The Difference

[pyat]

You hear a lot about the evils of religion when mixed up with politics. The dangers of theology as applied to government are constantly proclaimed, often with good reason. Many of my friends fear the influence of Christianity upon the U.S. political scene, some going so far as to predict a coming theocracy. Especially feared are those who preach the imminent return of Christ and the End of Times.

Yet, history seems to indicate that the thriving liberal socialist/democratic systems in Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand, which are so admired by many people I know who live elsewhere, were built (almost solely built!) by openly theocratic politicians who wanted to regulate public morality. The engineers of the Canadian social system, for example, were Methodist and Baptist ministers. Like American theocrats, they firmly believed that Christ was returning soon, and the end of the world would not be far behind.

Why did the preacher politicos produce Socialist Democracy in the Commonwealth, and conservative capitalism in the United States?

Quite simply, the leaders of the Social Gospel movements believed that Christ would not return until mankind had cured itself of social ills. They were ardent pacifists and reformers, fearful of the evils of capitalism and unchecked corporations. They took the Bible's injunctions to help the less fortunate very seriously, and they desired that every citizen should be obliged to help his or her fellows through taxation and social programs. They didn't do this simply because it was good - they were doing it to, as William Booth put it, "make Heaven on Earth." As he wrote "...in providing for the relief of temporal misery I reckon that I am only making it easy where it is now difficult, and possible where it is now all but impossible, for men and women to find their way to the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."

IN short, they were using Social Gospel to win converts. They were not socially liberal people, but they were compassionate. They did not believe (for example) that a woman had the right to an abortion, or that homosexuality should be accepted. They DID believe, strongly, that it was evil to jail a pregnant teen or a gay man, feeling that these people required help rather than punishment.

Meanwhile, church leaders across the U.S. were preaching a different flavour of Apocalypse. Christ was coming soon to cure all our ills, and if you don't want to get sent to Hell come the Judgement Day, you'd better make yourself right with God. The effort was individual, rather than communal. Social Gospel existed in the U.S. - Roosevelt's New Deal was an example of it. But, as Wikipedia drily states: "After 1940, the movement withered..."

Comments

[doc-mystery.livejournal.com]

A very thoughtful and interesting essay. Kudos, Piet.

::B::

PS. I still don't know what PoAC stands for, or if it should be even pronounced out loud in polite company.

[pyat.livejournal.com]

"Post of Actual Content," I believe.

[cargoweasel.livejournal.com]

There's a very good reason why evangelical Christians in the US don't talk much about helping the poor, or, y'know, anything much about what Jesus actually taught.

Very worth reading. (http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/118585.html)

[pyat.livejournal.com]

Good link, sir! Thank you.

[cargoweasel.livejournal.com]

It's a five part series actually. Part 2 (http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/118805.html) Part 3 (http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/119283.html) Part 4 (http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/119661.html) Part 5 (http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/119950.html)

It's brilliant, shouldn't have to be passed around like samizdat, ought to be in Time and Newsweek.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I linked to that not long ago. You're right; he should be getting paid for his blogging.

[dronon.livejournal.com]

This is a thoughtful post, and I find the separation and the historical co-existence of church and state very interesting. I wonder to what extent religious belief helped create laws throughout history. I'd assume that to a certain extent it was probably practical (Don't burn people's houses down), some of it inherited from earlier legal systems back to the Romans, and I'd be willing to think that when laws had to be made concerning new or more complex problems, morality was the base, and the base of morality for anyone who wasn't a philosopher was probably religion. And there's a distinction to be made, which you point out, that social policy can be formed because the policy-makers see it as the right thing to do - lead by example and people will come around to your way of thinking. The view in the U.S. seems to turn this on its head - force people into your way of thinking, and it's the right thing to do.

I don't have my class notes on hand at the moment on the origins of the public library systems of the late 19th century, but it too was grounded in a betterment of the people concept. Give the poor the ability to read, grow in knowledge, become better people, and the world becomes a better place. I think medieval hospitals also evolved along similar lines.

[pyat.livejournal.com]

I have a book at home that mentions the debate over building a public library in Hamilton. It was actually bitterly fought - the opponents felt it would contribute to immorality and laziness!

[dagoski.livejournal.com]

Sounds like y'all got the union that Jimmy Carter would've devised. We often forget that this president was evangelical. His faith informed his decisions but never made those decisions for him.

The shape of American religion today was cast in the mold of the South's authoritarian culture in many ways. Somehow, since the 70s that religion has spread to many parts of the country.

Maybe...

[neosis.livejournal.com]

Maybe I'm drawing an artificial distinction, but the difference seems to be somewhat similar to what the Pope was actually talking about the other day. about the futility of forcing people to join your religion.

Americans seem to increasingly take the "sword" approach to religion. In other words that people should be forced into doing what the Bible tells them to do. The social programs we have seem to be based around the "treasure" approach, that you build the best society you can based on the principles you believe in. And if that society enriches it's members, people will want to be a part of it and people will willingly join you.

But then again, I only have a problem with politicians who use their religion as part of their advertising package. "Vote for me I'm Christian", tells me all I need to know about the candidate. In other words, that he's neither a competent politician nor informed about the content of his professed religion.

On the other hand, I was once flipping channels and chanced upon a roundtable discussion with some local candidates from BC. One of the audience asked the candidates what religion they belonged to. Most of the candidates answered with "Christian", but the Conservative candidate said something along these lines during an interview: "Questioning me about my religion would be a gross violation of the law during an employment interview. I consider that question to be a little rude during an election, religion is part of a person's private life not their public life." Based on that answer alone, I would have voted for her.

To me it displayed that unlike her opponents she
a) got it
b) wouldn't be easily pushed around
c) could handle an awkward situation deftly

I am always wary of people who wearing their religion like a badge, they seem to almost always be authoritarians who believe their religion makes them "righter" than other people. It's like their religion is a brand name to sell themselves to the public.

Re: Maybe...

[chipuni.livejournal.com]

This was an extremely cogent, intelligent comment.

I hope that you don't mind that I've added you to my reading list!

Re: Maybe...

[neosis.livejournal.com]

Of course not! :)

Just a warning though, my posting tends to be both eratic and sporadic.