muslims Wary after Shari’a referendum,” The Christian Century, November 4, 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.

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.     

Catholic Drift

I'm posting this a bit after it arrived in my email box on Monday, but I wanted to share Martin Marty's reflections on Peter Steinfels article in Commonweal that wrestles with the apparent lack of awareness or concern on the part of the Catholic Bishops about the decline in attendance/membership in the church.  This article comes on the heals of the may surveys/polls that have detailed the decline in religious adherence over the past few decades, as well as the interpretation of this phenomenon in Robert Putnam and David Campbell's American Grace.  We who are not Catholic needn't take joy in their difficulties, only recognize that this largest of American religious communities is having the same issues we are.  So take a read and consider the state of the church!

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

Sightings 11/01/2010

Catholic Drift

- Martin E. Marty

“Everybody’s talking” about data detailing decline of church and synagogue participation as revealed in a Pew Forum and by Putnam and Campbell in their new book American Grace. “Everybody” includes atheists, agnostics, “nones,” Protestants, Evangelicals, Catholics, Jews, and Mormons but not the Catholic bishops. So too judges Steinfels, who wrote A Church Adrift some years ago and who now follows up with an article, “Further Adrift: The American Church’s Crisis of Attrition.” The director of the Fordham Center on Religion and Culture, who most likely knows more about these things than anyone else, found no agenda topic on this for the mid-November U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops meeting. He writes with pain and regret about the public void.

Why should “everybody” who is not Catholic talk about such findings in the midst of talk about our ugliest elections, the World Series, and more? Isn’t it “none of our business?” No. Today the public fates of religions obviously do affect the larger culture, and Catholic fates also are often paralleled in other bodies. For years, talk about “decline” and “crisis” focused on Mainline Protestantism, but the surveys reveal that these trends have counterparts in most places. Steinfels sees Latino Catholics and Mormons, for the moment remaining exempt from some down-trends. Others? He quotes Putnam and Campbell on the point that “Evangelical growth. . . actually leveled off in the mid-1980s and early ‘90s.” Also, the bishops are now demonstrating cultural lag by “repeating the behavior of Religious Right leaders who have now faded from prominence.” The African-American churches are also not on a roll as they had been. Obviously, all these cohorts of religious populations suffer under similar cultural changes, about which no one church or its leaders, can do much, but the bishops are the current focus. Steinfels, being Steinfels, does find a few bright spots on the Catholic scene, and plays them up. But seeing mainly shadows, sunset, and gloom, he grieves.

Some shockers, based on the surveys: “One out of every three adult Americans who were raised Catholic have left the church.” Thomas Reese, S.J., editor of America, asks, “You wonder if the bishops have noticed.” Most diocesan papers, mainly boosters, are given to the two themes of “pro-life” and anti-gay marriage. These are perfectly legitimate topics of Catholic interest, but play little to no part in winning back the faithful. The surveys see them helping lose especially the young. Pope John Paul II had been seen to be attractive to youth, but the televised crowds he drew, says Steinfels, represented a “sampling error,” since the growth in the number of stay-at-homes was more significant.

“Catholicism,” says the Pew poll, “has lost more people to other religions or to no religion at all than any other single religious group.” Steinfels knows that most “other religious” people are not given to Schadenfreude, which would mean rejoicing over Catholic pain. They are this way partly out of Christian empathy or sympathy and partly because they need each other to face the cultural challenges. “Blaming the bishops” won’t solve anything. Steinfels can only mention in half-lines what he and others write about and call for at great length elsewhere: the need for improved (not traditionalist!) liturgy and worship, better pastoral care, address to the particular needs of various groups, more building on the already prospering lay groups which compensate for some of the personnel losses that are part of the crisis in priestly vocations. His title key word, “Adrift,” remains too apt a metaphor for the complex real world.

References

Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010).

Peter Steinfels, "Further Adrift: The American Church's Crisis of Attrition" Commonweal, October 22, 2010.

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

----------

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

Is Ignorance Bliss? Thoughts on Pew Survey on Religious Knowledge

Americans are rather religious people.  By overwhelming numbers we say that we believe in God, but do we truly understand what we believe?  Or, do we believe in God because, well, because we do?   That is, unless forced to wrestle with the question of God's existence or presence, we simply assume it to be true.  I grew up believing in Santa Claus, but at a certain age, I let it go.  Is belief in God simply an unwillingness to face facts? 

