The Pope and the Polygamists

For more than a week now, religion has taken an unprecedented amount of air time and newspaper inches in the U.S. This is a country seen as relatively "more religious" than Europe, Canada, Australia and much of Asia, but where religion is usually "out of sight, out of mind" in terms of public attention ... unless one is willing to include major league sports among the religions, as some scholars have urged (perhaps tongue in cheek). One of the most interesting aspects of all the coverage the past ten days has been how the journalists struggled to handle these stories and their obvious lack of preparation, depth or even the most surface understanding. Perhaps one of the most lasting impacts of this time will be the resolve of a number of editors and news directors to stop looking silly and get some skilled reporters who are really up-to-date on religion stories.

Another significant reality is how much religion is defined by a peculiar mix of the ancient and the contemporary. The pope standing before "rock star" crowds in Yankee Stadium wearing a costume that dates back fifteen centuries or more; Fundamentalist LDS mothers filing off a school bus in fashions that date to the 18th century. The urge to pray, the need to connect with God, is as old as humanity, yet it is always new and now. Learning to achieve the proper balance between the traditional and the contemporary must be a key to finding authentic faith.

It seems to me that one of the things the news media has largely muted this past week, that it is afraid to tackle with its usual bawdy candor, is the intersection between law and religion. For a country that has taken from its earliest days a bold stand on religious freedom and the separation of church and state, the U.S. has a remarkable number of hang-ups and issues in this arena. These float beneath the surface in both of these stories, but were left largely untouched by reporters.

1. What is the proper use of power by a large religion that has enormous institutional authority? The Roman Catholic Church has a solid majority on the U.S. Supreme Court and the largest number of lawmakers in the U.S. Congress. It has more adherents than any other religion in America, such a large number that it is considered to be an influential block of voters that no presidential candidate can ignore, especially in states such as Pennsylvania, which may tomorrow decide on who the next president will be. Should the Pope have used this influence to a greater degree on behalf of causes that most Bible scholars of all Christian denominations agree are vital? No serious Bible scholar sees the Iraq War as anything but sin. There is a much wider consensus among Bible experts against the executions that continue in American prisons than there is against abortion. The national policy of largely ignoring the needs of the poor, the homeless, and the 36 million Americans with no access to health care is a gross violation of Christian faith for all but a handful of theologians. Should the Pope have reprimanded the President who greeted him with unprecedented honors? Should the Pope have laid down the law to his own flock, telling the bishops to deny communion to the Supreme Court justices who greeted his arrival by thumbing their noses at Catholic doctrine in a decision that opens the door to less than the least painful methods in executions?

2. How far do we go in protecting the rights of religious minorities? Polygamy has become much more abhorrent to the majority of Americans than it appears to be in the Bible. The might of the U.S. government successfully forced the mainstream of the Later-day Saints (LDS) to give up this belief, but very small minorities hold on to what they see as the authentic faith. In Texas, where Christian fundamentalists have more political power than anywhere else in America, we now see the full weight of the law brought down on this little group. The law enforcement officials involved argue that they are simply protecting children, which would be more believable if they had interceded on behalf of the handful of girls who actually filed complaints instead of taking all of the children from an entire village, more than 400 in number. What if the issue were protecting children from being denied an adequate education and the law enforcement officials had rounded up 400 children from an Amish community? What if the issue were protecting children from being denied adequate protein in their diets and the law enforcement officials had rounded up 400 children from a Seventh-day Adventist boarding school that serves no meat?

Clearly sexuality is more of a hot button for the majority of Americans than is either education or diet, and that viewpoint seems to be conclusive in the current events. But, should the religious rights of the minority be dependent on the emotions of the majority? Should all religions that practice arranged marriages be prohibited from doing so if either the bride or groom are under a certain age? Is there any rationale for outlawing polygamy that does not involve theology? Should the government be in the position of regulating religious definitions of marriage, or should that be left to the churches?

