American Gospel
The following is the rough draft for the first half of a short article I am working on for publication.
I’ve been reading Jon Meacham’s 2006 release “American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation.” It’s good, it’s very good. But it’s not near complete. It pulls up short from unpacking its own theory.
Meacham is not a historian and he’s no theologian. Yet, as an investigative reporter and the managing editor of Newsweek, he is largely able to overcome his lack of historical knowledge though research “investigation.” But he is not able to overcome his lack of theology. In the end, it’s an excellent and informative book that doesn’t really make it’s own thesis. I suppose you could call it the book that almost was.
His thesis, in fact, is not easily discerned. The title of the book suggests the American Gospel is the point of interest and one does find a definition of said thesis, albeit a thin one. In his defense, Meacham is careful to point out he is writing an essay, not a scholarly research paper, but even here, one would expect a more robust explanation of the theme. Our first real taste of exactly what the author is driving at comes near the beginning of chapter 2 “And None Shall Be Afraid” Meacham is recalling a debate in the inaugural session of the first Continental Congress over opening the session with prayer, or not, and just who should offer it. The debate is settled by Samuel Adams in what Meacham calls “. . . the true birth of the culture of public religion . . . .” That is to say they voted, and agreed. This then, is the basic content of the American Gospel, we vote on it. Later, he offers a further definition, or rather gives it some content. “. . . a delicate blending of allusions to a broadly defined God and to the spirit of religious liberty with the symbolism of Christianity.” Pg. 78
Also, he seems to give credence to Tocqueville, whose analysis, Meacham suggests, is that “. . . religion in America nurtures the moral life, which in turn creates basically virtuous citizens who are able to maintain a republic that is itself basically virtuous.” (Pg 79). Anyone with the slightest background in religious sociology will instantly recognize this as a standard secular definition of the value religion plays in culture.
To his credit, Meacham is not unaware of the sorts of criticisms likely to be leveled against him. Some people, he tells us, would suggest that such a public form of religion, thin as it is, and largely devoid of content, is no religion at all. Yet he insists it’s the only form we are able to maintain in a public sphere to accomplish Tocqueville’s (and the founders’) visions of a virtuous society.
The remainder of this well written book devotes itself to the historical and very general overview of various public leaders in our nations history and their views on church and state, religion and politics, Christianity in general, but Christianity and it’s effect on popular politics in particular. His work here strikes me as well done and clear though, as a persuasive style essay, he really only offers one view on the matter which he sees (perhaps presumptuously) as the majority position. Case in point is the matter of the 1963 Supreme Court decision to remove the recitation of institutionalized prayer from public schools. Our author quotes Billy Graham as saying “’Eighty percent of the American people want Bible reading and prayer in the schools.’” (pg. 189) To the best of my knowledge, that number was accurate when offered by Graham at the time of the Supreme Court ruling. Yet, on the following page and regarding the same issue, Meacham claims generally of the opposition to the courts ruling: “The extremes, while colorful and quotable, were just that: the extremes.” (pg. 190) Apparently there is a certain blind spot in Meacham’s thinking about what defines majority, minority, and “extreme.”
He does end the book with an interesting myriad of original documents for the readers’ use. They are helpful and fun.
In the end, I found the book enjoyable and persuasive on the level that it was informative and made a clear case for the reality that the United States is not now nor has ever been a Christian nation. Yet, given this well made point by the author, he then tries hard to make a case for this thin public religion with its general God. I can see how this may be a very attractive place to stand for many. But I am convinced there is a dark side to this seemingly innocuous theory.
Joseph S. Holt M.A.C.T.
I’ve been reading Jon Meacham’s 2006 release “American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation.” It’s good, it’s very good. But it’s not near complete. It pulls up short from unpacking its own theory.
Meacham is not a historian and he’s no theologian. Yet, as an investigative reporter and the managing editor of Newsweek, he is largely able to overcome his lack of historical knowledge though research “investigation.” But he is not able to overcome his lack of theology. In the end, it’s an excellent and informative book that doesn’t really make it’s own thesis. I suppose you could call it the book that almost was.
His thesis, in fact, is not easily discerned. The title of the book suggests the American Gospel is the point of interest and one does find a definition of said thesis, albeit a thin one. In his defense, Meacham is careful to point out he is writing an essay, not a scholarly research paper, but even here, one would expect a more robust explanation of the theme. Our first real taste of exactly what the author is driving at comes near the beginning of chapter 2 “And None Shall Be Afraid” Meacham is recalling a debate in the inaugural session of the first Continental Congress over opening the session with prayer, or not, and just who should offer it. The debate is settled by Samuel Adams in what Meacham calls “. . . the true birth of the culture of public religion . . . .” That is to say they voted, and agreed. This then, is the basic content of the American Gospel, we vote on it. Later, he offers a further definition, or rather gives it some content. “. . . a delicate blending of allusions to a broadly defined God and to the spirit of religious liberty with the symbolism of Christianity.” Pg. 78
Also, he seems to give credence to Tocqueville, whose analysis, Meacham suggests, is that “. . . religion in America nurtures the moral life, which in turn creates basically virtuous citizens who are able to maintain a republic that is itself basically virtuous.” (Pg 79). Anyone with the slightest background in religious sociology will instantly recognize this as a standard secular definition of the value religion plays in culture.
To his credit, Meacham is not unaware of the sorts of criticisms likely to be leveled against him. Some people, he tells us, would suggest that such a public form of religion, thin as it is, and largely devoid of content, is no religion at all. Yet he insists it’s the only form we are able to maintain in a public sphere to accomplish Tocqueville’s (and the founders’) visions of a virtuous society.
The remainder of this well written book devotes itself to the historical and very general overview of various public leaders in our nations history and their views on church and state, religion and politics, Christianity in general, but Christianity and it’s effect on popular politics in particular. His work here strikes me as well done and clear though, as a persuasive style essay, he really only offers one view on the matter which he sees (perhaps presumptuously) as the majority position. Case in point is the matter of the 1963 Supreme Court decision to remove the recitation of institutionalized prayer from public schools. Our author quotes Billy Graham as saying “’Eighty percent of the American people want Bible reading and prayer in the schools.’” (pg. 189) To the best of my knowledge, that number was accurate when offered by Graham at the time of the Supreme Court ruling. Yet, on the following page and regarding the same issue, Meacham claims generally of the opposition to the courts ruling: “The extremes, while colorful and quotable, were just that: the extremes.” (pg. 190) Apparently there is a certain blind spot in Meacham’s thinking about what defines majority, minority, and “extreme.”
He does end the book with an interesting myriad of original documents for the readers’ use. They are helpful and fun.
In the end, I found the book enjoyable and persuasive on the level that it was informative and made a clear case for the reality that the United States is not now nor has ever been a Christian nation. Yet, given this well made point by the author, he then tries hard to make a case for this thin public religion with its general God. I can see how this may be a very attractive place to stand for many. But I am convinced there is a dark side to this seemingly innocuous theory.
Joseph S. Holt M.A.C.T.
posted by Joe at 12:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home