Twenty Years after Bellah: Whatever Happened to American Civil Religion?

Author(s): James A. Mathisen

Source: Sociological Analysis, Vol. 50, No. 2, Thematic Issue: A Durkheimian Miscellany
(Summer, 1989), pp. 129-146
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3710983
Accessed: 05/10/2010 14:34
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological
Analysis.

http://www.jstor.org

SociologicalAnalysis 1989, 50:2 129-146

Twenty Years After Bellah:

Whatever Happened to
American Civil Religion?*
James A. Mathisen
WheatonCollege,Illinois

The year 1987 markedthe twentiethanniversaryof the publicationof RobertN. Bellah's

provocativeessay "Civil Religionin America." Becauseof that anniversaryand becausewe
have read less about civil religionlately, an assessmentof the status of Americancivil religion,
especiallyduringthe 1980s, is in order.This articlehas threepurposes.The firstis a bibliographic
review of the American civil religionliterature,with emphasisupon the 1980s. The second
is an argumentfor four phasesin, or a periodicityof, discussionabout Americancivil religion
since 1967. The thirdpurposeis a briefexplanationfor the waningof discussionand the current
state of American civil religion.

Thirteenyearsago, PhillipHammondattempteda "sociologyof Americancivil

religion[ACR]"by meansof a bibliographicessay.He observedthat "the Daedalus
articleof 1967by sociologistRobertBellahset off a wordexplosionof Americancivil
religion"(1976:170).He shiftedmetaphorsto declarethat although"ACR is many
things, . . . even a river,while taking many forms as it flows oceanward,has an
identifiablecurrent,and so it is with ACR" (1976:173).
1987markedthe twentiethanniversaryof the Daedalusarticle"CivilReligionin
America."Becausethe identifiablecurrentof ACR, which wouldswellto a veritable
torrentof intellectualactivityand discussion,has sincetaperedto a trickle,it is appropriatethat we assessit once again.
This discussionhas a three-foldpurpose.First,I wishto extendthe bibliographical
assessmentsof ACR to bring us up-to-dateon the cumulativeliterature.Second, I
will arguefor a periodicityschemeof fourphasesin the academicdiscussionof ACR.
Third, I will offerbriefcommentsabout why ACR has been less visibleduringthe
1980sand the natureof its currentstate. In the process,I shall also arguethat ACR
existsin threedimensionsthatoverlap,but mustbe keptdistinctconceptually:
(1)ACR
as historicalreality- what Americanshave long assumedtheologicallyabout their
place in the world; (2) ACR as social construction - what Bellah (1973:8)
*AlvaroNieves, WilliamSwatos,JosephVaracalli,JohnF. Wilson,and two anonymous
reviewers
providedhelpfulcomments
to theauthor.TheNationalEndowment
contributed
partialfunding
fortheHumanities
and the opportunity
in a SummerInstitute,1987. Thisarticleis a revisionof a
forresearchby participation
paperpresentedat meetingsof the Societyfor the ScientificStudyof Religion,Louisville,October,1987.

129

130

SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

has claimed "existed from the moment the winter 1967 issue of Daedaluswas printed"
and subsequently "took on a life of its own"; and (3) ACR as academic discussion what the journals and books said about ACR after 1967.

A BIBLIOGRAPHIC
REVIEWOF AMERICAN
CIVILRELIGIONIN FOUR PHASES
Several bibliographic articles on ACR appeared early in the discussion, notably
Kathan and Fuchs-Kreimer(1975), Hammond (1976), and Gehrig (1981a). Hammond
provided a review essay and a list of significant books and articles, and Gehrig wrote
a doctoral dissertationon ACR, revised subsequentlyas a monograph. The cumulative
literatureon ACR suggestsa periodicityscheme, however, whereby the academic treatment of ACR in the past 20 years can be divided into four phases as follows:
1967-73: Setting the Ground Rules for ACR Discourse
1974-77: The Golden Age of ACR Discussion
1978-82: A Plateau of Evaluation and Integration of ACR
1983-88: The Waning of ACR Discussion

