Another Voice

Several readers have asked for my thoughts about Muslims in the United States. Certainly, a topic worth exploring, especially today. Although some historians suggest that there were Muslims on Columbus’ ships, the first clearly documented arrival of Muslims in America occurred in the 17th century with the arrival of slaves from Africa. Most originated from heavily Islamized regions of West Africa, including modern-day Senegal, Mali, Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Gambia.

Today Muslims make up about 25.6% of the total world population. Islam is the world’s second largest and fastest-growing religion, growing twice as fast as the non-Muslim population, forecasted to grow faster than Christianity by 2050. Currently, Christianity is the worlds largest religious tradition with 31% of the global population.

In the United States, Islam is the third-largest religion, representing roughly 1.1% to 1.3% of the total population. Most Muslims in the U.S. live in major urban metropolitan areas. Key centers include New York City and its surrounding region, forming the largest overall hub. Detroit (especially Dearborn, Michigan), hosts the highest concentration of Arab Americans and Muslims. Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, and the Twin Cities (Minneapolis–St. Paul) feature vibrant community networks, mosques, and halal services.

Christianity is still the largest religion in the United States. Pew Research Center reports that 62% of U.S. adults identify as Christian, a number that has largely stabilized after years of decline. Judaism is the second-largest religion in the US, practiced by 2% of the population.

Twenty-five years since the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, the Council on American-Islamic Relations reports that U.S. American Muslims still endure record discrimination and marginalization. The September 11^th terrorist attacks  were carried out by al-Qaeda, an extremist group that claimed to act for Islam, though the vast majority of the world’s Muslims and Islamic leaders strongly condemned the violence.

Today’s incumbent U.S. president and his Islamophobic staff members have shown a lack of response to the rise in U.S. hate crimes targeting Muslims. The president has described Democratic candidates in the midterm U.S. elections as “jihadists” in an apparent reference to Abdul El-Sayed, who is the Democratic nominee in the 2026 United States Senate election in Michigan

Islam is one of the three historic Abrahamic religions — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The founder of Islam was the Arab religious, social, and political leader Muhammad (c.570 – 632 CE). According to Islamic doctrine, he was a prophet divinely inspired to preach and confirm the monotheistic teachings of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.

An historic perspective is important. The Islamic Golden Age, from the eighth to the thirteenth century CE, was a period during which science, literature, geometry, astronomy, and other fields of knowledge flourished. During this Golden Age, some of the most significant advances in medieval scholarship were made by Muslim scholars. Muslim conquerors had come into possession of numerous Greek and Roman manuscripts. Muslim scholars carefully preserved them and translated them, especially philosophic and scientific works. Without the preservation and translation work of Muslim scholars during this period, much of ancient Greek knowledge would have been lost forever. Algebra, which comes from an Arabic word, was developed during the period. We owe our numerals to Arabic scholars. And a great many stars were discovered and astronomical theories developed by Muslim scholars during this Islamic Golden Age.

Nevertheless, according to the Pew Research Center, many contemporary US Americans have negative views about Muslims and Islam. About 50% say they do not personally know anyone who is Muslim and know “not much” or “nothing at all” about Islam. Yet they have strong anti-Muslim feelings. U.S. Americans, however, who are not Muslim, but personally know someone who is Muslim, are more likely to have a positive view of Muslims and less likely to believe that Islam encourages violence more than other religions. 

As a Christian theologian, I have worked for decades, promoting inter-religious dialogue and understanding, especially with men and women belonging to all three Abrahamic religions. A few years ago, I was a key speaker at a gathering of about 70 imams in Brussels. The topic was freedom of expression. And it went very well. Reactions to a great many questions and responses were positive. And I also learned a lot. In fact, I told my audience I was not there to teach but to listen. I told them I was concerned that Islamophobia is hard to combat. Far too often, if a person calls for a factual and well-researched understanding of Islam, that person is often labeled “unpatriotic,” or simply “dangerous.”

Anti-Muslim groups frequently pull passages from the Quran as evidence that Islam promotes violence. Prophet Muhammad did not promote violence during the first thirteen years of his mission in Mecca. Historical accounts show that Muhammad and his followers practiced patience and refused to retaliate with physical force during this time. 

Politically and religiously motivated violence in Islam originated in 7th-9th century CE. A major shift occurred in the late 1970s. The year 1979 was a turning point in international terrorism.Events like the Iranian Islamic Revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan helped create the modern network of trained militant Islamic groups.

Nevertheless, we need to remember that every religion has extremist elements. Far right Christian nationalist violence is increasing in the United States. And of course right now Christians are bombing and killing other Christians in Ukraine.

And we need to remember that Muslims, like Christians, interpret and follow the teachings of their religion under a variety of cultural influences. In progressive cultures, Muslim women can rise to the tops of their professions as doctors, lawyers, and scholars. In conservative cultures, however, women may be prevented from participating fully in public life. In either case, this status may not be unique to Muslim women. Understanding cultural influences on all religions is particularly important, yesterday, and today.

Considering Christianity, Islam, and the world’s religions, I suggest we have to work together in what the Roman Catholic theologian, Paul Knitter (born 1939) has called a kind of “unitive pluralism.” Paul Knitter is American theologian, currently an emeritus professor at Union Theological Seminary, where he has served as the Paul Tillich Professor of Theology, World Religions and Culture since 2007. 

With “unitive pluralism” we need to move beyond a simple tolerance for other religions and develop a positive appreciation for what they have to offer…. Moving from tolerance to collaboration. From collaboration to genuine appreciation. From appreciation to learning from the other. 

Global understanding, anchored in inter-religious dialogue and collaboration, is essential for everyone’s life and future. Our goal does not have to be the reduction of all faiths into one. We do need to look for commonalities, different expressions, and understandings of the Sacred, and a base for common ethical responsibilities in a turbulent and anxious world. And yes, all participants in the conversation must remain humbly open to the challenges of mutual criticism and correction. No faith tradition has all the answers. We are all learning believers.

Inter-religious dialogue is not just something that is a courteous thing to do. It is appropriate and absolutely essential for our survival in a world of multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and multinational interdependence. We cannot survive by “going it alone,” even if we think we are great. 

I conclude with a citation from the Declaration on Non-Christian Religions, from the Roman Catholic Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). “People expect from the various religions answers to the unsolved riddles of the human condition, which today, even as in former times, deeply stir the hearts of all men and women: What is the human person? What is the meaning, the aim of our life? What is moral good, and what is sin? Whence suffering and what purpose does it serve? Which is the road to true happiness? What are death, judgment, and retribution after death? What, finally, is that ultimate inexpressible mystery which encompasses our existence: whence do we come, and where are we going?” 

Yes. We are all on this journey together. Our enemies are not Jews and Muslims but the self-righteousness, the ignorant, and the arrogantly xenophobic.

 

Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

Personal Email: jadleuven@gmail.com

 

As we draw closer to the 2026 midterm elections on November 3^rd, I offer a brief reflection about civic virtue and the dangers of authoritarian leaders.

