In the widely-disseminated interview of Rev. Jeremiah Wright by Bill Moyers, Rev. Wright referred several times to the words and teaching of a former professor, Dr. Martin Marty. I met Dr. Marty when I coordinated the 1990 National Workshop on Christian Jewish Relations in Chicago. Dr. Marty is a religious scholar who received a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. He taught at the University of Chicago Divinity School, held an endowed chair, and now holds emeritus status. He served Saint Olaf College in Northfield, Minnesota as Regent, Board Chair, Interim President, and now as Senior Regent. A columnist for The Christian Century magazine since 1956, Marty is the author of more than 5,000 articles and the recipient of the National Book Award and 75 honorary doctorates.
Since we last met, the National Workshops on Christian-Jewish Relations, a franchise produced in a different city every two years, no longer exists. I asked Dr. Marty about the present direction of interfaith work. He explained that the Workshops had run their course and served their purpose. The landscape has changed and now individual institutions do their own interfaith work. Further, the nature of interfaith dialogue has changed. Marty talks about how the interfaith environment has changed. “Mixed marriage was very big in Jewish-Christian dialogue, but it takes on a different character with faiths outside of these two religions. Marty notes that as the dialogue expands to faiths other than Judaism and Christianity, the issue of mixed marriage may not be a priority. However, in Jewish-Christian relations, it’s easy for the two to slide into each other’s community. The Christian community can lose somebody to marriage and it doesn’t show up because of its size. In Christianity, the average minister will take his chances on it.” He notes that, “Mixed marriages are a much bigger issue in Judaism because of the loss of Jewish children. Christians care greatly about their children, but we don’t lose peoplehood.”
The global nature of our interactions today is changing the content and tone of interreligious affairs. “There used to be a sense that an interfaith issue could be settled and the conversation could move on to other issues. Today, globalization means that the people of the US are connected with issues half way around the world, in Sri Lanka, India and China.” He points to our constant awareness that the volatility of these issues will eventually reach us. Jewish and Christian dialogue is strong but has developed around religious ideas: the meaning of man, the relationship with God in Jewish and Christian theology including whether the Christian covenant supersedes the Jewish covenant. The introduction of Islam as a major force that has caused Judaism and Christianity to rethink their relationship and their relationships with Islam.
Addressing debates over Israel, Marty points to them as a separate tract in interfaith dialogue, one that is deeply felt. “Even if you don’t practice Judaism for 3 generations, you’re still a Jew. We can cover any subject with friends and neighbors of Jewish descent, but when they find out we’re friends of Jimmy Carter [particularly given his meeting with Hamas] the discussion comes to an abrupt end.” Marty expressed his concern for Israel, citing a Franz Kafka parable in which a mouse [Israel] is being chased by a cat in a long, open expanse. The mouse runs into a labyrinth to escape, but the passageways get increasingly narrow. In the end, changing direction is futile, there is nowhere to turn and the mouse is caught and is eaten.
We turned to the issue of endorsements of religious leaders in this presidential campaign. I asked if there is something different about the role of religion or is it business as usual. Marty began his response by noting, “The endorsements almost always produce negative effects. Hillary got by because no one’s bothered to endorse her. John Hagee endorsed John McCain and then you read that Hagee said that Catholicism is the great whore of Babylon. McCain also had Rod Parsley who says Columbus came to America as part of the crusade against Muslims and it’s the United States mission to bring about Islam’s destruction. What does that mean? It has to mean war.”
In the Bill Moyers interview, Rev. Jeremiah Wright who endorsed Obama, mentioned Dr. Marty several times as having inspired him to sermonize about immediacy of the world around us. Marty noted that while he served as consultant to the program, he did not want viewers to assume he was endorsing Obama or any candidate.
Marty talked about the role of religion in earlier presidential campaigns, usually as voting blocks. “In 1960, the Catholic vote went for John F. Kennedy. Today the religious voting block doesn’t exist in the same way. He gave an example, “Hillary appeals to a social class and a set of occupations and Catholics happen to be part of the group. Catholics are amassed around the anti-abortion vote, but that’s not a specifically Catholic issue because others faiths are, too.” Expanding on the topic, Marty noted that, “As for the Jewish block, they are not so much interested in elections as in lobbying for specific policies after the election. Jews may be with Democrats on social issues and with Bush on Israel.”
Evangelicals are the nearest group to a voting block. Marty noted, “They were a fairly solid block in 1990s but today, they are demoralized and scattered. Evangelical leaders have had sex scandals and other troubles. Young Evangelicals have a new agenda around environment. People like Dobson are becoming relics. Evangelicals are not a reliable block; their natural instinct is Republican but it’s not a real block.”
Marty described Mainline Protestant bureaucracies, seminaries, and journals as tending to be liberal. However, there has been a decline in their organizational structure which have become diffuse and individuals, while involved, do not vote as a coherent block. “The power has shifted to a local focus and these voters tend look like the other groups in their area and class.”
