Greek is Evil, and The Return of the Sunday Roundup

Do you have any idea what this says? If you do not, don't worry, because NEITHER DO I.

Dear folks,

There is a reason for my prolonged absence from this blog: I have been studying Greek nonstop for the past couple of weeks.

Turns out that Greek is really, really hard.  So hard, in fact, that it makes me wonder why God would have chosen to have people write the New Testament in this squiggly, convoluted excuse for a language.  In fact, you kind of have to wonder: why would God/Yawheh/Allah choose to have God’s sacred texts written in ancient Hebrew, ancient Greek and ancient Arabic of ALL THINGS?!

Not cool, God.  Not cool.

Anyway, I’ll be back on the horse later this week.  In the meantime, take a moment to check out some things below:

1.) CNN Has a New Page -I like it, especially the “News Pulse” section, which seems like it might actually be useful and not gimicky.  Thoughts?

2.) I Love Infographics and Politics, So You KNOW I Love This Thing – it’s odd to see beliefs that people so fervently cling to broken down in simple, graphic form, but here it is anyway.  Indeed, the terms “Left” and “Right” are used so often these days that it’s sometimes hard to discern the concrete meaning behind the nebulous concepts that the terms evoke.  This image, however, explains things pretty well.  Oh, and it’s pretty, so I like it.

3.) Pure Cinematic Awesomeness – I worked on Barack Obama’s campaign, so obviously I’m pretty excited about this documentary.  It also helps that I know virtually everyone in it.

4.) The University of Chicago Breaks Down Religion, With Interesting Results – I apologize for the format of this article (it’s written for the iPhone, and I couldn’t find the web version), but it’s pretty fascinating stuff.  For me, the real interesting find is the rising number of people who say they believe in God yet don’t affiliate with one religious group or another.  There are a thousand different theories for what this means (are people distrustful of organized religion, distrustful of the tenets of organized religion, or do they just want to form their own opinions?), and it reminds me of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (a crazy-awesome German theologian who was put to death by the Nazi’s for his role in a plot to kill Hitler- yeah, the one in Valkaryie) and his concept of  ”Religionless Christianity.”  To him, the constructs of organized religion were simply no longer equipped to provide for a world that he believed had “come of age.”

…And that was written in 1945.

Also, apparently more people believe in an afterlife than they did in 1970.  Hrm…Are people concerned about their souls, perhaps?  I’d love to hear some different opinions on this one…

Anyway, in keeping with religion-related news stuff:

5.) The Catholic Church is Making it Easy for Disgruntled but Married Anglican Priests to Become Catholic Clergy – and Stay Married – Honestly, I only have a moderately informed comprehension of this debate because I have several Catholic friends here at the Divinity School who have kindly taken the time to explain the issue to my super-Protestant self.  Nevertheless, the article says a lot, and could have serious ramifications for the religious world in the coming years.  Interesting stuff.

6.) A Completely Inappropriate and Destructive Prank, But Hilarious Regardless – A comedy troupe pretended to speak on behalf of a government agency and dozens of reporters showed up.  Hilarity ensues.

That’s all for now.  I should be studying Greek, anyway…

The Religious Left?

“Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.”

- Mahatma Gandhi

The Left?

So, I was perusing the internet the other day (I do that sometimes), and I stumbled across this article on the Pew Research website. Initially, I didn’t think much of it – lots of people who loved Jesus also loved Barack Obama, so what’s the big deal? After a bit, however, the title of the article began to strike me: what the heck is the “Religious Left?”

I mean, sure, I know lots of Christians who like their Deuteronomy and their Democrats in the same sentence, but that’s probably because I AM one. Rather, I was curious to see what place – if any – this sub-group filled in the Christian world, and what that might mean for America. So, you know, I did what I usually do when I’m bored: research…

Well, what’s the Religious Right?

We’ve all heard it before: for almost a decade, there has been a great deal of chatter surrounding the so-called “Religious Right.” There is a good reason for this: thanks to a concerted effort in the 80s and 90s on the the part of the Republican party, theologically and politically conservative Christians (often referred to as Evangelical Christians) became a force to be reckoned with in American politics. As a voting bloc, they rallied behind a select set of causes that matched with the Republican party’s platform – most notably the issues of abortion and gay marriage – in an attempt to push a “moral agenda.” To this end, they were tremendously successful: the outcomes of both the 2000 and the 2004 presidential elections are said to have been heavily influenced by the weight of the religious right voting bloc.

Been there. Heard that. Rented Jesus Camp.

But the 2008 presidential election was, well, a little different. Yeah, there was that whole African-American running for president thing (I hear that’s a big deal), but the campaign was touted as a “change” election because many saw it as a dramatic shift from one set of political principles (conservative/Republican) to another (progressive/Democratic). More than just a transition of power, however, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that this year’s election also marked a notable shift in the way those finicky Christians vote. More specifically, the 2008 election could potentially be seen as the rise of the “religious left.”

But who, you ask, are the religious left?

If John Green’s article on the matter is to be believed (and I think it should be, at least in parts), the religious left – or “Progressive Christians” – are multifaceted group that hails from virtually every denomination. That said, he sees three discernible sections of the movement which I will paraphrase here:

1.) The “Liberal Core” The “core” of the religious left are those who are both theologically and politically progressive (for a definition of “liberal theology”, just Google the phrase). In sunday school, these are the folks who may or may not see God as gender-inclusive, think the Bible is something that might have a flaw here and there, and are often believers in the ordination of homosexuals. (I am WAY overgeneralizing right now, but just bear with me)
In the voting booth, these folks vote heavily democratic, support initiatives to end global poverty and global warming, and can often be seen sipping lattes and reading the New York Times on their fancy Kindles.
Denominationally, these are people who tend to belong to denominations like the Unitarian Universalists, the United Church of Christ, and the Episcopalian church, although this is a difficult thing to discern (skip on down to see why).

In short, these are folks like me.

Red Letter Christians

2.) The “Red Letter Christians” In a somewhat surprising twist, there are a large number of people who – despite believing in conservative theology – are pushing hard for a progressive political agenda. These “Red Letter Christians” usually belong to more conservative denominations (even Baptists!), but espouse a belief system that places the words of Jesus – which are printed in red in some Bibles – as the focus of their faith. This means that they place a huge amount of emphasis on issues like feeding the poor and saving the planet from global climate change, all while maintaining a relatively strict approach to scripture.

Somewhat unexpectedly, it would seem that out of all three groups, THIS one is the most vocal. Their champions include the enigmatic but fantastic Tony Campolo, author of Red Letter Christians (that’s the giveaway!) and frequent contributor to the Huffington Post. Equally well-known is his friend and confidant Shane Claiborne, author of The Irresistible Revolution. More often than not, these are the ones who call for Christians to do those crazy things Jesus asked for (like giving up all your belongings to follow Christ and treating everyone as your neighbor, etc.), and they’re serious about it: Shane literally wears a burlap sack (although, admittedly, it does look like a sack designed by the Gap). I’ve actually seen Tony Campolo speak recently, and I can assure you – he’s for real.
Anyway, these folks are generally assumed to vote democratic and push liberal ideals, but be less enthused about liberal theology.

3.) The Liberal Centrists. Ah, the enigmas. According to Green, there is a third group that – while believing in liberal theology – have a harder time voting blue. They are the “centrists”, and are marked by their tendency to be politically moderate. Naturally, they also seem to be the most heavily courted by the RLC and the Liberal Core.

Think of them as the swing voters.

Okay, so how does this all play out? Who belongs to what denomination? How do they actually vote?

Good question. Given the explanation above, one would assume that this migration of thought must be coming from a growth in the traditionally liberal denominations (Unitarian Universalists, United Church of Christ, Episcopalians, or the PC(USA)) supplemented by a small but vocal shift within the Evangelical world…
…But here’s where things get tricky. According Pew exit polls from the election, Christians collectively voted more democratic this year than in 2000 or 2004. That said, when you actually break down the numbers, things get weird:

Pew Exit Polls...A change is a comin'

Christian voting shifts from 2004 to 2008 (numbers rounded)

Protestants/Other Christians voted 45% for Obama, 54% for McCain. That makes sense. However, “Evangelical/Born-Again” voted 26% for Obama and 73% for McCain, or a full 5% more Democratic than ’04. Meanwhile, there seemed to be no movement within the mainline denominations, as those who identified themselves as “Non-Evangelical” voted almost the exact same percentage as ’04, or 44% for Obama, 55% for McCain.

In another surprise twist, the Catholic vote – once thought to be hung up on the issue of abortion and thus firmly in the pocket of the Republican Party – pulled a complete 180 on the Repubs and not only voted Democratic this time around (54% for Obama and 45% for McCain), but rather a full 7% more Democratic. Thus, given that Catholics make up 23.9% of Christians in America and 26.3% claim to be Evangelical Protestants (a full 50% of Christians), it would appear that the power of the religious left movement is not coming out of a migration to the traditionally liberal denominations, but is rather a movement within those denominations that are classically defined as “conservative”.  Moreover, it would seem that the shift comes from both Catholics and Evangelicals refusing to be defined just by the issues of abortion and gay marriage, but rather by a much larger range of issues.  It’s a slight shift, but it’s enough.

Thus, it would appear that the “centrists” are actually members of mainline protestant denominations.

Also, the numbers above point to another interesting fact: whereas the Republicans created a machine by courting an easily discernible bloc of voters (the Evangelicals), the Religious Left appears to be a group that is much harder to pin down. Granted, the Democratic party hasn’t openly flaunted any concerted attempts to create their own political machine, but – even if they did – the diaspora of religious left would make it a very, very difficult thing to accomplish.

Alright, that’s all I’ve got on this topic for now, but I’m eager to hear the thoughts of others. Does this reflect YOUR view of the Religious Left? Is it something tangible, or just a smattering of changed opinions? Should the mainline protestants learn from the Evangelicals? Hit up the comments box!