June, 2007 (Vol. 22, No. 8)

While there has been a growth of Catholic and Protestant retreat centers, the impact of religious individualism and experiential spirituality is challenging their traditional functions. The National Catholic Reporter (April 27) notes that in the case of the Catholics alone, there are over 600 retreat centers in the U.S. and Canada. But they are facing new competition from Catholic parishes and from a trend of smaller “bed-and-breakfast retreat centers,” many of which are run by Protestants. Parishes are offering a wide variety of programs on spiritual formation. One such parish-based retreat program called Christ Renews His Parish is facilitated by trained fellow-parishioners.

Retreats based around preaching to large groups of mainly priests and nuns are now a thing of the past. Today it is mostly laypeople who are usually looking for “holistic” retreats or spiritual counseling. These can range from Jesuit centers offering popular Ignatian Spiritual Exercises to retreats offering “cutting edge” topics such as feminist, Native American and ecological spirituality, many of which are attended by Protestants. The article cites a 2004 study sampling 128 Catholic retreat houses and found that a key reason for lower attendance is the overwhelming activity options that people have today that they didn’t have in the past, whether social, cultural, religious or spiritual.

The study found a 40-50 percent increase in highly individualized spiritual direction and directed retreats. Only a quarter to a third of the centers reported growth in group retreats. It also found that while prominent retreat houses have closed, the overall number of these centers have increased. The problem is that these centers cater to a small number of so called “early adapters” who embrace innovative programs (usually run by nuns) and bypass the majority of Catholics drawn to more conventional programs.

(National Catholic Reporter, P.O. Box 419281, Kansas City, MO 64141)

The issue of head coverings for women is becoming increasingly contentious in both Muslim and non-Muslim countries, with even the manner in which such Islamic attire is worn revealing trends in worldwide Islam.

The Economist (May 12) reports that the controversy covers the spectrum–from Turkish secularists protesting the possibility of a Muslim candidate being elected because his wife wears a head scarf [see MayRW], to Iran enforcing stricter enforcement of head coverings and attire (for men as well as women). In Iraq, a fissure has opened in the Sunni resistance between “al-Queda-minded” militants who want women to wear gloves and the niqab (which is similar to the burqa but has slits for the eyes) and those more “moderate” who allow for the simpler hijab covering the hair and neck.

Among most Muslims who live between the extremes of Turkey and Iran, two broad trends have emerged. The first is a general movement toward overt signs of piety, including “Islamic” attire. Modern forms of head covering have become standard fashion in such Islamic countries as Egypt, Jordan, Malaysia, Morocco, Sudan and Yemen, “replacing both traditional country scarves, and the exposed coifs that were inoffensive to an earlier generation of city dwellers…wearing the hijab is now so popular that it has ceased to be a statement.”

The other trend is an “undercurrent of rebellion against sartorial rules of any kind,” the article adds. This can be seen among trendy women in Saudi Arabia who sport their traditional black overcoat with flashy strips of color, or the use of heavy makeup in cities as far apart as Casablanca and Damascus.

On May 17, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia officially reestablished communion with the Moscow Patriarchate. The move has been hailed by some as finally marking the end of the Russian Civil War (Russia Profile, May 17). As reported by RW (June 2006), a Council of the Church Abroad had accepted unity as a matter of principle a year ago, leaving to its Synod of Bishops the task to solve remaining problems and set the date. The final step came earlier than some had expected.

During the period before and immediately after May 17, some groups have left ROCOR in order to join Russian or Greek traditionalist groups. They include several clerics and a few parishes in the USA and South America, two monasteries in England, one monastery in France and one in Canada. In the FSU, Bishop Agafangel of Odessa and his clergy have also refused to accept the Act and see themselves as the true continuation of ROCOR. But a large majority of ROCOR’s clergy and flock seem to have remained with their bishops.

