The ferocious last gasps of the religion of Christian America

[Ken]

In recent years, i’ve come to believe U.S. founders were wise to include reference and respect to God (our Christian God) without attempting to “micromanage” specific denominations or sects. i know of no reference in gov documents specifically to Jesus, but many references to God. Intriguing.

These were not stupid naive men. They valued forethought.
For them, problems with state churches were not distant memories.

Their intent was not for atheists and others to dominate, as is trending presently, but to be allowed. Turns out, those “allowed” aren’t at all interested in returning the favor.

Christians are their own worst enemy.

I don't know if this is straying too far into politics. But I don't think you need to worry about "atheists and others" dominating anytime soon. The last Congress was self-identified as 88.2% Christian and 0.2% unaffiliated with any religion. Which is 24% more Christian than the population as a whole. https://www.pewforum.org/2019/01/03/fai ... -hill-116/ The religious composition of state and local governments around the country is similar. They may not all be your particular "flavor" of Christianity. But there is no national litmus test for who is a Christian and who isn't. And as you note, there is "no attempt to micromanage specific denominations or sects"

What is being discussed here in these articles is not some general decline in Christianity in government, but the decline of a specific flavor of "Christian Nationalism", which isn't the same thing at all. And even if according to surveys, Christianity itself is declining within the US, it still holds a very outsize degree of influence relative to the population in pretty much every single government body from Congress down to local school boards. Self-identified atheists are virtually non-existent in government.

[Neto]

i do not appreciate how boot evidently wallows in the most disgusting items then splashes them here, for whatever purpose motivates him. boot: could you take a break?

Here's what the video shows: Christian nationalists praying during the insurrection. My point: this is not biblical Christianity, certainly not as Mennonites understand it.

Here's what motivates me: we need to return to a Christianity that looks like Jesus.

Just a question here, no confrontation intended - Who is 'we' in your last sentence? If it is 'all who claim to be Christians in America', then I understand. But if it means 'we who claim to be non-resistant', or 'we who participate on this discussion board', then this topic of what apparently amounts to "Christian Nationalism" does seem to be just another thing to be appalled about, a thing over which no one here (or any non-resistant Christian) has any control, this aberrant view of 'Christianity'. If a militarized group calling themselves 'Christian' sprouts up here in the States, and starts violent attacks on the government or on other citizens, then we would have the same degree of control or influence over their actions - zero.

[Bootstrap]

i do not appreciate how boot evidently wallows in the most disgusting items then splashes them here, for whatever purpose motivates him. boot: could you take a break?

Here's what the video shows: Christian nationalists praying during the insurrection. My point: this is not biblical Christianity, certainly not as Mennonites understand it.

Here's what motivates me: we need to return to a Christianity that looks like Jesus.

Just a question here, no confrontation intended - Who is 'we' in your last sentence? If it is 'all who claim to be Christians in America', then I understand.

Yes, exactly.

But if it means 'we who claim to be non-resistant', or 'we who participate on this discussion board', then this topic of what apparently amounts to "Christian Nationalism" does seem to be just another thing to be appalled about, a thing over which no one here (or any non-resistant Christian) has any control, this aberrant view of 'Christianity'. If a militarized group calling themselves 'Christian' sprouts up here in the States, and starts violent attacks on the government or on other citizens, then we would have the same degree of control or influence over their actions - zero.

I think that even we can be tempted and misled by the world around us. Sometimes it's helpful to remind ourselves to really believe what we believe and live accordingly.

But no, I don't think anyone on MN was up there in that prayer session. Still, seeing just what it looks like in the extreme can help us remember to be skeptical of even milder forms.

[Pelerin]

I would hardly call Wilson a "progressive." The "progressive" in that race was Teddy Roosevelt running as a "Bull Moose."

However, I found this interesting:

"Magee shows that Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion was hugely important to Woodrow Wilson's understanding of his earthly responsibilities and it became his textbook of politics, even to the point that Wilson's political philosophy teetered on the edges of theocracy, or what more recently has been called Reconstructionism."

Actually, it was reconstructionism's predecessor, Postmillinialism. It was actually the dominant eschatology in much of the mainline church prior to WWI. It of course, like it's more modern cousin, posits that the church will improve society so that the church will usher in the millennial kingdom, and Jesus will return after that. As such, it envisions a very large role for the church in society.

