What do you think?
Rate this book
American Covenant: A History of Civil Religion from the Puritans to the Present
The long battle between exclusionary and inclusive versions of the American story
Was America founded as a Christian nation or a secular democracy? Neither, argues Philip Gorski in American Covenant . What the founders envisioned was a prophetic republic that would weave together the ethical vision of the Hebrew prophets and the Western political heritage of civic republicanism. In this eye-opening book, Gorski shows why this civil religious tradition is now in peril―and with it the American experiment.
American Covenant traces the history of prophetic republicanism from the Puritan era to today, providing insightful portraits of figures ranging from John Winthrop and W.E.B. Du Bois to Jerry Falwell, Ronald Reagan, and Barack Obama. Featuring a new preface by the author, this incisive book demonstrates how half a century of culture war has drowned out the quieter voices of the vital center, and demonstrates that if we are to rebuild that center, we must recover the civil religious tradition on which the republic was founded.
Was America founded as a Christian nation or a secular democracy? Neither, argues Philip Gorski in American Covenant . What the founders envisioned was a prophetic republic that would weave together the ethical vision of the Hebrew prophets and the Western political heritage of civic republicanism. In this eye-opening book, Gorski shows why this civil religious tradition is now in peril―and with it the American experiment.
American Covenant traces the history of prophetic republicanism from the Puritan era to today, providing insightful portraits of figures ranging from John Winthrop and W.E.B. Du Bois to Jerry Falwell, Ronald Reagan, and Barack Obama. Featuring a new preface by the author, this incisive book demonstrates how half a century of culture war has drowned out the quieter voices of the vital center, and demonstrates that if we are to rebuild that center, we must recover the civil religious tradition on which the republic was founded.
336 pages, Paperback
Published June 25, 2019
46 people are currently reading
444 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
March 20, 2017
Summary: Traces and argues for an American civil religious tradition combining prophetic religion and civic republicanism that avoids the extremes of religious nationalism and radical secularism.
Philip Gorski is one who has looked at the history of America's culture wars and asks if there is another alternative to what he sees as the extremes of religious nationalism and radical secularism. He believes that there is and that it has a long history. He proposes that there may be a form of "civil religion" that is not invidious and that it is critical that we retrieve and strengthen a tradition that he believes has been at the center of our national life and combines what he calls "prophetic religion" and "civic republicanism." He calls this "prophetic republicanism."
Although Gorski suggests that the reader may skip chapter one, I would argue that it is essential to understand how he defines the above terms, which he will use throughout the book. I would particularly recommend keeping a marker on the diagrams on page 19. To briefly summarize, religious nationalism is sees America as a divinely chosen nation and fuses religious fervor, patriotism, a willingness to shed blood and often an apocalyptic vision in triumphing over evil. On the other hand, radical secularism tries to deny any positive influence of religion in our history or any expression of it in the public square. Civic republicanism understands that sovereignty rests with the people but can only succeed where civil virtue exists. Prophetic religion is the strain that continues to call the nation to justice and righteousness for all people, epitomized in the presidency of Lincoln and the lives of W.E.B. DuBois and Martin Luther King, Jr. among others.
The next six chapters survey our history in six periods: the New England Puritans, the American Revolution, The Civil War, The Progressive Era, the Post-World War II era of Jews, Protestants, and Catholics, and the period from Reagan to Obama, where he believes the prophetic republican position was corrupted and almost recovered. In each period, he traces both the development of a civic republican tradition and the religious nationalist and radical secularist strains. He not only survey events but offers a tour on American intellectual history from John Winthrop through Hamilton and Jefferson, to John Calhoun and Frederick Douglass in the Civil War period.
The chapter on the progressive period was most fascinating as he explores John Dewey, Jane Adams, W.E.B,. DuBois, and Reinhold Niebuhr. On the extremes, we explore the religious nationalism of evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson, and the radical secularism of H. L. Mencken. In the post World War II chapter he introduces us to the works of Hannah Arendt and John Courtney Murray, the Catholic social thinker. He then argues that beginning with the Reagan years, we witnessed a corrupting of a civic republic tradition toward a religious nationalism, offset by Democrat leaders who tilted toward a radical secularism until Obama tried to revive something of a civil religious tradition, although the author argues that this failed to return to republican ideals.
