Transcript Politics and Religion Dr. Troy Gibson

Politics and Religion
Dr. Troy Gibson
I. Course Introduction
A. Why study religion and politics?
•
Relevance in Political History (Western Civilization)
•
Relevance in American History
•
Relevance in Political Philosophy
•
Relevance in Political Debate
•
Relevance in Political Outcomes (parties, policy, voting, elections,
groups, etc.)
•
Applies to us all? The political question, then, is not, How does
religion relate to non-religious politics? but rather, What kind of
politics—what stances, arguments, policies, and principles—flow
from different religions or ways of understanding the world and
life, whether they are older (traditional) or newer ‘religions’? We
will not understand the political dynamics of the contemporary
world until we recognize the religiousness of all peoples and
cultures and the differences among their basic assumptions
about human flourishing and their diverse impacts on political
and economic development.
*Someone may argue that religion ought not be relevant, but it would
be mistaken or naïve to say that it is not relevant.
B. Religion IN Politics in America (comparatively speaking).
Neither Iran, England, France, or Germany. No homework
on Wednesday nights; government offices closed on
Sundays; out on Easter and Christmas. Peter Berger: “If
India is the most religious country on our planet, and
Sweden is the least religious, America is a land of Indians
ruled by Swedes.” Instead, we have a sort of “permissive
establishment” of religion here, where the major religion is
accommodated in public life (not oppressive, not
prescriptive, not entirely secular). The Concept of
Separation of Church and state exists in virtually every
western democracy; but vastly different meanings and
applications.
C. How will we study R&P? Where do we limit the study?
Course will focus mostly on most dominant religious groups
in America, movements, events, trends, in American
political history and behavior.
II. But What about the Secularization thesis? First: secular, secularization,
secularism (differences?)
A. Definition: Religious belief and practice is (and ought to be - secularism)
decreasing in relevance & acceptance as human progress is
advanced through modernization & globalization.
B. Evidence – Religion is ‘safe’ and irrelevant
•
Decline of religiosity (in Europe, at least)
•
Rise of dualism (division of all things into sacred/secular airtight
categories) and the privatization/secularization of Christianity
(America); paradigm shift; Christian and religious categories, once
taken for granted, no longer welcome as lenses through which we
may interpret the world; from 1950-today America moved from
dualism towards postmodernism. (Example: Bible-theft). Smith p.
270
–
How pervasive? Can you imagine a research program or
department who’s whole mission was to examine the
phenomenon of secularism?
•
Responses to naturalism by Christians, a new protestantism: growth
in subjective faith, growth in experiential faith; growth in relative
faith; growth in spiritualism; decline of traditionalism and growth in
secular marketing strategies for church growth (p. 15 Wald). The Me
Church
C. Causes of Secularization
1. Dualism in Theology (Aquinas division of Nature and Grace)
2. Dualism in Philosophy - Especially articulated in the thought of Immanuel
Kant, we divide knowledge, truth, and all activity into revelation vs
reason, science vs faith, fact vs value, etc. This, we say, is the nature of
knowledge and we add that matters of faith, values, and revelation
(religion) are of private use only while matters of fact, science, and
reason are of public use.
3. Great Awakening’s identification of Christian life with individual
experience, not testable truth claims and corporate confessions of faith
(heart, not head).
4. Surrender of the fundamentalists (1900-1970); leave the public square to
the godless, we need to be saving souls.
5. Rise of the secular left (1850-1950) – passive Protestant dominance
trumped by active secular revolution (p. 63 Smith). This group eventually
gained control of the public/social institutions and successfully argued
that anyone who wants to play with them must use their ball (secular or
naturalistic assumptions about the world). Successfully changed basic
understandings of science, education at all levels, public philosophy,
church-state doctrine, model of personhood (from the soul to the
psychologized self), and journalism. Notice: interest was not a neutral
public space, but a new moral order (and toppling of the old Protestant
one). Next generation gave us the 1960s revolutions and
postmodernism.
6. Growth of Modern Government – Government was once limited to
“commerce and civil order” and the church focused on charity and
inculcation of virtue and truth. But when gov’t became ‘secular’
and expanded its role (welfare-regulatory state), it pushed religion
to those areas not important enough to have received the
help/control of government (margins of public life). Effect – gov’t
expansion tended to crowd out religion, as well as other
intermediate social institutions (family, marriage, communities).
7. Public Education – For secular elites, the goal was to create
universal centers of intellectual reconstruction, where successive
generations are trained exclusively in secular methods and
eventually secular perspectives only. For protestants, it was to
help the poor and (and in some cases, undermine private catholic
education). Result: secular thinking and secular viewpoints
training over 90% of the last few generations. The 1960s was no
accident. (Read p. 133 of Baker)
D. Challenges to secularization (in addition to the U.S. itself) – (1) birth,
marriage, immigration patterns in U.S. and especially Europe (2)
stable beliefs and practice of evangelicals despite economic incline;
regular church attendance in U.S. well over 50% (3) growth of
traditional Islam and Christianity worldwide (4) return of theology
in American evangelicalism (SBC 30% ministers ‘Reformed’) (5)
Argument that secularization is not non-religious; Some religions
are traditional, some are new, and among the new religions are
those guided by a secular faith, a belief system held by
communities whose gods--which may not be acknowledged as
gods—are human autonomy, scientific rationality, technological
progress, the nation, economic growth, a communist future, or
sheer power in itself (6) argument that religion persists because it,
and not science, satisfies a basic human need, the desire to explain
and existence/life as meaningful (7) resurgence of religion in public
life in the name of government neutrality (result of
postmodernism)
