Historians have very little use for the idea of American exceptionalism and its supporting religious rhetoric. The historical record points not to the exceptional experience of America but to its common history with other nations. America is, after all, a nation of immigrants, and it is one shaped by both transatlantic and transpacific exchanges. Apart from this historical challenge to American exceptionalism, insistence upon the nation’s unique greatness raises the specter of America’s exceptionally violent history and culture. Not only was America among the slowest of nations to abolish slavery, it is well known that America’s violent crime rate and prison population exceed that of any other industrialized country on the planet.
Yet these are not the only problems with the exceptionalism narrative. Exceptionalists like Beck claim that colonial America was a haven of religious practice and freedom that anticipated the founding of the United States on Christian principles and religious tolerance. While respected historians affirm the importance of Christianity in early America, they have also demonstrated that both colonists and the first citizens of the new United States subscribed to a variety of faiths—or none at all. They have shown that figures such as George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin may have been sympathetic to Christianity, but they were hardly orthodox Christians.
1 comments:
Two parts that jump out from President Obama's speech here
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/04/obama_at_easter_prayer_breakfa.html
is an apparent belief in the Resurrection, and that
"We are thankful for the sacrifice He gave for the sins of humanity."
which seems to endorse the Atonement.
However, is Black Liberation Theology---as limned by James Hal Cone and endorsed by Obama's Rev. Wright Trinity Church heretical? It's very weird, IMO. Judge for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hal_Cone
Further, is any "liberation theology," black or otherwise, in harmony with the Founding's political theology? IMO, no.
Can "social justice" as progressive politics make a claim on the Bible? [Sure.] Can it call its opponents like Beck [and me, for the record] unChristian?
Well it does, but it's not doing anything different than Beck. Or as I see this latest culture war drama unfolding, me. We all have a right to argue our theology and reading of the Bible in the public square.
In the Easter speech, President Obama calls Jesus "our Lord and Savior," but that's also language Founding era unitarians used. I'm not sure BHO ever acknowledged Jesus as the Second Person of the Trinity anywhere, except attending Rev. Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years.
Does it matter? Not to me. [And as a Mormon, not to Glenn Beck, since the LDS church isn't exactly orthodox Trinitarian.]
The question is whether the president embraces "black liberation theology," which is---IMO---in conflict with the political theology of the Founding.
Neither is it self-evident that the "social Gospel," also stated as "social justice" and even "economic justice" is in accord with the Bible, and even less likely it's in accord with the political theology of the American Founding.
Whether on the level of Christian theology or of the Founding political theology, Beck has hit a nerve here, bigtime, this much is clear. The question isn't whether Barack Obama---the man---is a Christian, but whether his political theology is in accord with the Founding's.
Not that it has to be. If we can have a "living Constitution," we can certainly have a living political theology. But it's not out of line to wonder and ask where the president stands.
Respectfully submitted, for the sake of clarity, with a few remarks clearly labeled "in my opinion."
Post a Comment