A small community isn't always a welcoming one

Jake Meador, a practicing Christian, ponders why a lot of once-practicing U.S. Christians stopped attending services. (His piece is in The Atlantic and might be behind a paywall.)

According to Meador a new book, The Great Dechurching, offers insights into the exodus. Though "religious abuse and more general moral corruption in churches" certainly is a factor, the majority of the lapsed faithful cited the pace and intensity of life in these United States. Meador characterizes the problem thus:

Contemporary America simply isn’t set up to promote mutuality, care, or common life. Rather, it is designed to maximize individual accomplishment as defined by professional and financial success. Such a system leaves precious little time or energy for forms of community that don’t contribute to one’s own professional life or, as one ages, the professional prospects of one’s children. Workism reigns in America, and because of it, community in America, religious community included, is a math problem that doesn’t add up.

(A couple of links omitted.)

Meador argues that the solution is for churches to become models of a better way of living.

What is more needed in our time than a community marked by sincere love, sharing what they have from each according to their ability and to each according to their need, eating together regularly, generously serving neighbors, and living lives of quiet virtue and prayer? A healthy church can be a safety net in the harsh American economy by offering its members material assistance in times of need: meals after a baby is born, money for rent after a layoff. Perhaps more important, it reminds people that their identity is not in their job or how much money they make; they are children of God, loved and protected and infinitely valuable.

If you're Christian, this is an appealing vision.

What about the non-Christians?

A large enough town might have enough believers of different religions and denominations to support multiple places of worship, each and all of which I suppose ought to provide an active and embracing sense of community, in Meador's vision.

What about the small towns, though? What about the places where one Christian denomination (for it will generally be a Christian denomination) dominates?

If you're a Christian teen who is LGBTQ+, will that denomination's church welcome you?

If you're a Muslim resident of that town, how can you share in a sense of community that originates in a religion that's not yours?

Oh, and what about the non-religionists? If you're an atheist or nonbeliever, can you share in a sense of community that arises from any religion?

The problem with Meador's vision, then, is that it overlooks one of the biggest problems with a small community, whether it be a church or town: it can be absolute hell for anyone who isn't perceived to fit in.

One could argue that Christian churches are specifically problematic because the Bible has a myriad of injunctions that literal-minded adherents use to make life miserable for others. However, the blind spot in Meador's vision isn't limited to churches. The furor over Jason Aldean's "Try That in a Small Town" highlights the blind spot his fans and politically likeminded people have, one that isn't about Christianity per se. Rather, it's about what it means to belong — and who gets to decide who belongs.

Aldean and his supporters don't see anything objectionable in his lyrics, and why would they? They're the ones who fit into the towns in which they live. They feel part of a close-knit near-family.

For those who are out of step or make others uncomfortable, though, it's a very different and unhappy story. In a small community someone who's different, even if harmless, may have no refuge from unremitting community disapproval (or worse). They're made to feel that they don't belong and that it's their fault.

That is what Aldean and others don't see (or won't admit). That's the dark side Aldean's lyrics bring to mind for all the nonconformists who find themselves on the outs in those supposedly idyllic communities. (The nastiness is visited on a lot of non-Whites, too, who often find themselves being seen as a threat.)

Meador's vision doesn't comfort this nonconformist, who wants no part of religion. I think centering community in churches will simply exacerbate the problems faced by nonconformists all over, because the Abrahamic religions can't help defining themselves in part by whom they exclude.

You lied, Bibi

I slammed Netanyahu in 2015 for his shameless pandering to Republicans and reactionaries. He has done nothing to endear himself to me since. To the contrary, he has only reinforced my opinion that as long as he leads Israel, the U.S. must not give Israel its unconditional support.

Not only is Bibi giving every appearance of a guilty man trying to derail the criminal case against him (in his case, by arrogating to himself and his political allies the power to smother the case, or to wipe any conviction off the record), but — because he needs help in his corrupt effort — he's allowing the most dangerously authoritarian, reactionary, and puritanical politicians in Israel to transform the country from a democracy to a theocracy with pseudodemocratic trappings — rather like Iran, one of Israel's chief enemies. (The irony seems to be lost on those ardent right-wingers — or perhaps they relish it.)

According to the New York Times, Bibi has been on a PR offensive in the U.S., trying to defend his coalition's recent passing of a highly controversial new law "that stops the [Israeli Supreme] court from overruling government decisions that it finds lacking in 'reasonableness.' "

The government argues that the doctrine gives unelected judges too much leeway to overrule elected lawmakers. Critics call it an important tool for preventing corruption and abuse of executive power.

Mr. Netanyahu’s media blitz with the American broadcasters — he also spoke with ABC — came amid mounting international concern over Israel’s domestic turmoil. The hard-line coalition’s judicial overhaul has split the country, prompted hundreds of thousands to protest for weeks on end, and cast a painful light on Israel’s widening divisions.

I won't get into the new law, which is only the first (and by all accounts, the least controversial) of three laws which, if all enacted, would hand full power to the prime minister and his or her ruling coalition.

What I want to note is Bibi's disingenous attempt to reprimand the U.S. for daring to opine on his brazen undermining of Israeli democracy.

On Thursday, Mr. Netanyahu called Mr. Biden a “great friend of Israel.” But he said Israel would ultimately reach its own decisions, adding that he had not commented on other countries’ internal debates over the limits of executive power.

Spare me, Bibi. You spoke volumes about your feelings concerning executive power when Barack Obama was in office.

His brazenly partisan appearance before Congress rubbed a lot of us the wrong way. He used our legislative body as a campaign prop for his election, and aligned himself forever more with the Republican Party. His apologists note, correctly, that there's no love lost between Netanyahu and President Obama, but his personal dislike of the President does not excuse his blatant violation of diplomatic courtesies. Bibi's appearance amounted to a slap in the face not of President Obama, but of the entire United States.

Your 2015 appearance carried your implicit rebuke to the sitting president of the United States: "Your authority, Mr. President, doesn't mean squat. If I can benefit from your nation's domestic divisions, I will and you can suck on it."

Actions speak louder than words.

You lied, Bibi. You sure as hell have "commented" on the United States' "internal debates over the limits of executive power". You weighed in on the side that says, "If a Democrat is in office, screw that president's power."

Go ahead, Bibi, keep lying to us. Keep giving us reasons to rethink our unthinking support for Israel. Keep making your country's most fanatical religious zealots its face. By doing so, you push the U.S. closer and closer to cutting its support for Israel, potentially saving us billions of dollars.

I'd feel bad for the many Israelis who oppose your government's disdain for democracy, but at least we wouldn't be abetting your most reactionary and narrow-minded citizens' worst impulses any more.