David Gushee
Professor of Christian Ethics, Mercer University

David Gushee

Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University; author of 12 books including "Kingdom Ethics".

 ALL POSTS

The court, religious diversity, and evangelical absence

Q: If Elena Kagan is confirmed to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court would for the first time in its history be without a justice belonging to America's largest religious affiliations -- the Protestant traditions. If Kagan is confirmed, six of the justices will be Roman Catholic and three will be Jewish. Should the Supreme Court be more representative of America's religious traditions? Does religion matter in the mix of experience and expertise that a president seeks in a Supreme Court nominee?

The religious affiliations of Supreme Court justices have become more important as the Court itself has been thrust (or has thrust itself) into a role as final arbiter of social policy issues with deep religious and moral implications. Our society is in a long-term transition from the cultural hegemony of white male Protestants and their values to a much more religiously, ethically, and racially diverse and inclusive national community. The shock waves emanating from this transition have been intense since the 1950s-1960s and will continue to be intense through mid-century at least.

In such a circumstance it was probably inevitable that every aspect of the demographic makeup of the Supreme Court would come under close scrutiny. Elena Kagan may be more significant, for example, for her potential to become the third woman on the Court than for her religious affiliation. It is significant that she would be the fourth current justice from New York City, and interesting that she would be the first in recent years who had not been a judge. These are all relevant markers of diversity, not just her religious identity.

It is at least strikingly symbolic that a country described publicly by Franklin Roosevelt as a "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant nation" would now have not a single Protestant on the court. As an evangelical Protestant, I do not object in principle, but I do look inward at my own community. I wonder why we don't produce very many of the kinds of legal minds who might be considered as possible Supreme Court nominees. I noticed in accounts of Elena Kagan's background that she apparently dreamed of being a Supreme Court judge as far back as high school. All I can say is that I've never met an evangelical kid who aspired to be a Supreme Court judge. I wonder whether our traditional emphasis on grace and mercy and admission to heaven rather than justice and law in this world now has contributed to this pattern.

I am grateful for the way our nation has changed to become a so much expansive and inclusive community with a place at the table of leadership for all who are qualified. I wish that evangelicals were doing better at producing leaders who would sit at that table.


By David Gushee  |  May 14, 2010; 9:15 AM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: No 'religion test' for office, but nominees should be quizzed | Next: Everyone can heal and be healthier

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



@BIGBROTHER1: If you speak to any evangelical Christian they're going to tell you that reading through Leviticus is a painful experience. Because protestant theology is largely New Testament based its difficult to comprehend Leviticus. But we don't right it off. Its impossible to understand an omniscient God. Instead we embrace the mystery. Though a judge adhere's to the "law of the land," nothing you find in the New Testament would warrant a "handicapped" decision.

Still, the Christian's FAITH (in God's guidance) would put him in a Supreme Court position if rightfully so. There are many evangelicals who've made political impacts with regard to this FAITH.

@GIMPI: When men begin to trust in their own wisdom is when they begin to fail. Why...why would I discount the wisdom of an all-knowing God? Why would I trust my own decision-making abilities over God's wisdom. Do you really put your full faith in men? Thats naive. We're all, including myself, subject to passion and temptation; furthermore, failure. So I'll trust a God who I have felt and seen do many things. Who has changed lives. I'll trust in He who lived a perfect life, void of temptation. Who died that we also might have this chance.

Good men/women will be put in the court. Good people regardless of faith. (But I couldn't leave my fellow evangelicals hanging.)

Posted by: SoldeoGloria | May 19, 2010 9:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"So, for all of you agnostics, atheists, secularists, pantheists, etc., by your hatred of Jesus and His followers, you are only fulfilling what Christ, Himself, said would happen.
"...So, tell me, how long will you mock? How long will you call God a "myth", laughing at Him and His people, all the while wanting "blessings" upon you?
God will not be mocked. Look at the world around you and realize that this is so."

