Faith in Context

Trends in the Second Wave of the U.S. Congregational Life Study

Last week I attended the annual meeting of the Cooperative Congregational Studies Partnership (CCSP), the interfaith group of researchers who focus on local church life. Cynthia Woolever was one of the speakers and she shared early findings from the second wave of the U.S. Congregational Life study (USCL) which compares data from the base line survey in 2001 and the most recent survey in 2008-2009. I share some interesting pieces:

1. Congregations are making increasing use of the Internet. Those who have web sites has gone from 45 percent to 77 percent and those who send out Email newsletters or announcements have gone from 43 percent to 74 percent.

2. There is increasing diversification in worship. Just 56 percent are using mainly traditional hymns now, while a third are using praise music and a quarter are using contemporary music.

3. There has been a significant increase in the percentage of congregations involved in community services. In 2001 about two-thirds provided some kind of emergency relief services while today it is over 90 percent. Those sponsoring programs for children and youth in the community has nearly doubled from 28 percent to 52 percent, as has those who provide some kind of health program, jumping from a quarter to 40 percent. The number of congregations sponsoring a 12-step group or Recovery ministry of some kind has also doubled from 13 percent to 25 percent. Congregations involved in social justice initiatives has also nearly doubled from 13 percent to 23 percent and those doing some kind of environmental project has increased three times, moving from four percent to 13 percent.

4. Most congregations remain small. Two out of three have fewer than 150 people in attendance each week. Only one percent of American congregations exceed 2,000 in attendance.

5. Congregations are raising more money and have significantly greater funding demands. The median total giving for U.S. congregations (adjusted for inflation) has gone from $210,000 in 2001 to $310,000 in 2008. This despite the fact that more than a third report a declining financial base.

6. The participants in most congregations are getting older. The median age was 50 in 2001 and it was 54 in 2008. Only eight percent of the people in church are 15 to 24 years of age.

7. The people who go to church are much better educated than most Americans: 47 percent of church attenders have a college degree compared to 27 percent of the general population in the 2008 U.S. Census American Community Survey.

8. People go to church less often than they used to. Four out of five reported weekly attendance in 2001 while only three-quarters did so in 2008. Those who have invited someone to chruch has dropped from 46 percent to 43 percent which may not be a significant change.

9. The percentage of non-members attending has increased only a little, from 11 percent in 2001 to 13 percent in 2008. But among those under 45 years of age it is one in five (19 percent).

A number of things have not changed, reports Woolever. Women still make up 60 percent of the average congregation, two thirds of the members are married and 43 percent of the families have children. The percentage of people involved in small group ministries, giving and leadership has not changed.

Much more has been published in a new book which I will introduce later this week.

Why Do Texas Christians Want to Rewrite History?

This week's New York Times Magazine  (Feb. 14) contains an important article about the current political battle on the Texas Board of Education between Fundamentalist Christians and more moderate conservatives, many of them also Evangelical Christians. The focus is on revising the guidelines for teaching American history in elementary and secondary public schools in the state. These are inordinately influential because Texas purchases textbooks in bulk, instead of letting local school boards make that decision, which pushes publishers to produce materials that conform to the Texas guidelines.

The Fundamentalist Christians do not believe in separation of church and state. They believe that the founders of America were Christians and intended the country to be a Christian nation. They want to rewrite history to fit their ideas. Secular notions have inordinate influence among the scholars that research and write history at least because they tend to be devoted to knowing the facts and therefore skeptical of faith as a source of knowledge.

The article clearly documents how both viewpoints fall short of reality. Yes, the leaders of the British colonies that rebelled and founded the American nation were Christians. But they did not have much of a consensus on dogma. New England was populated by descendants of Puritans who were expelled from the established Anglican Church in the U.K. and fled eventually to America. Maryland was established as a colony for the Catholic minority in England and Pennsylvania by a member of the persecuted Society of Friends (called Quakers because of the Pentecostal nature of some of their early roots). Nine colonies had state churches, many continued after independence. Yet a number of the founding fathers were Deists, or what Fundamentalist Christians would call theological Liberals. If Thomas Jefferson or George Washington ran for president today they would undoubtedly be opposed by the same political forces who want to make them into Evangelical spokesmen in Texas history books.

