I have long been in the closet about the depth of my Christian faith.
Upon reflection, I realize how I have been inauthentic and defensive. I resisted the call to go to divinity school at the age of 25 because I was scared of no longer fitting in with my secular friends — a decision I question 30 years later. I have called myself “spiritual but not religious,” when “Christian” is the apt label. And when asked what church I grew up in, I’ve preemptively added the word “American” before “Baptist” to emphasize that my upbringing was in the progressive tradition, not the more conservative Southern Baptist one.
Only recently have I even been fully transparent about the depth of my Christian identity with my husband, who is Jewish in the Reform tradition.
Why have I silenced my own voice?
In the intellectual circles I was born into, Christians are often presumed to be exclusive, fundamentalist, fanatical, oppressive, hateful — insert pejorative adjective here. That reputation is not entirely unearned, and being associated with that image makes me ashamed and embarrassed.
Yet that image is a mirage. Demagogues capture wide attention as they stoke fires, but their voices are merely louder — not truer — than a quieter current of Christianity. A current that embodies the values shared by a stellar human like Jesus: love, tolerance and inclusion.
Since Inauguration Day 2025, I have been finding my voice. Outrage at the many ensuing injustices has pushed me to project it. Surrounded by church friends, I attended the Pride Parade as an ally last fall for the first time. As I joyfully shouted my support, I marveled at what a beautiful philosophy Christianity can be. One that I can believe in and own publicly.
So I hereby proclaim: I am a Christian.
Let me hasten to qualify that: a progressive one.
Jennifer Palmer, Boston
America needs a second Reconstruction
Following Theodore R. Johnson’s Feb. 12 op-ed, “America’s mistrust is misplaced. Minneapolis shows why.,” Post Opinions asked readers: “What structural changes could make the United States more democratic and accountable to its citizens?” Here are some of the responses.
Do away with U.S. senators and base congressional representation on population only.
Wyoming, with a population of about 585,000, has two senators and one representative, so one member of Congress per 195,000 people. California, with a population of about 39.5 million, has two senators and 52 representatives, so one member of Congress per 731,000 people. So Wyoming has nearly four times the representation of California.
The U.S. has changed enormously since the founders came up with the senator/representative plan, which was designed to prevent large states from overwhelming small states. But large states should overwhelm small states, for the sake of representative government. The 10 most populous states account for more than half of the total U.S. population.
Deborah Baker, Los Angeles
Allocate electoral college votes from each state based on the percentage of votes each candidate receives. As it stands now, any votes cast in my state for a Republican presidential nominee are wasted. The same applies to red states. Anybody voting Democratic for president in Texas is wasting their vote.
G.T. Golden, Haddonfield, New Jersey
Institute term limits, plus annual reports of individual and familial net worth. Draw congressional staffers by lot from a pool. Define “malfeasance in a government position” and make it a criminal offense.
Harry Walters, Hanson, Massachusetts
The single most effective change to make the United States more democratic and accountable to its citizens is to undo the second-worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court, namely, Citizens United. Until that happens, lobbyists will have more influence over legislation than citizens.
Keith Zeff, Clayton, Missouri
Congressional pay should be suspended on Sept. 1 of each year if no budget agreement has been reached. Do your job. We did not elect a government to wallow in its own self-importance, nor did the founders intend it.
Luceia LeDoux, Hammond, Louisiana
Enact a law that requires Congress to begin to reduce the deficit by a realistic percentage each fiscal year. Otherwise, members cannot run for reelection during the next term.
Douglas Dye, River Falls, Wisconsin
When the Declaration of Independence stated that government must derive its powers from the “consent of the governed,” that phrase almost certainly meant popular acceptance of the architecture and apparatus of government. We now know that was not enough: Policy must more clearly reflect the will of the people.
A national referendum should be held in conjunction with presidential and midterm congressional elections. That referendum, conducted by the states, would require a majority of the national popular vote for important decisions, which could include approval of a biennial budget, the creation and abolition of executive departments, ratification of treaties with other nations, and changes in the size of the Supreme Court. These matters are too important to be left to politicians and should be subjects of nationwide debate and discussion.
Transforming American government from our antiquated representative democracy to one that is more direct through frequent national referendums would make that government more accountable to the governed.
Steven Berizzi, Norwalk, Connecticut
One change to the Constitution’s checks and balances that might enhance democracy would be to authorize both Congress (by a two-thirds vote) and the people (by popular referendum) to overrule Supreme Court decisions. This could resuscitate the Ninth Amendment (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). This could counter justices’ pet agendas to sap voting rights and privacy rights, among other things.
Tom Edmondson, Alexandria
“What structural changes could make the United States more democratic and accountable to its citizens?”
I would turn the question around: What changes are needed in the citizenry to make the existing structure of the federal government more effective in carrying out the responsibilities of a national government as provided for in the Constitution?
I do not think structural changes to the federal government would counter unhappiness and anxiety about politics. The central problem is that too few citizens understand that, and how, our government operates as a representative democracy. More importantly, too few understand the purpose of the Constitution and the context in which it was formed.
“America’s mistrust,” as referenced in Theodore R. Johnson’s headline, was shaped to a large degree by James Madison, as a result of his study of previously attempted democratic arrangements and of legislative activity in the individual states. As Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson, “In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents.” As Gordon S. Wood concluded in “The Creation of the American Republic: 1776-1787”: “The people, it seemed, were as capable of despotism as any prince. Public liberty was no guarantee of private liberty.”
Representative democracy fails when the people abuse the responsibilities inherent in their delegation of authority to their elected representatives, essentially abandoning the aspirations stated in the Preamble to the Constitution. The distrust of and dissatisfaction with the government are of the people’s own making: Organize and, through voting, take control of what is within one’s grasp, and the structure of the national government will work as intended.
Andrew Labadie, Washington
Post Opinions wants to know: Are you in a relationship with someone who holds different religious beliefs? If so, how do you make it work? Any upsides or downsides? Send us your response, and it might be published as a letter to the editor. wapo.st/house_of_worship
The post The secret I could no longer keep from my Jewish husband appeared first on Washington Post.
