The Development of Religion in America

[Textcritic]

This is a tangent from some of the issues raised by peter12 and others in the other two recent threads on religions. At present, I am reading a book by Arthur McCalla, entitled: The Creationist Debate: The Encounter Between the Bible and the Historical Mind (London / New York: Contrinuum, 2006). I am currently reading a chapter on “The Bible in America”, that has some great information on the convergence of American republicanism with Scottish “common-sense” philosophy, and how this contributed to the emergence of biblical religion in the United States. Here are some very interesting snippets:

“The common sense philosophy was influential as a philosophical school within Scotland, but elsewhere was judged an inadequate answer to Hume (Kant despised it and set about constructing his critical philosophy as an alternative response to Hume). Its most significant influence was as a public ideology for Americans of the Revolutionary period. Hutcheson’s thought provided a means for republicans and Protestants alike both to justify rebellion against the legal authority of Britain and to produce a new basis for social order once the old institutions had been overthrown. Common-sense philosophy justified anti-colonial resistance by placing the innate moral truths of justice and the right of individuals to be governed by the dictates of their consciences rather than external authorities above the traditional authority of King and Parliament. The evocations of ‘self-evident truths’ and ‘inalienable rights’ in the Declaration of Independence are translations into political rhetoric of the principles of Hutcheson’s moral philosophy...The natural operation of of the innate moral sense replicated Christian moral teaching, but dispensed with a state church of a privileged class of religious specialists. Even external revelation could be eliminated from the foundations of public order because belief in God arises inevitably as an inference from the interior authority of conscience” (p. 142).

What is particularly interesting as I read is the close relationship that biblicism that emerged with evangelicalism is as much a product of political thinking as it is religious or even philosophical. The modernist construction of the first secular state in the world depended utterly upon the assurance that rationalism was the supreme authority, and this was then infused back into religion. Hence, where “conscience” becomes the standard by which society is judged, so to an exceptionally deeply conditioned Christian conscience in turn becomes the ultimate religious authority. The "common-sense" approach that was so integral to the success of the Enlightenment vision effectively removed traditional religious authorities through an immense distrust of institutions; this in turn produced an entirely new hermeneutic, that would become the new religious authority. 1) Because of the growing uncertainty towards human institutions, the Bible becomes a source of PURE AUTHORITY in its own right, apart from the traditional interpretive community. 2) Because the Western Christian conditioned “conscience”—which has achieved its own sort of awakening in the Enlightenment—is presumed to be the ultimate arbiter of truth, one’s OWN SENSE OF WHAT SCRIPTURE MEANS combined with one’s own certain religious experience becomes the standard replacement of the dispensed traditional institutional religious authorities.

Where many "biblical" Christians falsely assert that their theology is a pure reflection of the early Church or scriptural "truth", in actual fact both of the above two items were actually highly innovative.

There is more:

“The American synthesis of Evangelicalism, republicanism and common-sense philosophy too place during, and interacted with, waves of revivalism that reshaped the landscape of American Protestantism. Revivalism is part of the cycle of falling away and revival characteristic of American Puritanism. From the moment they landed on Plymouth Rock the New England Puritans saw themselves as building a holy commonwealth in the New World. This is summed up in the Prutian conception of America as a covenanted nation called into being by a divine providence, guided by God, and fulfilling God’s plan for the world. As the decades went by, however, every now and then it was realized that New England society was not the communion of saints it was supposed to be. This realization frought about furious attempts to renew the original Puritan fervour and conviction. Such bouts of renewed conviction were called revivals or ‘awakenings’” (ibid.).

