One week after the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election, the Higher Purpose Forum held a panel discussion addressing the election outcome. Each of three panelists shared their opinion, focused primarily on cultural and spiritual considerations, followed by comments and questions from the on-line audience. The text below is an edited transcript of that meeting. (Discussion unrelated to the outcome of the election has been omitted.)

Brief biographies of the three panelists can be found at the end of this document.

_____________________________

Andrew Wilson, PhD

Professor of Scriptural Studies

HJ International School of Peace and Public Leadership (New York, NY)

My assessment regarding the Trump victory in the election is complicated.  I personally supported Vice President Harris, and I believed from all my indicators that God also favored her candidacy.  Therefore, I was sorely disappointed.

Nonetheless, my deeper concern has been the fraying of the fabric of American society due to the intemperate language and vitriol, as well as changes in social media, and the media atmosphere in general. This has damaged the unity of the American people around political issues.

More than a man of the Right or of the Left, I am fully committed to what Father Moon calls “headwing” thinking, which should be committed to efforts to promote harmony between Right and Left.  Therefore, in keeping with my “headwing” values, I want to congratulate President Trump and all of his supporters. He has my prayers and support.  May he guide America well during the next four years.

America has its religious roots in the Old Testament,^[1] which calls for righteousness and the “fear of God”. Quoting II Chronicles 7:14:

“If my people which are called by my name shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways then I will hear from heaven and I will forgive their sin and I will heal their land.”

I think that is the watchword of many conservative Christians when it comes to politics. So, a large portion of the electorate rejoices because they regard Trump as standing for that sort of righteousness— not in his personal behavior, mind you, but because his policies are seen as rooted in values that promote a kind of Puritan and biblical type of righteousness.

There is a great alarm in the country among many sectors of the populace about the overreach of the LGBTQ movement to try to invade ordinary Americans’ lives, most visibly in transgender participation in women’s sports.

There is alarm over the excesses of the Black Lives Matter movement, with its extremist calls to “defund the police”. Such calls don’t seem to value the important work that the police are doing in maintaining order and deterring crime.  Also, there is alarm over efforts of some to rewrite the American story in a way that would deny the basic goodness of the American enterprise and recast it as no more than the work of avaricious men who trampled on Blacks, Native Americans, and other minorities.

So, although people talk of Trump as a change candidate, there is a deeply conservative streak in the roots of the MAGA movement, which after all means “make America great again” because it wants to reassert the basic goodness of the American story and its Puritan roots.  That movement sees American history as blessed by God and they want to keep going in that direction in order to keep God’s blessing. There is a lot of truth in that understanding of our country.

Those of us who supported Vice President Harris need to understand and appreciate the values and truths of Trump supporters and not demonize them.  There is a basic goodness in America, which is why God has been investing in America for all these years, even as Democrats point out that simply trumpeting American goodness without working to remedy its flaws will not work.

I identify myself as a Democrat who appreciates the values of the Right but at the same time sees a need for balance.  The Democrats need to look at themselves and ask some fundamental questions, like why didn’t the Harris campaign speak about God?  Without God its humanistic appeals often rang hollow.  They didn’t touch people’s souls.

Also, why do Democrats cave to extremist groups and embrace their excesses?  Why do so many people identify progressive politics with the policies of the most extreme Left?  And why did President Biden wait until near the last minute before embracing a sensible immigration policy, when the problem should have been addressed at the beginning of his presidency?  Everybody knew that immigration was out of control.

People on the Left cannot simply rest on their ideals and stand up with high dudgeon and criticize the other side as being somehow morally depraved just because Trump sometimes acts that way.  We need to take a hard look at ourselves and our political positions.  We need to stop the fingerpointing that only exacerbates division and instead work constructively to build bridges.  I’m always looking for people, whether Democrat or Republican, who are interested in building bridges across the aisle.

Now the reason I supported Harris is because I believe that in this era a woman in the White House would have been a positive step towards gender balance and towards empowering God to work in American society.  I believe Vice President Harris would have shown compassion, a virtue that would help heal the rifts in our society.  And I like her vision of a society of inclusion, which I see as aligned with God’s providence. And I believe that she would have America stay the course in supporting its allies in resisting the neo-Communist march of Putin, Xi Jinping and the like.

Yet I understand that in many quarters she would not be welcomed, and in such a partisan environment letting the Right have its way might be a better move for God in the long run. God is a Heavenly Parent, both mother and a father. The feminine side of God is not interested in forcing divine providence on people who are unwilling to receive it.  People have their own portion of responsibility to welcome God’s work wholeheartedly in providential matters.

Therefore, it may be wise to let angry people on the Right have the opportunity to vent anger and bitterness rather than take things to the point of confrontation, with states threatening to secede from the union and even talk of civil war.  Eventually it is hoped that through growth, through experience and through working things out, their better angels can find a foothold.  Likewise, God needs to give the smug elite on the Left a spanking to promote some humility on their side as well.

So, I don’t think that this outcome is bad for either side.  Looking at it from a providential point of view there are gains and losses and there are opportunities that we can build on.

That said, I believe that the providence is moving such that America will eventually find its way to overcome the more unsavory aspects of Trump’s party including, first of all, tribalism that privileges the EuropeanAmerican tribe and its history over other groups that compose America.  “Headwing” should be about people listening to each other’s stories, and they include Black history, Chinese-American history — my wife is Chinese — Native American history, etc.  Each one is a valuable and important part of the American story. We cannot fully understand America today without knowing and appreciating each of these stories.

After all, Unificationists come from many ethnic backgrounds, and many of our children combine lineages from East, West, North and South. We should stand for one world under God.  That means not throwing out textbooks or history projects that seek to highlight Black history, for example. But instead, listening to one another with love, compassion, repentance and forgiveness for past wrongs in order to forge a better American identity that includes everyone.  I fervently believe in that.

Also, I think we will find a way to overcome Mr. Trump’s lack of concern for global warming and the future of the environment.  Mother Moon has voiced her concern about this on numerous occasions.

And I hope America will find a way to overcome the isolationism on the Right that would abandon America’s role as the “Elder Son Nation”^[2] in global affairs, particularly as regards how we treat our traditional allies, including South Korea and nations who aspire to democratic values such as Ukraine.  Many serious global issues – in Korea, the Middle East, Ukraine, Taiwan, the South China Sea and more – will confront Donald Trump when he comes into office.

At the same time, the world has moved from a bipolar world of democratic bloc versus communist bloc, to a brief Pax Americana when America was the lone superpower, to its present state, a multipolar world where no great power dominates, and each great power wants to exert dominion over its sphere of influence.

Maybe Mr. Trump with his transactional mindset will be well suited for the world at this transitional moment of history, for a time when America is in retreat from world leadership.  I’m praying that Trump will be able to inspire the American people about making America great again in the midst of our retreat.

American Christianity is continuing to operate under patterns of thought that come from an earlier time.  In the 1980s Father Moon allied with Jerry Falwell and others in creating the Christian Right as a bulwark against atheistic communism. That Christian Right has continued to flourish, finding other issues in which to make common cause against so-called progressive values, the abortion issue being one of those.

