January 3, 2018

The Tale of Three Cities: Washington, Jerusalem and Bethlehem

January 3, 2018

By Paul V.M. Flesher

What a nice Christmas present President Trump gave to Israel Dec. 6.

He signed a diplomatic proclamation recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s official capital for the first time in modern history. The timing was interesting because, of course, as a Jewish nation, Israel does not celebrate Christmas.

The timing comes from Washington’s (President Trump’s) playing to the American evangelical Christians, who voted for him by more than 80 percent. It is their Christmas present and, among them, this was a highly popular decision.

Apocalyptic belief in the imminent end of the world and the second arrival of Jesus on Earth to bring God’s kingdom is widespread among evangelicals. One common detail of this apocalyptic scenario is that Jews gather in Jerusalem before Jesus’ arrival. So, anything that promotes Jewish presence in Jerusalem, like recognizing it as Israel’s capital, constitutes a positive development in their eyes.

Most American evangelicals seem to be unaware that Jerusalem is already a large Jewish city. With approximately 900,000 residents, Jerusalem comprises the largest city in Israel. Two-thirds of its citizens are Jews. Another million or more Jews live within an hour’s drive. Jews need no additional impetus to move to or near Jerusalem.

Of course, Trump’s move simply recognizes the facts on the ground. Jerusalem is the location of Israel’s government. It is where the Israeli parliament (the Knesset) is located and where the president, the prime minister and other government officials live and work.

The issue of diplomatic recognition comes from the decision at Israel’s founding in 1948 that the problem of the displaced Palestinians needed resolution. That resolution would include a decision by the negotiating parties (Israel and the Palestinians) concerning the final status of Jerusalem, which is claimed as a capital by both Israel and the Palestinians. Pending that supposedly immanent decision, the world’s nations decided to locate their embassies in Tel Aviv rather than Jerusalem.

Despite decades of diplomatic efforts by European countries and the USA to bring the Palestinians and the Israelis to an agreement, no peace plan has yet been successfully negotiated. So, foreign embassies have remained in Tel Aviv.

Meanwhile, Palestinian Christians in Bethlehem did not view Trump’s decision as a Christmas present, to say the least. Not only is it a decision against them as Palestinians, but it came just at the moment to turn an economically positive 2017 into a negative one. Although the results are still being tallied, the numbers of arriving pilgrims and tourists in Bethlehem for Christmas celebration and observances were down significantly.

The main reason for the decline has been the publicity of Palestinian protests against the Jerusalem decision and the heightened security that has brought about. After the Israeli government built the border wall between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, the security corridor has made it more difficult to reach Bethlehem. It also has made it easier to slow down and even block movement into Bethlehem, thus affecting the number of people visiting.

And, while yearly economic trends are always up and down, the long-term trajectories are clear. Native Christianity in Bethlehem and other Christian areas of Palestine is decreasing. Less than 50 years ago, 5 percent of West Bank residents were Christian. Now, just 2 percent of them are.

At least there are native Christians in Bethlehem. In Jerusalem, few, if any, remain. Even though Jerusalem is likewise 2 percent Christian, nearly all of those Christians came from outside the country to help maintain the Christian shrines, churches and monasteries, or, to be blunt, to convert the Jews.

By contrast, Palestinian Christians are leaving, generation by generation. Their children see little future in a Palestine under Israel’s control, so they seek a better life in other countries. In the years after 1967, the USA was a favorite destination. But, more recently, Australia and Canada have become more popular.

In their exodus, Christian Palestinians are no different from their Muslim neighbors -- large numbers of whom also have sought to emigrate to countries where they can live freely. The Christians of Bethlehem and its neighboring towns are simply leaving at a slightly faster rate.

Although President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel will not have an immediate effect on Palestine’s native Christianity, if it delays peace negotiations for another four years, then yet more Christians will leave. Soon, Bethlehem and nearby areas will have no native Palestinian Christians.

Could a New Border Wall Accelerate the Decline of American Christianity?

In 2015, the Pew Research Center released the largest study of American Religious identity ever done in the United States of America, called America’s Changing Religious Landscape. The big discovery was that the number of American Christians had declined by 7.8 percent since the previous survey in 2007, while the number of Americans religiously unaffiliated had increased by 6.7 percent to 22.8 percent of the national population. The only bright spot for Christianity was that even though Evangelical Christianity had declined as a percentage of the national population (down 0.9%), it had grown in real numbers by 2.4 million adherents.