This certainly casts into clear light the perpetual sense within Evangelicalism for renewal and sanctification, and really provides a fresh articulation for the somewhat bewildering success of apocalypticism in American and Canadian Evangelical culture. I mentioned this in one of the other threads: where this worldview once only thrived amid periods of suffering and oppression, dangerous forms of contemporary apocalypticism within the Church can be directly traced to the engrained sense for renewal and change; to the incessant need for the continuation of this cycle. In a twisted sort of way, religion in North America has become dependant upon the demonization of our culture, because the vision of the New World was inherently religious. I think that because the "New World" was intended to be an approximation of the "New Heavens and the New Earth" from the New Testament, its various failures—most of which have been characterized as moral and ethical—necessitate a constant NEED for re-purification. What apocalytpicism essentially does is it provides a scapegoat: America is the way it is because of what the Bible says; the only explanation for the moral failures of what was supposed to be the only truly Christian paradise must reside in some outside intrinsic force, that is then re-cast as pure evil.

More on the populist nature of Evangelicalism:

“Populism in religion is one aspect of the broader rejection of elite authority in early nineteenth-century America. The monopolies of educated elites over law, medicine and other professions were similarly broken in the decades following the Revolution in the name of democratic populism. State laws permitted anyone to practise law, while Congressional refusal to regulate healing permitted a golden age of patent medicines. Lawyers and doctors gradually reasserted their professional status, eventually establishing qualifications and standards that must be met and enforcing them by educational and licensing requirements. In the course of the struggle they created a category of ‘quackery’ for what they excluded from their officially authorized knowledge. Even today, however, the American Bar Association and the American Medical Association are not absolute monopolies. This is particularly true in medicine, where manufacturers of herbal supplements draw heavily on populist rhetoric in their legal challenges to regulatory legislation. In religion, however, the theological monopoly of the established churches was permanently destroyed. There is, and can be, no theological equivalent of the AMA and therefore, whatever one’s intuitive sense, NO CATEGORY OF RELIGIOUS QUACKERY. The constitutional separation of Church and State, augmented by Evangelical suspicion of any authority other than the Bible, ensures that the religious views of Americans are not subject to regulative oversight” (pp. 144–45).

Basically, theology in the wake of the convergence of democratic republicanism with Scottish common-sense philosophy has become entirely a populist enterprise. One will quite often perceive amid Evangelical circles a pious sense of disdain for academics and intellectualism. This occurs on the grounds of the virtue that accompanies populism in America. We have come to champion the "self-made man" and the "voice of the people". In fact, the populist nature of religion necessitates that matters of the heart must bypass the intellect: truth comes not through study but rather prayer and new and non-falsifiable forms of personal revelation.

So far, it is all a very interesting reading, and I look forward to discussing some of these issues further. As a religious historian, I am constantly awestruck by the forces that converge to create forms of sacramental devotion and fanaticism.

[peter12]

Thanks for the great link and post! I am always stunned, as someone who studies politics, to realize how little people realize the importance of politics.

[Vulcan]

One will quite often perceive amid Evangelical circles a pious sense of disdain for academics and intellectualism. This occurs on the grounds of the virtue that accompanies populism in America. We have come to champion the "self-made man" and the "voice of the people". In fact, the populist nature of religion necessitates that matters of the heart must bypass the intellect: truth comes not through study but rather prayer and new and non-falsifiable forms of personal revelation.

Way too many points for me to tackle but the frustrating thing is that sure it's a good idea to search for personal revelation but with out the facts and the idea that the Bible is open to some interpretation, these people are being used and led around by their noses by certain immoral elites that they profess to disdain. I'm thinking of the Tea Party here.
This brings up another point of modern evangelism, that since they are doing god's work in opposition to the ungodly, they don't have to abide by the moral precepts outside of their own circle.

I agree that matters of the heart override the intellect, but you just don't throw your intellect out the window as some of these people do. They become pawns ready to be filled up with just some horrible ideas. God gave us a brain, it's up to us to use it with some truly independent thought.

