Revolution -- Sightings (Martin Marty)

The Egyptian Revolution is in phase 2.  Phase 1 involved ridding itself of its out-of-touch dictator, now it must create a credible and free nation-state.  That will take time and a lot of hard work, and a great deal of sacrifice on the part of the Military, which has been the foundation of the existing system for nearly 6 decades.  We wonder what the future will look like -- will it be "secular"?  Martin Marty examines these questions, noting with irony that many of this calling for Egypt to be secular are the very ones working to impose their "religion" on the American system. 

Before you read Monday's post here on Wednesday, I want to announce that the Academy of Parish Clergy has officially named Marty's important book Building Cultures of Trust as its Book of the Year at our 2011 Annual Meeting where Marty is speaking to us.  So, yes, I've been in the company of Dr. Marty today.

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

Sightings 2/14/2011

Revolution

-- Martin E. Marty

“C’est une révolte,” said King Louis XVI to his messenger about events on July 14, 1789. “Non, Sire, C’est une révolution,” the Duc de La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt corrected him. With this exchange Hannah Arendt pointed to a difference between a revolt—we have seen many of such—and a revolution, which we saw on television and kindred instruments last week in Egypt. The Wall Street Journal was listening, as weren’t we all, to the shouts of protesters in Cairo and elsewhere. “[I]t’s worth noting that the words heard most often . . . have been ‘dignity,’ ‘modernity,’ ‘freedom,’ ‘jobs.’” Words like these “appear to have displaced Allah as the galvanizing ideas for the young in Egypt and Tunisia.”

Add to their words one more, advanced by columnists left, right, and center: it was a “secular” revolution. And millions cheered. They keep hoping that in the chancy post-revolutionary days, Egypt will stay “secular.” Similarly, many have been watching Turkey, as it makes its way among polities and policies. They hope that, however much its people give voice to religious elements, it will also stay “secular.” In Egypt’s case, the hope of millions is that there will be no official religion or that no overwhelming religious voice--in this case the waiting-in-the-wings Muslim Brotherhood—will win at the expense of the religious and other freedoms of others.

One hears first from the talking-heads among some cable TV network commentators and their print-media colleagues, who in the Egyptian case hope for secular resolutions, and then to those same heads commenting on domestic polities where they do all they can to promote legal privileging of one particular religious ethos and framework: theirs. Each month religious newswriters receive dozens of notices that on local, state, and national levels in America there are school-board meetings, legislative proposals and court cases focused on attempts to privilege a particular “God” in salutes, pledges, and tax-supported expressions at the expense of others.

If Egypt succeeds in living with a novus ordo seclorum, that national slogan you can read on your dollar bills, a “new order of ages,” it will match what the American founders succeeded in doing through an article of the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and with which most of us happily lived in less threatening times than our own. Time for a pause. Critics ask: What’s so good about “secular,” whether in Egypt and the Muslim world or in America and the Western-influenced Christian or “Judeo-Christian” world? Not everything by any means is “good.” The “secular” can turn ideological, as in “secularism.” It can represent a beliefless, soulless spiritual landscape that leaves whole publics in the shallows. The downsides are obvious, but . . .

If Europe and North America are turning ever more secular, it is not just because governments are not legally privileging religion. The zones of voluntary expression in life within these spheres are enormous, and the freedom to make use of religious symbols and arguments is almost limitless in those zones. “Secular” in the legal sphere can be liberating. The downgrading of the “religious” in the secular-turning orbits, be it noted, results chiefly from indifference, distraction, spiritual laziness, or godless free choice by citizens. Fearful as we are that Egypt in its post-revolution might turn officially “religious,” one hopes that it can become “secular,” in ways we were intended to be.


References

Hannah Arendt,On Revolution (Penguin Books, 1965).

"Egypt After Mubarak," Wall Street Journal, February 12, 2011.



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



----------



In this month's Religion and Culture Web Forum, Jessica DeCou offers a comic interpretation of the theology of Karl Barth, bringing his work into a surprising and fruitful dialogue with the comedy of Craig Ferguson. Both men, she contends, “employ similar forms of humor in their efforts to unmask the absurdity and irrationality of our submission to arbitrary human powers.” The humor of Barth and Ferguson alike stresses human limitation against illusory deification. DeCou argues for understanding both the humor and the famous combativeness of Barth's theology as part of this single project, carried out against modern Neo-Protestant theology. The Religion and Culture Web Forum is at: http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/webforum/


----------


Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.
http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/

The Value of Trust

Trust is an important value.  Without trust society can't function well, and over the past forty to fifty years the trust that people put in their institutions has continued to diminish.  First it was the Vietnam War and then Watergate.  More recently we saw the US enter a war in Iraq based either on faulty or falsified evidence.  Catholic priests and bishops were exposed as either participating in or covering up sexual abuse of minors.  So, perhaps it's not surprising that opponents of a property tax assessment (called a millage here in Michigan) to protect the local library had to deal with, unfortunately unsuccessfully, a campaign that was based almost entirely in falsehoods, and yet it won.  Of course there are the reports that nearly half of Republicans believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim and increasing numbers reject the idea of global warming, because  . . . And on and on.  This is a serious problem that we're facing in our country.   

