Politics and religion have both been prominent in the news this week. Unless you have been fast asleep in the weeds there has been no way to avoid the presidential bids of Clinton, McCain, and Obama. But just about as prominent during the past couple days have been stories about a new study by the Pew Research Forum tracking religion in America. Compiling data from 35,000 personal interviews, the study has yielded some surprising results. This has gotten me thinking about both religion and politics.

Have you noticed that most people who talk politics assume that intelligent people agree with them? Sometimes I have the ability to look intelligent (this usually involves listening a lot and speaking a little), so when I’m having a conversation with someone who is eager to talk politics, and who doesn’t know me well, that person usually assumes I’m on his or her side.

A few years ago I lived in Sonoma County, California. You have heard of blue and red states? Well Sonoma County is royal blue. Now I live in Nebraska, and I am sure the rich red football jerseys worn by the Nebraska Cornhuskers are not a coincidence.

In Northern California, a lot of people just assumed I was a Democrat. Some couldn’t believe an intelligent person could be a Republican. In Nebraska, people tend to assume I’m Republican. Some of them can’t imagine a person with any brains being a Democrat.

Are there similarities in the realm of religion? Though there undoubtedly are some, there are also big differences. There are not, for instance, just two major religious parties. True, there are Protestants and Catholics, but Protestants—being protesters by nature—have splintered into dozens of denominations, which in turn have splintered into many smaller groups.

And the Pew Research Forum study reveals that those with religious convictions appear to be more willing to change their minds than those with political convictions. The 148-page study reveals that 44 percent of Americans say they have changed their religious affiliation at some point in their lives. I’d be willing to bet that fewer Americans have changed political parties.

Despite the changing religious landscape, more than 78 percent of Americans still say they are Christians. However, just 51 percent of Americans now say they are Protestants. Among people between the ages of 18 and 29, the proportion of Protestants shrinks to 43 percent. So, although the majority of US residents have historically been Protestant, that is about to change.

Twenty five percent of the US population is Catholic. That number is holding steady, supported by healthy growth among Hispanic immigrants. Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism together comprise less than five percent of the population.

Though many Americans are either determinedly Democrat or resolutely Republican, most probably believe, deep down, that it’s a good thing to have two political parties rather than one. The competition of ideas makes the nation stronger. So is it also a good thing to have many different Christian denominations?

The apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians—a particularly fractious bunch—“I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought” (1 Corinthians 1:10). If Paul were to rise from the dead and have a look around, what do you suppose he would say about the state of Christianity today? I think there would be plenty to distress him, and he would probably fire off several epistles before he slept, but he might not be too upset by at least some of the diversity.

Why has Christianity fractured into so many pieces? Although egotistical leadership and church politics have certainly played a part, the strongest forces have been the convictions of believers. Martin Luther didn’t want to split with the Roman Catholic Church, but he felt bound by conscience to follow what he believed to be the truth. “Here I stand. I can do no other,” he proclaimed at his church trial, “May God help me.”

The Anabaptists followed their deeply held convictions in the face of violent persecution. So did the Mennonites. And so have many others. How do Christians maintain unity and also remain true to their personal convictions? No one has figured that out. I’m not sure what Paul’s solution would be, but being a man of great personal conviction, he would not have declared that the unity of the group always trumps personal conviction.  

Paul might have castigated some religious groups and commended others, but he might also have had considerable respect for individuals of differing persuasions who were resolutely sticking to what they believed.

To the Ephesians Paul wrote, “Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:2-3). But to the Galatians he wrote, “You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?” (Galatians 3:1). Then he proceeded to proclaim in strongest possible terms his conviction that salvation comes by faith alone. This was in total opposition to the teaching of other preachers who had been gaining the ears of the Galatians. Paul did not promote unity at all costs. It was mostly because of Paul’s writings that Luther took his stand against the traditional church of his day.

American Christianity has plenty of problems. However, the changes in affiliation that many individual Christians are choosing to make could be a sign of healthy vitality. The reasons for changing loyalties must be many and varied, but if consecrated Christians are making choices for change based on heartfelt conviction, going where they believe God is leading them, that is a good thing.

B.W.