By now, the recent Newsweek article about the “end of Christian America” is old news, and I’m just getting around to commenting. Typical of me. This article still doesn’t need to be put out to pasture yet, though. Some have undertaken to reflect on it, but more needs to be said.
As John from the Article VI blog points out, the title is a bit of a stretch compared to the content of the article…predictable MSM. It’s also worth pointing out that we’ve been here before, many times. Popular magazines tend to come out with articles like this just about every Easter and Christmas. In the 60′s, Time magazine had a very ominous cover on the “death of God” movement popular in theology back then. Though I don’t know if it was published around Christmas or Easter, there’s an example for you. Just a few years later Time published another cover, this time brightly asking, “Is God Coming Back to Life?” in regards to the renaissance of theism in philosophy.
Premature, if I may say so...
All that to say: the popular media, being the sensationalistically driven thing it is, tends to ebb and flow between gloom and glib. Whatever brings in readers, you know. I, for one, stopped putting much weight on their pronouncements a long time ago. When the boy cries “wolf!” for the thousandth time, you kinda get the picture as to what’s really going on.
Nevertheless, let me venture forth some comments on this article. Meacham, the author, is sometimes thoughtful, but I disagree with him on some substantial points, and I want to ask for clarification on others.
The article wasn’t really about Christianity’s reasonableness as a worldview; it was mainly, I take it, about Christianity’s (and Christians’) role and influence on politics.
Meacham’s main point:
While we remain a nation decisively shaped by religious faith, our politics and our culture are, in the main, less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago. I think this is a good thing—good for our political culture, which, as the American Founders saw, is complex and charged enough without attempting to compel or coerce religious belief or observance.
Meacham clarifies his article in another article titled “Faith Isn’t Under Fire.” A few notable quotes:
The political project undertaken by politically and theologically conservative Christians in the wake of Roe v. Wade—what we call, in cultural and political shorthand, the rise of the religious right—has failed.
This is vague. For one, what does he think was and is the “political project undertaken by politically and theologically conservative Christians”? Second, what does he mean by “fail”?
Tackling the second issue first, if he means, to cite just one example, the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the elimination of abortion, then it still isn’t clear that conservatives and Christians (I say “and” because there are conservatives who are not Christian) have “failed.” For one, there was significant progress in the law in the pro-life direction. This point is, for some reason, not well known even among conservative Christians.
There was progress being made, even in regards to the crucial balance needed in the Supreme Court. The thing is, we quit too early! Because of the cynics in our ranks waving the white flag and the hecklers in the MSM telling us we’re doomed, a significant number of otherwise conservative people helped put a troika in office that will most certainly wipe most of that away. Many people misunderstood or deliberately suppressed the fact that significant change does not happen overnight but one small step at a time. William Wilberforce understood that. Heck, homosexual activists understand that. Why can’t we learn a few lessons from them when it comes to political gain? It’s a chess match, not a John Elway last minute drive (sorry, Hugh Hewitt. I’m just as much a Browns fan as you are, but the illustration fit. 
).
So yes, that project of overturning Roe v. Wade *will* fail at least in regards to the next 20 years or so, but not for the reasons Meacham wants to highlight.
Melinda Penner at Stand to Reason pointed out Meacham’s use of the term “religious right” has perjorative overtones to it. She said:
I begin to get uncomfortable with using the phrase “religious right” because it seems to me to have become shorthand most of the time it’s used for dismissing Christians engaged in the public square as having gone too far. That’s the popular narrative these days for the “Christian right.”
Like Melinda, my B.S detector goes on high alert when the term “religious right” is batted around…most often its a term used in the perjorative to shame those with conservative values who dare enter into the public and political realms with conservative moral ideas and arguments. I get the feeling Meacham is wielding that term in a slightly similar way here, though not overtly. He uses it elsewhere in his article, and it is quite loaded with negative emotional baggage. When someone uses loaded terms like that in such an unqualified way, I get suspicious.
And while we’re talking about loaded language, what do you make of Meacham’s use of “coerce”? It’s as if Christianity and Christians are the only ones “coercing.” He never defines “coerce,” but I’m willing to bet that if pressed, Christians trying to evangelize as well as Christians arguing for their views in the public and political square would qualify. If that’s coercion, then so is atheists and agnostics arguing for their own views! He needs to define his words further, and he needs to be fair in such defining, recognizing that what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander when it comes to the public square.
There are other less loaded, but still vague, notions in the article. An example:
“Still, in the new NEWSWEEK Poll, fewer people now think of the United States as a ‘Christian nation’ than did so when George W. Bush was president (62 percent in 2009 versus 69 percent in 2008). Two thirds of the public (68 percent) now say religion is ‘losing influence’ in American society, while just 19 percent say religion’s influence is on the rise. The proportion of Americans who think religion ‘can answer all or most of today’s problems’ is now at a historic low of 48 percent. During the Bush 43 and Clinton years, that figure never dropped below 58 percent.”
Surveys and polls are notorious for employing misty, broad language that’s open to many interpretations. This skews the results. There are many vague terms here in the questions (“Christian nation,” “losing influence,” etc) and therefore it’s hard to judge the validity of these findings.