E. These developments feed our current ideological divisions.
Economic
Dimension
Rugged LaissezFaire Individualists
Cultural
Dimension
Traditional
Puritans
Expressive
Individualists
Collectivist
Liberals
Source: Rothman
and Black
Phil of Knowledge Premodernism
Modernism
Postmodernism
Starting Point
Personal-Absolute Man
God
Epistemic
Foundation
Revelation
(aided reason)
Reason (unaided) Relativism
Truth is…
a unified whole
a divided reality
(dualism)
Key Thinkers
St. Paul,
Augustine,
Pascal, Calvin
Descartes, Locke, Derrida, Foucault,
Kant,
Fish,
Schleiermacher
Kierkegaard,
Major
Historical
Causes
Historical claims
of Christianity
Religious Wars
(1550-1650)
Worldviews
Historic
Deism, Secular Existentialism,
Christianity/Jud Humanism;
New Age;
Positivism
Nihilism
Self (I)
invented as we
go (story-telling)
Totalitarianism;
Scientific wars
(WWI, WWII,
Cold War)
III. Worldview and Presuppositions
A. What is religion? A lot of the confusion about the role of religion
in politics comes from our assumptions about religion, or how
to define it. If religion means traditional rituals or practices of
organized faith communities, then not all are religious
(popular view in the West). If religion means adherence
(wittingly or otherwise) to a philosophical system, basic beliefs
about what is ultimately real, true, right, valuable, and
meaningful, then everyone is religious; i.e., we all have a
worldview.
B. 7 Worldview Questions from James Sire
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What is prime reality?
What is the nature of external reality?
What is a human being?
What happens at death?
Why/how is it possible to know anything at all?
How do know right from wrong?
What is the meaning of human history?
C. If the worldview concept is correct (everyone’s got
one), then one could never divorce religion from
politics. Worldviews do not cloud our judgment,
they determine our judgment. There is no “freethinker,” can’t judge religion except on the basis of
another religion; GK Chesterton and the universal
reality of dogmatism. AND. If politics is about the
authoritative allocation of values (choosing which
values to legislate or which vision of human
flourishing to actualize), then politics necessarily is
informed by worldview convictions about what
values are best for society.
*The Modernist Objection to Worldview Analysis:
These are ‘upper-story’ matters (faith, values,
religion) driven by presuppositions and
philosophical assumptions. But ‘lower story’
matters (reason, fact, science) are value-worldviewphilosophy free. Are there faith commitments in
the scientific process?
IV. Religious Arguments in Public Discourse (Draw 2 Circles –
Religion/Politics
A.
NO! KEEP RELIGION IN CHURCH!
1. Simple argument
–
Different beliefs about God
–
Differences may lead to violence
–
With no certainty about religion, avoid religion in public space
2.
John Rawls and the doctrine of Public Reason
Problem: How can people committed to different worldviews
live/work 2gether as equals in a fair peaceful society? Answer:
Limit reasons to only those premises held in common by all
(‘overlapping’) and assume all citizens participate from behind
a ‘veil of ignorance’, where no one knows what status they will
hold in life. Result? Just society and possibility of ongoing
conversation in public.
3. Natural Law - In politics, we use science and reason
(accessible to all by God’s natural revelation). In religion,
we use special revelation (word of God). Robert George
agrees that religious reasons must not be used as political
reasons. He only argues that Rawls must not limit
political reasons to only those reasons held in common
by all people. As a natural law philosopher, he insists that
some truths can be ascertained by all through unaided
natural reason and are therefore acceptable in the public
square, even if not all citizens recognize them or even if
these naturally discerned truths are rejected by many. If
Rawls requires ‘overlapping’ reasons, George requires
‘natural’ reasons, but both ultimately reject revealed or
religious reasons.
B. YES! PERMIT THE DIFFERENT VOICES! (some public subject matter, say
justice, overlaps and is relevant in one’s religious concerns; concentric
circles)
1. Critiques of Rawls – Not consistent with liberal democracy, free speech,
or pluralism; discredits men like MLK and movements like the
abolition movement; inconsistent with government neutrality since
secularism/naturalism differ with Christianity, for instance, only in
content not form; conceived using a non-neutral view of human
nature (individual, atomistic, utility maximizing); conceived towards a
desired result, the case of abortion and slavery (original position vs
public reason); self-defeating since Rawls’ assertion that only reasons
held in common are permissible is itself a principle not held in
common by all, so it too should be excluded; conversion shows that
religious or worldview-premised arguments are not “inaccessible”; is
justice any less likely to feature incompatible principles than morality
or religion? Is conflict less likely when large groups and their core
values/identities are excluded or told to adopt schizophrenia?
2. Nicholas Wolterstorff’s critique of Richard Rorty (FROM THE READING)
V.
Key concepts in Political Theology
A. Opening questions - do the spheres overlap? A word about political theology vs
political ideology; or perhaps political idolatry? Reductionism:
B. Key questions, particularly in Christian political theology
1. What is breadth and depth of Creation-Fall-Redemption?
2. What is the nature of the kingdom of God/Christ? What about the New Heavens
and New Earth (continuity or discontinuity?)
3. When and how is that kingdom realized? (Millennium-Eschatology)
4. How adequate is natural revelation for all of life?
5.
Is the state supposed to enforce the moral law of God? What about the first
table?
6.
What does ‘render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and unto God’s what is
God’s’ mean?
7.
And for all worldviews, is man basically good (criminal law, statism and
capitalism); is he special (environmental law and animal rights; are there
moral absolutes (human rights and public ethics); is there a personal
speaking God (political accountability; theocracy); what is the destiny of
history; what is man’s basic problem and solution, etc.