Martin Marty has written an essential book on this topic, one of my Top 10 books of 2010 -- Building Cultures of Trust.  Marty writes this of a culture of trust:

We may speak of a culture of trust when there is evidence that through internal or external means the religious, political, economic, artistic, scientific, technological, educational, and linguistic expressions of a group lead participants to count on each other and keep commitments.  (Marty, p. 15). 

Since I've been working through American Grace, I should probably not that trust is one of the issues dealt with in the book.  From their studies, they have discerned that trust is a central issue of faith.  What is interesting is that it would appear that while religious people are more trusting than seculars, the more conservative your theology the less trusting you become.   But, when comparing two fundamentalists, the more you attend church, the more trusting you become.  Again, social networks have influence.  But, so does your view of God -- the more you see God as judge, the less trusting.  The more you see God as a loving parent, the more trusting. 

But, the authors don't want to go too far outside their expertise and make theological judgments, but it is interesting data!  And so, they conclude:

We seem to have found consistent expectations about other people's behavior and God's behavior.  If God loves us, then we love and trust others, but if God sternly judges us, then we sternly judge and distrust others.  Social relations in America may be eased by the fact that most Americans find God more likely to comfort than afflict . . . Such a comforting, avuncular God encourages social comity and confidence (American Grace, pp. 468-471).

It could be that the authors of American Grace are overly optimistic about the American people.  Perhaps the angry groups of people that have propelled the Tea Party represent the majority.  I don't think so, but we do have a problem and that problem is a serious decline in trust.  And as Martin Marty reminds us -- that can be dangerous.  Further, that means that religious liberals/progressives have something important to bring to the table. 

The Two Millenia Miracle

What do you believe about Christmas? At this time of year, billions of people on the planet are celebrating the birth of a baby that happened over two millenia ago in a small town in what we know today as the Middle East. Have you ever stopped to ask a simple question, one that would appear to be logical? That question would be, why?

Let's take a trip back in time. We'll make it a reality trip, one that journeys into the real world of those days and a few more over the ensuing centuries. Starting in first century Bethlehem in Judea, we find it dry and hot. No one exchanged Christmas cards. There were no trees being decorated. No one wore a crucifix around their neck.

Depending on whatever you choose to believe, on one mostly quiet night a teenage girl gave birth in a room, or a cave, or a barn, or a stable. Her child was a son, and she and her older carpenter fiancee would eventually take this child home with them to Nazareth and raise him through boyhood and adolescence into early manhood.

As a man, he would eventually become a preacher and a teacher, extolling men to love one another. Many of his teachings would run counter to the religious and political powers of the day, and he and his followers would eventually be seen as dangerous. He was taken into custody and ultimately killed by crucifixion, typical of political prisoners of Rome in those days.

There is little to suggest on the surface that there is anything special about this story. Baby born in a small town in the middle of nowhere to a teenage single mother grows up to become a somewhat popular preacher and is crucified as thousands of others were who also dared to stand up against the powers-that-be of the day.

In the aftermath of his death, his dozen or so closest followers are afraid for their own lives. They deny knowing him and go into hiding. Over the next few decades they will argue among and splinter apart from one another over how he actually would want them to remember him and continue to spread the word.

A few centuries after his death, with all of those original followers long dead and gone, the mother of a Roman ruler suddenly begins to believe, manages to convert her son, and the once obscure belief system becomes mainstream. What has become known as 'Christianity' grows and spreads.

Over the next 1,600 years the 'Church' of these followers in the teachings of Jesus Christ will explode around the world and across history in numbers of believers, material wealth, and influence. It is estimated that today there are well over 200 million Christians in America, over 76% of the entire population of the United States.

Around the world today there are over 2 billion Christians. One out of ever three people on the planet believe in the deity of that small baby born to that unwed teenage mother in that small town over two thousand years ago. How do you account for that, other than divinely inspired and shepherded miracle?

No matter what the actual day and date may have been, tonight we celebrate the birth of that small boy child. Few could possibly have realized it at the time, but the child born that night in those humble circumstances would be an undeniable light unto the world.

So back to the original question that I asked. What do you believe about Christmas? If you celebrate it, but don't believe in Jesus Christ, then why do you celebrate it? Because everyone else does? That's pretty lame of you. If you don't celebrate it, then how do you account for the miracle of these past two millenia? How do you account for more than 2 billion adherents today? Mass hysteria?

The purpose here was to challenge you to think about not only Christmas, but the particular origination of the holiday, the 'reason for the season', the actual birth of Jesus Christ. Think about how that small child grew into a man about whom it can be legitimately claimed has changed and influenced the world more than any other that ever walked the face of the earth.

The two millenia miracle continues to grow and spread today. Despite constant and increasing attacks on the celebration of Christmas here in America, it cannot be erased from the public consciousness. The reason that Christianity has grown and spread and continues to do so against the forces of secularism, radical Islam, and other sworn enemies is a simple one: it is Truth. Merry Christmas.

