Another Voice

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

Perspectives on ministry and the meaning of ordination have changed dramatically over the church’s long history. Change happens. But it is unfortunate that important realities can also get ignored and buried in the past. This is especially true, for example, about women in ministry.

After his death and resurrection, the men and women who were disciples of Jesus understood their role as one of ministry and service to others. Sent out to spread the Good News of the Way of Jesus, they were called “apostles” from the Greek word apóstolos, meaning “one who is sent out.”

In the earliest Christian communities, these male and female apostles held a variety of ministries; but ordained priesthood was not one of them. Contrary to what one occasionally hears, the historical Jesus did not ordain anyone at the Last Supper. In the medieval period, many ignorantly taught that he did. Many people today, like a couple of my bishop friends, still think that way. They believe that they have ‘apostolic succession’ which links them back to the Jesus-ordained apostles at the Last Supper. But historical theologians know today that ordination did not even exist in Jesus’ lifetime. ‘Apostolic succession’ is easily disproved yet it is still seen by some as one of the proof marks of the “true church.”

In his letters, Paul the Apostle (c.5 BCE-c.65 CE) mentions a variety of charismatic gifts which were ministries helping the local Christian community, even though those who exercised the ministries were not ordained in our sense of the word. For example, members, who could teach, had the ministry of teaching. Those who were good organizers had the ministry of administering community affairs. Those who had the gift of prophesy had the ministry of speaking out and telling the community what they needed to hear, as faithful followers in the Way of Jesus.

Many scholars are now in agreement that men and women who were heads of households presided at the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist); and hosted the gatherings in homes. Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (1938), emerita professor of divinity at Harvard Divinity School is a good example. She is a pioneering feminist theologian whose work, In Memory of Her, highlights the role of women as leaders of house churches. Because the Eucharist was initially a meal celebrated in homes, scholars like Fiorenza argue that female heads of households would have naturally presided.

In Memory of Her by Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza is a pivotal work in feminist theology that reexamines early Christian history through the lens of women’s experiences and contributions. First published in 1983 and updated in 1994 the book employs feminist critical hermeneutics and historical-theological methods to challenge traditional narratives that often marginalize women’s roles in Christianity. Schüssler Fiorenza argues that early Christian texts, largely written from a patriarchal perspective, have historically omitted or downplayed women’s activities and leadership, thereby distorting their contributions to the faith. She posits that the Jesus movement originated as a “discipleship of equals” and that the social structures of early Christian communities allowed for women’s leadership and participation.

As Christian communities developed, ministries and the ways of training and appointing ministers evolved to meet changing cultural conditions and changing social needs. Presbyters, from the Greek presbyteros (male) and presbytera (female) were community leaders. Supervisor overseers (later called bishops) from the Greek epískopos (male) and epískopa (female) had oversight and offered guidance in community affairs, and deacons, from the Greek diaconos (used for men and women) were helpers, entrusted with assisting people in the community by caring for widows, doing charitable work, catechizing, and assisting in baptisms.

The approval and blessing of the community for diverse ministries was shown by the laying on of hands. These ministries included community leadership, preaching, prophesy, healing, working miracles, speaking in tongues, and interpreting what was said in tongues (see 1 Corinthians 12:12-30, Ephesians 4:11-12, Romans 12:4-8; and 1 Corinthians 12:4-11). None of the early Christian men and women exercising these ministries were ordained.

Acts of Apostles, written between c. 90 and 110 CE, mentions the laying on of hands for presbyters, but here it was a form of blessing for those in ministry. In the Hebrew tradition, the laying on of hands was practiced when a father would impart a blessing to his children (see Genesis 48:14-15). We also see Jesus do this: He lays hands on children and blesses them.

In the first three centuries of Christianity, we have no direct evidence of what would later be called ‘an ordination ceremony.’ By the end of the third century, however, Christianity had a developing organizational structure headed by presbyters, supervisor-overseers (bishops), and deacons.

A big institutional change was introduced by the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (272-337 CE) who at the First Council of Nicaea, in 325, gave Christianity an imperial institutional structure. By fusing pagan symbols, dates and rituals into the growing Christian tradition, he created a kind of hybrid imperial religion.

Constantine, who was Roman emperor from 306 to 337 CE, greatly institutionalized and militarized Christianity to use it as a unifying and controling force in his Roman Empire. Constantine was baptized on his deathbed in May 337, but scholars generally view his religious practice as a blend of personal beliefs and calculated political pragmatism. Throughout his life he had continued to use pagan symbols on his coinage and maintained elements of traditional Roman state religion.

Constantine’s Council of Nicaea established 20 canonical laws that explicitly regulated the ordination of priests and bishops to enforce institutional authority and maintain orthodox standards.

It is important to clarify, however, that ordination at this time was not about passing on some kind of ‘sacramental power.’ As the Belgian theologian Edward Schillebeeckx O.P. (1914-2009), often said about liturgical leadership in this period: “You led the liturgy because you were the leader of the people. You didn’t lead the liturgy because you were ordained to have the power of consecration.”

Schillebeeckx is still well known for his monumental book Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God, (Sheed and Ward, published in 1964 but updated in 1987.) I knew him well. He was my professor in Nijmegen and then a friend for many years, whom I visited regularly up until shortly before his death in 2009.

This week I was thinking about Prof. Schillebeeckx and a question I had asked him on one of my visits. I said, “what will we do with a shortage of priests and our need for Eucharist?” He looked at me, smiled, and said “We do not need ordained priests for Eucharist. Eucharist is the celebration of the community of faith. Christ is there because he lives in and with the community. He is not there because some fellow has sacramental power.”

Historically, ordination was originally understood as a blessing on the minister and an assurance to the community of faith that the ordained man or woman was competent, a genuine believer, and trustworthy. It was a form of ministerial quality control.