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life conducted a survey, asking via phone calls, a series of questions on religious knowledge, 15 of which can be found online.  The results are rather disheartening.  The average score on this quiz is 50%.  That is an F!   Atheists do best, scoring around 65%.  That's a D, but still better than most Christians, evangelical or mainline, who score closer to the average.  

From the executive summary we read:

On average, Americans correctly answer 16 of the 32 religious knowledge questions on the survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. Atheists and agnostics average 20.9 correct answers. Jews and Mormons do about as well, averaging 20.5 and 20.3 correct answers, respectively. Protestants as a whole average 16 correct answers; Catholics as a whole, 14.7. Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons perform better than other groups on the survey even after controlling for differing levels of education.

But does it matter if Christians know the names of the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), or that Moses led the people of Israel out of Egypt, or that the majority of Pakistanis are Muslim?    Or, when it comes to faith, is ignorance bliss?  As long as I feel close to God, do I need anything more? 

My answer is, yes, it does matter.  Lack of understanding/knowledge can lead to major misunderstandings and misapplications of one's faith.  It leads to stereotyping of others, leading to fear and mistrust, and even, in some cases, to religious violence.  The question is:  what do we do about the problem?

Well, we could:

• Teach comparative religions in our schools -- note I said comparative religions, with each religion being given equal footing in the conversation.  (A majority of persons answering the questions didn't know that the Bible can be taught as literature or that comparative religions can be taught in public school). 
• Be more attentive to teaching the faith in our churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples -- a reminder that our educational component has fallen short in recent years).  
• Take personal responsibility and read about our own faith and the faiths of others.    

Do I Kneel or Do I Bow? Review

DO I KNEEL OR DO I BOW? What You Need to Know when attending Religious Occasions. By Akasha Lonsdale. London: Kuperard, 2010. 335 pp.

We live in an increasingly pluralistic world. At least in the West, due to immigration and conversion, the religious options have increased exponentially. The community I live in is a pretty typical American suburb. It has a Christian majority, as is true in most communities in the United States, but even here there is great diversity. Driving from my house to the church I pastor, a five-mile drive taking me from one side of the city to the other, I pass by a Croatian Catholic Church, a Greek Orthodox Church, a Free Methodist Church, a Jehovah’s Witness congregation, a Reformed Jewish Synagogue, a Lutheran Church, and a Presbyterian Church. In my neighborhood, which I walk regularly, there is a Calvary Chapel, a Romanian Pentecostal Church, another Roman Catholic Church, and a Serbian Orthodox church. Within the city limits, or just outside, one can find the mosques of two very different Muslim groups, varieties of Catholic churches, including Albanian and Romanian versions, varieties of Lutheran, Methodist, Reformed, Baptist, Pentecostal, nondenominational Christian, Zen Buddhist, Sikh, Baha’i, and a large Hindu temple that is expanding its facility. My doctor is a Sikh and one of my good friends here in Troy is a Hindu. Because we live in such close proximity to such religious diversity, it’s important that we get to know each other. That includes gaining an understanding of each other’s religious traditions.

Although many people remain uncomfortable in the presence of people of other religious traditions, it’s likely that we will come in contact with “the other.” Although the United States may have been predominantly Christian at its birth, and it may remain a majority Christian nation, but the fact is the diversity of this nation is increasing rapidly. Indeed, in most of our communities, the faith tradition that is growing the fastest, especially among the young, is “decline to state.” Even as Americans are becoming increasingly averse to political affiliation, the same is true of their religious affiliations. Still, we remain a very religious people, even if the options before us are increasing quickly. Because this is true, it’s likely we will encounter a person of a very different tradition, and we might even be invited to share in a religious service or ceremony. It might be a regular service of worship, or, more likely, a wedding or funeral. The question is, how should one behave?

