Interview: Conservative web host David Virtue talks with Peter Menkin

David Virtue, online Editor of the controversial and popular website Virtueonline

 by Peter Menkin

David Virtue of Virtue online says, “For the past 20 years I have been the founder, editor and lead writer for VIRTUEONLINE the world’s largest orthodox Anglican Online News Service.” His site is found here: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/index.php . I asked a few basic questions of the editor/writer David Virtue. It is a controversial site among progressives in the Episcopal Church, even an anathema.

What is your favorite story?
I would say my favorite story is the ongoing litigation of the Episcopal Church, $40 million dollars. About 80 lawsuits. Lawsuit with South Carolina (Diocese). They pulled out of the Episcopal Church and there is a remnant of dozen Parish’s property. They are fighting for the property and the name. This has been going on about a year. The theological and moral problems of the litigation. The Episcopal Church has fallen off the wagon on Homosexual Theology and the authority of the Bible. The Episcopal Church are sticking primarily to property issues. So far the Episcopal Church is winning. In South Carolina the Episcopal Church will lose, but every other place they have won.

Gene Robinson, homosexual Bishop, more mainstream today than ever and more outspokenly blatant in his practices and willingness to be proponent for homosexual living and sexuality than ever. Mainstream press cites him with respect and normality in their portrayal of the man. He seems unquestionably normal by some standards in the press. So it begins to appear.

(At one point Gene Robinson was a favorite for he the first Gay Bishop in the Episcopal Church was big news. Now he appears to be less in the news than before as a hot spot and more an established player of acceptable dimension in many quarters of the mainstream press. But his picture is here in this story for he remains an important part of the statement of prime statement for the homosexual “agenda” for the Episcopal Church and it is beginning to appear for the mainstream press itself, to a certain acceptable extent as legitimate voice. Is not the homosexual issue in the Episcopal Church a primary matter in the writings of Virtueonline? So this Religion Writer notices.)

Are you married; children?
I have been married over 27 years with two grown children with grandchildren. VirtueOnline is a 501c3. Nonprofit. I can draw a salary from that. I depend on donations. $`140,000 a year annual budget. I spend my day writing and working and attend Church every week. I to Christ Church Anglican on the mainline. Wayne, PA. There are 50 in the Church. It is a startup. The Reverend Adam Rick
.
Where is your site located and where do you live?
The site is in Philadelphia out of my home. My webmaster is in Virginia.

When did you start and why?
Started as Virtuosity and changed to VirtueOnline and due to a conflict of name interest: 1995. I started it because I was interested in the growing hypocrisies of the Episcopal Church and began writing stories. One day someone said to make a website. 4,000 visits a day now (current as of 2014).
These are viewpoints in accord with Virtueonline. Note the non-profit garners $140,000 a year in donations for information offered like this and other reports:

• Gay Sex in West Kills African Christians says ABC*Another Legal Win for DofSC*
• Kenyan Archbishop Blasts Gay Marriage*UK legalizes Gay Marriage Could Break CofE
• Ft.Worth Wins Property Battle* HOB tables TREC and Marriage*CofE GayMarriage Row
• Nashotah House Storm Continues re PB’s Visit*DofSC Finds New Ecclesiastical Home
• Complaint filed against PB*The Falls Church Loses to TEC*D of SC Seeks New Home
• LENT:Smudge or Ashes*Bethlehem Diocese no Audit Oops*Okoh to Ntagali”Stand Firm”
• Nashotah House to Host Jefferts Schori*Episcopal Priest in Sex Change Operation
• CofE Says No to Same Sex Marriage*Global South Primates say Yes to 5th Encounter
• PB to get Honorary Oxford Doctorate*TEC spends $40 million on lawsuits by 2015
• Archbishops in Global Row over Same-Sex Unions*TEC Sex Trafficking Blunder*More

In this interview David Virtue was sent his questions in advance in Word and wrote his answers.

INTERVIEW WITH DAVID VIRTUE BY RELIGION WRITER PETER MENKIN

1. 1.     Your site Virtueonline, found here: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/userinfo.php?uid=2 , draws 4,000 hits a day. if I am not mistaken. Further, as a 501©3 the non-profit takes in donations in the amount of about $150,000 annually. Tell us something of the why and the how of your success. What brings people to your website, and what brings them to give? Will you provide us with examples of why they come and your method of soliciting gifts?