[afc wimbledon]

Ironically you can draw parallels between american christianity and Sunni Islam, neither of them have any governing body or heirachy therefore they are both blown by the winds of change and subject to huge swings as various factions and schools of thought gain ascendancy

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Ironically you can draw parallels between american christianity and Sunni Islam, neither of them have any governing body or heirachy therefore they are both blown by the winds of change and subject to huge swings as various factions and schools of thought gain ascendancy

You can also draw parallels of the re-purification idea with the Canadian Indian potlatch, the Sons of Freedom Doukabors burning of their homes and possessions (I know a fellow who did ten years for blowing up some bridges too), and the Red Guards Cultural Revolution (another idea that got a little out of hand).

[amorak]

Anyone else like yam fries?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

...I agree that matters of the heart override the intellect, but you just don't throw your intellect out the window as some of these people do. They become pawns ready to be filled up with just some horrible ideas. God gave us a brain, it's up to us to use it with some truly independent thought.

I'm not certain that I agree with the first sentence. Should matters of the heart override the intellect? I think part of the problem one finds in Evangelicalism is this false dichotomy that is drawn between the two that artificially renders them opposite to one another.

Are the "heart" and the "brain" really embroiled in some irreconcilable age-old conflict?

This is perhaps yet another self-perpetuatiing myth that modernity has maintained—in large part through the impact of 19th cent. romanticism that followed the Enlightenment—that "instinct" and emotion somehow knows better than calculation and rational thought. One is seen as cold and sterile while the other is most often viewed sympathetically, as the wizened, true sense of things. Just think about how often this is part of a Hollywood movie plot: in which the fruits of rationalism are dangerous and evil, only to be thwarted and quashed by the triumph of "human spirit", which is usually expressed within the character who brazenly —and independently!—"goes with his gut". Its fascinating, but I think that this is yet another example of how culturally conditioned we have become through the complex developments in the intersections between politics, philosophy, and religion: "Heart" has become virtuous and "mind" has become dangerous.

[Calgaryborn]

The notion that the preamble to the Constitution was influenced by a Scottish school of philosophy is interesting. I have recently been pondering the truthfulness of that particular preamble in light of scriptures: Are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness God given rights? That morphed into the larger question: What would be included in a Christian bill of rights? I was actually asked to do a bible study a few weeks ago and was going to use those two questions as a spring board. I kind of whimped out though because I felt I didn't have enough time to adequately research the subject matter. The study I brought was related to the extent that a Christian's calling is to freely sacrifice our rights unto God. Much as Christ freely offered himself as a sacrifice we too are called to offer ourselves. And just as Christ's sacrifice was truely unto God but, in practice given unto undeserving men, so too are ours. Anyways you get the jist of it.

A question that has come up from time to time over the years is if the Baptists err in taking up arms against the Government of England. It was historically, in that Baptists up to that point were generally pacifists and seen fidelity to the laws and government as an obligation. They did however maintain soul liberty which in effect said that a Christians primary obligation was to God and that superseded both church and State.

Which leads me to what seems to be lacking in your book. I realize you have only shared a small portion of the book so maybe the author does acknowledge it but, the framers of the Constitution leaned heavily on Rhode Island's model of government which was influenced by tradition Baptist principles.

Firstly, I believe Thomas Jefferson and the others were motivated by what motivates all uprisings: Wealth and power. In their case they wanted to keep more of the former and saw taking power as the only way to ensure that they could. What set them apart is their vision for the future and their desire to safeguard the new republic from turning into just a carbon copy of what they were fighting to be rid of. This they accomplished through the Constitution. A document that Obama has rightly described as "a list of don'ts". It was designed to limit the federal government in order to protect both the newly minted States and individuals within those States.

The biggest problem Jefferson and others had was in how 13 separate colonies with different official state churches were going to come together as one force against England. Who was going to be the offical state church? They quickly realized that that issue alone could cause the federation to fracture before it got off the ground. The answer was found in Rhode Island; the only Baptist colony. Rhode Island alone allowed the free practice of all religions because of their belief in soul liberty. They were a Baptist colony because of the decree of the King who used the colonies as a place to deposit irregular Christian sects. Rhode Island also never had a church tax like most of the colonies did because of their belief in the separation of government and church. Rhode Island was the perfect model for the Constitutional framers to adopt because it eliminated the potentual power struggle between Colony churches. It should be noted that even after America became a free Nation that several of the colonies retained an official State church and it was only over time that the State constitutions were altered to eliminate the special status of these churches.

It also seems to me more likely that the emergence of a reliance upon scriptures rather than denominational dogma was also influenced by Baptists if not by them and many of the other irregular Christian sects. Look at a few of the Baptist declarations of Faith which predates the revolution. You will find both the principles of soul liberty and a reliance on scriptures as the final authority. Here is a link to a few good ones:

http://www.creeds.net/#baptist

The growth of both the Baptist denominations and others of that sprung up because of the freedom offered in America probably weakened peoples reliance on church dogma and caused them to redirect their trust to scriptures.

[afc wimbledon]

David Hume would be rolling in his grave if he thought that somehow he had something to do with a trillion dollar deficit!!!

any connection with the thrifty and pragmatic (ie cheap) Scots is long gone.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I'm not certain that I agree with the first sentence. Should matters of the heart override the intellect? I think part of the problem one finds in Evangelicalism is this false dichotomy that is drawn between the two that artificially renders them opposite to one another.

Are the "heart" and the "brain" really embroiled in some irreconcilable age-old conflict?

This is perhaps yet another self-perpetuatiing myth that modernity has maintained—in large part through the impact of 19th cent. romanticism that followed the Enlightenment—that "instinct" and emotion somehow knows better than calculation and rational thought. One is seen as cold and sterile while the other is most often viewed sympathetically, as the wizened, true sense of things. Just think about how often this is part of a Hollywood movie plot: in which the fruits of rationalism are dangerous and evil, only to be thwarted and quashed by the triumph of "human spirit", which is usually expressed within the character who brazenly —and independently!—"goes with his gut". Its fascinating, but I think that this is yet another example of how culturally conditioned we have become through the complex developments in the intersections between politics, philosophy, and religion: "Heart" has become virtuous and "mind" has become dangerous.

In my way of thinking, you have to differentiate between the true heart and love of the mortal. A girl can say I love my nail polish or a a guy can say I love my car but both will eventually lose their lustre. This is where the problems come in, I can think I am following my heart, whereas really I'm just contributing to my confusion. Especially when these so called loves come to an end. When I focus my heart on my understanding of god, than I use my intellect as a tool to adapt my life to enable this closeness. Not that I'm particularly devoted but I sometimes try to make a small effort, as I enjoy it.

Most Hollywood films trying too hard to express the human spirit, I find terrible and unwatchable. I don't like being manipulated into feeling these coarser emotions. Just tell the story, I'll interpret it myself.

Also from what I've found out with myself, the emotions that I would normally equate with love have little to do with my love for what I experience. In fact things like anger, attachment, and desire are often a hindrance.

The Bhagavad Gita tells a great story about the war between the heart and the mind. That is if a person wishes to interpret it that way.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

David Hume would be rolling in his grave if he thought that somehow he had something to do with a trillion dollar deficit!!!

any connection with the thrifty and pragmatic (ie cheap) Scots is long gone.

Hume is a weenie. I like Rousseau a lot more. Bring on the mad Swiss.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Hume is a weenie. I like Rousseau a lot more. Bring on the mad Swiss.

I am a decendant of John Knox I'm afriad to admit, every now and then I have this urge to stand on a hill and scream

'back to France ye papist whore' at passing imodestly dressed women.

I have always loved Voltaire for his death bed response when asked to renounce the devil and all his works

'Now, now my good man, this is no time for making enemies.'