C. Christ and Culture (Reinhold Neihbur)
•
Christ against Culture (opposition; ‘Holy Huddle’ escapism; the culture is
lost and evil and Christians should separate themselves entirely); Quaker,
“third-race” sectarians; Anabaptists traditions
•
•
•
•
Christ of Culture (agreement; whatever is good/enjoyable/helpful
in culture is coextensive with Christianity; no conflict at all); 19th –
20th century liberal Protestantism (Jefferson, I’m a Christian in the
only sense…)
Christ above culture (grace perfects nature; synthesis where
culture is finished off by church; culture can lead you to God but
church must take you the rest of the way; most of what we know
and discover does not come through scripture mediated by the
church but reason transmitted through culture); Aquinas and
Roman Catholic tradition
Christ and culture in paradox (tension; dualist; culture operates
according to different rules/ethics than the Christian church;
paradox for believers living between time and eternity, wrath and
mercy, culture and Christ, tragedy and joy, the temporal/secular
and the eternal/sacred); Lutheran
Christ transforms culture (reformational; creation is good but
misdirected and is in need of recreational work of Christ through
Christians); Calvinistic and social gospel movement
D. Political Theologies (Historic)
1. Strong Separation Models – Baptist (historic) and Anabaptist
traditions (God’s rule ended at the cross); Fundamentalists early
20th century. My kingdom is not of this world; Be ye not
conformed to this world.
2. Interactive - You are salt and light; In but not of the world; thy
kingdom come; cultural mandate in Genesis; seek the welfare of
the city
• Indirect influence: Lutheran Two Kingdom theory – divide Ceasar’s
from God’s; state is not evil, but irrelevant for the church (except in
gross injustice); Christians are dual citizens of two non-overlapping
God ordained kingdoms operating under separate purposes,
ethical codes, means, etc.). Christians impact the earthly kingdom
accidentally, if at all.
• Direct influence: Vatican II-Roman Catholic (subsidiarity and
solidarity) and Dutch Reformed Protestant Principled-Pluralism
(this neo-Calvinist tradition seeks to find biblical principles of
justice that apply without preference for one professed faith over
another, in a diverse society); Neo-evangelicalism (response to
fundamentalist withdrawal; engage every front, but tempered by
degree of scriptural clarity; expect neither utopia nor ruin);
Liberation Theology (theology from the point of view of the
oppressed)
3. Strong Church-State Affinity – Trent - Roman Catholic,
Erastian-Anglican, National Confessionalist and
Christian America groups (Constantine; Puritans and
the Christian commonwealth). All authority has been
given to me in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18)
*Again, the key determinants of these models is one’s
view of eschatology (when Christ returns), continuity
between testaments and ages, view of the state in NT
(permissive or restrictive).
I. Religion in American Political History
A.
Religious Groupings based on affiliation surveys
–
Evangelical Protestants (26.3%) – trace their heritage to the
Protestant Reformation of 16th century and Great Awakenings
of the 18th and 19th centuries); doctrinal distinctives: stress
the final, reliable, and sufficient authority of the Bible in all
that it affirms; typically stress the exclusive truth of Christianity
and universal need for justification before God through faith in
the substitutionary atoning work of Jesus Christ. E.g. Southern
Baptists, Presbyterian Church of America, Assemblies of God.
–
Mainline Protestants (18%) – same heritage, but have
departed from the traditional doctrines (especially regarding
scripture: bible contains/becomes, but is not, the very Word of
God) from the Reformation in light of modernity and scientific
theories of Darwin (indeed, no unifying system of doctrine).
E.g. United Methodists, PCUSA, United Church of Christ. Less
likely to accept a literal Hell or universal need for conversion.
More likely to stress social justice. *High percentage of
evangelicals attending mainline denominations (South).
– Roman Catholics (24%; 46% of immigrants are Catholic; 29% of all
Catholics are Latinos; youngest cohort split between whites and Latinos) –
considers itself to be the original and one true church of Christ through
apostolic succession from Peter and the apostles. Distinguishing
doctrines: Ecclesiastical supremacy, necessity, and infallibility of the
church, headed by the Pope or Bishop of Rome in all matters of faith.
Religious authority is divided between tradition, scripture, and teaching
magisterium
– Historically Black Protestant denominations (7%); born out of revivalism in
the late 18th and early 19th century; largest is Church of God in Christ
– Unaffiliated or Secular (16%; doubled in 20 years; 25% of 18-29; 5-7%
atheist or agnostic)
• Secular (7) – free from” religion” and stress belief in the powers of
human reason over revelation in the discovery of truth (secular
humanism).
• Atheist, Agnostic (4) – considers the evidence for God’s existence to be
unpersuasive (they may then disbelieve or leave it at that).
• Unaffiliated Believers (5)
– Others: Mormon 2%; Jews 2%; Muslim 1-2%; Hindu, Buddhist, Jehovah
Witness, Orthodox, Other Christian, all under 1% each
– American Youth (Christian Smith and Moralistic Therapeutic Deism)
‘Moralistic Therapeutic Deism’
Christian Smith and the Religion of American Youth
1. ‘Doctrines’: 1. "A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches
over human life on earth." 2. "God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to
each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions." 3. "The central
goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself." 4. "God does not
need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to
resolve a problem." 5. "Good people go to heaven when they die.“ The
authors describe the system as being "about providing therapeutic benefits to
its adherent" as opposed to being about doctrines or obligations like
"repentance from sin (happiness over holiness), of keeping the Sabbath, of
living as a servant of a sovereign divine, of steadfastly saying one's prayers” or
carefully studying a holy text,” “of faithfully observing high holy days, of
building character through suffering...” They say, “a significant part of
Christianity in the United States is actually only tenuously Christian in any
sense that is seriously connected to the actual historical Christian tradition,
but has rather substantially morphed into Christianity's misbegotten
stepcousin, Christian Moralistic Therapeutic Deism."