He concludes by arguing for the superiority of prophetic republicanism over the alternatives and some modest recommendations for how a healthy civil religious tradition that supports prophetic republicanism might be implemented. He contends,
"...we are, or at least aspire to be, a sovereign and democratic people. We are part of a collective, multigenerational project, an ongoing effort to realize a set of universal political ideals--above all, freedom and equality--from within the confines of a particular historical trajectory. Some of us are thrown into this project by birth; others enter into it by immigration. We are part of an ever-expanding river, flowing through historical time toward an uncertain future. Our civic conversation concerns those who have entered and exited the stream before us, and the course we hope to steer into the future. It is a dialogue in which quiet conservatives and open-minded progressives might become reengaged."
I do believe Gorski offers a rendering of our history and a vision of what we need to recover that is compelling. I also sense that there is indeed a group of people, perhaps a majority of Americans, who long for a recovery of the kind of prophetic republican tradition he articulates. They wish neither to commit America to a religious crusade nor divorce spiritual values from public discourse. They sense power continues to be concentrated into the hands of the few and that the will of the people is not being heard. Rather than culture war, they want to recover a vibrant public square and deliberative processes that pursue the best approximation to common good possible for fallible humans.
What I wish I could talk with Gorski about is what prospects he sees for such a recovery and from whence would it come? In our post-Citizens United, highly gerrymandered, toxically divisive political scene, what is the way back? It seems only an engaged citizenry with a clear vision shaped by the kind of prophetic republicanism Gorski writes of, could counter the polarized and concentrated power we see on our federal government scene. What most troubles me is that most of the responses I see are merely competing forms of outrage rather than a civic vision seeking the common good of all our people.
Gorski's book provides, on a high level, the kind of education for citizenship, for republican virtue (not of the party-type) that we desperately need. It is the kind of education needed with our rising generation, as well as for all who sense that neither of the extremes of our culture war offer a good vision for our national life. It offers a substantive alternative and not a bland compromise to our polarized discourse. I only hope someone notices.
__________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
Philip Gorski is one who has looked at the history of America's culture wars and asks if there is another alternative to what he sees as the extremes of religious nationalism and radical secularism. He believes that there is and that it has a long history. He proposes that there may be a form of "civil religion" that is not invidious and that it is critical that we retrieve and strengthen a tradition that he believes has been at the center of our national life and combines what he calls "prophetic religion" and "civic republicanism." He calls this "prophetic republicanism."
Although Gorski suggests that the reader may skip chapter one, I would argue that it is essential to understand how he defines the above terms, which he will use throughout the book. I would particularly recommend keeping a marker on the diagrams on page 19. To briefly summarize, religious nationalism is sees America as a divinely chosen nation and fuses religious fervor, patriotism, a willingness to shed blood and often an apocalyptic vision in triumphing over evil. On the other hand, radical secularism tries to deny any positive influence of religion in our history or any expression of it in the public square. Civic republicanism understands that sovereignty rests with the people but can only succeed where civil virtue exists. Prophetic religion is the strain that continues to call the nation to justice and righteousness for all people, epitomized in the presidency of Lincoln and the lives of W.E.B. DuBois and Martin Luther King, Jr. among others.
The next six chapters survey our history in six periods: the New England Puritans, the American Revolution, The Civil War, The Progressive Era, the Post-World War II era of Jews, Protestants, and Catholics, and the period from Reagan to Obama, where he believes the prophetic republican position was corrupted and almost recovered. In each period, he traces both the development of a civic republican tradition and the religious nationalist and radical secularist strains. He not only survey events but offers a tour on American intellectual history from John Winthrop through Hamilton and Jefferson, to John Calhoun and Frederick Douglass in the Civil War period.