Akasha Lonsdale is a self-described Interfaith Minister and trained psychotherapist. I’m not exactly sure what that an Interfaith Minister is, but Lonsdale has written a book that fills a great need. In less than 350 pages, she shares with the reader basic information about beliefs and practices of the great world religions. She explores the three branches of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism. In each chapter, Lonsdale lays out the basic beliefs, explains the religious rites, and describes the events that fill out the religion’s calendar. In the course of reading the book, we learn how each tradition celebrates marriages and births, as well sharing the rites and beliefs that surround death. At the end of each chapter, the author provides a glossary of important words. By reading these chapters, one will be prepared to engage people of other faiths with respect and understanding. The fear of the other that so often keeps us separated can be dissipated. We can understand why, for instance, a Sikh male wear’s a turban or carries a ceremonial sword. We gain an understanding of why a typical Muslim woman would choose to cover her hair.

In writing this book, the author has consulted leaders and scholars from each tradition. This is important because if we are to be properly introduced to a religious tradition, we must be assured that what is written reflects actual practice and not stereotype. Lonsdale writes with great respect for each tradition. There is no condescension or condemnation. If one is looking for a critique of the religious tradition, they’ll want to look elsewhere, because that’s not the point of the book. If I have any real criticism of the book is Lonsdale’s decision to use the Church of England (Anglicanism/Episcopalianism) as the representative Protestant body. It’s not surprising, considering that she hails from Britain, that she would make this choice, but the reader might have been better served had she lifted up a free church tradition, and then noted the way in which Anglicanism stands between the Catholic and the Free Church Protestant traditions. That said, I found her descriptions accurate, and thus showing that she is able to describe with fairness a religious tradition’s beliefs and practices.

I expect that I will make good use of this handbook, and would recommend it for anyone wishing to better understand the beliefs and practices of their neighbors. And, should you be invited to participate in the religious ceremonies of your neighbor, you'll want to have this reference handy to consult before going to the event. You will feel more comfortable and less likely to commit an embarrassing faux pas.  You know, like bringing a bottle of wine to a Muslim wedding.

Barack Obama's 2010 National Day of Prayer Proclamation

Since today is the National Day of Prayer, an observance that has been held annually since 1952, when Harry Truman issued the first proclamation, I thought it appropriate to share Barack Obama's proclamation issued on April 30th.  It is important to note that the President has not canceled the National Day of Prayer as some emails have suggested.  How he personally observes it is up to him, but he has issued an encouragement to prayer, not that we should need such a thing!  

As for me, I'll be participating in the Troy Interfaith Group service at First Presbyterian Church of Troy.  This service will include Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Baha'i, Catholic, Protestant, Jain, and Muslim participants (and I've probably left out some).  This variety represents the variety that is in Troy, MI.  Now there is another observance, to be held on City Property, that is Christian focused.  I find it ironic that this is the case, but such is the realities of times such as these.

It is, however, important to note that in issuing this proclamation, the President -- unlike some prayer organizers -- recognizes the religious pluralism of the nation.  Note this emphasis:

I call upon the citizens of our Nation to pray, or otherwise give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings, and I invite all people of faith to join me in asking for God's continued guidance, grace, and protection as we meet the challenges before us.

I believe this is the proper focus of such a proclamation of the President of all the people, not just Christian people.

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

Presidential Proclamation--National Day of Prayer

A PROCLAMATION

April 30, 2010

Throughout our history, whether in times of great joy and thanksgiving, or in times of great challenge and uncertainty, Americans have turned to prayer. In prayer, we have expressed gratitude and humility, sought guidance and forgiveness, and received inspiration and assistance, both in good times and in bad.

On this day, let us give thanks for the many blessings God has bestowed upon our Nation. Let us rejoice for the blessing of freedom both to believe and to live our beliefs, and for the many other freedoms and opportunities that bring us together as one Nation. Let us ask for wisdom, compassion, and discernment of justice as we address the great challenges of our time.

We are blessed to live in a Nation that counts freedom of conscience and free exercise of religion among its most fundamental principles, thereby ensuring that all people of goodwill may hold and practice their beliefs according to the dictates of their consciences. Prayer has been a sustaining way for many Americans of diverse faiths to express their most cherished beliefs, and thus we have long deemed it fitting and proper to publicly recognize the importance of prayer on this day across the Nation.