2. Sources – their churches, either explicitly in teaching (moralism over
doctrine - Veggie Tales motto; God over love rather than
wrath/judgment; more talk of God than Christ; little ‘expository’
preaching/teaching) or implicitly in practice (church is designed to
satisfy the ‘felt needs’ and demands of contemporary people according
to what we know pleases them in the culture rather than to satisfy or
please God according to what we know pleases/satisfies Him in
Scripture).
Souls in Transition (Emerging Adults)
1. Landscape of 18-29s: committed traditionalist (15 percent), selective
adherents (30 percent; loosely connected and very selective in the
tradition they were raised in), spiritually open (15 percent), religiously
indifferent (25 percent), religiously disconnected (5 percent), and
irreligious (10 percent).
2. Losing their religion? Sort of -- Just as religious as the previous
generation in belief, but not in practice (particularly church
attendance/membership). Part of an overall movement away from
commitment in relationships and to institutions. Summary of Smith’s
findings: Emerging adults live in an emotional world where self is still
pretty much the focus, where right and wrong are just common sense
and, for most, morality that involves the notion that one's choices
should not hurt anyone. Additionally, it is a social and emotional world
where everyone is different (and that's just fine) and personal choices
are simply that: personal choices. Religious choices are seen in the
same realm, personal, not proscriptive. And settling down is for later,
perhaps much later in life.
3. Causes? Parents, devotional life as a teen, church-politics association,
church partitioning by ‘peers’ (no mentoring; instead, churches stress
peers over parents/adults), churches cater to young-married families;
message is me-and-Jesus (no ecclesiology)
II.
Brief Church and State History Leading to American Birth
“The American founders revolutionized the Western tradition of
religious liberty. But they also remained within this Western
tradition, dependent on its enduring and evolving postulates
about God and humanity, authority and liberty, church and state.”
A.
First Millennium
1.
Christians came out of periods of extensive and intensive
persecution by the Romans. They were noncomformist (refused
to worship pagan gods or Ceasar) and agitators (sought to
transform pagan society with Christian morality; charity, burials,
infants, social customs). Emperor Julian
“These impious Galileans not only feed their own poor, but ours also;
welcoming them into their agapae, they attract them, as children are
attracted, with cakes. Whilst the pagan priests neglect the poor, the hated
Galileans devote themselves to works of charity, and by a display of false
compassion have established and given effect to their pernicious errors. See
their love-feasts, and their tables spread for the indigent. Such practice is
common among them, and causes a contempt for our gods.”
2.
Persecution ended when Emperor Constantine converted to
Christianity, signed the Edict of Milan (311) tolerating all religious
beliefs though privileging Christianity some.
3.
4.
B.
1.
2.
Future emperors, however, began to pursue a policy of preference and
control over Trinitarian Christianity (supreme over church and state).
Augustine, addressing critican pagans and disillusioned Christians, put these
realities together in City of God (413-427), where he argued that Christians
are primarily citizens of a different city (not city of man), but it would be
better for all if the rulers of the city of man favored Christianity (though
institutionally separate from, if not under, church authority). BUT, few
emperors could resist the urge to consolidate and control the spheres. He
further refutes Roman superiority as fulfillment of history (focal point).
Rather, no state (Christian or otherwise) can be identified as God’s Kingdom
on earth; heavenly kingdom is always future.
Papal Revolution – changed all that after 1050 when a series of Popes moved
towards ecclesiastical separation from and even control of civil leaders
(Catholic independence).
Canon Law - The papacy claimed expanded jurisdiction in law, treatment of
non-Christians, church life, and political matters. Out of these papal
pronouncements, we get “Canon Law” (first modern body of international
law). Based on notion that Pope had “two-swords” (civil law and canon law,
where canon in superior to civil). Whole systems of law developed around
seven sacraments (baptism, eucharist, penance, orders, extreme unction,
confirmation, and marriage).
Rights – a whole body of legally recognized ‘rights’ emerged
out of this tradition. These rights constrained church/state and
protected the Catholic faithful (not others) from arbitrary or
oppressive ecclesiastical and civil decisions.
3. This system of international law began to break down as nationstate kings asserted their own territorial authority and refused to
recognize Canon Law as absolute/binding.
C. Protestant Reformation (16th and 17th century); march toward
religious tolerance, liberty, disestablishment, constitutional
republicanism
1. Luther’s contribution – (1) territorialized the faith; establishment
should be local (2) Two Kingdom Theory – Christians are members
of two God ordained, legitimate, good kingdoms; The civil sphere
administers law; church administers Gospel.
2. Anglicans nationalized the faith – model that was basically NOT
continued by new world protestants
3. Anabaptists communalized the faith – emphasis was on the
irreconcilable differences between realm of religion/church and
realm of the world.
4.
Calvin’s reformation congregationalized the faith; church was to be ruled by
elected leaders (pastors, elders, deacons) bound to written confessions of faith
D.
