- This topic has 8 voices and 26 replies.
-
Posts
-
In my opinion the First Great Awakening was a reaction to the spiritual staleness the crept into the lives of the English and Colonists after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. It was a movement with discernable figures and institutions. Princeton University, for example, was a product of the Great Awakening, and I believe it began with the intent of being some sort of divinity school.
So how can we compare the FGA to modern times? In a real sense, the sexual revolution of the 1960s may parallel the Glorious Revolution in a sense; although the latter did not demote a worldy king, it did demote another "King", and that of religious morality in public life. But just as the Great Awakening of old effectively worked against certain modes of thought, the current "Awakening" that appears to be in the making is working against the modes of thought of the sexual revolution. There are discernable figures today - the Pat Robertsons, Jerry Falwells, the Billy Grahams - and discernable institutions which mark the current revival. The 2005 book, God on the Quad : How Religious Colleges and the Missionary Generation Are Changing America explores religious institutions in the academic world. A number of religious colleges are actually new and have really grown over the past 25 years or so. Is this a trend? Are these kinds of colleges comparable to Princeton's founding in the 18th Century? I think that if we look closely enough, we will find clear parallels between the older age and our own.Just a quick response. I am going to have to reserve judgment on any parallels. I'm going to have to say that religiosity as a whole is in decline as more and more folks seek to privatize their beliefs away from traditional institutional churches. The churches who are gaining adherents are the universalist nondenominational sects who market themselves to a younger generation that is growing in apathy to traditional religion. Whether this is a shift in morals or a byproduct of social change is not quite certain. But what is certain, young people are looking for a more modern religious culture that is more inclusive to their more liberal ways. If one is looking for a parallel to the Great Awakening, then this is the only one I can find…..namely the quest for a newer and more vigorously inclusive religion.
While I can understand the drive for “inclusive” religion to a certain degree, the trend that I was referring to is not of that ilk. Rather, it is more of a conservative trend which echoes of ages past – a “pure” practice of Christianity – than a watered down version that may exist with modernites. While attending an institution that is mentioned in the book – and while studying the First Great Awakening – it dawned on me that the parallel was quite clear. Of course, with any historical parallel, there will necessarily be distinctions. But in terms of general cause-reaction-counteraction + figureheads + institutions, in my opinion this does exist.
I'm going to have to say that religiosity as a whole is in decline as more and more folks seek to privatize their beliefs away from traditional institutional churches. The churches who are gaining adherents are the universalist nondenominational sects who market themselves to a younger generation that is growing in apathy to traditional religion.
I don't know how relevant this is to the Great Awakening, but I partially disagree with this analysis of modern religious trends. ?While it is true that people are moving away from older, institutionalized churches, the most important aspect of current church growth is not within the universalist non-denominations. ?Even significant growth in these religious circles is relatively unimportant, because these religious organizations lack the dynamism and enthusiasm of even those older, traditional religious organizations. ?The most important area in current church growth is in the very small, intensely enthusiastic, relationship-driven churches that are springing up in city and suburban areas.Once again, I would like to point out that I don't know very much about the Great Awakening. ?I do know a lot about churches, though, and I think that maybe what connects growing churches today with churches from the Great Awakening period, is not necessarily raw growth, but enthusiasm.
jonnyjmboy, I agree with you about the significance of enthusiasm. I would also connect this enthusiasm to a sort of renewal for the ages. When religious bodies become large and when believers go unchallenged, spirituality becomes dry and faith tends to become empty. This is the case in countries where established religions become “cultural religions” which lack significant amounts of enthusiasm. In the U.S., we are past this point, and we are now into a new phase where enthusiasm by a select, smaller group tends to promote change and challenge certain social mores. This precise thing is what could promote a new “Awakening”.
The key is to balance the enthusiasm with sound doctrine. When these two are balanced, watch out! The Lord can do some mighty things with a church that is both on fire and has it's theological ducks in a row.
I should add to this that in the U.S., laws or interpretations of laws currently in place help to foster an atmosphere of restriction. This obviously was not the case with the colonies of the 1700s. I could argue either way that restrictions either a) further an enthusiasm for one's religiosity, or b) make it more difficult to the flame of religiosity to spread into a wider movement. Or could it be both?
Religious revival is usually in response to a perceived threat to the society. The first was in response to the bonds of authority as the ability to move farther into the frontier, and away from the authority of church and government, seemed to threaten the social order and stability. The second coincided with the political uproar that eventually resulted in the Civil War. The current one has been building since the '60's and parallels the rising strength of neoconservatism. Both see the culture degenerating into a morass that began with the sex-drugs-and-rock'n roll that is the most well-known legacy of my generation. They perceive Roe v Wade as the high-water mark and they have been slowly, and successfully, chipping away at it ever since. It is also the reason for the retreat in the area of civil liberties. Watergate and the Nixon resignation was the high-water mark of the fight against government encroachment on civil liberties and the rights of the individual and the concept that the society and the government had an obligation to take care of all citizens, and that included the environment. We are now on a path back to the Gilded Age and laissez-faire economics whose only rule was “Every man for himself.” There was no economic regulation, the worker was treated like a disposable part, the rich were allowed to pretty much anything they damned well pleased with their money, and their were no rules except make money as fast as you can. This went on until 1929 when the whole damned thing collapsed on itself and the Great Depression followed. Enron, Worldcom, eliminating the so-called death tax, the whole thing about back-dating stock options, drilling for more oil rather than researching alternative energy sources, all of these things are part of the same trend. And I'm not talking about some great conspiracy – it is simply that money and wealth and controlling personal conduct through religion rather than social resposibility has become the guiding light for much of the country. Thus endeth the rant.
Religious revival is usually in response to a perceived threat to the society. The first was in response to the bonds of authority as the ability to move farther into the frontier, and away from the authority of church and government, seemed to threaten the social order and stability. The second coincided with the political uproar that eventually resulted in the Civil War. The current one has been building since the '60's and parallels the rising strength of neoconservatism. Both see the culture degenerating into a morass that began with the sex-drugs-and-rock'n roll that is the most well-known legacy of my generation. They perceive Roe v Wade as the high-water mark and they have been slowly, and successfully, chipping away at it ever since. It is also the reason for the retreat in the area of civil liberties. Watergate and the Nixon resignation was the high-water mark of the fight against government encroachment on civil liberties and the rights of the individual and the concept that the society and the government had an obligation to take care of all citizens, and that included the environment. We are now on a path back to the Gilded Age and laissez-faire economics whose only rule was "Every man for himself." There was no economic regulation, the worker was treated like a disposable part, the rich were allowed to pretty much anything they damned well pleased with their money, and their were no rules except make money as fast as you can. This went on until 1929 when the whole damned thing collapsed on itself and the Great Depression followed. Enron, Worldcom, eliminating the so-called death tax, the whole thing about back-dating stock options, drilling for more oil rather than researching alternative energy sources, all of these things are part of the same trend. And I'm not talking about some great conspiracy - it is simply that money and wealth and controlling personal conduct through religion rather than social resposibility has become the guiding light for much of the country. Thus endeth the rant.
Curious. You're the first person I've ever seen equate religious revivalism to economic greed. Remarkable.
They are both responses to the same stimuli – fear of the unknown, of the new, of a change to the status quo, mostly of losing what you have. The natural response is to try and either lock down what you have or to retreat to the “good old days”. The only time this doesn't apply is if things are so damned bad that you have nothing to lose by trying something new, but for most people maintaining the status quo or retrenchment is the safest option. Smart, and unscrupulous, people know how to exploit this. Joe McCarthy, Hitler, FDR, the current administration, all of them knew how to create a resonance between their policies and the fear of people, whether it was Communism or terrorists and WMD. The only difference between these individuals is their motive.
Smart, and unscrupulous, people know how to exploit this. Joe McCarthy, Hitler, FDR, the current administration, all of them knew how to create a resonance between their policies and the fear of people, whether it was Communism or terrorists and WMD. The only difference between these individuals is their motive.
I can argue that reasoned people are also ones who can preserve the status quo. Injecting uncertain concepts into policies or strategy can be a recipe for disaster. But likening leaders together like you did - three decent American politicians and one of the world's most despised mass murderers - isn't all that accurate to begin with, except in a rather tenuous way. I don't think that the way Hitler did things - to revive the glory of the German nation and the Aryan race - can be neatly categorized into the "status quo" since he also intended on breaking down religious belief by going into the churches and replacing the crucifixes therein with swastikas. In other words, Hitler called upon the past while departing from it and bringing in his new Fascist ideals. All leaders of any ilk are bound to call upon some "tradition" as a means of pushing their thoughts or agendas, whether for good or for bad.
McCarthy is vilified because he got out of control, but in the beginning, he and his protege' Richard Nixon were only trying to thwart unAmerican activities during a very paranoid era. I think McCarthy was not an evil man, just overzealous.
Joe McCarthy knowingly and deliberately destroyed lives of innocent people for his own political gain. That's evil, pure and simple. But then he was only following in the less-than-illustrious footsteps of the Dies & House Un-American Activities committees. In case you're not familiar with them, they were set up in the 1930s and '40s to hunt down Communists, Socialists, and other “subversives” which they interpreted to mean anyone that didn't slavishly worship at the altar of unrestricted free enterprise, that same economic philosophy that gave us various murders of labor activists, imprisoning of labor leaders, and last but certainly not least the Great Depression. This same attitude had a rebirth under Reagan and the de-emphasis on policing the economy that gave us Enron, Worldcom, and one or two others that I can't remember offhand. I'm am most definitely NOT saying that capitalism is bad, quite the contrary, but unrestrained and unregulated capitalism is very dangerous. Study a bit of this country's labor history, when 10-year-old children worked in the coal pits, when a 60 hour work week was the norm (no overtime by the way), when workers were often paid in company scrip that had to be spent in company stores and you had to live in company housing and pay for it all at inflated company prices, when if you got hurt or killed on the job, well, tough s–t. The bottom line is that dissent is not only NOT unAmerican, it is the very essence of Americanism. The Founding Fathers were dissenters and rabble rousers and were undoubtedly consider very unBritish, but I think we're glad they were. Now what McCarthy had in common with Hitler, FDR, and the current administration was the ability to wrap their policies in a rhetoric that harkened to basic values that most people believe in, the very same values that our Founders appealed to, things like freedom and security. Where they differed was in their ultimate political goal. McCarthy was after political power. Hitler was after national unity as a prerequisite to conquest. FDR was after national unity in the pursuit of his policy objectives. The current administration seems to be in pursuit of some sort of American world hegemony built on their version of democracy, which apparently places absolutely no real boundaries on executive power.
McCarthy didn't do much more than A. Mitchell Palmer did in the 1920's. Evil? on some level okay, but misguided and over zealous seem a better fit to me. JMHO
McCarthy didn't do much more than A. Mitchell Palmer did in the 1920's.? Evil?? on some level okay, but misguided and over zealous seem a better fit to me. JMHO
You're right, I had forgotten about Mr. Palmer and the Red Scare, which is surprising since I am in the process of reading two books that mention the subject. One is "Crusader Nation" about the period 1900-1920 and the other is "Perilous Times" about the history of suppressing dissent in this country during wartime. As for whether or not their conduct was evil or mearly misguided and over-zealous, I would argue that it is the results rather than the motivation that is the standard for judgement. I have never bought into the "Oops, sorry!" defense. Unless you're mentally challenged, or merely stupid, you have to know that your actions can have serious, unforeseen, consequences, especially if you are in a position of power. Therefore you should be even more careful than us normal people when you take actions that you know could easily inflict significant damage on someone else. Tlo use a somewhat simplified analogy - when you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger you had better be absolutely sure that they are committing an act that is worth the potential results of your action, very much surer than if you're just going to throw a rock at them. I just get really nervous when powerful public officials go all self-righteous on ordinary citizens and decide to make an example of them. Remember what happened to that scientist that Ashcroft declared a "person of interest" during our national anthrax paranoia? His life and career were destroyed because a public official decided that he deserved to be made an example of. THAT scares the sh-t out of me and happens far too often and THAT qualifies as evil.