On the other hand, there are many who believe that the providence is moving on, from where Christianity was previously positioned, headed towards a higher and more universal Christian sense of global unity that can bring world peace. The challenge is how to get there, when the bulk of the population doesn’t yet share that vision or has a view which doesn’t include the parental, unifying role of God.

If the kind of global unity that the Left champions, like globalization, actually leads to more problems, people are not going to accept it. Instead, they’re going to fall back on the values that worked in the past, which basically were that America is an exceptional nation which needs to uphold the values that made it great, which are basically Christian Puritan values.  But I would differ with that conservative tendency. I would argue that Americans should not abandon the vision of a global society that can realize a peaceful world, where people recognize the goodness in other cultures and can appreciate God supporting people of goodness everywhere.

_______________________________

Luc Jean

Higher Purpose Forum, Boston

Undergraduate Student, University of Massachusetts (Boston, MA)

I’d like to speak about the election system, both how it is now and my understanding of how the “Headwing” viewpoint seeks to resolve some of the problems that have popped up over the past 8 to 10 years.

Right now, only 37% of Americans approve of President Biden.  Even though Trump won the election, only 44% of Americans approve of him, according to the latest FiveThirtyEight poll, and 44% of Americans approve of Kamala Harris.

If we look back all the way to 2016, even though Trump won the electoral college, he lost the popular vote. But even during that time both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton had low approval ratings.  So, a big issue facing many American voters during the recent elections has been the quality of presidential candidates.

The second issue of note is the rhetoric surrounding the candidates, particularly surrounding Donald Trump.  He’s been called a fascist by Kamala Harris and others in the mainstream media, with some stating, quote, “he wants generals like Hitler” and this sort of rhetoric.  Dr. Wilson mentioned as well that social media manipulation on both sides of the aisle have influenced voters in a very negative way.  There’s a vast mistrust about whether our media today are presenting the facts.

And finally, the issue of money.  A report came out from the New York Times recently that explored how Kamala Harris in just 15 weeks spent $1.5 billion – I’m not misspeaking – in funding her campaign, and yet she still suffered defeat both at the popular vote level and at the Electoral College level.

These issues I believe are slowly becoming systemic – the quality of candidates, the destructive rhetoric surrounding the candidates on both sides of the political spectrum, and the issue of money surrounding presidential election campaigns, such as super PACs and donations from big corporations.

These are issues that the Founding Fathers almost 250 years ago sought to address through the election system created in the Constitution.  They took a lot from both Greek and Roman political philosophy.  For example, Socrates states that the ideal state is not in fact a pure democracy.  He argued that direct democracy does not work. The framers of the U.S. Constitution shared that perspective and therefore created the Electoral College, whereby voters indirectly voted through the use of state level electors.

One reason why Alexander Hamilton, for example in Federalist 58, argued for such an election process is, that “the process of an election affords a moral certainty that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”  So, the Founding Fathers sought to make sure that candidates who were not qualified at all or who had extremely radical and immoral ideas could not become presidential candidates.

Also, the Founding Fathers wanted voters to be well-informed and not drift towards mob rule. They talked a lot about the dangers of mob rule and how the mob can elect candidates who are woefully unqualified.

But we are now seeing that this system is less than fully effective. Candidates who most Americans seriously disagree with are making their way to the nomination stage.  And campaign expenditures are being blown out of proportion in these campaigns, as Kamala Harris’ campaign demonstrates.

So, what can the “headwing” perspective offer as possible solutions to the growing systemic issues facing the U.S. electoral process?

I’d like to start with a quote from the Exposition of the Divine Principle (EDP).^[3]  When describing the “ideal society” in its introduction, the EDP explains that “people would no longer wish to do anything causing pain to their neighbor because God will be within everyone’s heart”.  A radical utopian claim for sure!  But if we look at the new Essentials of Unification Thought^[4] and go to the appendix on page 525, we can find a paragraph proposing what the ideal election system might look like. It proposes that candidates would be nominated not by their own volition, but rather based upon the recommendation of many neighbors, colleagues, brothers and sisters, therefore based upon the will of others who have personal experience with the character and capabilities of the nominee.

Second, an election will not take place in a way that would require an enormous expenditure of money with all the accompanying side effects caused by the influence of super PACs and big corporate donations.

New Essentials of Unification Thought goes on to advocate that after preliminary stages in the election process, the final selection would be made by lottery, accompanied by solemn prayer and appropriate formalities. This procedure would provide assurances and confidence that the election outcome would be in accord with God’s will. Both the elected and those not elected and the voting public would be thankful to God, and would accept the results happily and sincerely.

At first glance this sounds very utopian. When I first read it, I was shocked.  I could not believe it. I thought to myself, “what are we doing, proposing a lottery system?”  But let’s go through it bit by bit.

First, Unification Thought asserts that the quality of candidates will be assured through nomination by peers, where people are nominated by others, not through a political party or their own desire for office, such as we have today.

If we look at how candidates from each political party, Democrat and Republican, are chosen, it’s through a primary process, which is filled with machinations, party politics, and non-transparent party policies. For example, in 2016 Hillary Clinton won the nomination over Progressive Bernie Sanders because Hillary Clinton won what are referred to as the “superdelegates”.  Those are delegates whose votes are not fully determined by the voters. The same thing happened in 2020 and since then former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has been outspoken against those systemic issues in the Democrat Party.

Similarly in the 2024 election Donald Trump was able to abstain from all primary debates having such large support from his own party, whereas the rest of the Republican candidates were not paid attention to nearly as much by voters, as evidenced by Trump’s sweep of the Republican primaries. Therefore, the debates didn’t seem to matter at all.

In contrast, through the mutual recommendation of peers we can start at the local level.  If multiple people are recommending the same person, that guarantees not only quality but also the support of the voters.  For example, let’s say someone in a city neighborhood is being recommended as a candidate in the preliminary election by everyone on the street.  If people take their civic responsibility seriously, the voters will have full control over the election outcome, rather than the outcome being a mix of voters and party policies and politics. Although Unification Thought’s (UT) system seems possible only at the local level, just as a small business goes from one location and a few employees to several locations and hundreds, and eventually thousands, of employees, a system that shifts the nature of nominating and voting for candidates can likewise rise to the national level. This mirrors UT’s methodology of the family, a small unit, being the basis for the organization of the entire society.

Furthermore, this grassroots nomination procedure would substantially remove money from the process, money funding the party, for example.  Also, money required in order to get the candidate known.  If we take this at a local level or even at the state level, if multiple people and eventually maybe tens of thousands are recommending a candidate, there’ll be a lot less need for political advertisements.

Now we turn to the Unification Thought lottery system, the intention is to prevent negative vote manipulation and the need for massive campaign financing. Such a system is a long way off of course and relies heavily on the system being able to yield the highest possible cohort of nominees. In the ideal Kingdom of Heaven or whatever you’d like to call it, if God is in everyone’s heart, then naturally people will accept the results, naturally people will trust the outcome as being God’s will.

But God is not in everyone’s heart, God’s love is not fully reflected within our society, God’s wisdom is not fully expressed in the election system.