Political Implications of PR: Reformers of both generations articulated a
political philosophy based upon their reading of Scripture which denied the
absolute authority of the state (or people); considered rulers and subjects as
equally valuable (same as in church); placed the people and law above the king
who is a ‘servant’; generally called for a federal-democratic, divided, political
system of limited government to deal with sinful tyranny; called for a
constitution which mirrored Biblical covenants where divine law (perhaps 10
commandments) serves as a transcendent ground of civil law (confession in
church; covenant-compact in politics); acknowledged right of people to resist
and depose a king who violates the terms of covenant; insisted that we do not
form government based on self-interest or ideals that we ourselves determine
(read p. 13 Witte). These ideas flowed from Calvinism which taught that God
alone is absolutely sovereign; man is simultaneously a wicked-sinner and
dignified-Image bearer (equality/freedom); gov’t of all kinds should follow Old
and New Testament models (less hierarchical and more democratic); covenant
theology (next slide)
Note on church government – the most common forms of church government
(decision making structure) among the Reformers was congregational
(democratic-republic) or presbyterian (federal-republican). Clearly, many
reformers came to believe that their view of how church gov’t should be
structured came to influence how civil government should be structured
(“Presbytery agreeth with monarchy like God with the devil”)
Some Comments on Citizenship and Leadership in a “Free Republic” by the Lutheran Theologian Polycarp
Leyser (a Friend and Colleague of Martin Chemnitz)
For as all citizens of a free city, as many as live in it, have a common right and equal liberty so far as the
republic is concerned, and as they nevertheless, for the sake of order, elect senators and place a mayor
at their head, handing over to him the keys and statutes of the city in order that he might use them in
the common name of all and rule the republic according to them, so also do the citizens of the city of
God. They indeed have a share in all holy things, and all things are theirs, whether it be Paul or Peter, life
or death, things present or things to come (1 Cor. 3:21). They possess all things under their one Head,
Christ, who has given to His church all things necessary for salvation, which he procured by His sacrificial
merit, and in it to every single member in particular, even to the most humble. But for the sake of order,
they elect certain persons to whom they entrust the administration of the keys of the kingdom of
heaven. So there are among us deacons, pastors, doctors, bishops, or superintendents so that all things,
according to Paul’s direction, are done decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40). Here the Jesuits will cry out:
“Very well! This example also confirms the supremacy of the pope, who in the church of Christ, together
with the college of cardinals, is exalted above all, as are the mayor and the senators in a city.” But this
example does not at all support the pope; it rather subverts his whole tyranny. A mayor is lord neither of
the senators nor of the citizens, but he is a fellow citizen. He has been placed at the head of all merely for
the sake of order. He does not dare undertake anything arbitrarily, much less anything against the liberty
of the citizens. But he is held to do all things according to the law and the counsel of the senate. Of the
pope the teachers of canon law, his adulators, once boasted (and the Jesuits have not recanted it to this
very day), “The power of the pope is of such a nature and so great that no person dare ask him: Why do
you do that?” (See section 40 of the canon law, the chapter, “If the Pope.”) It is certain that if a free
republic would get such a mayor, they would chase him out of the city before sunset.
(Harmonia quatuor evangelistarum 85, fol. 1627; quoted in C. F. W. Walther, Church and Ministry [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1987], pp. 283-84; emphases added)
E. Constitutional Covenantalism: The Puritans viewed a covenant as a
social and divine promise: each participant in the covenant is
expected to do certain things. A violation of the covenant could have
the most disastrous consequences for those who had entered
therein. Following biblical precedents, a covenant would also last
from generation to generation. By means of these covenants,
Puritans were among the first English speaking people to implement
a government bound by written words in a single document.
Example, Deut 1:1-17
Comparing Covenants and Contracts:
• Covenants use Broad instead of Narrow language (no loopholes)
• Covenants are solemn sacred promises instead of cold legal words on
paper
• Covenants are social/communitarian in nature instead of individual
(We instead of I)
• Covenants identify a collective purpose and identity;
• Covenants are validated or sealed in the presence of and by an
external higher authority, typically God
*Think about a difference between marriage as a ‘covenant’ vs
‘contract’ and you might get the spirit of the distinction.
Reformation Political Thought
•
•
•
•
•
Political Sovereignty rests with God 
people  state
Ground of Natural Human
value/rights = Imago Deo (originates
with God)
Justification for Gov’t = ordained by
God at least to suppress evil (original
sin), promote common good including
proliferation of true religion (more
communitarian)
Constitution = morally-informed pact
between people having
independent/equal status,
constructing a limited gov’t based
upon voluntary consent and
established by promises made before
God.
Implications – Reformation political
thought led more to federalrepublicanism, with divine law and
God as supreme; elected reps from
each political unit, tribe, church, state
(Glorious Revolution, English Civil
War). Also Federal
Secular Enlightenment Political Thought
•
People  State
•
NHR ground = State of Nature, mutual and
unanimous consent, virtue of being human
(originates with humans)*
•
Why gov’t? Self-interest, protect natural rights
(life, liberty, property); return individuals to
natural state of autonomy; more individualistic
•
Constitution is a legal contract among people
to form gov’t for sake of self-interest, limited
gov’t, and binds all (posterity and immigrants)
•
Implications - Enlightenment thought led more
to democracy, with human law and the
majority as supreme (French Revolution)
*Today’s liberal theorists like Rawls attempt to ground
freedom in something other than natural
rights/law (too religious) and appeal only to
what is rational.
I.
A.
1.
2.
3.
4.
B.
Religion and the Constitution in 18th Century America
Introduction - how did America come to accept/enshrine
principles of religious liberty, tolerance, disestablishment, churchstate separation?
Why look beyond the Constitution to understand the role of religion
in American politics?
Constitution sets outer boundaries (no prescription or
proscription of religion by government).
The records of the constitutional congresses’ debates on the first
amendment are brief/sketchy.
