Reviving Civil Religion?

Sam Goldman smartly advocates a revival of American Civil Religion in a Washington Post column today. He says:

Rather than an embrace of Christian nationalism or an affirmation of secularism, the United States needs a revival of American civil religion — a system of belief distinct from Christian orthodoxy and secular neutrality.

And:

Civil religion is not a magic spell for producing consensus. Like adherents of other religions, Americans can fight bitterly over the meaning and priority of the same symbols. And it is uncertain whether civil religion can survive if its origins are forgotten. There is a strong case for restoring biblical and classical sources to educational prominence — not to convert but to prepare students for membership in what sociologist Philip Gorski calls an “American covenant.”

Finally:

Despite these challenges, a revival of American civil religion seems more promising than any alternative. America’s Christian majority is not going to disappear. But neither are its significant minority of non-Christians and substantial cohort of Christians uncomfortable with Christian nationalism. To borrow Lincoln’s words, civil religion might be “the last best hope” for a divided people. It always has been.

Goldman doesn’t explain who would orchestrate civil religion’s revival. No one group created it. It arose organically, early in the republic, as statesmen and clergy, at public events and in public documents, inclusively talked of God’s relationship with America without getting too specific. It was mostly a Protestant project, specifically from what later became known as “Mainline.” But its inclusivity allowed Catholics, Jews, and others later to meld in without too much difficult. “In God We Trust,” could bind the nation together so long as the details about God’s identity were left to individuals and religious groups.

The unofficial stewards of America’s Civil Religion were the Mainline Protestants, whose clergy were America’s spiritual leaders, and whose laity provided most of America’s political leadership. Across many decades Mainline clergy easily led invocations at presidential inaugurals and local Rotary clubs with this inclusive language that pleased most people and upset very few if any. Ingrained into American public life, it was reassuring even to non-religious people as a symbol of continuity, moral purpose, and wider obligation.

Sadly, Mainline Protestantism has sadly retreated into near obscurity. Catholic priests when called upon can still do it well. And many Evangelical clergy can fulfill the role if asked. Billy Graham was expert at it.

But as Goldman noted, polarized America is less desirous of inclusive language. Online America wants a rumble, not reassurance. For some Evangelicals, and perhaps for some Catholics, the vagueness of civil religion leaves them feeling empty, or even offended. Some Evangelicals think omitting specific mention of Jesus from the prayer at public functions is a form of censorship that must be resisted on principle.

The loudest voices with online evangelicalism today want an officially “Christian” America that consigns non-Christians to the sidelines. For them, civil religion would be at best grossly inadequate if not blasphemous. Many secularists of course now discern in any vague reference to deity the sinister shadow of Christian Nationalism and theocracy. The conversations between these two sides are typically absurd.   

Any revival of civil religion will not come from America’s churches. This is not just because many would find the project offensive, although some do. But it’s not specifically the role of churches to provide the public language for the nation’s public discourse. Churches are called to evangelize and disciple believers. They should promote the common good, of course. And they should affirm the utility of civil religion as a unifying force that does not contravene Christianity and in fact helps to infuse spirituality into public conversation.

But the revival of civil religion will need to come from outside the institutional church. Politicians, if they are smart, should lead it. Many still do rhetorically employ civil religion. Some on the right unhelpfully dabble in Christian nationalist rhetoric. Some on the left have tried to appeal to religious voters with silly and unnecessarily specific theological assertions that only offend or cause head scratching. Practicing American civil religion requires restraint and discipline, which are today often in short supply.

Maybe the more thoughtful side of the online community, which does exist, should lead in championing civil religion. They should explain it, advocate it, and demonstrate it. It’s not as though American civil religion has disappeared. Every time somebody says, “God bless America,” or sings “America the Beautiful,” they are practicing it, whether consciously or not. Most Americans still appreciate civil religion although they may not realize what it is.

American civil religion arose from the seedbed of American democracy and was sustained naturally across over 200 years but now requires some effort and deliberation. It requires patience and respect for differing perspectives. It requires commitment to social harmony and national unity. It means dialing back, at least for some moments, political warfare against adversaries. It means recognizing that the whole nation has a vested interest in our democracy functioning.

Civil Religion also spiritually requires humility. We cannot impose our own theological specifics on the nation and on public discourse. Perhaps our own theological specifics may not be as exact as we sometimes imagine. We defer to God ‘s judgment about who is right and who is wrong. He can bless America. And He can lead us to better places.