I read a very interesting article this morning concerning parallels between our modern Day and the Civil War. This year is the 150th anniversary of the Civil War. Generally speaking the author made some very good observations about parallels between our modern-day and the times in which the Civil War was fought. He said that the moral climate and the political climate in particular was remarkably similar, in fact he said that the times in which the Civil War was fought or even more extreme!
But he did have one observation with which, though I certainly understand why he would make these comments, I must make some addendum. He said:
"The war erupted not long after the "Second Great Awakening" sparked a national religious revival. Reform movements spread across the country. Thousands of Americans repented of their sins at frontier campfire meetings and readied themselves for the Second Coming.
They got war instead. Their moral certitude helped make it happen, says David Goldfield, author of "America Aflame," a new book that examines evangelical Christianity's impact on the war.
Goldfield says evangelical Christianity "poisoned the political process" because the American system of government depends on compromise and moderation, and evangelical religion abhors both because "how do you compromise with sin."
"By transforming political issues into moral causes, you raise the stakes of the conflict and you tend to demonize your opponents," Goldfield says.
Contemporary political rhetoric is filled with similar rhetoric. Opponents aren't just wrong -- they're sinners, Goldfield says."
First off, we need to observe that the language used in Goldfields comment seems to be, shall we say, somewhat anti-religious. There is no doubt that Goldfield is either an atheist or he is a Quaker or some other form of religious moralist. Whatever the case, his comments demonstrated two things.
First, at least somewhat of a hostility toward biblical Christianity. It is clear that he has little or no time for those who believe in "Evangelical Christianity", even though Evangelical Christianity didn't really exist at the time that he is addressing, that is the time the Civil War.
Secondly, it is clear that he is among that group that believes that Christianity is the root of many the evils in our Western society. There are many who see biblical Christianity and what it calls men to do as a problem rather than a solution. This is particularly true in the social and political realms where compromise and accommodation or the word of the day rather than standing up for principal and moral absolute are essential.
In the political world, the world in which our modern politician functions and walks, certainty is a matter for the campaign trail and such certainty stops the moment one is elected and begins to have any actual effect on the workings of the office to which one is elected.
This is similarly true in the social realm as well. Because we are exposed to all manner of ideas, cultures, and peoples on a regular basis, we have lost the very concept of absolute truth and have come to embrace the idea of that truth is completely relative. Therefore it must be negotiable! The social media puts forth their own ideas and they put forth those ideas in the way that is most attractive and most supportive to their agenda - and the consumer "consumes" virtually without any discernment; simply on the basis of what they "enjoy", what makes them happy at the time.
There is little or no concern, for the vast majority of people, for what is actually true, but only for what is perceived to be true. We are like hogs at a trough, as long as I am satisfied, I am satisfied. Just let me go to sleep. If we basically support the individual and even some of what he says, then we'll swallow down everything that he puts forth, even if we don't actually like brussels sprouts.
This is what has happened with those who hear these folks who say that Christianity is the root of the evil's in Western society. They have, perhaps, said incredible things in other areas; and so now when it comes to this absurd thing, they are swallowed whole without any regard for the truth of the matter.
It is much like the issue of Jefferson and Madison building the idea of "separation of church and state", and meaning that to be that the church should have no influence over the state whatsoever into the constitution. Anyone who has read either Thomas Jefferson or James Madison and has read those ideas in their writings in context understands that they had no intention that religion have no influence on the government, or that it be kept strictly separate and that our government be kept as a strictly secular entity. What an absurd concept given that both Jefferson and Madison were religious men. Perhaps not religious in the sense that many are religious men in this day and age, but religious men nevertheless. All that need be done is actually read what they say without redacting or leaving some of it out to suit ones preconceived idea or just serve the purpose that one has a head of time. Rather it is easily understood that they meant that the government have no controlling influence on religion in this country.
But, like so many other things, worldview and preconceived notions control how things are viewed. The very great danger that is faced is how past history is interpreted in light of these things. If we insist on seeing the society of the past in light of the way that society is today, then we will completely and absolutely misunderstand the time of the Civil War. Surely there are parallels between the two times. Things were going on then that are "like" things now. But the worldview then and the mindset then were very, very different than the mindset now and the way people thought and lived then, from a moral and ethical point of view, was very different, so different has to be virtually unintelligible to 21st century men.
We'll continue this next time...
