The president of Chicago Theological Seminary, Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, gives us another useful word to name what is happening in American Christianity: Post-denominational

It is clear from this Pew study that the old denominational affiliations no longer apply. The religious landscape in the U.S. is best described these days as “post-denominational.” Post-denominational means that it is far less important whether you are Methodist or Baptist, or even Catholic, than where you fall along the continuum of fundamentalist to evangelical to progressive (liberal) to secular or unaligned. While some faiths or denominations generally are more evangelical or more liberal, each tradition has a wide spectrum within it. If you are a liberal Christian in a conservative Protestant denomination, you may have more in common with a Reformed Jew than with the Christians in your own denomination.

C. S. Lewis said something similar, that, as a conservative Anglican, he has more in common with conservative Catholics and conservative Baptists, than the liberals in his own denomination. But now it appears that fidelity to any denomination is fading away, while the different degrees of conservatism and liberalism are becoming institutionalized.

But think of it: The key to your religious affiliation is really how conservative or liberal you are, not any specific theology or even a specific religion?

Here is an interesting story about the revival in contemporary Judaism of the Mikveh, the ritual bath that goes back to Biblical times. Even today someone converting to Judaism must be immersed in the water. It was also used to deal with various kinds of “uncleanness.” Today, Jews are using it more therapeutically, to deal with times of transition, to symbolize new beginnings, etc.

For a Christian, of course, the Mikveh speaks to us of Baptism. I’d like to see some scholarship relating the ordinary Mikveh–and apparently most houses of that time had a pool for this–and the Baptism of John and then of the Church.

Islamic polygamy is going on underground throughout the West, including the United States. Canada allows multiple wives to collect welfare benefits, as long as the marriages were conducted out of the country. Read this.

Shortly before the Declaration of Independence was signed, Benedict Arnold led a colonial force to invade Canada, in the hopes of harrassing the English army and, more importantly, hoping the Canadian people might rise up in support of independence. Columnist Brian O’Malley quotes letters from General Washington on how the Canadians should be treated. O’Malley’s point is to criticize our current invasion of Iraq. Whatever you think of that, though, the portrait of Washington that comes through is fascinating, a combination of wisdom, tactical brilliance, and moral integrity. From O’Malley’s column:

First, if the citizens don’t want us there, don’t go. Washington told Arnold, “You are by every means in your power to endeavour to discover the real sentiments of the Canadians towards our cause, and particularly as to this expedition; ever bearing in mind that if they are averse to it, and will not co-operate, or at least willingly acquiesce, it must fail of success. In this case you are by no means to prosecute the attempt.”

The expense of starting the mission and the disappointment of not completing it, Washington wrote, “are not to be put in competition with the dangerous consequences which may ensue from irritating them against us.”

Second, the safety of American personnel depended on how they treated people. Washington wanted Arnold to “conciliate the affections” of the Canadian settlers and Indians and ordered Arnold to teach the soldiers and officers under his command “that not only the Good of their Country and their Honour, but their Safety depends upon the Treatment of these People.”

Third, proper treatment of prisoners was necessary. The prominent British parliamentarian William Pitt, who championed American grievances, had a son serving in Canada. John Pitt was never taken into American custody, but in the event that Pitt was captured, Washington warned Arnold, “You cannot err in paying too much Honour to the Son of so illustrious a Character, and so true a Friend to America.”

This insistence on kind treatment extended beyond Pitt. Washington wrote, “Any other Prisoners who may fall into your Hands, you will treat with as much Humanity and kindness, as may be consistent with your own Safety and the publick Interest.”

Washington told Arnold to restrain the Continental troops and their Indian allies “from all Acts of Cruelty and Insult, which will disgrace the American Arms, and irritate our Fellow Subjects against us.”

Fourth, any Americans who mistreated Canadians should be punished. “Should any American Soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any Canadian or Indian, in his Person or Property,” Washington wrote, “I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary Punishment as the Enormity of the Crime may require.” In an accompanying letter Washington added, “Should it extend to Death itself it will not be disproportional to its Guilt, at such a Time and in such a Cause.”

Fifth, respect the people’s religion. “As the Contempt of the Religion of a Country by ridiculing any of its Ceremonies or affronting its Ministers or Votaries, has ever been deeply resented, you are to be particularly careful to restrain every Officer and Soldier from such Imprudence and Folly and to punish every Instance of it.”

Unfortunately, the troops did NOT obey Washington’s injunctions–this was Benedict Arnold, remember–and Canada has been mad at us ever since.