FRAMING QUESTIONS: CIVIL RELIGION IN AMERICA

Lecture of Dr. Nikolas K. Gvosdev

For the first few weeks of this class, we have grappled with the notion of civil religion. We have attempted to define it as those beliefs which are held by all in society in common, which create a sense of unity among the members of the community. We have seen how in Russia and in China, the process of civil religion took political matters and transformed them via a set of institutions and rituals into a religious system, complete with scriptures, saints, holidays, and rituals, as a way to legitimate the state and its ruling order and to provide context for the individual within larger society. To some extent, the civil religion also humanized or incarnated abstract principles by rooting or siting them into actual human beings (Confucius, Lenin). In both of the above cases, the creation of civil religion was a deliberate act, promoted and spearheaded by the government.

Voltaire had defined civil religion as those basic beliefs which provided context to society, and to which the state could and should compel allegiance. Such beliefs did not have to preclude a person holding more developed, personal beliefs; but civil religion was meant to act as the glue that would hold a society together and transfer the strong bonds of community and faith that held together churches by encouraging believers to see in each other a common allegiance and near-familial unity to the national community as a whole.

Will Herberg quotes Robin Williams to say that "Every functioning society has, to an important degree, a common religion. The possession of a common set of ideas, rituals, and symbols can supply an overarching sense of unity even in a society otherwise riddled with conflict." Herberg describes civil religion as the "operative" religion of a society, the "system of norms, values, and allegiances actually functioning as such in the on-going social life of the community."

While there is some evidence that civil religion in America was artificially created, it is also clear that the civil religion seems to have deep roots within American culture. With that in mind, I would like to put forward the following propositions to discuss how and why civil religion has evolved in America as it has:

1. Lack of strong denominational affiliations among Americans: At the time of the Revolution, less than twenty percent of Americans belonged to a formal church congregation. Many of the dissenters who had immigrated to America had rejected the concept of a strong, centralized, hierarchical church administration; a number of religious movements in America, including the great revivals, stressed individual salvation and regeneration as opposed to constant, regular participation within a set framework. The English Crown had never moved to strongly establish the Church of England in the colonies or insist that a variety of Christian belief-systems and worship formats should be accommodated within the framework of a single Church (as had occurred in England). Christian affiliations in America were more vague. Had the Founders even been so inclined to set up a national church, there was no such body in America able to step forward and vigorously organize the spiritual life of the entire nation. By default, this was left to individuals and communities. Even the Roman Catholic Church in America lacked strong organization and throughout the colonial period was maintained largely by individual effort.
2. Remembrance of persecution in Europe based upon denominational affiliations: Memories of institutional corruption and persecution in Europe based upon denominational organization was a key motivating factor in why Americans traditionally rejected creating strong, centralized Churches in America. It also helped to create a culture of tolerance and a sense that religious differences should be kept private as much as possible and not impact the public sphere. In particular, Baptists, Quakers, and Catholics, especially in the Middle Colonies, pushed this idea forward.

 

3. The grand sweep of American geography and patterns of human settlement. In contrast to a crowded and settled Europe, the New World appeared boundless and lightly populated. It appeared to be a different place than other parts of the world, both in its natural resources and in the type of society that was evolving on its shores A century after the initial settlements in North America, people were already talking about a distinctive American way of life, whether in terms of America's pragmatic approach to problems, or the fact that Americans seemed to be, on average, better fed than their European counterparts. Land was available and with it the opportunity for self-improvement. All of this seemed to point to a providential destiny that guided people across the sea, away from Europe to a new land of opportunity, and then to guide the development and rise in prosperity of the new colonies.
4. The lack of established political hierarchies and rulers: There were no established traditions, no great noble families who enjoyed prestige and a tie to the land; the king was far away and largely inconsequential. This produced a need for government to be anchored in something greater than the authority of a monarch or a call to established tradition. An appeal to the divine created the notion that even the state would be placed under the sovereignty and supervision of God, and linked in well with the notion of providence guiding the rise and development of the new nation.

Americans wanted a sense of transcendence that would indicate that the formation of the new nation and its institutions was not something random taking place in a vacuum but had meaning; they wanted a sense of landmarks in a society which did not have them. They wanted to develop a sense of unity but lacked a number of the Old World institutions (such as a state Church) that provided it nor did they want to create institutions that created the conditions that caused their ancestors to leave Europe. This accounts for civil religion's vague and unformed character and its sense of informality and lack of detailed organization.

All of this, therefore, raises some basic questions: Would American civil religion have developed had there been a strong organizational church or if the Protestant Episcopal Church had been "established?" Would there have been a need to talk about an "American way of life" if the geographic or political conditions of America had more greatly resembled those existing in Europe? Is the need for a generic "God" of civil religion based upon the republican form of government and the lack of a human focal point (the person of a monarch)?