The Nation with a Soul of a Church

Lecture and Commentary by Dr. Nikolas Gvosdev

Sidney E. Mead's article raises several questions:

1. Is America a "credal" nation? Most European nations are primevalist in ideology, that the modern nation is descended from a founding ancestor or tribe, and thus the nation is held together as an "imagined community" by the mythos of shared blood-kinship. America, however, was founded with the "Declaration of Independence", which can be defined as a credal statement outlining the basis of American nationhood. Unlike the myth of blood kinship, credal ties are forged by the personal affirmation of the believer. In 1946, Vice-President Alben Barkley put forth a definition of American nationhood based upon faith and ideology, shared values, rather than shared identity:

"Life is worthless without liberty. The American trinity of virtues--life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness--is being attacked by an ideology and a concept that is the utter negation of those principles. This concept has been imposed by a totalitarian system and is attempting to make inroads in our own democracy. We will do well, today, as we enjoy our American liberties, to see to it that this wicked, crawling, creeping economic disease, this alien nostrum, shall not be permitted to invade or get a foothold in the United States of America."

If America is in fact a credal nation, then the prime threat to her nationhood comes through heresy, false doctrine, false ideology. A credal nation implies that deviation from the creed, heresy, is to be met with excommunication. A nation based on blood is one where "you cannot resign from your race," but a nation based on creed is one where membership is much more fluid.

2. Does the nation substitute itself for the perfect Church? The ideal of the Christian Church is unity among all members and unity in diversity (neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female, etc.) However, Christianity segmented and fissioned, and its pieces often became identified with distinct national and geographic areas. Mead, drawing on Herberg's work, notes that the American Catholic Church, in dealing with immigrants from so many different parts of the world, has been forced to produce a broad "catholic" or "universal" basis of identity. To some extent, this analogy transfers to the nation. Americans may be divided into a multiplicity of sects and groups, but come together as Americans in a sense of unity. This unity is based upon a common credal affirmation. Do we, therefore, at public events expect to have a sense of unity that we feel we share with fellow believers in our own particular houses of worship?

 

3. Does the American creed ("life, liberty, pursuit of happiness") require a transcendental faith to be sustained? Is it necessary for all Americans regardless of their religious "opinions" to accept that there is a God, whose Providence has created and guided the United States, and that this God requires us to be "good" to our neighbors? Moreover, does this God require public worship, or is he satisfied with the fragmented worship from separate houses of worship? If America is in fact a priestly people, do we feel a need to consecrate all aspects of our civic and corporate life in affirmation of this common God? (Public prayers at events that are non-religious, whether political or sporting; the logo, "In God We Trust" on the money, etc.)
4. Does the nation now serve as the primary organ for the realization of righteousness among Americans? Do Americans expect that the nation (and its leaders, by extension) will demonstrate righteousness? Do we accept the idea that the nation is the guide to morality and right behavior? How is that to be reconciled with our own individual religious identities and the claims made by our own religious organizations to set and determine moral standards?

Since Mead wrote this article, several additional questions can be raised vis-a-vis his theses:

1. Do Americans expect moral leadership from political leaders, or is there a growing separation--that political leaders should be efficient and deliver the "goods" but not necessarily be moral figures? To what extent has that also become true of sports figures and other celebrities?
2. Does the growing number of Americans who do not belong to "Judeo-Christian" faiths as well as those who no longer attend church at all change Americans as being a nation with a soul of a church? Is the American nation redefining itself, or redefining what it means to be a church? Do we look at a church as a place of sanctification, or just as a place of meeting and unity?
3. What happens if Americans increasingly do not believe in the American creed? Does this weaken its impact? What then becomes the basis for judgment of our political leaders and their actions?
4. Is the living faith of Americans increasingly being transformed into acceptance of procedures; that is, that performance of rituals is the sign of unity among Americans (high rituals like primaries and legal procedures and low rituals like Thanksgiving dinners and Fourth of July fireworks) rather than shared values and aspirations?