Most media comments focused on the meaning of the event rather than on its impact within ROCOR. While Russian journalists emphasized the meeting of “two Russias” (Interfax, May 22), foreign journalists and analysts paid special attention to the active role played by President Putin in the merger. Putin was present on May 17 and described the event as a “moment of rebirth.” Time‘s Yuri Zarakhovich (May 17) writes that nationalism on Orthodox foundations is developing into a major ideological resource for the current Russian regime. A reunited Orthodox Church should also contribute to reinforce Russia’s position in the Orthodox world (in competition with Constantinople). However, ROCOR’s communications director, Nicholas Ohotin, has answered such comments by remarking that the first overtures to the Church Abroad came as early as 1990 from the Moscow Patriarchate itself, long before Putin came to power (Wall Street Journal, June 2).

Some liberal orthodox circles in the West have expressed mixed feelings about the consequences of the event: they are afraid that “conservative” trends within the Moscow Patriarchate could be reinforced. It makes it also more likely that some Russian circles in France – currently in their own Archbishopric under Constantinople – will increase the pressure for union with Moscow, a move which other members of their group are reluctant to accept.

— By Jean-Francois Mayer

(Russia Profile, http://www.russiaprofile.org; Interfax,http://www.interfax-religion.com; Time, http://www.time.com; Wall Street Journal, http://www.wsj.com)

There is a resurgence of atheist activism on the European continent, reports Alexander Smoltczyk in the German weekly Der Spiegel (May 26). The trend of a “new atheism’’ mentioned in the March issue of RW now appears to have crossed the Atlantic. Why “new”? Because the new wave of atheists seem driven by a previously unknown missionary zeal. “Time is ripe for new atheist thinking,” states British biologist and best-selling author Richard Dawkins, who complains about an alleged privileged status gained by religions over the last two decades.

Unbelievers feel that religion is becoming fashionable again, and there is a need for counter-offensive. When asked if he thinks there is any chance for religious beliefs to be wiped out, Dawkins answers in the affirmative: the religious revival is about to end, and there is a “flood of skepticism” on the Internet. Beside Dawkins, French philosopher Michel Onfray and Italian mathematician Piergiorgio Odifreddi figure prominently on the list of the new European atheists. Onfray explains that the problem with religions is their drive to control the lives of people. Moreover, says Onfray, while all religions claim to preach love, they actually act as catalysts for violence. Onfray says he has no desire to become “a leader of masses.” And here lies the weakness of new atheism in its challenge to religions: its organizational base is small.

One out of three Germans has no religious affiliation (which does not necessarily mean being an atheist). But the largest atheist association in Germany has barely 10,000 members; there are more Jehovah’s Witnesses in Germany than the total number of members of all atheist associations taken together. Atheist activists make up a small circle of people. In such circumstances, it is difficult for them to claim the same status as major religious groups.

— By Jean-Francois Mayer, RW Contributing Editor and founder of the website Religioscope (http://www.religion.info)

Women evangelists and church leaders are finding expanding roles in charismatic and Pentecostal bodies and are creating new mentoring networks for younger women, according to Charisma (June) magazine. Women clergy have generally found more acceptance in Pentecostal and charismatic churches than in other conservative bodies, usually serving as co-pastors with their husbands (though also including such famous leaders and evangelists as Katharine Kuhlman and Aimee Semple McPherson). Today there are more women heading their own ministries and churches, such as Paula White, Beverly Crawford and Joyce Meyer, writes Maureen Eha.

The new generation of women leaders have created groups and networks to mentor younger leaders. Mentoring conferences, such as Apostolic Women Arising and more individualized networks founded by women leaders provide continuing leadership training to women pastors and heads of ministries. “The current emphasis on mentoring is an encouraging sign to many that women who have paved the way in church leadership will not be the last of their breed. Besides training up their own replacements, they are equipping a large number of other women leaders to fulfill their unique calls,” Eha concludes.

