The Rise or Decline of American Christianityby
Marcus
Verhaegh
I received the latest issue of Christianity Today a few days ago. I was pleased. Perhaps since I am not, at least in my own estimation, an evangelical Christian – the target audience for this publication – I often find much of CT to be fairly humdrum. The ads for Christian educational institutes are usually the most interesting part, as far as I am concerned. This issue, though, had some articles I really enjoyed. First, there was the piece on John Eldredge.1 Second, there were the twin pieces I want to talk about here – one praising Christian currents in America, the other suggesting, in contrast, that Christians had better realize that our nation-state has become pagan. If we operate with a libertarian perspective, then the evidence presented in these articles suggests that the prospects for a Christian America are not bright. Leith Anderson’s case for "A Steady Christian Influence" in America is based in large part on items such as the following: Christians (qua Christians) managed to begin a war on the South and a war on drugs; people such as George Bush claim to be "born again"; evangelical Christians are shaping US foreign policy toward "righteousness"; people come together in Christian sentiment after Americans shoot one another. Slavery: As a Yankee, I don’t have very strong feelings about the Civil War – oops, I mean, "The War of Northern Aggression." While I agree that the North did not provide a moral justification for its attack on the South, I also agree that, for example, the English failed similarly in their attack on New Amsterdam. History is, as Hegel allowed, a slaughter-bench. While I admit I am still a bit ticked off at the English, my attitude toward all of this long-past slaughter is really something of a Stoical one. At the same time, it is fairly clear to me that, putting aside the question of the South’s motives in seceding, the North’s motives in attacking were not primarily abolitionist in character. This is what all reputable historians allow is prima facie the face – even as they might try to sneak stronger abolitionist motives in as the war progressed – and this is the historical record. Thus to claim, as Anderson does, that ‘slavery became illegal when abolitionist Christians put their lives on the line for human freedom’ is, shall we say, somewhat misleading. This is particularly so given the additional problem attached to the nature of the abolitionist motive: insofar as individuals fought as abolitionists at all, they normally did so for motives other than a concern for human freedom. In short, what ended slavery was Lincoln’s desire to ‘preserve the Union’ – abolitionist interest in human freedom played a minimal role. It is not tenable to suggest that, due in part to the fact that some very small number of abolitions put their lives on the line for human freedom, we can claim to see a steadily growing Christian influence in these now United States. At best, we can say that we have become a more Christian nation through the desires of Yankees to stamp out slavery after we "preserved the Union," where it is understood that these desires were based in economic motives and punitive ones (toward white Southerners), as well as in concern for human freedom. To make a stronger case, à la Leith, is to seriously occlude what a bad condition we are currently in. In particular, such a case tends to confusing Christian unity with romantisch theologies of nation-state Versmelzung. Moreover, I occasionally get the impression, when I come across Christian Right claims about our need to "export democracy," that this confusion also applies to theologies of another order – those of accretion toward the global McNation. But perhaps this is just a bad dream I am having. Drugs: I have seen drugs do bad things to people. There are drugs nobody ever needs to take. We will soon be developing many more drugs that nobody ever needs to take. At the same time, the war on drugs is a great evil that massively swells our crime and prison problems, and that ruins the lives of countless decent folk.
It good that our scientific knowledge of addiction has warned us away from taking cocaine or heroin use to be normal. But it is a severe blight on our Christian liberty that we have seen fit to outlaw use of these substances, to say nothing of pot, ’shrooms, or the like. The war on drugs is wrong at the level of known consequences, and wrong at the level of possible ones. As regards this latter problem: besides acceding to the current opinion of the masses, there is no principle of statecraft that separates bans on illegal substances from bans on giving money to George Bush’s campaign or writing specious article for Christianity Today. Yet it seems to me that both of these actions are quite often worse in their effects on others than is snorting some coke or speed. Should I try to build up a majority that advocates banning these actions, and similar ones? More to the point – why should we trust that the current tradition which sustains the war on drugs will not, in the irrational way of such traditions, morph itself into bans on things that are good? Do we not need solid principles of statecraft to help guide us away from such possibilities? Or shall we simply rely upon the Supreme Court and our living-Constitutional rights? Our Glorious Christian Right Leaders: When it comes to using the US government as the patron of Israel, I find it hard to offer too much in the way of criticism toward the likes of, say, Norman Podhoretz. However, when it comes to Christians who want to use the US government to promote Zionism – a movement I quite heartily support in and of itself – I grow anxious. Here we see Christians jump from "there is a movement that is good," to "it is good right now to offer material support to Israel, in order to further this movement," to "we need to use the US government to offer this support."
