Category Archives: Religion in America

Authenticity and post-modern Christianity–but don’t expect me to get tattoos

Posted on by
Reply

Last week, I posted a link to an article that quoted Bishop Greg Rickel of the Episcopal Diocese of Olympia, in which he likened the church in the twenty-first century to a base camp–not an end point on a journey, but a staging area. It’s an image I like because it captures what I’ve been encountering in Madison. People come to church for all sorts of reasons; we may see them for only a single service, perhaps a year or two if we’re lucky, then they are off on the next stage of their journey. Often their temporary stay is dictated by other realities–school or job change–but often it is because of life changes. And the latter is particularly new. Wade Clark Roof and other sociologists of religion saw such trends in American religion in the 90s–people participating in organized religion for a few years and then withdrawing.

Rickel has a great deal to say in another interview about what it’s like to be bishop in post-Christian America (i.e., the Pacific Northwest) after serving parishes in the South and Southwest. He also has interesting things to say about the importance of authenticity, good holy discourse and conversation, and good music. The interview is here.

Among the things he has to say about young adults:

I sense the younger generations looking for a fun place, yes, energy, good conversation, deep reflection about serious issues, but also a place where diversity of thought is honored and where they learn the life skills to keep that greater conversation going in their lives. In the midst of all of that they know the power of mystery, and don’t necessarily want a place of answers, but more a place of reflection, meditation, silence. True engagement, instead of the veneer of much of our religion, would be the more subtle but short way of saying it.

Bishop Rickel blogs here.

If authenticity is what matters, check out this profile of Nadia Bolz-Weber.

Bolz-Weber said her church is “anti-excellence and pro-participation.”

They sing the hymns a cappella rather than rely on a choir, organist or band. They divvy up the readings. They create their own artwork.

“We don’t do anything really well,” she said, “but we do it together.”

Bolz-Weber blogs here.

Rapture, continued

Posted on by
Reply

As is fairly common among those whose predictions of the end of the world don’t come true, Harold Camping now says the Apocalypse will arrive on October 21.

I’ve been somewhat bemused, and also perplexed by the coverage of this event in the press. Perhaps part of it is due to the sheer audacity of the marketing campaign. So audacious, in fact, that other religious leaders have taken note of it and used it to chide denominational efforts at advertising.

But I think that’s missing the point. As someone who spent a good bit of time researching apocalyptic movements in Christian history, and even teaching a course on “The Millennium” back in 1999, what strikes me about all of this is how very different Camping’s predictions and his movement, if that’s what it is, has played out in this new media and internet age.

In the first place, most apocalyptic movements have relied on the sheer charisma of the founder and leader. That doesn’t seem to be the case, here. Instead, what seems to have drawn wider attention is the marketing savvy and the ability to make significant media buys. The second thing of note is that much of the publicity was driven, not by true believers, but by those who were pursuing a story. And for most of them, the take was hardly sincere.

The same was true on the internet and facebook. What struck me was the sheer quantity of material making fun of the true believers. It was generated and quickly distributed, and yes, I participated in that distribution as well. Some of those who produced and distributed the ridicule were secularists; others, like me, were Christians of one variety or another. Most of us had been scarred in some way over the years by apocalyptic beliefs and our ridicule was an attempt to demonstrate that such beliefs no longer held power over us. In fact, I was reminded by the B. Kliban cartoon with the caption, “The callous sophisticates laughed at Judy’s tiny head.”

There were also those who tried to put Camping’s predictions, and those who followed him into perspective, and when the rapture didn’t come, they reached backed to Leon Festinger.

The stories about the disappointed followers of Camping were poignant. And yes, to read about someone who spent $140,000 to publicize it is depressing. The tendency is to discount such beliefs as crazy, and decry the media preoccupation with them. But it seems to me there is something more. And Paul Roberts may have his finger on it:

I am left with the conclusion that unless Protestants are able to come up with some kind of global system of validation – or, its converse, dissociation – then the widespread image of Christianity they are going to have to work with in their mission will be a random collection of absurd and less-than-absurd beliefs about what “Christianity” actually is about. Even if one Christian is able to make a coherent argument commending their faith to another person (either by teaching or practice), who is to say if that really is what Christianity is, or whether it’s about – say – a rapture which didn’t happen on 21st May 2011 at 6pm local time.

