Jon Meacham's Unseemly Cheerfulness

What bothers me the most about Jon Meacham's piece, "The Decline and Fall of Christian America," is the cheerfulness with which he apparently welcomes the decline of Christian self-identification in the United States. 

After reading and re-reading the article, I really have little to disagree with regarding Meacham's description of America's identity as a community grounded not in the promulgation of Christianity, or any other religion, but in a commitment to liberty, expressed both as individual freedom and free enterprise.  Meacham is encouraged by the fact that "while we remain a nation decisively shaped by religious faith, our politics and our culture are, in the main, less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character . . . ."  He adds, " I think this is a good thing -- good for our political culture . . . ." 

Without describing all the features of Meacham's article with which I agree, especially his reminders about the nature of a social contract and the dangers long evidenced historically by the corruption of religion with the use of secular power, I am concerned about his simplistic distinctions between personal morality and a just social order.  What I fear Meacham and many others fail to realize is that it is precisely the formation of personal virtues -- humility, a love of the other, truthfulness, and a desire to subordinate one's own individual interests in favor of the greater good of others -- that prepare us for citizenship.  And these virtues, though not necessarily so, are nonetheless largely the cultural heritage of our Christian religious experience.

A society in which freedom prospers is one in which the will to power is both personally and corporately limited.  Furthermore, as many have shown and George Washington argued in his farewell address, it is very difficult to separate morality from religion and consequently religion from politics.  Productive liberty requires the voluntary restraint of its exercise.  This is almost invariably a moral and religious decision on the part of the citizen.  The faith and worship that taught me not to steal or to lie also teach me not to embezzle or to cheat on a contract.  It is the discipline enjoined by Christianity and other religions that encourages the self-restraint that promotes the respect that leads to a community of tolerance and justice. 

Meacham  welcomes  the decline in a robust kind of religious fervor that commits itself to partisan political change.  What he should not celebrate, though he leaves unmentioned and unconsidered, is the inevitable result of a decline of Christian and any other type of formalized worship and religious identification-- i.e., the decline of virtue which is the very ground and seedbed of freedom and indeed the very kind of nation, such as ours, in which freedom is prized.  Meacham is far too sanguine about what the decline of religion may mean in terms of the virtues that make a just society possible.

Comments

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

I like Dr. Albert Mohler's take on both Meacham's article and Professor Prothero's analysis of Meacham's article.

Read it here.

[John E.]

What I fear Meacham and many others fail to realize is that it is precisely the formation of personal virtues -- humility, a love of the other, truthfulness, and a desire to subordinate one's own individual interests in favor of the greater good of others -- that prepare us for citizenship.

This is certainly the case on the religious left; a false dichotomy is set up which opposes the traditionalist's concern with faith, personal morality, and spiritual discipline to the progressive's concern with social justice. Without the former, however, the latter is doomed to become merely transactional, and therefore subject to the changing whims of the "marketplace" of cultural cachet (one can observe, for instance, the transition from a predominant "gay"-consciousness to a predominant "green"-consciousness among progressives over the last couple of years).

When a traditional Christian commits himself to being a good citizen--to telling the truth, working hard, and caring for the less fortunate--he does so because he knows that it is the will of Almighty God. Submission of one's own will to this will, the adjustment from self-love to "love thy neighbor as thyself," and rejection of the Will to Power in favor of the Golden Rule, are virtues of immense value to a good society, and they are better learned in a context in which tradition is given authority than in one where it can be discarded when incovenient.

[Jim Hale]

So good to see you blogging here sir, and to see the fine work happening at HBU. Your courageous efforts in Waco were much appreciated.

[Benighted Savage]

Mr. Meachen writes:
"...I do not think it is productive to dismiss religious belief as superstitious and wrong..."

"I do not think it is productive"! With friends of "religion" like this, who needs enemies?

Thank you for posting this, Mr. Sloan. I'm currently reading an essay by A.H. Chroust entitled "the philosophy of law of the epicurians," and what Meachum chirps fits Chroust's definition of an epicurian position to a tee. These are very old issues and Meachum is but a contemporary recurrence of an old error.

