How do religious institutions or organizations know when to change?

That's the question I would like you to think about this week, in light of the announcement by President Obama that he now favors the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry.

The president isn't the only person who has changed his views over time. Last week, the New York Times traced how attitudes on same-sex marriage have changed significantly since just the 1990s.

In 1996, the Times reported, 27 percent of Americans favored same-sex marriages. Now, 47 percent favor them.

Views on other issues, such as interracial marriage, also have shifted. In 1972, the Times noted, 59 percent of Americans favored it. By 2002, the number had risen to 90 percent.

But on other topics, nothing has really changed. In 1975, 75 percent of Americans thought abortion should be legal under either certain conditions or in all circumstances. The Times reported that number is virtually the same today. In 2011, 77 percent favor the right to abortion in either limited or unlimited circumstances.

Of course, most of us will claim that we make our decisions by principles, not polls. And that is undoubtedly true. What's more, many principles don't change over time. For example, stealing remains an offense today much like it was when the Ten Commandments were handed down.

But clearly societal attitudes change in some key areas. And religious organizations, like many other institutions, are forced to respond.

So, how do they do that, especially when it comes to issues like same-sex marriage, where attitudes are clearly changing?

Here's a follow-up to our ongoing dialogue about defining the common good. This
question comes out of the discussion we had at our first Texas Faith public forum last
month.

And the question is this:

How far should churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious institutions go in helping define the common good?

The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. certainly acted upon his religious convictions
and led many other people of faith in protesting the nation's civil rights laws. He believed
his faith was drawing him into the public arena, and his work changed America's course
for the better.

And he hardly is the only person of faith who has acted upon his beliefs about the public
good. You can find examples from peace movements to the religious right.

Yet it also is true that there is a greater weariness today about the mixing of religion and
politics. Polling data from the Pew Center for Religion & Public Life has shown that. In
fact, a recent Pew poll that showed Americans are growing tired of so much religion in
politics formed the basis of one of our questions back in March.

But I'm not talking here simply about religion and politics. Instead, I'm interested in
hearing your thoughts about the role institutional religion should play in helping shape
the common good, which is not always about politics. The civil rights debate, after all,
was as much about changing the culture and the way Americans live as it was about
politics.

In his new book, Bad Religion, author and columnist Ross Douthat argues that since the 1960s, institutional Christianity has sunk to a low place - chock-a-block with heresies. Among them, the "God-within" theology that he ascribes to modern-day practitioners like Oprah Winfrey, Deepak Chopra and Elizabeth Gilbert.

Douthat suggests that bad religion is any religious expression that doesn't go through formalized, orthodox channels. Or as writer Charlie Pierce boils down Douthat's thesis: "Christianity would have been infinitely better off is somebody had stopped the banjo Mass in its tracks." But doesn't Douthat fundamentally have a point? Aren't the formal channels of church, synagogue or mosque, of Buddhist temples or the Hindu Vedas -- aren't they all supposed to rein in makeshift, even self-indulgent, flights into "bad religion"? Put another way, can you find spiritual enlightenment outside a formalized religious structure and, having found it, still be a good Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Jew?

The question this week is this: Have Oprah and Deepak and the proponents of the "God Within" school caused more harm than good? Have they contributed to the deinstitutionalization of religion? And if so, is that okay?

Our Texas Faith panel weigh in with a thoughtful, wide-ranging discussion with some provocative ideas. Here's one: "Ultimately, the difference between an organized Church and a mass of unaffiliated spiritualists is the difference between an army and a bunch of people with guns."

Agree? Disagree? Read on after the jump.

In March, we talked some about Mitt Romney and his Mormonism. But since then Romney has become the presumptive GOP nominee.

This has led to a number of pieces about the so-called "Mormon moment, including one I wrote in today's Morning News. Mormon leaders, understandably, may be wearying of that cliché. But it is true that church members have a teachable moment before them.

Specifically, they have a chance to demystify elements of their faith, which polls show is still not very well understood by many of us. In my book, this is best done through in a friend-to-friend, neighbor-to-neighbor, pew-to-pew way. That approach allows for more candid conversations and helps build bridges.

David Campbell, a Notre Dame political scientist and a Mormon, said in an interview I did with him last week that those personal bonds are especially important. They keep in check the tensions that are likely to arise in a society that has so many different faiths.

With that as the set-up, here is this week's question:

What issue would you most like to discuss with a Mormon about their religious faith?