The chapter on the progressive period was most fascinating as he explores John Dewey, Jane Adams, W.E.B,. DuBois, and Reinhold Niebuhr. On the extremes, we explore the religious nationalism of evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson, and the radical secularism of H. L. Mencken. In the post World War II chapter he introduces us to the works of Hannah Arendt and John Courtney Murray, the Catholic social thinker. He then argues that beginning with the Reagan years, we witnessed a corrupting of a civic republic tradition toward a religious nationalism, offset by Democrat leaders who tilted toward a radical secularism until Obama tried to revive something of a civil religious tradition, although the author argues that this failed to return to republican ideals.
He concludes by arguing for the superiority of prophetic republicanism over the alternatives and some modest recommendations for how a healthy civil religious tradition that supports prophetic republicanism might be implemented. He contends,
"...we are, or at least aspire to be, a sovereign and democratic people. We are part of a collective, multigenerational project, an ongoing effort to realize a set of universal political ideals--above all, freedom and equality--from within the confines of a particular historical trajectory. Some of us are thrown into this project by birth; others enter into it by immigration. We are part of an ever-expanding river, flowing through historical time toward an uncertain future. Our civic conversation concerns those who have entered and exited the stream before us, and the course we hope to steer into the future. It is a dialogue in which quiet conservatives and open-minded progressives might become reengaged."
I do believe Gorski offers a rendering of our history and a vision of what we need to recover that is compelling. I also sense that there is indeed a group of people, perhaps a majority of Americans, who long for a recovery of the kind of prophetic republican tradition he articulates. They wish neither to commit America to a religious crusade nor divorce spiritual values from public discourse. They sense power continues to be concentrated into the hands of the few and that the will of the people is not being heard. Rather than culture war, they want to recover a vibrant public square and deliberative processes that pursue the best approximation to common good possible for fallible humans.
What I wish I could talk with Gorski about is what prospects he sees for such a recovery and from whence would it come? In our post-Citizens United, highly gerrymandered, toxically divisive political scene, what is the way back? It seems only an engaged citizenry with a clear vision shaped by the kind of prophetic republicanism Gorski writes of, could counter the polarized and concentrated power we see on our federal government scene. What most troubles me is that most of the responses I see are merely competing forms of outrage rather than a civic vision seeking the common good of all our people.
Gorski's book provides, on a high level, the kind of education for citizenship, for republican virtue (not of the party-type) that we desperately need. It is the kind of education needed with our rising generation, as well as for all who sense that neither of the extremes of our culture war offer a good vision for our national life. It offers a substantive alternative and not a bland compromise to our polarized discourse. I only hope someone notices.
__________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
November 11, 2018
Probably the single most important book on the divide in America and the loss of civic republican spirit. Everyone who is concerned about finding our way to the center should read this book
March 3, 2018
Gorse's very thought-provoking and well-researched book surveys many variations of the American civil religion going back to the Puritans. Civil religion is hard to define, but it's basically the idea of a common mission and set of principles of a people or nation that links generations over centuries. It could also be defined as the purpose of a nation. What is America for? What are its principles? What is it supposed to do? Who gets a hand in shaping this tradition? These questions are all tied into the CR concept.
Gorski's book isn't strictly academic; he's putting forth an argument both about how this tradition evolved and why a certain version of the CR is the best for ensuring a vital center in the US that can contain disagreement, encourage civility, cultivate active citizenship, and help us live up to our best ideals. His preferred version of the CR is a mix of prophetic, covenantal religion and civic republicanism. The first part builds on the idea of a covenant between God an a people, a contract that offers God's special protection in exchange for a higher standard of behavior. Peoples within such a covenant should be wary of seeing themselves as chosen because of their superiority; rather, as the Puritans saw it, they were chosen in spite of their irreparable flaws to receive an extra burden. This idea creates the sense of a national purpose, a mission to create a "city on a hill," to found the world's first large republic, to save democracy from dissolution and slavery, etc.
