Were the 1960s when it all went wrong?
We can all point to the decade when things really began to fall apart. Conservatives were distraught; liberals were exuberant. Anti-war sentiment, labor strikes, racial tension and ethnic conflict were provoking urban riots that led to a level of violence few people had ever seen before. The new emphasis on equality was exacerbating a breakdown in social, political and family authority. College campuses were descending into chaos, with mass expulsions the only way that school administrators knew how to respond. Church attendance, which had been high for most of the century, was plummeting, with especially the intellectual elites turning skeptically against the country’s religious heritage. Perhaps the most obvious expression of it all was the new sexual libertinism. As young people pushed the age of marriage back further and further sexual immorality, adultery and prostitution were noticeably on the rise, with illegitimacy rates reaching a level the country had never seen before. More and more women were simply abandoning their marriages, giving expression to what one historian calls their “unprecedented social and sexual freedom.”
The 1960s were clearly a turning point in American history. And yet there is no going back. Older conservatives, those children who claimed for their parents the title of the “greatest generation,” are constantly annoying younger conservatives by their appeals to the way things once were. Younger conservatives tend to see that sort of attitude as a dead-end form of nostalgia at best, a culturally, politically, and theologically off-putting pessimism at worst. They are interested in looking forward, not backward.
But the description I just provided was not a description of the 1960s. I was talking about the 1790s-1800s, drawing from Gordon Wood’s chapter entitled “Republican Society,” in his magisterial Empire of Liberty. It is arguable that it was post-revolutionary America, not the 1960s, that witnessed the most godless period in American history. Indeed, in their classic The Churching of America 1776-2005 Roger Finke and Rodney Stark have pointed out that the rate of religious adherence around the time of the Revolution hovered around 20% of the population. Church attendance rates and the general acceptance of Christian morality was higher, of course, but not as much higher as you might imagine. By Finke and Stark’s math, American church membership has steadily risen from 1776 to the 21st Century, with current rates approximately triple what they were in the days of the founding fathers.

Of course things got better already in the early 19th Century, in significant part thanks to the Second Great Awakening. By 1850 church membership had doubled and church attendance had increased by even wider margins. A plethora of Evangelical organizations and societies sought to combat sin and evil in a myriad of forms, from slavery to alcohol to illiteracy to paganism to poverty. If America ever was a Christian nation, a benevolent empire, it was in this century, the same century that saw Americans who had two very different visions for the future of this country go to war against each other in the bloodiest conflict of the nation’s history.
But there is a lesson to be learned in all of this. In 1800 you could not have predicted the Christianization of the country that would take place in the following century any more than in 1900 you could have predicted the ongoing racial reconciliation of American society that began after the 1960s. In 1980 you could not have predicted the bloodless end of the Cold War any easier than today you can predict that America will stabilize itself financially and figure out how to maintain our democracy and social commitments in the context of the welfare state.

But one thing is clear. It is not by looking back longingly to the way things once were, pessimistically writing off the future of the country as hopeless, that the individuals and groups who helped move the country forward in all of these great moments of the past did what they did. These people did not operate with the sorts of assumptions that told them they had no hope of persuading the country because the rest of the people out there were somehow too morally degenerate to be reached. They didn’t live in a bubble, seeking frantically to hold onto their own little world while the rest of it went to pot.
History is not linear, whether for good or for bad. The only sensible way forward, for anyone, whether Christian or Muslim, white or Hispanic, Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, is constructive, inclusive engagement – socially, religiously, politically. There are a lot of people telling us otherwise right now (and there were a lot of different people telling us otherwise in the last decade). We need to show them a better way.
Posted on November 12, 2012, in 2012 election, American Founding, Conservatism, Culture War, Welfare State and tagged declinism, Finke and Stark, Gordon Wood, greatest generation, Second Great Awakening. Bookmark the permalink. 9 Comments.
I don’t think you are looking back far enough. Nothing that happened in the sixties could have taken place without the “loosening of bindings” that occurred during World War II. And the effects of post-World War II: women returning to the home that was now outfitted with modern conveniences, making wives’ lives seem dull and mundane, in comparison with wartime. And the men, also, sought increasingly taut methods of stimulation. And their children just had to sit back and watch it all.