Therefore, the electoral system proposed by UT is not possible in the foreseeable future.  But I believe that a grassroots recommendation system encouraging civic responsibility, rather than personal ambition mediated by non-transparent political parties, may be something that eventually could be used to solve the systemic issues we’re facing in our election system. This system would reduce the role of political parties and instead rely on grassroots campaigns for individual candidates. ____________________

James B. Edgerly

Founder, Director of Higher Purpose Forum (Boston, MA)

I am not convinced that Americans cast their votes, as is so often portrayed, based on their own narrow self-interest, their own “pocketbook”.  My hypothesis is quite different than that. I don’t have data to support this claim, but I contend that the way people vote in U.S. presidential elections is based primarily upon their concern for the future of the country, not primarily out of their narrow self-interest.  I’m sure both factors are considered but I believe people vote for president based upon their concern for the future of our country, a country they love.

One striking statistic that came up repeatedly before the recent election is that 70% of the people who said they were going to vote stated that the country was “headed in the wrong direction”.  That is a huge, profound loss of confidence by the U.S. electorate in the future of our country.

So, the question then becomes what exactly is wrong with the “direction of our country”.  I have spent a lot of time on this question on behalf of the Higher Purpose Forum, and I have come up with a number of specific underlying dynamics or changes that are the core of what our country is struggling to cope with.^[5]

I believe that people who say that this country is going in the wrong direction are struggling with or deeply concerned about one or two or all three of these underlying dynamics. In choosing who to vote for, they are considering which candidate can best address these challenges.

The first one I think is by far the most important.

Over the past 400 years, our country has been built around a cultural consensus that came out of our “Mainline Protestant” inheritance. It’s been with us since the Puritans came over on the Mayflower. For numerous reasons, among the thirteen original colonies, the Calvinistic Protestant Massachusetts Bay Colony was the most intellectually and culturally influential. The religious traditions of the colonies gradually gave rise to the prominence of mainline protestant churches.^[6] This has been our country’s primary spiritual inheritance, sometimes referred to as the basis for our “civic religion”.

In the past six decades, the position of “Mainline Protestantism” has gone from being the basis of cultural consensus in our country to being almost completely irrelevant. Now no more than 10% of Americans attend Mainline Protestant churches on a regular basis and even those who do attend are elderly and limited in the scope of their participation. At present, there is essentially no intergenerational transfer of the Mainline Protestant religious tradition. This decline will not be reversed.

With the decline of Mainline Protestantism, we have lost the basis for cultural consensus in our country.^[7] The result of this is that we are engaged in a very serious, high-stakes culture war, of which we’re all aware. We’re not having a civil war, but we definitely are having a cultural war, involving all the leading institutions of our culture and splitting the map between “red” and “blue” states.  Everyone finds themselves on one side or the other of our ongoing cultural war, feeling that the other side is pulling the country “in the wrong direction.”

The second of the three dynamics is that something has happened in the U.S. economy that’s never happened in any other economy before. We have a massive and growing imbalance in the concentration of wealth in our country.  Here’s an amazing statistic.  The top 1% of wealth holders in this country have 10 times the wealth of the bottom 50%.  The top 1% of our country has $43 trillion in wealth (total assets) while the bottom 50% of our country has $4 trillion in wealth.^[8]  There is a grossly undemocratic character to our economic system that leads to very serious and dangerous undemocratic political processes. There’s a widespread sense in our country that the economy and therefore the political system is rigged.

A lot of people feel like they are becoming economic and political outsiders in their own country. They hear that the U.S. economy is growing and improving and that investors are able to continuously multiply their wealth, and yet their own economic circumstances are stagnant. With the advent of artificial intelligence, this wealth imbalance will deteriorate further. The vast numbers of Americans, who hold few or no assets, continuously see the country’s growing prosperity passing them by. They can’t help but feel that the system is grossly unfair, and therefore that “the country is headed in the wrong direction”.^[9]

The third issue – which Dr. Wilson referred to – has to do with tribalism.^[10] The dominant European-American tribe has enjoyed hegemony in all areas of our country for 400 years. That dominance is coming to an end. The European-American tribe^[11] is losing or no longer has hegemony in many areas of American society. This shift away from tribal hegemony has been underway since the success of the Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s and it’s having a profound impact on where European-Americans feel they stand in the economic and political system.

A lot of people who felt that they were once in the mainstream culture of our country are now feeling like outsiders.  This affects the way people see the political process. They see the country headed away from people like them, and therefore seems to be “headed in the wrong direction.”

I don’t know of any other country in history where the dominant tribe has peacefully relinquished control. Can you imagine that happening in Korea, that the Koreans would allow control of their culture and/or institutions to be supplanted by other ethnicities such as Chinese or Japanese?  Think of European countries such as Germany, Italy, France. Loss of hegemony by the dominant tribe is never going to happen in any of those countries. But it is happening here. Many people in the European-American tribe therefore consider the country to be “headed in the wrong direction” and they are organizing themselves and activating themselves accordingly.

Basically, we have these three underlying issues: a loss of the basis for our cultural norms because of the decline of Mainline Protestantism. As Dr. Wilson mentioned, the key area where this comes up is in sexual and family norms.  The second issue is the experience of a large portion of our population that, even though the economy is continuously expanding, they aren’t going anywhere. Indeed, some people are getting very wealthy but “real wages” for most Americans have been essentially flat since the 1970’s.  Thirdly, the loss of power by those in the European-American tribe, who feel like they are now outsiders in their own country.

In this recent presidential election, voters had to decide who was most able to deal with these big challenges.  They had a choice between an unambiguously conservative candidate and an unambiguously progressive candidate. Unlike many U.S. presidential elections in the past, the 2024 presidential election offered voters a stark choice. And, unlike what happened in 2020, the voters chose the conservative candidate as the person who they believe would move the country in “the right direction”.

The outcome of the vote was by no means a landslide. But across almost the entire country, there was a uniform shift away from the progressive candidate and towards the conservative candidate as having the better solution.

 

Discussion

Luc Jean

Both Dr. Wilson and Mr. Edgerly mentioned how on the conservative side there appears to be a desire to return to a Protestant – or, more broadly, a God-centered way of life – and how the Kamala Harris campaign didn’t really talk about God. The conservative side, which won the election, seems to be trying to bring God back into the culture.  I think we’re still trying to figure out how that works in a practical sense.  But I think this election was kind of a statement of at least trying to bring back God into the mainstream of culture.

Dr. Wilson

America’s spirituality has not changed much. And yet, I see this as a process.  To me the best guarantee of good candidates is that the American people, the voters themselves, change. When people change their hearts, they’ll vote for people who demonstrate values that voters stand for.

But I want to just make clear, I think Mr. Trump is extremely qualified to be president.  He is not the intellectual type with elitist qualifications, but in terms of being a master at reading public opinion and at understanding people, what the people are thinking and what they want, he is exceptional.  I think the last president who had that kind of grasp of the public was Bill Clinton. I want to give Mr. Trump every chance to prove himself to be an effective and transformational president in a good way.

