civil religion

civil religion

i wrote this essay in the beginning of november about american civil religion. there's a lot more i could expound on... and probably will in the future, but for now, i think it's a decent base. the first paragraph is about an illustration we had to write something "sensibly sociological" about.


The illustration from PostSecret, which reads: “I pretend to be religious because I want my life to have meaning,” speaks volumes to living within the nomos, the need to feel meaningful ongoingness in the face of meaninglessness, and externalization. There is also a corollary statement: “I pretend my life has meaning because I want to be religious,” which should also be considered because it speaks of the human-conceived cosmos as something that requires alienation in order for theodicy to offer explanation of the cosmos, which serves as a guardian against anomy, and promotes world maintenance to sustain the nomos.


Bellah places significance on the locations Kennedy chooses to reference God in his speech: in the two opening paragraphs and in the closing paragraph, which he argues provides “a sort of frame for more concrete remarks that form the middle part of the speech.” The references are found in many presidential pronouncements. Because they are not usually found in the draft stages, it is safe to assume they are added later, thereby bringing to the forefront that it is not part of the president’s agenda to push private religious belief, but rather demonstrates the saturation of civil religion.

Entering into Berger’s shade under The Sacred Canopy, one senses that there is a need for meaningful ongoingness in the face of meaninglessness. In response, Bellah states, “Though the will of the people as expressed in the majority vote is carefully institutionalized as the operative source of political authority, it is deprived of an ultimate significance. The will of the people is not itself the criterion of right and wrong. There is a higher criterion in terms of which this will can be judged; it is possible that the people may be wrong. The president’s obligation extends to the higher criterion.” (Emphasis added) The will of the masses is deprived of ultimate significance and it is the president’s duty to point to a higher criterion of significance. Uniquely, the presidential role provides allegory for theodicy: “the dimension of political life as recognized by Kennedy not only provides a grounding for the rights of man that makes any form of political absolutism illegitimate, it also provides a transcendent goal for the political process.” (Emphasis added)

The sacred text of the cosmos, the Declaration of Independence, is the fuel of presidential theodicy, witnessed through Jefferson: “All the political sentiments I entertain have been drawn, so far as I have been able to draw them, from the sentiments which originated in and were given to the world from this Hall. I have never had a feeling, politically, that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.” In fact, Bellah points out that the declaration mentions God four times: first, “’Laws of nature and of Nature’s God’ that entitle any people to be independent.” Second, “all men ‘are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights.’ Here Jefferson is locating the fundamental legitimacy of the new nation in a conception of ‘higher law’ that is itself based on both classical natural law and biblical religion.” He goes on to talk about the constitution saying that God will both “protect the divine Providence,” and judge the world for its actions. More accurately, the Declaration of Independence is theodicy, and the president is a physical embodiment of that theodicy. A theodicy with feet.

Starting with the president as the theodicy with feet, other parts of the metaphor must naturally follow, namely, the cosmos and the nomos. The nomos of civil religion consists of individuals who, while they may participate to a small extent in the exercise of government, they are very much a part of every day civilian life, influenced by governmental changes. The government in civil religion plays the part of a “sub”-cosmos. While they recognize that there is a higher authority governing them, Kennedy referenced in his speech, they operate as a sub-cosmos underneath the greater cosmos.

Take for example, the cosmos-given rituals of the nomos: Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and Independence Day. The annual practice of these rituals gives light to the ongoingness of the nomos. When disaster strikes, these rituals say planted as beacons of hope that everything will go back to the way it should be. The most interesting note to point out about these rituals is that they were created, just as the seats of power in government. The individuals of the nomos collectively forget what they had created, and exist to provide function for. These rituals work because of alienation.

Civil religion is a religion, not because of the beliefs and rituals contained within it, but rather because it fits into the explanation of what religion does: it provides comfort in the face of shattering events through world maintenance.

today

today

i was asked a question: how could i be a devout christian and fit into berger's model of defining religion? as you may recall, or follow the link to read - which would be far more helpful - berger basically says that we can sustain meaningful ongoingness is because we forget that we created the means by which meaningful ongoingness is sustained.

in essence, the question asked: is berger's model self-defeating? does it ultimately collapse because the believer of the model has to forget that the model exists in order for it to be successful?

to some degree: yes. but ultimately, the answer is no. especially in the case of someone like me.

i subscribe to berger's model - yes, i believe humanity created religion - and remain, i hope for the most part, non-heretical. hear me out.

we have this being who ultimately cannot be described, who is ultimately unknowable. we say this being is personal, and we attribute qualities to this being, such as omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. we also declare that this being has a name: God.

what we are doing is describing something that cannot be described in the best possible way we know how - through language - but still fail to come to grips as to what this being is. our language and descriptions create a picture of God, similar to the way a picture of a soda can is not the actual soda can. to be concise, the word "God", is not actually God. the word God is a human construct. it is the way we attempt to define the unknowable.

however, God does exist, even though our construction of God may not exactly match up, we try our best. but now consider that this God, of whom the depths of which cannot be fully known, chose to build his image (we'll use a personal pronoun in light of the christian tradition) inside of us. the full gravity of that choice, we will likely never understand, but it has something to do with us being able to know God. not only do we have the image of God inside of us, but God stepped into our time and defined what he was doing and continues to do, in the language of society and culture. God said to moses: "I AM." God stepped into our time as the form of Jesus, at the very least, to show us what God looks like in our skin.

even in the creation story at the beginning of the bible in the book of genesis, we have God in the beginning who speaks creation into existence. and God said, "let there be light." and there was light. now it may not actually be that God spoke words, but it's the best way we can describe what it is that God did when he created the heavens and the earth. it makes sense that God would speak things into being. we have a God who through his story, uses our language so that we may know him better and more fully, that we may glimpse what it was that he did.

at the end of the day, i realize the need to develop these thoughts more. i consider it nothing but a miracle all the incredible things that God does. it makes God feel so big. that he could take a system so inadequate for description and tell a story through it... in ways that we can understand. he takes broken things and uses them for his purposes. imagine, if God can use our language... how much more can he do with us?

I've been doing some reading recently for a class that I'm a good amount behind on. I have about 3 assignments to do. Since I'm not too motivated to do them, I'm writing a post about the first one, in hopes that it will get me motivated in starting to write it. I'm experiencing a bit of a block on where to start.

One of the pieces is an excerpt of the Evangelical Manifesto. It is made up of several sections, which were written as a repudiation of several practices of American Evangelicalism. The manifesto starts off by reclaiming what it means "to be an Evangelical and to carry the name of Christ: to seek to be faithful to the freedom, justice, peace, and well-being that are at the heart of the kingdom of God, to bring these gifts into public life as a service to all, and to work with all who share these ideals and care for the common good." Evangelicals are to be people who are a part of a different tradition: One that brings change and social reform.

Our second piece is an Open Letter from President Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad to President Bush. In his opening, he writes: "Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God, feel obligated to respect human rights, present liberalism as a civilization model, announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs, make 'War and Terror' his slogan, and finally, work toward the establishment of a unified international community - a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern?"

At the outset, both pieces define what Christians should be about; they bring to light what it looks like to carry the name of Christ and work toward the establishment of a community ultimately governed by Christ. This is capital Religion in the public eye: the way a person's beliefs influence their actions. "Let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven." Matthew 5:16 (TNIV)

The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad, considers how one might shine like a light from a position of authority by defending the rights of the underprivileged, defending the rights of all people around the world by not imposing wars on them, or interfering illegally in their affairs, or establishing hellish prisons to incarcerate some of them. He questions if it would be a good idea to bring the world peace and security, and tell truth to our nation and others around the world. He goes on to ask if President Bush should be on the side of the people, to serve the people, which is a leader's main task.

The Evangelical Manifesto says the same thing. It is not the duty of a Christian to put faith in and imitate the power held by Emperor Constantine but rather Jesus of Nazareth's. It is power under, "Justice was promoted by a suffering servant emptied of power and ready to die for the ends he came to achieve." Were a president to actually follow the teachings of Jesus, they may find themselves out of a job... or they may find themselves redefining what the position should look like.

There is no doubt that many Americans would be very unhappy if a president actually helped "the foreigner, the fatherless, and the widow." Imagine if instead of a 700 billion dollar bail out plan, the United States enabled people all over the world to have access to clean drinking water. It would cause uproar. Or instead of raising taxes for people who make over 250 thousand dollars a year, cap it, and give the rest away to people who really need it. Or, what if America got rid of the welfare system and healthcare system and said, "okay, the new law is: everyone love your neighbour!"

This obviously would never work for real. America is not a theocracy and Americans are far too selfish. If honest moral ideals were put into place within government, and actually followed, it could work. But it never will.

Thus: application of the “power-under” idea of the Christian church. A group of people so indwelt with the gospel that they spur major movements in social change. A group of people so convinced that the prisons need reform that they would readily swap seats with the man on death row, guilty as hell. Not to prove a point, but to give life. It looks like a group of people willing to move into the ghetto and provide gentrification with justice; using their God-given talents and abilities in their business and trades to bring change to corrupted and broken neighbourhoods. It looks like a group of people who are doctors who offer free care and supplies to those unable to afford adequate care. It looks like a group of people who love their “enemies” so much that they fly to Baghdad two weeks before the bombings and embrace their brothers and sisters abroad, showing them what Christ actually looks like.

