The fact is that women, regardless of their age, race, or class, have been subjected to various forms of the sin of sexism. Women, for the sheer fact that they are women, have been and are abused, stereotyped, taken advantage of, etc., and as we see in the brave and courageous faces of the women of Iran, silenced and subjected to abuse, violence, all because of an age old myth that the God of heaven and earth has ordained that female be less than and subject to male. (Incidentally, this myth has made its mark in many religious traditions). This sinful lie has made its home in our hearts causing all of us to give in and to live in ways that are not reflective of the kingdom which Jesus spoke of.

So, when Sotomayor made this comment she was – may I conjecture – speaking of her experience as a Latina woman who has had to struggle harder to find power in this world than most white males. As a result, her experience as a Latina woman would be different than that of a white male who would have power by the sheer fact that he is a white male. The experience and insight of a person who has had to struggle more for power always has something unique and powerful to offer those of us who have not had to struggle as much to gain power. Therefore, some might be appalled and perplexed by the statement, but we must realize that what we say and what we do always has context; experience will always inform how we think (even those who are interpreting and making and enforcing law).

All that being said, we see the tragic and at the same time inspiring events unfold in Iran as we see the faces of women who are legally 2nd class citizens in that country courageously stand up to the sinful forces that have so cruelly and violently enforced the myth. We see the face of men and women who want to have power for and with one another and not over and against each other. Now more than ever the voices, the stories and the EXPERIENCES of these women are finding their way into our homes and soon, if not already, we will begin – only begin – to realize how some of us are simply given more power than others for the sheer fact that we are male, or that we are American, or this or that, and there is no reason to be defensive, but instead to humble ourselves, especially as people of faith, and ask how we might live in ways that our more reflective and proactive in  destroying the various myths we’ve internalized about women, about Muslims and so on, and cherish one another seeking to have power WITH and FOR each other and not OVER and AGAINST one another.

Finally, in these challenging times President Obama is being urged to take more action as the oppression, suppression, and violence against the Iranian people increases. May we be hard pressed to think and pray for this situation because, as Martin Luther King Jr. has reminded us, “Violence begets violence.” What fruit would an attack on Iran produce? Would it help the survivors of the oppressed in this country?

May God grant the men and women of Iran God’s peace, comfort and continued courage.  Amen.

Evangelical author and radio host James Dobson said that he is “disappointed” that for the first time in nearly two decades there was no representative from the White House during the National Day of Prayer event. . . .

Dobson and his wife were organizers of a four-hour program on Capitol Hill marking the nationwide day designated by Congress as a day of prayer, which brought together members of Congress, military leaders, ministers and an NFL star.

Now, first off, let’s ask exactly who gave James and Shirley Dobson the authority to declare any “official” event for the National Day of Prayer. Dobson has long been known as a member of the hard-line reactionary Christian Right movement; wouldn’t any event that wants to be bipartisan and inclusive – as this event claims to be – pick someone a little less openly allied with the extreme Right as their figurehead?

Second, there’s this little tidbit from the very end:

However, a White House source with direct knowledge of the situation, said event organizers placed restrictions on potential speakers saying that they had to be “pro-life” and the only person officially invited from the administration was Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a Republican.

This lays bare the very heart of the problem with the extreme Christian Right as represented by Dobson. To suggest that only people who favor the criminalization of abortion are acceptable as representatives of the administration at this event – which is supposed to be inclusive of all faiths – is to suggest that religion is synonymous with being pro-criminalization on the abortion issue. It sends a message of exclusion to anyone who has an opinion that differs from the pro-criminalization party line of the Christian Right.

In addition, why is being pro-criminalization their litmus test – especially given that Jesus Christ said a heck of a lot more about the way we order our money than the absolutely nothing He said about abortion? If we’re going to have a national display of piety, and we’re going to be deciding who is and isn’t acceptable based on political positions, why is abortion the issue? Why not ask representatives to take a stand against torture, against preemptive war, against wealth inequality, against our country’s pandemic of hate?

If anything’s clear from this, it’s that James Dobson wasn’t ever really interested in having a bipartisan and inclusive National Day of Prayer. He was just interested in getting another chance to further his reactionary right-wing agenda and stick it to the Obama administration by any means necessary, including by politically hijacking a day when people of faith should be coming together in goodwill.