There is one key difference, classic postmillinialism does this through social reform, making the world fit for the return of Christ. Reconstructionism sees this as being accomplished through Theonomey, the establishment of God's law in society. The former is accomplished through moral influence, the latter through violence if necessary.

J.M.

I had in mind mainly his work on the League of Nations and also some of his domestic policies like the Federal Reserve. I used to work with someone who would listen to a certain radio host who had Wilson made out to be the root of all modern progressive evil (but let’s not get into that). In any case, the connection to reconstruction just shows that the current of history has many channels that split in merge in often surprising ways that don't lend themselves to just-so explanations.

[RZehr]

I wish I could remember the author or the exact quote, but someone once said that from The Crucible, to The Scarlet Letter, all the way back to the beginning, disavowing it’s Puritan heritage and tracing its problems back to them has always been fashionable in America.

-------

The argument in the article relies on some slippery sleight of hand. He asserts that Puritans, Presbyterians, and Baptists were all influenced by Calvin, and that “by 1776, when the American nation was born, Calvin’s vision of a social order ruled by his concept of the Christian God informed the majority of the faithful throughout most of the 13 colonies.”

Where to begin? While the population of the South may or may not have been majority Baptist, my understanding is that the elite and the government was Anglican/Episcopalian. Wikipedia helpfully lists the signers of the Declaration of Independence by state and a quick scan of the southern signers bears this out: I wasn't able to find a single Baptist, but nearly all of them indicated that they were Anglicans. Anglicans, of course, being the ones who were so impure that they drove the Puritans to choose that name. The Baptists themselves would be surprised to learn they hope to establish a Calvinist theocracy as they’ve been against established churches from the beginning (it seems to come with adult baptism).

It gets worse in the following paragraph where he asserts that the First Amendment antiestablishment clause represented a radical clash between religious colonists and the generally irreligious Founders. This would again be news to the Baptists and Quakers. The famous phrase, “wall of separation between church and state” that was set up in the amendment comes from the Danbury Baptist letter Thomas Jefferson wrote replying to a Baptist congregation’s concerns about an established church.

Nor did the First Amendment “strip the Christian religion” of anything; there had never been an established church in the United States to strip from it. Furthermore, some of the states had established churches that continued right on being established until at least 1834¹. This isn’t minor quibbling over language either; I understand one impetus for disestablishment was the Second Great Awakening (see, for example, here). And here’s where we find the evangelicals we started the article off with. It turns out the two end of the circle don’t line up so neatly after all.

And that's not even to get into the role Calvinism has played in progressive American politics, for example this and this on Woodrow Wilson.

¹From Wikipedia. The chart says 1877 for New Hampshire, but I decided that didn’t count for my purposes here. Read the footnote there for details.

Interesting. I appreciate the time you took to add this perspective and these points.

[HondurasKeiser]

I would hardly call Wilson a "progressive." The "progressive" in that race was Teddy Roosevelt running as a "Bull Moose."

However, I found this interesting:

"Magee shows that Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion was hugely important to Woodrow Wilson's understanding of his earthly responsibilities and it became his textbook of politics, even to the point that Wilson's political philosophy teetered on the edges of theocracy, or what more recently has been called Reconstructionism."

Actually, it was reconstructionism's predecessor, Postmillinialism. It was actually the dominant eschatology in much of the mainline church prior to WWI. It of course, like it's more modern cousin, posits that the church will improve society so that the church will usher in the millennial kingdom, and Jesus will return after that. As such, it envisions a very large role for the church in society.

There is one key difference, classic postmillinialism does this through social reform, making the world fit for the return of Christ. Reconstructionism sees this as being accomplished through Theonomey, the establishment of God's law in society. The former is accomplished through moral influence, the latter through violence if necessary.

J.M.

I had in mind mainly his work on the League of Nations and also some of his domestic policies like the Federal Reserve. I used to work with someone who would listen to a certain radio host who had Wilson made out to be the root of all modern progressive evil (but let’s not get into that). In any case, the connection to reconstruction just shows that the current of history has many channels that split in merge in often surprising ways that don't lend themselves to just-so explanations.

