Connect with us

News

Martin E. Marty, Influential Religious Historian, Dies at 97

Published

on

Martin E. Marty, Influential Religious Historian, Dies at 97

Martin E. Marty, a pre-eminent religious historian, prolific author, dependable exponent of mainstream Protestantism and staunch champion of pluralism, died on Tuesday in Minneapolis. He was 97.

His death at a retirement home, where he had lived since 2022, was confirmed by his son Peter.

In more than 60 books, thousands of articles and as what he described as a “peregrinating lecturer,” Dr. Marty promoted what he called public theology, or the confluence of fundamental cultural and religious conventions for the common good.

He had “a knack for translating complex ideas into graspable takeaways for diverse audiences,” Peter Marty wrote in an online tribute. Time magazine said he was “generally acknowledged to be the most influential living interpreter of religion in the U.S.”

He disdained extremism and fundamentalism, both by Islamist terrorists and right-wing Protestants. And he warned, in “The One and the Many: America’s Struggle for the Common Good” (1997), that the culture wars had undermined the ideals of e pluribus unum and challenged Americans’ shared heritage.

Advertisement
Dr. Marty warned in “The One and the Many” that American culture wars had undermined the nation’s shared heritage.Credit…Harvard University Press

The nation had fractured, he wrote, between “totalists,” who felt left behind and belittled, and “tribalists,” whose individual pride in race, religion, ethnicity and gender circumscribed their vision of the American mosaic.

The threat of such division to the American experiment was a theme he returned to frequently.

“Nothing is more important than to keep the richness of our pluralism alive,” Dr. Marty once wrote. “To be aware of many different people and different ways, and deal with it.”

In a review of Dr. Marty’s 1991 book, “Modern American Religion, Volume Two,” the Stanford historian David M. Kennedy wrote that “For all the raucous contention he chronicles, Mr. Marty remains an optimist. It is, he concludes in an eloquent peroration, with a nod to James Madison, precisely the plurality of religious voices that has insured the integrity of the social fabric by preventing the lasting dominance of any single group.”

Dr. Marty’s book, “Modern American Religion, Volume 2,” also made the case for pluralism. Credit…The University of Chicago Press

Despite its historical ebb and flow, Dr. Marty insisted that mainstream Protestantism exerted profound influence over American public policy, particularly in the 19th century, though he predicted that no single denomination would ever exert the same degree of dominance again.

Advertisement

“Their winning — at least through their pioneering adventures on fronts dealing with civil rights, internationalism, ecumenism, many issues of sexuality and gender, friendliness to once-warred-against science, and much more — never meant complete victory,” he wrote in The Christian Century magazine in 2013.

“But it did mean,” he added, “that through the years, at least, significant leaders risked much to express their faith beyond church walls, in the larger culture.”

Dr. Marty was one of those leaders.

He marched for civil rights in Selma, Ala., with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., attended the Second Vatican Council as a Protestant observer, and helped found the antiwar organization Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam. He was president of the American Academy of Religion and the American Society of Church history,

His scholarly achievements were legion. With a former student, R. Scott Appleby, he directed the six-year Fundamentalism Project of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences beginning in 1988, which explored conservative religious movements.

Advertisement

“Only an intellectual giant with Marty’s combination of multidisciplinary fluency and vast erudition could have foreseen the inbreaking of wave upon wave of modern anti-pluralist, anti-modernist assaults upon the liberal worldviews and institutions from the ‘benighted’ margins of Western and westernized societies,” Professor Appleby, who teaches global affairs at the University of Notre Dame, said in a statement after Dr. Marty’s death.

“Marty stayed true to his instincts to come ‘not to condemn, not to praise, but to understand,’” Professor Appleby added.

In 1972 Dr. Marty won a National Book Award for “Righteous Empire: The Protestant Experience in America” (1971).