Going back to Meacham’s main thesis, less identifying as Christian could be a good thing depending on who is “no longer affiliating.” If it’s people who would ID themselves as Christians but don’t live it (the nominal, in other words), then its a good thing; that would mean the body is “trimming down,” becoming more lean. They are just being more honest, rather than assuming some meaningless, broad definition of “Christian” (i.e, “I was born in America and was raised going to church every now and then”). If it’s the mainline liberal Protestant denominations that are in decline, I say “good riddance.”
Moving on:
What, then, does it mean to talk of “Christian America”? Evangelical Christians have long believed that the United States should be a nation whose political life is based upon and governed by their interpretation of biblical and theological principles. If the church believes drinking to be a sin, for instance, then the laws of the state should ban the consumption of alcohol. If the church believes the theory of evolution conflicts with a literal reading of the Book of Genesis, then the public schools should tailor their lessons accordingly. If the church believes abortion should be outlawed, then the legislatures and courts of the land should follow suit.
Setting fire to straw men, perhaps? His caricature is laughable. This part of Meacham’s article is irresponsible. If he really thinks this is the bottom line of Christians’ engagement in politics, he needs to listen better.
I don’t have a very circumspect point of view on this–there are others that are much deeper in the thick of things and are therefore much more in the know than I–but I will say that I do sense one major lack in our (meaning conservative Christians’) political and cultural engagement: there are many, many pockets of light that are reasonably and persuasively engaging secularism and decisively refuting it…however, those arguments and thoughts are not getting out to the rank and file believer. Example: same-sex marriage. Listening to the media, you’d think we only cite Scripture verses to argue for our traditional marriage view. The public buys this narrative, and so do many Christians (esp. the youth, who are educated in secular schools and typically poorly engaged by youth pastors and parents). Yet, powerful arguments, based on reasoning that a wide swath of non-believers can adhere to, exist in plentiful fashion (ID for the link: pugnacious. password: irishman).
John at the Article VI blog puts it this way:
Herein lies the future of religiously motivated political engagement. So Meacham is right when he opines that culture and politics are no longer so heavily influenced by explicit Christian concerns. And Parker is probably right that the days of the “God said so” politics of the Religious Right are drawing to a close. But that does not mean we are necessarily going to be see huge and radical shifts in our culture, morality, or day-to-day religious lives. It just means, I believe, that we are getting smarter about such things. We can and will learn to argue for our political/moral stances on non-religious terms. We will engage in the pre-evangelical. We will leave the explicitly evangelical for the house of worship and private conversation.
Though I quibble with some of the wording, John is on the right track…the thing is that this is already being done, and it’s not penetrating culture deep enough because we aren’t educating the rank and file believer (the Hewitt-Moreland transcript gets into this a bit), and because the media’s bias tends to suppress such voices in favor of straw men.
I want to comment on a few other things before I go:
The moral teachings of Christianity have exerted an incalculable influence on Western civilization,” Mohler says. “As those moral teachings fade into cultural memory, a secularized morality takes their place. Once Christianity is abandoned by a significant portion of the population, the moral landscape necessarily changes. For the better part of the 20th century, the nations of Western Europe led the way in the abandonment of Christian commitments. Christian moral reflexes and moral principles gave way to the loosening grip of a Christian memory. Now even that Christian memory is absent from the lives of millions.”
This will make it harder for both citizens and churches to evangelize (outside of politics, of course..I want to make that clear) in the sense that we will have to work harder to gain a hearing and more minds/hearts will be prima facie closed. It will also make it harder to raise a family with Christian principles (if they go to public school they will spend the majority of their time being inculcated by a secular worldview, rather than a Christian worldview), so this is bad news. Of course, much the same could have been said in the Apostle Paul’s time, so this isn’t cause for despair.
As Mohler points out on his own blog, this deserves more attention from Evangelical Christians than the change in the political sphere. Mohler notes that our prime concern is the souls of men and women who are less and less familiar and hence more distant from Christ. Though intricately related to politics, this deserves the bulk of our attention.
Though we should concern ourselves with this, should we be concerned? There is a difference, you see. We should be aware of the changes and adjust our evangelistic approach accordingly, but this is no cause for handwringing. We’ve seen this coming for quite a while, and the Bible predicts it. What’s more, God’s plan doesn’t stop and start with America. What He is doing globally is truly a spectacle to behold. We can rejoice in that while at the same time remaining serious about the daunting task on our own soil.
One thing we should not do is retreat from overt evangelism. That very retreat is one thing that’s gotten us in this problem in the first place. Many churches and Christians, noticing that talk of sin and the objective need for a savior is unpopular, have decided to eschew sharing the full gospel message, preferring instead on focusing more on serving the poor and doing what is called “social justice” ministry. Though social justice is important, we should not adopt an either/or mentality when it comes to evangelism and service. Doing so will certainly make us worldly popular, but it will not please our Father whom we claim to love.