There is ample evidence that in the West women were ordained as deacons and abbesses well into the Middle Ages. Women continued to be ordained deacons in the East and were ordained to a variety of ministries. Many contemporary scholars agree with Gary Macy, professor emeritus of theology at Santa Clara University in California. Macy stresses that, during the first twelve hundred years of Christianity, women were also ordained as presbyters and bishops. I find the arguments in Macy’s book The Hidden History of Women’s Ordination (Oxford University Press, 2007)well-documented and convincing.

Looking at the history of ordination, it is especially noteworthy that, in the 12th century, known as the High Middle Ages, ordination changed from its earlier understanding as a blessing for different ministries in service for a specific community to a bestowal of sacramental power “to confect” (make it happen) the sacrament of the Lord’s body and blood.

The new medieval understanding was that the ordained person belonged to a higher social level in the church. The classless and egalitarian church of early Christianity simply disappeared. How well I remember the words of a now deceased bishop friend. He congratulated me when I got my doctorate in theology but then added with a smile: “I have no doctorate, but I have ‘sacramental power.’ You do not. You can say and teach wonderful things. But in a minute, I can say the words of institution and bingo Jesus is there on the altar!”

History is important. Today we need to remember and live the reality that Christ is present and active in the community of faith. That is the fundamental ‘Real Presence.’

We read in Matthew 18:20: “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” Jesus promises his real presence whenever his followers gather together. In John 15:5 we read: “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit.”

This is our Christian belief. It motivates and sustains us.

• Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

Email: jadleuven@gmail.com

For many years, I have been actively involved in Catholic Church reform movements, advocating for a church that accepts men and women as equals, that is not run by an authoritarian old-boys club, and that is LGBTQ supportive. I write and lecture as well about the dangers of rigid fundamentalisms and advocate for an historical-critical understanding of Sacred Scripture.

That being said, my focus this week is on the need for spirituality.

Some people equate spirituality with religion, but the two are different. Religion is the medium not the message. Healthy religion should promote spirituality; but it does not always happen. A lot of contemporary people, like the “nones,” are, in fact, turned off by institutional religion and proclaim that they are “spiritual but not religious.” People hungry and thirsty for spirituality are searching for satisfying and solid nourishment. Too often, in many churches, they are finding the cupboards bare or the food unsavory.

Over the years, a number of friends and former students have gone on pilgrimage to the shrine of the Apostle James in the cathedral of Santiago de Compostela in northwestern Spain. There they found a satisfying sense of spirituality that changed their lives. But many people can really do it closer to home.

In Chapter 7 of John’s Gospel, Jesus cries out: “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and let the one who believes in me drink.’’ (John 7:37-38) Jesus’ call is significant. People do thirst for more. Thirst for justice, for truth, and for compassion. They thirst for the Divine.

Spirituality connects people to the Divine. To the depth of Reality. It provides peace and harmony in our lives. Spirituality goes to the very essence of what Christianity is all about. Spirituality is not something added on top of our Christian life.

Spirituality should be our way of life: in LIVED awareness of the Divine Presence: the Sacred, the Ground of Being, Emmanuel, God with us. There are many ways to describe the depth of Reality, just like there are many ways to describe what it means to love someone and to be loved. Some of the old images of God may no longer speak to contemporary people; but God has not abandoned us. And we should not abandon God. We simply need to reflect on better ways of conceptualizing and speaking about our experience of the Divine.

I still remember the observation by Dag Hammarskjold (1901-1961), former Secretary General of the UN: “God does not die on the day when we cease to believe in a personal deity, but we die on the day when our lives cease to be illumined by the steady radiance, renewed daily, of a wonder the source of which is beyond all reason.”

As I have stressed before but stress again, our communities of faith – like our schools, study groups, and our parishes — should be centers of excellence where people speak courageously about their awareness of the Divine Presence through personal shared faith stories, through drama, music, and art. And through deep reflection. We should invite and welcome the questioners and the seekers. We need to listen to young people at the start of their adult lives and to older people, confronting their life transitions.

But people, far too often, get busy and ignore what is really important in their lives. My old friend Fr. Richard Rohr (also born in 1943) said it very well in his book Breathing Under Water:

“Christians are usually sincere and well-intentioned people until you get to any real issues of ego, control power, money, pleasure, and security. Then they tend to be pretty much like everybody else. They are often given a bogus version of the Gospel, some fast-food religion, without any deep transformation of the self; and the result has been the spiritual disaster of “Christian” countries that tend to be as consumer-oriented, proud, warlike, racist, class conscious, and addictive as everybody else — and often more so.”

Regardless of our place in the human journey, the Gospels remind us that God lives and walks with all women and men: all races, all nationalities. God is not focused on gender or sexual orientation. Matthew 25 is very clear: “’Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these, who are members of my family, you did it to me.’”

Christian spirituality is committed to the search for truth within a healthy multicultural and multi-religious pluralism. It involves both intellectual inquiry and personal introspection to discern facts from falsehoods and to understand one’s own beliefs. 

What to do:

• Develop personal spiritual practices. Engage in daily reflection, finding time to meditate or praying to understand your thoughts and feelings.
• Practice mindfulness, finding spiritual experiences in your daily life.
• Make a habit of recognizing and appreciating the good things in your life to boost feelings of hope and kindness.
• Develop a sense of purpose by reflecting on the meaning of your life and what you believe is right and wrong. And then act accordingly.

Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

Email: jadleuven@gmail.com

As I get into a new season for Another Voice, I would like to review what we mean by the historical-critical method. I find it especially appropriate today as we are confronted with facts and deliberately fabricated “phoney facts” and misinterpretations.

The historical-critical method, also known as higher criticism, investigates the origins and nature of ancient texts in order to understand the world behind the text. While often discussed in terms of Hebrew and Christian writings from ancient times, historical criticism has also been applied to other religious writings from various parts of the world and various periods of history.

Being an historical-critical observer applies to secular documents as well of course. In these days especially to political documents, where AI generated texts and phoney documents promote ignorance, hatred, and racism. Abuses are rampant. But my point today is not about politics but theology.

The primary goal of the historical-critical method is to discover a text’s original meaning in its original historical context. The next stage is to explore the text’s contemporary meaning.

