In my last post, I commented on chapter three of The Unintended Reformation by Brad Gregory, in which he traced the historical development of Church/State relations. I left off with the Founding Fathers and the first amendment.
That is where I will pick things up…
So, the Founding Fathers stated in the first amendment to the United States Constitution that the government wasn’t to establish any particular religion or denomination, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. To be clear, the purpose of the first amendment was certainly not to disallow religious faith or morals to have a say in, and have an impact on, public policy and decisions. In this respect the whole “separation of Church and State” idea (which Thomas Jefferson penned in a personal letter to a Baptist congregation, to assure them that the government was never going to interfere with their religious practices) that is used nowadays to try to religious displays on public land—that was never the intention of the first amendment.
The First Amendment and Religious Flourishing
Brad Gregory points out that the first amendment ended up doing was something quite extraordinary: it actually allowed faith and religion to flourish. Alexis de Tocqueville, upon visiting the United States from France, was amazed that even though the American people were “all different in the worship they offer to the Creator,” they “all agree concerning the duties of men to one another…and…all preach the same morality in the name of God” (169). He further noted that even though religion never directly intervened in the United States government, it “should therefore be considered as the first of their political institutions” (169).
Imagine that. If the government doesn’t try to force a particular religious denomination or confession on people, if the government decides not to kill people over their particular understanding of baptism, the Eucharist, or the issue of “faith vs. works,” if the government doesn’t muzzle the religious yearnings and faith of people, those very people freely choose to live out their faith, and allow those moral sentiments to shape their lives.
This happened because people soon realized that, despite their denominational differences, they all shared the same fundamental Christian worldview when it came to morality.
Oh, But Eventually Things Change…the Creeping Secular Age
Over time, though, things eventually change. It is here on this point that Brad Gregory provides what I feel is an astoundingly illuminating insight:
“But what would happen if churches and families, precisely because awash no longer in a sea of faith but plunged into an ocean of capitalism, consumerism, advertising, self-interest, and popular culture, failed any longer to generate virtues conducive to the flourishing of a democratic society?” (174)
“This is the unintended situation in which Americans find themselves today. Freedom of religion protected society from religion and so has secularized society of religion. In this sense we are living, it would seem, whether or not one happens to be a religious believer and regardless of one’s particular beliefs, in what Charles Taylor has called ‘a secular age.’” (174)
Simply put, the reason why American democracy was able to work so well for such a long time was that, despite setting up the government to be “secular,” the very basis for morality and society was still nevertheless deeply rooted in the Judeo-Christian worldview that everyone shared, despite denominational differences. Gradually, as religious expression was slowly regulated more and more to the private sphere, though, religious and moral sentiments had less and less of an influence and impact on the “secular society,” and other things began to influence it even more.
Just think of the kind of society we live in today. Religion and faith are reduced to simply things that, if they give you a sense of self-fulfillment and worth, are fine if done in your private life—but their “value” is measured in terms of how they benefit YOU, and make YOU feel good. Simply put, religion has been put on par with buying that Lexus, building that retirement account, getting the latest iphone, and giving yourself a Royal Caribbean cruise. Everything in our society has become an advertisement to sell you something that will give you a sense of self-fulfillment. Simply put, over time, that’s where secularism leads a society—to where religion itself becomes just another commodity to be consumed.
But if that’s the case, then religion, or in this case, Christianity, is no longer the influencer and shaper of values. When it is reduced to just another commodity to be used in the privacy of your own home, then that means something else is the shaper of society’s values.
Welcome to the Religion of Moral Therapeutic Deism
Moral Therapeutic Deism—that’s what Brad Gregory calls the popular religious faith of “Christian” America. Christianity in America today, Gregory says, “remains superficially strong by comparison with Western Europe, but it is a mile wide and an inch deep” (175). It’s Christian in name, but it holds to no specific religious tradition (i.e. think non-denominational, or emergent church), and the focus of this “brand” of Christianity really is personal happiness, tolerant of any and everything, and just being nice.