Settingthe GroundRulesfor ACR Discourse,1967-73

Robert Bellah first wrote about ACR in 1965 and presented his ideas at a conference on American religion in May, 1966 (Bellah, 1976e:72; 1970:168).1The year
following its appearance in Daedalus(1967), Bellah's article was reprinted, along with
"commentaries"by Brogan, Pfeffer, Whitney, and Hammond (Cutler, 1968:365-88).
These helped formulate the ground rules of early ACR discourse. Bellah noted an
immediate difficulty in his "response"to those commentaries. "It is clear that which
I mean by 'civil religion in America' is not exactly what most of the commentators
mean, nor do they agree one with another. The notion needs further clarification"
(1968:388). Later, he added that he had had to "defend [himself] against the accusation of supporting an idolatrous worship of the American nation" (1970:168).
What Bellah had proposed was the existence of an "elaborate and wellinstitutionalized civil religion in America" (1967:11), such as that articulated in John
Kennedy's and Lyndon Johnson's inaugural addresses. Those speeches alluded to "a
collection of beliefs, symbols, and rituals with respect to sacred things and institutionalized in a collectivity" that serves Americans "as a genuine vehicle of national
enhancing a "genuineapprehensionof universaland transreligiousself-understanding,"
...
as revealed through the experience of the American peocendent religious reality
ple" (Bellah, 1967:8, 12). Bellah saw a present time of trial for ACR issuing from
1One reviewer anonymously provided an anecdote which identifies a serendipityin Bellah's participation
in the whole of the ACR controversy: "Although Bellah had a longstanding interest in American history
and American religion, it really wasn't his specialty. It was Talcott Parsons who, having been invited
by Daedalusto contribute a piece on American religion, declined and then arm-twisted Bellah into pinchhitting for him. One can well imagine that Bellah was astonished at the critical response to what he
must himself have considered a very bright and perceptive, but not well worked out conceptualization."

TWENTYYEARS AFTERBELLAH

131

America'srole in the world, specificallyin the Viet Nam War;thus he questioned

whether"a majornew set of symbolicforms"might emergewhich "wouldresultin
Americancivil religionbecomingsimplyone partof a new civilreligionof the world"
(1967:18).
WhatBellahsuspecteda yearlaterwas true.That is, disagreements
amongthose
discussingACR in that firstperiodweredominatedby threeemphases- definition,
description,and history(cf. Bellah,1976a:235).Sociologists,religionists,rhetoricians,
politicalscientists,and others all gropedto define and describeACR on the bases
of theirown assumptionsand discipline-specific
pointsof view.Forexample,Coleman
civil
within
religion,plusthe needto lookat othercultures.
(1970)identifiedthe variety
ACR fromboth civilpietyand denominational
Cherry(1971)arguedfor differentiating
of whatBellahintimated
religion.Thosethemes,plusthe needforempiricalverification
(Thomasand Flippen, 1972),would be pursuedduringphase two.
Meanwhile, historians of American religion snickered,while attemptingto
assessthe fuss over Bellah and ACR (cf. Mead, 1967). Historianssuspectedthat
ACR (whateverit mightbe) is "episodic"(Marty,1976:187,190;cf. Wilson, 1979:21),
had been prominentrecentlyduringthe EisenhowerPresidency,and had been duly
noted by scholarswho labeledit with variousterms.Furthermoreby the mid-1960s,
it had declinednoticeably."Isit possiblethat here we have evidenceof a familiar
fact - namely,that we often studythe historyof somethingonly afterits demise?"
(Ahlstrom,1972b:10).Hence, an irony of the earlyACR discussion,especiallyfrom
the historians'perspectives,is a "culturallag,"a point Bellahreadilyconcededlater
(1976e:72;cf. 1978c:320).By contrast,the earlyresponses"of sociologistsof religion
to Bellah'sthesis [were]almost complete acceptanceof it" (Thomasand Flippen,
1972:218).
An incidentarousingfurtherinterestwas the July4, 1970 Honor AmericaDay
celebrationin Washington,D.C.2 Laterdiscussioncenteredupon the rally as an
occasion"to call upon the Americancivil religionfor integrationand for supportof
the state"(Thomasand Flippen, 1972:200;cf. Streikerand Strober,1972).
Once can infer,however,that ACR was not uniformlyjudgeda significantpart
of the Americanreligiousscene duringphase one. In an issue of The Annalsof the
AmericanAcademyof PoliticalandSocialScienceon "TheSixties:RadicalChange in
for not including
AmericanReligion"(387),editorJamesGustafsonsemi-apologized
an essay on "whatsociologistRobertBellahhas called'civil religion'" (Gustafson,
1970:ix).Among the 14 essaysincluded,only Neuhaus(1970:128)paid much attention to ACR, arguingthat "religiousoppositionto the [Viet Nam] war has more to
do" with ACR than with explicit"formulationsof theology and ethics."
Bellahhad ampleopportunityto respond(1968, 1970, 1973)and to clarifywhat
issuesfromevaluative
he had meant.He did distinguish,for example,epistemological
problems,assertingfirstthat ACR is "a presentfact and one we will likelycontend
2Linderand Pierardhave placed the 1970 rally in the context of RichardNixon's exploitationof
"civilreligionto rallysupportfor his policies."Nixon and BillyGrahamrecruitedBob Hope, Hobart
Lewisof Reader'sDigest,and hotelierJ. WillardMarriottto organizethe rally (Linderand Pierard,
They alsocite the recollectionsof aideJebMagruderwho, alongwith other Nixon aides,
1978:108-109).
saw it as "a politicalevent" in supportof Nixon's Viet Nam policy (Magruder,1974:119).