Civil virtue refers to ethical standards for public behavior. The survival of democracy depends on it because it governs everyday life: how we treat others, what we think and do about the world around us: about nature, business, culture, religion, family life, and so on. Serious reflection and engagement are essential. We observe. We judge. Then, we act.

Without a healthy civic virtue, democracy collapses into either chaos or authoritarian dictatorship.

The danger of such a collapse is a very real possibility. Civic virtue is cast aside by authoritarian “leaders” because they see social order maintained not by adherence to shared public values but by fidelity to the dictates and wishes of the authoritarian leader, who is in control.

Authoritarian “leaders,” in fact, like and promote chaotic societal situations in which people live in fear and uncertainty. They create big issues to distract people from what is really going on. Authoritarians behave without accountability. They have zero tolerance for criticism and promote unreasonable fears about the outside world that often involve evil conspiracies and persecution by “them” against “us.” In fact, they denigrate and remove those who observe and report what is really happening.

In a healthy democracy there are certain generally held civic virtue values: for example, that murder is immoral, theft is immoral, harming innocent people is immoral, and lying and spreading false information is immoral. When these immoral actions are turned into social virtues or social normalities, society is in trouble. I recall the words of the French philosopher and writer Voltaire (1694 – 1778): “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

So what does one do about authoritarian leaders and their followers?

The best way to confront the narrow and incorrect vision of authoritarians is through broad-based education that emphasizes critical, analytical thinking skills. It starts at home. Broad-based education emphasizes the importance of gathering evidence and then continuing to conclusions. In our communities and parishes, we need to set up channels for dialogue. We need to support those people and institutions that promote multi-cultural knowledge and understanding.

We need to courageously work against ignorance and speak-out about dishonest or faulty information. We must speak-out about those who advocate and publish lies and falsehood.

Civic virtue insures, in effect, the survival of the human spirit. By the “human spirit” I mean those positive aspects of humanity that people show toward one another: empathy, respect, generosity, connection, emotional bonding, and identifying with the other. These elements require a sense of equality and a demand for human rights and justice in all domains of life, especially social and economic justice. Extremely self-centered righteousness leads to conflict, not cooperation; to fear, not hope; to aggression, not mutual respect; and to suspicion, not trust.

People set and adjust their civic virtue through interaction with family and friends, and with social, religious, political, and educational groups of which they are a part.

After the midterm elections, regardless of who wins we will still need to safeguard our democracy based on shared common-good public values and civic virtue behavior. This means caring not just for ourselves but taking responsibility for the well-being of others.

The American cognitive linguist and philosopher, George Lakoff (1941) stressed in his book, The Little Blue Book: Talking and Thinking Democratic, “Houses fall apart if they are not maintained, so do democracy and the gifts of democracy that we barely notice and take for granted: the right to vote, public education, human rights, due process, unbiased news, clean water, clean air, national parks, safe food, good jobs, ethical banking practices, affordable mortgages, fair elections.”

 

It is all part of civic virtue and avoiding social chaos.

• Jack

Dr. John Alonzo Dick – Historical Theologian

Personal email:  jadleuven@gmail.com

 

I have always been inquisitive, wanting to know how things work. Some years ago, however, it was during my first weeks as a theology student, at the then Catholic University of Nijmegen, that my questioning became quite personal. I had left the American College Seminary at the Catholic University of Leuven, after three years there, and was curious about post Vatican II progressive theological and pastoral developments in the Netherlands. My favorite Nijmegen professor was Edward Schillebeeckx (1914-2009), often called “the Dutch theologian” but he was Belgian, born in Antwerp. It was during his course about “The God Question” that I found myself in world of unsettling questions.

One day after class I asked him if I could speak with him. He said: “Of course how about right now?” So, we pulled a couple chairs across from each other and he asked what I wanted to talk about. I told him that his lectures made me do a lot of deep questioning. He smiled and said, “in what way?” I responded that, thanks to him, I had started questioning everything: God, Jesus, the church, the meaning of life, and my own identity. He smiled and said: “Then I am a good teacher.”

Professor Schillebeeckx reminded me that the ancient Greek philosopher, Socrates, had said that the unexamined life is not worth living. Schillebeeckx said he would help me become an open-minded questioner and pursue a life worth living. “And” he said, with a chuckle, “become a good teacher.”

Well, this week’s post is not about Edward Schillebeeckx, who became a supportive good friend, whom I often saw up until shortly before his death in 2009. But I am writing this week about being open-minded.

Over the years, my open-minded questioning and research has led me to many discoveries.

Today I know that Jesus’ disciples were men AND women. As an open-minded and questioning historian I have learned as well that women presided at Eucharistic liturgies in the early Christian communities. I have also realized that Jesus did not ordain anyone because ordination did not exist during his lifetime. In fact, in the first three centuries of Christianity, we have no direct evidence of an ordination ceremony.

Now have learned and realize very humbly that on this human life journey we do question and we do learn new things, by being open to the knowledge and insights of other people. Being open-minded, we need to continually adjust our understandings and beliefs.

Being an open-minded and questioning believer truly enriches a person’s life. I can think of seven ways, but I am sure there are more:

• Open mindfulness enables one to explore and discover. Being an open minded person allows one to experience new ideas and fresh thoughts that stimulate personal growth as they challenge old visions, understandings, and beliefs. It can be a very liberating look at one’s contemporary world through an open mind. Remember Paul in First Corinthians: “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became an adult, I put the ways of childhood behind me.”
• Open mindfulness promotes personal change and transformation. Opening our minds to new ideas allows us the opportunity to change what we think as well as change our view of the world. This does not mean one will necessarily change basic beliefs. It does mean one has to be open and respectful to people with differing perspectives. We work together. We must work together.
• Open mindfulness makes oneself vulnerable. This is scarier. In agreeing to have an open-minded view of the world, we acknowledge we do not know everything. We accept that there are possibilities we may not have considered. This vulnerability can be both terrifying and exhilarating. The jar is either half full or half empty. It depends on one’s perspective. I prefer to say that it is only half full.
• Open mindfulness helps one see and acknowledge personal mistakes. With an open mind one begins to see things from others’ perspectives. One can recognize the mistakes one has made. From time to time, we all fail and fall. The challenge is to acknowledge it and then get back up again and continue the journey, anchored in the virtues of Christian humility and courage.
• Open mindfulness strengthens oneself and gives stability. It presents a platform upon which a person can build, putting one idea on top of another. With an open mind, one learns about new things; and one uses innovative ideas to build on old ideas. In my field we call this ongoing theological development. Dangerous stuff for the old guard ecclesiastics. Nevertheless, everything a woman or a man or a child experiences adds up. It strengthens who one is and what one believes. Note well: It is extremely hard to build on experiences without having an open mind.
• Open mindfulness helps one gain confidence. When a person really lives with an open mind, he or she develops a stronger sense of self. One can respect and appreciate but is no longer confined by the beliefs of others. Then the respectful dialogue can and should begin.
• Open mindfulness promotes self-honesty. Being open-minded means admitting that one is not all-knowing. Even if one is an older theologian! Whatever “truth” one holds, each person must realize that the underlying reality in its depth has more to it than anyone realizes. This understanding creates a sense of honesty that characterizes anyone who lives with an open mind.