ANSWER: Thank you for asking Peter. VOL’s success has been because we have stuck to the essentials of the gospel within the framework of historic, reformational, evangelical Anglicanism. We have never tried to hide our identity. We have also engaged the Culture Wars within the Anglican Communion and have not vied away from presenting sound biblical apologetics as we face critical theological, moral and social issues.

People give because they see VOL as a safe harbor for their views. They want to know that someone out there reflects their point of view. I was in Charleston, SC recently and met a priest for the first time. He said he lived in Western Washington surrounded by liberals far from other orthodox Anglicans. He said VOL was a daily lifeboat for him. He was able to read something that touched him and made him continue on the pathway he had chosen. I was very moved by this. About four times a year I go to a database I have and make a one-page appeal. I simply state my needs, no histrionics, no loud proclamations that I am the only voice out there. I do have more than 20 years of history now so VOL is a trusted source for the four million or so who go annually to the website.

1. 2.     They say you are a conservative or a traditionalist in the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Communion. Give us some examples of what this means, and tell us what brought you as a man of faith to this kind of viewpoint. Can you give us a taste of your educational perspective, a teacher’s influence, or a class you took? Maybe even an experience in your life? Or you tell us in your own words.

ANSWER: Because of the political nature and overtones of the word “conservative” I have vied away from using that word. The word “traditional” has largely applied to our Anglo-Catholic brothers and sisters and I would not want to take it away from them. I prefer the word “orthodox” (small o) to explain my position. I have loved the word “evangelical” but it has been coopted by American Fundamentalists of late and, regrettably, it has lost much of its theological currency.
My own history began among a group called the Plymouth Brethren, a group better known in the UK than the USA. I got my solid biblical foundation there, but came under the influence of the Rev. John R.W. Stott at All Souls Langham Place in London in the 60s. While there have been some twists and turns over the years, my wife and I have been Episcopalians from the early 80s and have been associated with an evangelical charismatic Episcopal congregation in Paoli, PA till very recently.

My pilgrimage can best be described as a growing disillusionment with free-wheeling, unstructured “happy clappy” Free Church evangelicalism (I am not totally opposed to praise choruses in small doses) and my growing need for a structure which the Book of Common Prayer provided. I once had a brief conversation with Archbishop Carey’s wife about her growing up in the Plymouth Brethren. Her pilgrimage seemed to parallel my own. The Rev. Dr. Ian Markham president of Virginia Theological Seminary echoed much the same sentiment and journey. My studies took me first to London Bible College, London University in the 60s, then on the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, then Regent College, UBC in Vancouver BC.  I received a Doctor of Divinity from Laud Seminary. I have been deeply influenced over the years by men such as Bishop J.C. Ryle. John R.W. Stott, Dr. J.I. Packer and Dr. Michael Green.

1. 3.     Speak to us of our current American Presiding Bishop. She has been a controversial figure in many quarters and in some thought of as a special choice of liberalism and even popular among some. Why was she chosen Presiding Bishop in the Episcopal Church? Put on your Swami’s Hat and give us your thoughts on who we have coming next as Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church USA, if you will.

ANSWER: Yes I believe she was chosen because the Episcopal Church was ready for a woman leader. The church had voted for an openly gay bishop – Gene Robinson of New Hampshire – so the church was ripe for change from an all-male leadership. She had a Ph.D. she was smart, but theologically thin. She was politically correct on all the hot button issues and she appealed to a wide swathe of Episcopalians who wanted to see a progressive figure at the helm of the church. She was a perfect for them. For orthodox Episcopalians it has been disastrous. The constant lawsuits over properties for over a decade now running an estimated $40 million, the inhibitions, her rejection of the need for a personal faith in Christ has galvanized orthodox Episcopalians into thinking that she cannot possibly hold the church together with its diversity. They see her as demanding capitulation to the church’s pansexual agenda and that has been a no-no to them. Women’s Ordination, once considered a matter of conscience is now the law of the church, no diocese may not ordain women to the priesthood. These lines in the sand have now made it impossible for Anglo-Catholic dioceses like Ft. Worth. Quincy, San Joaquin, South Carolina and Pittsburgh to stay in The Episcopal Church and so the Anglican Church in North America was born.

