← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Dano

Thread 1652

Thread ID: 1652 | Posts: 12 | Started: 2002-07-12

Wayback Archive

Dano [OP]

2002-07-12 01:07 | User Profile

VDARE.COM - [url=http://www.vdare.com/gottfried/decay_Protestantism.htm]http://www.vdare.com/gottfried/decay_Protestantism.htm[/url]

America’s National Question Problem: Decaying Protestantism…

[Some readers took marked exception to Scott McConnell’s suggestion that America’s current immigration impasse is partly due to Jewish immigration enthusiasm. But hey, VDARE is an Equal Opportunity ethnic slurrer. Now it’s the Protestants' turn.]

By Paul Gottfried

WASHINGTON (AP) - The new national GOP chairman had held office only a few minutes Thursday before issuing his first directive to members of the Republican National Committee: Go visit leaders of minority communities, and do it soon.

Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in. - Luke xiii.23

A major reason Republicans continue to jabber about outreach, and are paralyzed in the face of America’s developing immigration disaster, is what might be called the politics of guilt. Having just finished a book on this subject – tentatively titled Multiculturalism And The Politics Of Guilt - I am happy to share my intensively researched observations.

The dominant American Protestant culture is mistakenly believed to be secularized and hedonistic. Neither assumption is true except in a very qualified sense. Most Americans are biblically illiterate and addicted to a rising level of consumer comfort. But neither condition contradicts other salient facts: the vast majority of Americans consider themselves to be orthodox Christians and attend church services at least once a month.

The questions that should be engaged are: what do Protestant denominations understand as “Christianity;” and what do worshippers take away from sermons, which since the Reformation have been the centerpiece of Protestant group worship. The answers for the Protestant mainline, as documented by Thomas Reeves and George Marsden are feminism, gay rights, and the need to atone for the Western Christian racist past. Protestant mass publications like Christian Century push the same victimology. The more Protestants become involved with organized Christianity the more likely they are to absorb such concerns.

It is, moreover, misleading to believe that Evangelicals are entirely free of such obsessions. From Southern Baptists conventions apologizing for slavery to the heads of Bible institutes bemoaning their schools’ segregationist pasts, social guilt flourishes on the American Protestant Right. Alan Wolfe and Mark Shibley, two sociologists who have done relevant studies, try to relate the cultural overlaps between the Protestant mainline and Evangelicals to the rising socioeconomic status of the latter. Traditionalist Protestant theologian David F. Wells has stressed the loss of Reformation theology as the reason for the straying Evangelicals. But the result is the same in any case: American Protestantism, which most Republicans profess in varying degrees, encourages the compulsive and remorseful outreach that has come to characterize Republican electoral “strategy.”

This politics of guilt can be found in Catholic countries as well. But several differences should be pointed out. The farther one gets from Anglophone Protestant countries or from those that most resemble them, the weaker becomes the receptiveness to multiculturalism, Third World immigration and other expressions of guilty conscience.

In Italy, for example, prominent churchmen have warned against the danger of allowing their country to be overrun by Muslims. Such a gesture would be inconceivable not only in the U. S. but also in England. There Anglican and other Protestant leaders vie with each other in expressing support not only for further Third World immigration but also for the successive extensions of the Race Relations Act first passed in 1974. These are restrictions on what the white majority population can say or do lest hostility be aroused toward immigrant minorities. Advocating limits on immigration can be and has been interpreted to violate this periodically-tightened act.

Unlike religiously collectivist, sacramental Catholic societies, Protestant ones stress individual redemptive experience and giving witness thereto. Confessions take place in American Protestantism, going back to the Puritans and the Great Awakenings in early America. But unlike the Catholic ritual, this Protestant practice is done in public. It is a means of showing the righteousness of the redeemed sinner and underscores the power of divine grace in a fallen world.