I would tend to agree with Pelerin; in fact I've often viewed Wilson as the Progressive par excellence. His economic adviser was none other than Louis Brandeis, who as a justice on the Supreme Court was never one to deal in conservative, cautious restraint. His thoughts about the Constitution and the stilted Social Contract theory that had heretofore, held America back from progress are well-known and documented and his 1913 book "The New Freedom", in which he lays out his ideas about government, notions of freedom and political theory, is a full-throated defense of the Progressive agenda of the early 20th Century. Indeed, he claims the mantle of Progressive when he says:

All that progressives ask or desire is permission — in an era when "development," "evolution," is the scientific word — to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.

As for TR, in claiming the mantle of "Progressive Conservatism" at the birth of the Progressive Party, he seems to have given everyone a reason to love and loathe him all at once.

[Bootstrap]

I would hardly call Wilson a "progressive." The "progressive" in that race was Teddy Roosevelt running as a "Bull Moose."

However, I found this interesting:

"Magee shows that Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion was hugely important to Woodrow Wilson's understanding of his earthly responsibilities and it became his textbook of politics, even to the point that Wilson's political philosophy teetered on the edges of theocracy, or what more recently has been called Reconstructionism."

Actually, it was reconstructionism's predecessor, Postmillinialism. It was actually the dominant eschatology in much of the mainline church prior to WWI. It of course, like it's more modern cousin, posits that the church will improve society so that the church will usher in the millennial kingdom, and Jesus will return after that. As such, it envisions a very large role for the church in society.

There is one key difference, classic postmillinialism does this through social reform, making the world fit for the return of Christ. Reconstructionism sees this as being accomplished through Theonomey, the establishment of God's law in society. The former is accomplished through moral influence, the latter through violence if necessary.

J.M.

I had in mind mainly his work on the League of Nations and also some of his domestic policies like the Federal Reserve. I used to work with someone who would listen to a certain radio host who had Wilson made out to be the root of all modern progressive evil (but let’s not get into that). In any case, the connection to reconstruction just shows that the current of history has many channels that split in merge in often surprising ways that don't lend themselves to just-so explanations.

For instance, how could anyone apply just-so explanation to William Jennings Bryan ... is he the conservative from the Scopes trial? Or the leading figure of progressive policy during the Progressive Era? Or one of the first influential radio preachers? Or should we remember him from his role as Secretary of State, or perhaps his failed bid to become president?

Clearly, he is an important figure in the relationship between church and state in America. But I don't know what to make of him ... he is certainly interesting to read about.

I think our black-and-white oversimplifications of American history can be really misleading. And many are clearly agenda-driven.

[Ken]

Nor did the First Amendment “strip the Christian religion” of anything; there had never been an established church in the United States to strip from it. Furthermore, some of the states had established churches that continued right on being established until at least 1834¹. This isn’t minor quibbling over language either; I understand one impetus for disestablishment was the Second Great Awakening (see, for example, here). And here’s where we find the evangelicals we started the article off with. It turns out the two end of the circle don’t line up so neatly after all.

To be fair, there wasn't actually a United States prior to 1776 or 1789, however you want to date it. What there was was a collection of British colonies that operated with various degrees of political and religious autonomy from England. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which resulted in the abdication of the Catholic monarch James II and the succession of the Protestant monarchs William III and Mary II, the Church of England reasserted the connection between church and crown. The colonies were not immune and there was considerable back and forth. American colonists participated in both the English Civil Wars in the 1640s and Glorious Revolution forty years later which were complicated struggles involving the powers of Parliament vs the monarch, and the authority of the church as well as which church (Catholic or Protestant).

The English political world at that time was very much a struggle between Catholicism and Protestantism on the European Continent and the British Isles. As well as a struggle to define the role of the Church of England over religious life in England, Scotland, Ireland, as well as the colonies. For example, Catholicism was outlawed in Maryland after the Glorious Revolution and Catholics were banned from public office. Despite the fact that Maryland had originally been founded as a Catholic colony.

