Distinguished sociologist Peter Berger defends what he regards as American civil religion, the first commandment of which is (he says) “Thou shalt be tolerant!” He takes as his text this story about an interfaith Thanksgiving service in suburban Westchester, New York. In the story, there’s mention of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and various brands of mainline Protestants.
But not Catholics (well, there is an ex-Catholic) or evangelical Protestants. Perhaps this was just an oversight on the part of the reporter. Or perhaps they don’t participate as fully in this form of civic religion.
The choice of closing “hymn” was also a little odd, although perhaps explained by the presence at the service of Nora Guthrie, Woody Guthrie’s daughter. Consider these verses of “This Land is Your Land”:
I’ve roamed and rambled and I’ve followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
And all around me a voice was sounding
This land was made for you and meThe sun comes shining as I was strolling
The wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling
The fog was lifting a voice come chanting
This land was made for you and me
Sounds a bit like a promised land, no?
The participants in the service—possible only in America, of course—may not have fully eschewed American exceptionalism, but one of them—a Methodist minister—explicitly rejected “religious exceptionalism”:
The message seemed obvious, that the more people of different religious backgrounds shared their experiences, the more they understood each other and transcended what Mr. Phillips called religious exceptionalism: the belief that there’s only one path to God and that one’s own religion has it.
Perhaps that’s why the Catholics and evangelicals weren’t there. No pastor of a congregation in which I’ve worshipped would have sat still for that remark. He wouldn’t have been uncivil, but he probably would have either gently objected or left the room. I can’t speak for my Catholic brethren on this point.
But this, Professor Berger tells us, is what American civil religion is all about:
From the high ground of theological sophistication every form of popular religion appears superficial. But that is in itself superficial. Popular piety often contains insights, however inarticulately expressed, which are more profound than the cerebral exercises of theologians. As to the American civil religion, it is built on a very profound insight indeed—the intrinsic worth of every human individual as an individual, regardless of any collective identifications, including the ones based on religion. This civil religion has, of course, its sacred texts (notably the Constitution), which are often understood in a fundamentalist manner. But more importantly, I think, this creed is lived by many people who don’t read any texts. One of the more impressive manifestations of this popular piety was the warm outreach to Muslim neighbors in the wake of 9/11, which, at least to date, has continued—as evidenced by the aforementioned event.
Oddly enough, he has just got done telling us that “every school of Buddhism” regards the self as an illusion. How can Buddhists subscribe to an American civil religion that affirms “the intrinsic worth of every human individual as an individual”?
Only in America, you might say, where the Buddhist is a former Catholic. Only in America, where the civil religion owes much to roots it is bent on ignoring, reinterpreting, or destroying.
I don’t mean to say that America is or was officially a Christian nation, only that its “popular culture” owed much to Christianity. I recognize that it’s possible to offer an account of human rights and human dignity grounded in reason or human nature (I have read and taught John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government more times than I can count and wrote a dissertation of Immanuel Kant). But even Locke and Kant couldn’t do without some appropriation and reinterpretation of Christian doctrines. And no one thought that “religion within the limits of reason alone” would be widely disseminated anytime soon.
But when you have Methodist ministers disdaining religious exceptionalism and distinguished sociologists of religion celebrating this, are we not diminishing the very source of our toleration, a toleration nurtured by distinctive theological teachings? Is it enough to have what Berger says all religions have in common?
Every religion has a common perception of reality that sets it apart from a purely mundane worldview—namely, that there is a reality beyond the reality of everyday life, that this reality involves mystery, and that it evokes awe. I think that such awe is salutary in a social and even political way, quite beyond any particular religious practices or doctrines. It teaches tolerance, because, at the end of the day, we all stand before the mystery of the world.
I’m not sure this is enough. And even if it were, I wonder how long we can sustain mere awe before a mere mystery in an age where science has such intellectual and moral authority.
But that would be another post (at least).
December 3rd, 2010 | 12:12 pm
No one says that all forms of government are equally valid. No one says that all forms of medicine are equally valid. (“Chemotherapy, acupuncture, one is just as good as the other.”) This is because we affirm that these things are real and consequential. Those who say that all paths to God are equal, are tacitly saying that religion is not real or consequential. They may mean well, but their words, if taken seriously, demean the very discipline they claim to cherish.
December 3rd, 2010 | 1:04 pm
The American Civil Religion is actually somewhere between “all faiths are equally valid” and “Christ is the only way, all other faiths are false.”
It holds that all faiths are VALID paths to God, but that Christianity is the quickest path up the mountain of salvation because of the superiority of Jesus of Nazareth’s moral teachings. As it were, Jesus of Nazareth was not (knowably) God Incarnate, 2nd Person in the Trinity. Rather, the greatest moral teacher man had ever known.