            There was a second important trend buried in the numbers and completely missed at the time. Hispanic immigration has propped up this declining American Christianity. The loss of Christian adherents would have been worse if it had not been for Hispanic immigration.

Evangelical Christianity owed its increase largely to Hispanic converts from Catholicism, and both Mainstream Christianity and Catholicism would have sustained bigger losses if it had not been for increases in Hispanic membership. These trends indicate that if the USA builds an effective border wall, immigration will further decline and along with it the number of Americans identifying as Christian.

            The first trend is that the three largest types of Christianity—Evangelical and Mainstream Protestantism and Catholicism—had big losses between the 2007 and the 2014 survey. Evangelicals lost 8.4%, Mainstream Protestants lost 10.4% and Catholics lost 12.9% of the their members.

Luckily, this was countered by newcomers joining these faiths. There were 9.8% new Evangelicals, 6.1% new Mainstream Protestants but just 2% new Catholics. So the final, overall numbers came out to a 1.5% increase for Evangelicals, but a loss of 4.3% and 10.9% for Mainstream Protestants and Catholics, respectively. The Pew report emphasized that many of these leavers left formal religious membership altogether. However, a significant number simply joined other types of Christianity.

            The second trend is that none of the three types of Christianity can sustain its numbers by generational replacement. That is, the children of these adherents are fewer than the number of adults. This is largely because of declining family size. For example, 30% of Evangelicals were born in the generation between 1928 and 1946, while just 21% were born in the Millennial generation between 1981 and 1996. As the older generation passes away and the younger generation ages, the total number of adherent will drop. The imbalance is similar for the other two forms of Christianity. Without an influx of new blood, all three types of Christianity will decrease in size.

            The third trend is that nearly 80% of the replacements for the losses in these types of Christianity comes from Hispanics. All three have had a five percent increase in ethnic diversity in the seven years between 2007 and 2014. That increase is 80% Hispanic for all three forms of Christianity. Indeed, for Evangelicalism, the increase in the percentage of Hispanics accounts for its increase in real numbers of members. If Hispanic immigrants or their children had not joined these three types of Christianity, all three would have shown significant losses. Catholics would have dropped 12.5% of its members in those 7 years (instead of 10.9%). Mainstream Protestants would have lost 9.2% (instead of just 4.3%), and Evangelical Protestants would have lost 6.4% (instead of gaining 1.5%).

            The fourth trend is that this Hispanic increase came in different ways. Most Hispanic immigrants arrive as Catholics. Catholicism’s 5% increase is part of the decades-long influx of Hispanic members that has kept the numbers of American Catholics fairly steady. It has also helped Catholicism to become the most ethnically diverse form of Christianity; 41% of Catholics are non-white and most non-whites are Hispanic.

            For the two forms of Protestantism, however, Hispanic membership has come from conversion. These are Hispanics who have been in America for a long(er) time and they convert to this still dominant form of American religion as part of the assimilation process. For the Mainstream Protestant denominations, the number of converts was not enough to prevent a decline in membership, but for Evangelical Protestantism it was. 

            What will be the impact of an effective wall between the USA and Mexico? These trends from the past eight years suggest that the number of Christians in the USA will decline faster than it has been. This will first be evident in Catholicism, but it will soon show up in the membership of the Mainstream Protestant denominations and then among Evangelical Protestant Christians.

February 2017 

Christian Morality, Gay Marriage and Divorce

While the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether it should legalize gay marriage, the debate continues over whether Christian business people, and others holding religious disagreements over gay marriage, have a right to deny gays wedding services like cake baking, celebratory flowers and photography. This debate centers on laws called Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA) recently passed by states such as Indiana and Arkansas with the intended purpose of providing that ability.  

It is impossible to predict the high court’s decision or even the future of RFRA laws, but there is another way to address the issue of whether Christians need such an exemption. Of course, not all Christians object to gay marriage; those who do tend to belong to denominations and independent churches that claim to base their beliefs on the Bible.

This type of American Christianity, often called evangelical or born-again Christianity, believes that Jesus -- God in human form -- provides salvation to humanity, and his teachings are paramount. Evangelicals who object to gay marriage claim to be following moral beliefs laid down by Jesus. But, are they really?

Not obviously. Jesus never expresses an opinion about homosexuality, let alone gay marriage. None of the gospels give so much as a hint.

But, born-again Christians, as a group, believe that Jesus would have disagreed with gay marriage if he had said anything about it. Given this belief, how should modern Christians act with regard to gay marriage?