The reality is that one of the conservative Evangelical blind spots is the fact that many of their fellow believers disagree with them on matters of faith that have resulted, in the past, in Christians killing each other. The faith and values of our founders led them to a consensus on one practical point. They wanted to protect their children and grandchildren from the kind of cruelty that people who have both political power and a belief that they speak for God can perpetrate. Here is an important history lesson that our founding fathers knew well: When a strong believer gets a great deal of political power he often gives in to the temptation to use distinctly unChristlike methods of forcing God's truth on others. I pray they don't take that lesson out of the Texas history guidelines. And I recommend that you read the article.

More Haiti: Case Studies in How Not to Help, How to Help

I have been following the case of the mission trip from the Boise (Idaho) Central Baptist Church which ended up with a group being arrested and charged with kidnapping. I feel for the people involved. I do not find any evidence that they intended to do anything wrong. I believe them when they say that they only wanted to help. It is a classic case study of how difficult it is to "help" and why Evangelicals seem to have a hard time relating to the world beyond their own cultural envelope.

This is a Southern Baptist church in Idaho. That is a particular cultural location. One of the factors that is typical of this particular cultural location is a contempt for "multiculturalism" and jokes about "politically correct" behavior or language. These attitudes are related to the problems of the group in Haiti. When Christians go to "help" in another culture they should follow the admonitions of Christ to be "harmless as doves and wise as serpents" (Matthew 10:16). The same as true of subcultures next door. To feel that being "politically correct" is somehow less than honest and true is to disrespect other cultures. It only makes more difficult the feeling that others have that Christians think "we have the truth and you are wrong." Respect for the other culture, its values and laws (formal or informal) is fundamental to a truly Christlike witness. It is also practical and prevents the kind of hot water these Idaho Baptist church people are now in.

Frankly, going off to Haiti to take "orphans" out of the country is simply not helpful. (Those children already adopted by parents in the U.S. who were waiting for red tape when the earthquake represent a different category all together; I am not referring to that.) There are limited resources (money, food, fuel, personnel) and it takes many more resources per child to take them out of the country than it does to help a larger number of children in country. It is totally infeasible (frankly silly) to think of evacuating all children or even all children detached from relatives. How do you decide justly which (few) children get an opportunity to go to the U.S. and which (many more) children do not get that opportunity? If a group does not get these issues, then, frankly, they are not qualified to provide effective Christian service in Haiti right now.

I happened to find out this morning about another church group that was scheduled (before the earthquake) to leave on a mission trip to Haiti a couple of days after the earthquake. This is an excellent example of responsible, compassionate helping. New Hope Church near Baltimore has a humanitarian organization, Share Our Strength, which has worked to support New Garden Orphanage in Haiti for at least a couple of years prior to the earthquake. (Similar to the situation at Central Baptist Church in Idaho and the relationship it has had with schools and orphanages in Haiti.) They have sent mission trips to operate clinics, do construction, etc. They have supplied necessities, medical supplies and funding over the years.

The trip that had been scheduled before the earthquake was canceled. Instead of trying to get into Haiti, New Hope Church set up a meeting on Monday (Feb. 1) with the Haitian Ambassador to the United States, His Excellency Raymond Joseph, for Gigi LeMorzellec, the Haitian cofounder of Eden Garden Orphanage and Glenn Gibb, a member of the orphanage's board and New Hope Church, along with representatives from Reaching Hearts for Kids and Frontline Community Services, two other faith-based nonprofits who have been partners in Haiti. During the meeting, the ambassador was able to learn of the work being performed by the orphanage in Haiti. He requested that Eden Garden Orphanage keep up the good work. This kind of careful relationship-building helps civic leaders in Haiti feel good about the work being done and demonstrates a willingness to honor the culture and the authorities (as taught in Romans 13).