 

For some people, being open-minded is easy. It seems to come as effortlessly as breathing. For others, having an open mind can be a challenge. But for anyone who wants to travel the road of life, it is essential. We remember the words of Jesus, in John 8:32, “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

– Jack

Dr. John Alonzo Dick — Historical Theologian

Email: jadleuven@gmail.com

 

 

On Thursday April 16, 2026, in a speech in Cameroon, Pope Leo XIV denounced world leaders who invoke religion to justify violence. “Woe to those who manipulate religion and the very name of God for their own military, economic and political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth.”

On Wednesday April 15, 2026, the incumbent U.S. President had posted an image to his Truth Social platform depicting himself being embraced by Jesus with the US flag as a backdrop, days after a backlash from supporters – including many on the religious right – forced him to delete an AI-generated image portraying the robed U.S. President as a Christ-like healer of the sick.

Thinking about these events has led me to write some reflections about the political use and abuse of Christianity.

First, I offer some historical observations and then some contemporary thoughts.

Historical Observations

Authoritarian leaders have always found Christianity a wonderful convenience, which they manipulate to their advantage. It enables them to lord it over other people and allows them to punish their “enemies” since that punishment, they can proclaim, is what God wants. The very first authoritarian political leader to do this was Constantine.

The Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (272-337 CE), who was emperor from 306 to 337 CE, greatly institutionalized and militarized Christianity to use it as a unifying and controlling force in his Roman Empire. Constantine was baptized on his deathbed in May 337, but scholars generally view his life-long religious practice as a blend of less than Christian personal beliefs and political pragmatism. Throughout his life he had continued to use pagan symbols on his coinage and maintained elements of traditional Roman state religion.

Constantine ordered Christian bishops to attend the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE in Nicaea (modern-day İznik, Turkey). Actually, he had convened the council and his Council of Nicaea established ecclesiastical laws that explicitly regulated priests and bishops to enforce institutional authority in support of his imperial socio-political program.

I would call Constantine the Great the “Great Distorter of Christianity.” Nevertheless, he is considered a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church, which honors him as “equal to the apostles” alongside his mother, St. Helena (c.246-330). Helena greatly promoted her son’s influence over Christianity. She made a tour of  Jerusalem and her well-paid tour guides helped her discover presumed-to-be Christian relics: the cross on which Jesus was crucified, the iron nails used during the crucifixion, and even some thorns from Jesus’ Crown of Thorns.

Post-Constantine Christianity in the Middle Ages saw a significant rise in institutional and sectarian violence as Christianity was intertwined with imperial power.

Twentieth Century

In the twentieth century there of course have been three very significant political users and abusers of Christianity.

The atheist and anti-clerical Benito Mussolini (1883 – 1945) needed backing by the Vatican to promote his National Fascist Party. He therefore married in the Catholic Church and had his children baptized. In his first parliamentary speech in 1921, he announced that “the only universal values that radiate from Rome are those of the Vatican.”

Spain’s Generalissimo Franco (1892 – 1975) became a cruel and murderous dictator. Although Franco himself was not very devout, he portrayed himself as a fervent Catholic and used religion to increase his power. He used the Guerrilleros de Christo Rey (the Warriors of Christ the King) to implement his policy of torture and executions.

And then there is Adolf Hitler (1889 – 1945). Hitler ceased being a Catholic when a teenager. But Hitler and his Nazi party promoted their brand of “Positive Christianity.” He described Jesus as an “Aryan fighter” who struggled against the corrupt Pharisees. Joseph Goebbels (1897 –1945), Hitler’s Reich Minister of Propaganda and one of his closest and most devoted associates, wrote in April 1941 that, although Hitler was “a fierce opponent” of the Vatican, “he forbids me to leave the church, for tactical reasons.” The use and abuse of Christianity.

Twenty-First Century Observations

Getting back to the contemporary United States, I suspect we all remember that day in early June 2020 when, Bible in hand, the 45^th U.S. President posed for photos in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church. It was typical political theater. The Right Reverend Dr. Mariann Edgar Budde, the Episcopal Bishop of Washington DC, stressed that the U.S. President had used the Bible at St. John’s “as if it were a prop or an extension of his military and authoritarian position.”

In his second presidential administration, the now 47^th U.S. President, began implementing “Project 2025,” the 900-page policy guide created by The Heritage Foundation to turn the United States into an authoritarian Christian nationalist state by expanding presidential power and promoting conservative Christian values.

Using and abusing Christianity, of course, is not just a contemporary U.S. issue. Russian Orthodox priests have often sprinkled holy water on jets, tanks, and nuclear missiles to “spiritually protect Russia.” Following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russian Orthodox leadership under Patriarch Kirill (born 1946) strongly supported the military effort, with Orthodox clergy actively blessing troops and equipment heading to the front lines.

In reanimated Constantinian Christianity, Patriarch Kirill has called Russian President Vladimir Putin’s leadership “a miracle of God.” Putin was born in October 1952 in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) during the rule of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin (1878-1953), a time when religious practice was banned. His mother, a devout Orthodox Christian, Maria Ivanovna Putina (1911-1998), took him to the Transfiguration Cathedral with a female neighbor to have him baptized but without telling her husband, who was a strict member of the Communist Party and would have faced severe consequences if party authorities had discovered Vladimir’s baptism.

Today, displaying his public piety, President Putin attends Orthodox Christmas and Easter services and often wears a baptismal cross. Many Russian observers question the depth of his Christian belief, viewing his public displays of Christianity as political tools rather than signs of genuine spiritual devotion. A helpful book to read about Vladimir Putin and his version of Christianity is the 2024 book by Lucy Ash, an expert on Russian social, political, and cultural issues, The Baton and the Cross: Russia’s Church Under Putin.

Concluding Thoughts

Healthy Christianity is honest. It unites us and gives us hope and courage for tomorrow. It calls all to honesty, justice, respect, and compassion.

Promoting a healthy Christian way of life may very well be our biggest Christian challenge in 2026.

I close with the Franciscan Version Serenity Prayer for Our Times, brought to my attention by my friend Bishop Nancy Meyer, who made history as Indiana’s first female bishop within the Roman Catholic Women Priests organization in June 2014.

“God, grant me the patience to work with the unjust systems I cannot change today. Grant me the courage to strategically enact progress when I know I can. And grant me the wisdom to know that, despite structural oppression, I still can make a difference. Amen.”

 

Jack

Dr. John Alonzo Dick – Historical Theologian

Email:  jadleuven@gmail.com

Right now, I am re-reading George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. It was published on June 8, 1949, as Orwell’s ninth and final completed book. Thematically, it centers on totalitarianism, mass surveillance, and repressive regimentation of people. A friend suggested that it should be reprinted today with the title Twenty Twenty-Six.

The most famous Orwellian sentences in Nineteen Eighty-Four are: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength” and “Big Brother is watching you.”