Daniel J. Harrington, S.J. (1940 – 2014), who served as professor of New Testament and chair of the Biblical Studies department at Boston College School of Theology and Ministry, formerly known as Weston Jesuit School of Theology, helpfully defined biblical historical criticism as “the effort at using scientific criteria, historical and literary, and human reason to understand and explain, as objectively as possible, the meaning intended by the biblical writers.”

All biblical texts contain a variety of literary forms such as history, symbolism, folklore, and presumed or imagined historical scenarios. The Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke are good examples. They are certainly not fairytales. But they are not strictly historical either. The Infancy Narratives do not attempt to give us a precise historical account of Jesus’ birth, but rather to answer the theological question about Jesus’ identity as Son of God and Son of Humanity.

One legacy of biblical criticism in U.S. American culture was the fundamentalist movement of the 1920s and 1930s. Fundamentalism in the USA began, at least partly, as a response to the biblical criticism of the nineteenth century. Some fundamentalists believed that historical-critical believers had invented an entirely new religion “completely at odds with the Christian faith.” There were also conservative Protestants who accepted biblical criticism. This too is part of biblical criticism’s legacy.

In terms of my own Roman Catholic Christian tradition, throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Roman Catholic theology avoided biblical criticism because of its reliance on rationalism, preferring instead to engage in traditional exegesis which was based on the narrow-focused works of the “Church Fathers.” The Catholic Church then showed strong opposition to biblical criticism during that period. Frequent political revolutions, bitter opposition to new perspectives in the Church, and the expulsion of religious orders from France and Germany, made the Catholic Church suspicious of any new intellectual currents.

The Roman Catholic dogmatic constitution Dei Filius (“Son of God”), approved by the First Vatican Council in 1871, in fact, rejected biblical criticism. It stressed that the Bible was written by God and that it was inerrant. But that began to change in the final decades of the nineteenth century when, for example, the French Dominican Marie-Joseph Lagrange (1855–1938) established a school in Jerusalem called the École prátique d’études biblique, which became the École Biblique, to encourage study of the Bible using the historical-critical method.

At the same time, my alma mater the Catholic University of Leuven was exploring the historical-critical methodology that would become its hallmark. A major step was taken in 1889 with the creation of a Leuven course entitled “Critical History of the Old Testament” by Albin Van Hoonacker (1857 – 1933). This course was an early attempt to apply the historical-critical method to biblical texts. At a time when the historical-critical exploration of the Bible among Catholics was still highly controversial, Van Hoonacker became the first professor to teach an historical-critical understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures.

On 18 November 1893, Pope Leo XIII, pope from 1878 to 1903, promulgated the encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus (“The most provident God”). That letter gave the first formal authorization for the use of historical-critical methods in biblical scholarship.

The Catholic biblical situation changed greatly, however, after Pope Leo’s death and the election of Pope Pius X in 1903. A very staunch traditionalist, Pius X, who was pope from 1903 to 1914, saw biblical criticism as part of what he saw as a growing and destructive “modernist” tendency in the Church.

Pius X, therefore, became a strong promoter of medieval Thomistc theology. (He also issued a papal directive, a motu proprio, that banned women from singing in church choirs.) The École Biblique was shut down and Lagrange was called back to France.

But fortunately, in 1943, the Catholic intellectual lights came back on. Pope Pius XII, pope from 1939 to 1958, issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (“Inspired by the Holy Spirit”) in September 1943. It sanctioned historical criticism and opened a new epoch in Catholic critical biblical scholarship.

Twenty-two years later, the dogmatic constitution Dei verbum (“Word of God”), approved by the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1965 further promoted biblical criticism. Pope Paul VI was pope from 1963 to 1968.

Raymond E. Brown (1928 – 1998), Joseph A. Fitzmyer (1920 -2016), and Roland E. Murphy (1917 – 2002) were the most famous U.S. Catholic scholars to apply biblical criticism and the historical-critical method in analyzing the Bible. Together, they authored The Jerome Biblical Commentary in 1968 and The New Jerome Biblical Commentary in 1990.The latest version, The Jerome Biblical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century was published in 2022, edited by John J. Collins, Gina Hens-Piazza, Barbara Reid OP, and Donald Senior CP (1940 – 2022).

Being critical observers and critical researchers we move ahead. We respect the past but understand it better.

We observe, we judge, and we act today. We move forward toward tomorrow.

• Jack

Thinking about the Fourth of July, in just a couple of days, I re-read the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

Adopted on July 4, 1776, by the Continental Congress, the Declaration of Independence, was written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, who later became the third president of the United States from 1801 to 1809. Interestingly, Jefferson, born in 1743, died on July 4, 1826, as did the second U.S. president, John Adams, born in 1735. The prominent U.S. lawyer Daniel Webster (1782-1852) delivered a two-hour eulogy for Jefferson and Adams on August 2, 1826  in Boston’s historic Faneuil Hall, insisting that the fact both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died on the nation’s 50th birthday was “proof” from on high that the country, and its benefactors, are under the care of Divine Providence.

The Declaration of Independence stresses the principles on which the U.S. Government and American identity are based. The sixteenth U.S. president, Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), called it “a rebuke and a stumbling-block to tyranny and oppression.” The July 4^th Declaration proclaims that all people are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It also asserts that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed and that the people have the right to alter or abolish a government that becomes destructive of these ends.

The Declaration of Independence, is not an explicitly Christian document but it does reflect a belief in God, the “Creator,” and natural rights, influenced by Enlightenment thought. The document’s emphasis on natural rights, derived from the Creator, played a crucial role in shaping the American understanding of religious freedom, and the separation of church and state. Right from the beginning, the United States had a variety of religious traditions: Protestant Christian, Catholic Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and indigenous religious traditions, which emphasized a connection to the spirit world

A couple of days ago, after re-reading my notes about religious practice at the time of the Declaration of Independence, my thoughts turned to contemporary religion in the United States. The non-partisan Pew Research Center, in Washington DC, reports that the Christian share of the U.S. population, after years of decline, has been relatively stable since 2019. And the religiously unaffiliated population, after rising rapidly for decades, has leveled off – at least temporarily.