Limited to Congress, not states (“Congress shall make no law…”)
Framers intended for states to interpret these clauses and
appropriate them as they saw fit (Madison quote, Witte, p. 22)
To understand the intended relationship generally, at the time, we
must identify the principle players involved in forging the
consensus behind church-state relations in the 18th century by
looking at four groups: on the religion side, Puritans and
Evangelicals; on the political side, Enlightenment thinkers and
Classical Republicans.
II.
A.
1.
2.
3.
The four groups
American Puritans (dominant from 1630-1730) and the Christian
Commonwealth – having been persecuted and/or regulated by both
Catholic and especially Anglican monarchies, this group took their
Calvinism to America (system of Christian theology stressing the
utter sovereignty of God in all things as well as the institutional
separation of church/state). Early and key group are
Congregationalists.
Church and State are separate distinct ‘covenantal associations’ or
two seats of God’s authority. Church was about preaching,
sacraments, charity. State was about enforcing law, punishing crime,
instilling virtue, and order. Clergy could not hold political office;
political leaders could not hold church office.
BUT, though not to be confounded, they were to be “close and
compact” (the community is a common project of both church and
state, so some interdependence). State provide church with public
properties, tax exemptions, subsidies, Sabbath Day laws. Church
provided state with meetinghouses/chapels, community
schools/libraries, maintenance of census rolls, marriage, death
certificates; offered ‘election day sermons’ to promote civil
participation.
Emphasis on community and local religious conformity led
to banishment of dissidents, like Quakers, Baptists, Catholics, Jews, etc.
Puritans were separatists from Anglicanism, but this did not initially seem
to require them to accept disestablishment or toleration at the local level.
4. Things changed, however, in 1689 (Toleration Act) as more and different
kinds of Protestants from around Europe sailed over. The Act required
toleration, but not full political equality of, other traditional Protestant
churches. More and more, the ‘covenantal’ idea of civil society (though
not church society) was viewed as more open and voluntarist by Puritans
in terms of individual conscience (open to other Christian sects). Came to
celebrate, rather than suppress, denominationalism in theology (idea that
there are many paths to God within orthodox Protestant Christianity) and
toleration of religious pluralism in civil society. Read pp. 25-26 Witte.
B. Evangelicals – Product of the Great Awakening (1720-1780).
1. Great Awakening - a series of evangelists (Wesley, Edwards, Whitefield,
Tennet) began to challenge the dry, rigid, religious legalism
(‘conversionless Christianity’ where salvation is conferred through ritual or
routine) and institutionalization, protection, of the church by the state.
Wanted fuller separation, more freedom of association, and liberty of
conscience (remember, these were either new or unestablished groups
like Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians). John Leland, a Baptist fiery
preach, said, “The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be
exploded forever.”
2.
C.
Isaac Backus, Reformed Baptist theologian mid to late 18th century
(p. 28) – Christianity should fear BOTH state repression and support
of religion. Establishment results in a distraction from divine
mandates and capture of established church. Want to promote
Christianity? Deregulate it. Besides, the state and church are not
working on the same projects (maintaining order vs proclaiming
gospel) or using the same means (sword vs means of grace). He
coined term separation of church and state. Led evangelicals in
pushing for constitutional means of disestablishing religion.
Enlightenment views – provided theory complementing evangelical
theology on religious liberty. Locke argued that the state only
exists to protect life, liberty and property (man’s ‘outward’
concerns), not to promote religion (man’s ‘inward’ concern). Laws
cannot touch one’s mind, which is the object of religious activity.
He did, however, argue that state laws would only ‘seldom’ conflict
with Christian values and he refused to tolerate atheists altogether
(can’t be trusted to keep promises or oaths). Saw disestablishment
and religious liberty as solution to violent religious conflict (political
instability). Summarized by Madison well (p. 31 Witte).
D.
Republican Views – spokespersons were Washington, Adams,
Benjamin Rush, etc. If Enlightenment thinkers (like Jefferson)
naturally aligned with Evangelicals, Classical Republicans naturally
aligned with old Puritans. Agree with both E’s on disestablishment
and liberty of conscience, BUT wanted the state/public square feature
a common religious ethic (non-sectarian and not theologically
specific). They stressed the utility of Christianity as a prerequisite to
happy citizens, effective/efficient good government (pillar of society
and necessary for its peace, prosperity, and endurance). Read p. 33.
Their approach was similar to Massachusetts constitution (see p. 3435). Conservative in the classical sense (natural social hierarchy;
law/order, traditions, morality – goal is to created stable society with a
common identity)
E. Establishment of Civil or Public Religion - Result, the Classical
Republicans won out. First, it won out in the first Continental
Congresses through official actions/proclamations (chaplains, schools,
missionaries, prayers, Northwest Ordinance 1878). Second, won out
among states by leaving alone state establishment practices
(promoting even particular denominations). Third, it won out in time
(we continue to favor or accommodate, in a number of official and
unofficial ways, generic monotheism and Christianity in everything
from money to White House Christmas.
Forging the First Amendment at the Constitutional
Convention
I.
A.
B.
C.
The Context of Religion Clauses leading up (1774-1787)
Paid chaplains to lead prayer at Cont Congress entire time.
Thanksgiving day and fast-day proclamations (1775), one of four
proclamations “it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore
the superintending Providence of the Almighty God.” Also urged
all men to “express the grateful feelings of their hearts” by
“publick humiliation, fasting, and prayer” and “confess and
deplore our many sins” and pray that “it may please God through
the Merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out
of Remembrance,” that God would grant the “promotion and
enlargement of that Kingdom, which consisteth in Righteousness,
Peace, Joy, in the Holy Ghost.”
Voted to fund the procurement of 20k Bibles for distribution in
the States (never done due to lack of funds; later merely
encouraged states to have “one or more new and correct editions
of the Old and New Testament to be printed…”
D.
E.
II.
A.
B.
C.
Writers of the Articles of Confederation refused to prohibit
religious tests for public office holding
Resulting sentiment captured in the Northwest Ordinance AFTER
the First Amendment was written. On the one hand, in the
territory no one was to be “molested” on account of his religion,
but religion was to be promoted in the territory by the
government.
Drafting Process
House version: “Congress shall make no law establishing religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of
conscience be infringed.” Elsewhere, a sixth amendment would
say, “No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear
arms in person.”
Senate version (three early versions defeated read p. 86-89).
Senate version (#19 p. 87): Congress shall make no law
establishing articles of faith or mode of worship, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof.”
A conference committee (HR and S) composed of a cross-section
of our four groups gave us our current/final version with no
surviving debate details.
III.
A.
B.
1.
2.
3.
How are we to make sense of their unclear intentions? Two possibilities:
Thinner reading – clauses set outer boundaries of appropriate
congressional actions on religion (neither prescribe nor proscribe). Leaves
open later discussion and perhaps legislation on religion. Based on fact
that earlier drafts had more sweeping language and were rejected
(Congress shall not ‘touch’ or ‘favor’ or ‘prefer’ religion). Instead, they
adopted ‘respecting’ (point to) establishing religion.
Thicker readings – (more reading in to the words)
Congress – not binding on the states
Shall make no law – no new laws, but confirming existing ones? Probably not,
since new laws easily passed that did in fact touch on religion.
Respecting an establishment – could refer to C not touching a state established
religion (6 had them then); or could mean C cannot pass laws aimed at
promoting an established religion (respecting is an umbrella term touching
on doctrines; required worship, mandatory tithing, etc.); so on the first
view, concern is not interfering with states; on the second, the concern
would have been not to allow Congress to move in the direction of a
national established church (with all attendant laws). The first reading
gives Congress no guidance on national laws affecting religion; the second
gives them guidance, but does not allow much beyond what was already
commonplace (chaplains, religious education, etc.). Conclusion?
Non-preferentialism – a mixture of these views suggesting that all the
founders intended (or could agree upon) was to outlaw an
established national religion, but allows for support of religion in
general. Put positively, C can “touch” religion so long as it favors no
particular one. This view explains the various laws touching on
religion (chaplains, etc.). This view has a harder time explaining the
word “respecting” however.
4. Prohibiting Free Exercise – umbrella term referring to all that is
meant by free exercise; this reading would mean that it merely
prevents C from prohibiting free exercise of religion (they dropped
the liberty of conscience clause)
5. Religion – IMPORTANT DEFINITION; to get free exercise, it must be
religious; to constitute establishment it must be a religion (or
religious); what is the pale of recognized religion? Then it did not
go beyond monotheism (Jews, Islam, Deism, Christianity, etc.).
What about conscientious objectors?
In the end, we get a new experiment, despite the lack of clarity, when it
comes to church state relations. Read Madison p. 103.
Religion Clause Interpretation prior to 1947
I.
Introduction – very few national laws touching on religion (or
challenging existing laws doing so). Religion laws were left to states
(and the development of new state constitutions).
II.
State Constitutional treatments of free ex & establishment
A.
Free Exercise - State constitutions articulated and stipulated very
detailed religious liberty and conscience laws (far beyond first
amendment language), recognized reality of and equality between
religious groups (explosion after 2nd Great Awakening); they moved
towards greater separation between church and state (two states
banned clergy from political office until 1978 and several states
adopted “Blaine” amendments which prohibited tax dollars from being
spent on any church or sectarian institution or activity).
*Motivation behind Blaine amendments and support for compulsory &
expanded public education came especially from two sources:
Secularists, who wanted to de-Christianized society & anti-Catholic
Protestants (latter group wanted protect the dominant Protestant ethos
(mode of thought) which permeated American society from Catholic
immigration.
B. Disestablishment – only 7 of 12 had disestablishment statements, but the
reality of religious pluralism and the strong free exercise language
probably made it unnecessary for the other five.
*Yet, most of the constitutions grounded or justified their protections of
religious liberty in their understanding of what ‘Almighty God’ would
have us do to fellow persons.
III.
Law in action vs Law on the books; Frontier as the release valve (17871947)
A.
Challenge and legacy of the Founders: state sought to balance the
general freedom of all private religions with the general patronage of
one common public religion (Protestant Christianity) with dissenters
moving (or moving West) for greater freedom. In short, promote both
pluralism & civil religion.
B.
A measure of discrimination still occurred (NE against Quakers, Baptists,
Methodists; NY, NJ, PA against Unitarians, Adventists, Christian Science;
South against Catholics; and all against Jews, Native American religion,
and Islam).
C.
Civil religion continued – symbols (crucifixes, In God We Trust, etc.), Ten
Commandments, national prayers, ‘blue-laws’ (Sunday observance,
blasphemy, etc.), official holidays were Christian, property
grants/subsidies for poor Christian churches/charities/schools;
mandatory chapel and Bible teaching in public schools; laws banning
polygamy, prostitution, pornography, gambling, often banned as
offenses to Christian morality. Legal defense? Christianity is a part of
the common law tradition (bedrock or foundation of law).
D.
E.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
F.
Getting out of town or state – religious minorities in an area just
moved around until they were more comfortable (Mormons moved
from NY to Ohio to MO to IL to Utah then ‘colonized’ NV and ID). Free
spirits moved to Mountain West and Oregon or Washington.
