Hmmkay, so I’m a day late to Blog Against Theocracy, but thanks anyway to Hrafnkell over at A Heathen’s Day for inspiring me to Blog Against Theocracy! Also, to Cathy over at Rose of the World for inspiring hope.
So, repatriating Christianity, eh? Sort of a strange title, right? Yeah, it is, sort of, but it’s also fairly apt.
Let’s go back in history a bit, not too far! Just under 230 years ought to do it. Let’s see, America was still under British rule, and the “Founding Fathers” were chafing to be free. Except that there really wasn’t anything wrong with them. The British colonies in America were among the most prosperous settlements in the world. In fact, the quality of life was actually higher in the colonies than in Britain.
Unlike in France, our Revolution was fought over purely idealistic terms. Yes, the British were taxing the colonists, but not much worse than they were taxing their own citizens. It was the idea of being taxed without having any say in the matter that rankled with the Founding Fathers.
This was during the Age of Enlightenment, when Reason held sway over superstition (and yes, even religion). Along with a revival of science and the rise of empiricism, political and economic philosophy once again came to the forefront.
A lot of Christians often claim that the United States were based on “Christian values.” Actually, they were based on Classical (and therefore Pagan) principles and a desire to escape the mistakes of the Middle Ages (when the Roman Catholic Church had absolute power). These included an escape from tyrrany, superstition, and chaos. The Classical alternatives were democracy (through the nation-state), Reason, and order.
I can think of no established Christian church that is based on Reason and democracy. The heirarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church, in particular, evokes tyrrany. Religion in general requires a certain amount of superstition. In fact, the only thing from the Enlightenment that modern Christianity seems to have adopted is order, which one could argue is directly related to tyrrany, but that’s another post.
Also, many, though far from all of the founding fathers were deists. That is to say that they believed in a non-participating Creator, an entity that created the universe, but since then has not intervened in human existence. So, no Jesus, really.
On the flip side were the pietists. Pietism was a movement born of the Protestant reform efforts that began with Martin Luther and continued well into the 19th and even the 20th Centuries. Pietism emphasized individual Biblical study (as in, without priests), a universal Christian priesthood, and Christianity as an active practice. Evangelism was born out of this movement.
And since America was founded on religious freedom, both pietists and deists were able to get along without killing each other.
Don’t believe me? It’s true. Before the Mayflower ever set sail, there were Native peoples, French Catholics, British Anglicans, Presbyterian/Calvinist Scotsmen, and the already religiously diverse Dutch (the Netherlands at the time held Catholics, Anabaptists, Lutherans, Calvinists, Mennonites, Jews, French Huguenot refugees, etc.). In fact, the Puritans first escaped Britain to the Netherlands, where religious freedom was promoted. They couldn’t impose their own religion on others though, so they left for the Americas, where there was more room.
As they were framing the Constitution (illegally, by the way, under the Articles of Confederation) our radical founding fathers created laws so that everyone could enjoy freedom of religion (and from religion, if need be). They had learned from the tyrrany created by state-sponsored religion and the absolute power of the medieval Catholic church. This time, they were going to do it right.
And you can’t argue that they only meant Christian religions. Society may have done it that way for a long time, but remember that even in the mid-to-late-19th Century, the Chinese were not banned from practicing Buddhism or their traditional religion, nor were Indians banned from practicing Hinduism, nor were Jews banned from building synagogues. These religions may have been derided by society at large, but they were never illegal. In fact, the only people who could not legally practice their own religion were the American Indians, who were considered conquered peoples.
Tolerance of and for diversity is written in to the Constitution. The founding fathers wanted to avoid at all costs returning to the monarchies, theocracies, and tyrranies of yore.
They would roll over in their graves if they could see what has happened to day. Actually, they’ve probably been spinning in their graves for the last seven years. Ever since the 2000 election, when the Supreme Court appointed our so-called president.
So what’s to be done?
Well, this is where the title comes into play. I think Christianity needs to be taken out of mainstream society and repatriated back into its churches, which is where it belongs.
Some would argue that Christianity is the dominant religion in terms of the self-identifying populace in America, therefore American society should be Christian. Except that most Christians, many of whom are politically moderate or liberal, would argue against this. It is the small, but lamentably powerful minority of the Christian Right that perpetuates the disinformation about American religious life.
America is perhaps the most religiously diverse nation on the planet. Christianity is just an umbrella term for thousands of different denominations and faiths. Judaism and Islam have a narrower focus, but there are different variations within those religions as well. And of course, Paganism is an enormous umbrella term for what is perhaps the most diverse religion of all.
Of course, these denominations are only the “official” ones. Every person’s take on faith is different in one way or another from every other person’s. There is no other way to put it and it brooks no argument. Just as no person is the same as any other, so are the faiths of each individual different. It’s called diversity, and it’s a good thing.
