Main Menu
HomeBeliefsParishEducationLiturgy and PreachingArticlesHistoryLinksContactPastor * Pastor's BlogCalendarDirectionsPhotobookRecentSitemap
The Democratization of American Christianity: A Review Essay
By Todd A. Peperkorn
Religious Bodies in America - SYTS 422
Prof. Richard Muller
October 17, 1995
Introduction
Tendencies, which had found no political room to unfold themselves in other lands, wrought here without restraint . . . . Every theological vagabond and peddler may drive here his bungling trade, without passport or license, and sell his false ware at pleasure. What is to come of such confusion is not now to be seen.”
—Philip Schaff, The Principle of Protestantism, 1844
Philip Schaff’s observation concerning the state of American religions summarizes much of early nineteenth century Christianity. The period of the early republic (until circa 1845) was a time of great social upheaval in the United States. Words such as freedom, democracy, and liberty were being introduced into an entirely new sphere: religion. Because of this, Christianity was to move in theological directions that the Church had never faced. In the period from 1775-1845, the number of ministers in the United States went from around eighteen hundred to nearly forty thousand, many of whom were never trained.[1] The Church is still struggling to make sense of this change in direction.
It (the thesis, ed.) argues that the theme of democratization is central to understanding the development of American Christianity, and that the years of the early republic are the most crucial in revealing that process.[2]
Hatch tests his thesis by examining five mass movements: The Christian movement, the Methodists, the Baptists, the black churches, and the Mormons. In our review of this book, we will be examining several recurring themes: 1) The marriage of politics and religion; 2) The crisis of authority and the supremacy of the individual; 3) The redefinition of “church”; and 4) The personality cult. Finally, we will examine how the Lutheran Church, in particular the Missouri Synod, has been impacted by this populist spirit.
In the generation immediately following the American Revolution, there was a huge social upheaval in the newly formed United States. The concept of democracy was the byword of the day, and everything was being redefined, including religion. It is beyond the scope of this paper of trace the roots of democracy. Nonetheless, suffice it to say that the roots of democracy were in the Enlightenment, and that the concept of equality was being taken to the extreme of the redefinition of much of western societal structure. Hatch writes:
Intent on bringing evangelical conversion to the mass of ordinary Americans, they could rarely divorce that message from contagious new democratic vocabularies and impulses that swept through American popular cultures. Class structure was viewed as society's fundamental problem.[3]
In this time period, it became in vogue to call all other Protestant denominations “sectarians,” not because of some objective standard of truth, but rather because the other denominations represented the Establishment. Counter establishment was the name of the game, and Jesus was viewed as the Great Equalizer. There was a deep seated connection between radical Jeffersonianism and the spirit of revivalism. The one inevitably lead to the other.
Hatch identifies the fundamental religious controversy of the late eighteenth century not as a struggle between Calvinism and Arminianism, but rather between “radically different conceptions of the Christian ministry.”[4] While the eastern clergy were trying to uphold their profession as the guardian of civility and truth, the democratic upheaval was asking the question of whether anyone had the right to mediate the Gospel for the common man. Later on, Hatch identifies two reasons for the upsurge of anti-clericalism: 1) The push to erase the distinction between privileged and commoner; and 2) The rereading of the New Testament in radical egalitarian terms.
A classic example of this crisis of authority was in Caleb Rich. Rich was the leading Universalist of his time. Rich, like many, came to believe that his own interpretation of Scripture could not be mediated or judged by any other authority.[5] This, of course, led the way for the infusion of dreams and visions as authoritative. In a bizarre way, it is almost as if the Church was struggling with a nineteenth century version of Montanism.
This individualization, of course, found its fullest expression in the dreams and visions of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Smith's mother could not stand to be associated with any church body or denomination, so she found a minister who would baptize her as a “solitary Christian, without any attachment to any congregation.”[6] This was the framework which Smith worked in, and it is reflected in Mormon theology.
It is no surprise that the entire concept of “church” underwent radical redefinition in this period. Church and theology were no longer measured by the standard of truth, but rather by their acceptance in the marketplace.[7] With this sort of view in mind, men such as Alexander Campbell would found schools with the express stipulation that there never be a chair of theology. Campbell, like many others, thought that if they could simply remove all of the dreary dogmatics of all of the churches past, then a new and fresh Christianity could be revived. The only way for true Christianity to be reached was to do far more than the measly reforms of Luther and Calvin. No, historic worship or creeds, and the entire structure of faith must be reformed.[8] History was seen as the great evil which the church had endured for a millennium, and that the American Revolution opened the floodgates of truth to the world.[9] In the words of Alexander Campbell:
“I have endeavored to read the scriptures as though no one had read them before me, and I am as much on my guard against reading them to-day, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system whatever.”[10]
It is this sort of anti-incarnational view that made the Christianity of men such as Campbell so foreign to the Scriptures themselves. They were no longer read as first century documents, but as nineteenth century political rhetoric. What was authoritative for Campbell even yesterday could be discarded with impunity, because there was no objective standard of truth or confession.
This brings us to the greatest irony of the entire movement: the role of the personality embodied in the revival preacher. Men such as Smith, Campbell, Dow, and others claimed that they were restoring Christianity to its primitive and apostolic roots. It is the tragic truth, however, that just the opposite was true . Christianity was being reformed in the image of the revival preacher and his Jeffersonian view of the world.