A novel entitled The Ugly American long ago pointed out the problem with American "cowboy" attitudes that clash with the way other cultures operate. We instinctively jump in and do something even before we understand the context, the larger dynamics or even (sometimes) the actual need. This also communicates our disrespect for the people in the group, community or nation that needs help. Truly Christlike helping is always rooted in taking time to hear and understand the needs and integrity of the people in need.

Crying, Praying & Working for Haiti

It is the poorest nation in the western hemisphere. No people were less able to take this tragic blow than were the people of Haiti. It is also a nation that has been the recipient of a large amount of American missionary activity over the years; schools, orphanages, hospitals, clinics, feeding programs and community development projects, as we as evangelism. The earthquake has wiped out decades of small, incremental advances. It is as if in one blow the demonic has set back all the good that believers have done for a lifetime.

Haiti is a test for the authenticity of American Christianity. Will we give up on Haiti or redouble our efforts. Circulating rumors that this happened because the Haitian people entered into some kind of pact with the Devil is not helpful. That only results in many people thinking that Christians (or devout, conservative Christians) are nuts. It is time for every true follower of Jesus to make a sacrifice on behalf of the needs of the Haitians. Give now, give again and again, and give more than you first thought about giving. Be generous and then up the ante on yourself even more!

I have received literally hundreds of phone calls, Emails and text messages from people asking about how to give effectively or go to Haiti as a volunteer or do something helpful. If you are serious about helping the people of Haiti, let me suggest a few guidelines:

1. Give immediately through an established organization with sufficient capacity to actually deliver in Haiti. We often trust smaller, "human-sized" organizations over "big, bloated bureaucracies with high overhead." In fact, the reality is that the 10 or 15 largest relief agencies (World Vision, ADRA, Red Cross, etc.) are much, much more likely to be able to meet the needs in Haiti at this moment than are the small organizations. Later, when redevelopment kicks in, many smaller organizations will play a significant role. Right now they are being told by government, the international military and the UN to stay out of the way.

2. Do not let some organization that has never done community development or health care in Haiti snag your dollars. There will be hundreds of organizations that will come out of the woodwork and send out Haiti appeals. If they have no prior track record in Haiti, that is really dishonest at this point. I am somewhat sympathetic to these small nonprofits who see their fund raising going out the window if they do not make an appeal for Haiti, and that is really the fault of the American people who are somewhat fickle in their giving patterns. Please do not stop giving the regular giving you have been doing for your local church and other ministries and charities that you have supported. They still need your support. Go the second mile in your giving for Haiti.

3. Use the on line information available (the 990 forms filed with the IRS, etc.) to get facts about organizations before you send them money. Unless they are among the few that everyone knows to be large, international relief agencies, you need to be responsible and check them out. Use Google; look at objective evaluators as well as the organization's own web site.

4. Educate yourself and others about Haiti. There is an abundance of good information easily available. The average middle class Christian in America does know what they do not know about poverty in a developing nation like Haiti. Take time to learn now. Help your children learn. Encourage them to make a sacrifice for the poor, suffering children of Haiti.

5. If your instinct is to offer to adopt a child; now is not the time. It will be difficult enough to get children out who were already adopted and waiting for paperwork. New adoptions are not going to be possible for a year or more. The file cabinets are all at the bottom of mountains of collapsed buildings, both at the orphanages and the government agencies. The social workers are overwhelmed with immediate, emergency needs. If your wish to adopt a child is genuine, it can wait a year or so. If you are afraid it will wane while you wait, then maybe it is better to do something else.

6. If you have skills (as a medical professional, etc.) and want to go to Haiti to help, you need to be patient. There is a massive bottleneck and people coming in mean less water and food for those already there. The only personnel that will go into Haiti for several weeks will be the people already trained and organized by recognized relief agencies. If you want to be ready to help next time, you can get started on the training here. You may say, I am a trained professional, but that does not mean you have been oriented to the particular protocols of an international disaster situation, or that you have been vetted and credentialed. That all happens between disasters (the "off" time) in the organizations that do this. Right now their hands are full.

Authentic followers of Jesus will be praying for the people of Haiti, giving to help fund the workers who are there and need massive supplies, and preparing for the long haul. It is not just a matter of feeding the hungry or caring for babies while CNN is talking about it; it is what we do "in the closet" (to quote Jesus) when the spotlight of the news media has moved on to a new story, that is a genuine witness to the compassion of Jesus.

End of an Era

Throughout my lifetime one or more the Kennedy brothers have held a high office and exercised significant political influence in our nation. With the death of Senator Ted Kennedy, an era comes to an end. Jack was the first Catholic to be elected president. Bobby became the clearest voice among top politicians for peace and social justi ce. Ted achieved the largest number of actual legislative accomplishments. That folk song, "Where are they ... John, Bobby and Martin" still brings tears to my eyes and causes my gut to clinch. If it were not for the Kennedy brothers and Dr. Martin Luther King, half our nation would still be without basic civil rights. That happened in my life time; I saw it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears!

The Kennedy's stood for something that is rare and almost dead in America today. They stood up for the weak, the poor, those unable to have a significant voice in how the money and power in this country is distributed. They were sons of one of the richest families in America. They need not have gone to the trouble. They could have lived comfortable lives or made billions on Wall Street or done anything they wanted to do. But they remembered their Irish immigrant grandparents who lived in an America where the Irish were not really "White." Where the Irish were discriminated against, kept in poverty and out of the circles of power. Catholics were feared by a majority Protestant America. Cities were feared by an America centered in small towns and rural farms.

More than the Clinton or Bush regimes, the Kennedys became an American dynasty for a simple reason; They gave their lives for their nation. An older brother (Joe Jr.) gave his life in combat in World War II. Jack and Bobby gave their lives to assassins. Ted gave his life, to the last drop, to serving the poor, the ethnic minorities, the forgotten and pushed-aside in America. Jack is famous for that almost-forgotten sentiment, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Some have tried to tie this to "personal responsibility," that sneaky little notion that allows the rest of us to wash our hands of the suffering of the least able among us. They forget that for the Kennedys this principle was tied to a Biblical notion, "To whom much is given, much is demanded."

The Kennedys believed and lived the simple notion that those with the greatest wealth, education and status should do more and give more to help the least-favored, the poorest, the most oppressed in our country and the world. You can bring up all their weaknesses; their drinking, their unsavory pals, Ted's involvement with the death of a young woman, Jack's womanizing and slowness to support the civil rights movement, and Bobby's political calculation as to when to come out against the Vietnam war. They were not perfect. They were flawed human beings. None of that takes away from their commitment to live their lives for "the least of these" as our Lord Jesus Christ asks for all believers. There are a great many who have never done anything as bad as the Kennedy brothers who have also never lived this fundamental commitment. Read Matthew 25:31-46 and you will see how God views the bottom line on this comparison.

It is my prayer that the next generation of Americans, the young adults who don't fully grasp why this is such an important moment to some of us old people, will rediscover the Kennedy ethic: Live life to the fullest and live it largely for those who have less than you do.

President Obama & Faith-based Initiatives

As he said he would during the campaign last year, President Obama has retained the "faith-based initiatives" emphasis at the White House, but restructured the organization that he inherited from President Bush. The new unit consists of two parts, where Bush's White House had only one: An Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and a President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The council is make its final recommendations in February next year (2010), so it appears that further changes may yet surface. At the same time it is clear that Obama is committed to some kind of working relationship with the nonprofit sector, including the large part of it that is related to religious constituencies.

The key staff person in the White House for this activity is Joshua DuBois, a 27-year-old Evangelical activist who served as Obama's liaison with the religious community during the campaign last year. DuBois was a student at Boston University and associate pastor at the Calvary Praise and Worship Center in Cambridge. This is a neighborhood that I am personally familiar with because in the 1970s, I planted a congregation there and worked in Boston as a community organizer. The congregation is small, not affiliated with any denomination, but Pentecostal in orientation, made up largely of African Americans and for a while, at least, shared space with two other Protestant congregations in Faith Lutheran Church. Pastor DuBois got the church involved with the Ten-Point Coalition, an effort by African American churches in the Boston area to prevent teen violence and gangs run by the National Ten-point Foundation, also located in Boston. DuBois maintains a mentoring relationship with a teen in Boston even as he takes on the very busy schedule of a White House staffer. He chairs the advisory council as part of his job. The other members include:

• Diane Baillargeon, CEO of Seedco, a New York nonprofit involved in economic development projects. She is a self-described secular member of the council.
• Anju Bhargava, president of Asian Indian Women in America, an immigrant women's advocacy and help group. She is also a Hindu priest.
• Charles E. Blake, presiding bishop of the Church of God in Christ (COGIC), one of the largest historically African American denominations in America.
• Noel Castellanos, CEO of the Christian Community Development Association (CCDA) and a well-known Evangelical leader.
• Arturo Chavez, president of the Mexican American Catholic College and a former prison chaplain who has worked as a community organizer and teacher. He is Catholic.
• Peg Chemberlin, executive director of the Minnesota Council of Churches and president-elect of the National Council of Churches and a minister in the Moravian Church.
• Fred Davie, an ordained Presbyterian minister and senior staff member at the Arcus Foundation.
• Nathan Diament, director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations and a key player in the interfaith coalition that has pushed for religious liberty legislation.
• Joel Hunter, senior pastor of Northland Church, a nondenominational megachurch near Orlando, and a board member for the National Association of Evangelicals (NEA).
• Harry Knox, a former Methodist pastor who is liaison with religious leaders for the Human Rights Campaign, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy group.
• Vashti McKenzie, presiding prelate of the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME) in Tennessee and Kentucky.
• Dalia Mogahed, director of the Gallup Poll's Center for Muslim Studies. She was born in Egypt and is a practicing Muslim.
• Otis Moss, a long-time civil rights leader, retired pastor of a Baptist church in Cleveland and a board member for both the M.L. King Centerand Morehouse College.
• Frank S. Page, past president of the Southern Baptist Convention and pastor of Taylors First Baptist Church in South Carolina.
• Eboo Patel, founder of Interfaith Youth Core, a nonprofit that recruits young people to participate in interfaith community service. He is a Muslim born in India.
• Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, an attorney and Catholic lay leader.
• Nancy Ratzan, president of the National Council of Jewish Women, an attorney and president of Reform Jewish congregation in Miami.
• Melissa Rogers, director of the Wake Forest University School of Divinity Center for Religion and Public Affairs. She is a lawyer and teaches courses on church-state relations.
• David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, and both a rabbi and an attorney.
• William J. Shaw, president of the National Baptist Convention, the largest historically black Protestant denomination, and pastor of White Rock Baptist Church in Philadelphia.
• Larry J. Snyder, a priest and president of Catholic Charities, one of the largest nonprofit social service agencies in America.
• Richard Stearns, president of World Vision; an Evangelical lay leaders with a long background in business before he joined the Christian humanitarian agency.
• Judith Vredenburgh, CEO of Big Brothers/Sisters of America, the largest youth mentoring nonprofit, and a self-described secular member of the advisory council.
• Jim Wallis, founder and president of Sojourners, and one of the best-known Evangelical social action leaders.
• Sharon Watkins, president of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) Protestant denomination.

The president has asked the council to focus on four priorities: (1) connecting faith-based and community groups to economic recovery, (2) promoting interfaith dialog and cooperation in the arena of community service, (3) encouraging responsible fatherhood and healthy families, and (4) reducing unintended pregnancies and the need for abortions, strengthening maternal and child health, and encouraging adoptions.

What does this mean?

President Obama hopes to avoid some of the mistakes of the previous administration, such as trampling long-held notions about the proper line between religion and government, and overly politicizing the involvement of people of faith, while continuing the necessary cooperation between government entities and religious charities which has been a key part of America from its founding. In many ways it is a return to the ideas that Colin Powell presided over in the 1990s in the aftermath of the Presidents' Summit on Community Service. In a time of need in a democracy, elected officials are always going to challenge religious leaders to mobilize their adherents to help out simply because religion advertises itself as being about compassion, love and charity.

