Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Culture implies far more than common food, dress, or accent. The root of our English word "culture" is the Latin "cultus," which to the Romans signified worship of the divine. This reminds us of the foundation of culture which is so often forgotten in our day. As Russell Kirk has noted, "[C]ulture arises from the cult; that is, people are joined together in worship, and out of their religious association grows the organized human community."1
Culture implies a common way of life, common standards, a common worldview, if you will. But this commonality is founded ultimately not upon economic status, race, or nationality, but, as the word indicates, a common faith. Christopher Dawson puts it this way, "It is clear that a common way of life involves a common view of life, common standards of behavior, and common standards of value, and consequently a culture is a spiritual community which owes its unity to common beliefs and common ways of thought far more than to any unanimity of physical type.... Therefore from the beginning the social way of life which is culture has been deliberately ordered and directed in accordance with the higher laws of life which are religion."2
Thus the most important factor in the formation of a culture is the predominant faith of the people. The foundation of Western culture is Christianity and, in this country, Protestant Christianity of the Reformation type. This was true throughout this country, generally speaking, up through the early nineteenth century. Increasingly, however, as the nineteenth century wore on, the Northern section of the country slid away from historic Christianity to embrace the heresies of Deism, Unitarianism, and Transcendentalism.3
This, coupled with the influence of the aberrant (actually heretical) theology of Charles Finney, drove the majority of the North away from the historic foundations of Biblical Calvinism. The doctrines of God's sovereignty and man's depravity were discarded. Men were left with an irrelevant God (or none at all) and a sovereign, perfectible man. Harriet Beecher Stowe observed that in Boston during the mid-nineteenth century, "the only thing worse than an atheist was a Calvinist." The Biblical teaching of human depravity was offensive to the modern Northern sensibilities. Man was basically good, they believed. "Sin," so-called, was the consequence of inadequate education and unseemly surroundings, not some defect in man himself. Thus, man's problem was not seen as a problem inside of him but something external to him, in society. There was no need for a new birth in the Biblical sense. Man was not saved by grace but by social and political reform.
The South observed this drift into semi-paganism with a mixture of fear and amazement, for while the North was experiencing a general apostasy, the South was seeing a revival of the old Faith. While the North drifted more and more from the Bible, the South was becoming more and more attached to the Bible.
The relatively high level of faithfulness that had existed in the early seventeenth century because of the Christians who founded many of the Southern colonies, and which was revived through the Great Awakening, was lost by the 1790s. Thus, at the beginning of the nineteenth century the South was one of the most "unchurched" sections of the country. In 1800 only one Southerner in ten was a church member. Religious apathy and spiritual declension characterized the region.
But this all changed as the nineteenth century progressed. God revived the true Faith so that by the 1830s the South had become the most strongly evangelical section of the country. The Second Great Awakening was not noted for its orthodoxy in the Midwest and Northeast (and in some sections of the upper South as well), but it took on a different character in the South as a whole.
Charles Finney's humanistic revivalism never found ready reception in the South at large. The Southern Christian leaders were of a different persuasion altogether. Daniel Baker, J. H. Thornwell, B. M. Palmer, R. L. Dabney, John Holt Rice, Thomas Peck, Moses Drury Hoge, and many other great and faithful men kept the reins of the Southern revival. By their sound instruction and expository preaching, they prevented the movement from being corrupted by the unscriptural practices and fanaticism that dominated the Northern revi-vals. It was the belief of these men that true revivals were God-made, not man-produced as Finney and his followers insisted. Revivals could not be planned or scheduled, nor could they be prolonged by artificial means. They were the sovereign gift of God and could only be gratefully received and rejoiced over.
These two contrasting views ought not to be dismissed as insignificant or irrelevant. The one focused on man's ability to manipulate God and thus produce reform by his own efforts. The other insisted on man's utter dependence on God and faithful adherence to His Word, and recognized that nothing could be accomplished apart from His blessing. These two contrasting perspectives would bear quite different fruit for each region. Dependence on God and strict adherence to God's means as set forth in His Word became characteristic of Southern Christianity. Political coercion in the name of God more and more became the hallmark of the North.4
The orthodoxy of the South contrasted in quite a few other ways from the prevailing spirit of the North. The rationalism of Northern Unitarianism with its detached, Stoic propriety and the polite, lecture-like quality of the sermons was quite different from the warm-blooded preaching and affection for the Savior that this preaching produced across the South.