The core Calvinist belief is that the world is divided into a multitude of sinners and a small company of the elect. This is also basic to any understanding of American political attitudes. Such beliefs have contributed to both the guilt and righteousness of American moralists - the tendency of American elites to condemn their civilization and heritage while exuding individual moral arrogance; and their identification of goodness with indulgence of non-Westerners and non-Christians.

Thus Hillary Clinton is not a self-described secular liberal but a widely recognized Methodist, who, like most Americans, regularly attends church services. Her spiritual counselor H. Philip Wogaman, one of America’s leading Protestant churchman and a respected Christian ethicist. His autobiography, Eye of the Storm is devoted to his quintessentially left-liberal views on tolerance and social justice. Wogaman praises Hillary and Bill Clinton for putting his “Christian” beliefs into practice. Quite obviously, the Religious Right agenda is not at all necessary to establish one’s credentials as a thoughtful, serious Christian. Being politically correct, of course, is.

This depiction of the politics of guilt and outreach as American Protestant piety explains the development of Republicans into the party of uneasy conscience. They are not simply “stupid,” pace Sam Francis's immortal anecdote, but trying to act out religious teachings. If the Presbyterians and Methodists are the Republican Party at prayer, then Republican leaders, though not necessarily all their voters, are contemporary churchgoing Protestants reflecting their religious culture. Like our Constitution, according to liberals, American Protestant culture continues to “grow,” i.e. decay. The question is whether the nation-state that it created must inevitably “grow,” i.e. decay, in the wake of its passing.

*Paul Gottfried is Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, PA. He is the author of After Liberalism and Carl Schmitt: Politics and Theory. *

Dano

2002-07-12 01:09 | User Profile

VDARE.COM - [url=http://www.vdare.com/gottfried/responds_031601.htm]http://www.vdare.com/gottfried/responds_031601.htm[/url]

Paul Gottfried and America’s Decaying Protestants: II… By Paul Gottfried

Paul Gottfried on America’s National Question Problem: Decaying Protestantism

Allow me to address the key points raised by those who commented on my remarks concerning the relation between liberal Protestantism and the politics of guilt.

My critics observed that I had not stressed sufficiently the differences between Evangelicals and mainline Protestants. While liberal mainline denominations, we know, are declining in membership and resources, conservative Protestant congregations are growing by leaps and bounds. This trend reflects the growing dissatisfaction among Protestant Americans with the PC substance of the Protestant mainline. It is not by accident, I was told, that on average Evangelicals vote more conservatively than members of liberal Protestant denominations.

My friend Clyde Wilson of the University of South Carolina attributed the ideological distinctions among Protestants to a regional-cultural variable as well. Southerners, he contends, are less subject to the expansive humanitarianism and passion for social control that has characterized Yankee religion since the early nineteenth century. Mainliners are descended from the Protestant do-gooders who created or joined the abolitionist, temperance, and suffragist movements. Unlike Southern Baptists and Southern Presbyterians, Wilson contends, Northern Protestants are the recent products of a secularized form of Puritanism that stretches back generations.

While conceding that these criticisms have the merit of forcing me to reconsider broad generalizations, I should call attention to certain relevant facts. The political and social distance between Evangelicals and other Protestants is narrowing, as Alan Wolfe joyously shows in the October 2000 Atlantic Monthly. It is no longer the case that Evangelicals stand for traditional rural values interwoven with Old Testament moral prescriptions. They may vote Republican more often than Democratic, but are mellowing on all kinds of social issues, including feminism and the need to atone for the American Christian racist past.

One should not confuse the slightly right-of-center voting practices of Evangelicals with hard-core rightwing anything. The Evangelicals I encounter at my own denominational college are certainly not outspoken conservatives. Moreover, while the men vote Republican, often like their non-Evangelical parents and siblings, their wives, like other suburban Protestant women, support more often than not liberal Democrats. A huge scholarly literature is available that explains why this is so.

Note I never deny that there are theological differences between Evangelicals and mainliners, though sometimes these appear less salient than they really are because of the uninformed but orthodox-sounding responses that most Protestants give to survey questions dealing with faith. What I stress is that despite differing degrees of theological fervor, Evangelicals and mainliners are both afflicted by the politics of guilt.

