‘Moralistic Therapeutic Deism’
Christian Smith and the Religion of American Youth
1. ‘Doctrines’: 1. "A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches
over human life on earth." 2. "God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to
each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions." 3. "The central
goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself." 4. "God does not
need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to
resolve a problem." 5. "Good people go to heaven when they die.“ The
authors describe the system as being "about providing therapeutic benefits to
its adherent" as opposed to being about doctrines or obligations like
"repentance from sin (happiness over holiness), of keeping the Sabbath, of
living as a servant of a sovereign divine, of steadfastly saying one's prayers” or
carefully studying a holy text,” “of faithfully observing high holy days, of
building character through suffering...” They say, “a significant part of
Christianity in the United States is actually only tenuously Christian in any
sense that is seriously connected to the actual historical Christian tradition,
but has rather substantially morphed into Christianity's misbegotten
stepcousin, Christian Moralistic Therapeutic Deism."
2. Sources – their churches, either explicitly in teaching (moralism over
doctrine - Veggie Tales motto; God over love rather than
wrath/judgment; more talk of God than Christ; little ‘expository’
preaching/teaching) or implicitly in practice (church is designed to
satisfy the ‘felt needs’ and demands of contemporary people according
to what we know pleases them in the culture rather than to satisfy or
please God according to what we know pleases/satisfies Him in
Scripture).
Souls in Transition (Emerging Adults)
1. Landscape of 18-29s: committed traditionalist (15 percent), selective
adherents (30 percent; loosely connected and very selective in the
tradition they were raised in), spiritually open (15 percent), religiously
indifferent (25 percent), religiously disconnected (5 percent), and
irreligious (10 percent).
2. Losing their religion? Sort of -- Just as religious as the previous
generation in belief, but not in practice (particularly church
attendance/membership). Part of an overall movement away from
commitment in relationships and to institutions. Summary of Smith’s
findings: Emerging adults live in an emotional world where self is still
pretty much the focus, where right and wrong are just common sense
and, for most, morality that involves the notion that one's choices
should not hurt anyone. Additionally, it is a social and emotional world
where everyone is different (and that's just fine) and personal choices
are simply that: personal choices. Religious choices are seen in the
same realm, personal, not proscriptive. And settling down is for later,
perhaps much later in life.
3. Causes? Parents, devotional life as a teen, church-politics association,
church partitioning by ‘peers’ (no mentoring; instead, churches stress
peers over parents/adults), churches cater to young-married families;
message is me-and-Jesus (no ecclesiology)
II.
Brief Church and State History Leading to American Birth
“The American founders revolutionized the Western tradition of
religious liberty. But they also remained within this Western
tradition, dependent on its enduring and evolving postulates
about God and humanity, authority and liberty, church and state.”
A.
First Millennium
1.
Christians came out of periods of extensive and intensive
persecution by the Romans. They were noncomformist (refused
to worship pagan gods or Ceasar) and agitators (sought to
transform pagan society with Christian morality; charity, burials,
infants, social customs). Emperor Julian
“These impious Galileans not only feed their own poor, but ours also;
welcoming them into their agapae, they attract them, as children are
attracted, with cakes. Whilst the pagan priests neglect the poor, the hated
Galileans devote themselves to works of charity, and by a display of false
compassion have established and given effect to their pernicious errors. See
their love-feasts, and their tables spread for the indigent. Such practice is
common among them, and causes a contempt for our gods.”
2.
Persecution ended when Emperor Constantine converted to
Christianity, signed the Edict of Milan (311) tolerating all religious
beliefs though privileging Christianity some.
3.
4.
B.
1.
2.
Future emperors, however, began to pursue a policy of preference and
control over Trinitarian Christianity (supreme over church and state).
Augustine, addressing critican pagans and disillusioned Christians, put these
realities together in City of God (413-427), where he argued that Christians
are primarily citizens of a different city (not city of man), but it would be
better for all if the rulers of the city of man favored Christianity (though
institutionally separate from, if not under, church authority). BUT, few
emperors could resist the urge to consolidate and control the spheres. He
further refutes Roman superiority as fulfillment of history (focal point).
Rather, no state (Christian or otherwise) can be identified as God’s Kingdom
on earth; heavenly kingdom is always future.
Papal Revolution – changed all that after 1050 when a series of Popes moved
towards ecclesiastical separation from and even control of civil leaders
(Catholic independence).
Canon Law - The papacy claimed expanded jurisdiction in law, treatment of
non-Christians, church life, and political matters. Out of these papal
pronouncements, we get “Canon Law” (first modern body of international
law). Based on notion that Pope had “two-swords” (civil law and canon law,
where canon in superior to civil). Whole systems of law developed around
seven sacraments (baptism, eucharist, penance, orders, extreme unction,
confirmation, and marriage).
Rights – a whole body of legally recognized ‘rights’ emerged
out of this tradition. These rights constrained church/state and
protected the Catholic faithful (not others) from arbitrary or
oppressive ecclesiastical and civil decisions.
3. This system of international law began to break down as nationstate kings asserted their own territorial authority and refused to
recognize Canon Law as absolute/binding.
C. Protestant Reformation (16th and 17th century); march toward
religious tolerance, liberty, disestablishment, constitutional
republicanism
1. Luther’s contribution – (1) territorialized the faith; establishment
should be local (2) Two Kingdom Theory – Christians are members
of two God ordained, legitimate, good kingdoms; The civil sphere
administers law; church administers Gospel.
2. Anglicans nationalized the faith – model that was basically NOT
continued by new world protestants
3. Anabaptists communalized the faith – emphasis was on the
irreconcilable differences between realm of religion/church and
realm of the world.
4.
Calvin’s reformation congregationalized the faith; church was to be ruled by
elected leaders (pastors, elders, deacons) bound to written confessions of faith
D.
Political Implications of PR: Reformers of both generations articulated a
political philosophy based upon their reading of Scripture which denied the
absolute authority of the state (or people); considered rulers and subjects as
equally valuable (same as in church); placed the people and law above the king
who is a ‘servant’; generally called for a federal-democratic, divided, political
system of limited government to deal with sinful tyranny; called for a
constitution which mirrored Biblical covenants where divine law (perhaps 10
commandments) serves as a transcendent ground of civil law (confession in
church; covenant-compact in politics); acknowledged right of people to resist
and depose a king who violates the terms of covenant; insisted that we do not
form government based on self-interest or ideals that we ourselves determine
(read p. 13 Witte). These ideas flowed from Calvinism which taught that God
alone is absolutely sovereign; man is simultaneously a wicked-sinner and
dignified-Image bearer (equality/freedom); gov’t of all kinds should follow Old
and New Testament models (less hierarchical and more democratic); covenant
theology (next slide)
Note on church government – the most common forms of church government
(decision making structure) among the Reformers was congregational
(democratic-republic) or presbyterian (federal-republican). Clearly, many
reformers came to believe that their view of how church gov’t should be
structured came to influence how civil government should be structured
(“Presbytery agreeth with monarchy like God with the devil”)
E. Constitutional Covenantalism: The Puritans viewed a covenant as a
social and divine promise: each participant in the covenant is
expected to do certain things. A violation of the covenant could have
the most disastrous consequences for those who had entered
therein. Following biblical precedents, a covenant would also last
from generation to generation. By means of these covenants,
Puritans were among the first English speaking people to implement
a government bound by written words in a single document.
Example, Deut 1:1-17
Comparing Covenants and Contracts:
• Covenants use Broad instead of Narrow language (no loopholes)
• Covenants are solemn sacred promises instead of cold legal words on
paper
• Covenants are social/communitarian in nature instead of individual
(We instead of I)
• Covenants identify a collective purpose and identity;
• Covenants are validated or sealed in the presence of and by an
external higher authority, typically God
*Think about a difference between marriage as a ‘covenant’ vs
‘contract’ and you might get the spirit of the distinction.
Reformation Political Thought
•
•
•
•
•
Political Sovereignty rests with God 
people  state
Ground of Natural Human
value/rights = Imago Deo (originates
with God)
Justification for Gov’t = ordained by
God at least to suppress evil (original
sin), promote common good including
proliferation of true religion (more
communitarian)
Constitution = morally-informed pact
between people having
independent/equal status,
constructing a limited gov’t based
upon voluntary consent and
established by promises made before
God.
Implications – Reformation political
thought led more to federalrepublicanism, with divine law and
God as supreme; elected reps from
each political unit, tribe, church, state
(Glorious Revolution, English Civil
War). Also Federal
Secular Enlightenment Political Thought
•
People  State
•
NHR ground = State of Nature, mutual and
unanimous consent, virtue of being human
(originates with humans)*
•
Why gov’t? Self-interest, protect natural rights
(life, liberty, property); return individuals to
natural state of autonomy; more individualistic
•
Constitution is a legal contract among people
to form gov’t for sake of self-interest, limited
gov’t, and binds all (posterity and immigrants)
•
Implications - Enlightenment thought led more
to democracy, with human law and the
majority as supreme (French Revolution)
*Today’s liberal theorists like Rawls attempt to ground
freedom in something other than natural
rights/law (too religious) and appeal only to
what is rational.
I.
A.
1.
2.
3.
4.
B.
Religion and the Constitution in 18th Century America
Introduction - how did America come to accept/enshrine
principles of religious liberty, tolerance, disestablishment, churchstate separation?
Why look beyond the Constitution to understand the role of religion
in American politics?
Constitution sets outer boundaries (no prescription or
proscription of religion by government).
The records of the constitutional congresses’ debates on the first
amendment are brief/sketchy.
Limited to Congress, not states (“Congress shall make no law…)
Framers intended for states to interpret these clauses and
appropriate them as they saw fit (Madison quote, Witte, p. 22)
To understand the intended relationship generally, at the time, we
must identify the principle players involved in forging the
consensus behind church-state relations in the 18th century by
looking at four groups: on the religion side, Puritans and
Evangelicals; on the political side, Enlightenment thinkers and
Classical Republicans.
II.
A.
1.
2.
3.
The four groups
American Puritans (dominant from 1630-1730) and the Christian
Commonwealth – having been persecuted and/or regulated by both
Catholic and especially Anglican monarchies, this group took their
Calvinism to America (system of Christian theology stressing the
utter sovereignty of God in all things as well as the institutional
separation of church/state). Early and key group are
Congregationalists.
Church and State are separate distinct ‘covenantal associations’ or
two seats of God’s authority. Church was about preaching,
sacraments, charity. State was about enforcing law, punishing crime,
instilling virtue, and order. Clergy could not hold political office;
political leaders could not hold church office.
BUT, though not to be confounded, they were to be “close and
compact” (the community is a common project of both church and
state, so some interdependence). State provide church with public
properties, tax exemptions, subsidies, Sabbath Day laws. Church
provided state with meetinghouses/chapels, community
schools/libraries, maintenance of census rolls, marriage, death
certificates; offered ‘election day sermons’ to promote civil
participation.
Emphasis on community and local religious conformity led
to banishment of dissidents, like Quakers, Baptists, Catholics, Jews, etc.
Puritans were separatists from Anglicanism, but this did not initially seem
to require them to accept disestablishment or toleration at the local level.
4. Things changed, however, in 1689 (Toleration Act) as more and different
kinds of Protestants from around Europe sailed over. The Act required
toleration, but not full political equality of, other traditional Protestant
churches. More and more, the ‘covenantal’ idea of civil society (though
not church society) was viewed as more open and voluntarist by Puritans
in terms of individual conscience (open to other Christian sects). Came to
celebrate, rather than suppress, denominationalism in theology (idea that
there are many paths to God within orthodox Protestant Christianity) and
toleration of religious pluralism in civil society. Read pp. 25-26 Witte.
B. Evangelicals – Product of the Great Awakening (1720-1780).
1. Great Awakening - a series of evangelists (Wesley, Edwards, Whitefield,
Tennet) began to challenge the dry, rigid, religious legalism
(‘conversionless Christianity’ where salvation is conferred through ritual or
routine) and institutionalization, protection, of the church by the state.
Wanted fuller separation, more freedom of association, and liberty of
conscience (remember, these were either new or unestablished groups
like Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians). John Leland, a Baptist fiery
preach, said, “The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be
exploded forever.”
2.
C.
Isaac Backus, Reformed Baptist theologian mid to late 18th century
(p. 28) – Christianity should fear BOTH state repression and support
of religion. Establishment results in a distraction from divine
mandates and capture of established church. Want to promote
Christianity? Deregulate it. Besides, the state and church are not
working on the same projects (maintaining order vs proclaiming
gospel) or using the same means (sword vs means of grace). He
coined term separation of church and state. Led evangelicals in
pushing for constitutional means of disestablishing religion.
Enlightenment views – provided theory complementing evangelical
theology on religious liberty. Locke argued that the state only
exists to protect life, liberty and property (man’s ‘outward’
concerns), not to promote religion (man’s ‘inward’ concern). Laws
cannot touch one’s mind, which is the object of religious activity.
He did, however, argue that state laws would only ‘seldom’ conflict
with Christian values and he refused to tolerate atheists altogether
(can’t be trusted to keep promises or oaths). Saw disestablishment
and religious liberty as solution to violent religious conflict (political
instability). Summarized by Madison well (p. 31 Witte).
D.
Republican Views – spokespersons were Washington, Adams,
Benjamin Rush, etc. If Enlightenment thinkers (like Jefferson)
naturally aligned with Evangelicals, Classical Republicans naturally
aligned with old Puritans. Agree with both E’s on disestablishment
and liberty of conscience, BUT wanted the state/public square
feature a common religious ethic (non-sectarian and not
theologically specific). They stressed the utility of Christianity as a
prerequisite to happy citizens, effective/efficient good government
(pillar of society and necessary for its peace, prosperity, and
endurance). Read p. 33. Their approach was similar to
Massachusetts constitution (see p. 34-35)
E. Establishment of Civil or Public Religion - Result, the Classical
Republicans won out. First, it won out in the first Continental
Congresses through official actions/proclamations (chaplains,
schools, missionaries, prayers, Northwest Ordinance 1878).
Second, won out among states by leaving alone state establishment
practices (promoting even particular denominations). Third, it won
out in time (we continue to favor or accommodate, in a number of
official and unofficial ways, generic monotheism and Christianity in
everything from money to White House Christmas.
Forging the First Amendment at the Constitutional
Convention
I.
A.
B.
C.
The Context of Religion Clauses leading up (1774-1787)
Paid chaplains to lead prayer at Cont Congress entire time.
Thanksgiving day and fast-day proclamations (1775), one of four
proclamations “it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore
the superintending Providence of the Almighty God.” Also urged
all men to “express the grateful feelings of their hearts” by
“publick humiliation, fasting, and prayer” and “confess and
deplore our many sins” and pray that “it may please God through
the Merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out
of Remembrance,” that God would grant the “promotion and
enlargement of that Kingdom, which consisteth in Righteousness,
Peace, Joy, in the Holy Ghost.”
Voted to fund the procurement of 20k Bibles for distribution in
the States (never done due to lack of funds; later merely
encouraged states to have “one or more new and correct editions
of the Old and New Testament to be printed…”
D.
E.
II.
A.
B.
C.
Writers of the Articles of Confederation refused to prohibit
religious tests for public office holding
Resulting sentiment captured in the Northwest Ordinance AFTER
the First Amendment was written. On the one hand, in the
territory no one was to be “molested” on account of his religion,
but religion was to be promoted in the territory by the
government.
Drafting Process
House version: “Congress shall make no law establishing religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of
conscience be infringed.” Elsewhere, a sixth amendment would
say, “No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear
arms in person.
Senate version (three early versions defeated read p. 87-88).
Senate version (#19 p. 88): Congress shall make no law
establishing articles of faith or mode of worship, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof.”
A conference committee (HR and S) composed of a cross-section
of our four groups gave us our current/final version with no
surviving debate details.
III.
A.
B.
1.
2.
3.
How are we to make sense of their unclear intentions? Two possibilities:
Thinner reading – clauses set outer boundaries of appropriate
congressional actions on religion (neither prescribe nor proscribe). Leaves
open later discussion and perhaps legislation on religion. Based on fact
that earlier drafts had more sweeping language and were rejected
(Congress shall not ‘touch’ or ‘favor’ or ‘prefer’ religion). Instead, they
adopted ‘respecting’ (point to) establishing religion.
Thicker readings – (more reading in to the words)
Congress – not binding on the states
Shall make no law – no new laws, but confirming existing ones? Probably not,
since new laws easily passed that did in fact touch on religion.
Respecting an establishment – could refer to C not touching a state established
religion (6 had them then); or could mean C cannot pass laws aimed at
promoting an established religion (respecting is an umbrella term touching
on doctrines; required worship, mandatory tithing, etc.); so on the first
view, concern is not interfering with states; on the second, the concern
would have been not to allow Congress to move in the direction of a
national established church (with all attendant laws). The first reading
gives Congress no guidance on national laws affecting religion; the second
gives them guidance, but does not allow much beyond what was already
commonplace (chaplains, religious education, etc.). Conclusion?
Non-preferentialism – a mixture of these views suggesting that all the
founders intended (or could agree upon) was to outlaw an
established national religion, but allows for support of religion in
general. Put positively, C can “touch” religion so long as it favors no
particular one. This view explains the various laws touching on
religion (chaplains, etc.). This view has a harder time explaining the
word “respecting” however.
4. Prohibiting Free Exercise – umbrella term referring to all that is
meant by free exercise; this reading would mean that it merely
prevents C from prohibiting free exercise of religion (they dropped
the liberty of conscience clause)
5. Religion – IMPORTANT DEFINITION; to get free exercise, it must be
religious; to constitute establishment it must be a religion (or
religious); what is the pale of recognized religion? Then it did not
go beyond monotheism (Jews, Islam, Deism, Christianity, etc.).
What about conscientious objectors?
In the end, we get a new experiment, despite the lack of clarity, when it
comes to church state relations. Read Madison p. 100-101.