Eboni Marshall Turman to Lead Black Church Studies

Duke Divinity School Dean Richard B. Hays has announced the appointment of Eboni Marshall Turman as director of the Office of Black Church Studies and assistant research professor of Black Church Studies.

Marshall Turman

A native of New York, Marshall Turman served as an assistant minister of the Abyssinian Baptist Church in New York City for 10 years. She is the youngest woman to be licensed and ordained by the church, and the second woman to preside over the ordinances in Abyssinian’s 205-year history.
Her primary teaching interests span the breadth of social ethics as a discipline, especially 20th century social ethics and the historical development of American theological liberalism; liberation theology and ethics; sexual ethics; and postcolonial ethics. Her current research interests include womanist/feminist liberation theology and ethics, black church studies, difference theory, and W.E.B DuBois.

Read the rest here 

The Evolution of an Evangelical

Evolution is no longer a theory -- it is a reality. Or at least it is when it comes to the evolution of public opinion on LGBT equality. From the White House to the State House; in opinion polls and in church pews; even in NBA locker rooms: the dream of full equality for LGBT people is no longer a far-away light at the end of a very long tunnel -- it is a tide turning and a point tipping.

I've seen lots and lots of analysis about what has been the "game changer" for this movement that I've been part of for over a decade now. And while I'm sure there are books about to be published, articles fixing to be filed and dissertations eventually going to be defended, what I know for a fact certain is that part of the story -- no matter who is telling it or analyzing it -- will be the power of the stories of LGBT people to change hearts and minds. And votes. And eventually the world.

And the best way I know to illustrate the power of those stories is to share this story -- the story of the evolution of an evangelical, the story of Brian McLaren. Author, activist and "public theologian" Brian McLaren took some heat last year when he presided at the wedding of his son Trevor and his husband Owen. In response to some of that "heat" -- mostly from fellow Christians -- McLaren told this story in a recent blog post:

Read the rest here

Kanye West’s ‘Yeezus’: Tribute or Travesty?

Kanye West’s new album, available June 18, is expected to be called “Yeezus.” The title may be a riff on the artist’s nickname, “Yeezy”, but it is certainly a play on the name Jesus as well, and will certainly raise questions as a result.  Is this title a tribute or a travesty?

As a rabbi who is endlessly fascinated by the historical character called Jesus, and genuinely moved by some of the teachings attributed to him in the New Testament, I remain calm as these questions begin to swirl as whatever I think about Jesus and his story, he is not a divine figure for me.  That said, the place of faith in popular culture, even other peoples’ faith, affects us all regardless of what faith or even no-faith we follow.

We have to wonder, is this artist’s work a tribute to Jesus, or is it irreverent to the point of being offensive?  Could it actually be a bit of both?  Could it be that what borders on the offensive, or even crosses the border, for some, is actually a deeply spiritual message for others?

Read the rest here

Rice to Set Up a Religious Tolerance Institute

Rice University will establish an institute to promote religious tolerance after receiving a $28.5 million donation from Houston philanthropists, Dr. Milton and Laurie Boniuk.

The gift will be used to build a 3,000 square feet Boniuk Institute for the Study and Advancement of Religious Tolerance, which will conduct research, public outreach and educational programming.

Its mission is to encourage multidisciplinary research that results in understanding and achieving tolerance. Research will be done in religious studies, humanities, social sciences, natural sciences and engineering.

Read the rest here

How Seminaries and the Ordination Process Leave Theologically "Liberal" Christians Behind

by Crystal St. Marie Lewis
R3 Contributor
First posted at Crystal St. Marie Lewis

There’s a new article in the Washington Post about seminary graduates who don’t plan to enter ministry. According to the write-up, “About 41 percent of master’s of divinity graduates expect to pursue full-time church ministry, down from 52 percent in 2001 and from 90-something percent a few decades ago, according to the Association of Theological Schools, the country’s largest such group.” The writer lists a variety of reasons for the increasingly popular choice to obtain seminary training without seeking a church vocation, including a sense of spiritual calling to a secular career and general misgivings with the church as an institution.

As I read the Washington Post piece, I thought about the number of graduates who won’t enter church ministry for another reason. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, the writer does not mention that many won’t become ministers because they’ve been barred from eligibility on the basis of their personal theology and/or social views.