James Edgerly

Referring to the three issues I discussed, the first issue, the decline of Mainline Protestantism, is not to be lamented. I consider it to be the forward direction of divine providence. What’s missing is not a revival of Mainline Protestantism as we had it in the past, that is most definitely not going to happen. What’s missing is a spiritual awakening to push the spiritual consciousness of the country forward. This has happened three times in our country’s past. A “Great Awakening” for our time has not happened, it is long overdue and is desperately needed.

Dr. Wilson has referred to the emergence of a broader, universal, pluralistic version of Christianity, not going back to the kind of Christianity that I grew up in as a New England Congregationalist. As Luc Jean said, that no longer wins people over.  The decline of 20^th century Protestant Christianity is an inevitable aspect of providential development. We can romanticize it, but there is no point in trying to go back to that.

The second issue, the gross maldistribution of asset ownership in our country, is a major problem. I have no idea why none of the presidential candidates brought it up even once. It was not even a secondary issue for discussion, and it should have been. Shame on the candidates, shame on the two political parties, shame on the news media covering the campaign. It’s a huge issue in our country.

The third issue, the decline of the hegemony of the European American tribe, again I believe that is providentially destined to happen. It is foolish to pretend that tide can be turned back. For this country to fulfill its historical role, we must create a harmonious global family, a microcosm of humanity. The people of my tribe – European-Americans – have to learn to live as one of many tribes and accept the great contributions that all the other tribes had made and can make.  That change is irreversible and inevitable and it’s a good thing for our country and for the world.

Luc Jean

I think one of the main reasons that Kamala Harris lost was because she did not embrace the traditional family model whatsoever.

Donald Trump was surprisingly moderate, despite what some members of the media were saying, on the issues of family. He never came out against gay marriage, at least in this election cycle.  He never supported a national abortion ban. He advocated that the issue of abortion be left to the states. He appears to have understood that to attract moderate voters he could not take the harsh stance against abortion as his vice-presidential candidate had previously done.

So, I think that was a big flaw in the Harris campaign. She did not embrace the family model, and she went fully the opposite way. A majority of Americans, whether they believe in God or not, do want the traditional family.

Border policy was another primary reason why Kamala Harris lost. The Biden Administration for too long refused to do anything.   The interview where Kamala Harris said she went to the border and meanwhile people in Texas and all the border states are asking, why isn’t anyone dealing with this issue?  We see quantities of fentanyl and other drugs entering our communities and no corrective action is taken.

From the perspective of God, our Heavenly Parent, the first priority in the immigration and boarder policy of the new administration should be to keep our citizens safe from the violence and the drugs, and then go from there.

_________________________________

About the Speakers

Dr. Andrew Wilson’s scholarly books and papers cover diverse topics ranging from world religions and peace to character education and the theory of the spiritual world.  His efforts on behalf of inter-religious harmony led him to write World Scripture: A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts, which has become a standard work of interfaith scholarship and a resource for interfaith worship.

Dr. Wilson joined the faculty of HJI Graduate School of Peace and Public Leadership (formerly the Unification Theological Seminary) in 1985 where he is Professor of Scriptural Studies and Director of Scriptural Research. He earned his bachelor’s degree from Harvard University, a master’s in theology from the Harvard Divinity School, a PhD from Harvard University, and a doctorate in religious education from the Unification Theological Seminary.

Luc Jean is a student of history, philosophy, and religion. He is currently in his final year of the undergraduate program at UMass Boston with a major in history and a minor in secondary education. He also has served as an organizing member of the Boston Higher Purpose Forum.

James B. Edgerly is the founder and director of the Higher Purpose Forum (founded in 2019), an independent project of Unificationism. He has had a dual vocation career in church ministry and business. He served as Senior Pastor for the Boston Family Church for over a decade and was an investor and senior executive in a management consulting firm and several industrial companies. Mr. Edgerly earned a bachelor’s degree at Columbia University and a Master of Science in Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management. He is presently a doctoral candidate at HJ International Graduate School for Peace and Public Leadership.

[1] The story in the (Old Testament) Book of Exodus (featuring the departure from oppressive conditions in Egypt by a religious people, crossing the Red Sea to settle in the promised land of Caanan) was regarded by many of the Founding Fathers as the Biblical reference to support the settlement in the “New World, and creation of the United States (ed.).

[2] “Elder Son Nation” is a term used by Rev. Moon to convey the responsibility of the U.S. to be an example to and an economic and geopolitical supporter of other, less well-endowed nations.

[3] Exposition of the Divine Principle (EDP) published in 1996 (previous versions date back to the early 1950’s) is one of the formative texts of the Unification Movement.

 

[4] Essentials of Unification Thought is a philosophical expression EDP, which is more religious in orientation.

[5] Recent presentations by the Higher Purpose Forum outline five specific challenges (referred to as “Causes of Reaction and Cultural Distortion). This talk refers to three of the five.

[6] The Mainline Protestant denominations are generally understood to include  American Baptist, Disciples of Christ, Episcopal, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church USA, United Church of Christ (includes Congregationalist), and United Methodist.  It does not include Roman Catholicism, Judaism, Evangelical or Pentecostal Protestantism, and Protestant sectarian churches (Latter Day Saints, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witness, etc.).

[7] For a more complete discussion of the decline of Mainline Protestantism, see James B. Edgerly, “The Post-Protestant Thesis: The Decline of Cultural Consensus and Path to Its Recovery” in Journal of Unification Studies (Volume XXIV) 2023.

[8] U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, 2023

[9] For further information on “Economic Democracy” visit the Higher Purpose Forum YouTube channel.

[10] The Higher Purpose Forum considers applying the paradigm of tribalism to understand historical social and cultural dynamics in the U.S. is more fruitful than alternative frameworks such as race, class or identity. For additional understanding of tribalism see Amy Chua, Brian Klass, Mark Pagel, Nato Thompson.

[11] The term “tribal” refers to one’s instinctual awareness of group identity, as opposed to a more limited and traditional idea of tribe as a formal organization with defined membership and leadership.

The “Post-Protestant Thesis” — widely held, or at least not seriously challenged, by scholars of U.S. religious history — provides illuminating insight into the contemporary spiritual culture of our country. The thesis is that from the 1960’s a deep-down, fundamental change has occurred in the spiritual underpinnings of the United States. This change has brought the curtain down on a religious epoch which dates to the arrival of our earliest colonial ancestors, explaining a root cause of our present national uncertainties.

Beginning with the arrival of European colonists in the early seventeenth century, the cultural force guiding the country’s religious, social, and cultural development has been Protestantism. The initial cultural force of Calvinist Puritanism, specifically in established Congregationalism, dominated the highly influential colonies of northern New England through the end of the 17^th century. This strong current broadened into the diversity of “Mainline” Protestant denominations which became the prominent, central feature within the country’s spiritual and cultural landscape.¹

According to the Post-Protestant Thesis, sometime during the 1960’s the institutions of “Mainline Protestantism” began a rapid deterioration, bringing its cultural dominance to an end. As a result, our culture is no longer advancing under the sway of the norms, values framework, worldview, and interests of Mainline Protestantism. In recent decades, other, alternative spiritual forces have become the primary source of influence upon our culture and institutions.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the features and validity of this thesis. Why did this tectonic shift happen? What is the evidence that it occurred? What has taken the place of Mainline Protestantism? What are the consequences of this change?