Among his other books were “A Short History of Christianity” (1959), “A Cry of Absence” (1983), “Pilgrims in Their Own Land: Five Hundred Years of Religion in America” (1984), and “A Short History of American Catholicism” (1995).

“His published output was not only breathtaking but unparalleled among religious historians of any field,” Grant Wacker, an emeritus professor of Christian history at Duke University and a biographer of the Rev. Billy Graham, said in an email. “His wit was legendary. And his heart overflowed with simple human kindness.”

Advertisement

Writing for a Divinity School bulletin in 2018, Professor Wacker quoted an example: “One of the real problems in modern life is that people who are good at being civil lack strong convictions and people who have strong convictions lack civility.”

Martin Emil Marty was born on Feb. 5, 1928, in West Point, Neb. His father, Emil, was a parochial school teacher and organist at Lutheran churches in Nebraska and Iowa. His mother was Anne Louise (Wuerdemann) Marty.

A graduate of a Lutheran preparatory school, he attended Concordia College, Washington University and Concordia Seminary, where he earned a bachelor’s in divinity in 1949 and a master’s in 1952. He received a Master of Sacred Theology degree from the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago in 1954 and a doctorate from the University of Chicago in 1956.

As an ordained minister in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, he served as a pastor in Washington, D.C., Maryland and Chicago’s suburbs. In 1963, he was hired as an associate professor of religious history at the University of Chicago Divinity School, where he taught until 1998.

In 1952 he married Elsa L. Schumacher; she died in 1981. In 1982, he married Harriet J. Meyer, a voice coach and the widow of a seminary classmate.

Advertisement

In addition to his wife and his son Peter, the publisher of The Christian Century magazine, he is survived by three other sons from his first marriage, Joel, Micah and John, who is a Minnesota state senator; a foster daughter, Fran Garcia Carlson; a foster son, Jeff Garcia; a stepdaughter, Ursula Meyer; nine grandchildren and 18 great-grandchildren.

When he retired as a professor on his 70th birthday, the Divinity School honored him by naming the research center he founded in 1979 as the Martin Marty Center for the Public Understanding of Religion.

Asked by the University of Chicago Magazine in 1998 how he’d like to be remembered, he said: “That I was a good teacher.”

In the Mount Rushmore of American religious history and virtue, Professor Wacker once said fulsomely, Dr. Marty “might well rank as the fourth member,” after Dr. King, Billy Graham and Jonathan Edwards, the 18th-century Congregationalist theologian.

“For Marty, the only real swear word was tribalism — watching out for my interest, my family, my town, my country, my tribe — at the expense of others,” Professor Wacker said in an email. “Everyone, and he meant everyone, deserved a seat at the table of public discussion as long as they were willing to play by the rules of civility and reasoned examination of the evidence.”

Advertisement

News

National Guard has done little to reduce violent crime in D.C., a new study finds

Published

on

National Guard has done little to reduce violent crime in D.C., a new study finds

National Guard members stand watch near the Lincoln Memorial on the morning of Memorial Day in Washington, DC, May 25, 2026.

Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images

President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C. has reduced petty property crimes, but has had little to no effect on violent crime, despite the high cost to taxpayers, according to a new analysis from the nonpartisan think tank Niskanen Center.

The study’s findings were published just weeks after federal officials announced that the number of troops in D.C. is set to double this summer to 5,000 as part of a “summer surge” of law enforcement ahead of events planned for America’s 250th birthday celebration.

Trump deployed the National Guard to D.C. last August, as part of the administration’s Safe and Beautiful Task Force, which he said was an effort to reduce crime and beautify the city. The task force includes hundreds of federal law enforcement — including immigration enforcement — working in conjunction with local police. It’s an approach that Trump previously said he wants to carry out in “many cities,” and already has in places like Memphis and New Orleans.

Advertisement

There are currently around 2,800 National Guard members deployed to D.C. from both the city itself and about a dozen other states, all of which have Republican governors. In contrast to other controversial National Guard deployments by Trump during his second term, the president has the authority over the Guard in D.C.