Except that when you’ve been raised in a monotheistic, evangelical background, diversity is a bad thing. It’s nearly impossible to accept, much less tolerate. Diversity versus the monoistic thinking has pervaded not only religion, but also race relations (one God, one race?), foreign diplomacy, etc. And it’s given America it’s fair share of problems. When people refuse to accept diversity, living with it (a fact of life) becomes problematic.
As a Pagan, I have no problem with Christianity and Christians, so long as they leave the conversion scare tactics and evangelizing to themselves. Christianity needs to be repatriated before it destroys the most precious foundations our nation was built upon: tolerance, fairness, freedom of religion, and free speech.
Because diversity is essential to survival (just ask Mother Nature). Besides, it makes life so much more interesting! The goal of Christianity is to make everyone Christian: to make everyone the same. Can you imagine a world where everyone was the same? Neither can I.
Independence Day is over, but declare your independence from Christian influence and power and celebrate diversity in all its forms!
“Actually, they were based on Classical (and therefore Pagan) principles…”
Actually, Classical Greek philosophy (reinvigorated during the Enlightenment) was not at all synonymous with the ancient Greek pagan religion–indeed, they often banged heads and were as diametrically opposed as fundamentalist Christians and secular humanists are today. See also: Socrates, execution of.
“In fact, the only thing from the Enlightenment that modern Christianity seems to have adopted is order…”
Again, not necessarily. Reason, or “Logos”, has been a major element of Christian theology since the very beginning, as the roots of Christianity were as much influenced by the conflict between Classical Greek philosophy and ancient pagan religion as the Enlightenment was a re-birth of the former. Many early Christian apologists focus primarily on the marriage between “reason” and religion, developing complex and nuanced theologies to describe Divine revelation and personal spiritual experiences. In fact, one may argue that Christianity did not take much from the Enlightenment precisely because it had already incorporated and preserved (at least in doctrine, if not in reality) much of what the Enlightenment sought to bring back. True, the medieval Church slipped into a tyrannical Dark Ages, while Classical Greek texts were preserved by the prospering Muslim society in the Middle East, but Christianity was not the cause of the Dark Ages, so much as a participant, along with every other social institution of the time. When a particular society begins collapsing under its own weight, every aspect of it–from religion, to politics, to economics, to public health–are adversely affected unless they can quickly adapt and find other means of thriving. Those that don’t adapt will, of course, exacerbate the cultural collapse, but this is a far cry from placing the blame squarely on the shoulders of a single institution or system.
“Religion in general requires a certain amount of superstition.”
That depends on your definition of those two words. Some people might argue that religion is actually an antidote against superstition, in the same way that informed, thoughtful and well-researched opinions from the medical community about health and nutrition help guard a person against dangerous fad diets. When organized religion is approached as a community of practitioners and believers all addressing and exploring the same spiritual struggles honestly and thoughtfully, it can provide perspective and context in spiritual matters that undermine the ignorance that otherwise gives rise to superstition.
“The goal of Christianity is to make everyone Christian: to make everyone the same.”
According to who? I’m a Christian, and that certainly isn’t my goal. The Catholic Church is “catholic” for the very reason that it acknowledged early on that, in order for a religious tradition to be relevant for a wide, even world-wide community, it must be able to embrace diversity. (Note: the definition of “catholic” is: “broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.”) The Nicean Creed declares belief in “one, holy, catholic [...] church” in order to emphasize the idea of community and unity within diversity, and that this synthesis of unity and diversity is itself sacred. That Christianity in modern society has often served the interests of intolerance, bigotry and conformity is a symptom of modern society itself, not Christianity alone. Saying that, because intolerance has often been couched in Christian terms, Christianity is inherently intolerant is like saying that the German language is inherently anti-Semitic because that was the language in which Hitler wrote his Mein Kampf. Religion provides a language about Spirit–it depends on the individual how that language is used and what it is used to justify. People couch their intolerance in Christian terms because it is the “language” with which they are most familiar; just as Islamic extremists couch their intolerance in Muslim terms and, you can bet your bottom dollar, if Paganism was more prevalent, it too would find itself the means by which the certain people spewed forth intolerant messages against “atheist” Christians (See also: the history of martyrdom in early Christianity).
Many other contemporary social institutions are suffering the same symptoms of paranoia, xenophobia and intolerance, as a result of increased globalization and people’s natural reaction to respond to new or foreign ideas and behaviors by turning to an easy us-versus-them framework. We may be entering a new Dark Ages here in the West, and I agree that an emphasis on diversity, tolerance and free, open communication is needed now more than ever. But to place the blame solely on Christianity is to make the same mistake over again and to fail to learn the lessons of history, which says that any cultural, social or political community is susceptible to corruption and intolerance. I think people in the Neopagan community would do well to make a thorough study of the historical development of Christianity before so quickly dismissing it, paying particular attention to its early history as a religious community trying not to make the same mistakes as the repressive culture it was reacting against. Modern Pagans might find some startling similarities to their own efforts, and some relevant warnings about how good intentions can, over time, go so far astray.
By: Ali on July 5, 2007
at 6:04 pm