There’s at least one reader who subscribes to both John’s newsletter and Aaron Renn’s (though I read John’s more than Renn’s) 😉 I read Graham’s profile and my two reactions were A) his negative world concept doesn’t reckon with the ways in which Christianity in this country earned a negative reputation and B) that I wish incredibly fair journalism like Graham’s was more celebrated and not just all demonized as the “MSM” But alas both of these phenomena are products of digital culture that for better and worse we see to be stuck with.
Good thoughts all around. I would make one stipulation that Renn’s framing is probably bad though. I think it’s better to look at religious culture in America as “institutionally protestant” for the first 100 years of our existence. church attendance was about as low as it is now, maybe lower, but there was an informal understand that religion was necessary for moral teaching, and our leaders were expected be church-going. The country was “culturally Christian” though disestablished. And then a bunch of catholics came over in the late 19th century. And suddenly Protestants got a little uneasy. And then world war 2 happened and the red scare, and we got richer and more culturally secular. That’s when Christians sort of came together and we saw the first waves of Christian nationalism (albeit minor to today) with “In God we Trust” as the motto, and with “under God” in the pledge. They incorporated those ideas because Christianity was no longer *universal.* those ideas were not incorporated in documents because they were assumed true, but not so much. The Public Square “bowling alone” christianity that we associate with American religiousity was really at its apex in the 50s and 60s. The religious rights influence over the last 60 years has grown on the right simply because they are losing power in the entire culture. Their apex has past. I don’t like the positive/negative framing, because I don’t think people actually view Christianity negatively, just *conservative Christian sexual ethics*. It seems better to look at the history of Christianity in America more as “universal disestablished” to “privately instituionalized” to “privately disestablished” today. Sorry for rambling!
I read Renn's book last year. I don't put it the same way, but I think our views cohere. It seems that he misses the point that Christians WERE in charge and now are not. He also misses that when we were in charge we didn't do such a great (Christian) job.
It has been strange seeing Christian thinkers misunderstand or misuse Charles Taylor’s secular age book, making it some type of road map and insist we are in some secular/post-e age. I agree that this has been strangely coded as being “darn these pluralistic times”. Thank you for sharing, this helps voice why these readings have felt off.
U R right, what we see now doesn’t make sense. The fact that Religious nonprofits are stopped will have a long term effect on the perception that society has on religion.
John, I'd take your sense of things and Katelyn Beatty's over Rod Dreher, who has managed to exile himself from the pluralistic world and little understands it these days. Thanks for the pointer to Ruth Graham's article. Whether Renn's understanding of history is accurate or not, I suspect that the mood that he points to is quite present in many.
There’s at least one reader who subscribes to both John’s newsletter and Aaron Renn’s (though I read John’s more than Renn’s) 😉 I read Graham’s profile and my two reactions were A) his negative world concept doesn’t reckon with the ways in which Christianity in this country earned a negative reputation and B) that I wish incredibly fair journalism like Graham’s was more celebrated and not just all demonized as the “MSM” But alas both of these phenomena are products of digital culture that for better and worse we see to be stuck with.
I agree with both points!
Good thoughts all around. I would make one stipulation that Renn’s framing is probably bad though. I think it’s better to look at religious culture in America as “institutionally protestant” for the first 100 years of our existence. church attendance was about as low as it is now, maybe lower, but there was an informal understand that religion was necessary for moral teaching, and our leaders were expected be church-going. The country was “culturally Christian” though disestablished. And then a bunch of catholics came over in the late 19th century. And suddenly Protestants got a little uneasy. And then world war 2 happened and the red scare, and we got richer and more culturally secular. That’s when Christians sort of came together and we saw the first waves of Christian nationalism (albeit minor to today) with “In God we Trust” as the motto, and with “under God” in the pledge. They incorporated those ideas because Christianity was no longer *universal.* those ideas were not incorporated in documents because they were assumed true, but not so much. The Public Square “bowling alone” christianity that we associate with American religiousity was really at its apex in the 50s and 60s. The religious rights influence over the last 60 years has grown on the right simply because they are losing power in the entire culture. Their apex has past. I don’t like the positive/negative framing, because I don’t think people actually view Christianity negatively, just *conservative Christian sexual ethics*. It seems better to look at the history of Christianity in America more as “universal disestablished” to “privately instituionalized” to “privately disestablished” today. Sorry for rambling!
Absolutely!
I read Renn's book last year. I don't put it the same way, but I think our views cohere. It seems that he misses the point that Christians WERE in charge and now are not. He also misses that when we were in charge we didn't do such a great (Christian) job.
It has been strange seeing Christian thinkers misunderstand or misuse Charles Taylor’s secular age book, making it some type of road map and insist we are in some secular/post-e age. I agree that this has been strangely coded as being “darn these pluralistic times”. Thank you for sharing, this helps voice why these readings have felt off.
Just started listening to his book. My first blush is to be suspicious of his historical analysis compared to others working this field of study.
I think I do not like his frame work but stick to my historian’s frame
U R right, what we see now doesn’t make sense. The fact that Religious nonprofits are stopped will have a long term effect on the perception that society has on religion.
John, I'd take your sense of things and Katelyn Beatty's over Rod Dreher, who has managed to exile himself from the pluralistic world and little understands it these days. Thanks for the pointer to Ruth Graham's article. Whether Renn's understanding of history is accurate or not, I suspect that the mood that he points to is quite present in many.