If using a day of prayer in a pathetic attempt to score cheap political points isn’t taking the Lord’s name in vain, then the Third Commandment has no meaning at all.

Oh, and while we’re on the subject of Bible verses Dr. Dobson should review, here’s another:

[Jesus said:] “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”

Matthew 6:5-6

But of course, that would question the very notion of a National Day of Prayer…

So, founded on Christian principles by Christian forbears? Sure. Yet, are not many of these same principles also principles found in many of the other religious traditions in the United States?

Even more, is the fact that a majority of the population cites Christianity as its religion enough to argue that a nation is Christian or Muslim, or Jewish, etc.? If so, then we all must ask ourselves what this might mean; for Christians in a supposedly Christian nation it may mean that if we say we are a Christian nation that we might believe that we need to be the dominant population, the dominant ideology, etc., yet, is this a Christian perspective? Also, if we say we are a Christian nation, then does that mean that our government is Christian and that we then consider our legislative policies, such as our past or even our current policies on torture, to be Christian?Doesn’t and hasn’t the claim that we are a Christian nation meant that we have somehow allowed ourselves to believe that we are entitled to a certain status in this world? Doesn’t and hasn’t the notion that we are a Christian nation allowed ourselves to believe that we are granted a special blessing from God? Isn’t that in many ways idolatrous?

Or, is being a Christian nation acting and living according to the so-called Christian principles we were founded by? Lest we forget that many who said we were a Christian nation also claimed slavery and segregation were “Christian” and that Martin Luther King, Jr., during the Civil Rights era, noted that while the United States espoused certain principles, it certainly did not live up to these principles.

So, what exactly makes a nation a “Christian” nation?

Regardless of our answer, the fact is that as Christians the questions that surround this issue are complex; as Christians do we desire our religion to be the religion of the “empire”? Or, do we maintain a distinct identity that is not tied to the empire? The issues may be complex, but as Christians we can and we must, at the very least, recall the sin of nationalism and what Scripture has to say to us about this particular sin.

Also, we have to ask ourselves what is at stake behind any desire to be called a Christian nation. Is there any desire for a special blessing from God behind this claim? After all, the fact remains that we can never claim that we are “blessed” in a particular way that suggests that this blessing is beyond that which any other nation might be blessed by God. To suggest we as a nation have a particular blessing because of certain principles we espouse or a certain population we are composed of would be to suggest, for example, that that the people in African nations are suffering from drought, famine, endless murder, rape, and genocide, because they are not particularly “Christian” enough. Not very Christian, is it?

May God have mercy on our claims to blessing and our notions of what it means to be a “Christian nation.”

From 1990 to 2001, the rate of decline in the number of self-identified Christians was 0.86% (from 86.2% to 76.7%), but from 2001 to 2008, it that decline was only 0.10% a year (from 76.7% to 76.0%). That is a significant slowdown in the rate of decline of self-identified Christians as a percentage of Americans. The causes for this change are not at all clear, and far beyond the reach of hackneyed generalizations about the cultural mood of the 1990’s versus our current decade.

Yet, as anybody who has spent time around Churches over the past 10 years knows, the decline is being slowed by a burst in evangelical Churches. In fact, mainlines have continued to decrease reaching a mere 12% of the total population.

So why are we seeing these trends and what does it mean?

It seems that 2000-2001 was a bottoming out point for Christian decline in the U.S. It was not, however, the bottoming out point for main-line or NE Catholic Churches. These members have, in large part, shifted towards more Evangelical Churches. The temptation is to suggest that the Republican machine really started creating an evangelical identity around the year 2000. I don’t think that is true. There are so many factors moving here that it is hard to determine the cause. Here are few of the main players -

• Rapid suburbanization and “White-Flight,” along with the failures of main-line and Catholic churches to create new houses of worship.
• Music is a big deal for a lot of people, and for some, 150 year old hymns are not cutting it.
• The soaring number of prosperity churches cannot be under-emphasized.

The list goes on with no silver bullet answer. Undoubtedly, though, social justice and progressive theology failed (in most cases) to make it into the ethos of these newer Churches. Yet, I want to provide a bit of a forecast for the coming years – “the recovery years” – of Christianity in America.

First, the Economic Crisis may save the main-line Church.

