Book Review #5 "Under God"

Garry Wills published Under God about 15 years ago, which dates portions of it somewhat, but neither the passage of time, nor the inconsistent quality of the various sections of the book, take away from its value as a book expressing the impact of religion on American government. Wills, a Catholic, takes the position that America has been influenced by Protestant Christianity far more than Catholicism or Judaism (for reasons he well describes), and concentrates on the various Protestant movements and strains that have surfaced over the years.

The organization of the book is odd. For example, the chapters dealing with the relationship of religion to the founding of this country and to the establishment of the doctrine of separation of church and state, are the final chapters of the book, while the early chapters deal with people like Ronald Reagan, Michael Dukakis and Dan Quayle. The middle of the book is more topical - dealing with such issues as right to life.

Let's start at the end (i.e., at the beginning). These chapters have led me to rethink some of the ideas I had held about the early history of religion in America.

Wills' position, in very short paraphrase is as follows: religious freedom did not develop in this country because the founding fathers believed that all religions were equal (although some came close to that position), but rather because separation of church and state became necessary in light of the English establishment of a church that the majority of American settlers were breaking away from. This quickly led to the idea that any attempt for the government to be involved in religion might easily wind up with an established Church of England or its equivalent (or even worse an established Catholic church that England permitted to continue to exist in Quebec after Canada become under English control in the mid-1800s). The religious communities that developed in North America (and everyone was part of a religious community, more or less), were themselves unforgiving and intolerant for the most part, and could only stay that way if government kept out of their hair.

Thinking in these terms, sometimes history becomes a bit topsy turvy. Roger Williams founded a community with the most religious freedom in Rhode Island exactly because he was one of the least tolerant figures in American religious history. To him, most Protestant sects were as bad a Catholics, and therefore for him to permit Catholics into Rhode Island was no great stretch; it was no more radical for him than permitting those pseudo-Catholics who called themselves Protestants. Jefferson and Madison, although their theological positions were much different from Roger Williams (and in fact they had at that time perhaps never heard of Roger Williams) wanted to keep religion and government separate for much the same reason. And all major figures of 18th and early 19th century American history did share a sincere belief in a powerful God. The Puritans and related sects believed that this God was an intolerant one; Jefferson and Madison believed him to be a tolerant God. But they all expressed what are apparently sincere religious feelings. And feelings which were shared by large numbers of their contemporaries.

And he believes that this sincere religious feeling was a very significant part of American society from the beginning, and that it continues to this day. This is why contemporary (1970s and 1980s) political candidates like Gary Hart and Michael Dukakis failed to inspire the electorate. Putting aside their personal feelings, they ran what were basically secular campaigns and these are bound to fail.

But Gary Hart and Michael Dukakis had very different backgrounds. Gary Hart (who was a serious contender for the Democratic nomination in 1988, until sidelined by a reported liaison with a young woman on Capital Hill) came himself from a seriously religious background, being raised in a demonination called the Church of the Nazarenes. The Church of the Nazarenes was founded by a preacher named Phineas Bresee, who built on an existing "Holiness" movement, meant to require adherents to live a holy life which, in Bresee's opinion meant a life dedicated to uplifting and helping the poor. One of Bresee's disciples was a man named S. T. Ludwig, who became a Nazarene leader and the president of Bethany-Peniel College, a Nazarene institution. Hart went to Bethany-Peniel where he was (not suprisingly) a student leader, but one with visible and heavy religious perspectives. Ludwig's daughter, another college star, became Mrs. Hart. But Hart's life, once he left college and went on to the Yale Divinity School, was one of broadening away from Nazarene teachings and that denomination, as he (according to Wills) needed to continually remake himself, with all the risks that came with redefinition, while always (because of his narrow background) believing himself the outsider.

The story of Dukakis was quite different. He was a candidate who broke from his Greek Orthodox religious background early, and grew up in intellectual circles in suburban Boston. As governor of Massachusetts, he was very popular and very successful.

In each case, the candidate was attacked on what are identified to many as religious issues: infidelity in the case of Hart (which was true), and being soft on crime in the case of Dukakis (which had no factual basis). Because neither were able to respond except in intellectual terms, neither could defend against their attackers before the American populace.

Other chapters include a fascinating one on the Scopes trial in Tennessee in the 1920s, pitting William Jennings Bryan against Clarence Darrow on the question of creationism vs. Darwinism in the schools. According to Wills, the fight against Darwinism was not then what it is now assumed to be. It was not strictly a question of fundamentalism vs. science (which a similar trial would undoubtedly be today), but must be viewed in connection with the prevalence of "social Darwinism" as a theory, that in society the better/stronger men and women would lead the weaker, and humankind would progress as a result. As this connoted the concept of an elite (as in Plato's philospher kings or Nietzsche's "ubermensch"), this theory did not play well among biblical fundamentalists or others whose adherents were not of the "elite" classes. And, says Wills, this must also be put into context of what was happening in Europe, where the same ideas were being put forth with (in the not too distant future) such horrific results.

Wills also talks about the opposite side of biblical studies from creationism, which is the study of eschatology, or the end of days, and gives a good rundown of American preachers who refined their theories until we wound up with the concept of the "rapture", where living Christians will one day be swept up to heaven, leaving cars to careen off roads, and planes to crash. This, he says, was a natural continuation of the 18th century concerns with purifying society to get ready for the last days, and to weed out any hints of Satan-inspired remnants (although most believed this to be an impossible, but necessary goal). Wills talks not only about the obvious examples (like the Salem witch trials), but puts all of American colonization into this context by stating that the settling of America was viewed by many as a necessary step in preparing the entire world for the end of time, and that one of the main religious goals of many early American religious communities was to destroy (one way or another, and the way was not important) the native American communties, whose presence and practices were believed to have been inspired by the devil.

Moving from St. Augustine in the 4th century to Thomas Acquinas in about 1200, Wills shows how "fundamentalism" as we now know it, played no real part in either of their thinking. And that even Luther's rebellion against the church, although setting the stage for what came later, did not lead to a literalist examination of biblical texts.

But a series of little remembered 19th century fundamentalists changed the way the Bible was studied. Leading to a British preacher named John Nelson Darby developed the theory of the rapture. Darby's followers, including Dwight Moody (whose bible institute educated many future leaders of fundamentalist strains) and Jerry Fallwell, became very influential. Various sects, such as the Disciples of Christ, in which both Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan were brought up, emphasized end of time thinking. Wills suggests that it is Reagan's religious background, which led him to develop the theory of the Evil Empire, akin to the concept of the Antichrist.

And there are others. An odd, psuedo-intellectual fundamentalist preacher in Houston, Robert Thieme, who became close to the family of Daniel and Marilyn Quayle. Pat Robertson, described as a misfit and an embarrassment to his family, until he discovered television. Abraham Lincoln and his belief in the religious progress of humanity leading to the Second Coming. Jesse Jackson (towards whom Wills appears to have great respect) and Andy Young, and the comparison between them and Robert Bork (clearly an evil oriented individual in Wills' view), with the influence of their religious views on the public positions.

Unfortunately, Wills also dedicates a few chapters to pornography which I found confusing and out of place. But his other discussions of social issues, including a religious history of the right to life issue, from Francis Schaeffer to Randall Terry is interesting, as is his discussion of feminism from a religious and religio-historical perspective.

All in all, a very interesting book, worthy of a longish blog.

Anyone else read it?