The second part, civic republicanism, derives ultimately from Greece and Rome, but more immediately from English traditions surround the English Civil War and the restoration of the monarchy. Civic republicans believe in constitutional government, the separation of powers, the limitation of executive power, the participation of citizens in government, and an ethos of public-mindedness and service. They believe that the power of the elite few must be balanced by that of the ordinary masses lest the republic slip into oligarchy or anarchy (think Aristotle here). Unlike classical liberals, they are skeptical of the Hobbesian/Lockean social contract idea of how governments are formed. Rather, they see human beings as naturally social creatures who form constitutional structures to balance different parts of the population. Also unlike classical liberals, they believe that civic virtue is necessary for a republic to survive. No system that relies purely on balancing self-interested people through clever incentives and constitutional structures can survive without a basic sense of virtue among the population, which means that should be a central part of education and citizenship. The American civil religion, at its best, lies at the intersection of these traditions. His major figures in the promulgation and development of this tradition include some you might not expect as well as some classic figures: John Winthrop, the founders, Douglass and Lincoln, Jane Addams, WEB DuBois, John Dewey, Reinhold Niebuhr, MLK JR, Barack Obama, and others I'm forgetting.
Gorski sees 2 major enemies to this tradition, both of which are sort of bastardized forms of the good CR. One he calls religious nationalism, which is more of a blood, faith, and soil version of American patriotism united around a racially and religiously limited understanding of citizenship, a willingness to ride roughshod over the laws and the rights of others in the name of "the people," aggression abroad, and a lack of self-criticism that is so important to the good civil religion. He says that this tradition in the US has reached its nadir in the modern Christian right with its obsession with sexual virtue but embrace of brutal market values, its lack of tolerance, its all-or-nothing, with me or against me approach to politics, and its inability to formulate a sense of what the public good is (as in, only what's good for their group is the public good). Obviously Trump fits perfectly in this tradition; previous figures include Calhoun, the Klan, nativists/scientific racists, and Jerry Falwell types. Gorski treats Reagan as a softer version of this kind of civil religion who was sunny in his outlook but deeply uncritical of his nation and willing to promulgate a cheap form of citizenship largely based on getting rich and minimizing the state.
The second bastard form of civil religion is actually where I started to disagree with Gorski. He calls this tradition radical secularism. He treats it as an offshoot of classical liberal ideas in which the people owe nothing to each other, nor to their ancestors, nor to God, nor to the state. The purpose of the government, in this view, is to let people be isolated social and economic actors. Rather than seeing religion as an acceptable part of national identity and civic discourse, in an intolerant version of the Enlightenment (read: French) they see religion as the implacable enemy of reason and freedom and seek to banish it from the the public square. He fits a few people into this category, but it isn't clear that this is a major tradition in the US (might be in European countries).
I have a few problems with this argument. First, Gorski overlooks crucial changes in liberal thinking that altered the civil religion and put forth new roles for the state, new visions of the common good, and new concepts of citizenship. He hints at John Dewey and Jane Addams' arguments about broader social responsibilities and a positive role for the state in addressing social problems, but then he totally skips the New Deal and FDR! Hard to really criticize the liberal political tradition without discussing this stuff, which recast citizenship, reimagined the role of the state, and basically put American politics on a totally new trajectory. I think a much more potent left-of-center bastardization of the American CR would be the left wing position, derived from a rejection of the Enlightenment, that sees the US as an inherently scarred, almost irreparable nation and mirrors right wing religious nationalism with its own poisonous form of identity politics. It's hard to blame the liberal political tradition for this lot, which has a totally separate set of philosophical foundations.
These problems aside, this is a compelling and necessary work. While it has some highly academic sections, I'd recommend it to anyone concerned about the loss of the vital center in American politics and the growing tribalism we are witnessing. I think the concept of civil religion can help restore vitality to the center, a conscious knowledge that political moderation doesn't have to be mushy or weak and doesn't mean just splitting the difference between radical poles. Rather, it means understanding a tradition of constitutional government, liberal individual freedoms, broader civil/social responsibilities, shared sacrifices, the limitation of factional and tribal power, the constraining of the wealthy few or the unruly many, and the creation of a civil public square in which dialogue can occur. I am NOT someone who thinks both sides are equally at fault for current problems, but I do think this book would help each side rethink the purpose of America and the responsibilities of citizens to each other.