• Practically speaking the main-line Churches are vastly more financially solvent than newer Churches. This goes even further for the Catholic Church. Yes, from time to time, both sell buildings and property. But, the fact is, they have property to sell.
• Spiritually speaking many worshipers are going to be looking for an experience more “set-apart” from the culture than “relevant” to the culture. This is the opposite of the way many Churches, of all breeds, have been thinking for several years. But, I think people are experiencing a cultural failure in the wake of our fleeting wealth, and will look for something firm to hold on to separate from the culture. Something that has been around a few hundred years. I’m seeing this across the country in my 20 something friends who are returning to tradition worship experiences.
• Churches that branded themselves as Republican – or effectively so – have failed with the failure of the party. There justice has come in the form of a wrong war. Their economic vision, or silence, has led to their own member’s pain. People are not going to be content with “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” theology.

Second, the old draws are dead.

• While we still face racism in this country (as Mark Taylor wrote about Monday here), younger generations don’t tend to follow “white-flight” population models. They are returning to the cities. In fact, the newer evangelical and charismatic Churches are the most integrated in our society. I think the Christian Right was built on two forms of Christians. People who really care – rightly or wrongly – about abortion and gay-marriage. And “white-flight” Christians who felt under attack by the government in a post-segregation America. Now, the Christian Right only has one leg to stand on.
• Young Christians, evangelical and non, are searching for theological answers beyond the top-10 on the Barnes & Noble shelf. As Mark Noll has written about in “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind,” evangelicals flaunted an anti-intellectualism for years. Those days are over, and many pastors – of the old school – are going to have trouble answering those questions.
• The Prosperity Church should be bankrupt. I’m a bit torn here though, because as more people are facing need they may seek out irrational answers in the form of Prosperity Theology. Just not sure.

Third, I’m unconvinced about the two-hump model. Pastor Dan suggest that,

“like the “two-humped camel” of ideological polarization, what we’re seeing in religious affiliation is two poles emerging, with conservative Evangelicals and Mormons at one end of the spectrum and liberal Nones and various small sects at the other. In the middle are the mainline Protestants, and stretching across the span are Catholics.”

While conservative Mormons are a different subject, I think this really discounts what we are seeing in Christians under 35. I think that the overwhelming majority of Christians (evangelical and non-evangelical) under 35 have done kind of a hop around in their youth. Going through main-line, evangelical, and fundamentalist, stages to form a rather spiritual milieu. Gay Marriage, not abortion, is their defining issue. And they are split on it. The reason it is defining is because it – not abortion – is the overwhelming topic of political conversation in their circles. They are also engaging in conversations about war and peace, climate change, economic justice, and so on. These simply are not conversations occurring – in large numbers – in Christian circles (suburban and evangelical) for the past 30 years.

Christians under 35 are not all that different from one another (I’m leaning on Bob Wuthow’s After the Baby Boomers here). Here are a few markers of younger Christians.

• In previous generations it made a difference what your denomination was – it does not anymore.
• They are more hesitant to suggest that their brand of Christianity is the right one, as much as it is the right one for them.
• They are progressive on most issues, and aptly waiting to be politically engaged on something beyond abortion and gay-marriage.
• They are members of the service generation who wish to set aside their parent’s suburban wealth for a new community.

The “two-hump” model is not an apt description for these ‘free-flowing’ believers. It may be for older generation, but they will be the group that defines the Church in the coming years.

Christianity is going to look a lot different in America soon. And, I’m not really sure anybody can be completely sure of any forecast. Yet, looking towards where younger Christians are today provides a hopeful model of things to come. They could change. They could grow more conservative as they grow older. But right now they look like a positive force for social justice waiting to be engaged to do something.

One last note. It is unhealthy to look at the Religious Identification Survey and concoct Church-Growth models as a means to protect our faith. That, foundationally, betrays the ministry of Jesus. I’ve read some commentary that seems quite protectionist regarding the Church. I, for one, don’t think the Church needs to be as protected as it needs to be lived.

Accountability Now has a “single guiding principle of challenging the institutional power structures that make it so easy, so consequence-free for Congress to open up the government coffers for looting by corporate America while people across the country are losing their jobs and their basic constitutional rights while unable to afford basic health care.”

I think Pastor Dan is dead on when he says,  ”So if the religious Left wants a place at the table – even one that is not identical to that occupied by the Religious Right – this is going to be the kind of thing we’ll have to take on.”

Yeah it is hard politics.  But that is life.  We vote. We volunteer. We donate.  We should hold our leaders accountable for what we sent them there to do.  That is why last week’s pseudo-State of the Union was so great.  Obama spoke about the change we expected when we elected him.

Sometimes it seems that religious progressives are coming up short in terms of holding the people we worked hard to get elected accountable.  The reason for that is simple.  We do faith outreach in the most difficult races in the country.  Think of the recent campaigns that had a major faith-outreach component –  Strickland in Ohio, Sebelius in Kansas, Kaine in Virginia, Heath Shuler in North Carolina, Tom Perriello in Virginia, and the list goes on.   These candidates win tough races.  And, in order to hold office, they often take moderate positions on a number of issues.  Further, because the religious progressive movement is really just growing, we put our full force behind these tough races in helping them craft “common ground” positions.  Often, because of this political reality, we find ourselves holding these swing-district positions because the people we’ve worked hard for do.

The relation of the religious left to our supported candidates is drastically different than the religious right.  The religious right wins in extremely conservative districts.  They will challenge sitting Republicans who are not in-line with them.  They do not have much interest in reaching across the isle, because these seats are won by being as conservative as possible.

The religious left, however, targets swing districts.  We have never, to my knowledge, challenged a sitting democrat (no organization has really ever existed to do so).  Because we challenge in swing-districts we lean in a bipartisan direction (M25 is one of the few organizations willing to get behind candidates in a partisan manner).  And, because so many of us came from religious right backgrounds, we understand their culture a lot better than they understand ours and tend to be beholden to some of their issue-frames.

Religious progressives are not captivated by two issues.  In my opinion that makes us more complete citizens, which is better for the body politic.  But, not having one or two big issues also makes it harder to galvanize support.  For example, as much as I care about SCHIP, it just does not get people fired up the same way a Prop. 8 does.

That is kind of the lay-of-the-land, but where do we go from here?

First, We should get behind projects to hold our elected officials accountable.  I think primary challenges are often a good thing.  Yet we have to carefully weigh a primary challenge against the likelihood of a more progressive candidate winning that race.  So it has to be well done.  We should not be expected to tolerate candidates coming up short on immigration, torture, health-care, etc.  If these are important issues for us, we should treat them as such.

Second, we cannot let what makes for good electoral politics in a swing district control our institutional messages as the religious progressive movement grows.  Many of us are unabashedly progressive, out of our moral convictions, and we should not be afraid to make those beliefs known.  Only by making those beliefs known will they have a chance to change the theological conversation in this nation.  The religious left must be bigger than the swing districts we compete in.

Thirdly, we need to create a means to let members’ constituents know where they stand on several moral issues beyond abortion and gay-marriage.  That is work I hope M25 has a direct role in doing.  We are not going to be able to hold anybody accountable if we are not willing to let issue positions be known.

So there are some of my thoughts.  I’m sure others have opinions on Accountability Now – So any thoughts?

Holder spoke the truth; though there are many facets of our society and culture that appear to embrace racial and cultural diversity and harmony, there are many that are not a far cry from the days of slavery and segregation.  Our society is filled with instances of modern-day slavery, as people from various immigrant communities are forced to do work they might not otherwise, had they the opportunities that others have had, and as minority groups still continue to struggle to have the same access and opportunity to quality education, health care, etc.  Also, one cannot help but recognize the way our cities and towns are structured – always segregated.  Take for example Austin, Texas.  It is an extremely diverse city which is filled with beautiful people from various countries and different faith traditions.  Nevertheless, it is very segregated.  East Austin is overwhelmingly populated by Latino and African American communities, while the rest of the city almost seems worlds away, divided by the 1-35 that few, from either side, rarely cross.  I am certain that this cultural landscape is not unique to Austin, Texas.  It is, in part, what Holder is referencing.  Perhaps we go on, patting ourselves on the back, reassured that we are doing so much better, turning a blind eye to the ways in which are cities, our schools, our circles of friends, and so on, are not so diverse.

Why is it so hard for us to take in Holder’s words?  Why is it so hard for us to admit that we do in fact live in a time and place where modern-day slavery and modern-day segregation exist?  Is  it because we have an aversion to admitting our own complicity?  Is it because we are an ahistorical people who are unaware of the sad and shameful history which has laid the foundation for our current circumstances?  I think it is, at best, a little of all of these.

Therefore, it is – without a doubt  - the call and the responsibility of the Church to speak prophetically about our racial prejudices and divisions, and to humble ourselves and heed prophetic words when we hear them.

On the book’s companion website, I’ve also included podcasts with religious leaders such as Rev. Jim Forbes, Rabbi David Saperstein, Rev. Dr. Susan Thistlethwaite, Eboo Patel, and others.

Here’s what some others have had to say about the book. I would welcome comments about the book here in this community.

Praise for Progressive & Religious:

“Robert P. Jones understands that progressive faith is not simply a ‘left’ alternative to the Religious Right, but a bringing together of religious belief and practice with progressive politics…. Progressive & Religious convincingly shows how people of many different faiths are creating an authentic social vision for a pluralistic America. I commend this book to all who are seeking to join their faith and politics in working for a better world.”—Rev. Jim Wallis, Sojourners, author of The Great Awakening

“Robert P. Jones is one of the most searching, thoughtful and practical thinkers in the revival of religiously-rooted progressivism, and his book is a great blessing for that cause and for the country. Anyone—left, right or center—who wants a guide to this new movement would do well to spend time with this book.” —E. J. Dionne, Jr., Washington Post, author of Souled Out

“This instructive book should be in front of every newspaper journalist and every spiritual progressive. Sensitive to theological as well as political concerns, Progressive & Religious is a valuable introduction to the contemporary struggle for a progressive spiritual transformation of the world that is taking place in most of the world’s religions.” —Rabbi Michael Lerner, Tikkun Magazine, The Network of Spiritual Progressives, author of The Left Hand of God

“An illuminating road map to religious re-discovery in contemporary America. With a marriage of journalistic enthusiasm and intellectual rigor, Robert P. Jones skips among the tensions that mar intra-religious relations in our society, smashing erroneous preconceptions and championing a renaissance in the way we look at faith. The result is a thorough examination of religion in modernity that highlights the progressive tendencies shared by all faiths in highly readable form.” —Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, American Society for Muslim Advancement

Yet it is curious to think of the fact that both Bush and Obama, with differences in meaning, allude to God and how God interacts with our nation.  (Just take a look at Bush’s Inaugural Address in 2000, the similarities with Obama’s speech are striking concerning God and Nation).

So what do we make of this:  Is Obama speaking of some civil religion that invokes God and God’s providence as an essential part to the history of the U.S.?  Of course, this need not necessarily be “Christian” religion.  It could be anything ranging from the Deism of Jefferson to the evangelicalism of Chuck Colson.  Or, it could be nothing connected to any particular religious tradition and strictly be a “civil” religion in the sense that America has a special or “sacred,” if you prefer that terminology, status in history.

The fact that Obama speaks of a “new era” and “remaking America again,” all the while invoking “God,” seems to embrace the idea that America has a special history tied to a special identity.  Whether that history and identity needs to remade is another issue, but I think it is fairly evident that Obama is appealing, as many Presidents have before, to this tradition. (NOTE: This does not mean that America is a Christian Nation, only that God is often referenced in conjunction with the identity of the U.S.)

Does that mean that Obama is an exponent of civil religion?  I do not know.  I think Obama personally would not identify himself with civil religion.

It could also certainly be the case that Obama’s rhetoric is not meant to invoke civil religion per se, but is a way of speaking to a nation made up of people from myriad faiths.  In a pluralistic society, that would simply be an appropriate way of speaking to diverse people without alienating them.

At the same time, it is still up for debate whether Obama’s appeal to reclaiming the essence of American identity is an indication that America has a civil religion and Obama is an exponent of it.

Indeed, it might be more important to discuss whether America has a civil religion in the first place rather than whether it is the case or not that Obama is an exponent of it.

I will leave that up for you to decide.

It certainly is an interesting matter to consider.

The White House has just posted video of Thursday’s events and some of what they are doing on the Faith-Based front. You can get a sense of where Josh DuBois is taking the program. Exciting Stuff! Also exciting to have a White House that Youtubes.

White House Blog Post