Nevin and Schaff were correct in their assessment of the movement. While phrases such as “no creed but the Bible” were being hailed from one end of the country to another, it was the strong willed preacher who was the authoritative interpreter of that same Bible.[11]
This focus on the personality found its fullest expression in Joseph Smith and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. In an effort to remove the shackles of authoritarian clericalism, Smith created the ultimate papacy: complete obedience to him and his revelations. Even the standard of the Bible could not be held against him, because his new revelation was the proper interpretation.
It is also interesting to note the strong similarity between this movement and two current movements today. First of all, movements such as David Koresh and the Branch Davidians are really quite indigenous to American culture and society. Secondly, movements such as Willow Creek or the Vineyard are much closer to the egalitarian cult mentality of Alexander Campbell and Joseph Smith than they are to orthodox Christianity.
While at the start, things in the camp meetings seemed to be haphazard and spontaneous, later on the movement became much more deliberate. As George Marsden, another authority on religion and culture issues, writes:
The biggest similarity between Finney's work and the camp meetings was that Finney did systematically what the meetings had happened upon—building up and sustaining spiritual intensity.[12]
In the period from the 1840's to the 1870's, groups such as the Methodists and the Disciples of Christ tried to legitimatize their religions. They did this by using such methods as Charles Finney used. They were based on the same principles as the earlier revival preachers, but were given a veneer of normalcy. The outward appearance may be similar to more orthodox strands of Christianity, but inside it is very different indeed.
Those of us in Missouri can certainly resonate with many of the issues and questions brought up by this book. The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has struggled with the “democratic spirit” since before the Altenberg debates. Carl Mundinger, in his book, Government in the Missouri Synod, has argued that Missouri's apparent congregationalism came, not from American democratic spirit, but rather from Luther's doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.[13] According to Mundinger, Missouri was profoundly authoritarian in its roots. In comparison to the Norwegian Lutherans, for instance, the Missouri Synod was always leery of lay preachers.[14] It really has only been in recent years that the Missouri Synod has been flirting with “lay ministers”. While the Methodists, Disciples of Christ, and others were moving away from the idea of an educated clergy and toward self-ordained preachers, the Missouri Synod was spending much of its time and energy toward establishing and supporting seminaries and other schools. Part of this focus could be attributed to Missouri's emigrant nature. Part of it could be attributed to the language barrier that existed. Even though the “German Evangelical Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States” adopted a quasi-congregational constitution, it was a far cry from the rabid populist spirit of its time.[15] Nevertheless, it is this author's belief that, even if Missouri's roots were not in the populist spirit, it has lent itself to easy transplanting.
Conclusion
This book has been a watershed for me. I have always been interested in the connection between the “democratic spirit” and American Christianity, and this is the first book I have read which really tries to tackle the issues head on. Hatch seems to consider this democratization a good thing for American Christianity. In his estimation, this spirit helped to shape the way we American Christians look at the Bible and the Church. The sanctified common sense of Christians, apparently, is closer to God than the arrogant educated clergy.
What Hatch seems to have forgotten is that the Lord is also the Lord of history. We as Christians are not free to redefine the Bible, the Church, and God to fit our own situation. That is idolatry, and a hopeless caving in to our culture. Christ has revealed Himself to us through the Holy Scriptures, and the Holy Church has confessed that revelation, that one truth, throughout the centuries. If we divorce ourselves from that, we divorce ourselves from the God who became Flesh, and who broke into history.
The issue is not about educated vs. common, or authoritarian vs. populist, in spite of what most of American Christianity would say to us. It is about where has the Lord promised that He is to be found: extra nos or intra nos? This author has no doubt what the Christian answer is to that question.
Hatch, Nathan. The Democratization of American Christianity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.
Marsden, George. Religion and American Culture. San Diego: Harcort Brace Jovanovich, 1980.
Meyer, Carl S. Moving Frontiers. Concordia Publishing House, 1964.
Mundinger, Carl S. Government in the Missouri Synod. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1947.
Nelson, E. Clifford, ed. The Lutherans in North America. Revised edition. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980
[1]Nathan Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity, (New Haven: Yale University Press) 1989, p. 4.
[9]The comparison between this and much of the modern church-growth movement is striking to me. The marketplace rules, and there is no tie to the history of the church. Somehow relevance now means something other than the cross of Christ.
[12]George Marsden, Religion and American Culture (San Diego: Harcort Brace Jovanovich, 1980), p. 51.
[13]Carl S. Mundinger, Government in Missouri Synod (Concordia Publishing House, 1947), p. 205.
[14]E. Clifford Nelson, ed., The Lutherans in North America (Fortress Press: Philadelphia, 1980), p. 160.
[15]It is interesting to note that in the 1854 edition of the LC—MS constitution, Article II, paragraph five insists on the regular (not temporary) call of a pastor. (See Moving Frontiers, p. 150) This, of course, is in line with Article XIV of the Augsburg Confession. It is only in recent years that Missouri has had to struggle with self-appointed pastors or “lay ministers”, as they are sometimes called. Like in many other areas of Missouri's history, we may be behind, but we will deal with whatever else is ailing Protestantism.
This page was created on 02/08/2007 and last edited on: 02/08/2007