132

SOCIOLOGICALANALYSIS

with in the future ... in a whole seriesof competing and conflictingversions"(1973:14);

but second, we learn from civil religion only after subjecting it to merciless criticism,
while relativizing and supplementing our American tradition.
The body of literature on ACR from that first phase of seven years of setting
the ground rules for the ensuing discussion of ACR was surprisinglyscant. What lay
ahead would be noticeably different.
The Golden Age of ACR Discussion, 1974-77
Drawing a line between 1973 and 1974 to separate phase one from phase two
in the ACR discussion is an arbitrarychoice, but not without support. By 1976 the
Annual Review of Sociologyprovided a status report.
It is fairto saythat few recentworkshavestrucka moreresonantchord[thanhas Bellah,
1967]withinthe scholarlycommunity.... At this point the debateover the natureand
existenceof a civil religionremainsvery much unresolved..... In sum, the disputeconcerningcivil religionis not just a warof wordsor a bicentennialtheme,but a potentially
far-reachingconflictof basictheoreticalconceptionswith a capacityfor reorientingthe
field as a whole (Demerathand Roof, 1976:29-30).
Clearly, the stakes were higher than during the first phase of discussion.
One gets a sense of those higher stakes first from the plethora of new materials
on ACR - majorbooks by a single or multipleauthors, specialreviewissuesof journals,
symposia, and many key articles. Beginning in 1975, journals began special issues on
the topic of ACR: Journalfor the ScientificStudyof Religion(1975, 14[4]); ReligiousEducation (1975, 70[5]); Forward(1975, 1[3]); SociologicalAnalysis (1976, 37[2]); Journalof
Religion(1976, 56 [3]); ReligiousEducationagain (1976, 71 [3]); and Journalof Ecumenical
Studies(1977, 14 [4]). These issues included many fine articles, plus the early attempts
at bibliographicassessment(Kathan and Fuchs-Kreimer,1975;Hammond, 1976).Meanwhile, the Journalof Churchand State published four major articles plus an editorial
between 1974-77 in what has been the most consistent contribution by any journal
throughout the ACR discussion.
More important than the sheer volume of materials on ACR were the growing
diversity and significanceof the issues in question. Several important books appeared,
including one that may yet be the best collection of essays on ACR (Richey and Jones,
1974). Key commentators on American religion - Novak (1974), Neuhaus (1975),
and Marty (1976) - made major contributions during that second phase. Moodie's
analysis of the "religiousdimension of the state" of South Africa was the first crosscultural test of Bellah's "unsystematicdescription" of ACR (Moodie, 1975:296).Then
Hart (1977)extended Bellah'suse of PresidentialInauguralAddressesin his interpretation
of ACR rhetoric. Religionists joined the fray and offered a variety of theologicallyoriented reactions (cf. Richardson, 1974; Barnette, 1976; Osborn, 1976). One major
point of contention was the nature of the relationship (positive or negative) that ACR
could have to orthodox faiths and church expressions. Empirical studies also emerged, mostly favorable to the social reality of ACR (cf. Wimberley, 1976; Wimberley,
Clelland, Hood, and Lipsey, 1976).

