Civil Religious War
Perhaps you might have read about Matt Bevin, the governor of Kentucky who this past week suggested...well, said that bloodshed might be required to defend conservative ideologies from liberal ones, in particular those of Hilary Clinton - especially if she is elected.
He had also just been awarded the Distinguished Christian Statesman Award from the D. James Kennedy Center for Christian Statesmanship.
I wonder exactly how those two go together.
Actually, I have a pretty good idea. It is called "civil religion." Civil religion, particularly American Civil Religion is defined by sociologist Robert Bellah as "a collection of beliefs, symbols, and rituals with respect to sacred things [...] This religion, while not antithetical to and indeed sharing much in common with Christianity, [is] neither sectarian nor in any specific sense Christian." (Robert Bellah, "Civil Religion in America," Daedalus (Winter, 1967) p. 8)
In other words, as Julia Corbett explains, "American life and culture have a religious dimension that is shared by the majority of Americans, whatever their personal beliefs may be." (Julia Corbett, Religion in America (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1994) p. 18). And we all share in that civil religion. Think of our national holy days: 4th of July, Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, President's Day and, I would add, Black Friday. These all focus around our national narrative as well as lending a hand to our capitalistic and materialistic bend by having great sales. But that is also vaguely ritualistic: the economy is the alleged blood of the nation, and we are called to spend and/or sacrifice on behalf of that blood.
What happens, though, is that when we begin to use Christian or Judeo-Christian language to describe ourselves, we begin to blur the lines. "Manifest Destiny." "City on a Hill." "Let our light shine." "One nation under God." We see ourselves as a religious nation and have in some ways sanctified our nationalism with religious rhetoric and terminology.
The difficulty emerges when we try to actually Christianize our civil religion and replace ourselves with the Biblical Israel, promised land, or Apostles. As we do this, to defend the country becomes a righteous act, not a patriotic one and, interestingly enough, patriotism becomes the gauge of faithfulness.
What we begin to hear in words like Gov. Bevin is that within American Civil Religion there is the potential for heresy (which in his view would be the amorphous heresy of liberalism) to the set (but sometimes fluid) orthodoxy of conservatism.
As within religion proper, heresy usually begins as a different opinion often based from the same collection of scriptures from which orthodoxy draws. Over time, discussion and differing opinions devolve into a 'right and wrong' argument as one side seeks to exert control over the other and establish authority. To that end, one group has to declare themselves absolutely right and the other (necessarily) absolutely wrong. Conversation and dialogue become suspect and one must pledge allegiance to one side or to the other as middle ground is both incomprehensible to polarizing figures and seen as weak-willed and suspicious. Ultimately there comes a purge as the two groups vie for control. Very rarely one side wins completely. Usually, though, a great separation or divorce takes place and the two groups set up opposing and (likely) permanent rhetoric against the other.
The call for bloodshed to defend against liberalism is such a rift. It has the potential for inciting and justifying an ideological civil war that views violence against persons who think differently as acceptable. Because it would seem Gov, Bevin thinks that conservatism must be on shaky ground or at least in some kind of danger - which implies some kind of growing movement against conservatism.
Yet I would venture that Bevin's potentially militaristic conservatism would likely frighten moderates and moderate conservatives. Because once you start shooting, anyone not with you is against you, and the only way to be sure is to kill them all and let God sort them out.
It is ironic that Luther said, "Nothing good ever comes of violence." He would certainly know. Perhaps more ironic is the fact that in his speech, Gov. Bevin quoted Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Again the sacrificial blending of civil religion, nationalism, and patriotic duty. The irony is found, for me anyway, in the fact that this Distinguished Christian Statesman quoted a man who did not believe in miracles and even published an edited version of the Gospels called "The Jefferson Bible" which removed all the miraculous stories of Jesus (including his birth and resurrection) and made Jesus more of a moral philosopher than a divine savior.
Or perhaps there is no irony. Maybe this Christian American Statesman doesn't need Jesus and, in fact, can make a stronger case for violence without him. After all, it is hard to love your neighbors and enemies when you are working to clarify which ones to shoot.