Jimmy Carter and the Southern Baptist Convention

It is somewhat shocking that the president who is arguably the most sincere, dedicated follower of Jesus to sit in that office (at least in the last 60 years) is the first to visibly split with one of the largest Protestant denominations in America. Of course, one thing about the Baptist tradition is that he has plenty of other choices; denominations that are the same in all theological respects except for the social teachings that he has found disturbing and un-Christlike. It is unclear whether this means he will change his local church membership or whether his local church will change denominational affiliation.

Carter had some straight talk for the denomination. He could have said some harsher (but not less true) things. The claim of the denomination is that a literal reading of scripture demands that women not be permitted to serve as pastors, deacons or military chaplains. The text the cite in 1 Corinthians does not literally say anything about pastors, deacons or chaplains. If it were actually taken literally it would mean that the denomination would prohibit women from singing in the choir, teaching Sunday School (even to children) or making announcements. In fact all of these things are so embedded in the denomination's culture that the scripture in question is twisted to mean something that in interpretive and not literal.

He could also have pointed out that this is a denomination that came into existence because it believed devoutly that the New Testament supported slavery, a position that it recently repented for. In fact, that stand was closer to the truth. There is much more literal material in the New Testament supporting slavery than there is to support their present stand on women in ministry. One wonders if at some point in the future they will repent for this stand. If (and, more likely, when) they do, perhaps they will remember President Carter and reinstate him for his prophetic stand, even in posthumously.

Race and Police

A well-known Harvard professor is arrested in his own home, an African American professor arrested by a white police officer, and the first Black president of the United States is asked to comment. Once the question was on the table, it was inevitable that a debate would result. (Think what comments would be made if President Obama had refused to respond. How many millions of people would suddenly be certain they could read his mind?)

The president said that he did not know the details and the professor is a friend of his, so he might be biased. He pointed out the troubled history of the behavior of white police toward black Americans. He said that he thought the police behaved stupidly. Why would he make that last statement?

It is really very simple and anyone who does not get it really needs to ask themselves what it is about their thinking (perhaps even their subconscious) that moves them toward a different logic.

1. The police officer had determined that there was no break-in underway. The man was in his own home. At that point the task of the police was done. They knew the man was upset by the fact that they came to his home. It was time to leave. It was stupid to stay around longer.

2. The police officer says that he arrested the professor because the professor shouted at him, expressing anger. That was stupid. There is no law against shouting at a police officer or being angry with a police officer.

3. The police officer handcuffed the man, put him in a police car, took him to the police station, booked him and forced him to pay bail to get out. The professor is 58 years old and walks with a cane. He had made no physical threats and he had no weapons. If the officer was certain that shouting at a police officer is against the law, it would have been more appropriate to write a ticket. Even if he felt he must arrest the professor, he did not need to handcuff him. The way the officer handled this was stupid. It was a waste of taxpayer money.

4. The police officer, it turns out, has been teaching a course on race relations at the police academy for the last five years. Yet, he says that he did not know who Dr. Henry L. Gates is. What books has he read in preparation for the classes he teaches? How is it possible to study material about race and never have encountered the name of Henry Louis Gates? [Hint: There is a way to accomplish that feat, but I am sure the Cambridge Police Department does not want to go there.] Especially since Dr. Gates lives in Cambridge. The fact that the police officer did not know who Dr. Gates is; that is also stupid.

I do think that a dimension of this very probably does not have to do specifically with race. The police officer's ego is the source of the stupidity here. If he had behaved professionally he would have ignored the professor's shouting and anger, and simply driven away. He says that he thought the professor should have been appreciative of the fact that the police officer came to question him and demand to see his ID. Obviously, he is so caught up in the ego trip of being police that he does not understand how the average citizen perceives these things.

You come home from a very long day flying from China to Boston. You have been away from home for a week or longer. You arrive late at night and tired at your home and you discover that something has happened to your front door and you have to resort to extreme methods to get in and ask the cab driver to help you. About the time you get inside, the police show up and tell you that one of your neighbors thinks you are a criminal trying to break in. Tell me honestly you would not be annoyed at that point. The police officer makes you come outside like he's afraid of you despite the fact that he's decades younger than you are. He doesn't like the first ID you can put your hands on and insists on a second ID. The history of mistreatment by white police toward black men does not have to come into the picture for someone to be angry at this point.