 At present, 62% of U.S. adults describe themselves as Christians: 40% are Protestant, 19% are Catholic, and 3% are other Christians. But 29% are religiously unaffiliated: 5% are atheist, 6% are agnostic, and 19% identify religiously as “nothing in particular.” Additionally, 7% belong to religions other than Christianity: 2% are Jewish, and 1% each are Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu.

As many readers of my blog know, my professional area of research for many years has been “Religion and Values in American Society.” I remain an American observer and researcher. Right now, my observation and that of many colleagues is that there are strong indications that we may see, very soon, significant declines in the religiousness of the American public. Young U.S. adults, even those who once had a highly religious upbringing, are far less religious than older adults. In general, Americans consider religion important but are divided about its role in society. Less than half of all adults now say religion is important in their lives, down from majorities who felt that way in earlier studies. Just 44% in a new poll say they pray daily, also down from majorities in prior polls. While most contemporary Americans continue to say they believe in a God or a universal spirit, the share who say they are certain one exists has dropped from 71% in 2007 to 54% now.

While the overall change in religious views has happened in similar ways across key demographic groups, there are differences in how it is being played out in people’s socio-cultural orientation. Among people who call themselves “liberal,” just 37% now identify as Christian, down from 62% in 2007. But 54% of today’s liberals are more likely to say they have no religion than to consider themselves Christian. Among “conservatives,” by contrast, the share who are Christian has declined just 7 points to 82%.

Americans’ degree of religious engagement is also closely tied to their political identity. The most religiously engaged people are more likely to consider themselves Republicans or Republican-leaning independents, while those with little religious engagement are more likely to be Democrats or Democratic-leaning. As has long been the case, White voters are much more likely than those in other racial and ethnic groups to associate with the Republican Party. Black voters continue to associate with the Democratic Party, although the extent of the Democratic advantage among this group has fallen off over the last few years. About six-in-ten Latino voters (61%) are Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party. The relationship between partisanship and voters’ religious affiliation continues to be strong – especially when it comes to whether they belong to any organized religion at all. Protestants mostly align with the Republican Party.

The GOP, however, now has a modest advantage among Catholics. About half of Catholic voters identify as Republicans or lean toward the Republican Party, compared with 44% who identify as Democrats or lean Democratic. In the 2024 presidential election, Catholic voters split 56% to 41% in favor of the Republican candidate. Today, among U.S. Catholics to the left of the ideological center, there is optimism that Pope Leo XIV will carry on Pope Francis’ outreach to poor and marginalized people, including migrants, and provide a counterweight to policies of the current presidential administration, which they find distressing. U.S. Catholics on the right, however, hope Pope Leo, like his predecessors John Paul II and Benedict XVI, will strongly uphold traditional Catholic doctrine, by which they mean opposition to abortion, opposition to same-sex marriage, and opposition to women’s ordination.

It is especially noteworthy that today’s incumbent U.S. president is building a new far-right religious movement. The old religious right is gone. Members of the U.S. religious right in the 1980s and 1990s were political because of their theology. Members of the current new religious right are working in the opposite direction. They are constructing a new “theology” that fits their far-right politics. Take, for example, the defense by contemporary far-right evangelical leaders of the incumbent president’s sexual transgressions. They say his transgressions are excusable because he is a messianic figure, sent not to save souls but to save America. Their viewpoint makes no coherent religious sense but clearly fits their political sense. Some U.S. Catholic leaders appear to support this perspective as well. In December 2024, for example, the then Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy Dolan said the soon to be back in the White House president-elect “takes his Christian faith seriously.” Cardinal Dolan has been one of the U.S. President’s supporters for a long time and maintains a friendly relationship with him in his private life.

On May 1, 2025, the incumbent U.S. president announced that he was setting up a presidential commission on religious liberty: “The Religious Liberty Commission.” I find it noteworty that five of the members are conservative Catholic bishops: Cardinal Timothy Dolan; Bishop Robert E. Barron of Winona-Rochester, Minnesota; Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco; Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois; and Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades of Fort-Wayne-South Bend, Indiana. According to Melissa Deckman, a political scientist and CEO of Washington DC’s Public Religion Research Institute, the Religious Liberty Commission caters to Christian nationalist groups who “see their loss of dominance as persecution.”

The Religious Liberty Commission also says that the separation of church and state concept is a legal error. What the new U.S. religious right is building in fact has more in common with the ancient pagan religion of the Roman Imperial Cult than the evangelical revivals of an earlier America. The Roman Imperial Cult stressed that emperors and some members of their families held divinely sanctioned authority. Their focus was on imperial power. Today’s MAGA supporters have declared a religious war, not just against secularism or progressive forms of religion, but against traditional religion that refuses to serve their radical nationalistic power goal to “Make America Great.” They are not advocating a new theocracy, but a new religion of nationalism and national identity disguised in the trappings of a religious movement, that stresses strong loyalty, shared beliefs, and a sense of superior white supremacy based on a judgmental “us vs. them” perspective. How well I remember, by way of example, the current president’s speech to Americans on June 21, 2025, about the U.S. bombing of sites in Iran. He said: “And I want to just thank everybody and in particular, God, I want to just say we love you, God…”

Happy Fourth of July! The key socio-political issues we need to think about and promote in the coming months are indeed: Honesty, Historical Truthfulness, and Humanity.

• Jack

Another Voice is back. I look forward to traveling with you again. And I suspect it will be quite a year in many ways.

This summer, relaxing close to the Belgian North Sea coast, my wife and I have been enjoying some peaceful days to rest and reflect. And…This week we celebrate out fifty-sixth wedding anniversary.

While on vacation, I have also been reflecting about my personal evolution as a Catholic “historical theologian.” I have now been teaching about religion, ethics, and historical theology for more than fifty-seven years. Getting older, I was thinking this week about what Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955) allegedly wrote to a friend in 1942: “People like you and I do not grow old no matter how long we live. We never cease to stand like curious children before the great Mystery into which we were born.”

