24. GLORY: THE REAGAN-BUSH (I) ERA

THE AMERICAN CULTURAL DIVIDE WIDENS AND DEEPENS

To try to reverse this trend, the impulse of the more "enlightened" members of the denominational leadership was to try (once again) to make their churches more "relevant" to this new post-Vet culture.  Thus as the Boomer culture took up the perfectionist crusade for "peace and social justice," so also the leading voices of the major denominations turned to these same matters, proclaiming the pursuit of peace and social justice as being more relevant to the times than promoting the "old-time religion" of personal repentance and salvation.

There was even a bold attempt to accommodate rising feminism by insisting on the use of "inclusive language" in all religious discourse within the mainline denominations.  Actually, there was nothing at all inclusive about such language. Quite the opposite.  It was in fact quite exclusive in the way it prohibited the use of the term "man" or "mankind" when describing the human race and the world "Father" (or any other male terms) in reference to God.  Indeed, the familiar Revised Standard Version of the Bible itself underwent a rewrite in order to accommodate "inclusivity," so that the old Biblical use of the word "brothers" would be replaced by words implying merely the status as colleagues, or it was simply expanded to read "brother and sisters" etc., etc.  The new morality now decreed that use of male terminology was to be avoided at all costs.  This was the sin of all sins.¹

An event indicative of where inclusivity was taking Christianity occurred in early November of 1993, when over 2000 women (and a handful of men) attended a conference in Minneapolis entitled: "Re-Imagining: A Global Theological Conference by Women, for Men and Women."  This conference was a follow-up to the World Council of Churches' Ecumenical Decade: Churches in Solidarity with Women 1988-1998 in which the mainline Protestant churches pledged to be more pro-active in support of women in ministry.  Heavy in its support of the Re-Imagining Conference was the Presbyterian Church, especially its Women's Ministry Unit.  But Methodist and Lutheran support was also big.

Claiming that traditional Christianity throughout its history had long been very hurtful to women, an effort was undertaken to remove not just all male language but all male images within Christianity.  Thus God as Father was replaced by God as Sophia, or "Wisdom" (a strongly feminine reference to God).  The "masculine" character of Christianity, such as Jesus shedding his blood on the cross for our sins, was attacked as simply male chauvinism that needed to be rejected.  "Victim language" was also part of the presentation, such as the reference to the cross as a symbol of evil, the murder of an innocent victim.  At the culmination of the conference a communion service was held in which milk (a strictly feminine by-product!) was substituted for the sacramental wine used traditionally in communion services.

But the conference ultimately proved to be overkill.  The rest of Protestant Christianity had not yet evolved to such "progressive" standards, and the reaction within the mainline churches was swift and heavy.  But the impulse still remained – just below the surface.  Consequently, national denominational conferences became battlegrounds between the old guard and the rising new guard, with the old guard annually losing more and more ground in the votes on the key issue of ministerial ordination of homosexuals (women had already begun to breach the all-male barrier in the late 1950s or early 1960s).

By the mid-1980s the feminists were joined by a new movement, that of the lesbian and gay or homosexual-rights advocates, who also aimed to roll back the traditional ("straight") male position in society.  Homosexuals were now perceived as the latest victim-group, needing liberation from traditional social-moral authoritarianism.

The terrible AIDS virus was cutting through the homosexual community like a Bubonic plague.  The cause of the spread of the disease was certainly clear enough, though the slowness of the world around the homosexual community to find a medical cure was loudly declared to be a clear demonstration of the cruel indifference to, if not outright hatred of, the homosexual community by the "straight" world.  Condemnation of homosexuality by certain political and religious voices only added fuel to the fire of Boomer outrage against the "homophobes" who thought homosexuality to be evil (as by tradition and Biblical standards it was indeed considered to be – or at least, like prostitution, a major sin).²  Ultimately a combination of Boomer, "do your own thing" ethics, plus the sympathy felt for yet another victim group on the American scene, led to a campaign to make homosexuality acceptable as simply another of the many lifestyles available in a "free" society.

As American mainline Protestant churches became more Liberal or Humanist in message, some Christians pulled out of these churches in order to join a fast-rising group of non-denominational (independent) Evangelical churches.  While the growth rate of these new churches did not offset the decline of the traditional denominations, they certainly were part of the huge shift away from denominational or mainline Christianity.

These independent churches appearing here and there offered a new "hip" format of upbeat "praise and worship," and less social-political and more personal evangelical appeal in the sermons.  Younger Christians "church shopped" in the quest for more interesting, more stimulating, worship than what they felt was offered by the older denominations, especially with their uninspiring focus on peace and social justice (the "Liberal" agenda).

The Evangelical movement would have a very strong impact on America, helping immensely in keeping it from going the way of Europe in sliding into a mass abandonment of its Christian faith in favor of a purely materialist or Secular lifestyle.

Evangelicalism distanced itself from Christian Liberalism, the latter with its strongly Humanistic logic, once again seeing Jesus as merely a model for correct moral behavior and the reward of heaven as simply awaiting those who acted in a righteous, moral way during their lifetime (if they even gave Heaven any thought at all).

However, although these Evangelical churches were conservative in both theology and social philosophy, they were not Fundamentalist – although Liberals would not understand the difference between conservative Fundamentalists and conservative Evangelicals and brand all Christian conservatives as Fundamentalists.

But Evangelicalism was definitely not simply another form of Fundamentalism, with the latter's strict legalism with respect to the commands of the Bible and sense of rewards or punishments awaiting those who either conform to or do not conform to those strict Biblical standards.  From the point of view of the Evangelicals, both Liberal and Fundamentalist Christianity were simply differing forms of "works righteousness" Christianity, in which the "good works" of the individual determined that person's ultimate heavenly reward or salvation.  Both of these Christian philosophies conformed nicely with the American "can do" spirit.  But, according to Evangelicals, both had little in common with the original Christianity that informed America spiritually in its early, very difficult times.

Evangelicals saw themselves as a replay of the original Puritan (early 1600s) and the former "Great Awakening" Christianity (mid-1700s and early-to-mid-1800s) in which the Holy Spirit convicted individuals (and nations) of their sinfulness and their need to call on salvation by or through Jesus Christ, as the individual – or even family and nation – came to look in faith to the power of Jesus, not man's personal power, not even his moral power, to bring salvation.  That power derived alone from the covenantal power between man and God which was instituted with the blood sacrifice of Jesus on the Roman cross.  Human works, no matter how good the effort, could not of themselves bring the kind of righteousness that would ever be sufficient to permit an individual or nation to stand before a perfectly Holy God.  Only through a totally submitted faith in the Lordship of Jesus Christ would the believing individual or nation then receive from Jesus the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, an empowerment that helped the believer take on sin's ever-constant challenges, and move ahead in his/her or their (whole societies') pilgrimage toward full union with God.

But the process needed to start out with a deep conviction by the Holy Spirit of the individual's or nation's sins, producing a profound sense of eagerness to repent and change one's ways, in other words, to be "born again" in/of/by the Holy Spirit. Likewise this same spirit of repentance would have to be always put again and again before the believer because the struggle against sin was constant.  The need for ever-renewing spiritual revival would be an ongoing characteristic of the pilgrimage.  But by the grace of God the pilgrimage would ultimately result in victory over sin and lead to the glorious eternal reward for the faithful, both individual and national, and both here on the earth and in heaven beyond.

But tragically even Evangelicalism itself from time to time was able to get caught up in the can-do spirit of American culture, and abandon its original purpose (staying humbly dependent on the mercies of God) to indulge in the glories of faith, usually glories very material in nature, and very disastrous in consequence.  Many (though by no means all, or even most) revivalists and evangelical pastors got caught up in the scandal of Evangelical triumphalism, sometimes mockingly called the "name it and claim it" theology.

Christians were encouraged to believe in victory in the face of defeat and success in the face of hardship.  And certainly the testimonies of multitudes of Christians pointed out what the Framers of the Constitution had discovered: that God indeed does provide.  God is indeed Providence personified.  But this understanding got extended too easily to the quest of the "American dream" of material wealth and social success, and thereby easily corrupted the souls of a good number of people.

By the later 1980s scandals seemed to break out everywhere before the eyes of the public concerning money or sexual misbehavior of prominent television Evangelists such as Jim Bakker (money and sex), Jimmy Swaggart (sex) and Oral Roberts (a questionable appeal for more money for his ministry, or otherwise the Lord would "call him home").

But somehow Evangelical Christianity survived.  In fact it settled down and matured, and moved the nation forward down a Christian path.

As the 1980s turned into the 1990s, derogatory names now became a regular part of the language used in the cultural battle: the traditional male role in society was now defined by feminists as "male chauvinism."  And the traditional negative attitudes of both males and females toward homosexual behavior was termed "homophobia."  Both chauvinism and homophobia were treated by the Liberal side of the social divide as if they were some kind of dire social disease, even a crime.

And Christians of the newly rising Evangelical variety began to speak contemptuously of the Liberal mindset as engaging in "political correctness" (or "PC"), implying that Liberals were simply mindlessly conforming to trendy but dangerous social ideals.  And Liberals responded in kind with their terming the Evangelicals as Fundamentalists, implying that these conservative Christians were themselves merely mindlessly mouthing outdated and dangerous truisms of a dying cultural past.

Thus both sides found themselves battling for a greater hearing of their viewpoints, especially among the country's youth, in an effort to mold the rising generation's thinking to their Liberal or Conservative ideals.

In general the Liberals were much more successful in pressing their new social ideals on the nation, requiring "sensitivity" or "re-education" programs within the professional world, and the new "Liberal" attitudes taught in the public schools.  It was the Liberals' goal to eliminate the outdated traditional male and "straight" views that Americans young and old might be harboring.  And because it was easiest and most effective of all in meeting the goal of "re-educating" America, a huge effort was made to allow only the Liberal worldview to be brought into America's public education.  In this endeavor the Liberals had the federal courts on their side.  But the Christians were not simply going to give up the battle just because the all-powerful courts had taken the position that "religion" (or at least just the Judeo-Christian variety of religion) in the nation's public life was now "unconstitutional."

To counter this Secular cultural trend developing in America, thanks to the federal courts, in May of 1982 Reagan, in a speech to Congress, proposed an amendment to the constitution, reading:

Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions.  No person shall be required by the United States or by any state to participate in prayer.

Reagan stated that the nation's liberty rested on "an abiding faith in God," and cited Washington's famous statement in his farewell address:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.

But once again, after much push by Evangelicals (and a poll revealing that 80 percent of the Americans approved of the amendment), and much opposition by various mainline Christian and Secular groups, the Amendment, when put to a vote in the Senate in March of 1984, fell short of the two-thirds requirement for a Constitutional Amendment, with 56 votes in support (37 Republicans and 19 mostly-Southern Democrats) and 44 votes in opposition (18 Republicans and 26 Democrats), thus failing passage by eleven votes.  Reagan would try again the next year, and fail again at the effort

²The first-century Christian leader, Paul, in his Letter to the Romans (chapter one, verses 20-32) goes into lengthy discussion about how such male and female sexual perversity is a result of men and women abandoning their knowledge of God … with the tragic result that God then simply allows them to fall victim to their own very self-destructive sexual lusts.  Not surprisingly, therefore, many Christians believed that AIDS was simply the fruit of just such a horrible sexual dynamic.