Barack Obama and the (progressive) Religious Revival

Barack Obama's transition team is ringing in the New Year with a series of meetings with religious groups. It is striking that the names that dominate the list are the very ones that some people (Rick Warren: "The mainline is sidelined") have declared dead such as mainline Protestants, reform Jews and social justice Catholics.

"There is the feeling that these are not perfunctory meetings but serious meetings with people in policymaking roles who know the process well," says James Winkler, general secretary of the public policy arm of the United Methodist Church, who says that he or his staff have attended nearly a dozen meetings with the Obama transition team so far. "This is not something meant to bring in the faith community to keep them happy but to solicit our views and ideas."

It's not surprising the Obama and his team are turning to these groups. Whatever people say, they still represent a very large part of American society. Obama himself is a product of mainline Protestantism and these were the religious groups that supported his candidacy most vigorously along side historically black churches and Muslims. I wonder how this preferred status will play out in the revival of religious progressives in the place where it matters most - in the pews.

Having an conservative evangelical in the white house (although it turns out Bush was really a social conservative and a religious liberal) coincided with a boom for the evangelical wing of the Christian faith as people had a constant reminder of that faith tradition in the spotlight - for better or for worse. Will Barack Obama do the same for the more liberal religious traditions? Will mainline churches see a revival? My hope is that progressive churches, synagogues, mosques and temples will seize this moment to remind people of the social nature of their faith that calls for radical compassion for others near and far. This will affect how religious people understand the current economic crisis, the environment, war, and equal rights for all people including gay and lesbians. A Barack Obama presidency will hopefully be a boon for a more enlightened approach to religion which does not fear science and eschews a fundamentalist or literalist approach to scripture.

This can be done without sacrificing the personal spiritual substance that each religious individual requires. I applaud evangelicals like Rich Cizik, Rick Warren, TD Jakes, and Bill Hybels for how they widened their congregations' focus from stictly personal religion towards social issues such as AIDS in Africa and poverty. Conversely, traditonally social justice religious bodies will do well to remember that in these hard times each person should be reminded that God cares for them individually and desires for their personal well being and trasnformation.

True religion provides both - social and personal salvation.

Cross-posted from Beliefnet's Progressive Revival blog.

Comments

[JeffSchweitzer]

Morality and ethics are not derived from religion or from any reverence for a god; that so many humans believe otherwise does not diminish that absolute truth. For millenia, ever since Aristotle proposed that the heavens were composed of 55 concentric crystalline spheres, people believed the earth was the center of the universe. When observations of the planets did not perfectly correspond to the theory, rather than abandon the idea, Ptolemy came up with a (very clever) ad hoc fix. Finally, Copernicus blew the whole thing out of the water. We are doing the same thing today that Ptolemy did with Aristotle with our continued and desperate attempts to tie morality to religion. The idea is archaic and can only be sustained with ever more ad hoc ideas. We need to abandon the theory -- it is wrong -- and recognize that morality without religion is the only viable concept. Morality is our biological destiny. More about that in separate blogs.

[Zanti]

I can't wait.

[Stephen C. Rose - Huffpost Blogger]

You might be interested in how the following -- written almost 25 years ago, anticplates some of the issues that are raised by the Obama phenomenon. http://stephencrose.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/jesus-in-beyond-creed/

[benndissed]

i'd prefer they keep their religions out of our politics. no matter how many folks belong to any religious group they should not voice their belief's in gubment policy. it's dangerous, divisive, and pits one form of religion over others. we are supposed to be above all this. the way was shown by our forefathers, it's written into the constitution and the bill of rights, and we continue ,one administration after the other to condone it. it could very well be our downfall as a free society.

[Catothemuchyounger]

People's sense of right and wrong, of good policy and bad policy, has always been informed (though not necessarily dictated) by their religion. It is NOT a violation of the Establishment clause for people to simply seek government policy congruent with their personal moral code.

I am an agnostic, but at least understand that the influence of religion on our society and government (as with the civil rights movement) has been pervasive from the beginning.

[speeddeeps]

me too, but I am afraid that we are in the minority, too many religious people in this country and we have to accept that unfortunately

[Zanti]

It's "government," not "gubment." If you don't have a "hardcopy" dictionary handy, there are a number of fine on-line versions.

No offense, but I'd prefer you keep your spelling out of government. We have enough troubles as it is.

[concernvoter]

I don't know about a lot of people, but religion plays a big role in my life. We need to pray more and ask God to forgive us of our sins and pray for all the people who were caught in foreclosure, losing their jobs and for our troops to come home real soon.

[BarryS]

excuse me, no religious leader "focuses on stictly personal religion" matters. Otherwise, they could care less about abortion [done by others] or same-sex marriages. Their goal is to force others to abide by their rules. And, since they all differ as to their set of rules, they are in a sense saying that either God is only as they see him, or God is schizophrenic. If only they would leave the rest of us alone.

[wandering girl]

actually, there are denominations and churches that *do* believe abortion is a matter of personal conscience, where same-sex relationships (even marriages) are not considered anathema, and which do not seek to impose their doctrines on anyone - even congregational members. some of them are even "mainstream" ones.

[Zanti]

Please don't ask neo-lib bashers of faith to do the impossible--such as, practice the tolerance they preach to others. Or recognize the evil (and stupidity) of judging any group of people in such a vitriolic and blanket fashion.

It used to be that most hate speech came from the right. Thanks to the Internet, hate speech has become an equal-opportunity activity. One step forward, three steps back....

[mommadona]

I hope you are correct about the 'mainstream' revival.

But, from what I can tell (yes, this traditional witch attends church services once in awhile just to observe)...unless you have a complete DOLBY sound system, sweet lighting and props on the "altar", a couple killer 'soloists' and the equivalent of pole dancing, you just can't compete for the "flock's" attention.

I've been in theatre all my life.
The 'church' has literally kidnapped the theatre trappings in a pathetic attempt at relevancy.
Theatre is ILLUSION.

There ya go......

[alphonsegaston]

Your description of theatre's capture of church services fits the meagchurches well, along with smaller independent churches that are bringing in younger folks from the "entertain me or else" generation. But the mainline churches I know are not quite that far gone. Not many of our numerous small country churches, for example, could afford these props.

I too hope for a mainline revival, but wonder if our generational issues will allow it.

[FearlessFreep]

Christopher Hitchens says Rick Warren cozied up to the Syrian dictatorship. (Offending Israel may not be as safe as offending the gay community.)