TWENTYYEARS AFTERBELLAH

133

Two conceptual clarifications of the diversity within ACR were offered by Jones
and Richey and by Marty. Jones and Richey "located" Bellah's ACR as one of five
"interrelatedmeanings of civil religion"(1974:14).As had Mead (1967), Bellah referred
to ACR as a "transcendent universal religion of the nation" which provides meaning, solidarity, and understanding of the American experience (Jones and Richey,
1974:15-16). Bellah's ACR contrasted with similar, but differing ideas such as civil
piety or religious nationalism. Meanwhile, Marty (1974b) proposed a matrix of "two
kinds of two kinds of civil religion," having both priestly or prophetic styles plus
emphases on either national self-transcendenceor a transcendent deity. Marty placed
Bellah in the self-transcendent, prophetic cell of his 2 x 2 matrix of civil religion.
For every Hammond or Wimberley supporting Bellah, several critics took issue
with his notions. Two articulate opponents during this phase were Wilson (cf. 1971,
1974) and Fenn (1974, 1976). Wilson's critiques were based on both conceptual and
historical differenceswith Bellah's reading of a structuredcivil religion, and he opined
that "the evidence is inadequate to sustain [Bellah's ACRI hypothesis" (Wilson,
1974:133).Fenn differedwith Bellah on questions of values and on levels of individual,
societal, and cultural differentiation in ACR, especially in their lively exchange in
SociologicalAnalysis (1976:160-68).
In retrospect, the Bicentennial observance of the signing of the Declaration of
Independence on July 4, 1976 stands near the apex of the significance of ACR as a
social construction but also is an early indication that academic interest in ACR was
not likely to increase further. Bellah had rejected earlier suggestions that ACR was
declining by challenging, "If you think the civil religion is dead, just wait until 1976"
(1973:14). But the Bicentennial was not as significant a civilly religious spectacle as
anticipated. Although
the Fourthof Julywas to be the peak of the yearlongcelebration,. . . the bicentennial
caughtmany Americansnot in the mood for celebration.... In the atmosphereof the
late twentiethcentury,the civil millennialdreamhad been interrupted,if not ended.A
new nationalconsensusaboutthe meaningof Americahad not been formed(Albanese,
1981:305-06).
Later Bellah looked back on the Bicentennial and the Presidentialcampaigns of 1976
and remarked, "In 1976 what we got was vague and listless allusions to a largely misunderstood and forgotten past, and an attitude toward the present that seems to be
determined, above everything else, not to probe beneath the thinnest of surfaces"
(Bellah, 1978b:22).
Bellah kept the discussion alive throughout the second period, in part by emphasizing the evaluative aspects of ACR, especially in their potential for cultural conflict
alongside their integrative function (1974c, 1974d, 1975a, 1975b, 1976a, 1976b, 1976c,
1976d). His 1971 Weil Lectures at Hebrew Union College published as The Broken
Covenantin 1975 demonstrate his efforts to combine cultural analysis of ACR with
prophetic warning. Eventually we read, "Today the American civil religion is an empty
and broken shell.... The main drift of American society is to the edge of the abyss"
(1975a:142, 158). Those who had read Bellah carefully since 1967 were not totally
surprised (cf. Stauffer, 1975). Others were shocked, and at least one consequence of