The process known as “ordination” can be an ugly one– specifically for candidates seeking credentials in a major denomination. In addition to meeting academic, “moral” and mental health requirements, candidates are required to submit to a review of their personal beliefs, including a detailed assessment of their “personal theology”. I have observed a variety of these reviews during the past few years of my trek through seminary as my colleagues have worried if some nuance in their understanding of a theological concept will send up a red flag for their ordination committees. I have personally witnessed the fear associated with the prospect of one’s vocation meeting an abrupt and unceremonious end because their personal statement of faith or the oral defense of said statement revealed a nontraditional perspective. I believe there are a variety of problems with this, including the following:

1. Many denominations require candidates to obtain a graduate degree involving work in the areas of theology and philosophy. In those graduate programs, professors spend countless hours training students to think outside the theological box, only for their ordination committees to demand that they put God (and their capacity for exploration) back inside the box. Seminaries are often free and open spaces where people are encouraged to draw their own conclusions about sacred matters. Yet, students endure rejection after the academic stage of their ordination processes–ironically for drawing unapproved conclusions. I have come to think of this as the Explore Now/Pay Later model. (And, by “pay” I mean in terms of consequences and not dollars… The excessive number of dollars required to obtain a seminary degree are another matter altogether.)
2. The Explore Now/Pay Later model is detrimental to the spiritual and intellectual growth of the ordination candidate. Students who are afraid that they might begin to believe something that could cancel their eligibility for ordination can be resistant to the transformative process of intellectual pursuit. For these students, the information presented at seminary is viewed as a threat. Those who fall into this category could go through the motions of obtaining their graduate degree without appreciating the value of what they’ve learned. This reduces the rich history and diverse ideas within Christianity to a mere hurdle for the student to overcome, rather than something to be embraced, understood, remembered and passed on.
3. Many students will enter the ordination process with the intention of concealing their beliefs from their professors, ordination committees, and congregations. They enter ministry at the expense of their own sense of authenticity– often sacrificing their sense of self to the demands of the institution. I occasionally receive emails from pastors who fit into this category. They’re miserable in their parishes because they have to dress in a theological costume that doesn’t fit them… day after day… week after week… liturgical cycle after liturgical cycle.

As I read the Washington Post article, I thought about the words of Marcus Borg in his book titled Speaking Christian. With regard to the Christian preoccupation withbelieving certain things, he wrote:

The meaning of believe prior to [the year] 1600 includes more than [mental assent]. It comes from the Old English be loef, which means “to hold dear”… Thus until the 1600s, to believein God and Jesus meant to belove God and Jesus. Think of the difference this makes. To believe in God does not meanbelieving that a set of statements about God are true, but tobelove God. To believe in Jesus does not mean to believe thata set of statements about him are true, but to belove Jesus.

This meaning goes back to ancient Christianity. The Latin roots of the word credo, with which the creed begins and from which we get the word creed, means “I give my heart to.”Heart does not refer simply to feelings, to emotions, though those are involved. Rather, heart is a metaphor for the self at its deepest level–a level of the self beneath our thinking, willing and feeling. To whom do you give your heart, your self? To whom do you commit your self?” (pgs. 118-119)

I wonder how the ordination process would change– and subsequently, how Christianity would change– if instead of asking people:

“Which of these statements do you affirm, under penalty of exclusion from candidacy, are wholly and indisputably true”

…we asked…

“In what way do you demonstrate that you belove God, and that you belove Jesus? How do you demonstrate to the world that you have given yourself to them?”

I am not sure exactly what would happen if the criteria for one’s “beliefs” were to change. I do, however, suspect that such a change could forge the marriage between the liturgical and academic arms of the faith–a union which many Christians have desired over the course of the past few generations. And over time, after an infusion of out-of-the-box thinkers into ministry roles, Christianity could see some change in its reputation for being an anti-intellectual religion. Such a shift would likely be very uncomfortable in the beginning, but could be exactly what the church needs in the long run.

Until that day comes, our seminaries and ordination committees will continue to miss an amazing opportunity to tap into what could be a great ministry resource today. There are people in this world who crave the opportunity to hear what alternative voices in Christendom have to say about matters related to theology, morality and the social direction of the world. To cast those voices aside, particularly in an age when people are walking away in droves from the “intolerant, anti-intellectual, boxed-in” church just seems short-sighted. Of course, while I hope such an epiphany–an epiphany about the short-sightedness of telling theologically liberal voices to sit down and be quiet–will strike our institutions, I know it’s not likely…

Still, I can hope… Can’t I?

Exercise or religion? Yoga is for everyone

Millions of people of varying religious beliefs practice yoga and find that it enhances their spiritual life. Millions of others view it strictly as physical exercise and an aid to mindfulness.
Most of them would be baffled at the notion that yoga has anything to do with religion. "People come to our studios to get into shape and relieve stress," says Brandon Hartsell, chairman of Yoga Alliance and the owner of Sunstone Yoga, which has 12 locations in the Dallas area. "They are not looking for a religious experience."

Yet, in Encinitas, Calif., the parents of one child, backed by a Christian defense organization, have sued the Encinitas Union School District claiming a physical education program that includes bi-weekly yoga sessions constitutes religious indoctrination. The plaintiffs allege that the School District's decision to include yoga in its P.E. classes "unlawfully promotes religious beliefs, while disfavoring and discriminating against other religions," in violation of the California Constitution's religious freedom provisions. Because the suit portrays yoga as inherently religious in nature, it could deter yoga programs in schools across the U.S., with a potential impact extending far beyond southern California.