Let us remember in our thoughts and prayers those suffering from natural disasters in Haiti, Chile, and elsewhere, and the people from those countries and from around the world who have worked tirelessly and selflessly to render aid. Let us pray for the families of the West Virginia miners, and the people of Poland who so recently and unexpectedly lost many of their beloved leaders. Let us pray for the safety and success of those who have left home to serve in our Armed Forces, putting their lives at risk in order to make the world a safer place. As we remember them, let us not forget their families and the substantial sacrifices that they make every day. Let us remember the unsung heroes who struggle to build their communities, raise their families, and help their neighbors, for they are the wellspring of our greatness. Finally, let us remember in our thoughts and prayers those people everywhere who join us in the aspiration for a world that is just, peaceful, free, and respectful of the dignity of every human being.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 6, 2010, as a National Day of Prayer. I call upon the citizens of our Nation to pray, or otherwise give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings, and I invite all people of faith to join me in asking for God's continued guidance, grace, and protection as we meet the challenges before us.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

BARACK OBAMA

Harry Truman's National Day of Prayer Proclamation

In the 1950s America was gripped by fear that Communism might take over the world.  The world was divided into two and a Cold War began.  What had been allies were now bitter enemies, seeking to carve up the world between them.  On one side stood the godly folk and on the other the ungodly.  During this era the words "under God" were added to the pledge of allegiance, and the first annual proclamations of a National Day of Prayer were established.  The first came from the pen of Harry Truman.  Note that while there are statements that reflect the fact that Christians are the majority ("year of our Lord" and "churches" there is nothing explicitly Christian about this proclamation.  Note too that it was made at the direction of Congress.  Note as well that nothing is said here about gathering at government buildings or sites for observances -- but rather in  churches, in homes, and in hearts.  Pray as you deem fitting.  

**********************************  

June 17, 1952

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

Whereas from the earliest days of our history our people have been accustomed to turn to Almighty God for help and guidance; and

Whereas in times of national crisis when we are striving to strengthen the foundations of peace and security we stand in special need of divine support; and

Whereas the Congress, by a joint resolution approved on April 17, 1952 (66 Stat. 64), has provided that the President “shall set aside and proclaim a suitable day each year, other than a Sunday, as a National Day of Prayer, on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation”; and

Whereas I deem it fitting that this Day of Prayer coincide with the anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, which published to the world this Nation’s “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence”:

Now, Therefore, I, Harry S. Truman, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim Friday, July 4, 1952, as a National Day of Prayer, on which all of us, in our churches, in our homes, and in our hearts, may beseech God to grant us wisdom to know the course which we should follow, and strength and patience to pursue that course steadfastly. May we also give thanks to Him for His constant watchfulness over us in every hour of national prosperity and national peril.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States of America to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington this 17th day of June in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and fifty-two, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and seventy-sixth.

Here be Nephites -- Sightings

I have long had a fascination with the history of the Mormon church.  It, like my own church, has its roots on the American frontier.  In fact, a number of early Mormon leaders, including Sidney Rigdon and Parley P. Pratt, were "Campbellites" prior to joining with Joseph Smith.  So, my ears perk up when I hear something new emerging from the LDS community.  In today's edition of Sightings, Seth Perry and Ph.D. candidate at the University of Chicago, writes about a new theory as to the identity of the Nephites -- suggesting a Heartland Theory that has Nativist tendencies -- a movement within the LDS church that has implications for its future and may even include Glenn Beck among its supporters.  Intriguing essay!

_________________________________________________ 

Sightings 4/29/10

Here be Nephites

-- Seth Perry

The Book of Mormon is widely viewed as the quintessentially American scripture of a quintessentially American faith, but in strictly geographical terms this designation is more complicated than it might first appear. The Book’s modern manifestation is definitely American – Joseph Smith, New York farmer, said that he dug it out of a hill near his home. Believers regard the text as having an ancient history also, though, and here the geography is less clear. According to the text, its authors were pre-Columbian inhabitants of the New World, but its geographical terms are oblique: The characters war and proselytize over a “land northward” and a “land southward,” connected by “a narrow neck of land.” Many readers have assumed that what’s described is the Western Hemisphere – North and South America connected by the isthmus of Central America. Among other things, though, this scale is too vast for the characters’ descriptions of their travel: With the farthest cities mere days apart, the whole story seems to take place within a few hundred square miles. For some time, conventional wisdom has identified that area as Mesoamerica, stretching from modern-day central Mexico to Honduras. Mesoamerica hosted advanced pre-Columbian civilizations, the thinking goes, and the land forms fit, to a certain eye. The LDS Church has no official stance on the matter, but it has tacitly endorsed this view. Significant Church resources are committed to archaeological and ethnographic projects in Mesoamerica, and Church-sanctioned visualizations of the Book of Mormon story, replete with palm trees, do not appear to be set in, say, southern Illinois.

