Separation No Longer
by Chris Van Vechten
It is unimportant what or which of our founding fathers said about separation between church and state. The fact remains that America’s colonial and post-revolutionary history is rich with incredibly influential religious movements that have played an unusually active role in shaping our nation’s political fortunes.
Wikipedia has identified no less than four ecumenical Great Awakenings in American history, the final one having apparently spanned 1961-1982. Although this was a period of spiritual experimentation and transformation for the country as a whole, it was, perhaps ironically, the Christian Evangelical movement that emerged from the canon-based-chaos with the most comprehensive message for America – and indeed the world (a notion that probably wouldn’t have appealed to the crusaders of the second and third great awakenings, whose message translated into domestic movements like the abolition of slavery and the prohibition of alcohol.)
Spiritually, it was from this fourth Great Awakening that the Evangelical Movement worked to consolidate a diverse conglomerate of Protestant factions into “nondenominational” mega-churches. Along the way they updated traditional hymnals with more contemporary and younger rhythms, effectively spawning a “Christian” category for virtually every genre of modern music (aside from Ukrainian Death-Metal Gospel, that is). The movement also infused a sense of extreme individuality into the community by stressing the development of a “personal relationship with Jesus.” As a way to experience God’s love on a personal level, many of these churches revived obscure acts of worship like faith healing and speaking in tongues. By de-emphasizing ceremony in favor of a “personal relationship with Jesus as savior,” many Evangelicals actually began seeking to feel God’s presence in a more than metaphorical sense (and many claim they actually do.)
Upon revolutionizing their own sub-society, the Evangelical movement hurled itself into the political arena, thereby playing a significant role in shaping public opinion on virtually every major national issue of the past four decades. But it wasn’t until 1988 that the Evangelical Right began making plays to land one of their own into the White House (Pat Robertson). Since then, they’ve made similarly spectacular – but unsuccessful – attempts through Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer and most recently Mike Huckabee. George W. Bush, although an Evangelical who – like Republican’s before – ended up with Evangelical support, was nonetheless not – I would argue – an Evangelical president. I’m sure that must shock some readers out there to hear and I only wish I had time to explain why. Unfortunately, this is not that article.
It’s hard to say where exactly the Evangelical Right’s political ambitions are at this moment (Note: there is an Evangelical Left too, as Jimmy Carter’s life demonstrates.) The GOP’s nomination of John McCain, with his more mainstream Christian message, may suggest that Evangelical influence within the Party may be faltering. On the other hand, the unpredictable nomination of Sarah Palin (see video of Palin’s faith healing) may be a signal of just how powerful the movement may have become.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
The thing about “giving” religious folks things like the 10 Commandments in classrooms (or courtrooms) is that they don’t see it as we, the benevolent secularists, bestowing upon them permission to express themselves. Nope. They feel entitled to it.
Entitlement, you see? It’s a slippery slope, because while I agree that allowing 5 minute prayer in some classrooms is not a big deal for people who choose to partake of it, my fear is that such a thing will be used as justification to expand their influence. They get the religious freedom they are entitled to, yes, and then they get to start teasing the kids who don’t pray, and then they get to harass the kids who don’t pray, and so on…because conservative religions do not think that ideas other than their own are valid. They feel entitled to push that upon everyone else; in fact, God orders them to do so.
If including their contributions – and I agree that it would be foolish for Obama not to take their desires into account – were limited to a sharing of different perspectives and goals, I would be all for it. But religious conservatives only use such attitudes as a springboard to devalue and attack other perspectives as “evil” or “sinful” and worthy of extermination. I refuse to feel bad for making them bewail their false martyrdom ( ex: “Oh, poor me! The government won’t punish gays for having sinful sex!”).
Reply
Chris Van Vechten Reply:
October 27th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
@Glynnis Kirchmeier, I’ve never believed it made sense to ban something for fear that some people might be teased. If our government chose to legislate by this logic then mullets and bow-ties would be outlawed.
I’m not saying Obama shouldn’t demand full equality for gay men and women and you are right that there will always be those in the evangelical community who will act as unreasonable zealots. There will always be, for example, people for whom it is not enough for schools to explain that abstinence is the only true “safe-sex” within the framework of a contraceptive-based health course. For them, it will always be abstinence only or nothing at all. But the evangelical base in America is 55 million strong at this point (making it a larger demographic than Blacks or Latinos, for example.) While they do share some common religious beliefs their attitude toward government is far from uniform. It is only by isolating them that otherwise even-keeled people become fanatics.
Remember, Evangelicals are Americans too. So are they wrong to feel entitled?
Reply
Glynnis Kirchmeier Reply:
October 27th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
@Chris Van Vechten,
The problem with the teasing is that it becomes harassment and perhaps ostracization. And the problem with the entitlement is not that they should have their own opinions and religion – that’s fine – but that part of the tenets of their religion is restricting the rights of others. THAT is what they are not entitled to.
Reply
November 1st, 2008 at 9:16 pm
An informative article, Chris. Thanks. I like how you gave a general history, while not proclaiming that all Evangelical groups showed all these Evangelical symptoms.
I think the comments diverged from the article’s intent, which was to give a brief history of the emergence of Evangelicals and some of their activity and influence in the political arena. That being said, no tenets of Christianity and/or Evangelicals restrict the rights of others. Only when these tenets (ie. praying to God) are fought for as a special interest without regard to other religions which our Constitution protects just as fully as Christianity that self-righteousness and a sense of entitlement enter the picture. The Supreme Court has rightly ruled that (in some instances) the ten commandments can be posted alongside other historical and religious documents which have influenced the US, but it cannot stand alone like it wields power above other documents. So also, Evangelicals should–and many do–coexist peacefully alongside other religions, receiving their religious rights as Americans, while not elevating their religion above other faiths, which should receive just as much protection as they from government intrusion (the originally meaning of separating the state from the church).
And I have seen too many engaging, scholarly discussions between Muslim, Jewish, and Christian leaders to not disagree with the comment that “conservative religions do not think ideas other than their own are valid.” Everyone can be pig-headed about what they think is correct concerning both religion and politics, evangelicals and secular humanists included.
Reply
Rachel King Reply:
November 1st, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Apparently, I only read page one before I commented. : ) Two and three are good too, except that I think it naive that you, Chris, think evangelicals (one group promoting their agenda) and secular humanists (another group promoting their agenda) will get along on tradition and belief-steeped issues like posting the ten commandments and having Christmas trees (It’s like you said in your abortion article: two different worldviews butting heads). The whole point is that these issues are TRIVIAL, but evangelicals and secular humanists can agree (though based on different premises) that America should support such diverse causes as ending the sex slave trade or being more environmentally conscious. In issues like these they could agree and actually make a real difference for people and places that a slab of wood or a bed of straw could not.
Reply