As for the insistence on Southern exceptionalism, I suspect by now it is less important than it once was. Mark Shibley, Wade C. Ruf, and James D. Hunter see the major sociological divide among Evangelicals as the split between urban-suburban and relatively rural congregations. This divide may be politically and culturally at least as critical as the one separating mainliners and Evangelicals. It splits Southerners as well as Northerners into ideologically identifiable groups.

Going back further in time, I am less impressed than Professor Wilson by the dissimilarities between Southern and New England religions. Much of the antebellum Southern gentry were Presbyterian, and even the Southern Baptists were influenced by the theological and ethical peculiarities of eighteenth-century Calvinism. As Eugene Genovese shows in A Consuming Fire: The Fall of the Confederacy in the Mind of the White Christian South, the Protestant clergy throughout the South repeatedly called upon their congregations to do penance after the Civil War. Many attributed the suffering and humiliation of their region to the failure to practice slavery in a humane, Christian fashion.

Though it may be a stretch from such calls to atone to the present PC, it is equally one from the sermons of Jonathan Edwards to contemporary liberalism. All that is being suggested is that there may be lines of continuity in both cases. And those lines must be taken into account to understand the reaching out to minorities and endorsement of Third World immigration by predominantly Protestant Republican leaders. The mere effort by Republicans to pick up votes from anywhere explains neither very well.

Finally let me emphasize for those who might think otherwise: I am not at all hostile to the Protestant Reformation; or to Calvinist societies in general. Both represent a distinctly Western achievement, fundamental to what was once the moral soul of America.

My criticism concerns the egregious deterioration of Protestant societies, and what in the Protestant past might have led to this process.

Paul Gottfried is Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, PA. He is the author of After Liberalism and Carl Schmitt: Politics and Theory.

Faust

2002-07-12 02:23 | User Profile

Dano:

Yes this is a great article,

Happy Hacker

2002-07-12 05:22 | User Profile

Speaking of the politics of guilt:

I went to a Promise Keepers stadium event a few years ago when the group was extremely popular. It is a men's-only Christian ministry started by a white guy, Bill McCartney.

I went expecting men's issues to be addressed, such as a man's role in the family. But, what I found was something different.

The founder, McCarney spoke and another white guy spoke. But, all the other speakers were black or hispanic. Obviously, potential white speakers were heavily discriminated against.

McCarney's speech was nothing but white-bashing. He told us to look around and look at all the white faces. He told us the reason there weren't more blacks there is because of how we treated blacks. I was thinking that blacks didn't want to spend 30 bucks (or whatever it was) to be with a bunch of white guys (because blacks are racist).

Okiereddust

2002-07-12 07:54 | User Profile

Originally posted by Faust@Jul 12 2002, 02:23 **Dano:

Yes this is a great article,**

I'm not sure it really is a great article, but it is a good one. The second article basically shows to a small extent some of Gottfried's lack of really extensive knowledge of American Protestantism. His references are good though. I found James Davison Hunter particularly to be outstanding.

Religious concerns of mainstream (aka evangelical) Protestants seem to be basically completely missing from the political landscape. Even among conservatives, most writers are either Catholics, Jews, or High Church Protestants.

The problems of Protestantism are poorly understood. The religion of Botswanian animists is probably better understood, and more respected, by the establishment than the traditional Protestant beliefs of this country.

That is one of the reason dissident clergymen have been so efective in subverting it.

Centinel

2002-07-12 08:08 | User Profile

**My criticism concerns the egregious deterioration of Protestant societies, and what in the Protestant past might have led to this process. **

Without a doubt, the social upheaval of the 60's was devastating to traditional American Protestantism.

I think we should agree on a few operational definitions first....the mainstream media as usual has pigeonholed and polarized people into either the left-liberal "Mainline" Protestant camp or the right-(neo)conservative Zionist Evangelical camp, and Catholics are assumed to be the same.