Guard members do not legally have the power to carry out arrests, but can detain individuals.

Troops — many of whom are armed — are largely carrying out what are called “high visibility patrols” to make their presence known around federal property and in residential areas, parks and city metro stations in an effort to free up D.C. police to redeploy to higher-crime areas. The report found that generally hasn’t happened.

Instead, researchers found that the deployment led to a 24% drop in “opportunistic” crimes — like property crimes and vehicle break-ins. But the presence of the Guard had no effect on violent crimes, including robberies, which were already on a downward trend before Trump came back into office.

“What the Guard brought was a massive, sudden shock from the visible presence of uniformed military personnel on the streets of Washington almost overnight,” researchers wrote, calling the deployment of the Guard a “blunt and expensive instrument.”

Advertisement

A recent assessment by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that it costs the federal government around $1.5 million per day for the current number of troops deployed to D.C.

“I think on balance the National Guard’s deployment is not a failure, there is success in what they’ve done. But I guess the point that we try to make is: compared to what?” says Richard Hahn, one of the authors of the study. “You could get the same or better outcomes, possibly much better outcomes, for much cheaper, if you just were very thoughtful about policing.”

In response to NPR’s request for comment about the study, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said that it “should not be taken seriously.”

“The President’s Safe and Beautiful Task Force and National Guard presence have driven down crime, beautified the city, and improved quality of life for countless individuals,” Jackson said, without providing any evidence.

It’s unclear when the planned “summer surge” would end, or if the number of National Guard troops in the city would return to their current levels in the fall.

Advertisement

“Our message today is that we’re not done. We are not satisfied. We are not content with good. We are coming for perfection, and we won’t be done until we reclaim every last inch of ground on anyone seeking to do harm in our nation’s capital,” Assistant Attorney General Colin M. McDonald said when announcing the surge.

NPR reached out to task force officials behind the Guard deployment for clarity on when the surge might start or end, but did not receive an immediate response.

Continue Reading

News

How Each House Member Voted on the Iran War Powers Resolution

Published

on

How Each House Member Voted on the Iran War Powers Resolution

Advertisement

Advertisement

Measure passed with 215 “yes” votes to 208 “no” votes.
Vote Total Democrats Republicans Bar chart of total votes
215 211 4
208 0 208

Advertisement

Note: Representative Kevin Kiley of California is an independent who caucuses with the Republicans.

The House on Wednesday passed a measure to direct President Trump withdraw U.S. forces from Iran or win congressional approval to continue military operations there. The vote was the fourth of its kind in the chamber since the war began, the previous three having failed.

A vote on this measure was originally scheduled for last month but was pulled by House Republican leaders after it became clear they lacked the votes at the time to defeat it because of several members’ absences. Several Republicans were also absent on Wednesday, but party leaders were unable to delay the vote any longer.

Advertisement

Votes fell mostly along party lines, with the exception of four Republicans, who voted with Democrats to pass the measure. Representative Jared Golden, Democrat of Maine, who had previously voted with Republicans, flipped and voted with his party.

Republicans who voted against their party

Advertisement

The House vote came after four Senate Republicans last month broke from their party to advance a measure to assert the legislature’s role in authorizing the war. The Senate had rejected seven other similar measures, but Republicans in both chambers have expressed increased uneasiness with the conflict as it wears on.

Even if a war powers resolution passed in both the House and Senate, it would be subject to an all-but-certain veto by Mr. Trump, which would need a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override. Beyond that, the president and his senior aides have frequently dismissed efforts by Congress to rein in his war powers, saying they are unconstitutional.

Advertisement

How Every Member Voted

Advertisement

Republicans

Advertisement

Member Answer

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

Did not vote

Did not vote

Did not vote

Did not vote

Did not vote

Advertisement

Did not vote

Democrats

Member Answer
Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Did not vote

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

House votes to rein in Trump on Iran as war loses GOP support

Published

on

House votes to rein in Trump on Iran as war loses GOP support

Washington — The House on Wednesday passed a measure that would force President Trump to end the war with Iran without congressional authorization, marking the first time the lower chamber has defied the White House on the conflict. 