What bothers me is precisely that. A single person, who by virtue of his access to media, is able to generate a media frenzy, in some respects shapes the popular understanding of Christianity. Most thinking Christians, find such ideas silly, and respond with humor and derision, often using material produced by “cultured despisers” of religion.

My reading of apocalyptic movements in history leads me to conclude that most adherents were sincere and devout. They weren’t necessarily being misled or duped, as stories on the day after want to imply. Whatever complex of motives led them to accept the notion that the world was going to come to an end, whether in 1535 or 1842, or on May 21, 2011, blaming it on a charlatan leader might give them an excuse, but didn’t answer the fundamental question. And to claim that all of them are crazy lets all of us off the hook.

In the end, it is a small story. Unlike previous examples in the History of Christianity–the Anabaptist Kingdom of Muenster, or even David Koresh–this prediction did very little harm. It’s not even clear how many people were taken in by Camping’s predictions. True, there was considerable money involved, but compared to other Televangelists, $100 million is small potatoes.

The Future of Christianity, Atheism, and the Origins of Civilization

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve been on vacation for the past few days, getting caught up on my reading and sleeping. A number of things that caught my eye on the internet have me reflecting on my work, the work of the church, and the nature of religion.

Bishop Greg Rickel of the Diocese of Olympia (Washington) parallels much of my thinking about the future of the church:

… churches do not yet know how to measure what this means. “What denominational metrics people are asking—how many people are in church on Sunday, for example—may not be the right measure for today. The measures that contemporary churches need may be more intuitive and more spiritual in nature.”

Rickel points to a small church in his diocese that is located along the Columbia River. The population of the area is declining, and membership growth is not a realistic goal. Never­theless, the congregation is a dynamic and important part of the community, because it is a community and service center. Rickel likens it to a base camp—a place along the journey where people stop to receive nourishment, training, basic supplies and encouragement.

“We’ve only been paying attention,” Rickel said, “to the people who stay. But maybe that’s not the purpose [of the base camp]. Maybe we’ve been treating base camps as permanent residences.”

In order to operate as base camps, Rickel said, congregations need not give up their identity or cease offering a challenging “rule for living.” In fact, he said, young adults are eager for such a challenge. But churches need to be able to witness to the gospel when they have only a few chances to reach any one person.

The article by Amy Frykholm is insightful and challenging. She details the cultural changes taking place, highlighting the work of sociologists like Robert Wuthnow and Wade Clark Roof, as well as pastors who are experiencing these changes in their ministry. At the same time, she reminds us all about the importance of community, and the central NT idea of membership.

Then, thanks to  Counterlight’s Peculiars, I read this thoughtful post from an atheist who attends church regularly:

So, I remain a non-believer in the pew. I don’t make a point of it, because after all I’m choosing to be there. I’m sure most of the folks in church don’t know or notice. Those that do, may think I’m simply “earlier on the journey” than others. (I think some people think I’m Jewish, based on the occasional question. This is a frequent assumption because I’m dark and strong-featured.)

Instead, I tend to think that I’ve gone much further. I’ve gone past being religious, through my religion-bashing phase and to some extent am post-religious. Now I can find the common ground with my socially progressive instincts and faith groups who articulate it on the ground.

Besides the music is great.

I find this perspective hopeful, much more so than that of the New Atheists or even this.

There was also this article from the National Geographic yesterday. Based on excavations in Turkey, Klaus Schmidt concludes:

The construction of a massive temple by a group of foragers is evidence that organized religion could have come before the rise of agriculture and other aspects of civilization. It suggests that the human impulse to gather for sacred rituals arose as humans shifted from seeing themselves as part of the natural world to seeking mastery over it. When foragers began settling down in villages, they unavoidably created a divide between the human realm—a fixed huddle of homes with hundreds of inhabitants—and the dangerous land beyond the campfire, populated by lethal beasts.

While he is open to changing his interpretation of the data, Schmidt concludes: “I think what we are learning is that civilization is a product of the human mind.”

Are you ready for the Rapture?

Posted on by
Reply

Killing the Buddha just might be the best way to follow this week’s Rapturemania. It’s a great site overall and their coverage on Harold Camping is great.

KtB editor Nathan Schneider has an essay elsewhere. In it, he admits to his own youthful apocalyptic fervor, including ritual listening to Harold Camping’s radio show. He has been following Camping’s movement and has this to say:

Some of my encounters with the 2012 crowd, however, have actually made me more tolerant of apocalyptic date-setting. While reporting on colonies of American expatriates in Costa Rica, I met 2012 adherents who dared to live quite impressive lives off the grid, growing their own food and pioneering new kinds of sustainable living. The prospect of an impending end can paradoxically motivate people to work toward a better future.

Ted Cox reports on his visit to the offices of Camping’s Family Radio and interviews Tom Evans. Money quote:

What will he do if he wakes up May 22? Grab coffee? Come in to work?

“No, it’s far more serious than that,” he replies. “I’ve said if you boil everything down it’s really trusting the Bible. If you can’t trust the Bible, then you got nothing. There’s no truth.”

I used to tell my students that of all Christian doctrines, the one for which their was incontrovertible proof of its falsehood was the belief that Jesus Christ was coming back soon. A close second is all of those people over the centuries who have given a certain date for Jesus’ return. They have all been proven false. Still, the apocalypse lures us in.

On a lighter note:

Moral advice for those who expect to be raptured:

And if you’ve got nothing planned for the day after:

Christians duking it out

Posted on by
Reply

There’s quite the dust-up going on over Sojourners Magazine’s decision not to run an ad from Believe Out Loud urging congregations to welcome gay families to worship.

Here’s the response from Episcopal Cafe. Here’s Susan Russell’s take 1 and take 2.

Religion Dispatches never misses an opportunity to comment on religious conflict (especially when it involves Evangelicals, even “progressive” ones).

whether Wallis actually represents a movement that could be described as the religious left is highly doubtful. First, Wallis himself has rejected the “religious left” label. Moreover, many who would consider themselves on the religious left reject Wallis as their leader.

I find all this rather amusing. Jim Wallis, to my knowledge, has never claimed to be a voice of progressive Christians or a leader of the Religious left. His roots are in conservative Evangelicalism and Sojourners has consistently opposed abortion, to take one example. Sojourners has distributed bumper stickers that shout: God is not a Democrat or a Republican.

Quite apart from the merits of the ad campaign and the importance of the inclusion of GLBT individuals and families into churches, it should not surprise anyone that Sojourners refused to run the ad. The issue of inclusion is as hot-button in more conservative denominations as it is in mainline ones, and we Episcopalians have reached no consensus on it. To see how it is playing out in one such denomination, check out gaymennonite.wordpress.com.

More importantly, I think it is important to admit that “progressive” Christians were quite willing to accept Jim Wallis as their spokesperson, because he high visibility and access to the halls of power and the media. They were happy to downplay significant theological differences and ethical/moral differences (a woman’s right to choose) and let Wallis speak for them because of his visibility. Wallis tries to make clear his reasoning here. Here’s another piece from Sojo, written by Tim King.

Such conflict provides media outlets with something more to write about. Controversy sells–witness the Rob Bell phenomenon. At the same time, the whole incident reminds me of the controversy a couple of weeks ago having to do with the law firm that was going to represent the House of Representatives defending DOMA in court. We have a tendency to want to damage, destroy, or silence those with whom we disagree. Whether or not one supports the Sojourners editorial decision, one ought to recognize their right to make it and hope that it is consistent with their editorial and theological positions. We should also hope and pray that in time their positions will evolve to what we believe are ones more in keeping with the Gospel and the Love of Christ.

Bad History, Bad Religion

Posted on by
Reply

I’m surprised there’s so little chatter in the blogosphere about the article in the NYTimes profiling David Barton, who argues that most of the Founding Fathers were “evangelical Christians,” cherry-picking quotations and sources to argue against the separation of church and state.

A complete smackdown of him and his pseudo-history by People for the American Way.

Proposed mosque in Sun Prairie turned down by planning commission

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s the article from today’s Wisconsin State Journal. The reason for refusal was parking–the proposed mosque is in a commercial development that has issues with parking and traffic. The commission’s decision is only advisory and the proposal will come up for a vote at City Council on May 3.

I don’t know the site, I’m not very familiar with Sun Prairie, but I do know from experience that proposed mosques, Buddhist or Hindu temples, even Mormon temples, are often opposed by neighborhood groups because of parking and traffic issues. Such issues are often cover for religious bigotry–one famous example of that was the proposed Mormon Temple in Nashville, TN in the 1990s.

In Greenville, the Masjid shared parking with a church. It worked out quite well, because the church didn’t need its parking lot on Friday afternoons.

I’m not going to cast aspersions on the members of Sun Prairie’s planning commission but I should think that instead of a blanket denial, one might come up with creative solutions to potential problems.

The Harvard Pluralism Project tracks such issues nationwide.

The relationship between educational level and religious involvement

Posted on by
1

The Episcopal Cafe asks: More education = less religion? It points to a study of Canadian religiosity by Notre Dame economist Daniel Hagerman mentioned on Freakonomics.

But perhaps it’s not just higher education, but what one majors in. Rosalynde Welch concludes from another study that Humanities and Social Science majors are less likely to be religious after graduating than Science majors. She blames it on postmodernism, the encounter with pluralism, and methodological doubt. Of course, as one commenter on the Episcopal Cafe thread pointed out, members of the Episcopal Church are much more likely to have college and graduate education than the wider public, including the wider religious public.

Hell, continued

Posted on by
Reply

The cover article in Time on Rob Bell and Hell stirred up some stuff in the blogosphere. Here’s Matt Yglesias’ response:

But without hell there’s no reason to think of good and bad, right and wrong as a question of getting over some hurdle of minimum standard of conduct.

Kathryn Gin on why hell still matters:

Whether or not we agree with the issues they champion, the majority of Americans who continue to believe in hell can’t simply be dismissed as fanatical relics of a bygone age. Controversies over hell keep recurring because to its believers, hell stands for more than fire, brimstone, and worms that never die. Hell also represents a backstop on the slippery slope to social chaos in a nation founded not on ethnicity or religion, but on the premise of a virtuous citizenry.

Ross Douthat’s “A Case for Hell.”

The doctrine of hell, by contrast, assumes that our choices are real, and, indeed, that we are the choices that we make. The miser can become his greed, the murderer can lose himself inside his violence, and their freedom to turn and be forgiven is inseparable from their freedom not to do so.

Why College Students Are Losing Their Religion – Conor Friedersdorf – Politics – The Atlantic

Posted on by
1

Conor Friedersdorf writes in response to an essay by Dennis Prager that includes the line: “the agenda of Western universities is to produce (left-wing) secularists.” It’s a silly piece, for Prager probably hasn’t talked to a lot of undergrads since he left college. If he spent any time on a college campus, he would realize that students’ values are largely shaped by eighteen years of immersion in American consumer culture, and if they “lose their religion” in college, it is only because they have left family, home, and community, and encountered in college new avenues for consumerism such as alcohol.

Friedersdorf wants to be charitable to Prager; he labels him “as thoughtful a voice as you’ll find on talk radio.” For Friedersdorf, the chief culprit in the losing of religion is the fact that college students leave home, family, and community, and learn that their religious commitments were largely the product of family and social pressure, and the desire for community. I think he’s right to place much of the blame on churches themselves:

If you’re someone who wants to see organized religion do a better job of holding on to young people – I have no strong preference either way, having friends for whom religion is the best thing in life and others for whom it’s been a terrible burden – the most problematic part of Mr. Prager’s argument is the lack of agency he gives to religions and their congregations. They’re cast as powerless in the face of university influence that is somehow made out to be irresistible.

But if four years of college undo 18 years of parenting and religious affiliation, perhaps the faith community’s tenuous hold is the problem, not the particular place outside its bubble where that hold evaporates.

I think Friedersdorf is exactly right. But I also think that there is a more subtle dynamic at work, too. For many young people, college is a rite of passage, a way of disengaging from their childhood and family and make themselves anew as young adults. If religion can’t help them make that transition, but instead seems to impede it, then religion must also be jettisoned along with other childhood values. Friedersdorf’s essay is here: Why College Students Are Losing Their Religion.