The police officer does not leave. He keeps prolonging the interview as if he thinks you are lying to him and you are in your own home. If Sgt. Crowley cannot see why a black man would begin to think that race might have something to do with it, then how can he possibly be qualified to teach courses on this topic at the policy academy? If he does not understand why the professor might get angry and shout at this point, then the sergeant needs to be put on leave until he gets it.

I am not certain this is really about stupidity. The president could have said that it was about racism and there is certainly enough evidence to support that assessment. But my guess is that it is really about ego. Particularly when I observe how the police sergeant has handled things since the president's comment. This officer is so egotistical that he takes on the president of the United States, asks his fellow officers to hold a press conference and support him, refuses to acknowledge that he could have done anything differently. He has made himself the definition of self-righteousness while he is blind to the very kind of racial dimension that he is supposedly expert enough to teach to other officers. He may not have intended to be racist, but he needs to look objectively at this story, get his ego out of the way and learn a lesson.

Religion & Attitudes About Business

I have found a very interesting piece of research that seeks to identify the impact that religious faith has on the attitudes of individuals toward the behavior of business corporations. I have written before about the widespread belief in America that commercial corporations should be considered amoral entities without the same moral standards and ethical behavior that we generally require of individuals. This is an issues that, I believe, has played a significant role in the current economic problems in our country and around the world.

This study includes a large sample from 20 nations so as to generate significant samples for each of the world's major religions. Respondents were asked (among other things) to indicate if they think that business corporations should focus on profit, make ethics primary or take a middle path somewhere in between. Below are the results:

	Profit	Ethics	In between
Buddhists	19%	56%	20%
Hindus	51%	30%	18%
Muslims	31%	29%	37%
Catholics	24%	37%	38%
Protestants	23%	32%	44%
Orthodox	35%	33%	21%
No religion (“Nones”)	22%	36%	40%

Overall (including other data in the study) the three researchers who directed this study conclude that religion has only modest effect on attitudes about corporate ethics and social responsibility, but is difficult to see that religion makes any difference whatsoever on this fundamental question. As a theologian and pastor, I cannot believe that God does not care how corporations behave, especially those owned and managed primarily by believers. Why are people of faith so ambivalent on this item? Have the large business corporations become the contemporary idols of the 21st century?

Source: Brammer, S., Williams, G. and Zinkin, J. (2006). "Religion and Attitudes to Corporate Social Responsibility in a Large Cross-Country Sample."

Why Capital Punishment is a Moral Mistake

Troy Davis was convicted of murder in 1991. Prosecutors were not able to produce a weapon or any physical evidence that supported the allegation. The evidence against him was entirely that of the testimony of nine witnesses and now seven of the nine have gone on record stating that they lied; three of them have named another man who actually did the killing. Despite this new evidence, the Supreme Court of the U.S. has refused to even hear the facts and approved of Davis's execution.

Why such a cold-blooded attitude? What is accomplished by this? Is there any evidence that their decision is a moral one? What is most surprising is that seven of the nine justices are Roman Catholic and the Catholic church teaches that capital punishment is immoral in the same way that it teaches against abortion. Why do they lay aside their pro-life views in this case?

DNA testing has shown that about one in five capital cases are decided wrongly by juries. With such a high mistake rate, why is the Supreme Court (and many Americans) so set on defending the system?

Capital punishment is a moral mistake simply because once we take the life of a man (or woman) there is no chance to re-think the situation. It arrogates to human beings the all-knowing power that belongs only to God. In this case there is a high probability that the U.S. Supreme Court has ordered the killing of a man who did not commit the crime, while the real killer goes free. But we will never know because the justices have decided that killing is more important than truth.

Why do so many Christians support this kind of reckless disregard for the sanctity of life? What makes them so blood-thirsty? It certainly is not the spirit of Christ. What is it?