Showing posts with label Baptists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Baptists. Show all posts

Monday, August 22, 2016

King's Survey: Reviving Jesus

In which we see a teacher place faith in history
—So what’s on the menu for today, Mr. K.?
I thought we’d do some more God stuff, Sadie.
—We do a lot of that.
George Whitefield
I know.
—Why is that?
—Because he likes God.
—Is Jonah right, Mr. K.? We do it because you like it?
In part, yes.
—Is that kosher, ha ha?
What do you think, Sadie?
—I don’t what I think. I mean, I don’t mind God talk. But I’m wondering what the rules are for this kind of thing.
Well, if you did mind, you probably wouldn’t tell me. Which is why I try to pay attention to the silences, even as I try to go about doing my job by my lights. Actually, I’m kind of flattered you feel comfortable enough to even raise the question.
—Well, it’s not like he tries to convert us or anything. And we’re talking about stuff that happened hundreds of years ago.
—Yeah, except that he’s in love with that Puritan woman, Anne Bradstreet.
Yes, Adam, that’s true. (And yes, Ethan, that’s true too.) It’s also true that another U.S. history teacher is less likely than I am to talk about this stuff. It reflects my bias. If all goes well, you’ll take another American history course in college and you’ll have a moment when you think, “Huh. Mr. King didn’t talk about this at all.” Besides, you’re going to forget most of what you learn here anyway.
—That’s depressing.
Why is that, Kylie?
—Because it makes me wonder why we bother.
Practice.
—Practice for what? Practice forgetting?
Practice with learning. And then with forgetting and remembering. But practice first and foremost with thinking. In order to think well, though, you need some good information. I’m trying to give you that. The information is a prelude to thinking things through. But before we do more of that let me get to the topic at hand, which tends to get buried these days in the history textbooksIt's an event known as the First Great Awakening. (As its name implies, there were other awakenings, too. We’ll get to them later.)
In the simplest terms, the First Great Awakening was a huge religious revival that’s swept England and North America in the middle decades of the 1700s.
—Why then?
I don’t have a good answer for that, Sadie. Partly that’s a matter of my ignorance. And partly that’s a matter of historical process as somewhat mysterious. All disciplines come up against these kinds of barriers. And yet it’s those barriers that make those disciplines interesting.
—Like pi.
Yeah, like pi, I guess. Anyway, one major element of the First Great Awakening in British North America is the rise of new Protestant denominations, notably the Methodists and the Baptists, which are growing very rapidly, often at the expense of older ones. I don’t want to get too bogged down in the theology here, but as their name suggests, the Methodists are arguing for a more demanding, back-to-basics approach to their faith. The Baptists reject an idea, which had become widespread even in demanding Puritan churches, that children could be accepted as church members, since they couldn’t really understand what that meant—the ritual of baptism needs to be much more authentic experience, which is why it has to happen when you’re an adult, not when you’re an infant. The boundaries between these sects aren’t necessarily hard and fast (Rhode Island, for example, is both a bastion of Puritanism and the cradle of the Baptist church of the United States), and there are also branches within them. For example, some Baptists believe that whether or not you’re headed to heaven or hell is something God already knows before you were born. Baptists and others who believe this are known as “hard shell.” Others emphasize the degree to which salvation was as choiceone that required a serious, deliberate profession of faith. These believers are known as “soft shell.”
—What’s the point of believing if you’re already damned to hell?
See, Ethan, that’s the problem. You’re thinking in terms of “points.” Like your salvation is a transaction you can execute. Blech. That’s so … Catholic.
—But why bang your head against the wall if you’re already damned?
—But you don’t know that, Ethan. God knows, but you don’t.
Sadie’s right, Ethan. Besides, don’t you want to think you’re saved? Isn’t thinking you’re might not be in itself a bad sign?
—He doesn’t care. He just wants to party.
Well, then, Chris, we’ll just have to pray for his soul. Anyway, The key thing about the Methodists, Baptists, and churches like them is their openness: they welcome new members. And that often includes black people as well as white ones, though racism hardly disappears. (There are also class accents involved, as suggested by an old joke: an Anglican is a Presbyterian with a trust fund; a Presbyterian is a Methodist with a college degree, and a Methodist is a Baptist with shoes.) The style of the Methodists and Baptist services is more informal, and more emotional. That applies in particular to their preachers.
Which brings up another new aspect in this First Great Awakening: the emergence of the touring preachers, the most famous of whom, like the legendary George Whitefield, are the rock stars of their time, drawing huge crowds of adoring fans. Many of the people who show up for the revival meetings are true believers; others are curious onlookers with greater or lesser degrees of openness to their message. Whitefield, slightly cross-eyed, is positively mesmerizing. One unlikelyand thus quite famoustestimonial of his spellbinding power comes from Benjamin Franklin, who checked out a Whitefield event when the preacher came to Franklin's hometown of Philadelphia, suspecting he was a charlatan. Franklin had money in his pocket, and over the course of Whitefield’s sermon gradually softened, figuring he would surrender a few coins. By the time he had finished, Franklin confessed “I had emptied my pocket wholly into the collector’s dish, gold and all.” (He and Whitefield subsequently became friends; Franklin was an incorrigible collector when it came to friendsas long as you didn’t try to get too close.)
Actually, the people who were least likely to like this new breed of preachers were the old breed of preachers. There were two big reasons for this. The first, and perhaps most important, is that they were regarded as poachers. In many respects, being a minister is an insecure profession. It rarely pays well (and when it does it’s often in barter, which is not particularly helpful if you’re drowning in butter but could really use a horse), and you’ve often got to tread carefully when it comes to criticizing the people who are directly or indirectly paying your salary. Having an outsider come to town is at best a distraction and at worst a threat. To make matters worse, many of preachers of this newer breed, who call themselves “New Lights,” challenge what they regard as the listlessness of the Old Lights. Sure, the minister of your town might have a fancy degree from Harvard or William or Mary. But does a living spirit really dwell within? Has your leader really given convincing testimony of his own salvation? A famous sermon of the time warned of “the Danger of an Unconverted Ministry.” It’s simple, such people said: your heart was more important than your head. Some ministers, like the now-legendary Jonathan Edwardsa genius who bridged science and religion as well as Old and New Lightstried to find a middle ground. But he was kicked out of his church in Massachusetts by his congregation, and settled for working at Princeton a few years his death in 1758.
We can’t dwell too long on this. But I do want to call your attention to what’s at stake here: we’re talking about a challenge to authority. It’s a challenge that takes multiple forms: a challenge to religious authority, intellectual authority, and social authority. An open competition that’s was taking place in full view of ordinary people, and one that’s raising basic questions about who should be followed and why.
—I think I can see where this is going.
Good, Ethan. Hold that thought. Even if you'll soon see that the situation is a little more complicated than you think.

Next: Revolutionary Condescension

Friday, August 19, 2016

King's Survey: God and Taxes

In which we see the shifting logic of belief, and evolving notions of common sense

Hey Emily.

—Hey Mr. K.
Presbyterian Church, Williamsburg, Virginia
You remember what you said the other day when I said the average woman in colonial America spent most of her adult life either pregnant or nursing?
Yeah. I said Oh my God.”
Right. As I mentioned, I want to start today’s discussion with that. Because God—more specifically, Jesus—was actually a major force as the colonial era came to a close in British North America. As I’ve been telling you many times now, if you’re growing up in in the British colonies, much of the outside world is very far away, literally and figuratively. But Jesus is close to home. Actually, in an important sense, Jesus for the first time may actually be in your home.
—What do you mean?
Sorry, Kylie. I’m being a little elliptical here. Let’s go about this a different way: Ethan, what is your relationship with Jesus like?
I don’t have a relationship with Jesus. I’m Jewish.
—So?
—What do you mean, “So?”
I mean that the fact that you’re Jewish doesn’t mean you don’t have to contend with Jesus, does it? I mean he’s everywhere, isn’t he? I don’t mean this in a spiritual sense; I mean that every time you turn around you bump into him. Churches, Christmas trees, people wearing necklaces with crosses. As you know, this isn’t evidence of any great religiosity in American society, necessarily. We live in a culture that’s largely secular and pluralistic. Without exaggerating the similarities, I’ll tell you that the British colonies were also significantly secular and pluralistic for most of the century before the American Revolution, though mix was different than it is today.
—I thought that people back then were a lot more religious than we are today.
In some ways, yes. Christianity of the Protestant variety was almost universal. Certainly no one was going around proclaiming atheism. (In fact, the number of avowed atheists is very small, less than five percent, even today.) But precisely because the colonies are not only Protestant, but Protestant in diverse ways, it’s hard to insist on any one way of doing things, though Lord knows some people try. There’s also a lot of what one historian has called “horse-shed Christianity”: people who go religious services to gossip and trade just outside the church door. Church as a social, not a sacred, ritual.
A lot of this diversity is geographic. The New England colonies are more religious than the rest, which reflects the imperatives of its founding as well as the fact that New England towns were compact enough for churchgoing to be a realistic option in terms of distance and having the collective financial resources to pay for churches and ministers. Ministers were paid with taxes that were imposed whether you were an officially accepted member of a church or not. Church membership (as opposed to churchgoing, which was required and probably perfunctory for that very reason) was only a fraction of the population of a given town. This reflected the fact that in many congregations you had to give convincing testimony of your conversion to gain admission—assuming you wanted admission, which many people did not. In the middle colonies, there were a profusion of Protestant sects (the Dutch Reformed Church in New York; Presbyterian churches in New Jersey; Quaker congregations in Pennsylvania, to name three examples that also overlapped), which prevented religious cohesion. In the South, most churchgoers identified with the mainstream (Anglican) Church of England, which we today call the Episcopalian Church. Yes, Yin?
—Why is it called the Episcopalian Church?
The name refers to a unit of church organization of bishops. Presbyterians, for example, are organized around presbyteries, which are collections of clergymen in region, which contrasts with a Congregational church, where each of which one stands on its own. (Most American Puritans were Congregationalists; a lot of English Puritans were Presbyterian.) An episcopacy is a more hierarchical than a presbytery. The papacy is the most hierarchical of all: it puts the Pope on top, something Protestants of all stripes rejected.
—Sounds complicated.
Systems that you’re not part of or interested in often do. To me, Jonah, all hip-hop music sounds the same.
—That’s crazy.
About as crazy as a non-separating Congregationalist with hopes for Anglican reformation.
—I don’t get it.
Exactly.          
—I have a different question.
Yes, Em.
—You said you had to pay church taxes whether you went to church or not.
Yes, that’s right. Actually, not only that: if you went to a different church—let’s say you were a Quaker who went to a meetinghouse, the way Quakers did, sitting silently until the spirit literally moved them, hence their name and one reason so many people regarded them as weirdoes—you also had to pay for the support of that church in addition to the one that was officially established. If you were in Virginia or South Carolina, for example, it would be the Church of England. If you were in Connecticut, it would probably be to your local Congregationalist Church.
—That doesn’t seem fair.
Oh no?
—Why should you have to pay for something you don’t do or use?
Well, that’s how the world works, isn’t it? I have to pay taxes to the government for wars, whether I approve of them or not. We can’t have people deciding which individual thing people are willing to pay for or which they won’t. There are certain compromises we have to make, certain freedoms we have to give up, in order to have a functioning society. If go to a Catholic Church, I don’t pay taxes, but I put money in an envelope each week. Who knows how the money gets used. I’d probably be annoyed if I did.
—But that’s different.
Is it?
—Yes!
Why?
—You can’t make someone pay for what they believe!
Oh no? Can a faith for which you don’t make any sacrifices really mean anything? In any case, you don’t have to believe. But you do have to pay.
—That’s crazy!
Hmmm. Emily thinks this is crazy. Adam, straighten her out.
—I can’t.
Why not?
—Because she’s right.
Damn. Anyone? Anyone who sees agrees with my position—that religion, like government, is a foundation of civilization and must be financially supported by all members of a community for the sake of social cohesion—raise your hand.
Huh.
You’re tough customers. A consumer mentality, apparently: everyone pays for their own religion, or doesn’t pay for religion at all. Well, I’d like to say that you just don’t get it. I want to say that your imagined peers here in 1760 just plain see the matter differently than you do. But I can’t do that. Anymore, anyway. Because a growing number of them agree with you. That’s one of the ways the world is actually changing, though in what is still a largely invisible way.
—Why is it changing if everything had been the same for so long?
Ah, good question, Yin. To answer that, I have to go back to Jesus. You all know about the Reformation; you learned about it before you took this course. That pitted Protestants against Catholics. But in the first half of the 1700s we in effect have a second Reformation that pitted older brands of Protestantism against newer ones. And the consequences were profound, not only in religious terms but in political ones, too.
—Wait. Before you get to that: what about the slaves? They didn’t have to pay taxes, did they? I mean, they couldn’t, even if they wanted to.
No, Sadie, they didn’t have to pay church taxes. But that wasn’t so much because they couldn’t afford it. It was more because they weren’t allowed to become Christians.
—Weren’t allowed?
Nope. But that’s one of the things that’s beginning to change: slaves are beginning to become Christians in large numbers. This event I’m talking about, which tends to get buried these days in the history textbookswe’re much more interested in race and gender issues these dayswas known as the First Great Awakening. Speaking of which, would someone give the dozing Ethan over there a nudge?
—Huh? Sorry.
Vaya con Dios, Ethan.
Next: Waking up with God