Anti-Climacus

IS AMERICANISM THE SUCCESSOR TO PURITANISM? Here's my little attempt to respond to Joe's question about this article from a recent issue of Commentary. The short answer to this particular question is no. To wit:

"Does that make it impossible to believe in a secular Americanism? Can you be an agnostic or atheist or Buddhist or Muslim and a believing American too? In each case the answer is yes."

then there's this interesting bit:

"Few believing Americans can show, nowadays, how Americanism’s principles are derived from the Bible. But many are willing to say that these principles are God-given. Freedom comes from God, George W. Bush has said more than once; and if you pressed him, I suspect you would discover that not only does he say it, he believes it. Many Americans all over the country agree with him. The idea of a “secular” Americanism based on the Declaration of Independence is an optical illusion."

The article then proceeds as Mr. Gelernter cites and discusses the many references to the role of God and the status of America as the new Israel. I don't want to imply that I doubt this is correct: certainly, Christian belief of a particular kind* features prominently throughout our nation's history. But part of the Christian story about how principles of the dignity of man, etc, goes is that the truth of all these propositions is available outside the context of Christianity. Thus Romans 2:14-15:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by natue the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves.
Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts mean while accusing or else excusing one another."

Which is why the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence are 'self-evident': because you can either find them fully confirmed in the Bible or you can apply reason to your own conscience: either way, you get the same result. It's this, the duality of justifications which can always run alongside one another, which defines Americanism: the fervent belief that one's principles are right, no matter what the source, and that's it's arriving at the right answers, however one gets there, that matter.

So it may be the case, in fact, that Americanism is hated at least in part because of the perception of its Christian basis, but this can only be half the story: it can explain why people might dislike us, but so long as we cling to the same intermediate set of ideas--rule of law, equality and dignity of man, etc--we should be producing the same policy goals, right?

The real difference may be in what Mr. Gelernter calls "American Zionism." Again, he may be descriptively correct in where Americans get this particular belief from; nevertheless, it's still the case that one can create this belief from a whole different set of propositions (Marxism is based on nothing if not the 'Zionist' impulse that the things that are good for people in one situation are good for people in all situations, but you'll not find a hint of religion there). The real dividing line seems to be over whether or not the set of principles that define liberalism are universally applicable. I think this provides a slightly better descriptive account of why the sides are drawn up as they currently are, though goodness knows I've simplified and left a lot out. Feel free to go crazy in the comments.

*I don't know that I'd say it was Puritanism per se that led to these beliefs; in fact, it was probably the organization of their church governments more than anything else. If you look at the list Mr. Gelernter presents:

"Puritanism was shared by people of many faiths, at any rate within Protestant Christianity. You could find Puritans in Congregationalist and Presbyterian churches, and in Baptist and Quaker churches; some Puritans never left the Episcopalian or Anglican church, and eventually you could find Puritans in Methodist churches, too. Later, as I have noted, you could even find them in Unitarian churches—despite Unitarianism’s dramatic disagreements with other forms of Protestantism."

One thing you'll note is that they all (with the exception of the Anglican church, and, perhaps, the Methodist church, though I couldn't say) adopt either the Presbytery or the Congregation as the seat of church government. My guess if one were to look at how this demographic played out over time, there'd be a strong and early advantage to congregationalist churches. This is to say, to make a longwinded footnote stop sometime soon, I suspect that the political consequences of church government issues are immediate, and the consequences of moral issues come afterward.