Perhaps you already have done this, so feel free to elaborate upon that in your answer.

How far should people of faith go in resisting laws they consider unjust?

I raise this because last week the nation's Catholic bishops, as the AP reported, "urged resistance to laws that church officials consider unjust."

The story explained how the bishops urged "fellow Catholics and fellow Americans to be on guard, for religious liberty is under attack, both at home and abroad." The report also noted the clash between the Obama administration and Catholic leaders earlier this year over the requirement for most employers to cover the birth control costs of their employees. Since then, the White House has offered a compromise, but the issue has not necessarily gone away.

Perhaps you agree that religious liberty is under attack, perhaps you don't. I'm not looking for an assessment of that. Rather, I would like your thoughts about how far people of faith should go in resisting laws they consider immoral.

I'm sure we all would agree that there is room for civil disobedience, but societies also require a certain amount of cohesion to function. For example, just because someone opposes a war does that give them the right to stop paying taxes that would benefit the Pentagon?

This issue matters enormously to people of faith and the larger secular society. Read on for informative answers.

As I noted last week, the Texas Faith blog will host a public forum tomorrow evening (April 12) at the First Presbyterian Church of Dallas. The event starts at 7 p.m. and will run until 8:30 p.m. Wayne Slater and I will moderate the evening, which will feature six Texas Faith panelists discussing how to define the common good in Dallas. The evening is free and open to all, so please join us at First Presbyterian, 1835 Young Street, in downtown Dallas.

You can read more about the event at this link.

Hope to see you there!

What is the role of the intellect in discovering and maintaining a religious faith?

That is the question for this week, and it is spurred on in part from two thoughtful columns drawing attention to a lessening of an intellectual emphasis in two major wings of American Christianity: liberal Protestantism and evangelical Protestantism.

The first column is a Wall Street Journal review of author Marilynne Robinson's new book When I was a Child I Read Books. In it, the review says, Robinson argues that mainline Protestantism got sidelined "by retreating from the cultivation and celebration of learning and of beauty...as if people were less than God made them and in need of nothing so much as of condescension. "

The second column is by the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne, Jr. He chides (gently) Christians in general and evangelicals in particular for diminishing the role of the mind in exploring faith. Writes Dionne:

"Popular Christianity often seems to denigrate rather than celebrate intellectual life and critical inquiry. This not only ignores Christian giants of philosophy and science but also plays into some of the very worst stereotypes inflicted upon religious believers."

Later on, he says:

"Some Christians encourage a view of their faith as profoundly anti-intellectual. Faith is seen as more about experience than reason, more about loyalty than dialogue. The desire to assert The Truth takes priority over exploring productively and honestly what the truth might be."

At the end, after quoting with admiration evangelical scholar Mark Noll, Dionne concludes:

"If Easter is about liberation, this liberation must include intellectual freedom."

Perhaps you agree with these assessments, or perhaps you don't. Either way I would like to hear your thoughts about the role the mind plays in opening one up to a religious faith and then sustaining it over time.

A Texas Faith public forum will be held at First Presbyterian Church of Dallas on Thursday, April 12 from 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Wayne Slater and I will moderate the evening, which will feature six Texas Faith panelists discussing how to define the common good in Dallas. The evening is free and open to all, so please join us at First Presbyterian, 1835 Young Street, in downtown Dallas.

Editor's Note: Before we get into this week's post, let me announce that our first Texas Faith public forum will be held at First Presbyterian Church of Dallas on April 12 from 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Wayne Slater and I will moderate the evening, which will feature six panelists -- Joe Clifford, Amy Martin, Matthew Wilson, Jim Denison, Geoffrey Dennis and Darrell Bock -- discussing how we define the common good in Dallas, Texas.

The evening is free and open to all, so please join us at First Presbyterian, 1835 Young Street, in downtown Dallas. The Morning News plans on holding other Texas Faith public events this year, featuring each of our Texas panelists. So, stay tuned for further details.

Now, onto this week's question, which panelist Cindy Rigby suggested after she read this column by Gary Gutting, a Notre Dame philosophy professor. The essay hits on several major questions, but the one for this week deals with this issue:

If you believe in God, do you believe God is good? If so, why?

If you don't believe God is good, please explain.

We promised to break out of political and cultural questions from time to time, and this one definitely leaves our panelists room to get at some central religious/philosophical/theological points. All in 250 words, of course!