The American Church has lost its imagination. The Evangelical Manifesto conveys that American Christians have put far too much faith in political systems and leaders than in the actual teachings of Jesus to change people from the inside out: to transform lives and the world around them. Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad imagines what it might look like for a professing Christian leader to do the same thing. It could be a different world indeed.

tough tuesdays

tough tuesdays

because it is tuesday, and not the day after, or a few days after... i decided to beat olson to the punch. so in showing you this, i need you to realize that it was especially difficult. also know that it's due tomorrow afternoon, so i feel good about finishing it early. :)

as a little background information, i'm taking a sociology of religion course. it's challenging in a lot of ways, but not in any of the ways i would have thought, i'm actually enjoying learning a lot of the theories and ideas that sociologists place on religion, but i'm realizing that "small r religion" that defines the purpose of religion, and brackets the religious beliefs and practices to push them aside, really doesn't get at anything thought provoking. it just is.

*edit* nearing the end of the semester now... i realize how thought provoking it actually has been, and how life giving to my faith it has been. incredible what God can use to draw me nearer to him.

so, without further delay, my assignment was to decide if the phrase "shit happens" expresses an essentially religious disposition toward the world or not, and to develop an argument that supported my decision. so, here it is:

---

Theodicy’s purpose is to defend the goodness of the reality that is above, behind, and within the humanly constructed normal world. It is a guardian against disarray and confusion because it serves to explain that the confusion has a greater purpose. It gives meaning for the abnormal, un-expectable or “shattering events”* within the normal. “The arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice”[King] is a theodicy. The epigram, “shit happens,” is a theodicy as well. Theodicy is innately religious.

Of course questions of the true purpose of the statement, “shit happens,” may arise. On the surface it is a crass statement with a casual attitude, bordering carefree. Digging deeper, an argument must be presented to its implicit meaning: things happen outside of society’s control, consequentially, business as usual. Theodicy begins its work with the statement, ‘things happen outside of society’s control,’ and guarantees its effectiveness with the word, ‘consequentially,’ which afterward, shows the outcome of theodicy successfully carried out. The main aim of theodicy is not to offer consolation, but explanation. Consolation will naturally follow as long as theodicy is successful. Behold, the full package of theodicy carried out: [r]eligion.

[r]eligion in supplying its purpose, “provides comfort in the face of shattering events.” One must keep in mind both that this comfort is not ‘being comfortable,’ and that these shattering events have ‘symbolic power.’ Comfort maintains that people feel safe and secure, a sense that things really can and will go back to normal, which can also be described synonymously, as “comfort in the face of threats to meaningful ongoingness.” Using symbolic power instills events with representative meaning or characterizes something abstract with something concrete. Put simply: symbols are metaphors, while power gives them significance.

Shattering events must always have metaphors and explanation, otherwise the precarious humanly constructed normal world, nomos, shifts into an abnormal state which humans cannot control, anomy. If religion is world maintenance, then anomy is world destruction, the great enemy of religion. Anomy is the threat to meaning, theodicy is the saviour of that meaning. Theodicy operates as a guardian against anomy, drawing its power directly from the cosmos: the reality that is above, behind, and within the nomos. When theodicy does its job, it ensures meaning to the nomos.

But, “shit happens,” and a descent to anomy begins. Just as society created the nomos, it created the meaning within reality, the cosmos, as well. Berger postulates, “Religion implies the farthest reach of man’s self-externalization, of his infusion of reality with his own meanings … Put differently, religion is the audacious attempt to conceive of the entire universe as being humanly significant.”[28]

When “shit happens”, society as a whole does not say, “we created the norm, and the cosmos, so we are doomed, because there is actually no nonhuman way of explaining this.” Instead, something entirely different happens. People forget. They forget they created the cosmos and start to rely on it for support, theodicy is put into action, and world maintenance can continue. The nomos can be restored.

Alienation allows the cosmos to repair the nomos. When society forgets it has made the cosmos, the nomos can be repaired. The nomos and the cosmos are bound together by a relationship between them called legitimation, or shared meaning. The cosmos gives meaning to the nomos, and the nomos gives meaning to the cosmos. Society is alienated from the nomos, “because that is just the way things are,” and so things continue as normal.

The epigram is religious. “Shit happens”, shows alienation of both the cosmos and nomos, because “that is just the way things are.” Because of alienation it becomes a theodicy, to offer solution to the cosmos, serving as a guardian against anomy, and promoting world maintenance, allowing things to progress normally.

Works Cited
* concepts discussed in class as part of lecture notes will receive only quotation marks as their indication to an outside source.
Berger, Peter L. The Sacred Canopy : Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. New York: Anchor Canada, 1988.