Obviously, this topic covers an enormous scope of time, events, and ideas. This paper will simplify the task of evaluating the Post-Protestant Thesis by summarizing the perspectives of four authors, and then presenting a consolidated overview based upon a synthesis of viewpoints. For this review, I have selected authors whose writings fall at different times during the roughly six-decade period following the mid-1960’s.

Evidence of Mainline Protestant Decline: Membership, Vitality and Practice

There appears to be virtually no one debating the conclusion that “Mainline Protestant structures…began their irreversible membership plunge in the 1960’s.”² According to writer Joseph Bottum, “the high point of American Protestantism occurred in about 1965, when surveys showed that more than half of the country’s population belonged to Mainline Protestant Churches.”³ His book, An Anxious Age, written in 2014, presents research indicating that under 10% of the population belonged to Mainline Protestant Churches at that time. “The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life” from 2014 shows that number to be 15%.⁴

More recent data, using essentially the same definition of “Mainline Christianity” as is provided in footnote (1) is presented by Robin Burge, who overviewed more recent data in the July 12, 2021 issue of Religion

Unplugged⁵ based on data from the “General Social Survey” (GSS):⁶

“As can be seen, they both tell the same basic story about American Mainline Christianity — it’s in decline. In the 1970s, the GSS indicates that over 30% of all Americans could be classified into a Mainline denomination. But that quickly changed. By the late 1980s, the share of the Mainline dropped below 20%. In the most recent estimates, the Mainline was just about 10% in 2016 and increased very slightly in 2018 to just over 11%. The CES⁷ estimates are slightly higher for the Mainline, but also show a downward trajectory. About 14% of Americans were Mainline in 2008, but that’s down to 12% in the most recent data. But there’s general agreement in these surveys — Mainline Protestants have declined over time and are probably between 10-13% of the population today.”⁸

Just as important as the decline in the membership of “Mainline” Christian denominations as a percentage of the country’s growing population is the fact that the average age of membership is also dramatically increasing. The 2020 Census of American Religion, published by the Public Religion Research Institute, indicates that the average age in the various denominations of Mainline Christianity is 56 years of age.⁹ This is considerably older than the average age of the U.S. population and the oldest among all major religious groups in the United States.¹⁰

Finally, the Pew Forum indicates that measures of “participation” and “practices” of individual members of Mainline denominations has receded more rapidly than is the case with other denominations and traditions. This decline refers to church attendance, daily prayer and evangelism (witnessing).¹¹

Perspectives on the Post-Protestant Thesis Sydney E. Ahlstrom

Sydney Ahlstrom’s perspective on the Post-Protestant Thesis is noteworthy primarily because of his prominence as a religious historian. The first chapter of his 1,200-page A Religious History of the American People (1972), titled “American Religious History in the Post-Protestant Era,”¹² acknowledges the Post-Protestant Thesis, stating that it may have begun as early as the 1920’s.¹³ However, realization of the end of the culture-shaping power of Protestant “evangelicalism” was delayed by several decades. His conclusion is that “Only in the 1960’s would it become apparent that the Great Puritan Epoch in American history had come to an end.”¹⁴ He states that “In the later twentieth century the mythic quality of the American saga has evaporated.”¹⁵

He maintains that the writer of religious history must reinterpret the past in light of this sea-change that has occurred in the contemporary religious landscape. “A new present requires a new past…social and intellectual developments of the last decade have profoundly altered our interpretation of the entire course of American history.”¹⁶ A major reassessment of religious history that Ahlstrom calls for is reconsideration of the emergence of the Black Church.¹⁷

While the first edition of Ahlstrom’s book unambiguously affirms that the U.S. is now in a post-Protestant era, it was written in 1972; therefore, scant historical perspective could be offered. The second edition, published more than three decades later (2004), includes a new and final chapter, “From the Seventies to the Present,” written by David D. Hall,¹⁸ that provides additional insight on the Post-Protestant Thesis.

Hall’s chapter begins by asserting that at the end of the 1960’s there was evidence of an emerging “second reformation,” focused on liberal social activism. The momentum of this modern-day reformation was a plausible replacement for the failing “Mainline.” The achievements of the civil rights movement could be regarded as the fruition of the promise of the social gospel movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Vatican II brought the Roman Catholics into new social justice activism, which had previously been solely the terrain of liberal Protestants. And “the wineskins of worship and piety were being replenished” (p. 1097) by the vitality of the rapid growth of the charismatic movement.

Yet, in subsequent decades the power of liberal denominations, the likely carriers of that anticipated reformation, went into steep decline. A religious observer could cite this decline as evidence of a lost anointing.

In place of this stalled “second reformation,” Hall presents a postProtestant history that I summarize as having five themes.

Liberal – Conservative Split

The locus of growth and activism shifted to “exclusivist” denominations that were detached from and even hostile to the dominant culture. Moreover, their premillennialist eschatology was, in many cases, out of sync with the American cultural mainstream. Hall characterizes this emerging voice as the “strongly nationalist New Right,” explicitly oriented to challenge the social agenda of the more liberal National Council of Churches (NCC).

This new alignment of Protestantism, split into conservative and liberal camps, first became apparent in the 1940’s with the creation of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) as an ideological opponent to the NCC. It is from these earlier origins that we see alliances emerge in the 1970’s and 80’s such as the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition and Focus on the Family.¹⁹ These groups were formed in response to what they regarded as a cultural assault on core American values and the growing threat of left-leaning ideologies. Their causes were the early skirmishes in the cultural wars – initially over school prayer and school Bible readings, Roe v. Wade, homosexual rights, and the advance of “secular humanism.”

Growth of Evangelical and Pentecostal Movements

A second prominent feature of the religious landscape that opened as Mainline Protestantism declined has been the rapid growth and social prominence of Evangelicalism, which apparently peaked in the 1970’s, and Pentecostalism, which by 2000 surpassed Evangelicalism. In the U.S., Pentecostal membership numbers now exceed ten million, with the predominant denominations being Church of God in Christ and Assemblies of God. Expansion of the Pentecostal movement has reached well into the Catholic Church and has even greater momentum outside the U.S.

Catholicism – Stable Membership, Decline in Piety and Priestly Authority

Hall’s verdict on Catholicism in the post-Protestant era is that, due to immigration, its membership is stable. However, participation, confession and conformity with church mandates have been in decline since the 1960’s. Most dramatic is the decline in new seminarians, from 47,000 in 1965 to 5,000 in 1997.²⁰ Many post-Vatican II changes in Catholic culture and the liberalization/secularization of U.S. culture have led to a concomitant decline in priestly authority. The clergy sex abuse scandal, which has plagued the Church since 1985, has severely eroded the goodwill attached to the priesthood, well beyond what is noted in Hall’s chapter.