He had also just been awarded the Distinguished Christian Statesman Award from the D. James Kennedy Center for Christian Statesmanship.
I wonder exactly how those two go together.
Actually, I have a pretty good idea. It is called "civil religion." Civil religion, particularly American Civil Religion is defined by sociologist Robert Bellah as "a collection of beliefs, symbols, and rituals with respect to sacred things [...] This religion, while not antithetical to and indeed sharing much in common with Christianity, [is] neither sectarian nor in any specific sense Christian." (Robert Bellah, "Civil Religion in America," Daedalus (Winter, 1967) p. 8)
In other words, as Julia Corbett explains, "American life and culture have a religious dimension that is shared by the majority of Americans, whatever their personal beliefs may be." (Julia Corbett, Religion in America (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1994) p. 18). And we all share in that civil religion. Think of our national holy days: 4th of July, Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, President's Day and, I would add, Black Friday. These all focus around our national narrative as well as lending a hand to our capitalistic and materialistic bend by having great sales. But that is also vaguely ritualistic: the economy is the alleged blood of the nation, and we are called to spend and/or sacrifice on behalf of that blood.
What happens, though, is that when we begin to use Christian or Judeo-Christian language to describe ourselves, we begin to blur the lines. "Manifest Destiny." "City on a Hill." "Let our light shine." "One nation under God." We see ourselves as a religious nation and have in some ways sanctified our nationalism with religious rhetoric and terminology.
The difficulty emerges when we try to actually Christianize our civil religion and replace ourselves with the Biblical Israel, promised land, or Apostles. As we do this, to defend the country becomes a righteous act, not a patriotic one and, interestingly enough, patriotism becomes the gauge of faithfulness.
What we begin to hear in words like Gov. Bevin is that within American Civil Religion there is the potential for heresy (which in his view would be the amorphous heresy of liberalism) to the set (but sometimes fluid) orthodoxy of conservatism.
As within religion proper, heresy usually begins as a different opinion often based from the same collection of scriptures from which orthodoxy draws. Over time, discussion and differing opinions devolve into a 'right and wrong' argument as one side seeks to exert control over the other and establish authority. To that end, one group has to declare themselves absolutely right and the other (necessarily) absolutely wrong. Conversation and dialogue become suspect and one must pledge allegiance to one side or to the other as middle ground is both incomprehensible to polarizing figures and seen as weak-willed and suspicious. Ultimately there comes a purge as the two groups vie for control. Very rarely one side wins completely. Usually, though, a great separation or divorce takes place and the two groups set up opposing and (likely) permanent rhetoric against the other.
The call for bloodshed to defend against liberalism is such a rift. It has the potential for inciting and justifying an ideological civil war that views violence against persons who think differently as acceptable. Because it would seem Gov, Bevin thinks that conservatism must be on shaky ground or at least in some kind of danger - which implies some kind of growing movement against conservatism.
Yet I would venture that Bevin's potentially militaristic conservatism would likely frighten moderates and moderate conservatives. Because once you start shooting, anyone not with you is against you, and the only way to be sure is to kill them all and let God sort them out.
It is ironic that Luther said, "Nothing good ever comes of violence." He would certainly know. Perhaps more ironic is the fact that in his speech, Gov. Bevin quoted Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Again the sacrificial blending of civil religion, nationalism, and patriotic duty. The irony is found, for me anyway, in the fact that this Distinguished Christian Statesman quoted a man who did not believe in miracles and even published an edited version of the Gospels called "The Jefferson Bible" which removed all the miraculous stories of Jesus (including his birth and resurrection) and made Jesus more of a moral philosopher than a divine savior.
Or perhaps there is no irony. Maybe this Christian American Statesman doesn't need Jesus and, in fact, can make a stronger case for violence without him. After all, it is hard to love your neighbors and enemies when you are working to clarify which ones to shoot.
Comments
Post a Comment