Pledging Allegiance to One Nation, Divided by Two Religious Factions

Americans have been urged repeatedly in recent months to make this, using President Bush’s words, “a kinder and gentler nation.” We have been asked to show compassion to our enemies, to seek common ground and social kindness and to engage in activities that enrich and ennoble us all.

Throughout much of our nation’s history religious conviction supplied the muscle necessary to put such fine admonitions into practice. Utilitarian self-interest was constrained, as Alexis de Tocqueville observed on his visit to the United States in the 1830s, by a common tradition of biblical virtue and by extensive participation in voluntary religious organizations. Whether they belonged to one faith or another, believers found much on which to agree. As recently as the early 1960s, when Will Herberg published his widely read book “Protestant, Catholic, Jew: An Essay in American Religious Sociology,” America’s several faiths seemed to provide a common identity and shared assumptions about our nation’s calling.

Today American religion is less a source of kindness and gentleness--or even gentility--than it is a war zone of antagonism. Rather than infusing public debate with harmony and reconciliation, it presents an image of tension and conflict. The one public theology Tocqueville saw uniting us has been torn asunder by two competing factions:

-- A conservative public theology champions strong traditional morality, strong national defenses and a heady brew of free enterprise. It stakes its authority in a literal interpretation of the Bible and claims to return the nation to biblical ideals on which it was founded.

-- A liberal public theology argues for a more relativistic code of personal morality, a cooperative multilateral spirit in foreign relations and strong government initiatives capable of infusing norms of social justice into the capitalist mind. It also stakes its authority on biblical tradition, but often interprets this legacy as cultural wisdom rather than divine revelation.

Both sides believe deeply that religious values must be heard in the public square. They hold implicitly that the United States must be godly--or at least good--if it is to remain great. They take their cues from religious sentiments expressed in the Declaration of Independence and printed on U.S. currency. They hold strongly that America is, as we say when we recite the Pledge of Allegiance, “under God.” But the two place emphasis on different understandings of what it means to be a nation under God. Indeed, the two positions can be summarized with reference to different phrases in the Pledge of Allegiance itself.

Advocates of a conservative public theology stress the fact that the United States is “one nation” under God. Translated: We are unique, a special nation, privileged by having been chosen of God, unlike any other nation in the world. Our forebears founded the nation on biblical concepts. They believed we were a covenant people, the New Israel. Even to this day, conservative religionists argue, the United States has a special mission to fulfill for God. It is a mission of hope for the Free World, of opposition to atheistic communism, of presenting an image of biblical morality to the world. To be true to our calling, they argue, we must unite once again around these collective ideals.

The liberal public theology takes its cue from the phrase “with liberty and justice for all.” Liberty means greater tolerance and diversity. Justice means a driving concern for minorities and the poor. In this view, America has a special role to play in the world mainly because of its power, not because of a special divine calling. As long as Americans enjoy material success and military power, they must use it for the common good of the world. Liberal religionists agree that America must be a lamp shining in darkness. But the glow of this light must shine especially on deeds of mercy toward the poor and of justice for the oppressed.

How deep is this division? According to a Gallup survey, the American public divides itself almost evenly between religious conservatism and religious liberalism. About 40% put themselves in each camp when asked about their religious beliefs. At the extremes, about 20% say they are either very liberal or very conservative religiously. The same study showed that a majority of the public regards the conflict between religious conservatives and liberals as an area of serious tension. Conservatives described liberals as unloving, shallow and unsaved. Liberals characterized conservatives as rigid, narrow-minded and fanatical. And that survey was several years ago.

Newer evidence shows that this division in orientation corresponds closely to differences of opinion on a wide range of religious beliefs and social issues--from views of the Bible to opinions about abortion or positions on welfare spending. It is aggravated, not lessened, by greater contact with the other side and by greater knowledge about the other side. And it cuts through the middle of all the major faiths and denominations. Thus, conservative Methodists, for instance, often feel they have more in common with conservative Catholics or conservative Baptists than they do with liberal Methodists.

In short, the two varieties of public theology that offer competing definitions of what it means to be a kind and gentle nation have cast their shadow broadly on the American people. Antagonism between religious liberals and religious conservatives comes not only from the voices of the Rev. Jerry Falwell and Norman Lear or from the bureau chiefs of the National Council of Churches and the National Assn. of Evangelicals. It gains expression in local pulpits and prayer fellowships. And it has begin to register in public-opinion polls.

We have, of course, experienced religious conflict many times in U.S. history. But the current division is particularly deep. The abortion debate has been an especially serious source of misgiving. Feminism, prayer in public schools, pornography, AIDS and the sex scandals of highly visible TV evangelists have all added fuel to the flames of religious controversy. Genuine differences of theological interpretation and moral conviction are at issue. But differences in educational levels and life styles add to the level of misunderstanding.

The conflict is largely a product of the turbulent quarter century we have experienced as a nation since the early 1960s. The civil-rights movement drew some of the initial lines still dividing religious liberals from religious conservatives. The Vietnam War reinforced those initial differences. In both instances, these were events that challenged longstanding assumptions about the impact of our values on our nation’s behavior. Increasingly, religious leaders questioned whether good values alone would lead to good behavior. And as they did, some--those who were to be called liberals--began to emphasize the behavior of direct action while others--conservatives--argued for purity of values.

During the 1970s, two other developments added to the growing cleavage between religious liberals and conservatives. One was the rapid growth in religious special-interest groups. Ethnic and racial caucuses in the major denominations, special organizations for homosexuals and an increasingly wide array of conservative groups--Presbyterian Laymen, the Creation Research Society, Moral Majority--all came into being to pressure their denominations and the public at large in one direction or another.

The other development was a marked erosion in the significance of traditional denominational boundaries and of the barriers between Protestants and Catholics and between Christians and Jews. The very reduction of these divisions made it easier for leaders on the left and on the right to mobilize large constituencies.

The 1980s has been a decade of nearly continuous battle between these religious constituencies. Public officials have often courted one side or the other. Preachers have become more active politically. And in the process much of the latent conflict between evangelicals and fundamentalists on the one hand and liberals and secularists on the other has become painfully evident.

What then are the implications? For the 10% to 20% of the public that has become indifferent to religion, the most likely conclusion is to say a plague on both your houses. Neither side will inspire conviction as long as it is at the other’s throat.

For those who still care about our nation’s churches, parishes, synagogues and fellowship halls, the gravity of the situation needs to be recognized. Priority must be given to counsels of reconciliation. The common ground must indeed be sought. And within this common ground, genuine diversity must be encouraged. For, as Jefferson recognized, pluralism can only strengthen our nation, but polarization always weakens it.