Going back to the main political concerns of the article:
“All men,” said Homer, “need the gods.” The essential political and cultural question is to what extent those gods—or, more accurately, a particular generation’s understanding of those gods—should determine the nature of life in a given time and place.”‘
Again, its not like this applies only to evangelicals who are eager to be politically active. If it applies to our worldview, it applies to the secular worldview as well…there is no neutral ground when it comes to a certain worldview “determining the nature of life in a given time and place,” so I don’t know why Meacham is writing as if only talking to conservative Christians here. Would he say the same thing towards religious liberals who, say, use theological justification for campaigning for same-sex marriage? Would he say the same thing in regards to those who argue against capital punishment on theological grounds?
“In “The City of God,” Augustine —converted sinner and bishop of Hippo—said that a nation should be defined as “a multitude of rational beings in common agreement as to the objects of their love.” What we value most highly—what we collectively love most—is thus the central test of the social contract.”
This is insightful. What do we “collectively love the most?” Wait for it….US. Not the “U.S,” but “us.” We love autonomy and ourselves the most. Autonomy talk is the air we breathe. A vague mention of “freedom of choice” is all that’s needed in many minds to justify an action. Though some will celebrate this, they do so unreflectively. Can a group of people, each one committed to his or her own autonomy, survive with that foundation? This bodes some hard times ahead.
Let the religious take their stand in the arena of politics and ideas on their own, and fight for their views on equal footing with all other interests. American public life is neither wholly secular nor wholly religious but an ever-fluid mix of the two.
Ok, nothing to disagree with here. This is exactly what guys like me, Hewitt, and Koukl wish to do. I wish he would have touched upon this more, rather than just sporadically. All the other parts I’ve commented on sorta dwarf this goodie.
A quarter century ago, three scholars who are also evangelical Christians—Mark A. Noll, Nathan O. Hatch and George M. Marsden—published an important but too-little-known book, The Search for Christian America. In it they argued that Christianity’s claims transcend any political order. Christians, they wrote, “should not have illusions about the nature of human governments. Ultimately they belong to what Augustine calls ‘the city of the world,’ in which self-interest rules … all governments can be brutal killers.”
True…but does that mean that therefore Christians and their conservative brethren should then retreat into the private sphere (read: your feelings only…and even that is subject to be co-opted by secularism) when it comes to issues like abortion, same sex marriage, and the size of government? NO….I think he KINDA acknowledges this in the quote I just commented on above.
Melinda P, commenting on a Meacham quote:
Meacham: the decline and fall of the modern religious right’s notion of a Christian America creates a calmer political environment and, for many believers, may help open the way for a more theologically serious religious life.
Penner: first, I’m not sure why we should hope for a calm political environment. Public debate is part of the fabric and pride of our country, and it doesn’t seem prima facie preferable to me for less debate because one part ostensibly has walked out. Second, I’ve never accepted the idea that the church only has the attention and energy to do either culture or church. The Body is a big organism with many gifts to apply where needed. And I’ve never seen a serious rationale for how political engagement has caused what theological flaws there may be in the church today. I think that has a different genesis as I’ve talked about on our blog before.
Here, here!
From the “Faith isn’t Under Fire” article again:
I do not think, as some evangelicals do, that we are entering a “post-Christian” phase, but I do believe we are growing rather more secular than I would have anticipated even five years ago. The cumulative effect of a somewhat declining Christian population and a weakening Christian force in partisan politics is likely, I think, to lead to a more secular politics. Not wholly secular, to be sure, but more secular than we have been accustomed to in our Jesus-Winthrop-Reagan “city on a hill.”
Well, I can agree with him here. America is becoming a more secular nation, no doubt about that. I don’t think that means, however, that we conservatives pack up and go home on moral issues. Hard to tell if Meacham is arguing that we should, but it needs to be said. Citing Scripture verse in Congress won’t do any good, but neither will throwing up our heands, muttering something about separation of church and state and how God isn’t a Republican (and whispering, as an afterthought, “He isn’t a Democrat either”), and then consoling ourselves about how moral political issues aren’t our concern. Such sloganeering defeatism has no place in our minds and on our lips, yet it happens far too often. Rather, as I argued above, we need to argue for our views using reasonable principles that are accessible to a wide array of people. This doesn’t mean donning a secularist mantel. There are a plethora of such arguments out there on just about every issue, from abortion to same sex marriage to just war theory.
Now, to close, let me wax theological: No matter which direction the United States goes, politically and otherwise, the Church will stand. We are the Church Triumphant, and America is not God’s “Chosen Nation.” The Kings of the world rise and fall, but Jesus stands forever.
Check out the following related posts:
A Taste of the Coming Storm (I have since seen why Warren sought to clarify–he’s a pastor, not a politician, so he must be measured in his political action–but I still think his clarification was poorly and weakly worded)
Astronomically Intimidated
Obama Reducing Abortions: a Fool’s Gambit
Young Evangelicals: What the Heck is Up?
Christians in the Public Square
Christians in the Public Square part II
_________________________________________________________________________________
If you liked what you read, please consider subscribing to my RSS feed (RSS button at the top right in the sidebar).
