Skip to main content

America's Would-Be High Priest

In his successful 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan wooed voters by conjuring an image from one of the most famous sermons in American history - John Winthrop’s A Modell of Christian Charity.  America, Reagan declared, remained “a shining city on a hill."  

But Winthrop’s sermon, preached in 1629 to Puritan exiles aboard the English ship Arbella, was not all brightness and light.  Winthrop encouraged the pilgrims that they had been called into a special “covenant” by God, but he also cautioned:  "If we should so frustrate and deceive the Lords Expectations ... then All were lost indeed; Ruine upon Ruine, Destruction upon Destruction would come, until one stone were not left upon another."

Increase Mather.jpgBy the 1660s, many New Englanders, hardened by their experience in what was for them a New World, were haunted by this darker side of their conditional covenant. In a famous 1953 article in the William & Mary Quarterly, Harvard historian Perry Miller resurfaced fire-and-brimstone sermons like Increase Mather’s 1667 A Discourse Concerning the Danger of Apostasy, in which Puritan preachers routinely decried and bemoaned a lack of faithfulness in their younger, American-born generations.

There is no indication that Donald Trump is familiar with this religious history – nor with much history or religion at all, for that matter.  But with his blunt promise to "Make American Great Again," Trump has struck a nerve that runs through the very spine of the American body politic.  The essence of this age-old message is simple: we are not the just and upright people we have long declared ourselves to be.  

Increase Mather in 1688, London. Portrait by John van der Spriett

News headlines and viral tweets seem to confirm this grim conclusion at every turn. Our political parties are corrupt, our rich have forsaken their responsibilities, our communities are being torn apart by suspicion and mistrust.  Our light, which we like to congratulate ourselves for having shone so brightly for so long in the world, now seems to flicker, as if under threat of being extinguished altogether.  Declaring himself a “law and order” President, Trump conjures covenant language, even if unwittingly, and promises to restore the true faith without feeling obligated to say what exactly that might be.

It might seem improbable to consider as essentially spiritual the appeal of an irreligious man like Donald Trump. But Trump the showman, like Reagan the actor before him, has mastered a craft requiring that he understand his audience. And the vast majority of Americans – no matter where they sit on the ideological spectrum – still imbue their presidential politics with peculiarly spiritual dimension. 

Today historians tell us there is no evidence that New Englanders in the late 17th century were any more or less pious than their forebears who first settled the English colonies in North America.  These colonies were not in decline – in fact their best days lay ahead of them.  Neither did God mete out punishment and reward in ways correlating to the moral and spiritual comportment of the English settlers, who proved not only diligent colonists, but also merciless conquerors and ruthless traders and drivers of slaves.

In his 1953 article, Perry Miller argued that the “jeremiads” of second and third generation Puritan divines in New England were not actual chronicles of historical trends. Rather, they represented “a kind of ritual incantation” offering “purgations of the soul.” Paradoxically, Miller concluded, they also offered cheap grace: “The exhortation to a reformation which never materializes serves as a token payment on the obligation, and so liberates the debtors.”

Donald Trump stands squarely in this long American tradition, shamelessly condemning all around him and declaring America to be a sordid mess.  We will soon find out whether American voters in the 21st century will embrace as their high priest a salesman-shaman who, while pretending to brandish the keys to a corrupt kingdom, immodestly proclaims “only I can fix it.”   

Comments

  1. Nice Fanoi. . many haven't picked their jaws up off the floor. Progressives have long suspected that MINOR ELEMENTS of this complicated electorate, how should I say it, SUCK . .but it now appears your observation applies to about full HALF of Americans. Yikes. As you say, "Trump has struck a nerve that runs through the very spine of the American body politic. The essence of this age-old message is simple: we are not the just and upright people we have long declared ourselves to be." With the stranglehold of Fox News and the armada of right wing radio fanatics, I'm not seeing an easy fix here! You?

    ReplyDelete
  2. No easy fix. The point of this post (a little dense, and I am impressed that you picked your way through it) is, in part, that things are rarely as bad as doom-and-gloom preachers/politicians would make them out out to be ... and that people who think there is some golden age awaiting "if only" this or that or the other thing are also almost always wrong. I have been thinking a lot about our days in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was President. Somehow we muddled through ...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

THE HUBRIS OF INCLUSION: Thoughts on the Future of the United Methodist Church

The United Methodist Church was born in a specific time and place, in the mid-twentieth century in the United States of America. Protestant denominations were ascendant, and with them a brand of "ecumenism" that would only decades later be recognized by those who championed it as culturally bound to the white "mainline." Mergers were all the buzz, including the one that created the UMC in 1968, and Methodists embraced their new denomination as partial fulfillment of a dream of "Christian unity." As the historian Robert Handy noted in his wonderful little 1971 book,  A Christian America: Protestant Hopes and Historical Realities , leaders of the new denomination thought of it as "a kind of unofficial national church." Because they sat at the midpoint of mainline American Protestantism in so many respects -- ecclesial, theological, liturgical -- it was easy for them to assume that as all churches became one, pretty much everyone else would eventua

On the 40th Anniversary of Friendship Park

Imagine the First Lady of the United States punching a hole in the fence on the U.S.-Mexico border.   Imagine her publicly lamenting that there was a border fence at all. In fact this scenario doesn’t need to be imagined … because it happened forty years ago right here in San Diego County.   The date was August 18, 1971 and the location was “Friendship Park,” the small cement plaza on the U.S.-Mexico border, at the southwest-most corner of the continental United States. The First Lady was Pat Nixon, who had been a prominent champion of our state’s public parks when her husband Richard Nixon was Governor of California, before being elected President of the United States.    She came to Friendship Park to inaugurate the surrounding area as California’s Border Field State Park.    After planting a tree as part of the inauguration ceremony, Mrs. Nixon approached the large stone monument which sits at the heart of Friendship Park.   The monument commemorates the first meeting of the U.S

Here Come the Brides

Sidney and Diane met at an April Fool’s Day party in 2006.   They began dating the next day and fell in love.   They weren’t quite ready to get married in the summer of 2008, when California was granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples.    They told me they hadn’t wanted to get married “just because they could,” and while they were (of course) opposed to California's Proposition 8 , they weren’t looking to make a political statement with their nuptials. By year-end 2008, however, Sidney and Diane had reached a decision.   They loved each other.   They wanted to spend their lives together.   They knew that the State of California wouldn’t give them a marriage license but they wanted to get married anyway.    They wanted a wedding for their families, for their friends, for each other. As I sat with Sidney and Diane through our pre-marital sessions, I saw the tenderness and respect with which they treated each other, the true delight they took in each other’s comp