Posted by: mrhonda2115

Where, exactly on this thread, are you seeing this "mocking", Mrhondda2215? I don't see any. The reference to Leviticus are accurate, if unpleasant. The other poster is largely positive. Praising reason, logic and studious application isn't mocking at all. It's complementing someone, (or a group) on positive behavior. What's wrong with that? So far, on this thread, you are the only one showing any attitude.

As to your "...how is your increased secularism working for you? question, I would say pretty well. We're in an economic downturn, sure, but it was largely caused by deregulation and lack of oversight, and these things can be fixed. Crime rates are actually falling, and have been for decades. The world isn't more violent than it has been. We just hear about it more, due to our advances in communication. (Like the internet. Without this forum, we wouldn't be talking.) We have always had things to fear and mistrust. Government, any government, by virtue of having power, is always regarded with suspicion, all over the world. It's human. It's history. However, the governments in the west is mostly responsive to it's populace, and not so so much oppressive as annoying. That democratic ideal of a government that is not so much feared as bi*ched about is spreading, too. That's positive.

Our standard of living is pretty good, compared to historical norms. Most of those advancements have been made possible by secular scientific advancements. I assume you take advantage of those secular 'blessings' along with the rest of us? Are those the 'blessings' you refer to? If not, what do you mean by 'blessings?'

In general, we are more free, healthier and more prosperous than we have ever been, by and large. I, personally, like that. I take it you don't?

Posted by: gimpi | May 18, 2010 11:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment

One thing is apparent here. There is much hatred toward Christians and Jesus Himself. This shall continue. For Jesus, Himself, said, in speaking of things to come: "...and you will be hated by all on account of My name" (Luke 21:17).

He also said in John 15:18: "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you".

So, for all of you agnostics, atheists, secularists, pantheists, etc., by your hatred of Jesus and His followers, you are only fulfilling what Christ, Himself, said would happen.

Jesus said His Kingdom is not of this world. It is in the world, for He said the Kingdom of God is upon you. Yet, God will judge the world.

In Psalm 2 are these words: "Why are the nations in an uproar; and the peoples devising a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His anointed: "Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us! He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them. Then He will speak to them in His anger and terrify them in His fury."

You continue to laugh and mock believers as imbeciles..ignorant, following a "myth".

Let me ask you, how is your increased secularism working for you? Crime rates are going up. The country is more violent. The economies of the world are being staggered and shaken. Society is full of fear and panic. Even the governments are not trusted anymore. Violence fills the earth. The protective walls of The United States have fallen, as she is suffering attacks on her land.

So, tell me, how long will you mock? How long will you call God a "myth", laughing at Him and His people, all the while wanting "blessings" upon you?

God will not be mocked. Look at the world around you and realize that this is so.

Posted by: mrhonda2115 | May 18, 2010 9:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"I wonder whether our traditional emphasis on grace and mercy and admission to heaven rather than justice and law in this world now has contributed to this pattern."

Prof. Gushee's comments deserve to be taken seriously and welcomed by those of us who don't follow his (or any) brand of religion. They should also be studied and discussed in evangelical religious and educational circles.

Here is an academic and an evangelical who is asking NOT why evangelical Christians are being discriminated against (which has been the rallying cry of that community for the past decade-and-a-half) but what it might be that they're doing wrong that is keeping them from full participation in the life of the culture.

One has to assume that, in making comments like the one I've quoted, Prof. Gushee is suggesting that taking a fresh look at social justice -- that "liberal" concept reviled by so many conservatives -- is critical to our humanity no matter what religion we call home.

And perhaps he's gently nudging evangelical Christians to do much more for the "have-nots" in our society than simply telling them about Jesus and exhorting them to believe.

Or maybe I have his message entirely wrong.

Nevertheless, this seems like a genuinely enlightened essay, and I hope we hear more from Prof. Gushee.

Posted by: haveaheart | May 14, 2010 6:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

One important qualification for the Supreme Court is the ability to think rationally and to form arguments using facts and logic.

An evangelical is pretty severely handicapped in these areas. We really don't need a justice who "reasons" that since Leviticus says so, we should start burning witches and stoning adulterous women to death.

Posted by: bigbrother1 | May 14, 2010 1:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company