134

SOCIOLOGICALANALYSIS

The BrokenCovenantwas a continuation of the academic discussion of ACR in terms

of Bellah's "revised position."
The volume of books, journal issues, and articles devoted to discussion of Bellah
and of ACR, as well as the diversityof issues raised and the heightened interest, clearly
support designating the years 1974-77 as the golden age of discussion of American
civil religion.
A Plateau of Evaluationand Integrationof ACR, 1978-82
Although the debate over ACR may have peaked in 1976-77, that did not mean
things subsidedrapidly.Indeed, duringa third phase of responsein 1978-82,the journals
issued a varietyof discussion,much of which has not been cited elsewherein a coherent
bibliographic sense.
Two small-scaleexamples illustratehow discussion of ACR had reached a plateau,
then declined gradually, almost imperceptibly, over the several years of phase three.
First, Wimberley and occasional co-author Christenson published six more articles,
half in SociologicalAnalysis,usually as empiricalrefinements in support of ACR. These
stopped in 1982. A second example of the plateau of ACR interest after 1977 was
the role of the Journalof Churchand State. In 1979-80, it published six more articles,
including five in a valuable 1980 issue on ACR (cf. especially Hughes; Mount; Rice;
and Watts - all 1980). Although that JCS special issue on ACR was later than those
of the golden age of phase two, it was also one of the best. Thus both Wimberley
and JCS demonstrate how the phase three literaturecontinued to explore issues raised
previously in the ACR debate.
Several books made significant contributions between 1978-82, although usually
expanding on earlier topics. Bellah with Hammond each contributed four essays to
a book, one of whose strengths was its cross-cultural,comparative case studies of civil
religion in Japan, Mexico, and Italy (Bellah and Hammond, 1980). Such contrasts
of Americancivil religion with civil religion elsewhere were helpful. Fenn pursued his
earlier differences with Bellah in a monograph on secularization (1978), arguing that
"secularizationmakes ambiguous and problematical the symbols by which the nation
expresses what is 'more than' the interaction of the state and the other parts"(Fenn,
1978:43).Cuddihy (1978)willfullymisreadACR as the religionof civility, while positing
that ACR is "intrusive, incivil" and "inherently subversive of the proud elitist coreclaims" of traditional religious expressions (Cuddihy, 1978:2, 27).
The most significant judgment of the limitations of Bellah's ACR during phase
three came from Wilson (1979) who had been a part of the ACR debate throughout
the 1970s. Now Handy (1980:344) saw Wilson (1979) as an "important monograph,"
signalling a "decisive turn" in the ACR debate. Wilson argued that ACR must be
interpreted as one possible construction of a larger public religion, rather than interpreted only on its own terms. By contrast, Bellah had been guilty from the outset
of a systematic ambiguity and equivocation on whether a well-institutionalized civil
religion ever existed (Wilson, 1979, esp. ch. 7). But what Wilson said was not new;
he merely more fully articulated what he had been saying about ACR since 1971.
Thus the golden age of ACR discussion was past; a plateau of reflection dominated
the scene.

TWENTYYEARS AFTERBELLAH

135

The most importanttheme in severalbooks and articlesfrom phase three was

that of "integrating"the discussionof ACR into more broadly-basedmodels and
theoreticalconstructs.Thus Fenn (1978)locatedACR within secularizationtheory;
of nationalstates;
Markoffand Regan(1981)placedit withina theoryof modernization
Varacalli(1983)used modernizationtheoryto understandthe relationshipbetween
ACR andliberalCatholicism;Noble (1982)tested"thefascinatingevolutionof Bellah's
of the jeremiad
position"(1982:88)in terms of Bercovitch's(1978)characterization
of Puritanministers;and Anthony and Robbins(1982)usedACR as a commonconof secularization,
the erosionof community,
ceptualthreadthroughthe "perspectives
and the loss of value consensus"(1982:215-16).ConceptualizingACR in termsof
these variouscontexts demonstratesa maturityof interpretationnot so evident in
earlier discussions.