Two weeks ago, Wayne Slater posed a question about how much of a candidate's religious views the public is entitled to know. This week, let's take a different look at this issue.

A new Pew Forum in Religion & Public Life survey shows that voters across the political spectrum are growing tired of hearing politicians talk so much about religion. The survey shows that almost 40 percent of the respondents are weary of hearing so much talk about faith. That figure represents a turn-around from recent years, including only two years ago, when polling data showed that voters thought candidates talked too little about their faith.

Not now. Democrats, Republicans and independents all show a growing distaste for so much talk about religion. Democrats scored the highest, followed by independents and then Republicans.

There are exceptions. White and black evangelicals are more comfortable with religion being a big part of the political debate than most other traditions.

But this data represents a serious shift from the past. In 2001, for example, only 14 percent of independents thought there was too much talk about religion. Today, that number is 42 percent. (You can read more about historic trends in this link.)

So, here's the question for this week, and it is a two-part one:

Why do you think Americans are expressing a rising discomfort with the role of religion in national affairs?

Do you consider this a dangerous trend?

It's a presidential election season, so count the issue of church involvement in politics to come up this year. Federal tax law is quite clear. Houses of worship cannot formally endorse or oppose candidates for public office. They can speak out on issues. They can conduct non-partisan voter registration drives. Ministers can encourage those in the pews to stay informed on the issue important to them. But a religious leader cannot endorse a political candidate from the pulpit. It's a tax issue. Churches, synagogues, mosques and places of religious worship with tax-exempt status can't actively engage in partisan politics.

It hasn't always been that way. In 1954, federal law was changed to say that charitable organizations lose their tax-exempt status if they engage in political campaigns. The rule might be constitutional (one Supreme Court said it was). But why is it a good idea? Why is it ever a good idea for government to restrict what ministers can say in a house of worship?

Are we better off with the current situation in which some groups skirt the edge of the law, creating separate entities or disguising clear engagement to the benefit of a particular candidate with a creative explanation about how they aren't doing that at all? Is it better that religious leaders self-censor what they tell their congregations for fear of audits and fines? Without the rule, presumably there would be conservative churches that tilt toward Republican candidates and progressive congregations that that would favor Democrats -- and a lot of pastors who don't endorse because they don't want to. But shouldn't that be their call?

Should the federal ban on political activity by churches and religious institutions be repealed - or remain in place? Our Texas Faith panel weighs in -- and they don't agree on the answer.

A spate of stories in the media in recent days about the Mormon practice of posthumous or proxy baptism prompted religion writer Sarah Posner to ask: How much of Mitt Romney's Mormonism is fair game?

The reality is that voters make judgments about a candidate's religious faith. Barack Obama found himself in the middle of media storm four years about some controversial views of his long-time pastor. Rick Santorum has linked the tenants of his Catholic faith and matters of public policy. And Posner, senior editor at Religion Dispatches, notes that many Americans might view some aspects of Mormonism (planets, proxy baptisms, sacred underwear, tribes of Israel roaming America) as exotic, even weird. Romney is running for president and, as such, has come under close scrutiny from every angle. He's tried to avoid the subject of his religion in the current GOP primary, telling reporters with theological questions to ask the church.

Clearly, there is a difference between unfair questions about certain religious practices and legitimate lines of inquiry aimed at giving voters an idea how institutional teachings or practices shape a candidate's politics. So where's the line? Asking about temple undergarments is probably out of bounds. But what about how he views his church's role funding and opposing same-sex marriage in California? Or his church's past history of racial intolerance? Is it fair to ask Romney, and to expect an answer, whether he as a church leader ever actively pushed back against his church's policy (lifted in 1978) against blacks?

What's the difference between probing a candidate's religious beliefs and probing a candidate's involvement in promoting or even acquiescing in the activities of a religious institution?

Centre College professor Beau Weston operates an interesting blog, the Gruntled Center. He put up a post last week that draws from a lecture he recently gave at his Kentucky college. In the post and lecture, Weston, a Presbyterian, makes the argument that the world has gotten better.

He notes how violence is down in most "competent" nations, authoritarianism is in retreat worldwide, various forms of discrimination have diminished, food production is growing exponentially, air quality has improved, the population bomb has been a dud and transportation costs are cheaper. He lists a number of other indices, which you can read about on this link.

So, here is the question for the week:

Is the world getting better?

We certainly read a lot in, yes, newspapers about things going awry. Republican candidates making the case against Barack Obama offer ample examples of the world being a mess. And many a book has been sold about the next coming crisis.