One quibble: shouldn't what you call "personal" virtues be better called "social" virtues? Also, aren't these virtues and the very practice of citizenship somewhat passe in a country whose federal government has become so big and autocratic? Nowadays, to be an engaged citizen in a way that crosses that bigness has become increasingly futile, if not dangerous.

[fred preuss]

Interesting-but what about the high correlation between openly atheist and agnostic societies (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, New Zealand) with lower levels of crime and social pathologies? What about the very high rates of belief and religious practice in countries (Nigeria, Somalia, Brazil, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) with their high rates of public corruption and social pathologies.
If there's a relationship between belief in god and religious practice with public/private virtues, the evidence strongly implies that it's an inverse one: as religious belief and practice decline, public efficiency and transparency increase.

[Hunter Baker]

Fred, what were those places like BEFORE Christianity showed up? And there is a case to be made that they are living off the cultural capital of Christianity. That is Trueblood's cut flower civilization thesis. The flower will begin to wilt.

[Benighted Savage]

Mr. Preuss:

I fail to see the cogency of your argument, given a Christian audience. This is because, traditionally, followers of Christ have taken atheism and agnosticism to BE social pathologies.

[fred preuss]

If they are living off Christian social capital, running on theological fumes as it were, it might be possible for them to be the same as countries with high levels of practice-but with lower levels of social pathologies it's hard to make much of a case for religion as social glue.
Well, if you define social pathology as something other than murder, rape, public corruption, then you can make a case for pretty much anything.
How about this as a question-where would you rather your children grew up? Agnostic Washington state or Mississippi? Massachusetts or Iran?
I don't see what difference the audience makes. And some of my countries (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia)aren't even Christian.
How about within countries? Relatively agnostic north Italy versus more practicing Sicily, Calabria and Naples? Agnostic France versus the Phillipines?

[Benighted Savage]

>>> Well, if you define social pathology as something other than murder, rape, public corruption, then you can make a case for pretty much anything. <<<

If you cherry pick only the social pathologies that prove your case, then you can also prove "pretty much anything."

For example, I note that you did not list the pathology of suicide (Durkheim would not be pleased!). Perhaps this is because of the fact that "secular" countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Norway, New Zealand don't fare as well as "religious" countries like Brazil, Mexico or Thailand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

[Benighted Savage]

>>> I don't see what difference the audience makes. And some of my countries (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia)aren't even Christian. <<<

You are posting on a Christian blog. Thus, one can assume that a fair number of the people you are addressing here -- your audience -- are Christians.

My point is that you don't address a pathology/vice that has traditionally been a concern for Christians. Why, as a Christian, would I value living in a country that has (for example) relatively low governmental corruption if it also has an relatively high rate of atheism or impiety?

By not addressing "atheism/agnosticism" as a pathology/vice you beg the question here by assuming that it is somehow neutral in relation to the issue of what a Christian thinks constitutes public virtue.

[Clifford Simon]

With suicide, let's mention divorce as a social pathology of atheist/agnostic countries.

[Michael]

>>> Well, if you define social pathology as something other than murder, rape, public corruption, then you can make a case for pretty much anything. <<<

Assisted suicide IS murder (not to mention suicide). Abortion rates...also sky high. Rape? In countries with legalized red light districts, the sexual health of the society is suspect without rape rates.

And who needs "public corruption" when corruption is no longer defined as such? Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right, but this is how we measure a country's health--by their own legal standard! That's a riot.

[Benighted Savage]

>>> With suicide, let's mention divorce as a social pathology of atheist/agnostic countries. <<<

Why stop with suicide or divorce? How about rates of illegitimacy? (if statistics are still kept) Or has the family, like "religion," become another optional life-style choice to the atheists/agnostics? One that's to be stripped of its moral and social significance?

That's a very curious way to address the question of social virtue.

[Hunter Baker]

Fred, the first choice you gave me is easy. I'd much rather raise my children in Mississippi than Washington state. I've spent plenty of time in Miss. It's a good place. Be happy to have my kids influenced by the culture.

The second one deals with an Islamic state, which I don't think qualifies for this discussion. I would not raise my children in an Islamic state unless the will of God led me there.

[R.S.Newark]

When Meachum and his ilk get there, there will be no there there. Got it