Who will be the next PB? My take is that at least two African American bishops have a shot at it. The first is the Bishop of Atlanta, the Rt. Rev. Robert Christopher Wright. The other is the Bishop of Maryland, the Right Rev. Eugene Taylor Sutton. Among white candidates, Bishop Ian Douglas of Connecticut would be a contender as would Bishop Andy Doyle of Texas. They are all liberal in theology and ethos but far less strident and ideological than the present Presiding Bishop. My sense is that a new generation of bishops coming into TEC are far less ideological than previous bishops like Frank Griswold, Tom Shaw, John Chane, Jon Bruno, Jack Spong, Gene Robinson, et al. I believe the newer cast of bishops want to lower the tone of the debate in the culture wars and get on with the church’s mission to grow their dioceses. If they don’t most of them will be juncturing with other dioceses in the next 5 to 10 years. In recent months’ two dioceses – Central Florida and Pittsburgh – both elected evangelicals. This might be the beginning of a trend but I would not bet on it.

1. 4.     I just think that I’m not fair to our readers or even to myself if I fail to ask you about homosexual marriage. Where did it come from and how come it has become so prevalent? Why the tremendous success of this movement among Episcopalians and in the United States. Pick an area of this of your choice and speak to this for I know it is a favorite subject of your website. You are welcome to quote from your website here, if you wish.

ANSWER: Yes, homosexual marriage has become the sine qua non of the pansexual movement within The Episcopal Church. I wrote definitively about it this past week. You can read it here: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=18767#.U0RWU_lgqig
My main points are that you cannot change the ontology or cosmology of human sexual behavior to satisfy a very small handful of persons whose inclinations are towards those of the same sex. I believe this is an aberration, albeit a cultural aberration that will not last forever. Meantime it has turned the Episcopal Church inside out, caused the fabric of the Anglican Communion to be torn and alienated the vast majority of Global South Anglicans resulting in abstentions from the Lambeth Conference and Primatial gatherings called by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

1. 5.     Thank you so much for your willingness to answer questions. I do hope you will answer anything you think I have missed, that is any matter on your mind you wish to comment on here. It has been a pleasure making your acquaintance.

Thank you again Peter. I would like to comment on the possibility of schism in the Anglican Communion.

Many have asked and many believe that schism is a real possibility in the Anglican Communion because the West’s proclamation and acceptance of pansexuality. I think the answer is that we now have a de facto schism but not a de jure schism. One of the phrases often repeated by Global South Primates is that “we don’t need to go through Canterbury to get to Jesus”. That is true. There is still nonetheless emotional and historical ties to Canterbury that will not soon be broken. The reason is that the Global South are in a holding pattern. They don’t need to do anything. They can simply wait it out. They are growing by the millions in Africa, (less so) in Asia and Latin America, while Western Pan Anglicanism is withering and dying. The Anglican Province of Nigeria has more than 20 million practicing Anglicans. By contrast the Episcopal Church has less than 700,000 ASA, the Anglican Church of Canada has about 300,000 ASA and the Church of England about 1.2 million. 

The crouching lion is Africa. If they wanted to pounce and end it all they could, but they don’t want to do that. They will continue to comment on the state of things in the Anglican Communion as Kenyan Archbishop Eliud Wabukala does from time to time. Meantime they wait and pray. I believe the evangelical Archbishop Justin Welby has the best shot at healing the wounds of the Anglican Communion but he will have to be more definitive in his stand on moral issues. The road ahead is still strewn with theological and moral boulders.


Edit This Post

One Response to Interview: David Virtue of the American traditionalist website out of Pennsylvannia

mmbrown

15/04/2014 at 13:04 (Edit)

Excellent interview, VOL an excellent website.


This work originally appeared Church of Englad Newspaper, London.

Faith and Religion as taught in a small class at Stanford University in accord with the Founders' desires, but of course...

Professor Steven Weitzman in his Stanford University Office…This biography from Temple Emanu-El in San Francisco: Professor Weitzman received his PhD from Harvard University after completing
his B.A. at UC Berkeley, and spent several years teaching in the Department
of Religious Studies at Indiana University where for six years he served as
director of its Jewish Studies program. At Stanford since 2009, many of his
courses focus on the role the Hebrew Bible has played in the development
of faith and culture, or on the foundational texts, people and ideas of Jewish
culture. He is married to Rabbi Mira Wasserman, who is
now pursuing a doctorate in Talmudic Studies at Berkeley, and with whom he is
raising four sons.The Professor’s email is sweitzma@stanford.edu

By Peter Menkin

In California and maybe even the United States religion is a hot button subject. Mention it and all sorts of bells ring. It is the case at Stanford where a class examining religion at Stanford University is held and students look at religion as it is understood on their campus. This unique class is offered by Steven Weitzman and Kathryn Gin Lum. Professor Weitzman says of his class, “Since the class was an experiment, we kept the numbers very small–to just five. It should be offered on a regular basis, but the teacher who plans to continue it will cap it at fifteen.  She (Kathryn Gin Lum) and I conceived the class as a novel way to introduce the study of religion without requiring students to learn about an established religious tradition–something that turns many students off or that proves difficult for them because of preconceived ideas about religion or the study of religion.”