There is a lot of truth to the criticism of post-Revolutionary War era (and, if we’re honest, the era that included and immediately preceded the Revolutionary War). The rise of Unitarianism cannot be explained without reference to the factors you quite correctly cite in America of the late 1700s, due in significant measure to the influence of the ideas that sparked the French Revolution.
However, there’s a significant problem with the evaluation of church membership statistics. American churches in the 1700s routinely had attendance much in excess of their actual membership due to two separate factors: Sabbath laws and high membership standards. In an environment where a personal profession of faith was taken **VERY** seriously in conservative churches, and where even in less conservative churches high standards of external morality were expected of church members, it should surprise nobody that many people who were regular attenders at church services did not formally join the church they regularly attended.
Arguments such as the one you cite are sometimes used by defenders of the Second Great Awakening as part of an attack on the predominant Calvinism of the churches of the early and mid-1700s, which they claim led either to a dead orthodoxy or to a decline in evangelistic zeal. I know you’re not doing that, Matt, but it’s important to be careful to compare apples with apples in dealing with membership numbers, especially for churches of the 1700s where the membership-vs-attendance ratios were very different from what we see today in many modern evangelical churches and most liberal churches.
I’m a “younger” conservative, and the “looking-backward” mentality is one that I uphold. That is if looking back refers to the foundations of our country, not looking back to some supposed golden century or decade. I think a dose of realism, not pessimism, is what causes many of us to claim that the future of our country is hopeless. Why is that necessarily a pessimistic claim? If one thinks that modern liberalism (not classical liberalism) is in anyway conducive to what our country was founded on (constitution, limited gov’t. etc.), me thinks they need to read history much deeper. Why do we continue to claim this false dilemma between looking back and moving forward? What is inherent to a true conservatism is looking back to foundations in order to maintain them in the present so that we can move forward with wisdom towards the future.
And at the very least, our country is hopeless because all countries fail inevitably. That’s reality. Christ’s kingdom is our only hope. And while we should believe that whole heartily, I do not think that negates the desire in this life to wish things were better as they may have been at some other time. So I think it is possible to look to the past for better things without necessarily being nostalgic or overly-sentimental, and I think it is possible to move forward without destroying foundations. Ultra-conservatism and modern liberalism: a pox on both houses.
I do not have any hope of persuading our society towards what is good and right, not because I have some faulty assumptions of people being degenerate, but because I do not live in a bubble. I am outside that bubble everyday and know just how pervasive -among people, entertainment, media, and even churches- this radical liberalism is, and how difficult it is to reason with those of this persuasion.
The 60′s were not when it all went wrong. It went wrong when in the 1800′s, when America started down the Enlightenment road of progressivism (re: Rousseau), veering off the Enlightenment road of conservatism (re: Burke). The 60′s is simply when it entrenched itself, and now we are at the point where it controls everything. Statism and libertinism go together. I don’t recall the 1790′s to 1800′s being referred to in the history books as a time of these twin evils being wed together. From a church perspective, yeah, society was probably more libertine than we would like to admit. But today we have not just a majority of society choosing licentious lifestyles, we have a state that is more and more taking over our lives in matters indifferent. Moving forward may not mean christianizing society (whatever that means), but it also does not mean that we can conservatively maintain the status quo of the goals of modern liberalism.
So count me as one conservative who is not annoyed by older conservatives looking back. I seek to honor them by carrying on in my generation those things that are worth looking back to, and carrying forward.
one thing is clear. It is not by looking back longingly to the way things once were
The problem of looking back to the “good old days” is that things change. Things always change for the worse AND for the better. If you asked women and black folk if things were better in the 1950s, there wouldn’t be a second of hesitation in saying, “heck no!” (by and large).
Always, as some things have gotten better, other things have gotten worse.
This is how it’s always been.
Pingback: Were the 1960s when it all went wrong? - Mere Orthodoxy | Christianity, Politics, and Culture
Pingback: Destinations « Luggaged
Pingback: Is America in Decline? « Christian in America
Pingback: Ryan Mcllhenny's Kingdoms Apart (Part 1): Stirring the Waters - Mere Orthodoxy
Pingback: Ryan McIlhenny’s Kingdoms Apart (Part 2): Redeemed Culture as Witness