But are we looking at all this the wrong way. Is it indeed the case that the world is getting better?

This week's question comes from a suggestion by panelist Daniel Kanter and it follows up on remarks that Rick Santorum made recently in speeches and on TV about the environment. Here is an excerpt from Santorum's February 19 appearance on CBS' Face the Nation:

"Man is here ...to care for the Earth, to be a steward of the Earth. But we're not here to serve the Earth. The Earth is not the objective. Man is the objective. And-I think a lot of radical environmentalists have it upside down."

Previously, Santorum made similar comments in Colorado, where he reportedly said:

"We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth's benefit."

Santorum followed up his observations in Colorado with comments about climate change. But I'm not interested in a debate about the pros-and-cons of that subject for this week. Rather, I would like to hear your answer to this philosophical and theological question:

Is man here to serve the Earth? Or is the Earth here to serve man?

Read on to hear what our panelists think about this issue, which goes to the heart of the religion-and-politics nexus.

In this essay from the Washington Post's On Faith blog, Robert P. Jones drew several conclusions from polling data about the flap over Catholic institutions being required to provide contraceptives.

Among his conclusions was this observation:

"The Catholic bishops appear to be gearing up for a long fight against the mandate itself, but the Obama administration's compromise seems likely to satisfy lay Catholics' concerns, without losing younger women's support in the process. Obama' support among Catholics appears to have remained steady as the controversy raged last week."

What he suggests is that there is a difference between the pew and the pulpit on this matter. Of course, that is not the first time a divide has been seen between the leaders of a religious tradition and those who adhere to that faith.

What I would like to hear from you all this week is how such a divide gets resolved in your tradition. I recognize that sometimes they aren't resolved, but I would like you to elaborate upon this question:

What happens in your tradition when there is a divide between the pulpit and the pew?

Let's return to the discussion about the common good that we started here a couple of weeks ago. Our panelists had good responses to the first question, so let's follow up with this one:

To what extent should government define the common good?

Let me offer this recent essay by Ross Douthat in the New York Times as a way to frame the discussion. Here's what Douthat wrote:

"When liberals are in a philosophical mood, they like to cast debates over the role of government not as a clash between the individual and the state, but as a conflict between the individual and the community. Liberals are for cooperation and joint effort; conservatives are for self-interest and selfishness. Liberals build the Hoover Dam and the interstate highways; conservatives sit home and dog-ear copies of "The Fountainhead." Liberals know that it takes a village; conservatives pretend that all it takes is John Wayne.

Unlike most communal organizations, the government has coercive power -- the power to regulate, to mandate and to tax. These advantages make it all too easy for the state to gradually crowd out its rivals. The more things we "do together" as a government, in many cases, the fewer things we're allowed to do together in other spheres."

Read on for insightful essays on this subject.

According to a new study by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion and Public Life, white evangelical Protestants are now more heavily Republican than four years ago. No surprise. But the same thing's happening with white mainline Protestants. And with white Catholics. Four years ago, white Catholics were more inclined to identify with the Democratic Party (49 percent) than the Republican Party (41 percent). Now it's reversed. And it doesn't matter whether you're talking about people who go to church regularly (at least once a week) or less regularly.

The shift toward the Republican Party among Protestant and Catholics is even more pronounced among those under 30. And, perhaps more surprising, Pew found the same thing among Jews, long strong supporters of the Democratic Party. In 2008, 72 percent of Jews identified themselves with Democrats; now it's 65 percent. There's been a slight shift among religiously unaffiliated voters, but mostly the movement is among religious people.

Across almost every major religious group, the share of voters identifying with or leaning toward the GOP has either grown or held steady. So what's going on? Why has the number of religious voters identifying themselves as Democrats declined - and as Republicans risen? Why do you think this is happening?

We asked our panel of Texas Faith experts to weigh in. Their responses follow:

President Obama made the case for the common good, as he saw it, in his State of the Union address. Jackie Calmes of the New York Times summarized his theme this way: "Government and citizens are responsible together for the common good, even as they celebrate individualism and free markets."

Of course, you might say. Shared responsibilities and creating room for the individual to flourish are major elements of our national creed.

But how do we build a common good today?

The president, for example, wants clean energy, better schools and housing opportunities for more Americans. Good goals, but they cost money. And we are $14 trillion in debt. Someone has to pay for all these new ideas, including the ones that Republicans offer. Often, it is the rich who are asked to pay, which leads some to wonder why they are singled out to pay for the common good.

