Why is it that American Christianity is so distinct in its colors and tastes and actions? What marks American Christianity as distinct from historic Christianity? It doesn't take a genius to observe. It is that American Christianity is plainly "American." That is, Christianity in America has become more American than it has become Christian. Witness the consumerist culture of American Christianity today. It is this way "today" because "yesterday" it was forged in the ideological fires of freedom, individualism, pragmatism, and as a result Christianity in "Amur-ca" only makes sense to the man on main street if Christianity is "relevant," if it is "practical," if it is "successful," etc.
In the first chapter of The Lost Soul of American Protestantism entitled "The American Way of Faith," D. G. Hart paints a picture representative of the initial devolution of Christianity in America.
Billy Sunday, the famous Presbyterian Evangelist, is a fine representative for the increasingly popular Christian Evangelical movement. Sunday was so influential for several reasons. First, simply because of his "rags-to-riches" story as a Major Leaguer who went from poor small town boy to famous ballplayer for the Chicago Whitestalkings (Whitesox). Second, because Sunday spoke to the "common" man in the "common language." The language he spoke was not the typical airy theological discourse which marked high church ceremonies, but rather it was the "idiom of the urban common man."(p.2) Thirdly, and most conventional, was his radical/charismatic behavior in the pulpit.
Here in Sunday we note what is most important to Americans still today when seeking religious fulfillment. We find "success" stories, we find the "relevance" of addressing and speaking in a way that appealed to the common-man, and lastly we find the "charisma" necessary for winning and entertaining audiences. Success, Relevance, Charisma are all significant tell-tale signs of a purely American-brand of Christianity. This raises the question of whether or not these characteristics are least of all, inexpedient; or worst of all, wrong. Nonetheless, these are symptomatic of 19th century American-born religious experience, not historic Christianity.
This sort of way of "doing Christianity" became not only tell-tale of purely American religion, but it became the ever-dominating form of evangelical Christianity beginning in the 19th century and continuing until the current day. Hart quotes Robert Baird, a 19th Century American Religious Historian, who said "Evangelical Christianity is the dominating religious force... it shapes the religious character of American people." (p.5) Evangelicalism would have been defined differently during the 19th century since it included mainline denominations. Today, it represents the conservative branch of protestant Christianity which stands apart from the mainline denominations.
What was the engine that drove the highly influential movement of American Evangelicalism? Hart addresses this question next. The "particular genius of 19th century American Protestantism was revivalism." Among the revivalist mentality of the era, the most important activity promoting the revival was the "camp meeting." There at the camp meetings the general ere of the people was expectational. Expectational of the "moving of the Spirit" to the reviving, first of all, of sinners hearts to be converted instantaneously. This usually happened given the heavily emotional and psychologically-motivated "preaching." Sinners would hear messages of highly picturesque words painting the torments of the hottest fires imaginable. (I specifically remember as a child talking to my "unsaved" friends about how science had discovered fire that is so hot that it couldn't be seen, it was black fire! I told my unsaved friend that that was the fire in hell and they better get saved.) Nonetheless, the important thing about the revivals was that they brought instantaneous and practical results. Once one was converted he was now to live as a saint and not a sinner thus abating the totality of the tide of evil in society and making for a better America. Revivalism ignored theological precision and doctrine and thus Christian understanding was demoted to simply the "making" of better citizens. Ironically, as Hart notes, "... as much as revivalists like Billy Sunday may have preached about the world to come, the piety thy sought from the converts was essentially this-worldly. It is no wonder, then, that Baird identified evangelical Protestantism as the most influential church in the 19th-century America." (p. 8)
As revivalism flourished, so did the denominations that practiced it. By 1850 the Methodists and the Baptists were the largest denominations in America. In the 18th century they were the smallest denominations. Hart notes that in 1800 the Methodists comprised 2.5% of the religious adherents in the US, but by 1850 they were the majority at 34% then to be taken over by the Baptists in 1900.
Where can this revivalist mentality be traced? To what do we explain conversionism's/revivalism's origin? Hart traces the beginning of the movement back to primarily George Whitefield, a 18th century Church of England priest who came to the U.S. with an aim at humanitarian aid for his orphanage in Georgia, though Jonathan Edwards definitely set the tone for viewing revivalism as a favorable experience. What Whitefield did was to set the tone for viewing the Christian faith primarily on individual/affective/emotive terms rather than on historic/doctrinal/dogmatic terms. When one considers the newly enlightened views of individual rights and autonomy it is no wonder that Christianity became primarily a matter of the affections and disregarded formal ecclesiastical institutions for its formality and hierarchies. Religion in America now joined the "free market." (p. 12)
Revivalism prospered following George Whitefield's queue. Following Whitefield we find the likes such as the Wesley's, Billy Sunday, C. G. Finney, D. L. Moody, Billy Graham, to name only a few. As revivalism has prospered, so has evangelicalism power and influence within the American social story. Not only was revivalism responsible for contributing to the larger society, but it was responsible for shaping the every-day life of the convert. Because revivalists preached a conversion followed by specific pietistic actions, the revivalists began to control the daily lives of its adherents. And since doctrinal astuteness and correctness was rarely among the ranks of those listed pietistic actions, doctrine rarely acted in any authoritative matter. What mattered was how you lived, not what you believed. So it didn't matter if I couldn't explain why I believed God was Trinitarian, but it did matter if I did not drink beer.
