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