In skimming through my blog feeds I came upon this story from Christianity Today about President Obama expanding his White House Faith-Based Advisory Council. While I normally don’t pay much attention to a political story like this and would have just moved on to the next story, something about the list caught my eye and I have re-read it several times now. I am trying to decide if there is any significance in this list or if I am just over-interpreting the data (not an unusual thing for me).
The members of the council as now constituted are listed below. Those that were added yesterday have the asterisk next to their names. I have split them into two groups. Group 1 – Those with listed associations not clearly denominational:
- *Anju Bhargava, Founder, Asian Indian Women of America
New Jersey - *Harry Knox, Director, Religion and Faith Program, Human Rights Campaign
Washington, DC - Diane Baillargeon, President & CEO, Seedco
New York , NY - Noel Castellanos, CEO, Christian Community Development Association
Chicago, IL - Fred Davie, Senior Adviser, Public/Private Ventures
New York , NY - Eboo S. Patel, Founder & Executive Director, Interfaith Youth Core
Chicago, IL - Melissa Rogers, Director, Wake Forest School of Divinity Center for Religion and Public Affairs
Winston-Salem , NC - Richard Stearns, President, World Vision
Bellevue , WA - Judith N. Vredenburgh, President and Chief Executive Officer, Big Brothers / Big Sisters of America
Philadelphia , PA - Rev. Jim Wallis, President & Executive Director, Sojourners
Washington , DC
Group 2 – Those with denominational or specific religious affiliations listed
- *Dalia Mogahed, Executive Director, Gallup Center for Muslim Studies
Washington, DC - *Dr. Sharon Watkins, General Minister and President, Disciples of Christ (Christian Church)
Indianapolis, IN - *The Rev. Peg Chemberlin, President-Elect, National Council of Churches USA
Minneapolis, MN - *Bishop Charles Blake, Presiding Bishop, Church of God in Christ
Los Angeles, CA - *Nathan Diament, Director of Public Policy, Orthodox Jewish Union
Washington, DC - *Anthony Picarello, General Counsel , United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Washington, DC - *Nancy Ratzan, Board Chair, National Council of Jewish Women
Miami, FL - Dr. Arturo Chavez, President & CEO, Mexican American Catholic College
San Antonio , TX - Pastor Joel C. Hunter, Senior Pastor, Northland, a Church Distributed
Longwood, FL - Bishop Vashti M. McKenzie, Presiding Bishop, 13th Episcopal District, African Methodist Episcopal Church
Knoxville, TN - Rev. Otis Moss, Jr., Pastor emeritus, Olivet Institutional Baptist Church
Cleveland, OH - Dr. Frank S. Page, President emeritus, Southern Baptist Convention
Taylors, SC - Rabbi David N. Saperstein, Director & Counsel, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Washington , DC - Dr. William J. Shaw, President, National Baptist Convention, USA
Philadelphia , PA - Father Larry J. Snyder, President, Catholic Charities USA
Alexandria , VA
Yes, It is a little rough, and I have kept the NCC person with the denominational members since that is representative of “Mainline” churches.
Since my focus is church affiliation I will ignore Group 1 and boil down Group 2 to the denominations. (Having said that, I realize that those in Group 1 probably have denominational ties, but I’ll just go with their reported identification for now. I also realize that in Group 2 I may be attributing a group’s affiliation to an individual. But my concern here is the public perception of the denomination so I’ll go with that as well.)
In the non-Christian affiliations there is one Muslim and three from different branches of Judaism. On the Christian side there are three Roman Catholic and no Eastern Orthodox. Of the remaining eight Protestant individuals, three are different Baptist branches. One of the other five I included as a generic “Mainline” representative (Rev. Chemberline from the NCC) and one is (as best as I can figure out) non-denominational. The remaining three Protestant representatives are from the Disciples of Christ, Church of God in Christ, and the AME Church. There are no members with listed affiliations in two of the top five churches in the NCC — the United Methodist Church or the LDS (Mormon) Church. The other three, Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist Convention, and Church of God in Christ, are represented. I was struck by the uneven distribution across all the religious groups and the fact that many of the “usual suspects” of the Mainline Protestant churches, the Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians, were not represented.
We could look at this representation in a number of ways:
1) The White House rolled the dice and this is what came up. Not a likely interpretation in a political setting.
2) The selections are purely political, those chosen represent a political agenda, and no broader cultural implications for the American religious landscape should be drawn. Being a big-time cynic regarding secular politics I could live with this interpretation.
3) The choices reflect some cultural perspective and so there is useful information in this distribution about the American religious landscape and developing trends.
Well, if you subscribe to #1 or #2 you can stop reading now. I’ll follow #3 a bit further and reflect on what it might have to say.
One possible view is a pragmatic one — that the denominations represented have something to “bring to the table” in the way of social work. A couple of those listed have programmatic ties, such as Catholic Charities USA and Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. While the PC(USA) is known for advocating at the national level, the structural changes in the denomination have pushed mission and outreach programs down to the local level so there is not a recognized national social program to highlight. This could be true for the other “missing” denominations.
Another viewpoint could be the semi-political approach. Instead of the pure political motives I suggest in #2, there could be a blend of thinking about “what groups should we reach out to so as to advance out political agenda” with “what groups represent a coherent enough body that we can work with.” Put another way, if a “key leader” were at the table would that person bring enough members of the denomination with them for both practical and political advantage. Short of Beau Weston’s “Presbyterian Establishment” that is not something many Mainline churches can do at present.
Finally, maybe the selection says something about the perceived importance or sustainability of the denomination now or in the future. It strikes me as possibly more than coincidence that the NCC denominations reporting growth or only slight declines are at the table while those with larger declines are not. Does the selection suggest a vote of confidence by the White House staffers or a judgment on which groups will be viable to work with going forward? Or does it have a relationship to perceptions about groups that don’t have internal struggles and divisions and so are freer to focus energy on this external initiative.
As I thought about this it does seem to me that a certain degree of political motivation is present in the choices. For example: Three individuals broadly representing Jewish views when ARIS reports that self-identified Jews are only 1.2% of the adult population. And if Jews are well represented, the LDS Church, with only slightly greater representation in the population, has no identifiable representation.
For each individual on the committee the particular reasons they were invited would probably be a mix of political and functional characteristics. And maybe the “missing” representatives were too busy doing ministry, much like Tony Dungy was too busy to join. But it does seem there is a message in the lack of individual representation from, for lack of a better term, the “liberal Mainline churches.” This sector of society apparently brought no political or functional advantages to the table. Whether it is an indication of perceived impotence, irrelevance, or lack of cohesiveness I’m not sure. But for a group of Mainline churches to be sidelined seems to suggest a lack of faith in their present or future role.