The contrast was manifest to travelers in both regions. A writer in the Presbyterian Advocate in 1830 gave this comparison between the preaching in New England and that of the Southern states:
There [i.e., in New England] the preachers write their sermons and read them to their audience;... [the style] is chaste, argumentative, but wanting in animation. The style [in the South] is unequal, often incorrect, but animated, vehement and powerful... Which on the whole are the most useful it is difficult to decide. For instruction the former excel; for delight we would listen to the latter.5
William Plummer, pastor for many years at the First Presbyterian Church at Richmond, was replaced after his departure by a Northerner. The Northern replacement, we are told, had a good and highly cultivated mind and his sermons instructed and pleased, but, says Moses Hoge, "they were not Southern sermons." There were no "bursts of passion, no involuntary emotion, no sudden and splendid inspiration, bearing a man away from his manuscript and from his commonplaces as in a chariot of fire." "Yankees," said Hoge, "seem to say good things because they have studied them. Southern men say good things as if they could not help it."6
The passion of these men often made Northerners feel out of place. William Henry Foote wrote of George Baxter, who was President of Washington College at the time, "I have never known any minister of the gospel who so often shed tears in the pulpit. It was very common for his voice to falter, and become tremulous from the swelling tide of his strong emotions, especially when speaking of the suffering of Christ, or when warning sinners to flee from the wrath to come."7 The truth of God so gripped the soul that it could not be spoken as if it were bare statistics or a report of some business that had been carried out in a foreign land. They were dealing with issues of life and death and they preached with a passion that indicated they truly believed this to be true.
Moses Hoge, having listened to a number of Northern sermons, longed for the good old fire of Southern preachers. In the same letter previously quoted, he went on to say that he longed to hear Dr. Plummer preach again, "I am hungry to hear him roar once more. I want to see his eyes glare and his hair stand up on end. It will refresh me to see him foam at the mouth again."8
Sermons in the South were not dry, abstract disquisitions on the latest philosophical speculations, but "cataracts of holy fire" that moved men to the foundation of their beings. Southern sermons sought to change the heart and move the soul. Not that Southerners ignored the intellect, they didn't; but they realized that unless a man's heart is changed, he will ignore even what his mind is convinced is true. One historian has noted, "Every sermon, whether Presbyterian, Methodist, or Baptist, preached both doctrines and duties and was addressed not only to the understandings but to the hearts and consciences of the congregation."9
The preaching of the Word was viewed as the "chief means" God uses to change the hearts of men. The chief instrument of reform was not legislation or social movements but the truths of God faithfully proclaimed to the consciences of men. Reform always began from within man by the grace of God, not from without by force.
The predominant view in the South was that the Bible is the very Word of God written. It is infallible, inspired, inerrant, and authoritative in all areas of life and thought. The content of the sermons was overwhelmingly Biblical. Benjamin Morgan Palmer (long-time pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of New Orleans) echoed the widely accepted notion that the minister is a "messenger from God" whose duty, said Palmer, was "to speak only the word that is put into his mouth." That is, the job of the minister is not to tell us of his latest dreams and imaginations, or of his opinions of world events, nor is it to display his grasp of current problems. He has but one job to expound and apply the Word God has given to us. "His sole care," said Palmer, "must be to inquire what God the Lord will say." He is "to study God's Book, to expound its doctrines, to enforce its precepts, to urge its motives, to present its promises, to recite its warnings, to declare its judgments."10 Southern ministers spent their energies explaining and applying the great truths of Scripture, the sovereignty of God, the depravity of man, the divine election of grace, the atoning death of Christ, the call to repentance and justification by faith.
The South, influenced more and more by the old orthodoxy, believed that God was sovereign. He alone possesses unlimited authority and He alone can be trusted with such authority since He is spotlessly holy, just, and good. They believed, therefore, that God had ordained all human institutions with strictly limited authority and that, if society was to prosper, each institution (family, church, and state) must abide within the limitations set forth by God.
Further, the South believed that man was basically sinful. Thus, his greatest need was the grace of God, not political and social reform. Salvation was achieved not by man's efforts but was mercifully and freely given by God on the basis of Christ's work in atonement for sinners.
Trinitarian orthodoxy produced a society where both unity and diversity could coexist. It is only within God Himself that we find the solution to the ancient question of the one and the many. God is both one and three. Both unity and diversity are equally ultimate in Him. Christian cultures have always had a place for both "oneness" (unity, structure, form) and "manyness" (individualism and diversity). Only in the Triune God and in His covenant can we find unity that does not annihilate legitimate diversity and vice versa.
Thus, only in Christian culture can you have unity and diversity, unity and freedom. In imitation of the Triune God, there is a unity of faith and purpose and yet there is no demand for uniformity of personality. There is a unity without the assimilation of the individual into the whole.
The general theological consensus that existed in the South gave rise to a prevailing tolerance among the populace. Sincere men were respected (even though they might be wrong in their choice of denominations!). Convictions were held strongly; but for those who sincerely sought to be faithful, the judgment of charity prevailed.
Men learned the importance of minding their own business. The officious, reformist, busybody attitude of New England was not tolerated. Men sought in a scriptural and neighborly way to see after one another. But they knew there are certain things that are none of your business and you had best resist the temptation to run other people's lives for them.
In unitarian and atheistic cultures, you find just the opposite. There is usually a demand for a stifling egalitarian conformity in order to preserve unity. Unitarianism views God not as a Person, but as an impersonal force. There is and can be no "love" in God (since His monism makes it impossible to express love within Himself), and thus the culture, reflecting this view of God, becomes cruel and heartless. A culture that refuses to recognize the loving Trinity seeks unity by force (totalitarianism and statist egalitarianism), and thus tends to be characterized by harshness, bitterness, and cruelty (as Islamic and communistic cultures are and ever have been).
True unity is founded not upon impersonal or bureaucratic force but upon the love and grace (the personableness) of the Triune God. Where this is lacking, there can never be freedom, peace, or prosperity.
The general orthodoxy which pervaded the South prior to the War was the reason for the political views which dominated the region as well. The concepts of limited constitutional government, a union composed of free and independent states, a hearty distrust of democracy, strict adherence to the Constitution, the doctrine of the separation of powers, the rules of justice all these distinctives, and many more which marked our nation in its founding, are rooted in Biblical Christianity.
But even more important than Christianity's influence upon our political theory is the fact that it molded a citizenry that was willing and able to preserve this system of liberty. There were a number of dominant characteristics of the South in the middle eighteenth century, all of which are fruits of Christianity.
1. Reverence for God and the Scriptures. The two most influential books in the early part of this country's history were the King James Bible and John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.11 They shaped the South in particular. After its refusal to follow the pied pipers of Transcendentalism in order to remain faithful to the Bible, the South became known derisively as "The Bible Belt."
2. Marriage and family held in high esteem. Tocqueville noted, "Certainly of all countries in the world America is the one in which the marriage tie is most respected and where the highest and truest conception of conjugal happiness has been conceived." This gave a stability to our society lacking elsewhere. "When the American returns from the turmoil of politics to the bosom of the family, he immediately finds a perfect picture of order and peace. There all his pleasures are simple and natural and his joys innocent and quiet, and as the regularity of life brings him happiness, he easily forms the habit of regulating his opinions as well as his tastes."
This was especially so in the South. Large families were the norm, with the result that the entire culture was pervaded by a sense of kinship, family history, and family-centered thinking. It was not uncommon to find churches of several hundred members with only five or six surnames. In the South it was often of more consequence to be kin to certain people than it was to be wealthy.
This emphasis on families had a great influence in the practical management of slaves as well. Douglas Kelly has noted, "Southerners held to a view of domestic servitude in which they felt that the slave was in some sense a member of the larger family circle, with commensurate duties and privileges."12 Slaves were, in most places, viewed and treated as members of the family.
3. Generosity and hospitality. The Southerner, often because of his isolated or semi-isolated condition, fairly craved visitors (both of strangers as well as family and friends). If you were privileged to keep an honorable traveler, his visit was regarded as a great benefit to your house. It was the equivalent of "entertaining angels unaware."
Christianity also laid the foundation for courtesy and respect. The Bible teaches that all men are created after God's image and that we are to esteem others better than ourselves. It was viewed a mark of an extreme lack of grace to be discourteous without just cause. The oil of society was courtesy and deference to one another.
4. Household independence (personal responsibility). Southerners did not expect others to take care of them nor would they have allowed such a thing as long as they had the capability of caring for themselves. God expected each to use his strength and gifts to provide for himself and his own. And the man who refused to do that was "worse than an infidel." The irresponsible welfare mentality simply did not exist.
5. Honesty and integrity. You always will have scoundrels, but in general, Southerners had habits of fair dealings ingrained in them from both pulpit and hearthstone. Your word and good name were most important. Nothing was more despised than a swindler and thief. Nothing more scorned that a man who would sell principle for advantage. Henry Laurens of South Carolina once said to a British advocate, "God knows I am a poor man; but your king is not rich enough to buy me!"13
6. Respect for law and lawful order. Christianity produced both a fierce determination to defend liberty as well as a deep respect for godly law and order. This was the basis for the respect which prevailed in the South for common law which had been the foundation of England's judicial structure. The common law is based (from a Christian perspective) upon the fact that there are principles of justice ultimately established by God Himself which overrule the laws of men and under which all men are subject regardless of who they are. No king or legislature can enact a law that supersedes or sets aside the common law. Nor is there any need for kings or legislatures to ratify common law. No law of men may contradict or contravene the common law.
It was this that molded the South's view of tyranny. When the North sought to combine against the South and by pure majority overthrow the Constitution, the South felt itself duty-bound to defend the old ways. Secession was not driven by a desire to rebel but by a zeal to preserve the old order. A. H. Stephens made this very point: "The real object of those who resorted to Secession, as well as those who sustained it, was not to overthrow the Government of the United States; but to perpetuate the principles upon which it was founded. The object in quitting the Union was not to destroy, but to save the principles of the Constitution."14
Robert E. Lee stated the matter similarly: "All that the South has ever desired was that the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved, and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth."
7. Southerners, a people of "holy memory." Practical intelligence and common sense were widespread, of course, but here I refer to the fact that they understood the importance of liberty and the dangers of the abstract ideas of statist utopianism. While the North took pains to obliterate the past, the South refused to forget. They remembered the dangers their grandsires faced from a government which tried to control all areas of life and thought. They remembered the persecution and injustice their ancestors suffered, and knew the dangers of men who thought they knew what was best for the rest of the people. There was an ingrained aversion to anything that smelled of centralism and hinted at the infringements of basic, God-given liberties.
The presence of these traits made the South the last bastion of Christendom. With the defeat at the hands of the North in 1865 and the ravages of Reconstruction, far more was lost than the old Confederate States. The defeat of the South marked the end of the old order which had prevailed since the founding of the country. It was the beginning of a new era such as had not been seen in this country.
Thus, these things which once marked the South are no longer present. The erosion of Biblical Christianity that has occurred over the last century has left the South a bare shadow of its former self. Many Southerners are now realizing what has been lost in cultural terms but fail to realize the true cause for this loss. It has not been caused by the opposition of the liberals, the silly lawsuits of the ACLU, the screaming meemies on MTV, or the droves of Yankees moving down every other week. It has been caused by the rejection of the historic Christian Faith of the Reformation. A culture cannot retain the fruits of Christendom without the Faith which alone is able to produce those fruits. The frantic grasping for political power (through a revived Republican Party and the "conservative" movement) is a poor substitute for the water of life. When the Faith has been destroyed, there is little point in engaging in political tinkering.
The only hope for the South (and, of course, for our country as a whole) lies in rejecting the false gods of humanism both of the radical and the conservative type and returning to the Faith once for all delivered to the saints. Reformation can come only when we cease to rely on revolutionary faith and tactics. Liberty and true blessedness cannot exist where the Spirit of the Lord is dishonored. This is the indispensable prerequisite for godly culture.
*****************************
Footnotes:
1 Russell Kirk, America's British Culture (Transaction Publishers, 1994), 1.
2 ibid., 2.
3 Obviously, when I speak of the regions ("The North was this way" or "the South was that way") I am speaking in generalities. I am aware there were many exceptions in each region to the dominant characteristics I am noting.
4 There were, of course many imperfections in Southern society. Pride and arrogance (which led to the problem of dueling) and the institution of slavery with its attendant abuses and injustices were only a couple of the more prominent sins of the South. The adherence to Biblical standards, however, insured that these sins were viewed as sins and not as acceptable or approved behavior. They were consistently denounced by faithful preachers. (See in regard to opposition to dueling, Clayton E. Cramer, "Duels & Deliverance in the Old South," The Shotgun News, vol. 54, issue 15. For the opposition to slavery's abuses see Eugene D. Genovese, A Consuming Fire: The Fall of the Confederacy in the Mind of the White Christian South [University of Georgia Press, 1998]).
5 Ernest T. Thompson, Presbyterians in the South (John Knox Press, 1963), vol. I, 221.
6 Quoted by Anne C. Loveland, Southern Evangelicals and the Social Order (Louisiana State University Press, 1980), 41.
7 Thompson, Presbyterians in the South, 220.
8 ibid.
9 ibid., 42.
10 ibid.
11 America's British Culture, 22-23.
12 Preachers With Power, xv, xvi.
13 Thomas N. Page, The Old South, 48.
14 A. H. Stephens, A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States, vol. I, 31.
Rev. Steve Wilkins is pastor of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, Louisiana.
a "reconstructional" BUMP
Great stuff. If you keep posting stuff like this you really WILL be enemy-of-people both on and off FR. I am waiting for the flames to begin, so I hope you're wearing your asbestos suit tonight.
But seriously, this is great stuff. Thanks for posting it!
A culture cannot retain the fruits of Christendom without the Faith which alone is able to produce those fruits. The frantic grasping for political power (through a revived Republican Party and the "conservative" movement) is a poor substitutem for the water of life. When the Faith has been destroyed, there is little point in engaging in political tinkering.
I've been saying this since 1980. Political "reformation" will never work. Reagan (& even Rush) talked about "God", but the only God to be worshipped is the one that is revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Someone once said, "God has no grandchildren." Truer words were never spoken.
Excellent article . . . and every word the truth. Thanks! BUMP
Awesome post...I'm copying it to the side so I can read it again later.
flag.
Bumped, bookmarked, and any other way possible to get more to see this
With the defeat at the hands of the North in 1865 and the ravages of Reconstruction, far more was lost than the old Confederate States. The defeat of the South marked the end of the old order which had prevailed since the founding of the country. It was the beginning of a new era such as had not been seen in this country.
This cannot be denied in any way shape or form by Northern revisionists who claim the war was about slavery. Just another example of the rights of the states and their citizens to be suppressed. The 'old order' of putting God before anything else is no longer there.
They remembered the dangers their grandsires faced from a government which tried to control all areas of life and thought. They remembered the persecution and injustice their ancestors suffered, and knew the dangers of men who thought they knew what was best for the rest of the people. There was an ingrained aversion to anything that smelled of centralism and hinted at the infringements of basic, God-given liberties
Truer words were never spoken. The seven points the author makes about the South are quickly disappearing, because of ridicule. Southern States used to have laws about marriage and divorce. With the influx of Northern principles, they are quickly being thrown to the wayside because people get unhappy being married. Well, as I do my daily readings in the Word, I don't remember Christ(oops there's another one of the ideals) saying that our main concern should be to be happy at whatever cost. No our main concern is to follow the Word, witness to others, and live our lives as we've been taught in the Bible. The Bible even says we will face daily attacks at the hands of those who belong to the world. The standard has been drawn and this country is at a crossroads of deciding if we are truly "one nation under God."
They're talking about Presbyterians and Calvin. Any comments?
But they knew there are certain things that are none of your business and you had best resist the temptation to run other people's lives for them.
Where then are all the southern libertarians? In what areas are these Calvinist Christians unwilling to "run other people's lives for them"?
"This cannot be denied in any way shape or form by Northern revisionists who claim the war was about slavery. Just another example of the rights of the states and their citizens to be suppressed. The 'old order' of putting God before anything else is no longer there."
Keeping the union together meant higher profits, did it not? Hence the prime motive for the Union.
Hence the prime motive for the Union.
Of course, although they were too wily to come right out and say so. Especially after the war, the truth had to be prettied up for posterity. That this was an effective ploy can be seen even today in the rantiings of the South bashers.
"Hence the prime motive for the Union. (PROFIT) "
"Of course, although they were too wily to come right out and say so. Especially after the war, the truth had to be prettied up for posterity. That this was an effective ploy can be seen even today in the rantiings of the South bashers."
Well that is my understanding of it. But at the same time, profit, especially keeping it at immediate pre-war levels and raising it would have meant continued use of slave labor.
I had to read it again. Bookmarked.
bump
It has not been caused by the opposition of the liberals, the silly lawsuits of the ACLU, the screaming meemies on MTV, or the droves of Yankees moving down every other week. It has been caused by the rejection of the historic Christian Faith of the Reformation.
Absolutely true. A great article. Thank you for the post.
Right you are. The California life is so much BETTER!
Thank you for a very valuable post.
Your servant, sir.
Edd
bump for later. thanks.
BUMP!
Excellent article! No matter what side you take, it cannot be ignored that there were strong, deep-rooted issues involved. I think this helps explain why the North, and Lincoln especially, resented secession so vehemently.
BUMP!
Excellent article! No matter what side you take, it cannot be ignored that there were strong, deep-rooted issues involved. I think this helps explain why the North, and Lincoln especially, resented secession so vehemently.
Culture: having a superior social, intellectual, and artistic level of achievement.
Southern culture: an oxymoron.
The truly cultured never call themselves cultured and never defend their status. It would be childish petulance, the equivalent of, "I am too cultured, so there."
The truth is, there is more faith in the South.
Mark Twain said, "there are those who scoff at the schoolboy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the school-boy who said 'Faith is believing what you know aint't so.'"
'Faith is believing what you know aint't so.'
That is not the definition of faith; it more accurately describes foolishness. An example of such foolishness is denying the knowledge of God that we all have (Rom.1:18,19 and Ps.14:1). These that do so judge themselves to be wise and proclaim themselves so, but God judges them accurately as fools(Rom.1:21,22).
"That is not the definition of faith...
That is correct. It is a quote from Mark Twain about something a schoolboy said.
A culture that refuses to recognize the loving Trinity seeks unity by force (totalitarianism and statist egalitarianism), and thus tends to be characterized by harshness, bitterness, and cruelty (as Islamic and communistic cultures are and ever have been).
I guess the way forward requires faithful proclamation of the Triune God, and steadfast efforts to enjoy His beneficent reign over heart, family, church, and city.
I don't remember Christ... saying that our main concern should be to be happy at whatever cost.
Mt 5:1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Do you know what "blessed" means?
John 10:10 ...I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
Do you suppose that abundance is misery?
Mr 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
Lu 18:30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.
Do God's blessings make us unhappy?
1 Tim. 6:17 ... the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
These are just a few verses that come to mind. There are thousands that teach us that the purpose of our life is our enjoyment of it, which means, living in His will, for there is no happiness outside it.
Consider the cost of all these blessings before we say, it is not at all costs.
BUMP for more to see. Great post. Thanks!
Quoting Mark Twain shows where your culture is. Don't confuse "Culture" with snobishness.
bttt
Quoting Mark Twain shows where your culture is.
I'm not sure what that means, unless you think being erudite is snobishness. I quote other sources also. See Post 25 on this thread.
It may just be my Northern bias, but whenever I read an article like the above I get the creepy feeling that at least a large precentage of Southern Christian Reconstructionists want to replace "statist utopianism" by something like "evangelical utopianism".
If the message of the reconstructionists were based more on mutual tolerance and sounded less like government-led indoctrination of religious values, then you would probably scare fewer people and find less resistence.
Someone once said, "God has no grandchildren."
Then I would suggest that you no longer heed the words of this not-quite-quotable "Someone." There are a great many who would take issue with your simplistic homily, concerning this extremely complex, admittedly esoteric topic.
Truer words were never spoken.
How do you know that? Have you any new information, beyond that which is public knowledge? If so, send me an e-mail at once. If not, then please refrain from applying human moral equivalencies to the god(s). The repertoire of analogistic imagery possessed by most humans can be stretched only so far.
"Right you are. The California life is so much BETTER!"
I hope you're kidding. As a person, born in Louisiana and now working in California, I can tell you that your statement has about as much power in it than our homes during a rolling blackout.
One reason the South has been able to maintain its hold on the "Bible-belt" is because of its agrarian roots. To prove my point, answer this question: What state is considered more responsible for trying "new" things that, unfortunately, finds its way across the nation? Answer: California.
California has always wanted its "ears tickled" by claiming to be "progressive" and has thus been responsible for such "great" initiatives as Gay Rights, PETA, Sierra Club, et al. Even the technology boom, which was touted as an industry that will save us time and energy, has led to skyrocketing divorce rates and a substantial decline in morality. Conversely, the South has always cast a skeptical look at "new fangled things" and the possible affect they would have on a deep-rooted belief system. For the most part, the South has had to be MADE to change things in order to comply. This reluctance to change has, I think, been what has kept many destructive things out of the Southern mindset, that is, until recently.
Yeah, the South may be behind the North on industry and technology and so-called "progressive thinking," and I pray that she will always be. Especially as the North gets closer to the edge of the cruel abyss of destruction.
I was being sarcastic brother. I am from and I am in the South today. BTW, I was stationed in Lake Charles eons ago and am still an honorary Cajun. Want my advice? Leave California on the Southern Express now!!(The poster to whom I responded was flying a California flag).
bump
A little American Calvinist history here.
As soon as I get a chance, I'm outta here!
Thanks. Bookmark bump.
Thanks for the article. While the antebellum South was never by any means perfect, it did possess a godly character which has been in the process of erosion since the end of the Civil War.
Good!
If the message of the reconstructionists were based more on mutual tolerance and sounded less like government-led indoctrination of religious values, then you would probably scare fewer people and find less resistence.
Actually, if you read the article above carefully, a certain tolerance is espoused as characteristic of the South that Christianity influenced as opposed to non-Christian cultures. I know of no reconstructionist that promotes government-led indoctrination of religious values. OTOH, they do recognize that all governments have legislation that is based on someone's religious values and it is naive to think otherwise.
For example, please note the following paragraphs from the above article which speak about diversity and tolerance:
Trinitarian orthodoxy produced a society where both unity and diversity could coexist. It is only within God Himself that we find the solution to the ancient question of the one and the many. God is both one and three. Both unity and diversity are equally ultimate in Him. Christian cultures have always had a place for both "oneness" (unity, structure, form) and "manyness" (individualism and diversity). Only in the Triune God and in His covenant can we find unity that does not annihilate legitimate diversity and vice versa.
Thus, only in Christian culture can you have unity and diversity, unity and freedom. In imitation of the Triune God, there is a unity of faith and purpose and yet there is no demand for uniformity of personality. There is a unity without the assimilation of the individual into the whole.
The general theological consensus that existed in the South gave rise to a prevailing tolerance among the populace. Sincere men were respected (even though they might be wrong in their choice of denominations!). Convictions were held strongly; but for those who sincerely sought to be faithful, the judgment of charity prevailed.
In unitarian and atheistic cultures, you find just the opposite. There is usually a demand for a stifling egalitarian conformity in order to preserve unity. Unitarianism views God not as a Person, but as an impersonal force. There is and can be no "love" in God (since His monism makes it impossible to express love within Himself), and thus the culture, reflecting this view of God, becomes cruel and heartless. A culture that refuses to recognize the loving Trinity seeks unity by force (totalitarianism and statist egalitarianism), and thus tends to be characterized by harshness, bitterness, and cruelty (as Islamic and communistic cultures are and ever have been).
As far as how reconstructionists view the role of the state, I will just defer to these words from an article by Andrew Sandlin on this issue:
Because we believe that the Bible should apply to all of life, including the state; and because we believe that the Christian state should enforce Biblical civil law; and finally, because we believe that the responsibility of Christians is to exercise dominion in the earth for God’s glory, it is sometimes assumed that we believe that capturing state apparatus and enforcing Biblical law on a pervasively unbelieving populace is one of our hidden objectives. Our critics sometimes imply or state outright that we are engaged in a subtle, covert attempt to capture conservative, right-wing politics in order to gain political power, which we will then use to "spring" Biblical law on our nation. This is flatly false. We do not believe that politics or the state are a chief sphere of dominion.
It is understandable why many people assume that we do hold this position, however. We believe firmly in social change. Liberals believe firmly in social change. Liberals believe that social change is the effect almost exclusively of politics and state coercion. For example, they believe that we can change society by means of state-financed and governed "public education"; health, education, and welfare programs; and speech codes. In other words, they believe, like communists, that man is essentially a plastic being that can be fundamentally reshaped by external means -- education, wealth, health, penitentiaries, and so forth. Since no later than the French Revolution, most civil governments in the West have believed that social change occurs by revolution, not by regeneration. When, therefore, liberals (and even some alleged Christians) see us supporting and working toward social change, they presume that we are interested in political power. In simpler words, because they believe in social change exclusively by means of politics, they assume that anyone who supports social change or gets involved in politics is attempting to gain state power in order to further a social agenda.
This is a serious miscalculation. We believe in regeneration, not in revolution. Men are not changed fundamentally by politics, but by the power of God. Men’s hearts are changed by regeneration (Jn. 3:3). They are translated from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of God’s dear Son (Col. 1:13). From that point, they progressively work to reorient their lives and every sphere they touch in terms of God’s holy, infallible Word. Long-term, pervasive social change is the result of extensive regeneration and obedience by the people of God. This means, of course, that there can be no Christian society of any significance or longevity unless a large number of its members are Christians.
We do encourage Christian political involvement, but not for the reason that many people suppose. In fact, we believe it is important for Christians to get involved in politics because we do not believe politics is too important. The great problem with modern politics is that it is used as an instrument of social change. We at Chalcedon passionately oppose this. The role of the state is in essence to defend and protect, in the words of the early American Republic, life, liberty, and property. It is to reward the externally obedient by protecting them from the externally disobedient (Rom. 13:1-7). Its role is not to make men virtuous; we have a name for civil governments that attempt to create a virtuous society: totalitarian. Biblically, the role of the state is to suppress external evil: murder, theft, rape, and so forth. Its role is not to redistribute wealth, furnish medical care, or educate its citizens’ children.
We do believe that the state one day will be Christian, but this no way implies that the role of the state is to Christianize its citizens. The Christian state is highly decentralized (localized). Our objective, therefore, in supporting Christian political involvement is to scale down the massive state in Western democracies, reducing it to its Biblical limits. We do not believe in political salvation of any kind.
I hope that the above will help clear up any misconceptions about these matters.
GWB, thanks for the bump.
However, as you read this article, you get the impression that the writer believes that the only pure Christianity to set foot on these shores was contained in the South.
This would be news to my Congregationalist, Calvinist Connecticut 17th century ancestors. Even though I am a SOUTHERN Baptist (of Calvinist, Reformed persuasion), and even though the denomination of my ancestors has become apostate, I still expect that they are part of that "great cloud of witnesses". (Hebrews 12:1)
Interesting.
However, as you read this article, you get the impression that the writer believes that the only pure Christianity to set foot on these shores was contained in the South.
I got the impression that the whole country was Calvinist at the outset but the North gradually abandoned it while other cultural influences diluted it slowly in the South but a stronger fundamentalism in Calvinist outlook prevailed in the South for a considerable time.
I think the view of strong Calvinism throughout the colonies is well-supported. I'm sure you recall your own remarks on Uriel's excellent article supporting this view. You may recall this was your first admission of Winthrop ancestry dating to 1629, a dark family secret.
Heh-heh.
Thanks for the link to the article by Uriel. It deserves to be bookmarked and it was.
That's "Winthrop Expedition" ancestry, not Winthrop ancestry. Reading the material available from that time, it appears that my ancestors had a bit of a falling out with Winthrop, leading to their move to Connecticut.
Glad you enjoyed it. Uriel is tireless at digging these nuggets out for everyone.
off underline
try again.
Great post. Just yesterday our pastor, whose sermons I usually like, as he preaches Scripture, talked about slavery in the US and he repeated all the basic half-truths and untruths that us "Yankess" are fed since childhood. He said, MUCH to my amazement, that those who upheld the institution of slavery, CARTE BLANCE - no exceptions _ were not "true" christians!!!!! Wow, I was floored, but had mercy as that is how I used to "think"...I think US slavery was indeed often sinful, and contrary to Scriptural slavery, and I guess I woulda joined the Yanks in fighting, BUT I ain't gonna go and call all those who defended slavery with the Bible as ALL being hypocrites, etc....
Great post and so true.
Iy you southerners are so devout then shouldn't your screen name be 'Heck Monkey' or 'Hades Monkey' or 'Monkey of Eternal Damndation', something like that?
Ping. Here it is, JW.
Hell is a biblical word, NS, not a curse word or a scatological term. Maybe you shouldn't worry so much about our devotion. Your insistence on interjecting snide comments into discussions of a culture you claim doesn't exist is telling.
What? Jesus used the word "hell." Oh, I forgot, He was born in SOUTHERN Israel.
Remind me to explain the concept of a 'joke' to you two guys sometime...
ping
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
Would it be too much to ask you to close your tags when you post?
Sure, a joke. Excuse me if I don't laugh at your ethnic jibes. A joke to you may be an insult to someone else.
Give it up two. This is a certified nut who signed up about one month ago and has nothing better to do than disrupt otherwise nice threads. Check him out on the "Things Southerners Know" thread if you really want to see a complete smug idiot in action. Please don't waste any good time on this fool.
This from the person whose only debating term is, "Eat it!"
Yes, I've run into him before, on the first thread he ever posted to, in fact. He told me that he's my "worst nightmare". I'm still chuckling over that.