I remember growing up as a pious Catholic kid in southern Michigan, who was very much afraid of the God of threat and punishment, the God who watches me and judges, the God who takes sides and causes victories and defeats, and the God who responds to appeasement and sacrificial offerings. I believed and feared that I would suffer eternal punishment in hell for missing Mass on a single Sunday or eating meat on a day of abstinence, or my great fear: committing an adolescent sexual sin. I was encouraged to “go to confession” every week, because God was the Supreme Judge who demands that everything in our lives be in good order. There were so many things I had to avoid “under pain of mortal sin.”

Gradually I began to grow up. Fortunately, I had healthy guidance from some very good high school teachers and college professors at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit. (I was never ordained a priest but became what they called back then “a lay theolgian.”) I began to realize that God does not exist in some far-off place, watching, and judging me. God is in the here and now. I began to understand God as the empowering energy of everything and as philosopher Paul Tillich (1888 – 1965) said the “ground of being.” I began to understand that God is love and when we love we are actively living in God. There we find salvation.

As one grows up, he or she realizes that perspective is important. Scientists have determined that the universe came into being 13.8 billion years ago. We humans are a very recent development; and it was only a moment ago that Jesus lived on Earth. But Jesus still lives and shows us how to be human. My perspective on Jesus changed thanks especially to Professor Gustave Thils (1909 – 2000) at the Catholic University of Leuven and Professor Edward Schillebeeckx (1914 – 2009) at the Catholic University of Nijmegen, today’s Radboud University. Both men encouraged me and strongly supported my wish to become an historical theologian.

More growth: I remember when Richard McBrien (1936 – 2015), longtime professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana, wrote that it seems more difficult to say something original about Jesus’ resurrection. Edward Schillebeeckx in his book Jesus: An experiment in Christology (Dutch ed. 1974), had argued that we should not imagine that the belief of the disciples that Jesus had risen was caused by an empty tomb and the resurrection appearances. He proposed instead that a belief in the resurrection was grounded in “the new orientation of living which this Jesus has brought about in their lives and was not rendered meaningless by his death – quite the opposite.”

Frankly, considering what one reads in the New Testament, it is often difficult to distinguish between what should be taken word for word and what is to be understood as metaphor in the post-resurrection accounts. As Christians we accept Jesus as the ultimate life-giver, the very Word of God, realizing that we are called not only to believe, but to imitate. In John’s Gospel, chapter 12, we read “Whoever believes in me believes not in me but in the one who sent me. And whoever sees me sees the one who sent me. I have come as light into the world, so that everyone who believes in me should not remain in the darkness.” Indeed, but for many people today belief is easier than imitation.

As a Catholic historical theologian, one of my concerns over the years has been a correct portrayal of the mother of Jesus. It is not that easy. When person or an event seems larger than life, people turn to poetry, creative imagination, symbolism, and figurative speech. That has certainly been the case with Mary. And so we have the doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception thanks to Bishop Augustine of Hippo’s (354 -430) concept of Original Sin, the notion that all human beings are born in a sinful condition inherited from Adam and Eve and passed on through sexual intercourse. But Mary, because she was the Mother of Jesus, the church taught, had to be exempted from Original Sin. Mary therefore had a no-original-sin Immaculate Conception.

Mary’s Immaculate Conception, one of the four Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church, was debated by medieval theologians. It was not defined as a dogma until 1854 by Pope Pius IX (1792-1878) in the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus.

Today of course we realize that the story of Adam and Eve is ancient biblical mythology. There were no historic people called Adam and Eve, no Garden of Eden, no tempting snake, and no angry and punishing God. And no Augustinian Original Sin.

So what do we do with Mary’s Immaculate Conception? One could also ask the same question about Mary’s Assumption up above the clouds into heaven. Catholic dogma states that at the end of her earthly life, the Virgin Mary was taken body and soul into heavenly glory. Pope Pius XII (1876-1958) officially declared this an infallible truth of the faith in 1950.

 And of course there is Mary’s perpetual virginity. The brothers of Jesus are named in the New Testament as James, Joses, Simon, and Jude. The Greek word translated as “brothers” is adelphoí, which literally means “from the same womb.” Jesus’ unnamed sisters are mentioned as well in Mark and Matthew. The church doctrine about Mary’s perpetual virginity, however, was first officially proclaimed at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 CE which proclaimed her “ever virgin.” Then at the Lateran Synod of 649 CE Pope Martin I (c. 590 – 655) emphasized the threefold character of her perpetual virginity: before, during, and after the birth of Jesus.

Anchored in our Christian tradition we can and we should continue to grow in our knowledge and understandings about past people and events. Mary was probably about thirteen years old when she and her husband, traditionally called “Joseph,” gave birth to Jesus. She deserves great respect and veneration for being a loving, wise, and supportive mother throughout Jesus’ life from birth to his crucifixion and death on the cross. Her son James was leader of the Christian community in Jerusalem. About her other children we know nothing. Over the centuries, Christians have certainly found the Mother of Jesus a supportive Lady of Sorrows, Lady of Consolation, and Mother of Perpetual Help. Her faith in the loving and powerful presence of God was her strength, her wisdom, and her lifeline. It is our faith as well.

I recommend the recent book, CONTROVERSIAL: And What Do You Think of Original Sin? The author is my friend William G. Joseph. Drawing on his extensive background in ministry, theology, philosophy, and modern biology, his work explores the intersection of faith and the theory of evolution. 

And so we go on, people of faith, knowing that life brings sun and cool breezes as well as occasional storms but confident that the creative and life-giving Spirit is with us every step of the way.

Jack

A few years ago, on the evening before Pentecost, my wife and I attended a concert of sacred music in a small local church. The church was packed, with about two hundred people. The concert was marvelous and deeply moving.

When the concert finished, no one applauded. No one moved. People sat there in deep reflection for a good ten or more minutes. I whispered to my wife: “This is amazing – a deeply meditative group experience.” A few minutes later, the somewhat agitated pastor stood up, looked at his watch, and then spoke to the congregation: “Ok everybody. The concert is over. It is getting late. Time for you to go home. I need to get some sleep. Big Pentecost Mass tomorrow!”