Gorski's book isn't strictly academic; he's putting forth an argument both about how this tradition evolved and why a certain version of the CR is the best for ensuring a vital center in the US that can contain disagreement, encourage civility, cultivate active citizenship, and help us live up to our best ideals. His preferred version of the CR is a mix of prophetic, covenantal religion and civic republicanism. The first part builds on the idea of a covenant between God an a people, a contract that offers God's special protection in exchange for a higher standard of behavior. Peoples within such a covenant should be wary of seeing themselves as chosen because of their superiority; rather, as the Puritans saw it, they were chosen in spite of their irreparable flaws to receive an extra burden. This idea creates the sense of a national purpose, a mission to create a "city on a hill," to found the world's first large republic, to save democracy from dissolution and slavery, etc.
The second part, civic republicanism, derives ultimately from Greece and Rome, but more immediately from English traditions surround the English Civil War and the restoration of the monarchy. Civic republicans believe in constitutional government, the separation of powers, the limitation of executive power, the participation of citizens in government, and an ethos of public-mindedness and service. They believe that the power of the elite few must be balanced by that of the ordinary masses lest the republic slip into oligarchy or anarchy (think Aristotle here). Unlike classical liberals, they are skeptical of the Hobbesian/Lockean social contract idea of how governments are formed. Rather, they see human beings as naturally social creatures who form constitutional structures to balance different parts of the population. Also unlike classical liberals, they believe that civic virtue is necessary for a republic to survive. No system that relies purely on balancing self-interested people through clever incentives and constitutional structures can survive without a basic sense of virtue among the population, which means that should be a central part of education and citizenship. The American civil religion, at its best, lies at the intersection of these traditions. His major figures in the promulgation and development of this tradition include some you might not expect as well as some classic figures: John Winthrop, the founders, Douglass and Lincoln, Jane Addams, WEB DuBois, John Dewey, Reinhold Niebuhr, MLK JR, Barack Obama, and others I'm forgetting.
Gorski sees 2 major enemies to this tradition, both of which are sort of bastardized forms of the good CR. One he calls religious nationalism, which is more of a blood, faith, and soil version of American patriotism united around a racially and religiously limited understanding of citizenship, a willingness to ride roughshod over the laws and the rights of others in the name of "the people," aggression abroad, and a lack of self-criticism that is so important to the good civil religion. He says that this tradition in the US has reached its nadir in the modern Christian right with its obsession with sexual virtue but embrace of brutal market values, its lack of tolerance, its all-or-nothing, with me or against me approach to politics, and its inability to formulate a sense of what the public good is (as in, only what's good for their group is the public good). Obviously Trump fits perfectly in this tradition; previous figures include Calhoun, the Klan, nativists/scientific racists, and Jerry Falwell types. Gorski treats Reagan as a softer version of this kind of civil religion who was sunny in his outlook but deeply uncritical of his nation and willing to promulgate a cheap form of citizenship largely based on getting rich and minimizing the state.
The second bastard form of civil religion is actually where I started to disagree with Gorski. He calls this tradition radical secularism. He treats it as an offshoot of classical liberal ideas in which the people owe nothing to each other, nor to their ancestors, nor to God, nor to the state. The purpose of the government, in this view, is to let people be isolated social and economic actors. Rather than seeing religion as an acceptable part of national identity and civic discourse, in an intolerant version of the Enlightenment (read: French) they see religion as the implacable enemy of reason and freedom and seek to banish it from the the public square. He fits a few people into this category, but it isn't clear that this is a major tradition in the US (might be in European countries).
I have a few problems with this argument. First, Gorski overlooks crucial changes in liberal thinking that altered the civil religion and put forth new roles for the state, new visions of the common good, and new concepts of citizenship. He hints at John Dewey and Jane Addams' arguments about broader social responsibilities and a positive role for the state in addressing social problems, but then he totally skips the New Deal and FDR! Hard to really criticize the liberal political tradition without discussing this stuff, which recast citizenship, reimagined the role of the state, and basically put American politics on a totally new trajectory. I think a much more potent left-of-center bastardization of the American CR would be the left wing position, derived from a rejection of the Enlightenment, that sees the US as an inherently scarred, almost irreparable nation and mirrors right wing religious nationalism with its own poisonous form of identity politics. It's hard to blame the liberal political tradition for this lot, which has a totally separate set of philosophical foundations.
These problems aside, this is a compelling and necessary work. While it has some highly academic sections, I'd recommend it to anyone concerned about the loss of the vital center in American politics and the growing tribalism we are witnessing. I think the concept of civil religion can help restore vitality to the center, a conscious knowledge that political moderation doesn't have to be mushy or weak and doesn't mean just splitting the difference between radical poles. Rather, it means understanding a tradition of constitutional government, liberal individual freedoms, broader civil/social responsibilities, shared sacrifices, the limitation of factional and tribal power, the constraining of the wealthy few or the unruly many, and the creation of a civil public square in which dialogue can occur. I am NOT someone who thinks both sides are equally at fault for current problems, but I do think this book would help each side rethink the purpose of America and the responsibilities of citizens to each other.
August 16, 2024
An academic book which is intended for a broader audience but in need of a stronger editor. Still too technical in some places. But the information itself is excellent and eye-opening. His denouement is insightful and achievable. I wish this material was taught more broadly in plainer language.
December 31, 2020
This book deserves more attention than it has received. It is a careful and forthright articulation of the American civil religious tradition and its development from Puritan New England to the Obama presidency, as well as a compelling argument for the necessity of reclaiming the fullness of that tradition from a political factionalism that in recent decades has spiraled away from the vital center and toward the twin shoals of a corrosive radical secularism and an insular religious nationalism.
The American civil religion, in Gorski’s view, combines the tradition of classical republicanism—pagan in origin but inflected with the Hebraicism of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries—with the Jeremiadic social justice legacy of the Hebrew prophets, forming a consensus of basal assumptions about the contours of the American national identity that Gorski terms Prophetic Republicanism. This tradition emphasizes the fundamentally political and cooperative nature of human beings (as opposed to the radical individualism of secular liberalism), the importance of civic participation and the orientation of public institutions toward the common good, the necessity of cultivating both classical and Judeo-Christian virtues for the maintenance of a self-governing state, the criticality of balancing not only government institutions but also social orders to preserve the res publica, and the moral imperative to ensure equal human dignity and to protect the poor from the violence and exploitation of the rich.
At a time when the corporatization of political power, the alienating tendencies of digital media, and the social atomization engendered by a superficial cultural libertinism have undermined our sense of shared national identity and provoked an alarmingly militant spirit of separatism, this book could serve as a vital contribution to a uniquely American postliberalism and help revive a much-needed sense of common purpose and belonging.
The American civil religion, in Gorski’s view, combines the tradition of classical republicanism—pagan in origin but inflected with the Hebraicism of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries—with the Jeremiadic social justice legacy of the Hebrew prophets, forming a consensus of basal assumptions about the contours of the American national identity that Gorski terms Prophetic Republicanism. This tradition emphasizes the fundamentally political and cooperative nature of human beings (as opposed to the radical individualism of secular liberalism), the importance of civic participation and the orientation of public institutions toward the common good, the necessity of cultivating both classical and Judeo-Christian virtues for the maintenance of a self-governing state, the criticality of balancing not only government institutions but also social orders to preserve the res publica, and the moral imperative to ensure equal human dignity and to protect the poor from the violence and exploitation of the rich.
At a time when the corporatization of political power, the alienating tendencies of digital media, and the social atomization engendered by a superficial cultural libertinism have undermined our sense of shared national identity and provoked an alarmingly militant spirit of separatism, this book could serve as a vital contribution to a uniquely American postliberalism and help revive a much-needed sense of common purpose and belonging.
October 29, 2021
Maybe Gorski is too optimistic in his call for consensus again (he is not really ever able to figure out *how* this return to civil religion in the center will occur) but I applaud him for really trying.
His description of Religious Nationalism vs. Civil Religion vs. Radical Secularism could really be reframed as Evangelicals vs. Most Americans vs. Libertarians. This is the weakness of Gorski's text. In trying to create clear and specific representations of these 3 groups, I think he has cartoonishly simplified the perversions of civil religion (Religious Nationalism & Radical Secularism) into stereotypes. Gorski acknowledges in the early chapters that he does this, but he is never really able to provide a justification as to why he does this. In a book that clearly wants to be taken seriously, why does it not take Religious Nationalism or Radical Secularism seriously?
I think Gorski has clearly found a clear problem in society today between the clash of religion and politics; however, I don't this book will be helpful to anyone who doesn't already agree with Gorski's central argument for compromise because he parodies the people he (supposedly) is trying to win over.
His description of Religious Nationalism vs. Civil Religion vs. Radical Secularism could really be reframed as Evangelicals vs. Most Americans vs. Libertarians. This is the weakness of Gorski's text. In trying to create clear and specific representations of these 3 groups, I think he has cartoonishly simplified the perversions of civil religion (Religious Nationalism & Radical Secularism) into stereotypes. Gorski acknowledges in the early chapters that he does this, but he is never really able to provide a justification as to why he does this. In a book that clearly wants to be taken seriously, why does it not take Religious Nationalism or Radical Secularism seriously?
I think Gorski has clearly found a clear problem in society today between the clash of religion and politics; however, I don't this book will be helpful to anyone who doesn't already agree with Gorski's central argument for compromise because he parodies the people he (supposedly) is trying to win over.
October 10, 2017
I read this book for a reading group at the Center for the Study of Religion and Conflict at Arizona State University in preparation for a lecture by and discussion with the author. The study compelling and important as a catalogue of civil religion (read: opportunity for compromise and unity in the US) before the Trump administration. It is by no means a simple read but I contend it asks and provides multiple answers for the toughest questions facing this country today.
Beyond that Philip Gorski is a fantastic person to be around and deserves all the success he has gained from this book's publication and more.
Beyond that Philip Gorski is a fantastic person to be around and deserves all the success he has gained from this book's publication and more.
June 27, 2017
Gorski flips from 'over my head' to 'I get it' several times in this book, but I felt right in step with some of his theories; such as, there's a lot of power in money and the elite can't possibly understand the way to share that money or that power. Did this start with the Puritans or is it more recently showing its many attributes.
Can those with money and power ever think through the elements of no money, no power, and no ability to understand the mechanics for getting there? I thought Gorski did not touch that question. He certainly discussed our roller coaster ride on what equality has meant in the United States, but I didn't catch that he ever discussed the many categories of intellectual abilities that make up who we are as human beings. Do we need a 'perfect' understanding of how equality fits all types of people, be they prodigy, autistic, criminal etc.
One suggestion he made that I thought warranted reflection: a believer is a bird that lives in a cage; a nonbeliever is an eagle that sours in the clouds. One can put that in a theological box, but I prefer to put it into an ideological box; and if I do that, I like its reflection.
It would be interesting to sit in an university term discussion of this book.
Can those with money and power ever think through the elements of no money, no power, and no ability to understand the mechanics for getting there? I thought Gorski did not touch that question. He certainly discussed our roller coaster ride on what equality has meant in the United States, but I didn't catch that he ever discussed the many categories of intellectual abilities that make up who we are as human beings. Do we need a 'perfect' understanding of how equality fits all types of people, be they prodigy, autistic, criminal etc.
One suggestion he made that I thought warranted reflection: a believer is a bird that lives in a cage; a nonbeliever is an eagle that sours in the clouds. One can put that in a theological box, but I prefer to put it into an ideological box; and if I do that, I like its reflection.
It would be interesting to sit in an university term discussion of this book.
Read
February 26, 2025Summary of the development of contrasting political thought in the United States of America from the beginning through the present moment expressed via a lens of civic religion. Gorski focuses on those who came (white) or were brought in chains (Black) while mostly ignoring those who were already here — though this is an accurate representation of political thought.
Part history, part forecast. Gorski argues that all political thought in this country can be split between individualism and community obligation, and that we have strayed far too close to the individual. We have lost the civic tradition and in doing so we lost ourselves.
Part history, part forecast. Gorski argues that all political thought in this country can be split between individualism and community obligation, and that we have strayed far too close to the individual. We have lost the civic tradition and in doing so we lost ourselves.
August 1, 2017
An exceptional, sweeping, and entertaining read
Gorski's book is important for scholars of American studies, American religion, and political science. It concisely covers civil religion, religious nationalism, and radical secularism, from the settling of America by the Puritans to the Obama administrations. Highly recommended!
Gorski's book is important for scholars of American studies, American religion, and political science. It concisely covers civil religion, religious nationalism, and radical secularism, from the settling of America by the Puritans to the Obama administrations. Highly recommended!
March 4, 2024
Read for senior seminar. Dense at times, but overall very fascinating.
March 9, 2024
Super interesting, but a somewhat tough read due to all of the vocabulary and concepts. I appreciated the last few chapters more.
July 25, 2024
Scan the reviews and you'll get the gist, so what can I add?
To be blunt, reviewers haven't said Gorskis main purpose: that this book is the antidote to both:
a) Christian nationalism, and
b) radical secularism
Surprised by that 2nd point (b)? So was I.
Gorski makes a nuanced case for interpreting the religious and political history of the US as a synthesis or fusion of religion and politics.
Gorski also leverages some unique techniques in this book. For example:
1. long passages are cited - have you heard of 'city on a hill' and Winthrop? Sure, but Gorski cites such sources in full context instead of soundbites. It provides stronger textual evidence for his arguments.
2. revisiting historical figures - Gorski tells his story by revisiting historical figures that we've probably heard but not in the way they've often been told. Cotton Mather was obsessed with an apocalypse, unlike his father; and that re-telling makes Mather Jr.'s viewpoints more understandable.
On negatives: there are some weak points in Gorski's arguments. One is definition. Noll, the eminent scholar on evangelical Protestantism, calls the synthesis of religion and politics in the U.S. "Christian republicanism", and clearly traces its lineage. Gorski basically refers to the same synthetic ideology but in various ways, like "civic religion" or "Hebraic Republicanism", that muddy the main point. These weak points show that Gorski is a sociologist by training, not a theologian or historian.
Nonetheless, I give the book 5 stars because of how convincingly Gorski argues the main point in fewer pages than Noll, and Gorski doesn't tip toe around the current ramifications.
To be blunt, reviewers haven't said Gorskis main purpose: that this book is the antidote to both:
a) Christian nationalism, and
b) radical secularism
Surprised by that 2nd point (b)? So was I.
Gorski makes a nuanced case for interpreting the religious and political history of the US as a synthesis or fusion of religion and politics.
Gorski also leverages some unique techniques in this book. For example:
1. long passages are cited - have you heard of 'city on a hill' and Winthrop? Sure, but Gorski cites such sources in full context instead of soundbites. It provides stronger textual evidence for his arguments.
2. revisiting historical figures - Gorski tells his story by revisiting historical figures that we've probably heard but not in the way they've often been told. Cotton Mather was obsessed with an apocalypse, unlike his father; and that re-telling makes Mather Jr.'s viewpoints more understandable.
On negatives: there are some weak points in Gorski's arguments. One is definition. Noll, the eminent scholar on evangelical Protestantism, calls the synthesis of religion and politics in the U.S. "Christian republicanism", and clearly traces its lineage. Gorski basically refers to the same synthetic ideology but in various ways, like "civic religion" or "Hebraic Republicanism", that muddy the main point. These weak points show that Gorski is a sociologist by training, not a theologian or historian.
Nonetheless, I give the book 5 stars because of how convincingly Gorski argues the main point in fewer pages than Noll, and Gorski doesn't tip toe around the current ramifications.
September 20, 2024
basically a crash course american civil religion with suggested military service
Read
April 2, 2017argument for understanding "civil religion". nice reviews in WSJ and NYT (David Brooks). cath
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews