New Congress Has Greater Religious Diversity

When members of the 113th Congress take their seats in January, they will be the most ecumenical gathering of that body since its beginning, roughly mirroring changes in religious affiliation in the U.S. population as a whole, according to a report by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life.
The new Congress will include the first Buddhist to serve in the Senate, the first Hindu to serve in either chamber and the first member to describe her religion as "none." There will be more Catholics than in previous Congresses. Although Protestants are still in the majority (at 56.4 percent), their numbers have gradually declined since 50 years ago, when three-quarters of members belonged to Protestant denominations. The 112th Congress had 307 Protestants; the 113th will have 299.
The Pew report noted that while the new Congress is the most religiously diverse in U.S. history, it can also be considered the least devout, as 11 members report their religion as either "unaffiliated" or "don't know/refused." This is a record high in Congress for those categories, but is significantly lower than the national average for those categories, which is about one in five adults.
While Protestants continue to be in the majority, every Protestant denomination represented in Congress except for Baptists saw their numbers decline or remain the same. Baptists added six members.
Jewish membership in Congress declined from 39 to 32, mostly from retirements.
According to the Pew count, the numbers are as follows:

Protestant                      299
Catholic                        161
Mormon                          15
Orthodox Christian           5
Jewish                             32
Buddhist                            3
Muslim                              2
Hindu                                1
Unitarian Universalist       1
Other Faiths                      0
Unaffiliated                       1
Don't Know/ Refused      10
Total                              530
More on this story can be found at these links:

Faith on the Hill: The Religious Composition of the 113th Congress. The Pew Forum
Incoming Congress Least Devout, Most Religiously Diverse. Washington Times

The Big Questions
1. What role, if any, should a candidate's religious affiliation play in his or her qualifications for elected office? To what degree is the lack of religious affiliation in an legislator a matter of concern to you regarding that person's ability to represent his or her constituency? Why? Do you believe someone from a different faith can represent your interests well?
2. Are there ways in which it is important for legislative bodies to mirror to some degree the religious diversity of the constituency? Are there ways in which it doesn't it matter? Are there ways in which it is undesirable? For any "yes" answers, what are some of those ways? 
3. Which makes America stronger: religious diversity or a common religious view? How does it (or does it not) make a difference if the "diversity" is a diversity of Christian groups compared to a diversity of Christian and non-Christian religions? 
4. Since a legislator's religious affiliation is no guarantee of his or her religious commitment, how important is that person's religious affiliation to you?
5. Is it ever accurate to link political positions with particular faith traditions? Explain your answer. Are there some faith traditions which are antithetical to a form of government guaranteeing the freedoms acknowledged in the Bill of Rights? If so, what are some examples, and how do they conflict with American values?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
2 Chronicles 36:22-23
"In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, the LORD stirred up the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia so that he sent a herald throughout all his kingdom and also declared in a written edict: 'Thus says King Cyrus of Persia: The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may the LORD his God be with him! Let him go up.'" (No additional context needed.)
These are the closing verses of 2 Chronicles. Except for these, that biblical book would end on a sad note, for the rest of the final chapter tells about the last days of the kingdom of Judah, including the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians, who burned the temple, destroyed the city and marched the leading citizenry off to exile in Babylon.
The verses above, however, introduce the next chapter of Israel's story, which began several decades later. What isn't reported here is that eventually, the Persians defeated the Babylonians. The Persian king at the time, Cyrus, had a different attitude than the Babylonians toward the Jews held captive in the empire he had taken over. He not only permitted all who wanted to do so to return to their homeland, but he also authorized (and funded) the rebuilding of the temple.
Cyrus was not a worshiper of Israel's God, and he didn't "free" the Jews. They remained subjects of the Persian Empire. His motives for helping them aren't certain either: He may have had a pluralistic outlook or a wish to thank "whatever gods there may be" for his success, or he may have done it for political expediency, to garner gratitude and loyalty from the subject peoples throughout his realm.
Whatever his motivations, however, the Hebrew prophet whose messages to the exiled Jews appear in Isaiah 40-55 announced in advance that Cyrus would be God's "shepherd" who would do what God wanted (Isaiah 44:28). This prophet also referred to Cyrus as the Lord's "anointed" (literally, "Messiah" -- Isaiah 45:1) and quoted God: "I have aroused Cyrus in righteousness, and I will make all his paths straight; he shall build my city and set my exiles free, not for price or reward, says the LORD of hosts"  (Isaiah 45:13).

Clearly, it didn't require "denominational affiliation" for Cyrus to be an agent of the Lord.
By the way, the verses above are the very last verses in the Hebrew Bible. (The books are arranged in a different order from how they are in the Christian Bible.) The Hebrew Scriptures end on this note, that God is about the business of restoring and that God can use believers and nonbelievers in this great task.
Questions: How do you account for the fact that God sometimes uses people who don't believe in him to accomplish his will? What does it mean that a non-Jewish ruler not only respects another's faith, but says that he is acting on God's orders and is a part of God's plan? Do you consider self-identified non-Christian leaders as agents of God's will? Do these leaders have to acknowledge this in order to be following God's will? What does this say to those who insist that only Christians -- or their brand of Christians -- are following God's will?
Ezra 6:13
"Then, according to the word sent by King Darius, Tattenai, the governor of the province Beyond the River, Shethar-bozenai, and their associates did with all diligence what King Darius had ordered." (For context, read 5:1--6:15.)
Several years after the exiles returned to Judah, and long after Cyrus had died, a non-Jew named Tattenai was the governor of Judah, administering it for the Persian Empire. When the Jews began rebuilding the temple, he questioned where they had gotten the authorization. They told him about Cyrus' degree, but too many years had passed, and Tattenai had no knowledge of it. So he carried out his responsibilities, writing about the situation to the current Persian king, Darius. Darius had the archives searched, found the decree and issued a fresh authorization instructing Tattenai to cooperate with the project. While religiously unaffiliated with the Jews, Tattenai "did with all diligence what King Darius had ordered."
Questions: Darius' fresh authorization included this: "Furthermore I decree that if anyone alters this edict, a beam shall be pulled out of the house of the perpetrator, who then shall be impaled on it. The house shall be made a dunghill" (v. 11). That may well have accounted for Tattenai's "diligence." But as long as an official does the right thing for his or her constituents, do the person's motives matter? Why or why not?
Tattani took the time to research the Jewish claim about the temple. When you are told something about a leader or about the history of our country, do you accept it at face value or do you do research? Where do you do this research?
Ezekiel 47:21-23
"So you shall divide this land among you according to the tribes of Israel. You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the aliens who reside among you and have begotten children among you. They shall be to you as citizens of Israel; with you they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. In whatever tribe aliens reside, there you shall assign them their inheritance, says the Lord GOD." (For context, read 47:13-23.)

Ezekiel was a prophet to the Jews in exile. Chapters 40-48 of the book bearing his name describe a vision Ezekiel had in which he saw God restoring the Jews to their homeland. In 47:13-23, Ezekiel hears God tell of the boundaries of their land being re-established to where they were in the days of Kings David and Solomon. And then come the verses above, which instruct that unlike in the original kingdom, land shall also be given to "aliens" living among them, and there's no explicit requirement that these aliens follow the Jewish faith.
The Jews did eventually return to their homeland, but it never reached the boundaries described in Ezekiel's vision. And when the returnees did encounter religious diversity, their tendency was to "circle the wagons" against it (see Ezra 9-10). Still, Ezekiel 47 can be interpreted as indicating that religious homogeneity is not the goal.
Questions: What do you make of the idea that "religious homogeneity is not the goal"? Give reasons for your answer. How do you define religious homogeneity? With which non-Christian faiths are you most comfortable? Which are you uncomfortable with? Is our nation enriched by a variety of faiths? Why or why not?
Acts 5:38-39
"'So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them -- in that case you may even be found fighting against God!' They were convinced by him ..." (For context, read 5:17-42.)
This is another example of an authority acting for the good of people of a different religious conviction. Because the apostles were preaching about Jesus, the high priest, who considered Jesus an outlaw, had them arrested, but God freed them. So, wondering what to do next, the Jewish high council met, and one member, Gamaliel, advised the group to allow the apostles to continue their work on the assumption that if their message was from God, it would succeed, and if not, it would fail.
Questions: Technically, Gamaliel and the apostles were of the same religion, for they were all Jews. Christianity, at this point, was still a movement within Judaism. But Gamaliel did not share the apostles' convictions about Jesus, which made him religiously different from them. How does your conviction about Jesus affect your ability to appreciate the concerns of someone from a non-Christian faith?
How willing are you to follow the advice of Gamaliel to wait to see if something is of God? Are you satisfied when something --a television show, a product, a health plan or philosophy -- offers help even if it is not Christian?
Romans 13:1
"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God." (For context, read 13:1-7.)
In the early days of Christianity, no governing authorities were Christians, but here Paul states that their authority is from God, and he advises Christians to consider themselves subjects of such authorities.
The Romans text is written before really horrific persecution began under Emperor Nero. Jews and Christians had been expelled from Rome because of messianic unrest around A.D. 51 or so, but there had also been some measure of protection, and Paul had even appealed to the emperor when he faced the possibility of a kangaroo court.
Questions: In what ways do you view legislators, regardless of religious affiliation, as God's servants? People tend to cite this text when their guy is president and ignore it when the other party takes power. What helps you to apply in either case?
For Further Discussion
1. What interests you about the religious faith of candidates for elected office?
2. If we expect that a representative who is Catholic or Protestant can represent the interests of constituents who may be Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, Buddhist or some other faith, why should we or should we not expect a Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or other representative to see to the needs and interests of Protestant or Catholic constituents?
3. What is there about Christian morality that is common to all or many faiths? What do you suppose is peculiar or unique to Christian morality?
4. Have you had any experience with legislators who come from a different faith or cultural tradition than yours? What was your experience like? Has anyone questioned your leadership, whether in politics, business, church or clubs and associations, because of your faith background?
5.  Martin Luther differentiated between God's kingdom in civil government, which rules by power and coercion and is directed toward providing for protection and orderly affairs, and God's kingdom in the church, which rules solely by grace and is concerned with leading people to trust in God for their salvation from sin. How does this "Two Kingdoms" teaching impact how one views the religion of public officials?
6. Do you think some candidates profess faith for political purposes? Is it more important to be honest or to be pragmatic in pursuing political goals?
Responding to the News

Being aware of how our national population makeup is changing can be helpful in understanding the times in which we live our Christian faith.  
Closing Prayer
O God, bless our national political leaders, regardless of their religious persuasion, with the wisdom and courage to do what is right for the country as a whole. In Jesus' name. Amen.