Researchers and writers in every discipline today are finding it increasingly difficult to effectively communicate in an environment in which findings are distorted or ignored to serve an ideological agenda. Arguments rage at school board meetings, for example, about what can and what cannot be discussed or taught, and a new report from PEN America, the non-profit organization founded in 1922 that protects free expression, human rights, and literature, more than 3,700 unique books were banned during the 2024-2025 school year, more than double the number of titles PEN America tracked in the 2021-2022 school year when it began counting.

Teachers in schools today hesitate to tackle topics like racism and socioeconomic or LGBTQ+ issues in their classrooms for fear of being targeted by conservative parents and losing their jobs.

Overwhelmingly, book banners continue to target stories by and about people of color and LGBTQ+ individuals. But school boards today are also banning books with “uncomfortable” interpretations of reality, such as the Holocaust book Maus, the Pulitzer Prize winning graphic novel by American cartoonist Art Spiegelman. Surprisingly even Mark Twain’s classic, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, has now been banned for racial slurs. Harper Lee’s 1960 Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, the novel about a white lawyer’s defense of a black man against a false rape charge by a white woman, has now been repeatedly banned in schools.

During and between his terms as president of the United States, the incumbent president has made tens of thousands of false or misleading claims. Fact-checkers at The Washington Post documented 30,573 false or misleading claims during his first presidential term, an average of 21 per day.

Back in 2020, when the 45th president launched his audacious lie yet about his “stolen election” many commentators cited Hannah Arendt’s observations about political lying. Hannah Arendt (1906 – 1975), the German historian and philosopher became interested in how the most outrageous lies get a political hold over people, ever since Nazi lies about the Jews, Communists, and intellectuals drove her from Berlin in 1933 after her arrest by the Gestapo. She wrote, “This constant lying is not aimed at making the people believe a lie, but at ensuring that no one believes anything anymore. A people that can no longer distinguish between truth and lies cannot distinguish between right and wrong. And such a people, deprived of the power to think and judge, is, without knowing and willing it, completely subjected to the rule of lies. With such a people, you can do whatever you want.”

Well, our contemporary world is experiencing a crisis in facts and truth, which also contributes to distrust in various political and religious institutions. The situation has become more complicated with AI generated false images that are proclaimed as genuine.

The Israeli medievalist Yuval Noah Harari (born 1976) urges voters to make artificial intelligence the main issue in the upcoming 2026 U.S. midterm elections. Harari warns that artificial intelligence poses a unique threat because it is the first technology that can make decisions, independent of human beings, and generate new ideas. 

Democracy relies on conversation, but AI can hack human language and manipulate public debates.

Theologian John Dominic Crossan (born 1934) said it very well in his 2014 book Paul as Pharisee: A Vision of Post-civilization: “We now live, verbally and visually, nationally and internationally, in a world of smiling lies, alternative facts, fake news, aspirations masquerading as interpretations, and conspiracy theories where truth is at best a personal opinion or at worst an obsolete artifact.”

The key question is how do we know what is true and what is not true when watching the news, listening to elected officials, listening to religious leaders, or using social media? Conflicting messages bombard us every day.

Here, below, are my suggestions for truth-seeking and truth-speaking:

(1)  A helpful tool today, when checking the accuracy of what one finds on social media and news websites is “Snopes.com.” Founded in 1994, Snopes is a reliable resource to research and debunk urban legends, fake pictures, etc. I use it to check Facebook observations. Another helpful website is “FactCheck.org.” It is very helpful checking news reports about the positions and statements of current political candidates. I use both to check the veracity of Facebook reports.

(2) We are not expected to have all the answers on our own. As we look for truth, we can turn to trusted sources for guidance. That may mean a trusted mentor, a well-informed friend, an insightful public figure respected for her or his integrity, or a respected book using primary source material. We need trustworthy speakers. They need our support and collaboration.

(3) When truth becomes simply a personal or a group fabrication, the understanding of reality is turned upside down. Discrimination and cruelty become the norm and compassion disappears. Extremist websites and groups gather more supporters. Self-advancement at any cost becomes the new virtue, and self-advancement today is politically very “in.”

(4) When truth becomes simply a personal or group fabrication, God can become part of that fabrication, becoming a religious figure who condones and blesses liars and tyrants. Far removed from Jesus of Nazareth who said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” (John 14:6)

(5) We have a responsibility to be not just truth-seekers but courageous truth-speakers.

 

Jack

Dr. John Alonzo Dick – Historical Theologian

Email: jadleuven@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

A few days ago, a friend asked what we really know about the historic Jesus of Nazareth. A good question.

All scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was an historical figure and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus.

Jesus (known as Yeshua in Hebrew) was a Galilean Hebrew who was born between 7 and 2 BCE and died around 30 CE. We say Jesus was born in the BCE era because a 6th-century monk, Dionysius Exiguus made a calculation error when designing our traditional calendar. He tried to set Year 1 CE as the exact birth year of Jesus. But he miscalculated historical records and misjudged when King Herod the Great had died.

Jesus’ mother Mary was known by her original Hebrew name which was Miriam. Based on first-century Hebrew customs, scholars commonly estimate that she was a young teenager, between 12 and 16 years old when she gave birth to Jesus.

Jesus’ father was Joseph (Yosef in Hebrew). Although our English translation of Matthew 13:55 refers to Jesus as “the carpenter’s son” and Mark 6:3 calls Jesus himself a carpenter, linguists note that the original Greek word used in the New Testament is tekton. A tekton does not just mean a person who only works with wood. It means a general builder, craftsman, or artisan, who worked with hard materials like stone, timber, and metal.

The New Testament names four brothers of Jesus: James, Joseph/Joses, Simon, and Jude. Plural sisters are mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56, though they are not named or numbered. Most mainstream biblical scholars believe Jesus had biological brothers and sisters, most notably a brother named James, who was the primary leader of the early Hebrew-Christian community in Jerusalem. Those who uphold the perpetual virginity of Mary reject the idea of Jesus having biological siblings and maintain that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were cousins of Jesus. (A discussion for perhaps another time.)

Jesus lived only in Galilee and Judea. Ancient Galilee was a hilly, fertile region in northern Palestine bounded by the Sea of Galilee to the east and divided into Upper and Lower Galilee. It served as the primary backdrop for the ministry of Jesus. Ancient Judea was an historical mountainous corresponding to modern-day parts of Israel and the West Bank. Centered around Jerusalem, it served as the heartland of Hebrew culture, identity, and religion from the Iron Age through the Roman period.

Like people from Galilee back then, Jesus most likely had brown eyes, dark brown to black hair and olive-brown skin. Jesus spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.

Historical-Critical Understanding of the Gospels

Traditions about the life and meaning of Jesus are found in the four “canonical,” meaning officially recognized, Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John which gained widespread recognition as a distinct, authoritative collection around 180-200 CE. The process of formalizing the entire New Testament canon took place at the Council of Hippo in 393 CE.

The word “gospel” comes from the Anglo-Saxon term godspell meaning “good story,” a rendering of the Latin evangelium and the Greek euangelion, meaning “good news.” The Four Gospels proclaim the “good news” about Jesus Christ.