Like many scholars of yoga and religion, Christopher Chapple, professor of Indic and Comparative Theology at Loyola Marymount University, says that yoga is a non-sectarian practice. The Yoga Sutras, the most commonly cited classical text that forms the basis for both traditional and contemporary yoga philosophy, make no specific theological claims, according to Chapple. It is the non-sectarian nature of this text that has allowed it to resonate for more than 1,500 years, he says.

Read the rest here

Seminary Graduates Not Always Ministering From The Pulpit

Alethea Allen, a Virginia resident, graduated this week from Wesley Theological Seminary in Northwest Washington after years of divinity classes. But she has no intention of becoming a minister.

Instead, Allen plans to keep practicing as a pediatrician in the Winchester area. Her seminary training, she said, will help her be a better doctor.

Allen is one of an increasing number of divinity students who don’t plan to become pastors. Instead, they envision using their degrees to “minister” in any number of professions, from filmmaking to medicine to nonprofit management.

“I see what I’m doing as a form of ministry,” said Allen, 36. “Particularly with parents whose children are dying. I approach the situations more with my spiritual eyes open. This isn’t just a medical event taking place.”

She said she studied not only the theological ideas of suffering, but also more practical topics, including how churches can more directly help congregants improve their health. She plans to work closely with Winchester churches on health programs, particularly for childhood obesity.

Read the rest here

When God is Not Enough

by Darlene Kelley
R3 Contributor

First Published at The Journey

OK, let me stop lying. Truth be told, I am right in the middle of it at this very moment. Some days it is difficult to get out of bed, other days I wake up disappointed that I woke up alive.

As I talk to people and watch folks move through life, my senses are heightened and my eyes come open to the pain that tons of people are experiencing. I am not the only one. Whether it is something as traumatic as the recent attacks in Boston or as traumatic as the emotional and mental anguish that is felt day after day or losses – small and great; there are even some who can’t imagine life getting better and face each day with dread as they endure the illness of Depression and other emotional or mental illnesses. Sometimes life hits hard. Many times it is beyond our control.

As a person of faith my first instinct is to look in God’s direction for help. I look to God because I realize that I need a source greater than me to draw strength from. It’s almost automatic for me. However, as I hear statements such as: ”You don’t know that God is all you need until God is all you have,” it makes me want to holler.

Some profess this as though it is absolute truth. Certainly I have had moments when things were stripped away and God proved to be present in the middle of it. But is God really enough? Is God all that we need? God is all powerful and all loving, yet in a crisis God is not all that we need. Sounds contradictory in a sense – “all” sufficient and yet not enough? Hard times have a way of revealing this. Hard times also raise awareness regarding what types of friends you have in your life. I have found that the following are some of the types in our lives.

Midnight Hour Friends - These are the people who you can call on and count on. They are dependable, they see through fake smiles and know how to reach into the core of your being and leave you feeling loved unconditionally.

Fair Weather Friends - They like to hang out with you when things are good and you have on your happy, fun face but disappear or stand aloof and gawk when times are tough for you, waiting for you to get it together so they can rejoin your presence.

Fickle Friends - They are unpredictable, you never know where you stand with them. They are usually unreliable and are great at making promises that they don’t keep – and they give you no explanation

New Friends - These are the relational surprises. When you met them, you never imagined that when things got tough they would be there with a shoulder to cry on and strength to lean on when you are weak.

Strangers who Behave Like Friends - These are the people you encounter from time to time who lend a helping hand when they see you in need (and they don’t expect anything in return except a “thank you).” They don’t know you well at all, but still care about you enough to help.

Faithful Friends - These are people who have seen you at your best and at your worst and still see you as valuable. They are confidants, conversation partners, people you can talk to for hours and have it seem like minutes. Everybody should have at least one or two of these.

I suppose we need all of these types of people in our lives. Sometimes the tricky part is figuring out who’s who and discovering that the folks you thought were one type of friend were actually another. But what is not tricky is knowing that we need more than God, we need each other.

On a personal note, if all a person has for me when I am in deep trouble, heart hurting, and a “can’t pick myself up” kind of pain is a sermon or a scripture to quote, keep that, because I can preach a sermon and read a scripture my damn self. But the ones I have found most helpful are people who can push past the religious jargon and egotistical tendencies to try and prove how spiritual they are and simply lend a listening ear, give a hug, and yes, let me yell a while when I need to without a whole lot of commentary or put “offness.” These things and more help people make it through life storms.

One of the many messages of the Resurrection of Jesus is that it’s not over when it looks like it’s over – there’s more to the story. I know this, but from time to time I must admit that I am a walking, living breathing contradiction, i.e. I believe yet I don’t believe. I believe need help with my unbelief. Some will be honest and admit that there is a level of hell that we can go through that can cause wondering, doubting, despair. We still have faith, but cannot and should not deny the struggle. The evidence that faith is still present is seen in our courageously getting out of bed day after day even when it doesn’t make sense to do so.