Other religious groups are not major players in the election at this time, according to Marty. “The Muslim community hasn’t decided whom to support. Their decision will depend substantially on how McCain gets defined. When I look at Muslim support groups, I don’t see them voting as a block.” Marty then turned to the present day Mormons. “I don’t see any reason they could not serve as president. Romney suffered from the fact that people don’t know what Mormons are. Unless he is the vice presidential nominee, the Mormon community will not figure largely in the election.”
How has religion crept into the presidency? “For many of our presidents, there is little public mention of religion; Harding, Coolidge and Hoover, for example. Franklin Roosevelt began to use religious language but it was mainly to unite the nation during war. Truman was Baptist, but held strongly to the separation of church and state.” Marty talk about the introduction of religion into the presidency, “The first big change came with President Eisenhower who was baptized after elected. He did all he could to unite America against communism.” Referring to a book on Eisenhower, Piety on the Potomac, Marty described Eisenhower’s faith as present, but vague. “President Kennedy never acted like a Catholic. President Lyndon Johnson’s religion was never a factor.
Jimmy Carter was the second big change. He was a born again Christian and everyone wondered what that would mean. Ultimately, the Southern Baptists dropped him because he was so liberal.” The third big change came with President Ronald Reagan. “He was more willing to display and ‘exploit religion. He didn’t go to church much but he had the right feel. He charmed his supporters, mainly moderate evangelical clergy. President Bush the Elder was Episcopalian with an evangelical bent. He was appealing to evangelicals, but not ferverently. Bill Clinton could have been more popular with his fellow Southern Baptists but he supported big government and gays in the military.” Marty concluded his history with the present President Bush. “Bush courted the Evangelicals which worked through his 2nd election. However, he is no longer their hero given the biggest deficit ever and big government. They still like Laura Bush; she embodies their values for a First Lady.”
Although now in his eighties, Martin Marty is still in demand, lectures on religion and politics and appears on television. He recently gave a talk in Baldwin-Wallace College in Cleveland entitled, “Can’t Live With it and Can’t Live Without It: Religion in Politics.” He says “I’m very careful. I see my role as a reporter, historian and chronicler. I don’t write about candidates. I don’t donate to campaigns.” He has not endorsed anyone. He refers to his role as a “civic pedagogue” and he is an excellent one.
When Bill Moyers interviewed Rev. Jeremiah Wright, there was a reverent citing of long-time expert on religion and politics, Dr. Martin E. Marty. I met Dr. Marty when I coordinated the 1990 National Workshop on Christian Jewish Relations in Chicago. Dr. Marty is a religious scholar who taught at the University of Chicago Divinity School, held an endowed chair and now holds emeritus status. He served Saint Olaf College in Minnesota as Regent, Board Chair, Interim President, and now as Senior Regent. A columnist for The Christian Century magazine since 1956, Marty is the author of more than 5,000 articles and the recipient of the National Book Award and 75 honorary doctorates. Since we last met, the National Workshops on Christian-Jewish Relations no longer exists. We talked about the changing world of religion in public life and politics.
I asked Dr. Marty about the present direction of interfaith work. He explained that the Workshops had run their course and served their purpose. The landscape has changed and now individual institutions do their own interfaith work. Further, the nature of interfaith dialogue has changed. Marty talks about how the interfaith environment has changed. “Mixed marriage was very big in Jewish-Christian dialogue, but it takes on a different character with faiths outside of these two religions. Marty notes that as the dialogue expands to faiths other than Judaism and Christianity, the issue of mixed marriage may not be a priority. However, in Jewish-Christian relations, it’s easy for the two to slide into each other’s community. The Christian community can lose somebody to marriage and it doesn’t show up because of its size. In Christianity, the average minister will take his chances on it.” He notes that, “Mixed marriages are a much bigger issue in Judaism because of the loss of Jewish children. Christians care greatly about their children, but we don’t lose peoplehood.”
The global nature of our interactions today is changing the content and tone of interreligious affairs. “There used to be a sense that an interfaith issue could be settled and the conversation could move on to other issues. Today, globalization means that the people of the US are connected with issues half way around the world, in Sri Lanka, India and China.” He points to our constant awareness that the volatility of these issues will eventually reach us. Jewish and Christian dialogue is strong but has developed around religious and theological ideas rather than historical or advocacy issues: the meaning of man, the relationship with God in Jewish and Christian theology including whether the Christian covenant supersedes the Jewish covenant. The introduction of Islam as a major force that has caused Judaism and Christianity to rethink their relationship and their relationships with Islam.
Addressing debates over Israel, Marty points to them as a separate tract in interfaith dialogue, one that is deeply felt. “Even if you don’t practice Judaism for 3 generations, you’re still a Jew. We can cover any subject with friends and neighbors of Jewish descent, but when they find out we’re friends of Jimmy Carter [particularly given his meeting with Hamas] the discussion comes to an abrupt end.” Marty expressed his concern for Israel, citing a Franz Kafka parable in which a mouse [Israel] is being chased by a cat in a long, open expanse. The mouse runs into a labyrinth to escape, but the passageways get increasingly narrow. In the end, changing direction is futile, there is nowhere to turn and the mouse is caught and is eaten.