And Finally, There are the Culture Wars, and More Involvement from the Courts
At the same time, we find we are living very much in a post-Christian culture, or at least one in which Christianity is having less and less of an influence than it did before. Because of that, there is bound to be tensions and “culture wars.” Because of this, there are more and more court cases involving the first amendment, and the American justice system is caught in the middle. To put it simply, the Founding Fathers put the first amendment in because they didn’t want to have the government deal with religion.
Remember, the first amendment basically says, “We in the government won’t endorse any religious faith, so you are free to pursue any faith tradition you see fit—leave us out of it!” But now, all we as a society are doing is appealing to the secular government in matters involving religion. As Gregory puts it, the American courts now are:
“forced to do just what Madison wanted Congress to avoid, namely to pronounce on substantive matters in the ‘free exercise’ of religion. Judges determine what privileges and exemptions specific religions will or will not enjoy, which religious holidays will receive stat approbation, what public expressions of religion are permissible and in which contexts, which branch of a church gets the ecclesiastical property following a schism, and indeed, even what constitutes a religion, ‘subordinating every particular religion to the supreme interests of the nation’” (175).
Yes, despite the intentions of the Founding Fathers, we have to admit that in our modern society, we now have subordinated religion and the practice of religious faith to the will of the secular courts. Whether it be praying with high school football teams before games, or whether or not to bake a cake for a gay wedding, or whether or not the elderly nuns of the Little Sisters of the Poor have to provide contraception in their health care coverage—you can probably name other instances—the fact is, religious faith, if it ever takes even a step out in the public square, has been made subservient to the whims of the government.
Now, in case that last comment makes some “liberals” upset with me, here’s something that might agitate some “conservatives.” Gregory points out that, ironically, ever since WWII, the largely secular European states—with their universal health care and quality access to education for all children—actually reflect more Christian hospitality and love toward the “least of these” than supposedly “Christian” America in these areas, where inner city schools are horrid, and where a vast amount of people object to Obamacare, not on the grounds that it might balloon the federal budget (and to be fair, that is a valid concern), but on the grounds that by seeking to help the poor, it will require the rich to pay more in taxes…and why can’t those poor people just get jobs anyway?
Here’s the Point
The point of the last to paragraphs, and the third chapter of Gregory’s book, is not just to rile up people on the political Left and political Right. The point is to highlight a very real problem in our secular age. In ancient Greece, Rome, Byzantium, the Catholic Middle Ages, and up to the early part of Christianity in the modern age, politics and morality were viewed as inseparable, and Christianity provided the over-arching worldview that passed on morals, values, and virtues, to not just the everyday people in the street, but also to the rulers.
Those in power were taught they had the moral duty to care for “the least of these” in society; they were told that to abuse their power was wrong (yes, some still did, but when they did, they admitted that it was wrong). And everyday people were taught to look after the welfare of each other. Simply put, the Christian ethic of “love God, and love your neighbor as yourself” provided moral guidance in everyday life and in politics.
Once religion and politics were split apart, though, things were bound to change. Yes, the reason why the Enlightenment thinkers wanted to separate religion and politics was because the Reformation had given Europe a couple hundred years of using political power to attack any religious view one didn’t agree with. But that “First Amendment split” between religion and politics eventually meant that the moral guidance Christianity provided society would wane, and other forces of self-interest and consumerism would take its place. And, because we are in the midst of such an upheaval of societal values, we are turning to the government and court system to literally, legislate morality. And when a society does that, it’s just asking for tyranny. “The Left” wants the government to legislate what they feel is moral—often along the lines of visions of a Marxist utopia; whereas “the Right” wants the government to legislate what they feel is moral—often veering much too close to Dominionist theology.
Well then, all this talk about legislating morality gets us to chapter four of The Unintended Reformation. That should be interesting…
