Scholars Probe Civil Religion and its Impact on U.S. Society
Diocesan Press Service. March 8, 1973 [73073]
Elliott Wright, Religious News Service Staff Writer
( Note to Editors: The Diocesan Press Service, which subscribes to Religious News Service, has received special permission from RNS to distribute the article below for your use/information. If used, please give proper credit. It may be of interest to know that Dr. Robert Bellah will write an essay in a special issue of The Anglican Theological Review, July 1973, on an Anglican contribution to a creative recovery of the American tradition in observance of the Bi-Centennial of the Nation, as approved by Executive Council.)
MADISON, N.J. (RNS) -- A panel of prominent scholars held here that "civil religion" exists in the U.S. and exerts enormous impact on society.
But the sociologists, theologians, historians and literary specialists reached no consensus on what " civil religion" means, how it relates to organized faiths or politics and whether it is good or bad.
"Civil religion" was variantly seen as giving unity and a sense of "higher meaning" to citizens, branded as "idolatrous," divided into several types, held responsible for the unjust treatment of minorities, linked to the military and made synonymous with the "American Way of Life. "
Eight lecturers and 12 consultants were brought together by the Graduate School of Drew University for one of the first major public airings of "civil religion, " which has increasingly claimed attention in church, political and scholarly circles in the past few years.
The term "civil religion" has also entered American journalism where it is usually left undefined but is used in reference to such events as non-denominational prayer breakfasts, religious ceremonies at state events and political rhetoric mentioning God and the national together.
Dr. Robert Bellah, a University of California sociologist, borrowing the phrase from an 18th Century French philosopher, injected "civil religion" into contemporary language. He was the keynote speaker at Drew.
Writing in 1967, he made frequent references to the inaugural address of President John Kennedy as illustrative of "civil religion." At Drew, the second inaugural of President Nixon came into the spotlight.
Dr. Bellah does not feel "civil religion" itself is undesirable when understood as an unifying "sense of the sacred," giving a society a context of "higher meaning" offering hope and judgment.
However, he was quite critical of what he sees as the "civil religion" President Nixon exemplified in the second inaugural.
The sociologist contrasted what he said was the President's proclamation of "American innocence " with a sermon preached at the White House a day after inauguration by Roman Catholic Archbishop Joseph L. Bernardin of Cincinnati. Dr. Bellah quoted six paragraphs in which the archbishop stressed peace, the need to end "oppression," the growth of compassion and the denial of selfish interest for the sake of "common good. "
Dr. Bellah said the nation can learn from its heritage of "civil religion" if it will search the whole history of the American experience, subject everything found to "searing criticism" and open the search to streams of thought outside American tradition.
"Religion and morality and politics are not the same things and confusing them can lead to terrible distortions," he concluded. "But cutting all links between them can lead to even worse distortions. The concept of civil religion simply points to the fact that some links between them (religion, morality, politics) seem to exist in all societies."
Dr. Bellah urged Americans to find and use the best of its "civil religion."
However, Dr. Will Herberg of Drew was not so optimistic about higher values in "civil religion. " He identified the term with the mass culture of commercialism and nationalism of the "American Way of Life." He said it is "idolatry" in terms of Judaism and Christianity and declared that virtually nothing can be done about it.
"By every realistic criterion, the American Way of Life is the operative religion of the American people," said the professor.
Dr. Martin Marty of the University of Chicago preferred to identify "two kinds of kinds" of "civil religion." One variety, he stated, sees the nation under some picture of deity, while a second stresses national self-transcendence and may or may not use traditional terms for God.
Both of those two kinds, the noted church historian continued, can be divided into "priestly" and "prophetic" types. As an example of "priestly civil religion" under God, he cited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
The prophetic stream of the national under God, he said, is represented by voices who claim that "affairs under God are out of line." To illustrate, he mentioned persons as theologically diverse as William Stringfellow and Sen. Mark Hatfield.
"Priestly civil religion" without God-language, the second kind, applies the language of the church to the nation, Dr. Marty said. He suggested that President Nixon may belong in that category.
"Prophetic civil religion " basically without language about God does not deify the state, Dr. Marty said, but sees the transcendent ideals and values standing in judgment on the people. Dr. Marty felt Prof. Bellah probably illustrates that variety.
Other speakers at the consultation included Dr. Charles H. Long of the University of Chicago, a black historian, who said the civil religion tradition in its language and structures tried to make visible minorities " invisible " in the social order. He treated the civil rights movement as an attempt to bring the invisible to visibility.
Dr. David Little, a moral theologian at the University of Virginia, spoke on Thomas Jefferson's understanding of the "civil or political role of religion in America." He had strong criticism for the Founding Father for, he said, failing to understand the unavoidable tensions that arise between morality, religious belief and civic responsibility.
Dr. Leo Marx, a professor of literature at Amherst College, explained how "vernacular," even "vulgar," writing in the U.S. -- seen in such persons as Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway and Norman Mailer -- stands against the "genteel" European tradition which is the basis of whatever is called "civil religion."
"Civil Religion in Historical Perspective " was the topic of Dr. John F. Wilson of Princeton University, and Dr. Herbert Richardson of St. Michael's College, Toronto, gave a paper on an ideal political process.
Among the consultants who entered into lengthy discussion with the speakers were Dr. Conrad Cherry of Pennsylvania State University; Dr. LeRoy Long of Oberlin College, Ohio; Dr. Robert T. Handy of Union (N.Y.) Theological Seminary; Dr. Charles C. West of Princeton (N.J. ) Theological Seminary; Dr. Dorothy Dohen of Fordham University and Drs. J. Philip Wogaman and C. C. Goen of Wesley Theological Seminary, Washington, D.C.