December 3rd, 2010 | 1:08 pm
[...] Jon Rowe on December 3, 2010 I did it in a comment at First Things here. I wrote: The American Civil Religion is actually somewhere between “all faiths are equally [...]
December 3rd, 2010 | 2:25 pm
They probably left out this verse (from Wikipedia):
There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;
Sign was painted, it said private property;
But on the back side it didn’t say nothing;
This land was made for you and me.
On the other hand, there’s probably nothing in their common religious beliefs that would object to its sentiments.
December 4th, 2010 | 5:56 am
American civil religion is not relational, but there are concepts of community and care for our fellow man being included. We have some sacred objects and venerate some saints/founders. We have our temple like institutions that we see in the architecture at and near the mall in Washington, D.C. There is a strong acknowledgement and perhaps some syncretism with Greek religion and I assume all countries have deities and demigods and some point that supports their concept of patriotism or cultural identity with their country.
Christianity, I think, is the only religion that clearly defines itself as more of a relationship with God than rules only. A God who is three-in-one, trinity. Unitarian or mono-theists (classical deists like some founders and others as warm theists as Jon Rowe articulates it) are all about earning God’s favor with their own meritorious good deeds or works. Colosians 2 explains that Jesus canceled the written code. Romans 5-8 explains that though the code is not held against us once we believe and accept what Christ accomplished on the cross, the Law is still the rule but obeying it does not earn favor. Grace is the reward and the means of any rewards. Sin results in death or separation from God and His abundant life that he grants through Christ (John 10:10). In other words, Paul opposes legalism and antinomianism. To him it is all Christs. Sorry that this sounds like sermonizing, but I am trying to show where biblical or reformation (Paul, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Swingli) Christianity and American civil religion are different. In Christianity, Jesus, the author of the faith said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Me.” “The theif comes to steal, kill and destroy. I came that you might have life and have it abundantly.” John wrote, “As many as received Him he gave the power to become children of God.”
The Jews understood that He claimed to be God, but today Jesus’ humble, God/man, Son of God/Son of Man persona doesn’t connect as easily as it did in Jesus’ time because we aren’t as in tune with the Old Testament prophecies. But in Jesus’ time, they had their own legalistic blinders to deal with, too.
John the Baptist from jail asked if Jesus was the One. Jesus’ reply, “The lame walk, the blind see, the dead are raised.” He spoke through his actions more strongly than His words, but His words are amazing, too. THey were amazed after the Sermon on the Mount, and the cross was His ultimate action. Christianity without Christ is good, moral rules, but Christianity without Christs is not Christianity.
But if we were to apply the syncretism of American Civil Religion, we would include reason, just be a good person, and we would reduce the trinity to one, deistic, relatively detached, Creator/Judge of the Declaration of Independence and we would be good by following the Bill of Rights and try to convince ourselves that we are good enough and we would hate anyone who tells us we’re not good enough or that we are corrupted by original sin and other concepts that harsh our mellow. Genesis 3 tells the story and Caine’s story shows one conclusion of self effort…failure, but many don’t give these stories much cred. Another problem is the Christian Right’s not so accurate concept of the founding which concentrates on being good Christian moral people like the founders, but they weren’t all that. A truly devout American like Edwards wanted a theocracy and lamented the sad state of American spirituality but theocracies don’t work as Kierkegaard in Against Christendom as Denmark in his day showed. And, Thomas Paine wrote in the style of a sermon and wanted a very minimal form of national government like the one in the book of Judges which came before the monarchistic/theocratic govt of Israel found in Kings and Chronicles which was wrought with problems due to corrupt kings, priests and syncretistic, idol worshipping Israelites.
I think we all agree that our country will be better if we are good, moral people who elect good, moral leaders and vote out the immoral, bad ones, but I think I agree with those who complain, “Yeah, but whose morals or religion are we going to follow?” The founders left that to the individual and Madison called some of that “the marketplace of ideas.” It’s up to you to decide which set of rules (“religion”) you want to adhere to or follow or what deity you want to have a relationship with or what religious concept you totally reject. Christians themselves (especially?) don’t all agree on many aspects, but C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity spells out some of the significant areas where there is agreement and he repeats the trillema there that says that Jesus was liar, lunatic or Lord. Some might say he was myth or legendary but there is more historical evidence of Jesus than Julius Caesar. But, in my opinion, He was a great, moral, teacher admired by the likes of Jefferson, but He was not merely a great, moral teacher. I reject the concept from the Christian Right that also imho dilutes the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and I embrace His divinity and His Lorship. I adhere to the Constitution because I’m a law abiding citizen but also because Peter says to “Honor the king.” The Constitution is our version of a king which those in govt and military service swear to support and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. Paul says to obey the magistrates for conscience sake. Obedience to the magistrate in the U.S., imho, is to compete our ideas in the marketplace on their merits, not so much because one religion is better than other. In other words, what does the data say, what do the studies say, what do the people want (which is where our own morals do have a role) (tempered by SCOTUS and the Constitution)?