When reading and studying the Gospels, however, our approach should not be based on a literal interpretation of texts but on an historical-critical understanding. In the Gospel of Matthew, for example, we see two textual traditions that can be confusing. With all due respect, the final version of Matthew should have been critiqued by a good editor. We see a negative Matthew, in Matthew 22:1-14, who displays violence, vengeance, and calls for divine retribution on enemies. But we also see a positive Matthew in 5:1-11, who displays the highest possible Christian consciousness in the Sermon on the Mount.

An historical-critical understanding asks what the original text meant in the author’s mind, in its original language. Was the message factual, symbolic, or imagined? What was the intention of the author and the purpose of the text? And what influences affected the text before it achieved its final form.

The Gospels were written to inform and encourage believers and to call them to growth in their Christian faith. The Gospels, however, were not written to give us strict “history.” They have history, parables, metaphor, symbol, re-interpreted passages from the Greek (Septuagint) Hebrew Scriptures, and imagined scenarios for key events in the life of Jesus. The Septuagint is the earliest Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament), created between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE in Alexandria, Egypt. Often abbreviated as LXX (the Roman numeral for 70), its name comes from a legend that 70 or 72 Hebrew scholars independently translated the text in 72 days.

Thinking about creative scenarios about the life of Jesus, the Infancy Narratives are a good example. Found in in Matthew, chapters 1 and 2, and Luke, chapters 1:5 to 2:52, they are certainly not fairy tales. But they are not strictly historical either. Most people today ignore the differences found in Jesus’ birth accounts in Matthew and Luke. They simply combine the accounts without noticing the differences. Many contemporary biblical scholars view the Infancy Narratives not as strict factual journalism but as theological compositions that arose roughly 80 to 90 years after the birth of Jesus. The Catholic priest and respected biblical scholar Raymond E. Brown (1928-1998) did not view the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke as straightforward historical reporting. In his landmark book The Birth of the Messiah (1977), he argued that the stories were heavily shaped by the specific theological goals of each evangelist rather than being precise historical records.

All four Gospels evolved from oral traditions, passed on from person to person and from place to place. More than one single person (i.e. Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) composed the final versions of the four Gospels as we have them today. The four canonical Gospels were given their current names around 160 to 185 CE, roughly a century after the texts were originally written.

Synoptics

Mark (written for a gentile Christian audience most probably in Rome) was the first Gospel written, sometime around the year 70 CE. The Gospel of Matthew (written for a Christian audience with a Hebrew background) and the Gospel of Luke (written for a gentile Christian audience) were composed, independently of one another, sometime in the 80s or 90s. Both used a written form of the Gospel of Mark as source material for their own narratives. In addition, because both Matthew and Luke contain a large amount of material in common that is not found in Mark, most scholars hold that the authors of Matthew and Luke also drew from a collection of Jesus’ sayings that they incorporated into their works. The Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke are called the “Synoptic Gospels” because they share a similar point of view, order of events, and wording. The word synoptic comes from Greek words that mean “to see together.”

John

The Gospel of John (written for a Hebrew Christian and gentile Christian audience) emerged from an independent literary tradition that is not directly connected to the Synoptic tradition. This explains the major differences between John and the Synoptics. John reached its final form around 90-110 CE. The community behind the Gospel of John was located in Ephesus within Asia Minor in modern-day Turkey, although it began with roots in Palestine.

Not Strictly History

Each time the Gospel narrators adapted their accounts to the needs, understanding, and cultural/religious backgrounds of their listeners.

As I said above, the Gospels were not written therefore to give us strict “history.” They have bits of history, parables, metaphor, symbol, re-interpreted passages from the Hebrew Scriptures, and imagined scenarios for key events in the life of Jesus. The Gospels were written to give the meaning of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, whom God raised from the dead.

Concluding Thoughts

In the Gospel of John, chapter 20 serves as that Gospel’s original conclusion. The epilogue of the Gospel of John is chapter 21, which adds post-resurrection appearances in Galilee and closes with the public restoration of Peter after his threefold denial. The Beloved Disciple, a bit to the annoyance of Peter, is identified as the eyewitness and author who testifies to the truth of the Gospel of John. Many biblical scholars argue that the author of the Gospel of John displayed a rivalry or tension between the “Beloved Disciple” and supporters of Peter, who was executed in Rome under Emperor Nero around 64 or 65 CE.

I have always liked the final lines in John chapter 20 and use them today to conclude this week’s reflection. “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:30-31)

Living that faith is our contemporary Christian challenge. And that challenge is very real today.

Jack

Dr. John Alonzo Dick – Historical Theologian

Email: jadleuven@gmail.com

 

 

Several people, many of them new readers of Another Voice, have asked me to explain the relationship between faith and religion. I have touched on this before but have added some new elements and suggestions.

 

Faith is an Experience:  In the Faith Experience people do have an experience of the Divine, often described under various names: God, Creator, Father, Mother, Allah, the Ground of Being, etc. To be open to the faith experience, we need quiet and reflective time. We are often so busy that we neglect simply being ourselves.

These days I resonate more and more with the words of Karl Rahner (1904-1984), the German Jesuit priest and theologian who was one of the most influential Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century: “I must confess to you in all honesty that for me God is and has always been absolute mystery. I do not understand what God is. No one can. We have intimations, and inklings. We make faltering attempts to put mystery into words. But there is no word for it, no sentence for it.”   

I also liked the U.S. feminist theologian, Rosemary Radford Ruether (1936-2022), who stressed that God is not an external cosmic monarch, but the underlyin matrix of existence that grounds life, connection, and transformative renewal. She argued that traditional concepts of God have been distorted by patriarchy into an oppressive, male ruler separate from creation. Ruether was professor at Howard University in Washington, D.C. and later at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary and Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. Although she remained a Catholic, her first book, The Church Against Itself (1967), criticized the doctrine of the church and the church’s views of sexuality and reproduction, and it got her rejected by Catholic institutions.

I like especially the current theological reflections of Ilia Delio (born 1955), a Franciscan sister and theologian in Washington DC, who views God not as an old man in the sky or an external ruler, but as the dynamic, absolute power of love and the evolving “sacred Whole” of the universe. God is the core energy driving cosmic evolution and is deeply intertwined with matter and human consciousness. Ilia Delio currently serves as Executive Director of the World Institute for Science, Religion and Culture (formerly the Center for Christogenesis) which she founded as an online educational resource, building upon the vision of Teilhard de Chardin and the integration of science, religion and technology today.

Some clarifications:

Belief is the attempt to put into words the meaning of our Faith Experience. Belief is really theology which is “faith seeking understanding.”

Religion is an attempt to interpret and systematize Belief. Any religion is a system of beliefs and practices that helps people understand and live their faith experience. Religion therefore gives people: rituals, ritual places, ritual leaders, sacred books, sacred places, sacred days and seasons, codes of morality and creedal statements of belief. Religion provides helpful aids – MEANS – that point people to the Divine. That is good and proper. But religion is not Faith. Sometimes religion gets distorted and very religious people can be very ungodly. And all religions go through a four-stage life cycle.