Sure, we have promises given by God [to others] as read in biblical text that modern readers can live by that inform faith in the ever present presence of God. But as God seems absent and inactive (and even when we sense and believe that he is present), we need the people who know us and love us to be there. God’s presence is not the only presence needed to sustain us through hard times. Each created person needs another created person (or two or three or more).

There are people who love me so deeply that they refuse to let me walk through life alone. These individuals grasp the concept of what it means to be the living, breathing, realized compassion of God and presence of love. Not only do I value them, I aim to be like them in this way – they show me how to care by caring.

During seasons of life when I experience more defeat than victory, more tears than smiles, and more frustration than peace, pious platitudes won’t do, neither will empty “I’ll pray for yous.” I need the physical presence of human beings whose compassion won’t let them abandon me. How about you? And more importantly, who can you be this kind of person for?

White Men Can't Jump Out of the Frying Pan That Easily

by Crystal St. Marie Lewis
R3 Contributor

First posted at Crystal St. Marie Lewis

If you don’t know who Tony Jones is, you should Google him. He’s a well-known, highly respected, and often sought-after voice in Emergent Christianity on topics related to theology. He’s also a seminary professor, successful author and an occasional source for controversy in churchier circles.

Today, he stepped in it a little (okay a lot) when he wrote that he’s “tired of being called a racist” by African American women who find his opinions exclusive and short-sighted. (Please read the complete post here for full context.) I read his words and was immediately struck by three things.

First, I was reminded of the inherent privilege associated with being a Christian in the West. For those of you who aren’t aware of what religious privilege is, I invite you to read my blog post titled What I Mean When I Call Christianity A Privileged Class. In it, I explain that Christians in America enjoy religious privilege, just as Whites enjoy racial privilege. A symptom of privilege is one’s lack of acknowledgement that the “privilege” phenomenon exists. Another symptom is what could easily be termed Superman Syndrome… It’s the erroneous belief held by those with privilege that they either can orshould “fix” the “problems” experienced by non-privileged groups. The “fix” usually involves somehow changing the non-privileged group into something more like the privileged class. (One example is the overwhelming desire among some Christians to convert the entire world. “Evangelism” can unfortunately be what happens whenprivilege meets perceived divine mandate.)

Second, Jones expressed a sentiment about the quality of his own beliefs. It’s a sentiment that I hear far too often in both liberal and conservative theological circles. In his post, he reintroduced an opinion of his which was originally shared two years ago. Back then, he felt that “the nascent Pentecostalism practiced in much of the Global South would benefit from being in dialogue with the older, more developed theologies of the West.” Later in the post, he shared that his more progressive understanding of the Gospel is, in his opinion, better than  “one particular version of American Christianity… dominated by men and exclusionary of women.”

He seems to write about his understanding of the gospel as if it’s objectively better, rather than experientially better. We should all remember that whether we like it or not, religious experience is subjective. The quality or value of a doctrine or belief is determined by one’s own context and experience. I think it’s okay to say that an interpretation of the Bible is more culturally palatable, more accurate (as is conceivably possible when translating from one language to another), or even more useful in one’s own context… But Jones’ progressive interpretation of the Bible is only “better” in the sense that we live in a society which is becoming more progressive. Certainly, what the world needs is far fewer folks yelling, “My interpretation is better than yours!” Personally, I do find his understanding of scripture more palatable than others in many respects, but I understand that the concept known as “better” is relative. Those who read scripture from positions of privilege would do better to accept this as well.

Finally (and it breaks my heart to say this because I have found his work quite helpful in the past)… I found it utterly infuriating that Tony Jones did not respond more humbly and graciously to the women who detected hints of racism in his comments. When a member of a minority group says, “I feel marginalized by your comments,” the proper response is to 1.) Stop what you’re doing, 2.) Reflect on your behavior, and 3.) Consider the possibility that you may well have caused some offense. The proper response is NOT to tell the member of said minority group that he or she is wrong because you say so. For Pete’s sake, Tony, what in the world were you thinking? Please apologize.

So, I guess that’s where I come down on all of this. What a crazy day in social media this has been.

The Spirituality of Learning

Christian Scientists think of angels as bright ideas. Angels are moments of clarity and expanded consciousness, moments of fresh vision and creativity, broadened perspective, and infusions of loving inspiration. Christian Scientists, who think of God as pure Mind, a divine principle of loving consciousness, see the intellect as a portal of revelation.

I come from a line of Christian Scientists, educated people devoted to the art of learning, whose hearts and imaginations are fed by angelic ideas, who are restored to health and wholeness through the spiritual practice of learning. Of course, not only Christian Scientists access the divine via the portal of the intellect. The heritage of growth through learning, and liberation through education, is upheld by Jesuits, Orthodox Jews, swamis and gurus, poets and scholars, and anyone who embarks courageously on immersion into a new discipline. Children, whose biological development keeps rapid pace with their cognitive burgeoning, are greeted by angels on every horizon.