December 4th, 2010 | 4:55 pm
Joseph,
Our civil religion may be watered-down Christianity, but it wasn’t in 1790. Liberal elite Robert N. Bellah of Berkeley, claims Puritanism is our “Civil Religion” which is Trinitarianism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Neelly_Bellah
The vast majority of Founding Fathers, including James Madison, were Trinitarian, who made it clear Christianity was the only true religion for salvation:
“Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation..Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them.”
-Memorial and Remonstrance, June 20, 1785.
Madison made it very clear to succeeding generations, salvation was only in faith in Christ. He believed other religions had some validity for other aspects of life, as he implied in 1833, but not for salvation. JM affirmed the Trinity.
The Congress used Trinitarian language:
“The goodness of the Supreme Being to all his rational creatures, demands their acknowledgments of gratitude and love; his absolute government of this world dictates, that it is the interest of every nation and people ardently to supplicate his mercy favor and implore his protection.When the lust of dominion or lawless ambition excites arbitrary power to invade the rights, or endeavor to wrench wrest from a people their sacred and unalienable invaluable privileges, and compels them, in defence of the same, to encounter all the horrors and calamities of a bloody and vindictive war; then is that people loudly called upon to fly unto that God for protection..that He would incline the hearts of all men to peace, and fill them with universal charity and benevolence, and that the religion of our Divine Redeemer, with all its benign influences, may cover the earth as the waters cover the seas.”
-Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1782.
December 4th, 2010 | 8:38 pm
James Madison not only did NOT affirm the Trinity, but George Ticknor (founder of the Boston Public Library) testified that President Madison was a theological unitarian.
“I found the President more free and open than I expected, starting subjects of conversation and making remarks that sometimes savored of humor and levity. He sometimes laughed, and I was glad to hear it; but his face was always grave. He talked of religious sects and parties, and was curious to know how the cause of liberal Christianity stood with us, and if the Athanasian creed was well received by our Episcopalians. He pretty distinctly intimated to me his own regard for the Unitarian doctrines.”
— TICKNOR, GEORGE, 1815, Letter to his Father, Jan. 21 ; Life, Letters and Journals, vol. I, p. 30.
December 6th, 2010 | 2:02 pm
Jon wrote “James Madison not only did NOT affirm the Trinity, but George Ticknor (founder of the Boston Public Library) testified that President Madison was a theological unitarian.”
I am not ignorant to presume I know what JM’s heart, however, unless we have his own words refuting his Orthodoxy, he was Trinitarian, who believed Christ was the 2nd person in the Triune Godhead, and Mary, his mother, was a Virgin:
“Mat. Ch 1st Pollution[:] Christ did by the power of his Godhead purify our nature from all the pollution of our Ancestors v. 5. &c
“Virgin Mary had no other Child (probably) but our Saviour. v. 25″
“Christ’s divinity appears by St. John, ch. XX. v. 28.”
Madison’s “Notes on Commentary on the Bible” [1771-1772] found in The Papers of James Madison, p. 51-59. Vol. I. 16 Mar 1751 – 16 Dec. 1779. Edited by William T. Hutchinson and William M. E. Rachal. 1962, by the University of Chicago Press.
The rest of JM’s notes, and writings, attack heterodoxy, and promote Calvinist pre-destination.
James Madison believed we were a Christian Nation:
“If the public homage of a people can ever be worthy the favorable regard of the Holy and Omniscient Being to whom it is addressed, it must be that in which those who join in it are guided only by their free choice, by the impulse of their hearts and the dictates of their consciences; and such a spectacle must be interesting to all Christian nations as proving that religion, that gift of Heaven for the good of man, freed from all coercive edicts, from that unhallowed connection with the powers of this world which corrupts religion into an instrument or an usurper of the policy of the state…”
-Given at Washington, this 23d day of July, A. D. 1813.[seal.] JAMES MADISON
December 8th, 2010 | 9:57 pm
OFT: I don’t think you understand what you just reproduced.
Madison’s 1813 remark flatly contradicts Calvinism. He notes there he believes the purpose of “religion” is “the good of man” just like the other “theistic rationalists.” The Calvinists believed the purpose of religion was “the glory of God,” NOT necessarily for the “good of man.”
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact