Saturday, September 16, 2017

The American Civil Religion and the Danger of Riches

   By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Civil religion is where religion and politics meet to shape the concepts of legitimacy that define a nation’s values.  The libertarian values of the Enlightenment have been the traditional political component of the American civil religion, with Christianity its dominant religious component; but capitalism and its progeny, materialism and hedonism, have challenged both faith and freedom as priorities of the American dream and the American civil religion.   

            American democracy must balance individual rights, which are not mentioned in scripture, with providing for the common good or public welfare, which is a moral mandate in scripture.  Donald Trump was elected by evangelical Christians who are followers of the growing prosperity gospel.  It is a self-centered gospel that conflicts with the altruistic gospel of Jesus, and it emphasizes individual rights at the expense of providing for the common good.

            The prosperity gospel has its roots in pseudo Old Testament theology that assures the faithful that if they obey God’s law they will be rewarded with prosperity and health, while the disobedient will be punished with suffering—all in this world, not the next.  Jesus challenged that deontological standard of righteousness with the concept of love over law expressed in the greatest commandment to love God and your neighbors as you love yourself.    

             The American civil religion has ceded the moral high-ground it once held as a model of liberty and justice for all and become a symbol of materialism and hedonism, exemplified by Donald Trump.  Christianity in America has evolved from the altruistic gospel taught by Jesus into a self-centered gospel promoted by high-flying evangelists like Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, Jr., Paula White, Joel Osteen and Robert Jeffress, who all ignore the danger of riches

            Jesus did not teach that riches were evil, only that the love of riches corrupted the soul.  (e.g. the story of a rich man at Mark 10:17-27; parable of the rich fool at Luke 12:15-21; treasures and the heart at Luke 12:33,34; and you cannot serve two masters at Luke 16:13).  And St. Paul confirmed this, warning Timothy: People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap…For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. (1 Timothy 6:9-10).

            In 18th century England John Wesley often preached on the danger of riches.  When it came to money, Wesley taught his Methodists to “make all you can, save all you can, and give all you can.”  That’s not only a good policy for individuals, but also for wealthy nations like the U.S.  Both individuals and nations have a duty of stewardship to protect and promote individual rights and to provide for the common good.

            A related challenge for American democracy is to avoid disparities in wealth that threaten political stability.  While middle-class income in the U.S. has increased since 2008, so has the disparity in wealth between the middle class and the rich, with the top fifth of earners receiving over half of America’s income.  That disparity should be reduced, but the rich have been able to protect their wealth from tax reforms that would make taxes more equitable.

            America is a rich and powerful nation, but its very soul—the American civil religion—is threatened by the danger of riches.  Self-centered materialism and hedonism have displaced the altruistic faith and collective civic responsibilities that are needed to provide for the common good, and polarized partisan politics are exacerbating that danger to democracy. 

            Perhaps it’s an idealistic illusion to believe that the American civil religion ever emphasized liberty and justice for all.  If it never did, then it should have—and America can still claim that ideal as the heart of its civil religion.  But that will require a revival in both American religion and politics that can balance individual rights with providing for the common good.            


Notes:     

On materialism eclipsing faith and freedom in the American dream (and civil religion), see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/upshot/the-transformation-of-the-american-dream.html.

Alan Wolfe has quoted Max Weber, who once quoted John Wesley on the danger of riches:
A hundred years ago, in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber quoted the great evangelical John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church:
I do not see how it is possible, in the nature of things, for any revival of true religion to continue long. For religion must necessarily produce both industry and frugality, and these cannot but produce riches. But as riches increase, so will pride, anger, and love of the world in all its branches.  See https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/03/and-the-winner-is/306654/.

On the cheap prosperity gospel of Donald Trump and [Joel] Osteen, see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/opinion/trump-osteen-harvey-church.html.



           
Related Commentary:

(12/15/14): Faith and Freedom
(1/11/15): The Greatest Commandment: A Common Word of Faith
(1/18/15): Love over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy
(3/8/15): Wealth, Politics, Religion and Economic Justice
(4/12/15): Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy
(10/18/15): God, Money and Politics
(1/23/16): Who Is My Neighbor?
(1/30/16): The Politics of Loving Our Neighbors as Ourselves
(2/27/16): Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy in Faith, Freedom and Politics
(6/4/16): Christianity and Capitalism: Strange Bedfellows in Politics
http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/06/christianity-and-capitalism-strange.html (6/18/16): A Politics of Reconciliation with Liberty and Justice for All
(8/2/15): Freedom and Fundamentalism
http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/freedom-and-fundamentalism.html (8/9/15): Balancing Individual Rights with Collective Responsibilities
(1/23/16): Who Is My Neighbor?
(1/30/16): The Politics of Loving Our Neighbors as Ourselves
(4/30/16): The Relevance of Religion to Politics
(5/7/16): Religion and a Politics of Reconciliation
(8/5/16): How Religion Can Bridge Our Political and Cultural Divide
(9/10/16): Liberty in Law: A Matter of Man’s Law, not God’s Law
(9/17/16): A Moral Revival to Restore Legitimacy to Our Politics
(11/19/16): Religion and a Politics of Reconciliation Based on Shared Values
(11/26/16): Irreconcilable Differences and the Demise of Democracy
(2/25/17): The Need for a Revolution in Religion and Politics
(3/4/17): Ignorance and Reason in Religion and Politics
(3/18/17): Moral Ambiguity in Religion and Politics
(4/22/17): The Relevance of Jesus and the Irrelevance of the Church in Today’s World
(6/24/17): The Evolution of Religion, Politics and Law: Back to the Future? http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2017/06/the-evolution-of-religion-politics-and.html.
(7/1/17): Religion, Moral Authority and Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy
(7/15/17) Religion and Progressive Politics
(8/5/17): Does Religion Seek to Reconcile and Redeem or to Divide and Conquer?
(8/19/17) Hate, History and the Need for a Politics of Reconciliation

(9/9/17): The Evolution of the American Civil Religion and Habits of the Heart http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2017/09/the-evolution-of-american-civil.html.  

Saturday, September 9, 2017

The Evolution of the American Civil Religion and Habits of the Heart

   By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Civil religion is where religion and politics merge to shape American standards of legitimacy.  They define American values, or habits of the heart.  Robert Bellah coined the term, the American civil religion, in a 1969 essay, and in 1985 he explored its meaning in Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life.

            Race, religion, immigration and sex have been dominant themes in shaping American habits of the heart.  Racial attitudes have always been a major factor in U.S. religion and politics, and they have changed dramatically since the Civil War and the Jim Crow era that followed.  Until the 1960s, white supremacy was a norm of the American civil religion.  That was evident when 30,000 KKK members were given a warm reception in a 1925 march in Washington, DC.

            White supremacy was confirmed in the 1896 “separate but equal” doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson, and it was not overturned until the 1954 decision of Brown v. the Board of Education.  The civil rights era of the 1960s rejected white supremacy but initiated an era of racial turmoil and polarized politics.  In 2016 white Christians who longed to return to the halcyon days of the 1950s elected Donald Trump president.  That’s what Making America Great Again was all about.        
           
            America’s dominant religion, Christianity, has shifted from the center of the political spectrum to the radical right, a shift that enabled the Republican Party to gain dominance in Congress and elect Donald Trump.  Trump’s election was made possible by white evangelicals whose prosperity gospel was once marginal in Christianity, but has now become mainstream.

            Most Christians consider Muslims and immigrants as a threat to American values, despite the fact that the vast majority of Muslims and Mexicans embrace libertarian American values with even more conviction than native Christians.  The xenophobic fears of white Christians are likely exacerbated by projections that in another 20 years they will not be a majority in America.

            Then there is the revolution in American sexual norms, with religion caught in the vortex.  Homosexuals are now protected from discrimination by law, but Protestant denominations have been reluctant to accept homosexuals in positions of authority in their churches, or to conduct same sex marriages. Episcopalians and Lutherans have already split over these issues, while Catholics and Baptist still prohibit the ordination of women.
           
            The American civil religion is not what it used to be, and perhaps that’s why Christianity is declining in America.  Young Americans are not joining the church as they once did, and many church members are leaving as “nones.”  If current trends are any indication of the future, the American dream may soon become a nightmare for traditional Christians.
           
            Changes in American habits of the heart will not be resolved by scriptural authority that condones slavery and discrimination based on race, religion and sex.  Progressive religions, however, have supported enlightened standards of legitimacy that are based on the secular norms of human rights and democracy.  It seems likely that fundamentalist religions that continue to rely on scriptural authority to oppose progressive change are destined to decline and disappear.

            American values and habits of the heart will continue to evolve, creating volatility in politics and reshaping religions.  Based on current trends, there will be fewer people in the future who identify with specific religions, but most Americans will retain an individualized faith that determines their values and habits of the heart, and they in turn will shape their politics.

            The greatest commandment to love God and your neighbors as you love yourself—including neighbors of other faiths—is a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.  That love command is at the heart of the American civil religion.  It is universalist rather than exclusivist, and promotes a politics of reconciliation rather than a politics of polarization.