Of course this gross oversimplification overlooks the vast differences between liberation theology Catholics and traditional conservative Catholics, and all but ignores Eastern Orthodox, conservative Mennonites, and conservative, non-dispensational Protestants like Missouri Synod Lutherans, conservative Episcopalians, Free Prebyterians and Dutch Reformed. I can say as a conservative Lutheran that I feel politically closer to traditional Catholics and Orthodox than I do to either Evangelical Zionists or Mainline Protestants.

After a whole generation was exposed lost to sex, drugs and rock-n-roll--not to mention Eastern mysticism--some came back to faith and the revival of the 70's brought Christian Zionism out of the hillbilly boonies and into the mainstream with the election of Jimmy Carter.

The baby boomers weren't going back to their parents' rigid, straight-laced Protestant churches, which were full of old people now and blamed rightly or not for everything they rebelled against a few years earlier. They had to become mainline and water down their doctrine just to maintain numbers and the latter part of the 20th century saw a massive merging of bodies belonging to the National Council of Churches with a liberal, international constituency.

So where did the young back-to-Jesus revivalists go? Southern Baptists snapped up a fair share, as did Assemblies of God, but alot went to the new churches with a "groovy" worship style like Vineyard and Calvary Chapel.

I stumbled across a real telling article from a series of lectures Rod Bennett gave to the Jesus People USA that sheds alot of light on just what happened in the 60's. It's actually about some of the theological implications of the Star Wars series, but is an interesting read:

[url=http://www.cornerstonemag.com/imaginarium/features/starwars/2_episodev.html]http://www.cornerstonemag.com/imaginarium/...2_episodev.html[/url]

[...]

But, on the other hand, isn't it even more significant that in creating this fantasy faith to do battle with secularism, Lucas and his compadres looked chiefly to the East for inspiration instead of to the civilization that actually created the concepts of knighthood and chivalry? Yes, it is. But I think the real "Whys" behind that are much more interesting than just another "New Age Plot". In fact, the whys behind that are really the same whys that created Jesus People USA, the sponsoring organization of this festival, and the whole Jesus Movement of the 1960's...

So many of them felt that Christianity had been discredited by its fruit in America that the famous 1967 trip to India by the Beatles was carefully watched as a sign of hope. "We might not have to be atheists after all." Yes, we Christians can legitimately regret today that the spiritual void felt by Lucas' generation was filled by such a very imperfect version of truth. But the fact is that much of that is our own fault. We had no right to leave the Church in such a dilapidated state for so long in the first place. It's the Church's responsibility to have her lamps trimmed and burning when these spontaneous youth revivals break out — as they will periodically, by the action of the Holy Ghost. And it's simplyl hypocritical to complain that young people turned off by our own sins went looking elsewhere.

[...]

Okiereddust

2002-07-12 09:30 | User Profile

Originally posted by Alban Caradoc@Jul 12 2002, 08:08 ** What do I mean? Well, just this. Those of you who lived through the 1960's will know what I'm talking about when I say that for George Lucas' generation much of the glory of Western belief had departed. The tame, standardized Protestantism of Fifties Suburbia that George grew up with just wasn't suited to the electrifying realities of the turbulent Sixties. In fact, the failure of that type of Christianity largely created the Sixties.

So many of them felt that Christianity had been discredited by its fruit in America that the famous 1967 trip to India by the Beatles was carefully watched as a sign of hope. "We might not have to be atheists after all." **

Alban, I just have to ask you flat out - do you really believe this pap? That the fate of Christianity was determined by the Beatles 67 trip to India? That religion was discredited by its association with the traditional family, free enterprise, and militarism (i.e., our evil imperialistic war of aggresion against the people of Vietnam and of the Soviet Union). The supremely trite cliche's of the evangalistic left about the "60's".

What is significant about these cliches is actually that so many people, even like you, seem to repeat them without really realizing what they mean. They are like a synagogues pastor reading Nazi literature to try and understand what's wrong with his faith. (Or at least, what most people would think of such).