Another significanttrend in the ACR literatureduringphasethree camefrom

politicalscientistslookingat church-stateand publicpolicyissuesbesidesthose raised
earlierin the Journalof ChurchandState.Levinson(1980)reviewedthe Constitution
as a "sacred"
symbolin ACR. Fairbanks(1981)focusedon the Presidentin the priestly,
role.
Bennett(1979)looked at the moralambiguitysurroundingpotential
leadership
abusesof ACR in publiclife. Gooding (1981)suggestedmodels of ACR relatedto
politicalwitchhunts.And Robertson(1981)brieflynoted civil religionin the context
of church-statetension.Thus the politicaland church-stateimplicationsof ACR were
examinedmore closelythan they were earlier.
Concernswithperceivedhiddenagendascontinued,but not with the sameintensity as before.Balitzer(1979)favored"reflectionand discussionof the religiousand
moralsupportsof Americandemocracy"(1979:186)comingout of the ACR debate.
Albanese(1981, 1982)was concernedwith how ACR as a creed is translatedinto
a code for Americansin their personallives and in theirunderstandingof how they
should act nationallyand internationally(1982:21-22).
Bellahwrotelittle about ACR duringphasethree. One importantindicationof
his thinking,however,was his insightinto unclarityin the roleof ACR in American
life.He contrastedthe historicaluncertainty
betweenemphaseson Americaas a republic
versusAmericaas a liberalconstitutionalregime."Whatwe wantedwas to have our
cakeandeat it too, to retainthe rhetoricandspiritof a republicin the politicalstructure
of a liberalconstitutionalstate. In so doing we blurredeveryessentialpoliticalconsiderationincludingthe placeof religionin our politicallife"(1978b:18).The consensus within ACR in his thought of a decadeearlierhad given way to unclarityand
potentialconflict for ACR.
But duringthe thirdphaseof civil religiondiscussion,no new agendaitemswere
Interestin ACR centeredon integrative
and the political
suggested.
conceptualstrategies
implicationsof ACR.
The Waningof ACR Discussion,1983-88
By the time one observerlamentedthat the discussionof ACR had been "largely
shapedby a distinctsociologicalperspective"(Little, 1984:401),in fact the majority
of sociologistshad withdrawnfromthe ACR discussion.The threemajorAmerican

136

SOCIOLOGICALANALYSIS

journals in sociology of religion - the Journalfor the ScientificStudyof Religion,the

Reviewof ReligiousResearch,and Sociological
Analysis- virtuallyceased publishingarticles
on ACR in 1981, with two exceptions (Toolin, 1983; Adams, 1987).
The notion of a transitionfrom the phase three "plateau"to the phase four "waning"
in the discussion of ACR is supported with a brief case study of how ACR was treated
in two editions of an introductory sociology of religion text from the two phases.
Although McGuire treated ACR in both editions (cf. McGuire, 1981:151-58;
1987:158-64),what is significant is the materialnot common to both editions. Mention
in the 1981 edition of Bellah's 1974 and 1975 contributions and of empiricalevidences
of ACR was eliminated in 1987. Bellah's role in the social construction of ACR and
description of the priestly and prophetic modes of ACR were minimized. Instead, the
discussion of religion and nationalism was expanded significantly, and new material
was added to support a thesis that "civilreligionis clearlyan element in nation building"
(McGuire, 1987:161). Cross-cultural studies, including Muslim and Zionist versions
of civil religion, were featured. Comparing these editions of the same text from the
last two phases of the ACR discussion suggests how issues important in 1981 were
no longer central in 1987. Bellah'srole and the descriptivedistinctions within American
civil religion had given way to civil religion in its relation to other issues and new
contexts.
Books analyzing civil religion during phase four continued, although typically in
the comparativeor integratedsenses. The Liebman and Don-Yehiya (1983a)case study
of Israellinked versionsof national identity and religiousheritagewithin the civil religion
motif. Woocher also explained the significanceof civil religionfor American Jews(1985,
1986). The best book on "American" civil religion, however, was about 30% of Civil
Religionand PoliticalTheology(Rouner, 1986a), an edited volume from a lecture series
dedicated to Bellah, who also contributed an essay - but not on ACR.
It is difficult to make thematic sense of the smaller number of articles on ACR
as the literaturedeclined since 1982. A first theme is a rhetorical-literary-metaphorical
one (cf. Toolin, 1983; Eslinger, 1984; Parkinson, 1983). Toolin returned to Presidential InauguralAddresses in pursuingtheir rhetoricalfunctions. A second, more serious,
theme is the development of the church-state and public policy issues raised earlier.
Dean (1983),Flowers(1983), and Stahl (1984)all were concerned with legal and national
emphases in ACR. Flowers, for example, concluded that Jimmy Carter had not been
a representative of an "underside"of civil religion, "principallybecause of his belief
in religious freedom"(Flowers, 1983:130).This relationship of ACR to the Presidency
has been surveyed again recently (Pierardand Linder, 1988). Demerath and Williams
(1985:166) suggested re-examining uses of ACR to determine "whether the United
States is any longer a civil society."
Mirsky addressed specific Constitutional concerns with a helpful distinction between ACR as a secular, political phenomenon versus traditional, sacral religion
(1986:1247-53), with the resulting suggestion that "courts can make better sense of
existing public religion and avoid undue and constitutionally illegitimate inferences
from civil religion to traditional, sacral religion" (1986:1255).
We have now proceeded well into the fourth phase of waning ACR discussion
since 1983. Bellah is gone from ACR. His apologists are gone. Most of his critics are