But while I may grow a tad worried here, I cannot say that we have arrived at advocacy of a level of governmental mis-use that rivals the advocacy found in support for the afore-mentioned war on drugs – or in support for full-funding of our decrepit Social Security and Medicare systems. The "Zionist lobby" is, in the grand scheme of things, a rather minor pack of rent-seekers. Sadly, though, when we come to Christians who are not only Zionists, but who furthermore want to use the US government to offer material support to Israel on the grounds that "the Bible tells them so," then we most definitely have a problem. And, of course, such people, or their approximate facsimiles, do exist. These individuals – normally termed Christian Zionists – hold not merely that it is morally good for the US to provide Israel financial aid. The Christian Zionist further holds that such provisions fulfill a specifically, if not uniquely Christian duty toward Israel – and not a duty justifiable on, say, merely rational grounds. Hence we are not talking about proposed duties such as "don’t steal," "refrain from nuking innocent civilians," "develop your talents," "try to keep in good shape," etc. We are talking about proposed duties such as "keep the Sabbath holy," "do not engage in fornication," "keep one’s hair covered, if female," etc. The Christian Zionist proposes, in the spirit of this second class of claims: "Support Israel, a nation-state, against her enemies." Given the nature of the proposed duty…. This is all just very bizarre. This is deeply strange. This is fanaticism. Now it is "support Israel" – next it is convert all the Jews, or nuke China, or ban homosexual activity, or ban computers (a Frank Herbert scenario), etc. There are no rules here. There is just excess neuro-chemical activity, perhaps toward, methinks, "creative" destruction. We should have none of it. And wherever such fanaticism comes from, it’s no part of any Christianity worthy of the name. Shooting People: It is sad when Americans shoot other Americans, as at Columbine. It is good that, in response to such actions, we come together as Christians. But if this second occurrence is a notable sign of our Christian character, then our culture is on its last legs, and we are doomed. Fellow Christian feeling among Americans cannot be based on such limited expressions of community. To dwell on them overly is to crowd out the real bonds of community that are required – complex tangles whose organizing principles must be kept sharply in focus. Things go better with the "con" essay to Leith’s "pro." In taking up the perspective of gloom and doom, Harold Brown makes a good case that since most Christians who give signs of possessing spiritual discernment oppose abortion, and since Roe v. Wade is now part of our "furniture" (a phrase Brown borrows from Justice O’Connor), this suggests that Christianity has not been all that steady an influence in America. Brown’s case proved particularly interesting to me in light of Leith’s charting of his wanderings out from the sure path. I do not think that the government’s abortion policies constitute our nation’s central deviations from the Christian worldview. But Brown’s focus on Francis Schaeffer and the efforts of Roman Catholic laity to reduce the number of abortions performed, and to lay the groundwork for a fully pro-life polity, strike me as offering a correct perception of the impetus of the American Christian community – if not of the majority of American Christians. In other words, I think that Brown gets right what the American Christian community is after – thus shedding at least some light on the question of how it is failing – and also correctly implies that this impetus is more than the sums of its parts. There is structure and regimentation to Christian communities, such that offering equal weight to the preferences of each individual within it constitutes a distortion of this community. Insofar as Brown offers such a view of community, he moves thoughtfully. At the same time, there are some problems with Brown’s "A Decisive Turn to Paganism." I will grant Brown that Lawrence v. Texas was a poor decision. Indeed, I will grant that it was a poor decision to allow the Court the power of judicial review at all. However, Brown’s focus on this case, and its overturning of state anti-sodomy laws, is misguided.2 If homosexual sodomy is "an abominable sin" that we may rightly ban by government law, then what are we to say of denial of Christ, of other acts of blasphemy, or of fornication? Are these all – I somehow feel compelled to ask – to be banned as well? In any case, unless and until Brown can explain why it is right for the government to restrict what consenting adults do to each other in privacy: I don’t want to hear about it.
July 30, 2004 Marcus Verhaegh [send him mail] will receive his Ph.D. in Philosophy from Emory University next month. Here is his homepage. Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com |
Whatever
the faults of Brown’s essay, it does at least focus on problems
with the judicial branch, and its does suggest a careful separation
of personal identity from nation-state identity. In this way, the
"dark side" wins out in the Christianity Today
shadow boxing. And the magazine wins out by staging this particular
round.