            This may seem more wishful thinking than an objective prediction for the evolution of the American civil religion, but it will happen if people listen to both their hearts and their minds.          


Notes:

In 1967 Robert N. Bellah defined civil religion as “a collection of beliefs, symbols, and rituals,” drawn from American history and “institutionalized in a collectivity” that function “not as a form of national self-worship but as the subordination of the nation to ethical principles that transcend it in terms of which it should be judged.”  See how Trump is reshaping American civil religion, see https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2017/07/11/trump-reshaping-american-civil-religion/.

Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life, Robert N. Bellah, et al. (Perennial Library, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1986) cited Thomas Jefferson and Alexis de Tocqueville (who coined the term habits of the heart) as pioneer observers of American social mores, or norms of legitimacy.  Bellah and his associates sought answers to the questions: How ought we live?  How do we think about how to live?  Who are we, as Americans?  What is our character?  Their study was based on interviews with over 200 persons from 1979-1984 (narrowed down to four), on topics relating to success, freedom and justice.         

On How America Really Lost Its Mind: Hint, it wasn’t entirely the fault of Hippie New Agers and Postmodern Academics.  See https://progressivechristianity.org/resources/how-america-really-lost-its-mind-hint-it-wasnt-entirely-the-fault-of-hippie-new-agers-and-postmodern-academics/.
  


On the support of Christian evangelicals for Trump’s redesigned culture war, see   

On the cheap prosperity gospel of Trump and Osteen, see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/opinion/trump-osteen-harvey-church.html.


Progressive Christianity provides an example of religious belief compatible with the American civil religion and progressive politics.  See The Eight Points of Progressive Christianity at https://progressivechristianity.org/the-8-points/.


On American Civil Religion is Dead, Long Live American Civil Religion, see https://progressivechristianity.org/resources/american-civil-religion-is-dead-long-live-american-civil-religion/.
  
On why Trump can’t reverse the decline of white Christian America, see https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/robert-jones-white-christian-america/532587/.



Related Commentary:

(12/15/14): Faith and Freedom
(1/11/15): The Greatest Commandment: A Common Word of Faith
(1/18/15): Love over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy
(4/12/15): Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy
(1/23/16): Who Is My Neighbor?
(1/30/16): The Politics of Loving Our Neighbors as Ourselves
(6/18/16): A Politics of Reconciliation with Liberty and Justice for All
(6/28/15): Confronting the Evil Among Us
(7/5/15): Reconciliation as a Remedy for Racism and Religious Exclusivism
(4/23/16): Standards of Legitimacy in Morality, Manners and Political Correctness
(7/9/16): Back to the Future: Race, Religion, Rights and a Politics of Reconciliation
(7/19/15): Religion, Heritage and the Confederate Flag
(1/23/16): Who Is My Neighbor?
(1/30/16): The Politics of Loving Our Neighbors as Ourselves
(4/30/16): The Relevance of Religion to Politics
(5/7/16): Religion and a Politics of Reconciliation
(8/5/16): How Religion Can Bridge Our Political and Cultural Divide
(9/17/16): A Moral Revival to Restore Legitimacy to Our Politics
(11/19/16): Religion and a Politics of Reconciliation Based on Shared Values
(11/26/16): Irreconcilable Differences and the Demise of Democracy
(2/18/17): Gerrymandering, Race and Polarized Partisan Politics
(3/4/17): Ignorance and Reason in Religion and Politics
(3/18/17): Moral Ambiguity in Religion and Politics
(4/22/17): The Relevance of Jesus and the Irrelevance of the Church in Today’s World
(6/24/17): The Evolution of Religion, Politics and Law: Back to the Future? http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2017/06/the-evolution-of-religion-politics-and.html.
(7/1/17): Religion, Moral Authority and Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy
(7/15/17) Religion and Progressive Politics
(8/5/17): Does Religion Seek to Reconcile and Redeem or to Divide and Conquer?
(8/19/17) Hate, History and the Need for a Politics of Reconciliation

  

Saturday, September 2, 2017

The Legitimacy of Engagement and Containment National Security Strategies

   By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            The U.S. strategy to preserve the Union in 1860 and current strategy in Afghanistan have something in common: They are both engagement strategies based on U.S. military intervention and occupation; and in both instances, a containment strategy like that used against the Soviet threat in the Cold War would be more legitimate than direct engagement.

            The legitimacy of U.S. military strategy is grounded in self-defense and the defense of others, a corollary of the greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as we love ourselves.  The just war doctrine is based on the moral imperative to use the least force necessary to protect life and liberty, and that principle has been incorporated in the law of war.   