We turned to the issue of endorsements of religious leaders in this presidential campaign. I asked if there is something different about the role of religion or is it business as usual. Marty began his response by noting, “The endorsements almost always produce negative effects. Hillary has gotten by because no one’s bothered to endorse her. John Hagee endorsed John McCain and then you read that Hagee said that Catholicism is the great whore of Babylon. McCain also has Rod Parsley who says Columbus came to America as part of the crusade against Muslims and it’s the United States mission to bring about Islam’s destruction. What does that mean? It has to mean war.”
In the recent Bill Moyers interview, Rev. Jeremiah Wright who has endorsed Obama, mentions Dr. Marty several times as having inspired him to sermonize about immediacy of the world around us. Marty noted that while he served as consultant to the program, he did not want viewers to assume he was endorsing Obama. Marty’s commented, “In the case of Rev. Wright, Obama can’t get new votes because of that endorsement.”
Marty talked about the role of religion in earlier presidential campaigns, usually as voting blocks. “In 1960, the Catholic vote went for John F. Kennedy. Today the religious voting block doesn’t exist in the same way. He gave an example, “Hillary appeals to a social class and a set of occupations and Catholics happen to be part of the group. Catholics are amassed around the anti-abortion vote, but that’s not a specifically Catholic issue because others faiths are, too.” Expanding on the topic, Marty noted that, “As for the Jewish block, they are not so much interested in elections as in lobbying for specific policies after the election. Jews may be with Democrats on social issues and with Bush on Israel.”
Evangelicals are the nearest group to a voting block. Marty noted, “They were a fairly solid block in 1990s but today, they are demoralized and scattered. Evangelical leaders have had sex scandals and other troubles. Young Evangelicals have a new agenda around environment. People like Dobson are becoming relics. Evangelicals are not a reliable block; their natural instinct is Republican but it’s not a real block.”
Marty described Mainline Protestant bureaucracies, seminaries, and journals as tending to be liberal. However, there has been a decline in their organizational structure which have become diffuse and individuals, while involved, do not vote as a coherent block. “The power has shifted to a local focus and these voters tend look like the other groups in their area and class.”
Other religious groups are not major players in the election at this time, according to Marty. “The Muslim community hasn’t decided whom to support. Their decision will depend substantially on how McCain gets defined. When I look at Muslim support groups, I don’t see them voting as a block.” Marty then turned to the present day Mormons. “I don’t see any reason they could not serve as president. Romney suffered from the fact that people don’t know what Mormons are. Unless he is the vice presidential nominee, the Mormon community will not figure largely in the election.”
How has religion crept into the presidency? “For many of our presidents, there is little public mention of religion; Harding, Coolidge and Hoover, for example. Franklin Roosevelt began to use religious language but it was mainly to unite the nation during war. Truman was Baptist, but held strongly to the separation of church and state.” Marty talk about the introduction of religion into the presidency, “The first big change came with President Eisenhower who was baptized after elected. He did all he could to unite America against communism.” Referring to a book on Eisenhower, Piety on the Potomac, Marty described Eisenhower’s faith as present, but vague. “President Kennedy never acted like a Catholic. President Lyndon Johnson’s religion was never a factor.
Jimmy Carter was the second big change. He was a born again Christian and everyone wondered what that would mean. Ultimately, the Southern Baptists dropped him because he was so liberal.” The third big change came with President Ronald Reagan. “He was more willing to display and ‘exploit religion. He didn’t go to church much but he had the right feel. He charmed his supporters, mainly moderate evangelical clergy. President Bush the Elder was Episcopalian with an evangelical bent. He was appealing to evangelicals, but not ferverently. Bill Clinton could have been more popular with his fellow Southern Baptists but he supported big government and gays in the military.” Marty concluded his history with the present President Bush. “Bush courted the Evangelicals which worked through his 2nd election. However, he is no longer their hero given the biggest deficit ever and big government. They still like Laura Bush; she embodies their values for a First Lady.”
Although now in his eighties, Martin Marty is still in demand, lectures on religion and politics and appears on television. He recently gave a talk in Baldwin-Wallace College in Cleveland entitled, “Can’t Live With it and Can’t Live Without It: Religion in Politics.” He says “I’m very careful. I see my role as a reporter, historian and chronicler. I don’t write about candidates. I don’t donate to campaigns.” He has not endorsed anyone. He refers to his role as a “civic pedagogue” and he is an excellent one.
- ‘Going Southern’ at the Book Club – by Deborah Levine - September 15, 2025
- Moving Ross House Risks Erasing History – by Deborah Levine - September 1, 2025
- Remembering Chattanooga’s Fallen Five – by Deborah Levine - August 25, 2025