This is probably why George Whitefield attracted the sympathies of the likes of people such as Benjamin Franklin. Franklin surely appreciated the moral emphasis Whitefield had been preaching, but Franklin could in no way ascribe to the Apostolic teaching of Christ and his church. Since doctrine wasn't practical or even useful, doctrine was set aside in favor of what was practical and what was useful, the living of "holy" lives, which translated meant, "separation" from the world and its activities. Hart writes, "In other words, conversion involved much more than adhering to certain religious beliefs or following specific devotional practices. Instead, it extended to changes in behavior and appearance." (p. 15) So infidelity to the faith was now measured against how one was living in accordance with the system of pietistic expectations rather than against whether or not one could confess the Nicene Creed. Any one that tolerated "worldliness" (joking, gambling, drinking, dancing, fiddling, cockfighting, etc... [p. 15]) was leading people down the wide road to destruction.
Eventually as evangelical Protestantism grew and moral reform was the test of faith, the "goodness" and "rightness" of the new American religious experience could not be questioned. Voluntary societies were formed and moral living was emphasized. Who would deny that freeing slaves or educating the poor or healing the sick were noble fruits of the revivalist mentality that swept the country? I know of no sane man who would criticize such efforts for the tremendous good which it accomplished. But what was the basis of the movements? Christian charity to be sure, however the movement was a movement for the sake of the Society rather than the sake of the Church. What good does it do if you heal the sick but disease his soul by teaching insufficient doctrine? Not only did the mainline denominations who watched the evangelical movement approve, but they finally joined in on the movement embracing not only its moral reform, but also its religious techniques of relevance, pragmatism, emotionalism, and self-autonomy.
Given the success of the movement and its unquestioned assumptions given its exceeding moral emphasis, the "formal structures and practices of the Protestant Church life" were done away with. (p 17) Now that the popular religious expression of Christianity found in the revivalists was granted full-acceptance among the common people, the movements ideological assumptions soon began to surface. Hart notes three main ideologies as "anti-creedalism, anti-clericalism, and anti-ritualism." (p. 17)
Creeds represented man-made religion. They were authoritative statements that one could not "choose" to accept. Rather creeds are imposed belief statements which flies in face of all libertine American democratic thought, and most of all creeds smelled of the beleaguered aspects of traditionalism. Clerics represented the eliteness of religion, the oppression of the common man's way to God. Since there is no mediator between God and man, so also priests had no right to impose their systems of order and thought on the common man. With creeds and clerics dismissed from structured positions of order, the revivalists to precedent against the rituals of the faith. No longer was baptism the meeting of the divine and the human, but baptism was simply a "picture" or an "symbolic event." Ceremonies were emptied of all historic value for the fact that the ceremony was reminiscent with Roman Catholic idolatry. Any thing that reminded one of Catholicism was to be shunned with relentless vigor. Hart writes, "... the arrival of large numbers of Roman Catholics in the 1830's and 1840's, which encouraged Protestant fears of the Pope and the Catholic Church, guaranteed the victory of revivalist over churchly Protestantism because the people's religion of mainstream Protestantism could be clearly differentiated from the perceived priestcraft of Rome." (p. 19)
With the throwing of the churchly order via creeds, priests, and ceremonies, the Bible became only source of authority. Given revivalist ammunition based upon their ill-informed interpretation of reformation principle "sola scriptura" the common-man assumed control of Church and declared that he needed no guide but his mind, his Bible, and the Spirit. Since all men had direct access to God, this would be the preferred method of learning the truth. There was no need of Creeds, clerics, or ceremonies. This attitude developed primarily out of the enlightenment view the man, in and of himself, is capable of clearly understanding all truth with no help. Christianity was a private affair and thus so also was one's spirituality. The Church is in effect unnecessary to the promotion and maintaining of true Christianity.
In essence, the revivalistic roots of pietism added the the decentralization of the historic "Church" so that church was little more than a place where individual believers met to gather around a personality who would try to help people live better lives. Hart writes, "Clergy, creeds, rituals, and church order did not matter since they did not affect the heart noticeably... Like a vitamin, the institutional church was merely supplemental.
Christianity in America, thus, became purely a democratic enterprise which emphasized its practicality, relevance, charisma, individuality, pragmatism, and the list goes on. The Church and its tradition was jettisoned in favor of revivalism's camp meetings and voluntary societies. Personal experiences validated ones faith rather than assent to specific beliefs about God and the world as preserved in the Church. Popular religion's connection to the historic past was lost and what now passes for Christianity in evangelical churches is hard pressed to validate itself as anything remotely Christian in origin.