Whether “Christendom” is necessarily and always bad depends on what it means. Anyway, that is my opinion. I know others will disagree.
So what does “Christendom” mean? Well, there is no universally agreed on definition. Sure, there are dictionary definitions, but scholarly and popular use do not always agree with dictionaries.
Christendom is a social and cultural situation in which Christianity, in some form or other, forms the “glue” that holds society and culture together. But that “glue” can be either hard or soft.
England is an example of “soft Christendom.” The country has an established church of which the monarch is the “Chief Governor,” but she or he and the Archbishop of Canterbury do not necessarily impose either Christianity or the Church of England on everyone. However, the “trappings” of the Church are embedded in the ceremonial, if not the legal or moral, fabric of the country.
And example of “hard Christendom” would be, well, actually, I cannot think of a contemporary example. But it would be a society and culture in which Christianity, in some form or other, is imposed on everyone. I can think of past example such as Spain under Francisco Franco where the Catholic Church was closely associated with the government and society and culture such that non-Christians were required to pay homage to the Church even if they were not members. (I have read eyewitness accounts of non-Catholics being punished for not standing in a certain way, for example head bowed, when a Catholic procession, of which there were many, passed by on the street. My uncle was a missionary in Barcelona during the Franco era.)
So, in my view, there is a spectrum of Christendom. England, clearly an example of Christendom, at one end, and Franco’s Spain or the Massachusetts Bay Colony at the other end.
Since about 1819 the United States has had no established religion or church. The last disestablishment was in Massachusetts in about 1819. Until then, one had to be a member of the Congregational Church to serve in the state legislature/assembly. Since 1819 (or thereabouts), no religion has been established. But has there been Christendom in America anyway?
Well, there are places in the South where conservative Christianity in some form, whether Baptist or Methodist or Presbyterian, has long been considered normative even if people who do not belong to one of those denominations have not been persecuted. Not persecuted, but not likely to be elected to anything.
When I was on the pastoral staff of a Presbyterian church in Texas (1980s), a man joined the church ONLY because he wanted to be elected to some government position and he wanted his “profile” in the newspaper to say he was a member of a Presbyterian church. He made no secret of it. The consistory gave him membership. He never attended.
The same happened in Minnesota when I lived there. Being Lutheran was desirable if you wanted to be elected to anything. A Unitarian was nominated for the state Supreme Court by the governor and the local newspaper interviewed her and asked if she thought being Unitarian might stand in the way of her confirmation by the state senate. She said “No, everyone knows Unitarians are just people who talk about politics a lot.” Well, I don’t remember if she was confirmed or not. But everyone in Minnesota knew that being Lutheran would be helpful if you wanted to be appointed or elected to state or local government.
So, I would say that, yes, some form of Christendom has existed in parts of America after 1819: “soft Christendom.” Harder in Southern states and softer in, say, the Northwest.
Would it be bad if some form of “soft Christendom” existed in America today? What would that look like? Well, it would be a cultural situation where very basic Christian values permeated the social fabric including non-coercion of religion. Tolerance, acceptance of non-Christians would be present BECAUSE true Christianity is non-coercive. But it would be a social fabric permeated with love as a high, if not the highest, value, and one where the weak are cared for, not only by churches but by the public agencies of government.
Not long ago I led a discussion here of The Political Meaning of Christianity by scholar Glenn Tinder. The author emphasized the political meaning of Christianity as the dignity of every individual. Yes, of course, individuals can and many do value the dignity of every individual without religion, but they do that as a matter of personal preference and choice, not with the backing of anything transcendent.
I could say much more about my idea of “soft Christendom” in America and what it would be like, but I’ll save that for another time. For now, I encourage anyone who has not read The Political Meaning of Christianity to do so.
*Note: If you choose to comment, make sure your comment is relatively brief (not more than 100 words), on topic, addressed to me, civil and respectful (not hostile or argumentative) and devoid of pictures or links.*
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In