Slowly we all got up in silence and peacefully walked out.

The next morning, I attended the Pentecost High Mass at which the pastor presided. He was a good man but lived in his own small clerical world. For Pentecost there were about twenty people present for Mass. Many showed little enthusiasm, especially when the pastor – never looking at the congregation — read his long homily from a printed leaflet. After Mass, the pastor was at the church door wishing everyone a “Blessed Pentecost.” As I walked out, I went up to him wished him a Happy Pentecost and remarked with a chuckle that he had had a full house for the Saturday evening concert. He smiled but then rather seriously said: “All the heathens came here last night.” I smiled back and said in a friendly way: “I don’t think so. They had a prayerful spiritual experience.” Hearing that he shrugged, grumbled something, and turned to greet the next person….

I think many people today are hungry for a taste of the Divine, a genuine spiritual experience, even when they may not know how to express that hunger. Their hunger is real.

This year on Easter, I was thinking about the post-resurrection experience of Cleopas and the disciple, who was probably his wife Mary, on their way from Jerusalem to Emmaus in Luke 24. They had an encounter with Jesus that touched them deeply but they did not at first recognize him.

Luke writes that they met a fellow traveller who talked with them about the events in Jerusalem but then acted as if he were going farther. “But they urged him strongly, ‘Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.’ So, he went in to stay with them. When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. They asked each other, ‘Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?’”

A healthy church gives people living bread, feeding not only their minds but warming their hearts as well: providing profound experiences in which they feel connected intimately to Someone larger than themselves. We call that the Sacred, the Divine, the Ground of Being or God. I suspect many people today feel like uncertain travellers looking for a map and a faithful spiritual guide.

Christian leaders with meaningful words, symbols, and rituals can indeed give direction and secure guidance. They can enable people to enter into a deeper dimension of life, an experience of the Divine, inspired by the great Christian leader, who said: “I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.” John 10:10

Happy Pentecost!

• Jack

PS In keeping with my summer vacation tradition, I will be away from Another Voice until late June. A bit of time for reflection, research, and R&R.

Staring into the sky on a clear spring night, my thoughts turned first to the complex immensity of the universe. What a delight to look at the moon and stars after far too many cloudy days and nights.

Almost all of the stars we can see are close to Earth in galactic terms. Most within a hundred light-years or so. A “light-year” is the term used to express astronomical distances, because light is the fastest-moving visible radiation in our universe, and travels at 186,000 miles per second. So, a light-year – the distance that light travels in 365 days – is 5.88 trillion miles. Some stars are visible from 1,000 light-years away. But even then, that is only 1% of the distance across our galaxy which we call “The Milky Way,” a slowly rotating cluster of more than 200 billion stars!

Our Milky Way galaxy is one of many galaxies, and galaxies like the Milky Way have about 17 billion Earth size planets. Just a few years ago, researchers estimated that there were between 100 and 200 billion galaxies in our observable universe. Today, however, astronomers suggests that the total size of the universe is unknown and could very well be infinite, implying there could be an infinite number of galaxies, because the universe is still expanding.

Looking up at the stars, I thought about Psalm 19: “The heavens declare the glory of God.” I thought as well, with fascination and amazement, that with such an immense and expanding universe we probably need to expand our perspectives on God the Creator.

Despite our contemporary scientific and technological progress, much of our official God imagery, and our images of Ascension Thursday, are rather dated and still influenced by the ancient Hebrew cosmology dating from around 1200 BCE.

The ancient Hebrew cosmology viewed the universe as a three-tiered structure: a flat disk-shaped Earth set on a foundation of pillars. Above the Earth was the “firmament” a dome on which the stars, planets, sun, and moon revolve. Heaven, the realm of God, was understood as a set of chambers just above the firmament. A special passage, like a tunnel through the clouds, led from Earth up to Heaven. The firmament dome surrounded the Earth, with its edge meeting at the horizon. See, for example, Genesis 1:7: “Thus God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.” The firmament was supported by “pillars” or “foundations,” thought to be the tops of mountains, whose peaks appeared to touch the sky. The heavens had doors and windows through which God could send rain and let waters above flow down on Earth. And also control waters from below. See, for example, Genesis 7:11: “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month, on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.”

The Underworld, the realm of the dead was located under the Earth. The most frequent term for this place was Sheol. The graves dug by humans represented gateways to the Underworld. Below the Earth and the Underworld were the lower seas or “the Great Deep.”

The ancient Hebrew understanding of the universe had a long-lasting impact on the Christian understanding of the universe. The final version of the Apostles Creed, written between 700 and 750 CE, says that, after his death, Jesus “descended into the Underworld.” Most people, however, know only the very faulty English translation of the Apostles Creed which says that Jesus “descended into hell.” Very unfortunate. Good and correct translations are so important.

The Ascension of Jesus, according to Luke 24:51 and Acts 1:1-9, was a journey in a cloud up to Heaven. In their Hebraic universe understanding, early Christians no doubt pictured the Resurrected Jesus passing through the tunnel in the clouds up to heaven to sit on a throne at the right hand of God the Father.

Much later, in the seventeenth century, some elements of the ancient Hebrew universe perspective, maintained by the Catholic Church, led to the trial and condemnation of Galileo Galilei by the Roman Catholic Inquisition in 1633. The reason: Galileo supported heliocentrism in which the spherical Earth and planets revolve around the Sun.

Some old cosmological images do last a long time. I was a pious grade school kid, when on November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII (1876-1958) solemnly proclaimed in his apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus, that in was: “…a dogma revealed by God that the immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever virgin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven.” Body and soul up there above the Earth.

I also remember the Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin (1934–1968) who was the first person in outer space, completing a single orbit of Earth on April 12, 1961. The famous phrase “I see no God up here” was widely attributed to him. But today historians stress  that the phrase did not originate with Gagarin but came from a speech by Nikita Khrushchev (1894-1971), First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1953 to 1964. Khrushchev used it to promote Soviet state atheism. Yuri Gagarin, in fact, was a baptized, believing Russian Orthodox Christian, despite the Soviet Union’s official state atheism. 