The American Constitution and the First Amendment must be understood in that wider world political context in which the founders lived. It was their own history as well. The European struggles between between the powers of the crown and parliaments. And the roles of the Catholic and Protestant churches in pretty much every political war in Europe and the British Isles since at least the Reformation would have been at the forefront of their minds when drafting the American Constitution. They were not just forming a coalition or compromise government between the 13 colonies. They were also forming a government that stood as a counterpoint or contrast to those in Europe in which both the crown and the church were inextricably linked to the state, whether you are talking about England, France, Spain, or the Holy Roman Empire.

Put another way, European politics and wars at that time, and for the preceding centuries since the Reformation were struggles between representative parliaments and monarchs, between the church and state, and between Catholic and Protestant churches. The American Constitution resolved all of those struggles in favor of representative democracy and erased the roles of BOTH of the crown AND the church in the affairs of government.

[MaxPC]

Just a question here, no confrontation intended - Who is 'we' in your last sentence? If it is 'all who claim to be Christians in America', then I understand. But if it means 'we who claim to be non-resistant', or 'we who participate on this discussion board', then this topic of what apparently amounts to "Christian Nationalism" does seem to be just another thing to be appalled about, a thing over which no one here (or any non-resistant Christian) has any control, this aberrant view of 'Christianity'. If a militarized group calling themselves 'Christian' sprouts up here in the States, and starts violent attacks on the government or on other citizens, then we would have the same degree of control or influence over their actions - zero.

Indeed, I agree with Neto. This topic resonates more with the "Calamity howling" and "hand-wringing" than it does the pursuit of holy living in the peace of Christ. I have no control over other's actions; I can only control the choices I make.

[Pelerin]

Nor did the First Amendment “strip the Christian religion” of anything; there had never been an established church in the United States to strip from it. Furthermore, some of the states had established churches that continued right on being established until at least 1834¹. This isn’t minor quibbling over language either; I understand one impetus for disestablishment was the Second Great Awakening (see, for example, here). And here’s where we find the evangelicals we started the article off with. It turns out the two end of the circle don’t line up so neatly after all.

To be fair, there wasn't actually a United States prior to 1776 or 1789, however you want to date it. What there was was a collection of British colonies that operated with various degrees of political and religious autonomy from England. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which resulted in the abdication of the Catholic monarch James II and the succession of the Protestant monarchs William III and Mary II, the Church of England reasserted the connection between church and crown. The colonies were not immune and there was considerable back and forth. American colonists participated in both the English Civil Wars in the 1640s and Glorious Revolution forty years later which were complicated struggles involving the powers of Parliament vs the monarch, and the authority of the church as well as which church (Catholic or Protestant).

The English political world at that time was very much a struggle between Catholicism and Protestantism on the European Continent and the British Isles. As well as a struggle to define the role of the Church of England over religious life in England, Scotland, Ireland, as well as the colonies. For example, Catholicism was outlawed in Maryland after the Glorious Revolution and Catholics were banned from public office. Despite the fact that Maryland had originally been founded as a Catholic colony.

The American Constitution and the First Amendment must be understood in that wider world political context in which the founders lived. It was their own history as well. The European struggles between between the powers of the crown and parliaments. And the roles of the Catholic and Protestant churches in pretty much every political war in Europe and the British Isles since at least the Reformation would have been at the forefront of their minds when drafting the American Constitution. They were not just forming a coalition or compromise government between the 13 colonies. They were also forming a government that stood as a counterpoint or contrast to those in Europe in which both the crown and the church were inextricably linked to the state, whether you are talking about England, France, Spain, or the Holy Roman Empire.

Put another way, European politics and wars at that time, and for the preceding centuries since the Reformation were struggles between representative parliaments and monarchs, between the church and state, and between Catholic and Protestant churches. The American Constitution resolved all of those struggles in favor of representative democracy and erased the roles of BOTH of the crown AND the church in the affairs of government.

That should probably read “established church of the United States”.

On British religion: Today is the anniversary of the beheading of Louis XVI in 1793. This morning I was reading (I can’t find it now) how this was a turning point in English Catholicism. The Catholic candidate for king had died some time before and things had cooled off between Catholics and Protestants. The bloody French Revolution and the persecution of Catholics there resulted in a wave of sympathy for them in England resulting in toleration of Catholics in England.