I am writing this diary to encourage Kossacks to read the front-page essay in Harper's by Jeff Sharlet. The view advanced in the essay differs in illuminating ways from that which might be gleaned from reading Frederick Clarkson diaries. In particular Sharlet believes that Rushdoony is most important for proposing the view that there is a Christian view of history which promotes the right-wing causes of capitalism being Christian and the importance of Christians being prepared for war. Rushdoony is also important because Francis Schaeffer was his student (I didn't know this before).
Sharlet starts the article with a bang: we cannot assume that fundamentalists are the fundamentalists of the past. For two points, they are middle class and not willing to believe that heterosexual sex is intrinsically sinful. The view of history being peddled by influential fundamentalist sources is a clue to the relationship between fundamentalists and secular society. Please continue on the flip.
First of all, fundamentalists are happy to seize on religious references such as those made by the Founders or the Northwest Ordinance which had a provision for encouraging religion in the schools. Fundamentalists are also more willing to take religious revivals of the past seriously.
Second, those whom Sharlet interviews show little regard for the value of religious difference. Representative individuals attribute the beginning of America's spiritual decline either to the New Deal or to the decision Everson v. Board of Education, which allowed a school district in New Jersey to continue using its buses to transport students to Catholic schools. Although this decision would appear favorable to religion, Justice Black in the opinion wrote that
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this:
(1) Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.
This opinion extended the Establishment Clause to the states and banned any favor to any specific religion, since the dangers of government support of established churches were a key motivation for the First Amendment. The kind of historical thinkers Sharlet is writing about show no evidence of acknowledging that if a state could have an established church or favor one religion over another, the first use of this power would be to promote favored versions of Christianity and they would most likely be in the position of the "Dissenters" in England of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Interestingly, one minister has a daughter named Torah and had a shofar-blower, whom he even correctly named a "baal tokea", at his event.
This appears to me to be putting forward a belief that religious difference doesn't really exist or that "Judeo-Christianity" is real.
(The diarist confesses to religious arrogance but gets excellent mussar from Matthew Krell in this department)
I believe it was the same minister who said, emphatically, "History is collective". This allows Sharlet to round off nicely with the observation that there are also mythic events in the secular version of history, which are interpreted so that everyone believes that the American creed was lived out. However this also supports a main theme of the essay.
Sharlet gives about a page to the evangelical hero-worship of Stonewall Jackson, who was a very pious man and only the aggressive person of his legend on the battlefield. Stonewall Jackson is seen both obeying orders from Caesar and being a mighty warrior because of his faith. Because ordinary people have faith, they can be spiritual warriors both against the forces of Satan and against the enemies of the United States. Evangelical history comes back again and again to the single person who "could do all things through Christ who gives them strength". Because the single person gave their life to Christ the collective was uplifted and acquired strength and the single person had eternal honor.
Chronicles I is interesting in this context because it also operates on two levels. Besides the genealogy, much of what happens here is repeated in Samuel, and the Book appears to be a grab bag of historical information
in case everything else was lost. Some of the genealogical records in particular seem to be related because they were extant, without making clear who is related to whom. So a secular historian is justified in using the Book as a source like any other source. But the Book culminates in the arrangements which David made of the priests and Levites to serve in the Temple and the arrangements for Solomon to build the Temple. Also there is relation of what a prophet said to David twice. Everything which is said about David and the nation of Israel is for their honor because they were able to glorify the spiritual world at one time.
(IMHO Kings is written almost entirely on the spiritual level because as the list of kings goes on, our author is chiefly interested in what each king did about idolatry.)
The actual article has much better writing and should provide additional food for thought to those reading.