I think the real significance of the fall of Protestantism in this country is rather that there is no reputable group of scholars with widely authority recognized authority to counter such pap. Even among Protestant institutions (what is left at them at least') thre is really no such thing as "Christian scholarship" any more. Most of what masquerades as such is really just thinly disguised neo-Marxism.

The depths to which the Protestant community has sunk is shown by the oblivion to which the one great conservative Christian scholar, Francis Schaeffer, has sunk. Just before he died he put out a fitting summary of evangelicalism in this century "The Great Evangelical Disaster".

mwdallas

2002-07-12 16:27 | User Profile

McCarney's speech was nothing but white-bashing. He told us to look around and look at all the white faces. He told us the reason there weren't more blacks there is because of how we treated blacks.

I guess this explains why Coach McCartney offered his daughter up to his low-life (now deceased) black quarterback, Sal Aunese, who sired McCartney's grandchild, out of wedlock, of course.

Some values.

He's got a major case of torsion dysmorphia, by the way. I've often wondered about his ethnic background, "McCartney" notwithstanding.

Centinel

2002-07-12 16:59 | User Profile

**What is significant about these cliches is actually that so many people, even like you, seem to repeat them without really realizing what they mean. **

Having, only been born in the mid-60's I wasn't there to experience it firsthand and weigh events with an adult mind, so my generation has to rely on accounts from others, some--maybe most--with an agenda to spin history to suit their ends.

From what people born my time and after perceive is that something happened in the postwar years that undermined the credibilty in baby boomers' eyes of many established institutions, the church among them.

Who knows, maybe globalism and the culture war that is all too obvious to Middle America these days was well under way already immediately after WWII, just that nobody recognized it for what it was yet.

Okiereddust

2002-07-12 18:54 | User Profile

Originally posted by mwdallas@Jul 12 2002, 16:27 > McCarney's speech was nothing but white-bashing. He told us to look around and look at all the white faces. He told us the reason there weren't more blacks there is because of how we treated blacks.**

I guess this explains why Coach McCartney offered his daughter up to his low-life (now deceased) black quarterback, Sal Aunese, who sired McCartney's grandchild, out of wedlock, of course.

Some values.

He's got a major case of torsion dysmorphia, by the way. I've often wondered about his ethnic background, "McCartney" notwithstanding.**

You really need to have a little personal understanding and sympathy for the man. McCartney's own family troubles, which I motivated him into the open identification with evangelicalism that "Promise Keepers" is, are a big part of the man, which in PK he did his best to frankly and openly admit.

As to being PC, you have to consider where McCartney came from - the ultra-liberal dingbat town of Boulder, where he was reviled for PK's anti-homosexuality stance and basically IMO pressured to leave college coaching. The PC types, throwing everything at PK and McCartney (falsely) for being homophobic and sexist, naturally threw in racism as well. McCartney seems to have decided an un-PC twofer was enough, and went all out to recruit more homophobic and sexist minority men to PK. I can't really fault him too much frankly. Its easy to criticize a man who draws national publicity and hostility for his beliefs from the anonymity of an internet message board.

Does he make mistakes? Yes, he does. Do I still admire him? Personally, I still do greatly for what he has done. As opposed to just talking about doing something.

Okiereddust

2003-06-21 17:36 | User Profile

With all the discussion of the Christian religion on this forum recently, I thought this might be relevent. This is what I call an intelligent article on Christianity and its ailments.

Franco, (and CO, where the shoe fits) for your benefit I wrote it out very slowly, as I know you can't read very fast :lol:

Patrick

2003-06-22 15:48 | User Profile

"The PC types, throwing everything at PK and McCartney (falsely) for being homophobic and sexist,"

Meanwhile...

.....Promise Keepers continues its mission to emasculate the American male; they are a waste of energy, and what they promugate is hardly Christianity, but merely another form of ba'al worship, (read: "whoreship", or, even,another word that sounds quite similar)...