Sociologists have generally concluded that people who are very religiously active tend to be less engaged with the secular world, opting to stay sequestered in their faith communities. But in a comprehensive survey, the Pew Research Center found that the 40 percent of Americans who are religiously active are more engaged in all kinds of community organizations and activities than their non-religious neighbors.

The findings are fascinating. And, as a “religious American”, I’ll admit, somewhat surprising. While 40% of surveyed Americans are most active in “churches or religious organizations”, apparently these folks don’t live their lives hiding behind their stained glass windows. Of this 40%, 35% are also involved in sports or recreation leagues, 34% in charitable or volunteer organizations and 30% in community groups or neighborhood associations, each for at least two hours a week. Their involvement ranges from two to three times that of their non-religious neighbors!

What’s even more surprising are religious Americans internet, e-mail, cell phone and broadband use, which outnumbers that of others. Religious and non-religious groups tie in their use of text messaging, while the religious folks are outnumbered in social networking usage.

Lastly, when religious folks are part of groups, they’re all in: 41% are heavily engaged, compared to non-religious citizens’ 28%.

I can certainly see this at work in the congregation I serve. There are folks I have the privilege of knowing that are crazy busy doing all kinds of great things not only at church but in their neighborhoods, too. It’s incredible. They offer not a what, but a how, as Caputo states:

When love calls for action, we had better be ready with something more than a well-formed proposition even if it has been approved by a council. We had better be ready with a deed, not a what but a how, ready to respond and do the truth, to make it happen here and now, for love and justice are required now. (On Religion, 130)

It makes me wonder – especially in light of these findings – why we continue to reuse the old and outdated “sacred versus secular” dialogue. In fact, to clarify, most of us don’t speak this language anymore. Even the seminary I attend(ed) doesn’t! Why does this study!?

I’m also thinking of Gianni Vattimo, who argues that Christianity actually announces the end of the sacred! That’s another post for another day, though.

(From another perspective, I’d love to hear Robert D. Putnam, author of Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Better Together: Restoring the American Community and American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, comment on this research).

Christians in the U.S. who labeled themselves politically liberal or conservative told researchers Jesus wouldn’t necessarily agree with their social views if he were alive today… The conservatives said Jesus would probably be more against abortion and same-sex marriage than they are, and less opposed to helping illegal immigrants obtain citizenship. Liberals believe Jesus would be tougher than them on morality and more open on questions concerning fellowship.

The online study, conducted by Stanford University’s Lee Ross, addressed how rationalizing is easier in a group than alone (which sounds a bit like Durkheim’s mechanical solidarity, no?). He notes,

Liberals are conceding that they’re deviating from Jesus on their views on moral issues and conservatives are conceding that they are deviating from Jesus on fellowship issues… They differed almost as much in Jesus’s views as their own.’

This study reveals different findings that Scot McKnight, who surveys North Park students during the first day of class on Jesus of Nazareth. He writes,

The first part is about Jesus. It asks students to imagine Jesus’ personality, with questions such as, ‘Does he prefer to go his own way rather than act by the rules?’ and ‘Is he a worrier?’ The second part asks the same questions of the students, but instead of ‘Is he a worrier?’ it asks, ‘Are you a worrier?’ The test is not about right or wrong answers, nor is it designed to help students understand Jesus. Instead, if given to enough people, the test will reveal that we all think Jesus is like us. Introverts think Jesus is introverted, for example, and, on the basis of the same questions, extroverts think Jesus is extroverted.

Spiritual formation experts would love to hear that students in my Jesus class are becoming like Jesus, but the test actually reveals the reverse: Students are fashioning Jesus to be more like themselves. If the test were given to a random sample of adults, the results would be measurably similar. To one degree or another, we all conform Jesus to our own image.

Where’s the difference, then? In asking specific questions regarding political allegiance? Or age? Are college students unable to look at things outside of their particular allegiances?

[Hat tip: The Gospel Coalition]

To be fair, the leaders of the Fellowship would bristle at the characterization of it as a “denomination”, considering their desire for a flat leadership structure.

Their website explicates their story:

The Fellowship of Presbyterians began in January 2011 as a conversation between seven PC(USA) pastors who wanted to find new ways to encourage each other in common faith, ministry, and mission. These pastors were concerned about the health of the PC(USA) as a denomination, where membership has dropped steadily over 40 years and ongoing disputes over theology and bureaucracy create a culture of contention more than vitality. They talked of reclaiming a covenanted biblical community, where unity is derived from a shared mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ, not from structural affiliation, and where young leaders are nurtured to speak the gospel into a rapidly-changing world. The pastors issued a nationwide call to others of like mind who envisioned a new future for congregations to connect and grow while sharing a Presbyterian, Reformed, Evangelical heritage.

Initially, I had very little interest in the Fellowship, especially considering it’s name. I couldn’t help thinking about it outside of the right wing Christian political group, known also as “The Family”, as infiltrated by Jeff Sharlet.

Once I got over that, however, I simply thought of the Fellowship as a reaction to 10-A, a recent national vote which allows ordaining bodies (churchy lingo for churches and groups of church in a given locale) to ordain openly gay and lesbian pastors, elders and deacons.

And frankly, though I’m more or less in agreement with the Fellowship’s stance, I couldn’t get excited about the time, energy, effort and money to trade one institutional framework for another, simply to communicate something I’m against. Throughout history, churches have divided over cultural and theological issues over and over and over – and I had no interest in being a part of another split.

Luckily, however, a friend, mentor and former supervisor of mine has stayed on top of the inner workings of the Fellowship, and is now serving on the board. He’s kept me updated on the ways in which the Fellowship is actually moving the conversation on what it means to be church forward, by decreasing the space between clergy and laity, emphasizing church planting and rethinking levels of education for ordination (where were they five years ago?!). In short, the Fellowship isn’t just a reaction to what’s happened in the past, it’s a movement for the future.

All that to say, I’m heading out to Orlando on Tuesday, as a sort of representative of our pastoral staff and church board. While I’m still a bit cautious of the idea that we need to spend time, energy, effort and money to earn God’s blessing to move forward, I am thankful to be a part of the conversation.

I’ve been thinking about it in light of Slavoj Žižek’s thoughts in Violence: Six Sideways Reflections, where he posits that what’s needed in our world is not less violence, but more. By “violence” though, he does not mean physical brutality. On the contrary, Žižek states that we must do violence to our inherited ideologies in order to engage the underlying systemic causes of physical brutality.

Is this not the “violence” needed when high ranking military and governmental officials are shocked that Marines would urinate on the dead bodies of their enemies (or are they shocked that someone videotaped it!) but have no problem with the reality of the dead bodies themselves?

To be clear: It is terrible that United States Marines urinated on the bodies of others. Isn’t it worse, however, that they’d just killed these men?

Jefferson’s summation puts it into perspective:

More American troops now kill themselves than die in combat, and female soldiers are more likely to be sexually assaulted by a colleague than to be killed by the enemy. In short, the kids aren’t all right, and it’s time for everyone to stop being shocked when they behave in abnormal, terrifying ways. War is an awful thing that irrevocably changes and destroys people, and it yields horrific, destructive behavior. If you’d like to live in a world in which soldiers don’t pee on their dead enemies, then it’s your duty to fight for a world in which soldiers aren’t killing people in the first place.

Thankfully, even such a terrible atrocity hasn’t disrupted the ongoing peace talks.