Washington Rolling Over in His Grave

The Father of our Country, our nation's first President and possibly still it's greatest citizen in history, George Washington, would be proud that the country decided to name a state after him. That is, until he got wind of what is going on these days in that state. Upon learning of these developments, the great man would be rolling over in his grave. Washington state has today become one of the worst offenders in the growing attacks on our Judeo-Christian heritage here in America, attacks that have weakened our society and made our very national existence more vulnerable than at any time in its history. This year the state lurched ever further leftward at the state Capitol building itself. Here a Christmas display was erected, as has been the case for decades. A typical manger display with Mary and Joseph and the baby Jesus. Some of the most appropriate imagery of the Christmas holiday season. However, right next to it was permitted to be erected a sign on an easel that reads: "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." It was placed there by an atheist organization whose sole mission is to drive religion from public discourse. They couch their 'dis-belief', their lack of faith, in a Constitutional argument, stating that no one has a right to force religion down their throats. They are absolutely correct in that regard. Perhaps they aren't aware that those of us who count ourselves among the faithful have no desire to do any such thing. We want them to understand, accept, and embrace that Jesus Christ is their personal Lord and Savior, and that He became man, spread the Word, and then ultimately suffered and died for their individual sins. But we absolutely recognize that there is no value in forcing such a view upon them, and that in fact spreading faith by such force would actually result in no faith whatsoever. We also recognize that their basic Constitutional premise is all wrong as well. The U.S. Constitution does not recognize freedom from religion, it recognizes and protects freedom of religion. It was not designed to keep religion out of the public sphere, simply to ensure that no particular religion became a national one forced into citizens lives. it didn't say that government could not recognize the legitimate faith of its citizens, just that government could not force that faith upon them. What the atheists and other secularists want is their view given at least equal time, but what they are too cowardly to acknowledge is the fact that their view cannot stand on its own. So they come crawling out of the wood work at Christmastime, the most magical, happy, and holy time of the Christian year. God forbid (pun intended) that they move for some type of 'humanist' or 'atheist' holiday, a 'No God Day', in say the middle of August. No one would pay any attention to them. There would be no decorations, no store discounts for shoppers, no television movies. Theirs is a lost effort, as lost as their individual souls are, at least for the time being. So they attack Christmas, rather than taking their position and letting it stand on its own. The state of Washington and its spineless Governor Christine Gregoire, supposedly a Catholic, who could do something to lead her state out of this quagmire but refuses to do so, are causing embarrassment to the nation. They are also causing their namesake, a painting of him praying at Valley Forge being my all-time favorite piece of art (pictured), to turn over in his grave. Merry Christmas to all as we move forward in this holy season, and may God bless and heal the governor and the citizens of Washington state, and indeed our nation as a whole.

America's Secular Challenge

At Christmastime we are supposed to be celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, and the majority of Americans will be doing just that. But there is a relatively small yet growing segment of our population that does not realize, or does not care, that it was the values taught by Him which formed the basis of our very national existence. These 'secularists', 'humanists', 'atheists' and others want any references to Jesus Christ, God, or anything else religious kept out of the public sphere. They certainly feel that displays of religion on public property should be considered not only inappropriate, but illegal, even during a specifically religious holiday time such as Christmas or Easter. They especially and more vociferously fight against such displays or references when it comes to Christian religious holidays, knowing full well that most Americans self-identify as Christians, that America itself was founded on Judeo-Christian values, and that if they can knock off the big boy they essentially win victory over all organized religion. It is the challenge of normal, everyday, faithful, God-loving Americans to stand up against these groups and individuals. That is the message of a new book by Herbert London titled "America's Secular Challenge" from Encounter Books. London is a noted writer of numerous books and articles in almost every major publication. He is also the President of the influential Hudson Institute, a non-partisan policy research organization 'dedicated to innovative research and analysis that promotes global security, prosperity, and freedom.' At just 97 pages, London's effort is more of a booklet or lengthy essay, and yet there is nothing missing on an intellectual level. He moves through all of the relevant topics involved in the issue of the secularists attacks on organized religion, especially Christianity, in a very readable and informative way over just six chapters: "Secularism: America's New Religion", "Truth as a Relative Concept", "The Limitations of Science", "Government's Rational Largesse", "Patriotism as a Moral Problem", and "Tolerance, Discrimination, and Discernment." He has some specific messages for we Catholics, words that we have heard before but really need to take to heart: "Catholicism, despite many new converts, is culturally in retreat, not only as a religion, but as an authoritative voice of moral conviction." He goes on to quote Pope Benedict XVI as he spoke to one youthful audience: "The great challenge of our time is secularism...The first necessity: that God becomes newly present in our lives." He draws distinctions between such things as infamy and fame, and talks about how our current culture misuses those words and misidentifies individuals with those labels. London weaves in references to the French Revolution, Vietnam, and the current struggle against Islamism in presenting his idea that in order to survive, America "must recognize and defend its religious heritage." An excellent book that won't take up a lot of your time, but will contribute greatly to your understanding of the issues in and the problem of "America's Secular Challenge."
NOTE: As all entries are, the title of this article is a link to further information. This particular title will link you to purchase the book at Amazon.