            The Cold War containment strategy against the Soviet threat limited U.S. combat operations to proxy wars.  But a proxy war in Vietnam proved disastrous for the U.S. when it put misplaced reliance on superior military force.  It was a violation of the just war doctrine and a painful lesson learned in legitimacy that was ignored in the U.S. military intervention in Iraq.     

            The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was cheered by the U.S., which has promoted self-determination over the preservation of political unions since its own Revolution—the one exception being the U.S. Civil War.  Ironically, Russia learned more from the Cold War than the U.S.  It now relies on a containment strategy to counter U.S. and NATO strategic interests.

            A containment strategy does not preclude combat operations, so long as they are of limited scope and short duration.  Large-scale “quick and dirty” U.S. combat operations in Grenada (1983), Panama (1989) and Iraq (1991) accomplished U.S. strategic objectives.  Since then there have been many successful clandestine U.S. counter-terror (CT) strikes and raids.
           
            The U.S. military invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was justified by the Taliban’s 9/11 attack on the U.S., but since then U.S. stability operations in Afghanistan have lacked legitimacy due to the corruption of the Afghan government they have supported.  The corruption of racist governments in the South following the U.S. Civil War created similar issues of legitimacy.  It would take almost 100 years to provide racial justice and reconcile the North and the South.
 
            The legitimacy of military strategy is determined by its cost in lives and money.  Today a containment strategy could save U.S. blood and billions of dollars in Afghanistan; and in 1860 it could have saved 600,000 American lives—if Abraham Lincoln had been patient and favored a containment strategy to undermine the legitimacy of the Confederacy rather than a civil war.

            In 1860 slavery was considered anathema in the civilized world.  That would have denied the Confederate states the political legitimacy and trade they needed to survive.  The slave trade had ended, and the U.S. and other nations would have supported the liberation of slaves and boycotted trade with slave-holding nations.  That would have spelled doom for the Confederacy.

            The Civil War and slavery are history.  Today Islamist terrorism is the dominant threat to U.S. national security, and in Afghanistan a containment strategy that relies on Afghan forces to conduct combat operations in what is an Afghan civil war is the most legitimate way to defeat Islamist terrorism, with the U.S. role limited to advisors and trainers and occasional CT strikes and raids.  It is not a war for the U.S. to win or lose, unless we foolishly choose to make it so.

            Trump should take a lesson from LBJ, who converted an advisory mission in Vietnam into an American war in 1965 when he pledged “the U.S. will not lose its first war on my watch” and deployed the U.S. Marines.   President Trump’s emphasis on the U.S. “winning” in Afghanistan is a strategic error.  It is as misplaced as a measure of success in Afghanistan as was LBJ’s reliance on a body count of North Vietnamese and VC in Vietnam.  

            When public support is needed for U.S. strategic political objectives, as in Afghanistan, a containment strategy is more legitimate than direct U.S. military engagement.  That strategic principle was ignored in the U.S. Civil War, Vietnam and Iraq.  Wherever U.S. combat forces create public resentment they can turn a military victory into political defeat.  We should remember our painful lessons learned in legitimacy to avoid repeating them.


Notes:

On lessons learned in legitimacy and the legitimacy of military operations generally, see Barnes, Military Legitimacy: Might and Right in the New Millennium (Frank Cass, London, Portland, 1996), posted at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3gvZV8mXUp-VmpMUV9sSU9kaDA/view.

On Religion, Law and Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy, see https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/5473-barnesreligion-and-conflicting-concepts-of.

Fareed Zakaria has described Trump’s recently announced U.S. policy in Afghanistan as more of the same Bush and Obama policies that ignored issues of legitimacy.  Zakaria concludes that “…half a century later, at a lower human cost, the U.S. has replicated its strategy in Vietnam.”  See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-signs-on-to-the-forever-war-in-afghanistan/2017/08/24/64684004-890e-11e7-a94f-3139abce39f5_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.






Related Commentary:

(12/29/14): Religion, Violence and Military Legitimacy

(1/11/15): The Greatest Commandment: A Common Word of Faith

(4/12/15): Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy

(7/19/15): Religion, Heritage and the Confederate Flag

(10/25/15): The Muslim Stranger: A Good Neighbor or a Threat?

(4/16/16): Religious Violence and the Dilemma of Freedom and Democracy

(8/27/16): A Containment Strategy and Military Legitimacy

(9/3/16): The Diplomat-Warrior: A Military Capability for Reconciliation and Peace

(4/1/17): Human Rights, Freedom and National Security

 (8/19/17): Hate, History and the Need for a Politics of Reconciliation
http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2017/08/hate-history-and-need-for-politics-of.html

(8/26/17): Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy in Politics and War