I am a PhD student, a professional learner. Presently I am preparing for comprehensive exams. Naturally, the task of preparing for comps is accompanied by great trepidation. It is the time at which one is asked to master the literature and historical lineage of their field of study in order to be able to teach it to undergraduates and to more incisive graduate students, and to be able to engage with fellow field specialists about new research and emerging methods for conceiving of, connecting, and conveying information within and beyond the field. The heritage of the academic profession is to be encyclopedic about one's field of study, and to be able to constellate ideas and explications into related clusters. These constellations amass into a celestial canopy of ideas, the effulgent latticework that is your field of study. In other words, you have to get the lay of the land and to be able to name the giants whose shoulders you stand upon.

The reason this task is laden with such trepidation has to do with the enormous amount of literature that beleaguers virtually every academic discipline. All of this information has to be taken in and synthesized. The proof of the achievement is passage of a series of exams that ask you to demonstrate your grasp of up to 210 academic treatises relevant to your field. Even if you aren't particularly interested in or compliant with certain arguments that have been made, if they have been made in the neighborhood of your topic, you need to be conversant on them. It is part of the vocation. So people like me are asked to read about a book a day every day for about nine or twelve months, and to reintegrate other pertinent literature read throughout graduate and perhaps undergraduate coursework.

Read the rest here

Lecture on the Bible and the Media

I have spent a great deal of my time as a professor of Biblical Studies working with the media— ABC, NBC, CBS, the BBC, the Discovery and History Channels and so on. There are really two different sorts of dealings with the media that people who teach religion or theology are likely to have in this day and age— questions from the press about recent archaeological discoveries or developments in the Lands of the Bible, and secondly Christmas and Easter or even other sorts of specials commissioned by some major network as a program or series of programs. For an example of the latter, take the BBC series I did called the Story of Jesus, which aired here and in the U.S. a couple of Easter seasons ago. Usually what happens is that the print media news division gives tips to the program division about who to interview and who speaks well on camera and then you get a phone call. Print media interviews are of a more urgent nature (‘can I speak to you today…’) because of something suddenly being newsworthy, whereas TV programs gestate over a longer period of time. Now a days, much is created in a sound studio with the help of CG, but there are still series, such as the Story of Jesus, or the show I did for CBS called The Mystery of Christmas, where you go and film in Israel or elsewhere on location.

None of this might seem very important to you in the classroom, except as the occasional film clip to be used to illustrate your teaching about religion or the Bible, except that unfortunately in a post-modern, and increasingly post-Western, post-Christian era, even in large parts of the West itself, there is rampant Biblical illiteracy even among the well educated, and that includes the media. In this sort of situation, perception is reality and image is crucial. In other words, one of the reasons you find yourself having to justify the teaching of religion and theology in what I would call public schools and public universities is to a very large degree because you have an image problem, generated in part by that very ignorance of religion and theology in our culture. It is assumed that religion or theology has only to do with antiquity or out-moded non-scientific ways of thinking, and in any case is not essential to the curriculum in the U.K. in an increasingly scientific age. This prompts the need for justification of such classes and course of study, increasingly so since in the case of schools in the U.K. public tax dollars go to supporting these classes or course on religion or theology and indeed various of these educational institutions are declared charitable ventures.

Read the rest here

Are Christians Under Attack in America?

Fox News Radio host Todd Starnes is a man on a mission. For the past several years he’s been leading a crusade to prove that Christianity in America is being undermined by a secular, anti-religious agenda at the behest of the libertine big-government of President Barack Obama and his heathen minions.

Earlier this month, as a guest on Hannity, Starnes trained his sights on the U.S. armed forces, accusing the President and the Department of Defense of a “Christian cleansing” of the military. The notoriously fact-challenged pundit appeared to be referencing the DoD’s longstanding prohibition against proselytizing, which is defined as “inducing someone to convert to one’s own religious faith,” among the troops. Basically you’re not supposed to do what Maj. Douglas W. Duerksen, a military chaplain, recommends here, or what the evangelical group Cadence International describes in detail in its short documentary “Mission to the Military.”  If you have any trouble understanding why this kind of behavior is off limits, imagine your eight-year-old daughter sitting through a sermon on Christ’s grace by her second-grade public school teacher, whose salary is paid for with your tax dollars.

Starnes is little more than a troll with a megaphone, which makes it tempting to dismiss his rhetoric as the rantings of one more anti-government zealot. But the notion that the freedom of American citizens to practice their faith in earnest is being stifled by the very government pledged to protect it is not limited to the radical fringe. Emboldened by the passage of Obamacare and its focus on promoting female reproductive health—and re-energized by the shifting tides on gay marriage—a handful of conservative intellectuals have added their voice to “War on Christians” meme.

