Our national (false) religion
It was during my college days at Concordia, River Forest that I first read John Murray Cuddihy's No Offense: Civil Religion and Protestant Taste. It started me on a path of reading and thinking which quickly resulted in a paradigm for the relationship between religion and American society which has served me ever since.
It was Will Herberg's Protestant, Catholic, Jew which first blazed the trail later traveled by Robert Bellah, Cuddihy, and others in examining the strange way in which American culture has warped traditional Judaism and Christianity into what amounts to its very own religion- the one behind the infamous post-9/11 Yankee Stadium service which caused all the ruckus in the Missouri Synod, as well as many aspects of Memorial Day, Veterans Day, the Fourth of July, and, when it comes down to that, our entire common life as Americans. As Bunnie pointed out not long ago, it also defines some of the less wholesome aspects of the Bush Administration. It provides, oddly, a jumping off-place for the Religious Right, which- like the leadership of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod- seems oblivious to its status as probably the major rival and deadliest enemy of Christianity in America.
I think this has changed, but I believe it was Herberg who pointed out that at the time the Army handed out dog-tags which classified everybody as a "Protestant," a "Catholic," or a "Jew." If you were Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish, you belonged to a religio licita. If not, the Army would cram you into one of those three categories- probably "Protestant," which in effect meant "none of the above." Confessional Lutherans and Anglo-Catholic Episcopalians shared the same fate as Buddhists, Mormons, and Ba'hais: crammed into the "Protestant" category. I think Eastern Orthodox Christians were categorized as "Catholic," but I'm not absolutely sure.
America's Civil Religion- which really owes its roots to the liberal, unitarianized Calvinism of early New England- institutionalized the lowest common denominator of these three accepted faiths into what soon became (First Amendment or no) the religious basis for our culture. Cuddihy took this a step further, pointing out that "civil religion" was also a "religion of civility." It is gauche, this ersatz faith avers, to suggest that it really matters whether one is Protestant, Catholic or Jewish- as long as you are sort of one of them. It is here that the notion that "it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you're sincere" originates. It is also here that the relativistic conviction of many who are willing to insist on the exclusive truth-claims of Christianity per se- Richard Abanes comes to mind- that what Abanes call "denominational distinctives" are at least usually really unimportant has its origin. There is only one heresy in this national religion, one way of stepping out of bounds: to suggest that you are right, and that someone else is wrong (obviously, in the case of "Evangelicals" of the Abanes mindset, this only applies to Christians- which is quite enough to get even them in trouble with the culture as a whole!).
Cuddihy pointed out that the price of acceptance into our pluralistic society for all three "legitimate" religions was the sacrifice of its exclusive truth claim. Catholicism could no longer be "the One True Church, outside of which there is no salvation;" at least a back door into heaven had to be opened to Protestants and Jews, too. The Jews could no longer be "God's Chosen People," except in the sense of special obligation. And justification by grace alone, through faith in Christ alone was also right out; it excluded Jews, after all! So much for Protestantism!
The liberal, "mainline" Protestant denominations universalized, conformed, and gained acceptence. The "Evangelicals" and the confessional children of the magisterial Reformation have been on the outside looking in ever since.
I think this paradigm summarizes the state of religion in America rather elegantly- and despite the difficulty which President Kieschnick of the Missouri Synod and others seem to have in recognizing it, makes it clear how very, very dangerous it is to look upon civil religion as anything but a rival and an enemy of the Gospel. As Bunny does her work on that book I'm so much looking forward to reading, I think we'll all gain a great many more insights into this great contemporary heresy- or rather, alternative religion.
All of which has been a long-winded windup to pointing out another contribution to the study of our great contemporary apostasy.
Pr. Paul McCain cites this thought- provoking article by Dr. Albert Mohler (remember him?) on the degree to which the activist political liberalism of the '60's has provided a very large percentage of the population with what is in effect a substitute religion, providing its adherents with purpose, meaning, a way of accounting for themselves in the universe, and all of the other things which go into the substance of a religious faith. I would only argue that this is a theological development within the history of the Great American Apostacy which began among the Unitarians of New England and flourishes not only in mainline Protestantism (if anything having to do with mainline Protestantism can be said to flourish, that is), as well as in the highest councils of an Administration I support- even while deploring its endorsement of and participation in what amounts to an alternative to orthodox Christianity.
One final thought, which happens to dovetail with Dr. Mohler's insight: one of the shibboleths of the cultural Left- and of our culture generally these days- is pluralism. This is very far from being a bad thing. The problem is that the cultural religion isn't pluralistic. Only one religion- the cultural religion- is permitted.
And pluralism requires plurality, just as tolerance requires at least one other viewpoint to tolerate. It is precisely in the realms of pluralism and tolerance- where the cultural Left, and our culture generally, are so heavily invested in their rhetoric- that they fail in their substance.
Or lack of it.
It was Will Herberg's Protestant, Catholic, Jew which first blazed the trail later traveled by Robert Bellah, Cuddihy, and others in examining the strange way in which American culture has warped traditional Judaism and Christianity into what amounts to its very own religion- the one behind the infamous post-9/11 Yankee Stadium service which caused all the ruckus in the Missouri Synod, as well as many aspects of Memorial Day, Veterans Day, the Fourth of July, and, when it comes down to that, our entire common life as Americans. As Bunnie pointed out not long ago, it also defines some of the less wholesome aspects of the Bush Administration. It provides, oddly, a jumping off-place for the Religious Right, which- like the leadership of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod- seems oblivious to its status as probably the major rival and deadliest enemy of Christianity in America.
I think this has changed, but I believe it was Herberg who pointed out that at the time the Army handed out dog-tags which classified everybody as a "Protestant," a "Catholic," or a "Jew." If you were Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish, you belonged to a religio licita. If not, the Army would cram you into one of those three categories- probably "Protestant," which in effect meant "none of the above." Confessional Lutherans and Anglo-Catholic Episcopalians shared the same fate as Buddhists, Mormons, and Ba'hais: crammed into the "Protestant" category. I think Eastern Orthodox Christians were categorized as "Catholic," but I'm not absolutely sure.
America's Civil Religion- which really owes its roots to the liberal, unitarianized Calvinism of early New England- institutionalized the lowest common denominator of these three accepted faiths into what soon became (First Amendment or no) the religious basis for our culture. Cuddihy took this a step further, pointing out that "civil religion" was also a "religion of civility." It is gauche, this ersatz faith avers, to suggest that it really matters whether one is Protestant, Catholic or Jewish- as long as you are sort of one of them. It is here that the notion that "it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you're sincere" originates. It is also here that the relativistic conviction of many who are willing to insist on the exclusive truth-claims of Christianity per se- Richard Abanes comes to mind- that what Abanes call "denominational distinctives" are at least usually really unimportant has its origin. There is only one heresy in this national religion, one way of stepping out of bounds: to suggest that you are right, and that someone else is wrong (obviously, in the case of "Evangelicals" of the Abanes mindset, this only applies to Christians- which is quite enough to get even them in trouble with the culture as a whole!).
Cuddihy pointed out that the price of acceptance into our pluralistic society for all three "legitimate" religions was the sacrifice of its exclusive truth claim. Catholicism could no longer be "the One True Church, outside of which there is no salvation;" at least a back door into heaven had to be opened to Protestants and Jews, too. The Jews could no longer be "God's Chosen People," except in the sense of special obligation. And justification by grace alone, through faith in Christ alone was also right out; it excluded Jews, after all! So much for Protestantism!
The liberal, "mainline" Protestant denominations universalized, conformed, and gained acceptence. The "Evangelicals" and the confessional children of the magisterial Reformation have been on the outside looking in ever since.
I think this paradigm summarizes the state of religion in America rather elegantly- and despite the difficulty which President Kieschnick of the Missouri Synod and others seem to have in recognizing it, makes it clear how very, very dangerous it is to look upon civil religion as anything but a rival and an enemy of the Gospel. As Bunny does her work on that book I'm so much looking forward to reading, I think we'll all gain a great many more insights into this great contemporary heresy- or rather, alternative religion.
All of which has been a long-winded windup to pointing out another contribution to the study of our great contemporary apostasy.
Pr. Paul McCain cites this thought- provoking article by Dr. Albert Mohler (remember him?) on the degree to which the activist political liberalism of the '60's has provided a very large percentage of the population with what is in effect a substitute religion, providing its adherents with purpose, meaning, a way of accounting for themselves in the universe, and all of the other things which go into the substance of a religious faith. I would only argue that this is a theological development within the history of the Great American Apostacy which began among the Unitarians of New England and flourishes not only in mainline Protestantism (if anything having to do with mainline Protestantism can be said to flourish, that is), as well as in the highest councils of an Administration I support- even while deploring its endorsement of and participation in what amounts to an alternative to orthodox Christianity.
One final thought, which happens to dovetail with Dr. Mohler's insight: one of the shibboleths of the cultural Left- and of our culture generally these days- is pluralism. This is very far from being a bad thing. The problem is that the cultural religion isn't pluralistic. Only one religion- the cultural religion- is permitted.
And pluralism requires plurality, just as tolerance requires at least one other viewpoint to tolerate. It is precisely in the realms of pluralism and tolerance- where the cultural Left, and our culture generally, are so heavily invested in their rhetoric- that they fail in their substance.
Or lack of it.
Comments
"Pluralism" "Diversity" "Tolerance" -- all these words have been coopted by the left, and (quite frankly) no longer have any of the positive meanings that they once did. E.g., "tolerance" once meant (obviously) to merely tolerate -- you didn't have to approve, aide, or abet. That word has now been redefined such that it's merely a codeword for approval & active promotion.
Folks on the right, who in the past would've loudly railed against such semantic chicanery, have been coopted either (IMO) by ignorance (however well-intentioned), and/or a not insignificant desire for public notariety and/or acceptance/approval.
It's all quite sad, really.
-ghp
Thank God it's sinners whom Christ came to save!