(Charisma, 600 Rhinehart Rd., Lake Mary, FL 32746)

The practice of discipline, whether of clergy charged with sexual abuse or of unrepentant members, is receiving new attention in evangelical churches and particularly the Southern Baptist Convention. Recent cases involving clergy sexual abuse among Protestant congregations are also reviving the debate about which kinds of church structures enable or discourage such crimes. The SBC is the most recent American denomination to feel the fire over clergy sex abuse, with several well-publicized cases being fought over the role of leaders in not protecting victims from abuse by pastors.

The Tennesseean newspaper (April 23) reports that SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, is accusing Baptists of not taking strong enough steps to protect children and has called on the SBC to create an independent review board to act on reports of child abuse. Much of the criticisms center around the SBC’s congregational policy that lacks the central structure to impose procedures to deal with clergy sex abuse. Southern Baptist leaders say they are considering policy changes to deal with this problem, including creating a database of convicted perpetrators. While not directly related to sex abuse, there is also a trend toward enforcing greater discipline on the congregational level in the SBC.Baptists Today magazine (May) reports that increasing numbers of Southern Baptists have instituted a process of correcting and, if necessary, eventually dismissing members for public sins. The practice is taken from the New Testament, where the church was advised to reprove offending Christians for their sin in the hope of restoring them while those unrepentant would eventually be expelled.

The growth of Calvinism in the SBC seems to be the main factor in restoring disciplinary practices, with the Southern Baptist Seminary and its president Albert Mohler being its main proponents. Mohler blames the lax standards and worldliness of today’s churches on the loss of disciplinary practices. The manner in which the process is carried out varies, but usually offending members are confronted by other members privately; if the member refuses to repent the matter is taken before the whole congregation.

The offenders are publicly identified as is their sin, and then the church votes on whether they should be dismissed. In most cases, discipline never advances to the point of dismissal, because most people repent earlier in the practice. [It will be interesting to see how the many megachurches in the SBC, which stress non- confrontational ministry to the unchurched and seekers, will respond to this development and whether it will add to the divisions in the denomination]

(Baptists Today, P.O. Box 6318, Macon, GA 31208)

The discipline of anthropology may be facing something of a paradigm shift as older models that neglected or disdained the importance of Christian beliefs are being challenged. The ferment can be seen in the February issue of Current Anthropology which features a special section on anthropologists and their problems in studying Christianity.

The lead article by Joel Robbins of the University of California at San Diego argues that until very recently there have been few studies on the religious lives of Christians and that anthropologists have often “airbrushed” Christianity out of their accounts of native cultures. Citing the work of prominent anthropologists Jean and John Comaroff, Robbins writes that they discount Christianity by claiming that natives may accept the form of the colonizers’ dominant religion but not actually accept its content.

More importantly, anthropology has traditionally stressed that symbols, rituals and meaning have an enduring quality while Christianity preaches radical change, particularly leading converts to claim they have made a clean break with their pasts. Robbins concludes that even if traditional contexts play a role in conversion and subsequent Christian living, a small number of anthropologists are beginning to recognize that Christian beliefs are important to converts and have real implications that need to be studied.

In the magazine Books & Culture, sociologist David Martin writes that in his own work on global Pentecostalism, he encounters the anthropological criticism that such a form of Christianity is either an “archaic primitive religion in disguise,“ or a “colonial intrusion of American-inspired modernity.” But he notes that it is especially in studies on African Christianity and those on the role of women in Pentecostalism where Christian beliefs are now taken seriously.

Such new books as The Anthropology of Christianity (edited by Fenella Cannell) and Christian Moderns (by Webb Keane) also challenge the dominant anthropological models. They provide accounts of the “global reach of Christianity as a universal religion which is owned and propagated by non-Western peoples, and does indeed help bring about a shared modernity,“ Martin writes.

(Current Anthropology, University of Chicago Press, 142 E. 60th St, Chicago, IL 60637; Books & Culture, 465 Gundersen Dr., Carol Stream, IL 60188)