I'm not here to ask you to give readers a balanced budget plan. Others can take on that unenviable chore.

But I would like you all to talk about how the country can create a greater sense of the common good. We hear plenty about how political bodies can shape it, but I'd especially like to hear what other institutions could play a role. And how they could shape the common good, or perhaps are shaping it.

The Denver Broncos may be out of the NFL playoffs, but Denver QB Tim Tebow is not out of the news. In fact, the art of Tebowing , where people record themselves bowing in prayer on one knee like Tebow does, has become a phenomenon. The online world has plenty of examples of Tebowing. And the mainstream media has published article after article about Tebowing and the football player's public display of faith.

Of course, Tebow's explicit display of religion has led to a fair share of criticism. He's seen as too proselytizing or violating the biblical injunction to pray in your room.

Tebow told Fox Sports last fall that he knows about the criticism, but he's more focused on those who draw inspiration from his public prayers. Said Tebow:

"It's not my job to see people's reasons behind it, but I know [of a kid] with cancer that tweeted me, 'Tebowing while I'm chemoing' -- how cool is that?" Tebow said. "That's worth it right now. If that gives him any encouragement or puts a smile on his face, or gives him encouragement to pray, that's completely awesome."

With this phenomenon swirling around us, and the Super Bowl approaching, here is this week's question:

What is your view about his public praying and the Tebowing phenomenon that has built up around it?

On Monday, we paused to honor the legacy of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He arguably had the greatest influence of any religious figure on American politics and culture. And his contributions have been appropriately chronicled. Because of his work, many aspects of American life have changed since the 1960s.

But beyond Dr. King, which religious figure has had a major impact on American politics or culture through their preaching, ideas or actions?

Perhaps the person you have in mind is obscure, but don't worry about that. I'd like to hear from you which religious figure(s) have had an impact on our society, even if they are not well known.

The Dallas Morning News' Wayne Slater and Texas Faith moderator Wayne Slater reported last week that a group of prominent conservative evangelical leaders are
gathering at a Texas ranch this weekend to decide about a candidate they could
unite behind as an alternative to Mitt Romney.

The invited include James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Richard Land of the
Southern Baptist Convention, Christian Zionist pastor John Hagee, Kelly
Shackelford of the Liberty Institute and Don Wildmon of the American Family
Association. Southern Baptist leader Paul Pressler is hosting them.

With that as the background, here is this week's question:

If you were invited to join other religious leaders in coalescing behind a
candidate, would you attend?

If your answer is yes, please explain why.

If your answer is no, please give your reasons.

In this New York Times essay, which panelist Cynthia Rigby sent along, author Eric Weiner talks about the rise of the Nones, those who polling data suggests are neither "true believers" nor "angry atheists." Nones have no religious affiliation, but that doesn't mean they are turning away from God, as Weiner writes.

The part of the piece that interested me most comes at the last. Weiner offers this provocative conclusion:

We need a Steve Jobs of religion. Someone (or ones) who can invent not a new religion but, rather, a new way of being religious. Like Mr. Jobs's creations, this new way would be straightforward and unencumbered and absolutely intuitive. Most important, it would be highly interactive. I imagine a religious space that celebrates doubt, encourages experimentation and allows one to utter the word God without embarrassment. A religious operating system for the Nones among us. And for all of us.

With that as the set-up, here's this week's question:

Do we need a Steve Jobs of religion, an innovative thinker who can "invent not a new religion but, rather, a new way of being religious?"

If so, where would that person come from? And what would they try to offer?
If you don't think we need a "Steve Jobs of religion," please explain why.

Texas Faith will return on Wednesday, January 4. Until then, have a happy new year!

Let's take a break from thinking so hard about topical events and use this week to explain what religious insights you may have had this year that reshaped the way you view the world. Was it something you read? Experienced? Saw? Heard? If so, what touched you?

If nothing like that happened, don't worry. Just explain how you think your faith shaped the way you saw the world in 2011.

We are now full bore into the Christmas season, where parties are being held, presents are being bought and Santa's sleigh is about to reappear as a mystery to young children.

At the same time, churches are rolling out classic hymns, malls resound with music from the season and the drive home from work is made less tense by the car radio playing Christmas carols. Even for those who do not participate in this unique time on the Christian calendar, music is a way to share in the season.

Which leads to this week's question:

Why is music so central to Christmas - or any other religious story?