Pluralism as the New Theme of American Religion

Summarizing various additional post-1960’s religious trends, Hall argues that the new theme of U.S. religion is “pluralism.” This is not new to the U.S. religious landscape but has become prominent and is adding complexity. An important cause of contemporary religious pluralism is the growing presence, largely due to immigration, of Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims, and the continuing strength of the Black church. In addition, the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints and other sectarian traditions continue to thrive, are well educated, and have become increasingly prosperous and culturally influential.

However, pluralism is not a simple, widely shared concept, and is not to be confused with an underlying universalist consensus of values across diverse faith traditions. For some faith traditions, all spiritual paths are seen as valid and virtuous. However, for other traditions that are well established and of increasing influence in the United States, the idea of religious universalism is not acceptable. Exclusivist doctrines are present in many Christian faiths (including Evangelicals and Pentecostals), and among Jews and Muslims.²¹

Preference for Non-Institutional Forms of Religion

Hall’s final point on the post-Protestant religious landscape is that post60’s Americans do not see religious participation in the same way as their parents. Post-Protestant generations are more highly educated and live in a far more dynamic cultural environment. They do not join churches at the same rate, and they join for social rather than doctrinal reasons; their lives are more transient; they donate less and move between congregations more. All these factors contribute to the decline of “denominational” Christianity, further explained elsewhere in this paper.

Younger Americans prefer a religion that is less liturgical, less dogmatic, more personal. They seek multiple sources and diverse formats in their religious life.

William G. McLoughlin

William McLoughlin does not refer to the term “Post-Protestantism.” However, he carefully documents this transition within the context of what he describes in Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform (1978)²² as “The Fourth Great Awakening (1960-1990?).” His book makes three primary points relative to the thesis:

Breakdown of Consensus

A crisis in the legitimacy of our culture and its value-belief system took root in the 1960’s. McLoughlin states this is “a transformation of our worldview that may be the most drastic in our history as a nation.”²³ He regards the earliest shocks to the liberal consensus to be the pessimism that arose from the successes and subsequent disastrous impacts of Mussolini, Hitler and the Soviet Union. These world-level setbacks were followed by successive failures in the U.S.: the inefficiencies of the “welfare state” and the “War on Poverty,” the assassination of three major political figures in the 1960’s, and the quagmire of the war in Vietnam. An atmosphere of doubt, the end of “manifest destiny” and a loss of confidence entered the U.S. consciousness for the first time in our nation’s history.

The conclusion was that “The old priests, pastors, and rabbis simply could not provide answers to the most pressing personal problems, let alone to national and world problems.”²⁴ “At this point, liberalism and neoliberalism, social gospel and neo-social gospel, conservatism and neoconservatism, fundamentalism and liberalism, seem to have reached dead ends.”²⁵

Three Alternative Lifestyles and Philosophies

In the context of the “break-up of the old consensus” new, alternative visions and philosophies were needed. McLoughlin presents three cultural currents of the 1960’s as non-religious attempts to replace the earlier social consensus. These are i) the antinomian “Beat Generation”, ii) the anti-Calvinist “Zen and Other Oriental Alternatives” and iii) the pseudo-religious “LSD, Flower Power, Occult and Rock Concerts” expression.

These alternatives emerged due to a spiritual hunger and openness caused by deep cultural and social uncertainty. However, they did not take root because they are each “profoundly un-American” in numerous ways.²⁶

The Future of the Awakening

McLoughlin concluded, “As we approach the end of the 1970’s, it is clear that the nation is still far from reaching a new consensus in its belief-value system.”²⁷ Among his observations is that the rapidly growing “neo-Evangelical” faith, embodied by religious commitments and the casual and humble personal patriotism of President Jimmy Carter, offered the “most promising movement towards ideological reorientation.” However, McLoughlin finds neo-Evangelicalism to be too escapist, too other-worldly and individualistic in its priorities, and too laden with Fundamentalist authoritarianism to hold up as being a viable source of “new light.”

Joseph Bottum

An author of contemporary influence on our topic is Joseph Bottum, author of An Anxious Age: The Post-Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of America (2014)²⁸. He thoughtfully addresses the Post-Protestant Thesis; however, he is neither a Protestant nor a secularist. Bottum is a practicing Catholic. Here I highlight three central points from his book.

We Live in an Age of Spiritual Anxiety

The moral orthodoxy of present-day political correctness could only emerge in a society that was formerly Christian. We now have a post-Christian culture that presses for public morality, but without the love and redemptive presence of Christ. In the absence of a dynamic Christian community, the political arena is now the forum in which good and evil are confronted. Opponents see one another in sharply judgmental, morally loaded terms. Spiritual anxiety which was once processed through life in a benevolent Christian community life now seeks resolution through political discourse and cultural wars.

The Cultural Mississippi River of Mainline Christianity  Has Dried Up

The reason our culture has evolved into this “anxious age” is because Mainline Protestant Christianity, which for 300 years has been accepted as the spiritual “Mississippi River” of “our cultural landscape,” has all but disappeared. From its peak in 1965, when over 50% of Americans identified with membership in a Mainline Protestant church, most recent polls show that number is somewhere between 10% and 15%, and still declining. Meanwhile, those who do attend on Sunday are of an age well above the U.S. average. Accompanying this decline is a corresponding advance of incivility within our culture and institutions.

A second compelling analogy employed by Bottum to describe post-Protestant America is that of a three-legged stool, apparently reflecting appreciations expressed by de Tocqueville. The three legs, each carrying tensions that dynamically support the others, are participatory democracy, liberating free market capitalism, and constraining and meaning-providing religion. In this equation, Protestantism provided great power because it was not a single, powerful, and therefore vulnerable institution. Rather, the integrity of Protestantism came from it being a chorus, a central cultural consensus coming from a multiplicity of independent religious institutions.

One leg of this three-legged structure has now atrophied. The other two legs struggle to fulfill the missing function so as to keep the national structure in place. The role of religion has been forced upon the ill-equipped legs of democracy and capitalism. A loss of national unity and consensus has become apparent. The question arises — what is to become of our cherished national experiment that has lost its formative structure?

The New Cultural Mainstream

A final yet central point in Joseph Bottum’s version of the post-Protestant thesis: What has become of the former cultural mainstream; and, who forms the new cultural mainstream? He observes that part of Mainline Protestantism has migrated to the fast-growing, conservative Evangelical churches and Catholicism. From these two, a hoped-for new synthesis may have been expected. However, like McLoughlin almost four decades earlier, Bottum concludes that from these recipients of Protestant outflow, a source of “new light” will not emerge to become a source of social consensus. Multiple reasons are provided; the most compelling are that both are remote from the American cultural mainstream — Catholicism because of its symbolically dense and mystical liturgy, and Evangelicalism because of its narrow, authoritarian, non-universal pathway.

Most churchgoers who formed the Protestant mainstream, and more importantly their children (and grandchildren), have simply stopped being Christian believers. They have not maintained the religious loyalties of their parents, but they continue to be the mainstream. They are not religious. However, they have inherited the characteristics of their ancestors, wanting to be good and virtuous people. And, they seek a life of meaning and long for spiritual confidence. Bottum describes them as not being the elite in an economic sense, but rather being the elect in terms of the hold that they retain on the cultural mainstream. Their values are liberal, quite uniform and predictable, and their attitude towards religion is utter disinterest.