Religious diversity reached all time high at the turn of the century
(1900). Why?
2nd Great Awakening (1820-1860) – complete abandonment of
tradition, creeds, and confessions; stressed new experiential thing in
Christianity (common message was ‘Restoration’).
‘Reconquest’ of eastern seaboard by Baptists, Methodists, and
Catholics
Civil War – intradenominational divisions = new den
Civil War amendments freed not only slaves but latent AfricanAmerican churches
Immigration – European (especially Catholics) and some Eastern
(Buddhist, Hinduism, etc.).
Key Result – MAJOR change in religious landscape (Table 5.1). From
Anglican and Reformed/Calvinist to Evangelical. Irony? Evangelicals
far more interested in separation of c/s but far more interested in an
implicit endorsement by state/society of basic Protestant Christian
values.
IV.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Rise of the Secularists (1870-1920) – originally allies with
Evangelicals on establishment and liberty of conscience. But now
moved to take over knowledge production centers of society
(education, law, science) by extricating elite institutions of society
and the Protestant cultural hegemony, of any thing like a public or
relevant Christian worldview.
Aim to change what the US Supreme Court said was true of
America (if one takes “a view of American life as expressed by its
laws, its business, its customs and its society, we find everywhere
a clear recognition of the same truth…that this is a Christian
nation.” Unanimous opinion, 1892).
Education, always first. A new “progressivist” (i.e., naturalistic)
vision of knowledge came to dominate higher ed, so that
Christian higher ed (nearly all colleges at the time) began
relegating religion to chapel service and graduation ceremonies
(Is Danforth chapel necessary?).
Science and religion recast into “warfare” models rather than
“complimentary” models.
Legal realism replaced natural law as basis of law (no immutable
truths, but evolving subjective basis).
F.
V.
A.
B.
Pop culture – basic Christian ethic in mass public ed derooted;
collective understanding of the human person changed from
divinely created focusing on morality and character to modern
psychological constructions of the self centering on
personality, instinct, and desire; leading cultural leaders,
speakers, moralizers were Protestants before but now replaced
by new cultural authorities in journalism and social sciences (H
L Mencken)
Supreme Court (Polygamy, the Mormons, a case in point)
Prior to 1940, SC reviewed a few state laws on religion, but not
under First Amendment scrutiny (said Congress, not States).
Only used principles of law and fairness (17 cases during this
time).
But this changed in 1862, when Congress made Polygamy a
federal crime and in 1882, laws were passed barring
polygamists and plural cohabiters from voting, holding office,
and serving on juries. In 1887, sought to dismantle the
Mormon Church altogether (seizing its property) since it was
seen as a haven for illegal polygamists.
C.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Mormonism
Cases - Reynolds v. United States (1879), Davis v. Beason (1890), and
CJCLDS vs U.S. (1890) – all featured Mormons challenging these laws
(law against bigamy, mandatory anti-polygamy oath, gov’t dissolving
the Mormon church’s charter).
Rulings – SC upheld Congressional law in each instance, not even
entertaining Mormon free exercise claims (protects beliefs, not
actions, they said).
Context of national fear of Mormons? Smith’s frequent political
language/gestures, even dress (uniform, ran for president, formed
militias, spoke of building a kingdom headed by Mormons in
America ending the destruction of Mormon enemies; polygamy and
birth rates, mystery in Utah); though not through violent rebellion.
Court’s reaction (p. 140 Bradley).
Issue resolved when Utah sought statehood and the LDS church
disavowed polygamy is right in this age.
Consequence: Court reduced free exercise to a minimalist
guarantee of liberty of conscience ALONE (religion was essentially
opinion, and mere opinions can’t be touched but any behavior can).
Rise and Fall of the Evangelical Century
From 1800-1870, Evangelical Protestantism dominated American society at all
levels (Wall Street and Main Street). The assumption was the God had a special
place, plan, and relationship with America and expected Americans to work
towards building a Christian society with no established church but which was
dominated by a Protestant ethos. Then modernity happened…
Precursors to the Modernist-Fundamentalist Controversy
1. Social Conditions and Changes
– Significant immigration of non-Protestants, especially Catholics and
Jews (challenged the cultural hegemony of Protestantism in public life)
– Industrialization undermined the rural agrarian slow-paced lifestyle
that seemed to fit well or reinforce Protestant values. It also produced
alcoholism, poverty (1 n 8), child labor, female labor, monopolies,
orphans which seemed out of line with the historic Protestant concern
for local virtuous communities.
2.
–
Intellectual Challenges to orthodox Protestantism
Darwinism and Social Darwinism (undermined Imago Deo concept;
seemed to provide a rationale and justification for industrial exploitation
and abuse)
– German Higher Criticism (challenged the inerrancy of scripture)
3. World War I – Protestants were shocked to see the most scientifically
advanced nation, and nations, slaughter one another over what seemed
trivial things. Divine Judgment and warning to restore the national
covenant made between God and American long ago?
II. Scopes Trial – The nation watched as modernists and fundamentalists
converge on small town in TN (1925) to watch a public debate between
Clarence Darrow (atheist and evolutionist) and William Jennings Bryan
(evangelical and creationist). Though Darrow lost the case, he won the
debate in the eyes of the cultural elite. The reaction from
fundamentalists, was to withdraw from the world, interpret recent events
as tribulation in the ‘last days’ (notable exception are the reformed and
confessional evangelicals like J. Gresham Machen and Old Princeton), and
assume that even if they lose the elite culture, they still control main
street.