Jesus had clear views on one aspect of marriage, namely, divorce. The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke all tell us his view; and Matthew does it twice. Jesus is against divorce. A look at how modern Christians handle Jesus’ views on divorce should reveal a model for Christian behavior with regard to gay marriage.

Jesus holds that God does not approve of divorce. Moreover, divorced people who remarry, according to Jesus, are guilty of adultery. In Mark 10:11, Jesus says, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” This view is reiterated in Luke 16 and Matthew 19.

Given Jesus’ clear and strong statements about the sins of divorce and remarriage, born-again cake bakers, flower arrangers and wedding photographers should be refusing to participate in the weddings of divorcees.

No such refusals have come to light.

Why not? Because evangelicals, born-again Christians and other biblically based Christians divorce frequently. Indeed, their divorce rates seem higher than those of other Americans.

According to a 1998 study by the evangelically oriented Barna Research Group, 29 percent of Baptists, by which the study means Southern Baptists and independent Baptists, have been divorced. Only members of non-denominational Protestant churches, mostly Pentecostal or evangelical, divorced at a higher rate: 34 percent.

By contrast, only 21 percent of atheists, Catholics and Lutherans had been divorced. They were below the national average of 24 percent.

Christian organizations heavily criticized Barna for this study for not taking into account mitigating factors. Most born-again Christians marry much younger than other demographic groups, have less education at the time of marriage and are often poor. All these known factors make divorce more likely.

When Barna studied divorce rates again in 2008, they changed their survey methodology. This resulted in an average overall divorce rate of 33 percent, and most Christian groups registered within a point or two of that number. Only Catholics were significantly lower, at 28 percent. (Atheists were at 30 percent).

Both Barna studies of American Christians and divorce indicate that Christians get divorced as frequently as, or perhaps more frequently than, non-Christians. Jesus’ express views on the matter make no difference to divorce among today’s Christians. A third of them willingly violate his explicit statements.

So, if modern Christians engage regularly in practices that Jesus forbade, then those Christians should not have the right, based on their religious beliefs, to deny services to people who engage in practices that Jesus neither forbade nor even expressed an opinion. As Jesus said, “Take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye” (Matthew 7:5).

The Repeating Cycle of Truth

Scientific exploration is designed for debate and working out differences. When studying a problem, different scientists approach it in different ways, studying different data with different methods and, lo and behold, they get different results. Remember when all cholesterol was bad for your heart and then, later, scientists discovered that some cholesterol was good for the heart?

It is not just that different scientists disagree. Sometimes one investigator will come up with conclusions opposite their earlier discoveries. It is good scientific procedure to announce and distribute the new results, but think for a moment of the personal experience. After years of publishing one set of conclusions, you start publishing ideas that contradict the previous ones. Embarrassment and soul-searching accompanies any such change, and colleagues will question the accuracy of your new work because of your previous positions.

In a religion, the same situation is more than embarrassing; it can be catastrophic. Religious pronouncements are often taken by the members as Truth, with a capital “T.” Issued by a god as a guide for belief or practice, such statements become hard and fast doctrines or rules that must be followed. Deviation from them can lead not just to embarrassment, but to expulsion from the religion.

Statements issued by a religion and its leaders in the past become Truth for the future. It becomes seemingly impossible to make a change in the present, even if it will produce benefits in the future. How can Truth change? If Truth can change, then it is not Truth. Right?

Because of this dynamic, it becomes difficult for religions to look to the future. They must always look to the past, and stay in line with their previous pronouncements. So, as the future comes toward them into the present, the Truths expressed in the past constrain their options for meeting it. The longer a religion’s past (i.e., the older it is), the fewer viable choices for future directions.

So, how does a religion change?

The Protestant Reformation provides a test case. The Protestant groups that arose during the 1500s and 1600s followed different paths, but two commonalities appear among the Lutherans, the Anglicans, the Calvinists and others.

First, each Protestant movement created a new religious organization. By becoming new, they were able to divorce themselves from Catholicism’s past and, just as important, from Catholicism’s organization.

Second, the new types of Christianity then changed the past. For example, they altered the foundational sacred text, the Bible, by removing 18 books and parts of books from the Old Testament. Once that was done, nothing could remain the same.

Of course, a new denomination cannot stay new for long. To maintain itself, a religious organization must institutionalize its Truth. It must pass itself on to each new generation and transmit its True practices and beliefs. And, so, the process continues. After a century or two, a religious group has built up enough past Truth to begin constraining its future.

To address the future, then, new religious organizations must form. Today there are more than 300 Christian denominations in America, and that is not counting the independent churches. My own small town of 30,000 people has more than 40 different churches.

In recent decades, the “new” evangelical denominations have been on the rise. They separated from “mainstream Protestants” (sometimes more than a century ago). They then changed the past by giving the sacred text, the Christian Bible, a new character, as eternally valid, unchanging and literal.

The evangelical alliance with the powerful political ideologies of the Republican Party has brought them and their Truth into prominence and increased their membership. And they have done this at the expense of the older denominations.

But time moves on and circumstances continue to change. Alongside evangelical denominations, the new mega-churches are becoming more widespread, especially in urban areas. As new, independent organizations they repeat the cycle by eschewing denominational pasts and the Truth of those traditions for the new.

This has enabled mega-churches to adopt new forms of worship, experiment with new ways of building community, and to propound new beliefs and ideas. Freed from the past, they can create their new Truth as they and their congregants see fit.

Are these radical changes? Perhaps, perhaps not. The important point is that they simply continue the cycle of religious change that has been going on for centuries. Truth may not change, but humanity’s understanding of it is continually renewed.

Is Religion Irrelevant to the 2012 Presidential Election?

Even before primary voting began nearly a year ago, media coverage of the presidential campaign was emphasizing religion and the role it plays in the contest for the top job. The religious views of every Republican candidate were featured and parsed, looking for clues to voter preferences. For several months, Mitt Romney’s Mormon beliefs were a visible problem for the party’s Evangelical voters, and at some moments, the primaries seemed to be a search for a candidate with a different religious identity.

Religion was less debated on the Democratic side, if only because President Obama’s record over the past four years provided so much more to discuss. Obama’s mainline Protestant identity has provided little fodder for debate this time around, even though it was featured in the 2008 election.

Since the conventions, the media interest with the candidates’ religious beliefs has continued. Time magazine’s Oct. 8 cover story featured “The Mormon Identity,” while many major news organizations used the debate between the vice-presidential candidates to discuss the Catholic beliefs of both contenders.

But, while the media have focused on the candidates’ religious character, they have missed the big story. Coming down the home stretch, the candidates' religious identities are essentially irrelevant to the voters, no matter what their own religious persuasion.

Press reports have frequently observed that Republican voters are more “fired up” this fall than Democratic voters. This observation applies even to the party’s large Evangelical block. While a recent Pew Forum survey indicates that more than 90 percent of Evangelicals are “uncomfortable” with Romney’s Mormon beliefs, they will vote for him by a margin of more than three-to-one.

Polling this year further indicates that the decades-old block of Catholic voters has disappeared. Catholics are just as divided as the electorate, as a whole, with about a third of Catholics breaking for Romney, a third going for Obama, and a third in the “undecided” middle.

For both groups, Evangelicals and Catholics, views on abortion provide a better indicator of their vote than religious identity.

In the midst of all the election coverage, an important religious story has had only a little public play. The United States no longer has a Protestant majority, even though Protestants have made up the majority since European migration began centuries ago. According to this month’s Pew survey, people identifying themselves as Protestants have dropped from 53 percent in 2007 to 48 percent this year.

This is not an isolated development, but is accompanied by related trends. This year marks the first time that the Republican Party lacks a Protestant on its presidential ticket. Similarly, the Supreme Court no longer has any Protestant justices.

In part, the reason for this decline is the rise of people who are unaffiliated with any religion. Even though Catholics remain about 22 percent of the nation’s citizens, those checking “none of the above” on religious surveys now number 20 percent. And the trends indicate that the number of “nones” is growing, while the percentage of the other two religious groups is shrinking. This means that soon Catholics will only be America’s third largest religious group, behind the unaffiliated.

And how do they vote? It is unclear at this point. While there are some indications that the nones lean towards the libertarian side of social issues like abortion and gay marriage, they also are focusing more on economic matters in this election.

In the end, it turns out that roughly 40 percent of Americans do not know the religious affiliation of one or the other presidential candidates. That is a clear indication of the irrelevance of religion in this election.

Perhaps there is one exception to the unimportance of religion in this fall’s presidential election. The number of people who mistakenly believe that President Obama is a Muslim has risen from 11 percent in 2009 to 18 percent in 2010. This may be enough to impact the election. We will just have to wait and see.