Well, today we need to move beyond ancient cosmology and antiquated theology based on it. So much of our religious perspective has been anchored in outdated ideas about the universe and planet Earth’s place in the universe.

In an ever-expanding universe, we need an expanded image of Creator God and a broader theology about God. That theology should be like poetry, which takes us to the end of what words and thoughts can do and redirects our minds and hearts. All religious language must reach beyond itself into a sort of silent awe and amazement. It is like describing being in love. We realize of course that God is always greater than anything we can understand.

As I wrote last week, sometimes people get so wrapped up in their religious words and rituals that they miss what those words and rituals are really about.

We all have moments of awe, wonder, and excitement that lift us beyond ourselves, when we realize that something very close and real is touching us very deeply within.

We need to spend more time reflecting on those kinds of experiences, through spiritual reflection and meditation. And this must be a major part of a re-focusing of Christianity in our time.

Spiritual reflection cuts across all religious traditions and addresses the non-religious as well. I often think about the observation of Dag Hammarskjöld (1905-1961) the Swedish economist and diplomat who served as the second Secretary-General of the United Nations from April 1953 until his death in a plane crash in September 1961.”God does not die on the day when we cease to believe in a personal deity, but we die on the day when our lives cease to be illumined by the steady radiance, renewed daily, of a wonder, the source of which is beyond all reason.

• Jack

As a follow-up to last week’s reflection about Christian Nationalism, a brief reflection this week about God.

Perspectives on God are important. In Genesis, first book of the Hebrew Bible, we read that God created humanity “in God’s own image.” (Genesis 1:27) But periodically over the years, some people have tried to make God in their own image and likeness. Vindictive images of God have been used by Christian Nationalists to control, manipulate and even destroy people.

I don’t understand God as a vindictive and hard-nosed authoritarian. In the New Testament, such an understanding of God does not resonate with the historical Jesus’ understanding of God, as his loving Father.

Unfortunately, some medieval Christian theologians did have distorted authoritarian notions about God, and they passed them on to future generations. Anselm the famous Archbishop of Canterbury from 1033 until his death in 1109 is a good example. Anselm saw God as a nard-nosed judge and taskmaster. Anselm believed that human sin and human disobedience to God, going back to the first humans, had defrauded God of the honor that God was due. That offense to God’s honor, Anselm taught, had to be compensated for and repaired.

Anselm said that God could only be satisfied by having a being of infinite greatness, God’s very own Son acting as a human, repay the debt owed to God and thereby satisfy the injury to God’s honor. In other words, God would only be happy when God’s own Son was tortured and suffered a cruel death. What a strange image of God. Catholic theology has called it the “Satisfaction Theory of Atonement.”

Jesus and early Christians, however, clearly understood God as loving and kind. That is essential. That is where we begin. As my Nijmegen Catholic theological mentor and long-time friend Edward Schillebeeckx OP (1914 – 2009) often said: “Christianity began with an experience, an encounter with Jesus of Nazareth which caused people to discover new meaning and to direct their lives in a new direction.”

The clear message of Jesus was and still is that the Divine Presence is here, with us, and with all of creation. God is not simply “out there” in some far-off realm. The Jesuit philosopher and theologian Karl Rahner (1904 – 1984) stressed, however, that people do not come to know God by solving doctrinal conundrums, proving God’s existence or engaging in an abstruse metaphysical quest. Rahner stressed the importance of Divine mystery as very simply an aspect of our humanity.

Our challenge is to live that Mystery with openness and calm reflection. That Mystery, which defies exact description, is God. Religious doctrines have their place but can never totally explain or define that Mystery.They are symbolic or analogous pointers toward God. When people focus only on the pointers, however, they really miss the point.

As contemporary believers we have to ask how we can develop better pointers that really help point people towards God. We need pointers anchored in all the complex realities and needs of our time, enabling people to believe and deal with human suffering with serenity and courage. Many of us learned about God at about the same time we also learned about the Easter Bunny. As we grew in awareness, our understanding of the Easter Bunny phenomenon evolved and matured. But for many people their religious belief has remained somewhat static and adolescent. 

Divine revelation is not an event that happened once in the past. It is an ongoing and creative process that requires human perception and contemplation. Revelation is a part of reality. We are called to be open, alert, and contemplative. Faith means trust, commitment, and engagement. But too often it is mistakenly understood as simply an intellectual assent to ecclesiastical propositions.

Today, as science itself says there is so much we still don’t know. It is time perhaps to return to a theology that asserts less and is more open to mystery and calm and reflective exploration. This may not be easy for contemporary people so used to getting instant information with a click on a cellphone or checking their favorite website or social network.

The image of a domineering and controlling God is an archaic image. We journey today with a different and more of a traveling-companion God, even if we struggle with descriptive words about God. “No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.” (1 John 4:12) The true and essential work of all religions, but especially Christianity, is to help us recognize the divine image in everyone and everything.

My concluding reflection this week comes from the priest and theologian Ronald Rohlheiser OMI, a friend who also completed his doctorate at the Catholic University of Leuven: “God lies inside us, deep inside, but in a way that’s almost non-existent, almost unfelt, largely unnoticed, and easily ignored. However, while that presence is never overpowering, it has within it a gentle, unremitting imperative, a compulsion towards something higher, which invites us to draw upon it. And, if we do draw upon it, it gushes up in us in an infinite stream that instructs us, nurtures us, and fills us with endless energy.”

Our perspectives on God are important and worth sharing. For me, God is my traveling companion on the great journey.

• Jack

In July, the United States will celebrate the 250^th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. People will commemorate and celebrate July 4^th 1776, the day when American colonists declared themselves independent from Great Britain.

These memorable opening lines, of course, are deeply etched in my brain: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Moving toward this year’s historic milestone, however, contemporary U.S. democracy is under threat. The Declaration’s underlying commitment to the self-evident truths that all are created equal and that a just government is rooted in the consent of the governed is crumbling. Various American religious traditions have historically reinforced social equality as a national value.