3. What will be the outcome of politicized religion in America? I posted a couple of days ago a description of the political ironies associated with the picture of Pope Benedict 16 standing next to President Bush in official ceremonies. I described a number of ways in which politicized religion defaces true faith. When one combines the data that indicates that America is becoming more and more secular with the evidences of religion that is rooted more in fickle crowd psychology than in careful study of the scriptures, the trend is unsettling to say the least. There is the real danger that we are headed for a time when religion will have renewed power, but that power will rest with democracy, not divinity.

Comments

[Loren Seibold]

Don't you think the pictures of mothers separated from children could be more impactful than the charges against them, which seem to me fairly thin? Already they seem to drown out the testimonies of the polygamist critics. There was an overreaching here that may backfire on the government, arousing sympathy for the polygamist group--which they don't deserve,either.

[Harold Cunningham]

Insightful post, Monte. Do we possess the courage and authentic vulnerability to examine the institution of Adventism utilizing the same piercing questions - slightly modified?
1. What is the proper use of power by a denomination that has enormous institutional authority?
2. How far do we(the institution of Adventism) go in protecting, for example, the rights of Adventist theological, sub-cultural, financial, or ministry-related minorities within Adventism?
3. What would be the outcome of a politicized Adventism...whether politicized within the institution or externally?
~Harold Cunningham
http://georgiagrown.blogspot.com/

[Chris]

Let me add graphic and sexist to my profile here. The grand questions posed is calling me to make a philosophical choice between a bikini and a burka outlook. My choice is easy!
The genius of the American idea as we move towards a more perfect union has been a beauty to behold. I am not naïve or unsuspicious of government and powerful religious institutions. However, only in America would I be at ease with the celebrative event between the most powerful world leader and the most powerful religious leader. My ease stems from several facts:
We have a healthy appreciation for the body of rule of law.
These laws have codified a civil morality that have built in protections and counter measures to the Balkanization impulse we see so evident in other communities.
There is no religious test imposed. When religious discrimination does take place, recourse is possible.
Now on some of the particulars mentioned. The pope is not only a religious leader. He is also a head of state. His engagement at the White House was more of a state visit than a pastoral visit. It was certainly different from his visit to the stadiums in DC and NY, and to the synagogue.
The LDS church and its political leaders that include Harry Reid has been rather silent on the polygamy issue. I just wonder if they are embarrassed as the Adventist church was with regards to the Davidians. I see this as a case of folks using their religion umbrella to cover their misdeeds. The outlawing of polygamy is based in solid evidence of community orderliness and health.
Finally, recent history has given us good evidence as to the consequence of politicizing our faith. Just ask the frustrated religious right who for several decades tried to use the instrument of government to redeem the culture. Until the Second Coming, heavenly hope and sin will continue to battle for our hearts. Let’s not lose hope.

[Monte]

Harold, I have no doubt that there are instances of misuse of power and politicization of religion within the Adventist community. But, the observation I was making about the institutional power of the Catholic Church relates to the larger national context, and in the U.S. the Adventist Church has very, very little power. It is largely invisible on the national stage and has virtually no political assets. (Two members of congress, each from a different party and entirely unable to get along.) I am afraid that Adventists have made no attempt whatsoever to make connections between the Church and political issues. For example, Adventist church growth is almost entirely dependent on immigration, but the majority of Adventist members continue to vote for lawmakers who would like to end immigration all together. We have internal political problems and one of them is the failure to understand the larger world of which we are a part. There is way too much narrow-minded thinking and a lack of larger perspective. That is one of the major causes of our internal abuses of power, etc., I think.

Chris, friends who work for the LDS leadership tell me that they are pursuing a strategy in the current FLDS situation that sounds very much like what the GC/NAD utilized during the Waco tragedy. You don't see them in the media because they are doing all they can to stay out of the news right now. They do not want to be associated in anyone's mind with the FLDS. I think they may literally be using our textbook.