A Struggle for the Soul of American Christianity

by

Editor's note: This article first appeared in Zion's Herald Magazine, January/February 2005, Volume 179, Issue 1. It has been adapted slightly for time references.

In a close election, it takes very little to tip the balance one way or another. Early assessments of the results suggest that concern over “moral values” was the deciding issue for many voters. While historians will debate the truth of that for years, there is little doubt that the issue was skillfully manipulated by those who won the election. That ought to be of grave concern for Christians everywhere, and it may well have profound effect on the course of events for years to come. “What is going on?”

I believe that a case can be made that we are seeing a struggle for the soul of Christianity in America. More specifically, we are seeing a confrontation over how Christianity will be defined and who will define it?

At the moment the debate seems to be hinging on the meaning of “moral values.” Wedge issues like abortion, gay marriage, stem-cell research, family values, and personal safety [among others] are front and center in the media. Enough people feel passionately about these issues that they can tip an election. No one could argue that there are no moral dimensions to these issues, but one can certainly question whether they are sum and substance of moral values, particularly Christian moral values. A strong case can be made that “moral values” include, probably at the top of the list, a passion for justice for the poor and outcast, hope for the weary and heavy laden, and the vision of a world of peace.

I believe that 21st century American Christians are being presented with a choice between what I would call a “neo-Christendom” and a new renaissance. The use of the term Christendom is informative. The second edition of the Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary [1958] offers this definition: “That portion of the world in which Christianity prevails, in distinction from heathen or Mohammedan lands.” Historically that often referred to the Holy Roman Empire. A more recent incarnation was 19th and 20th century American Protestantism. I suspect that there is a nostalgia for times that seemed simpler and more familiar.

The truth about such times is, of course, less palatable. The Holy Roman Empire was characterized by a collusion between church hierarchies and powerful war lords. There were deep divisions in the society between, the rich and the poor, the privileged and the serf, the Christian and the pagan. There were nearly two hundred years of crusades that claimed thousands of innocent victims, and allowed church and secular authorities to avoid the crying needs of people over whom they had control. And the heyday of American Protestantism included slavery and racism, prejudice against women, and violent anti-union activities. The good old days aren’t what they used to be.

It may be an oversimplification, but the alternative to this nostalgia is an as yet unformed new renaissance. Again, Webster: “Renaissance - The transitional movement in Europe between the medieval and the modern, marked especially by revival of classical influence.” Or, as the online source Learner.org puts it: “Renaissance, French for ‘rebirth,’ perfectly describes the intellectual and economic changes that occurred in Europe from the fourteenth through the sixteenth centuries.  During the era known by this name, Europe emerged from the economic stagnation of the Middle Ages and experienced a time of financial growth. Also, and perhaps most importantly, the Renaissance was an age in which artistic, social, scientific, and political thought turned in new directions.” It was a time characterized by the introduction of printing, the emergence of exploration and trade, scholarship that looked at classic roots and laid the foundation for modern science. It was a movement in which the church was either a reluctant participant, or an outright opponent.

The election of 2004, with its “moral values” component, has exposed what is going on. We are seeing a very public struggle between those who would take us back to a medieval style Christendom, against those forces of a renaissance which would move us in the direction of an enrichment that holds great, if uncharted, promise. One is characterized by fear not only in the present, but of the future. The other resonates with the words of George Bernard Shaw: “You see things; and you say, 'Why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say, ‘Why not?’” One would prefer a collaboration of political and religious authorities that would reign over the culture. The other would hold all authorities and institutions up to a serious scrutiny.

The risk of a neo-Christendom is that it can either be coopted by government or become a theocracy. When religion is coopted by government it becomes a tool for political agenda. For a worse case scenario of this see William L. Shirer’s chilling account of the creation of the National Reich Church of Germany in his book “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, pages 234-240. When government is coopted by religion there is a suppression and tyranny of all that is different. See Azar Nafisi’s book, “Reading Lolita in Tehran,” for an equally chilling account of that side of the equation. Those are the possibilities that the framers of the Constitution of the United States had in mind when they added Amendment I: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...”

The appeal of a new renaissance is the willingness to build a new vision that combines the best of science, art, culture, medicine, economics and religion into a rebirth of society where all have enough, but not too much; where all are valued, and none are arrogant or conceited; where moral values are more than doctrinal purity, political correctness [whatever that means] and narrow pietism.

It is not all bad that “moral values” have become an issue in American politics. But I am not comfortable that “moral values” are defined by politicians, media gurus in search of a ten second sound bite, or religionists determined to have it their way. The dilemma regarding “moral values” is, of course, which ones we will choose. Micah comes to mind: “He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” Or perhaps Deuteronomy: “I therefore command you, "Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land."[15:11], or “You shall not withhold the wages of poor and needy laborers, whether other Israelites or aliens who reside in your land in one of your towns.” [24:14].  Or taking care of the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger or the naked or the sick or those in prison.” See Matthew 25:31-46. Unfortunately, at the moment, we are not hearing a lot of these moral values being discussed.

I worry that the longing for a neo-Christendom is like the lament of the exodus people who, when the reality that there would be some wilderness before they inherited God’s promises, cried out: "If only we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the fleshpots and ate our fill of bread; for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger." I worry that a longing for a neo-Christendom could bring upon us the warning and judgement pronounced by Jeremiah: “But my people have forgotten me, they burn offerings to a delusion; they have stumbled in their ways, in the ancient roads, and have gone into bypaths, not the highway, making their land a horror, a thing to be hissed at forever. All who pass by it are horrified and shake their heads.” [18:15-16]

Before he asked the question, “What is going on?” H. Richard Niebuhr observed: “It has often been remarked that the great decisions which give a society its specific character are functions of emergency situations in which a community has had to meet a challenge.” [p. 59, TRS] We were challenged in a profound way on September 11th. The nation responded with dignity and courage. Sadly, that brief unity was squandered and we are floundering in a morass largely of our own making.

What is going on is that we are struggling with the choices that will define, for at least a generation to come, the character not only of our nation, but of American Christianity as well. I am convinced that moral values must be a part of the process of discernment. As contentious as the current debate may be, I remain hopeful for a new renaissance. As nineteenth century pastor and  theologian Theodore Parker has put it: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

The Rev. F. Richard Garland is a retired clergy member of the New England Annual Conference.