 

The Religion Life Cycle

 

• All religions begin with the charismatic foundational stage – for example, the primitive Christian community. Here men and women had such a vivid lived awareness of the Faith Experience that they had little need for institutional structure. They relied on do-it-self and charismatic ways of praying, speaking, and celebrating. Men and women, who were local leaders, presided at Eucharist. It all seemed so very natural and normal.
• Then when people started thinking and asking: “how do we safeguard what we have and how do we pass this on to the next generation?” the religion entered stage two. This is the stage of institutionalization: important statements like the Gospels are written down, set ways of praying like official sacramental rituals and gestures are established, and properly authorized leaders are established. Ordination was then created as a kind of quality control mechanism to make certain that the Christian leaders were competent and reliable. Ordination, please note, was not originally about power over people and not about sacramental power! Important to remember.
• After some time, the religion enters stage three. I call it the stage of self-focused short-sightedness. The institutional religion becomes so self-centered and so self-protective that it becomes less a means and path to the Divine and more and more the OBJECT itself of religious devotion. This stage comes close to idolatry. In stage three the religious institution and certain institutional leaders, become religious objects and are treated like IDOLS. People get so involved in acts of religious veneration that they miss or distort the Divine.
• When stage three happens, the only solution is reformation, which demands a serious effort to regain the vision and focus on the Divine – the spirit and life of stages one and two. We need to recapture the vigor and creative enthusiasm of stages one and two and create new structures and theological explanations to guide contemporary believers.

In the post-stage-three-reformation, we need to change our Christian environment.

We are there right now. I suggest six ways to change, improve, and move ahead.

(1) We must move from living in the past to engaging with the present and thinking creatively about tomorrow. This means moving well beyond, for example, antiquated understandings of human sexuality and gender, prejudice against women, and distorted biblical and historical understandings.

(2) We need ongoing education that moves people from boxed-in perspectives to open and developing theology. All doctrinal statements are provisional understandings. We are all learners. No one has all the truth. There is still much to learn and discover.

(3) We need to shift from self-protective bureaucratic hierarchies, whose vision is to protect and save the institution, to being supportive communities of faith. People forget that Jesus did not exercise power over people. He empowered people to take responsibility in living, learning, and caring for one another. Jesus did not control people through authoritarian decrees.

(4) We need to abandon religious arrogance and move into humble inter-church collaboration. No Christian and no Christian tradition can be regarded as superior to others and therefore act in a haughty or snobbish manner. Some Catholics still think they have all the truth. Some evangelicals think that way as well.

(5) We need to stop being energetic and proud temple-builders and start being traveling pilgrims. What do people today really need? An impressive and bigger cathedral or a roof overhead, a meal, health care, childcare, compassionate understanding, and a more secure and hopeful life. It is a values question.

(6) We must not focus on just schooling professionals but mentoring spiritual leaders. When it comes to Christian ministry, the mentality of the professional is often not enough. We need pastoral leaders and ministers who are much more than professionals. We need leaders who are men and women anchored in deep faith and who, as our fellow travelers, understand us and support our own faith development as compassionate and genuine spiritual guides.

And so, we can move ahead!

 

Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

Email: jadleuven@gmail.com

 

I have been and still am a U.S. Catholic, born, baptized, and raised in SW Michigan. Although I currently live in Belgium, as a retired professor of religion and values in American society at the Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuven), I remain a committed and thoughtfully critical U.S. Catholic.

 

Actually, I became a critical Catholic in eighth grade at St. Mary’s School in Paw Paw, Michigan, when our local priest, Fr. Linus, visited our class. For some reason he went into a tirade about Protestants. Then asked how many of us had a Protestant parent. I raised my hand and said my dad was a Protestant. Fr. Linus then yelled at me and said: “Be careful because your dad belongs to a false religion.” I replied, without yelling, and said very firmly: “Fr. Linus you are wrong. My dad is a prayerful and wonderful Christian.” A couple of classmates applauded, and an irritated Fr. Linus left the room. Well…several years later, when I was a college student, I got a letter from Fr. Linus, sent to my parents’ address. It included his address at a retirement home and his phone number. He said he wanted to see me and asked me to call him. Home on summer vacation, I visited him. We had a delightful conversation, and he said “I have been thinking. I have been a terribly ignorant old priest. I hope you keep thinking and learning. Your Protestant dad is indeed a wonderful Christian…And may God bless you!” Fr. Linus also gave me a box of cigars.

 

So, I do indeed try to remain a thoughtful and learning Catholic, in a church that is now going through its own contemporary transitions.

 

Some statistics

 

The U.S. Catholic Church faces a long-term structural decline. Data from the Pew Research Center shows that the share of U.S. adults identifying as Catholic dropped from 24% in 2007 to roughly 19% today. Growing disconnects between official church teachings on social, sexual, and political issues and the views of modern American laypeople contribute to the disaffection. Vital markers of institutional health – such as infant baptisms, Catholic school enrollment, and sacramental marriages – have fallen, depending on the region, by roughly 30% to 50% since the early 2000s.

 

Politics

 

Politically, U.S. Catholics overwhelmingly backed Democrats through the mid-20th century, culminating in JFK’s election in 1960, as the first Catholic U.S. president. About 80% of U.S. Catholics voted for John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1917-1963), who was also the youngest elected president at age 43.

 

After the 1960s, Catholic demographic changes, social movements, and evolving party platforms caused a multi-decade political realignment. Today, according to the Pew Research Center, a modest majority of U.S. Catholic registered voters, around 49%, identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, giving the GOP a slight advantage over the Democratic Party, which claims roughly 44% of Catholic support. However, the Catholic vote remains deeply divided along racial and ethnic lines. Roughly 60% of white Catholics lean Republican; but about 54% of Hispanic Catholics favor the Democratic Party. In 2024, 56% of all U.S. Catholics voted for Donald Trump.

 

Today most of the 270 active U.S. Catholic bishops share the Republican stance on issues like abortion, traditional man/woman marriage, and religious liberty. There are also 165 retired bishops. Leadership elections within the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have regularly favored conservative figures, especially after the papacies of John Paul II (Pope from 1978 to 2005) and Benedict XVI (Pope from 2095 to 2013) in which most episcopal appointments featured very conservative men. The current president of the USCCB, Archbishop Paul Coakley is a good example. He aligns with traditional and conservative stances on major social and moral issues, including restrictions on LGBTQ+ rights and gender-affirming care in healthcare. But, he has also spoken out in strong support of humane treatment and policies for immigrant families.

 

Paul Stagg Coakley (born June 3, 1955) serves as the current Archbishop of Oklahoma City and he has been President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops since November 2025.

 

So much for some general U.S. Catholic background…

 

My current U.S. Catholic focus, however, is: (1) on U.S. Catholic involvement in U.S. Christian Nationalism, and (2) on the theological perspective of today’s young Catholic priests.

