Church and state: A Catholic testifies in the Senate

And I mean Stephen Colbert. For those who don't know him, first of all, you need to watch more TV. But, perhaps more helpfully, Colbert does a spoof news show on Comedy Central, "The Colbert Report," which follows Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show," which is where Colbert got his start. Unlike Stewart, who mostly plays it straight and speaks more or less in his own voice, Colbert's persona is a put-on, a parody of an arrogant but unthinking arch-conservative, who relies more on his gut than his brain, and who figures truthiness is next to godliness. The show is brilliant political and social satire.

Colbert raised eyebrows recently by testifying before Congress on the issue of migrant labor and immigration reform. In particular, he remained in character for his formal, written testimony. Some in Congress, the media, and the public at large took umbrage at Colbert's approach to his testimony, calling it an insult to the dignity of the Congress, and so on and so forth.

Never mind that all of this is over-reacting, that people are taking themselves too seriously, that people  fail to see a serious political point being made, that satire has a long and venerable history, or even that this is what Colbert always does in his public appearances.

As a colleague of mine noted in pointing this out to me, Colbert is so rigorous about remaining in character that it is striking, and powerful, when he steps out of it. This is exactly what happens when he is questioned following the delivery of his written testimony. In response to a (rather snide, it seemed to me) inquiry as to his interest in the issue of migrant labor, implying that it was simply an opportunity to ridicule people, Colbert replied:

I like talking about people who don’t have any power, and it seems like one of the least powerful people in the United States are migrant workers who come in and do our work, but don’t have any rights as a result. And yet, we still ask them to come here, and at the same time, ask them to leave. And that’s an interesting contradiction to me, and um… You know, “whatsoever you did for the least of my brothers,” and these seemed like the least of my brothers, right now. A lot of people are “least brothers” right now, with the economy so hard, and I don’t want to take anyone’s hardship away from them or diminish it or anything like that. But migrant workers suffer, and have no rights.

His remarks speak for themselves.

But it seems especially noteworthy to me because Colbert is utterly un-self-conscious about expressing the religious foundation of his concerns. Of course it is quite possible to be non-religious, or even atheist, and fight for the rights of the oppressed. But that is not where Colbert is coming from. When we wonder about the proper relationship between church and state in this country, I'm not sure Colbert (dubbed by Andrew Sullivan "the greatest Catholic of our moment") doesn't exemplify it in his actions. His fight is not for a theocracy, but for a just society. The state needn't be theocratic in order for it to be just. On the contrary, it is only in a non-theocratic state that everyone's values -- be they religiously formed and framed or not -- can be expressed openly and in a spirit in which the value of the opinion is not dependent on its source (in faith, scripture, etc.).

Voluntary Church Segregation in the US

The CNN religion blog reports on a recent study noting that "nine out of ten congregations in the U.S. are segregated -- a single racial group accounts for more than 80 percent of their membership." CNN raises two interesting questions (at least one of which is addressed by the original article, "Race, Diversity, and Membership Duration in Religious Congregations" published in Sociological Inquiry). First, why is it that when so many other areas of society are so much better integrated than in the 60s, churches remain so segregated? Not to suggest that, apart from churches, we have "achieved integration," but it is rather striking. Second, given that the early church (say in the first century, mainly, but probably still in the second to a large degree) was comprised of such a diverse group -- Jews, gentiles, women, slaves, the otherwise looked-down-upon and outcast -- and that this was arguably a central element of its appeal at that time, what has changed that church has become almost the last bastion of social division, virtually the only place where segregation is not only allowed but sought out by most?

It's noted in the article that people got to church for comfort rather than to be challenged. But surely this was the case in the first century, as well.

Could it be that the Christian church (note the small "c") has become more a bastion of privilege and staus-quo-maintenance than a refuge of the poor and downtrodden, for whom their socio-economic status unites them more than their racial or national identities divide them? I suppose I have an easy habit of following Cornel West (and Roger Williams!) in wanting to blame Constantine for this shift, but one supposes that if it hadn't been Constantine, it would have been someone else. Or maybe it's just that Christ has come to be understood entirely too much as uniting all of us (whoever "us" is -- whites, blacks, whoever) against all of them (whoever is our enemy). Apparently, Americans, when they worship, want to be with "people like me," and "like me" doesn't mean "loving God," or "sinner," or "wanting help and hope," but more than anything it seems to mean, "people with my skin color."

Maybe that's actually okay. And the CNN article asks the question, is it really a goal we should have, to integrate churches? Why? Why not? Maybe it's the sort of thing that, if it were happening, would say some wonderful things, but it's not something you can set as a goal to achieve by means of . . . what? If there's a failure, maybe the failure is in church leadership in not trying to bridge these kinds of divides. But surely they would say that they are subject to the whims of parishioners. In the "church market," if you challenge people too much or ask too much of them, they leave, and then your church is history, and haven't you failed, then, too?

It's a rambly post, but the question is in my mind a difficult one to sort out, especially when the study is published in an academic journal that most people will not be able to read.

W reads (about) Bonhoeffer

Gustav Niebuhr notes that George W. Bush is reading a very recent 600-page biography of famous Christian Nazi-resister, and prophet of the "cost of discipleship," Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

A complicated character in a hellishly harrowing time, Bonhoeffer offers us different aspects that can be taken for the whole man. [ . . . ] On his first stay in the United States, in 1930, he found the Social Gospel preached at Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem so profoundly affecting that he retained a lifelong belief in partnering with God to help the poor and oppressed. There was Bonhoeffer the Christian man of action, who did not absolve himself of guilt in his political activities. And there was the theologian who found the world's realities in the image of Jesus on the cross. [ . . . ]

Which Bonhoeffer is George W. Bush encountering? As noted, with his dedicated focus on Christ, Bonhoeffer has long appealed to people who lean toward the theologically conservative, especially American evangelicals. His commitment to social ministry inspires many ranks of more liberal admirers. And Bonhoeffer's clear status of an a man of action, who put all at risk to defy Hitler--well, who doesn't find that moving?

Like Niebuhr, I wonder what exactly the former president is getting out of his reading about Bonhoeffer, but I also suppose that if this news means more people go read Bonhoeffer's work, that would be a good thing, regardless of what effect it has on Bush himself.

It's official (in the UK): Druids are for real

Druids -- nature-worshippers claiming affiliation with the ancient religion of pre-Christian Britain -- have been recognized as an official religion for tax purposes in the UK.

Emma Restall Orr, founder of The Druid Network, added: “The Charity Commission now has a much greater understanding of Pagan, animist, and polytheist religions, so other groups from these minority religions – provided they meet the financial and public benefit criteria for registration as charities - should find registering a much shorter process than the pioneering one we have been through.”

Follow-up on this one in the works, mainly on the question of legal definitions of religion and the need to assign religions some official status.

What do you know about religion?

The Pew Forum has just released the results of a survey of Americans' knowledge of religious beliefs and practices. They provide a sample quiz you can take to see what you know and how you compare to the rest of the population who took the survey.

The most striking thing to come out of the survey is that persons self-identifying as atheist or agnostic scored better on average than persons self-identifying as religious (regardless of the religion they profess). Jewish respondents came in a fairly close second, followed by Mormons. Mormons and white evangelical protestants did best on the Christianity questions.

A full report (which I have yet to digest, but which may prompt follow-up posts) is also available. A cursory review of the results shows that Americans know almost nothing about the Great Awakening (either first or second) or Jonathan Edwards. Almost half believe that "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is one of the Ten Commandments. And, despite Charlton Heston's best efforts, many people do not know that Moses led the Exodus out of Egypt.