The House voted 215 to 208 to approve the war powers resolution with the help of four Republicans. Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, who has voted against the three previous failed attempts, also dropped his opposition and voted for the measure, giving his party unanimity on the issue.

Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Tom Barrett of Michigan and Warren Davidson of Ohio voted with Democrats in favor of the measure.

Democrats in the chamber erupted in applause after passage.

The vote was supposed to take place before lawmakers left for the Memorial Day recess, but House GOP leaders abruptly pulled the vote when it became clear they did not have the numbers to block it. Several Republicans were absent and others were expected to support it. 

Advertisement

The Senate advanced a similar measure in May to rein in Mr. Trump on Iran after four Republicans joined all but one Democrat to push it forward. Three Republican absences also helped deliver the breakthrough after seven previous unsuccessful votes. 

But the Senate’s procedural vote was just the first step on the way to potential passage, and Republicans will have another opportunity to block it in the coming days.

It’s unclear when they plan to vote on the House version. In a statement, House Democratic leaders called on Senate Republicans “to do the right thing.” 

Support for the war from some Republicans waned after the conflict passed a statutory 60-day deadline under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which says the president must remove armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not authorized the war. The war passed the deadline on May 1, but the administration has argued that a fragile ceasefire stopped the clock in early April, though both sides have carried out attacks since then.

The Trump administration has also argued the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional, though that theory has never been tested in court.

Advertisement

Republicans who have voted in favor of limiting Mr. Trump’s military powers in Iran have been uncomfortable with the lack of congressional authorization on the war and a strategy to end it. Some fear the war’s unpopularity and the economic fallout could harm the GOP’s chances at keeping control of Congress after the midterm elections in November. 

GOP Rep. Ashley Hinson of Iowa, who is running for Senate, said in a private exchange at a campaign stop last week that the war could be a “political liability” if it continues beyond “the next couple of weeks,” according to audio obtained by CBS News. 

But Mr. Trump said last month he was in “no hurry” to make a deal with Iran ahead of the midterms. 

“Everybody’s saying, ‘Oh, the midterms, I’m in a hurry.’ I’m in no hurry,” he said. 

The resolution approved Wednesday was introduced in April by Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It directs the president “to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran,” unless Congress declares war or authorizes the use of military force. 

Advertisement

Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, earlier Wednesday called it a “stupid political vote” that “weakens the president’s hands as he’s negotiating with Iran.” 

After the vote, Meeks brushed off the assertion that the war powers votes have undercut the president during negotiations with Iran. When asked whether Democrats would keep forcing votes to end the Iran war, Meeks told reporters, “You can expect us to continue to do our jobs.” 

“We’re going to continue to do our constitutional responsibilities,” he said. 

Fitzpatrick, who also voted in favor of a war powers resolution in May, said, “The law is the law.” 

“We have to follow the law. There’s a law on the books,” Fitzpatrick said. “So you have two choices: You either follow the law or you change the law. You can’t violate the law. That’s not an option.” 

Advertisement

During floor debate on the measure on May 20, Democrats questioned why Republicans haven’t held a vote on an authorization for military force to provide Mr. Trump with legal guardrails for attacking Iran. 

“If my Republican colleagues believe this is justified, they should bring an AUMF to the floor,” Meeks said.

There’s been little momentum so far behind an AUMF introduced by Barrett earlier in May. 

Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, an independent who caucuses with Republicans, argued there are “better tools” for Congress to assert its authority. 

“We actually have the ability to provide direction as to how funds should be used,” Kiley said, referring to Congress’ power of the purse. “I understand why people want to use whatever tools are available, but I believe that Congress should use those tools of congressional oversight and the powers we have under Article I that really have teeth here.” 

Advertisement

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending