I got nothing.

Harry Stout provides us with a disturbing problem: American culture promulgates the incorrect impression that, "for much of its colonial and national experience, America has lived at peace with its neighbors, locally and globally."[1] Even more haunting is Stout's claim that, "judging from the texts, scholars of American religion ignore almost all external geopolitical engagements once English immigrants are dropped off the boats in the brave New World."[2] From the course of this class, we know that this is simply not true. Additionally, Stout refutes this misconception outright rather quickly: "In all, I have charted 280 military interventions or nuclear standoffs outside of the United States on every corner of the globe, in addition to the already referenced 29 Indian wars on the continent, for a total that exceeds 300."[3] Here, Stout begins to cite Tuveson's "redeemer nation", and I am called back to McCullough's thesis on "messianic interventionism." Although many Americans have become disenchanted with American global interventionist policy, religious notions of America as an active instrument of divine justice are still relevant, and very prevalent, in the cultures that reinforce providential ideologies. Does a lack of devoted literature on the relationship of religion and war in American history allow for these ideologies to persist? Stout believes that the New Social History is largely to blame for the movement of American historians away from writing on religious-historical topics--is he right?


[1] Harry S. Stout, Religion, War, and the Meaning of America, 279.
[2] Ibid., 282.
[3] Ibid., 278.

Giveing God a hand!

“Put bluntly, the American consensus consists in America’s faith in the institution of war as a divine instrument and sacred mandate to be exercised around the world” (Stout 284)

“The whole address can be understood as only the most recent statement of a theme that lies very deep in the American tradition, namely the obligation, both collective and individual, to carry out God’s will on earth” (Bellah ,5)

This seems very cynical and smug, but both articles, especially Stout, would have us believe that America’s conflicts have only on exceptionally rare occasions met any standards of justification.  So much so that the American myth would not accept the realties Stout points out of continual warfare.  Rather, America as peaceful and only a defensive and reluctant participant in violence is the accepted mythology. 

“What’s good for general motors is good for America.”  This, probably apocryphal, quote is attributed to American businessman, Charles E. Wilson.  In light of the quotes above could American Civil religion be boiled down to “what’s good for America is good for the world?” or “what’s good for America is good for God?”

war for peace

Stout argued:
"Judging solely by the texts and monographic writings on the meaning of America, any reader would come away with the strong impression that, for much of its colonial and national experience America has lived at peace with its neighbors, locally and globally." (Stout, 279)
"Virtually all of the main themes in American religious histories suppose , at least implicitly, an America at peace, leaving them free to confront internal demons, saviors, and central characters...  Despite the wide diversity of publishers and authors, American religious texts have tended to engage common themes that almost exclusively bypass war an geopolitics." (278)
Is the dimension of  war and its religious undertones more available for scholars than for the masses of the American people? or are the ideals of peace and democracy more ingrained in the common citizen as Stout proposes?

Civil Religion, or "Christianity Light" ?

Robert Bellah’s Civil Religion in America and Skip Stout’s Religion, War, and the Meaning of America make an interesting juxtaposition. Stout asserts that:

The norm of American national life is war…. This is not something Americans—or American historians—are trained to think about. In American memory and mythology, the United States is, at heart, a nation of peace; it unleashes the quiver of war as a last resort and only when pushed. In like manner religion, especially what we now call evangelical Protestantism, has been a conspicuous presence in American wars from the seventeenth century to the present. American wars are sacred wars and American religion, with some notable exceptions, is martial at the very core of its being. The ties between war and religion are symbiotic and the two grew up inextricably intertwined. [1]. 

Stout (who does speak of civil religion near the end of the article), identifies evangelical Protestant Christianity as having a major influence on America at war. Furthermore, he sees this evangelical Christianity as being very warlike in its orientation generally.

Bellah, of course, sees a Civil Religion which is related to Christianity, but is not “in any specific case Christian.” According to Bellah, "There was an implicit but quite clear division of function between the civil religion and Christianity.” [2] Bellah spends several pages describing the connection between Civil Religion and War, and also the disconnect between Civil Religion and Christianity. 

While Bellah shows us his reasoning with regards to the existence of civil religion and its relationship to Christianity and war, Stout does not.  Stout does later expand his definition of Christianity to include Catholics and, puzzlingly, even Jews, which seems to move towards an idea of Civil Religion [3], but he never describes his ideas of the interrelationship between the two “faiths.”

Considering what we learned about Confederate Nationalism and Confederate Civil Religion during the course, what we saw of George W. Bush’s evangelical faith, but also considering the influx of non-Chrisitan immigrants into this country since the 1960’s, how should we view “American Religion” today with regards to the state?  Was Bellah correct?  Or is “civil religion” just “Christianity light,” drained of most of its theology to be more palatable to a diverse society, but still Christian?

 

[1] Stout, 275.
[2] Bellah, 8.
[3] Stout, 277. 

The History Channel

This semester, The History Channel has come up several times. We have jokingly called for its reform, re-labeling it "The War Channel." But after reading Stout, as an American institution, can The History Channel's content consist of anything but war?

I am troubled by the development of Civil Religion in America and its development around the nationalism and the inerrancy of American action. Civil Religion has become a religion of war and its rhetoric and liturgies are full of battle cries, reassurances and justifications. I recall the writing of Hauerwas in War and the American Difference:

"It is thought that to acknowledge a policy or a strategy was mistaken is to betray the sacrifices made by those who as a result of that policy died...Those who have killed need to have constant praise and assurance from peers and superiors that they did the right thing. The awarding of medals becomes particularly important, because medals gesture to soldiers that what they did was right and that the community for which they fought is grateful. Medals indicate that their community of sane and normal people, people who do not normally kill, welcome them back to "normality."

Can this cycle ever be broken? Can America become disillusioned from the idea that in order to honor those martyrs of Civil Religion we must continue to go to war? As Stout suggests, is an honest and proper exhaustive American history, staring war and religion dead in the eye, a good start?

Don't Expect a Witty Title During Finals

Bellah offers France as a counter-example of how civil religion can manifest in modern nation-states, arguing that the lack of institutionalized religion allowed America's breed of civil religion to "build up without any bitter struggle with the church" (13) 

Is our situation really that unique? Sure, we don't have the established religion and the militantly anti-clericalists or secularists that other societies have faced, but hasn't our free marketplace of ideas forced civil religion to compete with other problems, such as anti-governmental ideas, new religions, and independence movements to make up for that?  Is America the perfect pasture for the growth of civil religion as Bellah suggests, or is it just a seperate pasture with separate problems?

We're Half Awake In a Fake Empire

Stout concludes in his essay that "for religious history to correct social history's overcompensation it will have to re-engage the original preoccupations of historians with politics. It will also have to reengage the old preoccupations of "church historians" with theology and ideas, albeit not as the history of "truth" and "heresy" or "belief" and "correct practice" but as an aspect of the history of nationalism and millennialism." Religion has always been such a personal thing - personal in two ways: personal in that people like it to remain their own and they don't like to talk about it or personal in that people become very touchy if they think you believe something different from them. The generation we are in is a much more open-minded generation than previous generations. We can hold our opinions dear to us without trying to push those opinions on to others and we can also hear opinions different from what we believe without assuming those opinions are wrong. Perhaps it is because of this post-modern mindset that Stout's request can become a reality. Will our generation be able to take up religious history in regards to war in a non-offensive and non-biased way more effectively than previous generations?