I think that Stanford has a thoughtful and maybe for some unusual definition of the purposes of and reasons for thinking about religion for both students and faculty at the University. This world class institution located in the Western part of the United States in California about an hour’s drive by car South of San Francisco has an open air campus, meaning students can walk in the open between department sections on the University campus.

Stanford News calls the requirement of religion as a viewpoint by the University: “These typical assignments for a religious studies course were accompanied by an analysis of the Stanford University Founding Grant from 1885. The document established Stanford as a non-sectarian university, yet one that also sought to teach students about the “immortality of the soul, the existence of an all-wise and benevolent Creator, and that obedience to His laws is the highest duty of man.”
The author of the Stanford News article quotes Professor Weitzman: Weitzman, a scholar of Jewish antiquity, and Gin Lum, who specializes in American religious history, weren’t quite sure how students would react to the course. However, as Gin Lum put it, “Stanford has so many strange myths and

Professor Gin Lum specializes in American religious history. Her research and teaching interests focus on religion and race, religion and violence, and the afterlife, evil, and death in America. She is author of the forthcoming Damned Nation: Hell in America from the Revolution to Reconstruction (Oxford University Press). She is an Annenberg Faculty Fellow (2012-14), is affiliated with the Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity (CCSRE), and organizes the American Religions Workshop at Stanford.

rituals” that it did not seem like too far a stretch to apply to it theories and methods used in religious studies.

This seemingly unusual statement by Professor Gin Lum who wonders how the Stanford student will react to religious studies couldn’t be verified by this reporter since she wasn’t available for interview. But speculating on the subject makes me wonder what the young generation wonders about the subject, and what they think of their own faith and the very matters of religious identity in their world. But let us turn to Professor Weitzman who has some thoughts on this matter, though I, myself, suspect there is a kind of emptiness about the generation for by media reports they appear bereft of real faith practices and at least interest in practicing the Christian faith in America. Perhaps a purpose of the class is to give students a better handle in their own lives some sense of their own sense of religious identity as well as their identity itself in campus life and the life of religious life in the world. This is a class of big ideas and bold concepts.

“We live in a world where 80 percent of the population identifies with one religious community or another, and where a number of our major conflicts around the world are driven by religious motivation,” said Weitzman, who recently led the first Stanford study abroad program to Israel in 25 years.

“To understand the world, you need to understand religion,” he said. However, he added, the study of religion is not high on the priority list for most students. Weitzman said that non-religious students might think it a waste of time, while religious students may fear that formal religious studies might attack their faith.

“Alarm bells go off for both groups,” Weitzman said, so he and Gin Lum found a way to introduce the core questions of religious studies (What is religion? What is ritual? What is myth?) through a lens Stanford students could identify with – Stanford University itself.
To contextualize the importance of sacred spaces in the study of religion, the class read excerpts from Mircea Eliade’s The Sacred and the Profane alongside discussions about the role of Memorial Church at a university that from inception was decreed to remain “nonsectarian … and entirely free from all denominational alliances.”

The class also examined the ways Stanford culture embodies the social dimensions of religion, which Weitzman says includes “bringing people together, creating a sense of cohesive identity” and “generating meaning.”

In an effort to get a sense of how students and the campus members feel about and have reacted to their religious sensibilities and tastes over a longer period of time in the real way of their practices, I contacted the Dean of the Stanford Chapel who responded in this full and remarkable manner by email. This is his email response:

Dear Peter,

            1)  The Stanford Founding grant of November 11, 1885, stated that the Trustees shall “Lay off on the Palo Alto Farm a site for, and erect thereon, a church.”  It also stated that it should be the Trustees’ duty “To prohibit sectarian instruction, but to have taught in the University the immortality of the soul, the existence of an all-wise and benevolent Creator, and that obedience to His laws is the highest duty of man.”  It also stated that the purposes of the university were “to promote the public welfare by exercising an influence on behalf of humanity and civilization, teaching the blessings of liberty regulated by law, and inculcating love and reverence for the great principles of government as derived from the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  
            From this, I take it that the founders, who identified personally as Christians, wanted the university to have a spiritual and moral core, but did not want the university captured by any particular Christian denomination;  in effect, to be open to the religions of the world.  They used general statements of the era about immortality, a benevolent Creator, obedience to divine law, and inalienable rights of man rather than sectarian statements about Jesus and his role in salvation.  A rabbi who was invited to speak at the dedication of the church in 1903, and was a regular guest preacher in the early days of the church, explained that Mrs. Stanford sat in the pews of the church on Sunday mornings “at the feet of preachers of every possible denomination and of no denomination.  There has not been a single instance where the university would even permit criticism of its guests.  Unitarians, trinitarians, infidels, Brahmins, Buddhists, Mohammedans, materialists, atheists, all have been heard, all were welcomed, the main condition of their welcome being that they must have something to say.”  
            In my tenure of experience on the Stanford campus (2000-2014), virtually all forms of spiritual, religious and ethical life are respected and nurtured here.  The Office for Religious Life in particular affirms community in the broadest sense, both encouraging particular kinds of faith observance, supporting free exercise of religion, and also striving to connect people through interfaith dialogue and through positive relations between people who would call themselves religious or spiritual and those who would claim to be humanist, agnostic or atheist.  

            2)  Through a variety of surveys conducted on the Stanford campus, it seems that about 50% of our students identify as Christian (around 30% Protestant, 20% Catholic, and 1% Eastern Orthodox); around 10% Jewish; 3-5% each as Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim; and 25% “none” (or humanist, agnostic or atheist).  There are also smaller religious traditions represented under 1% each, like Baha’is, Sikhs, Native Americans, and Unitarian Universalists.  From a national research on spirituality in higher education that I’ve been involved with, we’ve found that more than 80% of college and university students express an interest in “spirituality” while 90% affirm that non-religious people can live lives that are just as moral as those of religious believers.  Although non-attendance at any religious services doubles during college from around 20% to 40% from freshman to junior year, spirituality shows substantial growth in college.  Likewise, faculty describe themselves as “spiritual” at the 80% level, but

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/september/rev-mclennan-retire-092613.html

By Lisa Lapin
As dean for religious life, Rev. Scotty McLennan ministers to the nondenominational congregation at Memorial Church.
The Rev. Scotty McLennan, dean for religious life at Stanford, has announced that he plans to retire in summer 2014 from his post. Since his arrival in 2000, he has provided spiritual, religious and ethical leadership for the university community and served as minister of Memorial Church. After a sabbatical, he intends to return to campus to teach.
“As dean for religious life at Stanford, Scotty has provided counsel and guidance for the entire community – students, staff, faculty and members of the greater community. He has served as an advocate for everyone, not only those actively engaged in their faiths,” said Stanford President John Hennessy. “Scotty has challenged us to think differently, to question how the work we do might serve a greater purpose. We are deeply grateful to him for his service and his leadership – and delighted our students will have the continued benefit of his teaching.”
“As one of Stanford’s spiritual leaders for more than a decade, Scotty has dramatically expanded opportunities for multifaith and cultural experiences on the Stanford campus,” said Provost John Etchemendy. “Through his initiatives, the Office for Religious Life has been pivotal in preparing our students to become global citizens, deepening their understanding of the role of religion and faith in shaping world societies. We are pleased he will maintain a teaching presence at Stanford, and that future students will continue to benefit from his scholarship in the areas of morality and ethics.”
McLennan ministers to the nondenominational congregation at Memorial Church, which has become a vibrant center for religious, spiritual and musical events. The Rathbun program, in honor of the late Stanford Law School Professor Harry Rathbun and his late wife, Emilia, has encouraged students to engage in self-reflection and moral inquiry and to explore “what leads to a meaningful life” through a variety of student activities and a series of lectures. Under McLennan’s stewardship, “Harry’s Last Lecture on a Meaningful Life” has featured such visiting fellows as the Dalai Lama, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and Marian Wright Edelman, president and founder of the Children’s Defense Fund.
McLennan has also led the creation of new spaces to foster spiritual observance throughout the campus. The CIRCLE (Center for Inter-Religious Community, Learning and Experiences) was established in 2007 on the third floor of the renovated Old Union, creating a vibrant new spiritual center and sanctuary for students of many faiths. The open and inclusive CIRCLE houses many Stanford Associated Religions member groups and is used for worship, ritual, reflection and spiritual and intellectual growth.

as “religious” at a lower level closer to 60%.