Mark Tooley

American Protestant Denominations Are Declining

Tooley, in “Post-Denominational America,”²⁹ concurs that Mainline Protestant churches “began their irreversible membership plunge in the 1960’s.”³⁰ He cites three factors causing this decline:

• The successful entrepreneurship of evangelical Christianity, through radio, television, schools, and independent missions “dethroned” Mainline denominations.
• Mainline denominations were liberalized in the 20^th century and became “hostile to populist piety,” thereby alienating large portions of their membership. In the early and mid-2000’s, traditionalists generally left, creating new denominations, joining other denominations, or departing from institutional church life.
• Like all human institutions, and distinct from the Roman Catholic Church, Protestant denominations have a “limited shelf-life.” They were born in a distinct cultural context which has since evolved, leaving Protestant culture in isolation. Furthermore, in its 500-year history, Protestant denominationalism has evinced a rhythm of

“schism, growth, sclerosis, mergers, decline and death.”³¹

Tooley explicitly agrees with both McLoughlin and Bottum that mainstream denominations have been at the heart of American religious culture and civil society. Their decline has “sad” implications for American civil society. “The Mainline Protestant denominations, with the Baptists and a few others, have been the pillars of American religion and for much of American civil society since the beginning of our republic. All successful movements and communities ultimately need multi-generational institutions to sustain and transmit their message.”³²

Decline of Denominations Does Not Herald the End of American Christianity

As American Protestantism declines, it has entered a post-denominational era. Even within the larger Mainline denominations (particularly the Southern Baptist Convention), individual churches do not strongly identify with their “denominational brand.” Mainline, Pentecostal, and Evangelical believers move freely among congregations. “Many, if not most, non-denominational churches are effectively Baptist in theology and polity, governed congregationally, through elders, and practicing believers’ baptism.”³³

Tooley concludes with the thesis that the traditions that birthed Protestant denominations remain strong and relevant. Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, Wesleyanism, and various forms of Baptists will continue and, in some cases, thrive.

American Protestantism is Reorganizing; a New Expression Will Emerge

Large national church organizations, with celebrity spiritual leaders, embracing subcultures and denominational brand appeal, have lost relevance in contemporary American Christianity. Christians don’t look to prominent spiritual leaders for personal and social guidance. They have turned their attention to websites, independent publishers, social media, informal church circles and beyond.

The centrally organized and socially embracing form of Protestantism is passing away. American Christianity will transition and reorganize in ways that best serve life in contemporary America (paraphrase). At present, this seems chaotic and even discouraging. However, “American Christianity has always been entrepreneurial and adaptable.”³⁴ What may look like a decline is more likely a transition. Evolutions and the constant quest for improvement are characteristic of Protestantism (paraphrase). Therefore, “New forms of Christian vibrancy are emerging.”

A Synthesis of Perspectives A Thesis Now Verified

Drawing from the unambiguous consensus among the sources covered in this paper, the “Post-Protestant Thesis” seems to be a thesis no longer. Rather, it appears to be statistically and empirically verified. I have not found a contrary opinion in any of my research and general reading.

The data, in terms of identification, average age, attendance and discipline/practice is conclusive. This verdict is confirmed by my personal experience visiting Protestant churches. In general, they are poorly attended, almost exclusively by adults in the “empty nest” phase of life, and tepid in terms of spiritual power.

There are certainly numerous powerful exceptions at the level of individual churches under exceptionally gifted leadership. I have visited numerous congregations in this category as well. However, the distinctive conclusion is that the “Mississippi River” that was the Mainline Protestant churches is running dry. Traditional Protestantism is now many decades past its prime, and the trend line continues to point south. It is no wonder therefore that the term “Old-line Protestantism” has come into popular use.³⁵

False Starts

Numerous serious attempts have been made over the past six decades to replace Mainline Protestantism and become the new religious mainstream for our country. My conclusion is that they have stumbled for at least two underlying reasons: i) their own theological and/or eschatological limitations (beliefs), and/or ii) their inability to gain broader cultural traction (leadership, management, organization).

These “attempts” are the “second reformation” devoted to social reform (Hall), liberal Protestantism, perhaps under the umbrella of the NCC (Hall & Bottum), the neo-Evangelical faith (McLoughlin), and “nationalist New Right” (Hall). I consider the energetic, promising, highly controversial, yet culturally out-of-place emergence of the Unification Church Movement (1970 – 1990) to be another important story on this list.

A possibility that has not been adequately explored in this paper is the new Pentecostalism, with 20^th century origins, that transcends denominations (Protestant & Catholic), is vast and fast-growing, rooted in American Protestantism, strong in the U.S. South, interracial from its roots, and world-wide in scope.³⁶ However, Pentecostalism is rather dogmatic and premillennialist. It may not offer the broad, universal source of “new light” which seems to be a requirement for new consensus in our pluralistic religious and cultural landscape. From my reading, Pentecostalism has not been nominated in the literature as a possible source of “new light.”

The End of Social Consensus?

One can argue whether or not a new “social and cultural consensus” (terminology of McLoughlin) will ever emerge in this post-Protestant era. Perhaps the cultural/ethnic diversity, profound religious pluralism, non-negotiable freedom requirements and the intensity of mass culture in our age all argue against the feasibility of a “new consensus.” Perhaps those very harsh social and cultural forces are, in fact, consensus killers.

Indeed, John Bottum’s thesis is not merely post-Protestant, but post-religious. He does not anticipate a new religious or reform movement bringing a consensus-inspiring “new light.” He sees our country’s future to now be in the hands of a secular generation that carries on the moral crusade of Christianity, while having abandoned Christianity itself.

In that case, democracy will move into the future as a two-legged rather than three-legged stool (see Bottum) and will therefore obviously be in jeopardy. An uncivil, residual post-Christian morality will remain – where good and evil continuously contend within secular culture but in the absence of the Christian ethos of forgiveness, individual dignity, agape love, and the hope of redemption.

By comparison, Mark Tooley appears to be hopeful that, owing to its inherent innovativeness, Protestant Christianity will reassemble itself to become sustainable and healthy. However, he does not expect that a new Christian formulation will be sufficient to beneficially impact civic institutions.

The Successor to Mainline Protestantism

An alternative thesis is that an opportunity exists, derivative of our spiritual vacuum. A “providential imperative” must be fulfilled. The established historical pattern of spiritual revival, then cultural awakening, and finally political reform will again unfold.

The Coming of “New Light”

For America’s “three-legged stool” to be stabilized, a new social consensus must emerge. And, if the past is prologue, the creation of a new social consensus begins with the emergence of some form of spiritual leadership, so-called “new lights.” The key ingredient would therefore be revivalists in contemporary form, suitable for the information age, who have new answers, new ways of thinking, showing us the way forward. The formula and style offered by “new lights” must meet the demands of a pluralistic, highly educated, post-denominational religious environment.