Their faulty logic shares one common distinction: a misunderstanding of what the framers intended when they chose to include a mandate on religious freedom in the Bill of Rights. This error was advanced most recently in the April 2013 edition of Hillsdale College’s Imprimisnewsletter, in a cover story penned by Yale-trained theologian R.R. Reno. In it, Reno, who edits the journal “First Things,” which covers religion in civic life, blames the demise of religious dogma in the public sphere on the efforts of a handful of highly placed secularists intent on reshaping civic discourse to favor Rawlsian “public reason” over faith-based morality.

Read the rest here

The Political Dominance of Fundamentalism

Last week, Alex Knapp and I got into a friendly debate on Twitter about whether it’s fair to stereotype conservative and fundamentalist religion as representative of religion generally. I wanted to flesh out some of my arguments there with additional data.

I wish it were true that the religious left and the religious right were equally influential. If they were, they’d usually balance each other out, and there would be little reason for atheists to worry about undue religious influence in politics.

But that isn’t the case. Poll after poll has shown that, in America at least, religious affiliation predicts voting patterns. The more committed a believer is, the more frequently they attend church, the more likely they are to be conservative and to vote Republican. The states where the highest percentage of people describe religion as “very important” to their daily lives are all solid red states. The 2012 election bore this out, with Protestants continuing to support Republicans by lopsided margins. If religious fundamentalism wasn’t politically dominant over religious liberalism, none of this would be the case, and knowing a person’s depth of devotion or level of church attendance wouldn’t tell you anything about which candidates they were likely to support. But it does.

Further reinforcing this picture, the “mainstream” Protestant churches, which are the most theologically liberal Christian denominations, are suffering from severe demographic decline, plummeting from over 50% of the population to a mere 8% in just a few decades. (Note this isn’t solely affecting liberal churches – America is becoming more secular in general, which is affecting all denominations. Conservative churches are shrinking and consolidating as well, although not quite so dramatically.)

Read the rest here

Savaging Women (and Men)

The festering scab of our rape epidemic has been ripped off (again), revealing the festering flesh underneath. Women and girls snatched off the street and held in chains for years as sex slaves; predators talking their way into the homes of struggling single mothers for access to their children; male soldiers and defense contractors raping their female and male fellow soldiers habitually and for sport with impunity; women, men, boys and girls trafficked around the world because they are cheaper and more profitable than drugs with lower overhead and fewer turf wars – and the demand is inexhaustible. 

We are horrified by and seemingly inured to violence: sexual violence; domestic violence; gun violence. The sleeping behemoth of righteous indignation is shaking off its slumber as the parents of murdered children find allies in their fellow citizens and in some of their representatives to address one factor in the sea of madness, nearly unfettered access to guns including military grade weapons and high capacity magazines that can turn any shooting into a slaughter. 

The consumption of women’s and girl’s bodies for the sex-power-rage gratification of men is prehistoric and perennial. It is biblical. But it is not godly. No longer “just” a tool of warring armies – although still very much so – the daily reduction of women of women and girls to tubes of flesh to which and for which some men will do anything is a horror that must be decried and ended.

Read the rest here

Why God Is a ‘Mother,’ Too

Long before I became familiar with the academic debates concerning calling God “Mother,” debates that I am now currently a part of as a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, I was being raised in a household where I instinctively understood that the divine presence was manifest in the loving hands and arms of mothers, and most especially in the life of my grandmother who raised me. My grandmother’s kitchen was a theological laboratory where she taught me how to love people just as naturally as she taught me to make peach cobbler and buttermilk biscuits. I watched and listened as she ministered to the sick and the lost, with a Bible in one hand and a freshly baked pound cake in the other, despite having no official ministry role.

I knew that if God was real, if God truly loved me as a parent loves a child, then God was also “Mother” and not only “Father.” Only years of dogma and doctrine force you to unlearn what you know to be true in your own heart, demanding “Father” as the only acceptable appellation and concept for God.

Read the rest here

NEW BOOK SERIES! “Studies in Ancient Religion and Culture”

Equinox Publishing has launched a new book series for its line of books in the study of religion and invites manuscripts and book proposals. Both single author and multi-author works are welcome.

“Studies in Ancient Religion and Culture” (SARC), edited by Philip L. Tite (University of Washington), is concerned with religious and cultural aspects of the ancient world, with a special emphasis on studies that utilize social scientific methods of analysis. By “ancient world”, the series is not limited to Greco-Roman and ancient Near Eastern cultures, though that is the primary regional focus. The underlying presupposition is that the study of religion in antiquity needs to be located within cultural and social analysis, situating religious traditions within the broader cultural and geopolitical dynamics within which those traditions are located.

This series also encourages cross-disciplinary research in the study of the ancient world. Due to the historical development of various academic disciplines, there has arisen a set of largely isolated and competing fields of study of the ancient world. Often this fragmentation in academia results in outdated or caricatured scholarly products when one discipline does use research from another discipline. A key goal of this series is to help facilitate greater cross- and inter-disciplinary work, bringing together those who study ancient history (especially social history), archaeology (of various methods and geographic focuses, as well as theorists in archaeology), ancient philosophy, biblical studies, early patristics/church history, Second Temple and formative Judaism, Greek and Roman classics, philologists, etc.

Read the rest here

Public Religion in a Post-Christian Age, Graduation Edition

It’s graduation season, and as such a golden opportunity to observe the various ways religion is handled in American public life circa 2013. 

A graduation is a momentous occasion for graduates and their families, and such a major rite of passage tends to evoke some kind of effort on the part of high school, college, and graduate school leaders (and commencement speakers) to reach for rhetorical profundity. 

But what kind of profundity is acceptable in our pluralistic public space? Can a public high school organize a graduation service that appeals to religious themes? Can a religiously diverse private college invite a commencement speaker representing only one of the many religious traditions represented in the room? Or, given religious diversity, should schools try to maintain an air of resolute non-religiosity?

As a college and seminary professor, and as a dad, I have spent a lot of time at graduations. I have attended private Christian high school and college graduations, public high school graduations, Baptist seminary graduations, post-Baptist university graduations, and more. Hours of having to listen to endless name-reading has given me plenty of opportunity to reflect on the way religion, and ethics, are handled at graduations. And there are clues here related to public religion in our post-Christian age. 

I propose that three main patterns emerge from these observations: no faith, single-faith, and multi-faith.

Read the rest here

Religious Right Shuns Black Gay Athlete

On April 29, the New York Jets released quarterback Tim Tebow from their roster after only a year on a team. In ironic timing, news almost immediately followed that Jason Collins, a veteran center in the NBA, had become the first active male athlete in a major American team sport to come out as gay.

Collins and Tebow are a study in contrasts, perhaps especially when it comes to their faith. Tebow is known for game-saving theatrics and an equally performative profession of faith politicized by the culture wars. He’s positioned himself as an all-American poster child for the pro-life movement and homophobic groups like Focus on the Family. Collins, on the other hand, is a career role player who keeps his head down on the court and his devout Christian faith, rooted in family and community identity, private.

Where Tebow’s religiosity has been endlessly analyzed by the media and championed by the white religious right, the centrality of Collins’ Christianity and faith community in his decision to come out has been ignored. Collins’ faith hasn’t gotten the attention that his race has—apart from ESPN’s attention-grabbing decision to put Chris Broussard, a sports journalist with known, religiously-motivated homophobic views, on air to directly question him about his personal opinion of Collins’ Christian witness—in the process playing into popular narratives about black homophobia.

As Peter Montgomery notes here on RD, Collins pointedly mentions that his parents “instilled Christian values” in him. He credits “the teachings of Jesus… particularly the ones that touch on tolerance and understanding,” for helping him to accept others (and ultimately himself) unconditionally. In his behind-the-scenes profile of how Collins’ historic interview came together, Jon Wertheim writes that the “deeply religious” Collins found spiritual validation for his plans to come out in a “daily prayer manual” that was a gift from his grandmother—specifically a passage he read just days before his announcement:

Collins’ now famous opening lines—“I’m a 34-year-old NBA center. I’m black. And I’m gay”—allude to the inseparability of blackness from sexuality in a culture that often expects black gay, lesbian, and bisexual people to choose one identity over the other. Collins makes the point, however, that his religious upbringing is just as integral to his identity as his race and sexuality. He discusses his faith and belief in acceptance in the same breath as he does his “close-knit” and supportive family, the Civil Rights Movement, and his “[celebration of] being an African American and the hardships of the past that still resonate today.” Collins’ statement of faith, like his coming out generally, is grounded in his black identity, community, and history.

Read the rest here

Rhetoric Race and Terrorism

by Giovanni Neal
R3 Contributor

In America, the word terrorism is a heavily debated one.  These days terrorism is not implied, we wait on our government to determine if something was an act of terrorism.  Additionally, it seems as though being classified as a terrorist has more to do with one’s religious affiliation and race.   I can think of three recent instances where the word(s) terrorism or terrorist was at issue.  Benghazi, Boston and Assata Shakur.

On September 11^th 2012, the U.S Consulate in Benghazi was mobbed and four Americans were killed. I immediately thought terrorism.  President Obama, however, blamed the attack on a video titled the “Innocence of Muslims.” The Innocence of Muslims made fun of Muhammad, who is never to be visually depicted.  The short film sparked protests in Egypt that spread to other Muslim countries.  In his explanation, President Obama forgot to use the word terrorism as if it weren’t already implied.  He made it seem as though the attacks were just a result of protest of the film.  But when does protest become terrorism?

After the attacks there was a right-winged inquisition to find out if the Benghazi attacks arose from a spontaneous protest like President Obama suggested, or from a calculated terrorist attack.  The attacks happened on the anniversary of 9/11 after all.  Does the definition of a terrorist attack rely on the attack being spontaneous?  Or can you spontaneously terrorize?  The Obama Administration was wrong about why the attacks happened; they were due to Al Qaeda involvement.  During the hearings, I saw conservatives in Congress focused on one thing, and that was the word terrorism.  We’ve figured out what caused the attacks, but instead of moving on the conservatives are ready to have another round of hearings.  Why are they politically terrorizing the Obama Administration?

On April 15^th two bombs exploded at the Boston Marathon.   And right on cue our country started speculating on the suspects’ race and religion.  The media encouraged speculation.  I heard many conservative talking heads claim that the bomber “was a Muslim, Arab, terrorist,” before we even knew who carried out the attacks.  Likewise, many liberal talking heads were assuming or praying it was a white supremacist or at least not a Muslim.  It seems as though if a Muslim commits a violent act, the act is automatically terrorism.  But if a disgruntled white man commits a violent act, the act is a result of mental illness.  Adam Lanza killed thirty kids in the Sandy Hook massacre yet wasn’t considered a terrorist.  He killed more people than the Boston bombers and the Benghazi mob combined.  But no one’s labeling him a terrorist because being a terrorist is obviously not tied to how many people you kill.

The alleged Boston bombers are Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, who was killed during pursuit by the authorities and 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a U.S. citizen, was apprehended and held for days without charges or Miranda rights. The FBI questioned him before he was read his rights.  Tsarnev revealed that he and his brother committed the bombings because of the United State’s involvement in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  They saw the invasions as an attack on Islam.  Which is a valid criticism.  One sect of Islam took credit for the 9/11 attacks and America seemed to go after entire countries and not the small group responsible for the attacks.  Tsarnev is not the only one offended by America’s behavior, the Iraq War offended other Americans too. 

Ultimately, the surviving Tsarnev was read his rights and charged with ‘use of a weapon of mass destruction, and with malicious destruction of property resulting in death’ in federal court.  Conservative members of Congress wanted Tsarnev charged as an unlawful military combatant to prevent due process protections, such as right to an attorney.  Tsarnev is an American, and the crime happened here so he was not charged as an unlawful military combatant.  Does that mean this wasn’t terrorism?  Even though the acts were tied to his extremist position on Islam?  I am glad, however, that they are trying him in federal court instead of a military tribunal.

Tamerlan Tsarnev body is in limbo, because no funeral home wants a terrorist buried in their plots.

Last week, Assata Shakur’s name was added as the first woman on F.B.I’s Most Wanted Terrorist List.  Shakur was a key member of the Black Panther Party, until a schism due to the Party’s lack of political education and history.  Shakur then joined the Black Liberation Army, where her activism took a darker and more violent path.  Starting in 1971 Assata Shakur was arraigned on seven various crimes, such as robbery, kidnapping, and murder.  It must be noted Shakur was only convicted in 1977 for the murder of an officer on the New Jersey Turnpike on May 2,1973.  Later in 1979 Shakur broke out of prison and fled to Cuba, where she sought asylum.

On the FBI’s website, most of the terrorist in the top ten bombed a facility or murdered multiple people within the last 35 years.  Assata is wanted for the only crime she was convicted of and breaking out of prison.  And sure maybe Shakur would fit the definition of a terrorist, if she had been convicted of the string of crimes of which she was charged.  And we must note that there is evidence in question on whether she shot the officer on the New Jersey turnpike.  Another man was convicted of the same crime and her fingerprints were not on the weapon.  Shakur was also injured after being shot by an officer, and wouldn’t have been able to operate a weapon.  During her trial Shakur brought up the FBI’s Counter Intelligence Program “COINTELPRO”, which was a series of operations by the FBI to disrupt, and discredit political organizations, such as the Black Panther Party, Black Liberation Army or any other civil rights affiliated group.  They did so with illegal tactics such as wrongful imprisonment, harassment, assault, etc.  With the string of attempted convictions, one can only wonder if COINTELPRO was involved.  I mean who are the real terrorists in her situation?

The omission of the word terrorism has been a thorn in the Obama Administration’s side since Benghazi.  Being labeled a terrorist caused Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s to lose his rights or at least delay them.  Now Tsarnaev’s entire legal future depends on the word terrorist, just wait until jury selection.  Tamerlan Tsarnaev can’t get a proper burial because of the terrorist label.  And Assata Shakur walks the activist terrorist line convincingly.  There is a fine line between activism and terrorism.  But in many terrorists’ minds they are activists.  There too, is a fine line between a terrorist and mentally ill.  A mentally ill person can take a political message, run with it and take it to a violent place, to terrorism.  Overall, terrorism seems to get its roots from race, religion and the rhetoric surrounding it.