            3)  The Stanford Memorial Church was designed as the centerpiece of the Stanford campus.  As Jane Stanford said, “While my whole heart is in the university, my soul is in that church.”  She also said, “Take away the moral and spiritual from higher education and I want nothing to do with his or any other university.”  One of the sayings she had carved into an interior wall of the church was, “Religion is intended as a comfort, a solace, a necessity to the soul’s welfare; and whichever form of religion offers the greatest comfort, the greatest solace, it is the form which should be adopted, be its name what it will.”  The church is absolutely stunning, both inside and out — from its sandstone and tile walls and roofs to its mosaic front… from its stained glass windows depicting the life of Jesus and Christian saints and Jewish prophets (carefully alternating male and female in this university founded as co-educational) to its interior mosaics depicting stories from the Hebrew Bible.  It has spectacular organs (one with 57 stops and 3.702 pipes and another with 73 ranks and 4,332 pipes) and a six-second acoustical reverberation time within the sanctuary.  Its designers did well in making it the kind of place of worship that its first chaplain described on its dedication day in 1903:  ”We begin anew today…no less an experiment than this:  to test whether a non-sectarian church can minister to the spiritual needs of a great university… It has been built on love; not to teach a theological system, not to develop a sectarian principle, but to minister to the higher life.”

            Best wishes, Scotty

Scotty McLennan
Dean for Religious Life
Memorial Church, Stanford University
Stanford, CA  94305-2090


Returning to the class on religion specifically, I note Professor Steven Weitzman was interviewed in The Stanford Daily and this biographical mention was in that story by Josee Smith:

Stanford Memorial Church stands at the center of the campus, and is the University’s architectural crown jewel. It was one of the earliest, and is still among the most prominent, interdenominational churches in the West. Jane Stanford built the church as a memorial to her husband, Leland. Together, Senator and Mrs. Stanford had constructed the University as a memorial to their son, Leland, Jr.
The Stanfords, who were religious, but not committed to any denomination, decreed that the church was to be open to all. Adopting such a philosophy, they felt, would permit the church to serve the broadest spiritual needs of the university community. The Stanfords also saw spiritual and moral values as essential to a young person’s education and future citizenship. The first chaplain of Memorial Church, the Rev. Charles Gardner, said on its dedication day in 1903: “We begin anew today no less an experiment than this: to test whether a non-sectarian church can minister to the spiritual needs of a great university. it has been built in love; not to teach a theological system, not to develop a sectarian principle, but to minister to the higher life.” The church construction was completed in 1903. Today, regular multi-faith services are held in the church, in addition to denominational and nondenominational Christian services. Please explore the church’s features and history with the links above.
You can find a 360° view of Memorial Church’s interior here. You can download the Memorial Church Self-Guided Tour Brochure.

 Steven Weitzman is a professor of Jewish Culture and Religion in the Department of Religious Studies and the director of the Taube Center for Jewish Studies. Weitzman came to Stanford from Indiana University five years ago and currently serves as the resident fellow in Roble Hall, accompanied by his wife — an ordained rabbi — and his four children. The Daily spoke with Professor Weitzman about his work on campus and his own thoughts about religion.

TSD: In what other ways have you tried to incorporate religion into your time at Stanford, outside of this initiative? 
SW: I’m a scholar of religion, so my courses are about religion. I’m not a promoter of religion, and I don’t see myself as a religious person. I take religion seriously and I identify as Jewish, but I don’t have any religious motivations that I am aware of. I do find value in helping people understand religion, especially religions that are different from their own.
I function as an advisor for a student-initiated course called Interfaith at Noon, which will be offered again in the spring for the third year. It meets once a week over lunch, with a theme that functions as the focus of a quarter-long discussion that brings in guest speakers and involves the students in a discussion amongst themselves. The first year, the theme was religion and the stranger, so what religion teaches about one’s responsibility to strangers, to others, to the marginalized. Much of the focus was on religion and immigration policy. The second year was on religion and the ethics of wealth, and the third is likely to be on religion and politics.


The class itself, as the reader can see, was formed to match a vision set down by the founders of the University. I thought it interesting to get a viewpoint of the founder’s vision of religion. In one quote, Professor Weitzman, put it this way: “… the founders of Stanford were religious, but non sectarian. They wanted to Stanford to be non-sectarian as well, not affiliated with any particular denomination. And yet they were also influenced by Christianity; and Jane Stanford was especially interested in the afterlife. But if one looks carefully at the architecture and symbolism of Stanford, one can see interest in other traditions–ancient Egyptian religion (as in the Mausoleum built for their son), spiritualism and other religious tradition.” Fascinating.


This work appeared originally Church of England Newspaper, London.