But today’s American “Christian Nationalism” rejects that commitment to social equality, on which American democracy depends.

According to the Public Religion Research Institute in Washington DC, one-third of contemporary Americans support Christian Nationalism: with Adherents at 11% and Sympathizers at 21%. A majority of Republicans qualify as either Christian Nationalism Adherents, at 21%, or Sympathizers, at 35%. But less than one in five Democrats, with 5% Adherents and 12% Sympathizers.

Pete Hegseth, the current United States Secretary of Defense, secondarily titled the Secretary of War, is a far-right Evangelical Protestant and a strong supporter of Christian Nationalism. He has persisted in framing the war in Iran as divinely sanctioned, repeatedly invoking “God’s almighty providence” and expressing certainty that God is on the side of the U.S. Military. He has called on the American people to pray for victory “in the name of Jesus Christ.”

While American Christian Nationalism is often associated with white Evangelical Protestantism, a distinct and influential cohort of American Roman Catholics has increasingly embraced the ideology. These Catholics often move beyond standard conservative politics, advocating for a “re-Christianization” of American culture and law, sometimes referred to as “Catholic Integralism.”

Key Roman Catholic figures in contemporary American Christian Nationalism are Vice-President J.D. Vance and former Trump advisor Steve Bannon, who has openly identified as a “proud Christian Nationalist.”

Nine days after Charlie Kirk’s death, the former Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy Dolan appeared on “Fox & Friends” and was quick to praise Kirk as a “modern day St. Paul.” Dolan called him “a missionary, an evangelist, and a hero.” I have personally known Tim Dolan, now 76, for many years. He served as Archbishop of New York from April 15, 2009 to December 18, 2025.

Charlie Kirk (October 14, 1993 – September 10, 2025) was strongly aligned with the Christian right and advocated for American Christian Nationalism. His wife and children are Catholic and he regularly attended Mass with them. Days before his murder, Kirk privately told Bishop Joseph Brennan of Fresno, California that he was close to converting to Catholicism.

Conservative American Catholic support for Christian Nationalism is closely linked with Opus Dei and the architects of Project 2025, the right-wing blueprint for the Incumbent President’s second term. Its goal is restructuring the U.S. Government with a conservative, religion-based agenda. Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation and a key leader of Project 2025, has close ties to Opus Dei.

Opus Dei (“God’s Work”) is a very conservative Catholic organization founded in Spain in 1928. It became influential during Francisco Franco’s dictatorship (1939–1975). With strong Opus Dei support, the Franco regime relied on a blend of his own authoritarian nationalism and Catholic Christian Nationalism.

Project 2025, a 900-plus page policy blueprint organized by the Heritage Foundation and supported by over 100 conservative groups, aims to reshape the U.S. federal government, under the current presidential administration, by implementing the Christian Nationalism ideology. Under Project 2025’s very conservative “Christian vision” for the United States, married heterosexuality is the only valid form of sexual expression and identity. It opposes what it calls “radical gender ideology” and advocates that the government “maintain a biblically based, social-science-reinforced definition of marriage and family.” To achieve this, it proposes ending same-sex marriage and removing protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual or gender identity. Project 2025 has also recommended the arrest, detention, and deportation of illegal immigrants. It proposed employing the military for domestic law enforcement and called for immediate capital punishment of convicted offenders.

American Christian Nationalism presents a limited and narrow view of God. The “In God we trust” god becomes a national instrument of power rather than a universal figure. This perspective views divine favor as exclusive and prioritizes power and dominance over love and grace. Christian Nationalism emphasizes a “god of war” image, highlighting biblical stories of a vindictive and angry God taking revenge on enemies as a justification for harsh action against perceived adversaries.

And Christian Nationalism’s morality is hardly Christian. For example, the incumbent presidential administration’s March 2025 decision to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has already caused the deaths of six hundred thousand people, two-thirds of them children.

Nevertheless, Christian Nationalism is very strong in the current presidential administration. Already in January, 2024, the incumbent U.S. President’s supporters had made a video called “God Made Trump.” It began with this statement: “On June 14, 1946, God looked down on his planned paradise and said, ‘I need a caretaker.’ So, God gave us Trump.” This year at a White House event on April 1, Paula White-Cain, an evangelical Christian pastor and the president’s chief spiritual adviser, told him to his face that he was the “greatest champion of faith that we’ve ever seen in a president,” and then she compared his story to Jesus Christ’s. “You were betrayed and arrested and falsely accused,” she said, “It’s a familiar pattern that our Lord and Savior showed us.” She continued, “And sir because of his resurrection, you rose up.”  It is not so surprising, then, that the incumbent president recently made the comparison himself. On April 12, 2026, he posted an image on his Truth Social media platform, owned by the Trump Media & Technology Group. The colorful image depicted the incumbent president as Jesus healing a sick man, with worshipers looking on in adoration, a flag of the United States waving in the background, and military figures floating in the sky.

Soldiers in the United States Armed Forces have now lodged more than 100 complaints with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation saying that their commanders are using extremist religious rhetoric to describe the U.S.-Israel war against Iran. American military commanders have told their troops that the attack on Iran is a “holy war,” and that Jesus anointed U.S. President Donald Trump to light the signal fire in Iran.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is a non-profit organization founded in 2005 by Michael L. Weinstein, a former Air Force officer and attorney. The organization’s mission is to ensure that members of the United States Armed Forces can practice their religious beliefs without fear of discrimination or coercion, and to promote the separation of church and state within the military.

I conclude this week’s reflection with a quote from Sandra Day O’Connor (1930 – 2023) who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1981 until her retirement in 2006. O’Connor was the first woman to serve as a U.S. Supreme Court justice. She retired from the bench in 2006 to care for her husband, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s.

“Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?”

All Christians in the U.S. and beyond need to reject the dangerous distortion of Christianity in Christian Nationalism. It is incompatible with the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

• Jack