There is a swelling movement within the Church, though, that prefers to believe that the story took place in Illinois, among other North American locales. Bruce Porter and Rod Meldrum’s Prophecies and Promises: The Book of Mormon and the United States of America is the latest salvo in this argument. The authors’ “Heartland Model” theory hinges on the numerous Book of Mormon prophecies concerning a future “mighty nation” in the New World, “a land of liberty” (2 Nephi 1:7), “choice above all other lands” (Ether 2:7), established by “Gentiles” who will come “out of captivity” and revolt against their “mother Gentiles” (1 Nephi 13:17). This nation, the prophets recorded, would exist on “this land” – in other words, the land on which the prophets themselves were then living. Porter and Meldrum believe that the prophets, then, must have lived within the current borders of the United States, since they don’t find Mesoamerica particularly “choice”: “In what way could any Central American nation be considered a mighty nation above all other nations?”

The other side’s response has been, among other things, to demonstrate from the same texts that “this land” could just as easily mean “this continent,” which would not eliminate Mesoamerica; the debate goes on. But the fact that some people are looking for sacralization of the “heartland” in the Book of Mormon just now is interesting. Fifty-seven percent of the “quintessentially American” faith’s members now live outside the United States, and most growth is happening in those less “mighty” places, such as Central America. Scholars have long wondered how Mormonism’s American character affects its overseas growth, asking whether Mormonism can take authentic root in places where the American Constitution and apple pie are unknown. The Heartland Model, though, signals the need to wonder about the other side of the equation – how is international growth affecting Mormonism at home?

Whatever else it is, the Heartland movement looks like a ripple of nativism, a twitch of insecurity among Americans in a globalizing faith. Mormons are increasingly identified with conservative politics, and in its very name the “Heartland Model” conjures the right’s renewed rhetoric of American exceptionalism. Glenn Beck – piercingly conservative but rather quietly Mormon – shilled for an April conference put on by Porter’s company, founded to promote (and monetize) the Heartland Model. And Prophecies and Promises voices a familiar-sounding political message: Rededicating the United States as the Promised Land, the authors tell us, should give believers “a more comprehensive view of the individual responsibilities…to protect the freedoms established by the Founding Fathers who came out of captivity to create this nation in the Land of Promise.”

There is a lot more change to come if Mormonism is to be the “world religion” it aspires to be. For all of the growth overseas, for example, the vast church hierarchy is still overwhelmingly composed of white American men. When and if such features begin to shift, the impulse discernible in the Heartland Model is only likely to grow stronger.

Reference:

Bruce Porter and Rod Meldrum, Prophecies and Promises: The Book of Mormon and the United States of America (Digital Legend Press, 2009).

Seth Perry is a PhD candidate in History of Christianity at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

----------

In this month’s Religion and Culture Web Forum, Web Forum editor emeritus Spencer Dew explores the relationship between Jack Kerouac’s religious thought and its expressive practice in the act of writing: “Indeed, his entire oeuvre can be read as an expression of his personal religious stance, a kind of ‘fusion’ of Catholic theology with notions taken from Buddhist philosophy and practice.” Through a close reading of Kerouac’s novella Tristessa, Dew suggests that such a fusion—despite exemplifying Kerouac at his writerly best—leads to a solipsism that is ethically troubling, and likely reflective of Kerouac’s personal and professional shortcomings—especially later in his life. “Devotion to Solipsism: Religious Thought and Practice in Jack Kerouac’s Tristessa,” with invited responses from Benedict Giamo (University of Notre Dame), Nancy Grace (College of Wooster), Sarah Haynes (University of Western Illinois), Kurt Hemmer (Harper College), Amy Hungerford (Yale University), Omar Swartz (University of Colorado, Denver), Matt Theado (Gardner-Webb University), and Eric Ziolkowski (Lafayette College). http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/webforum/index.shtml

----------

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