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

In my way of thinking, you have to differentiate between the true heart and love of the mortal. A girl can say I love my nail polish or a a guy can say I love my car but both will eventually lose their lustre. This is where the problems come in, I can think I am following my heart, whereas really I'm just contributing to my confusion. Especially when these so called loves come to an end. When I focus my heart on my understanding of god, than I use my intellect as a tool to adapt my life to enable this closeness. Not that I'm particularly devoted but I sometimes try to make a small effort, as I enjoy it.

My problem is with the categories through which we have emerged to define such things. You continue to use constructs of "heart" and "mind" based on your own subjective experiences; granted, our interpretations of things will always be subjective. Whether or not there is an actual distinction between the two, I think that it is highly problematic in how Evangelicalism—as well as many other religious expressions—has chosen to champion one while vilifying the other. In the end, I'm not certain that you and I are speaking of the same things.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Most Hollywood films trying too hard to express the human spirit, I find terrible and unwatchable. I don't like being manipulated into feeling these coarser emotions. Just tell the story, I'll interpret it myself.

In the first place, whether these sorts of movies are good or bad is irrelevant. My point was to show but one simple illustration of how this ambiguous dichotomy works itself out. In the second place, it is virtually impossible to "simply tell the story", and whether you like it or not, your own interpretations are very much guided by the storyteller. Sociologically speaking, we are incapable as a species of narrating anything without supplying some sort of meaning.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Michael Shermer

"In any case, why does 'belief' matter? Shouldn't it matter more how you comport yourself in life, and how you treat other people?"

Slightly off-topic, but still within the realm of the discussion about religion, I wonder if an answer to Shermer's insightful question is that 'belief' matters because it is the simplest way through which to control the actions and behaviours of others. Religion is propagated upon "faith" and "belief" systems that depend greatly upon the absence of empirically derived conclusions. It seems most plausible to me that this is so as a means of control: to manipulate an actual desired response from a single person or a large group of people is best achieved through first, emphasizing the importance of "belief", and second, ensuring that that belief results in the desired action apart from any empirical investigation.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Slightly off-topic, but still within the realm of the discussion about religion, I wonder if an answer to Shermer's insightful question is that 'belief' matters because it is the simplest way through which to control the actions and behaviours of others. Religion is propagated upon "faith" and "belief" systems that depend greatly upon the absence of empirically derived conclusions. It seems most plausible to me that this is so as a means of control: to manipulate an actual desired response from a single person or a large group of people is best achieved through first, emphasizing the importance of "belief", and second, ensuring that that belief results in the desired action apart from any empirical investigation.

I think the simple utilitarian view of belief is pretty pointless. Theology, like psychoanalysis, is how to answer questions that by definition refuse to be answered by quantitative empiricism.

The real question is how the private experiences of the mind become the public experiences of religion, politics etc...

To even believe that these things constitute primarily a means of control is missing the point, entirely.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think the simple utilitarian view of belief is pretty pointless. Theology, like psychoanalysis, is how to answer questions that by definition refuse to be answered by quantitative empiricism.

The real question is how the private experiences of the mind become the public experiences of religion, politics etc...

To even believe that these things constitute primarily a means of control is missing the point, entirely.

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind posits the theory that up until 3000 years ago humans had a complete seperation of left and right brain functions and were all, in essence, schizophrenic hearing their own (presumably rare) thoughts as words from gods.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind posits the theory that up until 3000 years ago humans had a complete seperation of left and right brain functions and were all, in essence, schizophrenic hearing their own (presumably rare) thoughts as words from gods.

That theory is like 30 year old trash science.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by peter12

That theory is like 30 year old trash science.

Not in any way provable, but an interesting idea. It has never been considered trash, just interesting but unprovable. I always thought it plausable, there is a logic to it, we must have had some transition states from non communicating small brained biped animal to full on smart talking social human.

[photon]

Just replying to this thread so I remember to read it when I get back from vacation, where I am has no Internet unless I stand in the exact right spot, and then only for 2 minutes.