In this context, McLoughlin’s writing, though now fifty years old, still seems remarkably relevant and insightful. His answer is “yes,” history teaches us that “new lights” must emerge, though not from Mainline Protestantism. His assertion seems to be that the yet-to-emerge “new light” must remain consistent with the plumbline of U.S. religious history. At the same time, success will require that it be more universal and less premillennialist than what is most prominently offered by Pentecostal and Evangelical Christianity.

The cultural disruption that has taken place in the U.S. since the 1960’s is understood to be more fundamental, and therefore the response likely more demanding, than with previous dislocations in our history. This appears to be proven by the impressive list of “false starts” presented above, and that list lacks an update of new and rehashed ideological and spiritual currents now flowing through our culture. One has the sense that the emergence of “new light” is a long shot, not only desperately needed but long overdue.

General Requirements

The message of religious leaders who bring “new light” must be spiritually transformative, bringing new answers that have broad contemporary relevance and appeal. Drawing further from this essay, the successor movement to Mainline Protestantism must succeed where others have failed, specifically in overcoming the narrow theological and eschatological confines of traditional Christianity and being capable of gaining broader social/cultural traction. Finally, the “new light” must build upon and fully resonate with our spiritual inheritance, referred to above as the “plumbline of U.S. religious history.”

In summary and hoping to avoid being unnecessarily (and inappropriately) analytical, five requirements seem to emerge from this review of the Post-Protestant Thesis. These requirements describe the general challenges to be met by hopeful successors to Mainline Protestantism in becoming the basis for the future spiritual foundation and therefore cultural consensus in our country. They bear thoughtful consideration by spiritual leaders and movements who feel called upon to fill the vacuum in this post-Protestant era. These requirements are:

1. i) Spiritual power to affect personal transformation; ii) non-dogmatic theology and non-premillennialist eschatology, befitting our pluralistic religious environment;

• new answers to address contemporary social, cultural challenges, showing a way forward;

1. ability to create popular traction sufficient to impact culture;
2. resonance/consistency with the plumbline of 400 years of U.S.

religious history.

An important final consideration: John Bottum makes the striking point that Mainline Protestantism succeeded in becoming the basis for the spiritual culture of our country in part because it was made up of a diverse “chorus” of institutions, rather than a single source of religious authority. As a “chorus,” Mainline Protestantism did not need to be infallible, was not threatening, could not be easily vilified, and could be sustained across four centuries. The successor to Mainline Protestantism, that one hopes will emerge as a “providential imperative,” would likely be required to have this same character if it is to succeed in “gaining broad cultural traction.” Accordingly, a sixth requirement may be:

1. an embracing, non-authoritarian style engendering consensus rather than polarization.

Relevant Lessons from the Civil Rights Movement

This concluding section, which proposes there are possible scenarios for establishing a new cultural consensus in the United States, is not complete without emphasizing the relevance of the U.S. civil rights movement (1955 to 1968). The civil rights movement, led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was far and away the most successful and impactful social movement of the past century. One can readily argue that it met all six of the requirements for lasting spiritual and cultural impact listed above. Furthermore, from the brutal, bloody, and hard-fought struggle of the civil rights movement emerged a winning methodology, strategy, and organizational approach.³⁷

Therefore, a follow-on essay, carefully evaluating what can be learned from that struggle is called for. As a sequel to this article, I hope to offer a paper, titled “Seven Lessons from the U.S. Civil Rights Movement” in an upcoming edition of this journal.

 

About the Author

James Edgerly is the founder and Director of the Higher Purpose Forum (2019), an independent project of Unificationism. His dual vocation career included over a decade as Senior Pastor for the Boston Family Church, and executive leadership in a management consulting firm and several industrial companies. He earned degrees at Columbia University and the MIT Sloan School of Management.

 

Endnotes

1. The Mainline Protestant denominations are generally understood to include: American Baptist, Disciples of Christ, Episcopal, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church USA, United Church of Christ, and United Methodist Church.  It does not include Roman Catholicism, Judaism, Evangelical or Pentecostal Protestantism, and Protestant sectarian churches (Latter-day Saints, Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witness, etc.).
2. Mark Tooley, “Post-Denominational America” published in Juicy Ecumenism, a blog of the Institute for Religion and Democracy (Washington, D.C., 2023).
3. Joseph Bottum, “The Post-Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of America,” article based upon a Bradley Lecture at the American Enterprise Institute (Washington, D.C., 2014)
4. Produced and published by the Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C.: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2105/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape
5. Religion Unplugged is an online journal of The Media Project and a member of the Institute for Nonprofit News. See Religionunplugged.com
6. The “General Social Survey” is produced and published by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.
7. “The Cooperative Election Survey,” formerly “The Cooperative Congressional Election Survey,” has been produced at Harvard University since 2006.
8. https://religionunplugged.com/news/2021/7/12/why-its-unlikely-us-mainline-protestants-outnumber-evangelicals. Accessed in May 2023,
9. https://www.prri.org/research/2020-census-of-american-religion/ (See Table 1)
10. Ibid.
11. Based on data from Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life as presented in Mickler, Dr. Michael. Church History II — The American Religious Landscape, Section IIIB.
12. Sidney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People, Second Edition. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004).
13. Ibid, p. 8
14. Ibid, p. 8
15. Ibid, p. 2
16. Ibid, p. 3
17. Ibid, p. 12- 13
18. David D. Hall was Bartlett Professor of New England Church History at Harvard Divinity School until 2008. He presently serves as Bartlett Research Professor.
19. The Unification Church Movement was an important participant in this effort, primarily through the nationwide presence of the “American Freedom Coalition” (AFC).
20. The number of U.S. seminarians was 4,900 in 2018 (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops).
21. Hall does not assert this, but my view is that, in addition to exclusivist views on salvation, divergent eschatologies among Christian faiths prevent “pluralism” from advancing towards “universalism.” Specifically, those traditions that carry premillennial views appear unable to participate in the “Christian Epoch” foreseen in the eschatology of the Divine Principle.
22. William McLoughlin, Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978).
23. Ibid, p. 179.
24. Ibid, p. 192.
25. Ibid, p. 196
26. Ibid, p. 199
27. Ibid, p. 211.
28. Joseph Bottum, An Anxious Age: The Post-Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of America (New York: Crown Publishing Group of Penguin Random House, 2014).
29. Mark Tooley, “Post-Denominational America” (see footnote 2)
30. Ibid, p. 3
31. Ibid, p. 4
32. Ibid, p. 3
33. Ibid, p. 2
34. “Most of today’s denominations emerged from the ferment of the Second Great Awakening or were breakoffs of those denominations in the 19th and 20th centuries. The rise of post-WWII evangelicalism generated a new wave of denominational activity….”
35. For instance, see: The Christian Post, April 16, 2019. https://www.christianpost.com/voices/decline-of-old-line-protestantism-is-new-opportunity-forthe-gospel.html
36. A quick review of sources indicates that the number of practicing Pentecostals worldwide is between 300 million and 600 million.
37. An excellent source for understanding the methodology, strategy and organization of the civil rights movement is John Lewis, Walking with the Wind: A Memoir of the Movement (New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc. 1998).