 

Christian nationalism

 

Christian nationalism is a political ideology that merges religious and national identities, seeking to make Christianity the dominant force in U.S. public policy, law, and cultural life. Critics and scholars note that it often promotes traditional social hierarchies, links national belonging to very specific racial or ethnic identities and challenges the U.S. constitutional separation of church and state.

 

According to the Public Religion Research Institute’s 2025 American Values Atlas, 32% of Americans qualify as Christian nationalism adherents or sympathizers; and approximately 30% of white U.S. Catholics now qualify as Christian nationalism adherents or sympathizers. Two prominent American Catholics associated with U.S. Christian nationalism are Vice President J.D. Vance (born 1984) and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito (born 1950).

 

The blueprint for U.S. Christian nationalism is Project 2025 and its main author is the conservative Catholic Kevin Roberts (born 1974), the president of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative political think tank in Washington DC. Christian nationalism is a political ideology that seeks to merge Christian and American identities, distorting both the Christian faith and U.S. constitutional democracy.

There are no prominent Catholic bishops who officially support or endorse Christian nationalism. The leadership of the U.S. Catholic Church explicitly rejects the ideology as contrary to church teaching. While some lay political figures and commentators who identify as Catholics express nationalist views, hierarchical leadership views the movement as incompatible with the Gospel. Bishop Michael F. Burbidge of Arlington (born 1957) and Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami (born 1950) have publicly stated that Christian nationalism confuses religious devotion with national identity and contradicts core theological teachings. Bishop John Stowe (born 1966) of Lexington, Kentucky, has publicly stressed that Christian nationalism is a dangerous distortion of the Christian faith that can only be overcome through compassion and love for all. He views it as a significant minority influence that corrupts Christianity in the name of Christ.

Young priests

Moving beyond Christian nationalism, as a contemporary American Catholic I am also interested in the theological persecutive of today’s young U.S. Catholic priests. For more than twenty years I taught and helped form Catholic seminarians, at The American College seminary at the Catholic University of Leuven. What I find so surprising today is that about 70% of U.S. priests ordained in 2010 or later describe their political views as conservative or very conservative, compared to les than 15% of priests ordained before 1975 who hold that position. 

These younger Catholic priests are far more uniform in holding traditional views on church teachings, such as maintaining that homosexual behavior is always a sin and upholding male-only priestly ordination. Many are also fond of the old-time Latin Mass.

These young priests are far more conservative than Catholics age 65 and older. Among priests ordained before 1975, more than 70% described themselves as theologically progressive.

It’s not difficult to explain where this young priestly conservatism has come from. After Pope John Paul II (1920-2005) was elected in 1978, seminaries became more conservative as John Paul appointed conservative bishops. He also appointed arch conservative Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (1927-2022) to head the Vatican doctrine office. Ratzinger cracked down on progressive theologians, chasing them out of seminaries.

Some contemporary bishops, however, are really trying to turn their seminaries around. Archbishop Edward J. Weisenburger (born 1960) the Archbishop of Detroit, for example, has removed three Detroit seminary professors, who had publicly criticized Pope Francis and his teachings. But such reforms, if they happen, will only impact future generations of priests. Edward Weisenburger, by the way, is a friend and a graduate of The American College, Catholic University of Leuven.

Once again, the theological views of younger priests are out of sync with their priestly peers and with the general Catholic population. U.S. Catholics tend to favor progressive views on married priests, gay marriage, Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics and the use of contraceptives. As a result, in coming decades, Catholic clergy will be even more out of sync with lay Catholics than the clergy is today.

Some observers argue for ignoring the views of Catholics who aren’t in church most Sundays and are less conservative than Catholics who attend Mass weekly. Yet even 40% of weekly Mass attenders support the ordination of women, according to the Pew Research Center. In addition, more than half of weekly churchgoers favor allowing Catholics to use birth control (72%) and in vitro fertilization (71%), allowing unmarried couples who live together to go to Communion (59%) and allowing women to become deacons (54%).

Time will tell of course what will happen. Will Bishop Robert Francis Prevost, born in Chicago in 1955 and now Pope Leo XIV, move the U.S. Catholic Church forward? I believe he is a good man and I appreciate his public statement that he has “no fear” of the incumbent presidential administration. He clarified that his mission is to preach the Gospel and promote peace rather than engage in partisan politics or personal political debates.

In continuity with Pope Francis (1936-2025), Pope Leo XIV shares strong concerns about climate change, poverty, and caring for migrants. But he currently opposes women’s ordination and supports traditional Catholic teachings about sexuality and gender. Nevertheless, I believe positive change can happen and I remain optimistic.

Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

Email: jadleuven@gmail.com

 

 

This week, I feel a strong need to return once again to some serious reflections about authoritarianism in very contemporary form.

Authoritarianism is a form of government in which all power rests with a single leader or a small ruling group. They feel no accountability to anyone but themselves.

Authoritarianism has always bothered me because it uses and abuses people. It destroys human freedom to think, act, and live. It manipulates people, puts problematic people in detention camps, and often simply destroys the “undesirables.”

The historical Jesus stressed that human greatness is based on compassion and service. His life story and teachings were used to motivate and guide people, to heal, support, and call to conversion. Some self-proclaimed “Christian leaders” today still do not understand Jesus and Jesus’ message. In fact, they oppose it.

In contemporary political and religious life, we are confronted with the creeping virus of authoritarianism that seeks to dominate and control – and often displace and destroy. A very unhealthy kind of leadership. Honesty and integrity are replaced by self-promoting deceit and dishonesty. And authoritarians make big money in the process.

Some symptoms of contemporary authoritarianism:

1. Ongoing efforts to intimidate and discredit the media. The distinction between information and misinformation disappears.

2. Genuine truth becomes fake news….and the actual fake news becomes the to-be-accepted real news. As George Orwell (1903-1950) predicted years ago: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

3. Police surveillance and violence against ideological “enemies” is accepted as a contemporary and necessary public safety necessity. Today it is growing increasingly powerful.

4. Foreigners are arrested, families are torn apart, and children and adults are incarcerated for indefinite amounts of time in military camps. Some “undesirables” are simply eliminated.

5. Authoritarian followers justify their behavior with the scapegoat mechanism, introduced by René Girard (1923-2015) the French historian, and philosopher of social science. He spent most of his career at Stanford University. In 1972, he published Violence and the Sacred, a work that explained the scapegoat mechanism and fundamentally changed the study of collective violence. Girard wrote that when a group is in crisis, when tensions are rising and the group is at risk of tearing itself apart, the group converges on a single individual or minority group to place blame. All of the group’s anxiety, guilt, shame, and aggression are projected onto this target. The target is then punished, expelled, or destroyed. And the act of collective punishment temporarily restores order and unity to the group. Right now, we see the scapegoat mechanism being used against Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Authoritarian Followers

Authoritarian “leaders” can only succeed because authoritarian followers applaud and support them. Much more so than the average person, authoritarian followers go through life with impaired thinking. Their reasoning is often sloppy and based on prejudiced beliefs and a fierce dogmatism, that rejects evidence and logic.

So, what does one do?

• We must first of all acknowledge that authoritarian followers are extremely resistant to change. The more one learns about authoritarianism, the more one realizes how difficult it will be to reach people who are so ferociously aggressive and fiercely defensive.
• We need to educate and promote a balanced education which hands on authentic information, tells people where to find correct information, and gives people the skills to be well-informed critical thinkers.
• Our Christian communities, more than ever, must become, compassionate and supportive gatherings of multicultural, multi-ethnic, and all-gender, brothers and sisters.
• We need to courageously speak out and we need to help other people courageously speak out. If something is wrong or something untrue, people need to strongly and clearly state that it is wrong or untrue.
• Those who courageously speak out need the strong support of friends gathered around them. Going alone is increasingly difficult if not impossible in our cyber-linked world.
• We need to be on guard, as well, that we do not become promoters of polarization and vicious partisanship. We need to learn how to work together for the common good. As Jesus says in Matthew (chapter 12): “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.”

 

Jack

 

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

Email: jadleuven@gmail.com

 

 

A recent Another Voice reader emailed me and wrote that he had always believed that church teachings are carved in stone and unchanging. After reading my post about ordination and early women presiding at Eucharist, he now suspects I have become a heretic. “How can age old doctrines change?” he asked.

I replied: (1) that I am not a heretic, (2) that I understand his question, and (3) I would really stress that all doctrinal statements are time-bound, because language and understandings are time-bound. Just as, I suggested by way of example, our medical knowledge and understandings are time-bound. If he had heart problems, I said, he would not go to a doctor whose medical expertise was still anchored in the nineteenth century.

All official theological teachings are time-bound and provisional until better expressions come along. They are anchored in Scripture, historical tradition, and contemporary theological reflection.

Theology is “faith seeking understanding”and good theology helps us understand and live our faith. Truly helpful theological understandings can end up as official church teachings (doctrines) when institutional leadership judges them useful guidelines for Christian life and belief.

Over the years I have focused on four ways to observe and listen to human experiences when formulating contemporary theological understandings.

 

1. Let theological knowledge draw from all forms of knowledge and human experience.

Other forms of knowledge and human experience, like literature, music, and art are crucial to the formation of our theological imagination. Sounds and symbols touch people deeply. They help us connect to the deeper dimensions of our life experiences.

Music, for instance, can open us to the infinite, linking body and spirit in powerful ways. Do you have some favorite “mystical music”? I would put the piano and cello composition, Spiegel im Spiegel, by the Estonian composer Arvo Pärt on the top of my mystical music list.

How do we interpret our life journeys? Alonzo, a schoolteacher in the State of Indiana, and my paternal grandfather, died in the 1919 flu epidemic. Mary Ellen, his wife, had to raise, on her own, my dad and his four brothers. She did that remarkably well. Reflecting on her own, not always easy life, my grandmother once told me, when I was a teenager, that Jesus was her “traveling companion.” Today, John Alonzo, her last living grandson, would say he very much resonates with Grandma’s theology.

At times, old creedal doctrines, like the fourth century Nicene Creed, can seem so rigidly esoteric. It may have had an important place back then; but stressing today, for example, that Jesus is “consubstantial with the Father” seems a strange kind of theological language when compared to the Fourth Gospel where Jesus says so simply and profoundly: “I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30)

• Let theological insights spring as well from inter-religious dialogue.

By focusing on questions of human meaning, identity, and purpose in other religions, we can better understand the contexts in which belief arises and takes shape. We really should experience and explore the ways in which the human experience has been portrayed and celebrated in other religious cultures, art, and drama. 

I remember the unfortunate controversy at the Catholic bishops 2019 Amazon Synod in Rome. Between October 6 and October 27, 2019, bishops and representatives from Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Peru, Venezuela, and Suriname gathered with Pope Francis in Rome.The focus was on the indigenous peoples of the Pan-Amazon region and their cultural and religious traditions. During the synod several statues, which Pope Francis confirmed were of the fertility goddess Pachamama, were featured in discussions and ceremonies.

Unfortunately, a few days after the synod a group of 100 Catholics accused Pope Francis of indulging in “sacrilegious and superstitious acts”and an angry ultra-right Catholic activist later stole the statues from their display in a church near the Vatican and threw them into the Tiber. (They were later recovered.) Respecting other cultures does not always come easy for static rigid Christians. That, however, is no reason to give up.

An understanding of Christian belief through a study of the texts, rituals, ethics, and teachings of other religious traditions can lead to a deeper understanding of one’s own religious tradition. The emergence of comparative inter-religion theology has been a very promising development in recent years. Comparing, for example, a Gospel text with a Buddhist or Hindu sutra or a passage from the Gita, can greatly stimulate theological thinking. God’s revelation is hardly limited to just the Hebrew-Christian tradition.

Peter C. Phan is a Vietnamese-born American Catholic theologian. I remember his presidential address to the Catholic Theological Society of America, meeting in New Orleans in June 2002. He began with a Hindu prayer, asking God to “Draw near us in friendship…”, and later observed: “If today we recognize that we can and should benefit from the worship and prayer of other religions for our own spiritual growth, then our way of doing theology, in response to this sign of our present times, must be different from that of our forebears.”

• Let the lived experience of impoverished and marginalized men, women and children be our touchstone for theological reflection.

Firsthand and humble learning from exposure to the difficult and painful lives of the poor, the marginalized, and suffering people can lead to a transformation of hearts and an opening of minds. They need compassionate care, service with no strings attached, and unquestioned support. And for all men, women, and children there must be a theology of hope. A transformation of hearts and minds can also open our eyes to the Sacred here and now.

Recall the response of Jesus to the righteous questioners in Matthew 25:37-40: “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’” A credible theology explores and promotes the significance of this text for today’s believers. 

• Let the God-mystery stand as the horizon for all learning.

I would suggest that a contemplative attitude is absolutely essential for approaching the God-mystery. I remember chatting with my friend the Franciscan spiritual master, Richard Rohr who reminded me that without a contemplative mind, we are offering the world no broad seeing, no real alternative consciousness, and no new kind of humanity. “Jesus,” Richard said “was the first clear mystic in the West. We just were not prepared for his way of knowing and loving.” An enlightened contemporary theology of God must spring from the contemplative experience. In all our busyness, we need to take time to turn off the phone, stop doing, and start reflecting. We have been well-trained in DOING. We need remedial training in BEING.

Concluding remarks: 

Religions are generally defined by belief and practice. “Orthodoxy” – a word one often hears from people in church leadership — is about correct beliefs and fidelity to official teaching. “Orthopraxy” – a word one rarely hears in church leadership — is about correct conduct.

Most church leaders are very strict about orthodoxy and insist on people adhering to official doctrines. In fact, however, those leaders are often putting the cart before the horse. Genuine Christianity is first of all about correct Christian behavior (orthopraxy). Here the example of the historic Jesus is so clear. In all he did, Jesus was the compassionate minister. He reminded his followers that the Law (orthodoxy) was created to serve people, but that people were not created to serve the Law. His primary focus was attending to the immediate needs of people, with love and compassion. And he says to us: “Go and do likewise.”

Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

Email: jadleuven@gmail.com