TWENTYYEARS AFTERBELLAH

137

gone. Fewerbooks are being written.Articleshave declinedin numberand in the

significanceand intensityof their arguments.One possibleexceptionis the ongoing
and constitutional
issues.
politicalandlegalconcernof how ACR relatesto church-state
ACCOUNTING FORTHE DECLINEOF THE
AMERICANCIVILRELIGIONDISCUSSION
Since 1967,Americancivilreligionhas existedin threedimensions- as historical
reality,as social construction,and as academicdiscussion.In the firstdimensionof
ACR as historicalreality,suggestionsof when it achievedits peak of visibilityand
influencerangefrom 1958,when John Kennedywas acknowledgedas a seriouscandidatefor the Presidency(Wilson,1979:14);to the early1960s,beforea seriesof crises
"toreat the nationalfiber"(Linderand Pierard,1978:100);to as late as a "climax"
of ACR about 1967(Marty,1976:187).Bellahfavoredthe early 1960s,with the Viet
Nam trialthe "occasion,"
but not the cause,forthe end of an era(Bellah,1978c:319-20).
Thus, "civilreligioncameinto consciousnessjustwhenit wasceasingto exist"(Bellah,
1976e:72).
In its seconddimension- ACR as a socialconstructionexistingsince the 1967
Daedaluspublication- the periodicityschemeabove suggestsACR reacheda peak
aboutthe time of the 1976Bicentennialobservance.Thus Bellahhad allowed,"The
bicentennialwillinevitablybe lessa timefornationalrejoicingand self-congratulation
than it will be a time of national self-questioningand repentance"(1974a:272).
In its thirddimensionof academicdiscussion,however,ACR remaineda significant topic,with majorbooks appearingthrough1981and journalarticleseven later.
Thus, I am juxtaposingthe "lifecourse"of ACR in its threerelateddimensions- as
historicalreality,as social construction,and as academicdiscussion(see Figure1).
Thispictureof fourphasesamongthe threedimensionsof ACR leadsto notingseveral
factorswhich contributedto the unusuallife courseof ACR. I will suggestbriefly
four influenceswhich affectedthe story of ACR.
First,RobertBellahpresidedover and then withdrewfromthe ACR discussion.
If ACR "existed"from the time of the Daedalusarticle,then ACR ceasedto exist
afterBellahstoppedwritingaboutACR in the late 1970s.TheBrokenCovenant(1975)
representsa transitionin his thought duringphase two, just when the articlesand
bookson ACR wereproliferating,
and indirectlyit contributedto extendingthe discussionof Bellah'schangingposition.Laterin the 1970s,Bellah(1978b)arguedforunclarity
and conflictwithinACR as depictedin the historicaltensionsbetweenrepublicanism
and liberalism,a positionoften overlookedin relationto his earlierviews.When his
book with Hammondappeared(1980),mostof the essaysin it wererevisionsof earlier
originals.By then Bellahhad moved on to the projectwhich resultedin Habitsof
the Heart(1985).In one sense, Wilson (1979)appearsboth as a significantcritique
and as a conceptualobituaryof ACR. Bellahhad stoppedwritingabout it, did not
respondto Wilson, and does not mention ACR in Habits.
Second,ACR was an ambiguoussocialconstructionwhichwasboth its strength
and its weakness.Wilson,forexample,placed"ambiguity
at the heartof RobertBellah's
cf. 1979:148).
originalessay"(Wilson,1979:145;
that ambiguitywasa stimulus
Originally,

138

SOCIOLOGICALANALYSIS

FIGURE 1
AMERICAN CIVIL RELIGION, 1960-87:
THREE DIMENSIONS OF ITS LIFECOURSE

Historical Reality

Academic
Discussion

Social Construction -.

/
II II Ii II II II I

63

69

60

66

I
I

72

75

78

III I I II I

81

84

87

Year

to provide conceptual clarity, empiricalsupport, and reasoned critique. But eventually,

responses shifted in intonation from, "What is Bellah writing about?" to a more
frustrating"What is Bellah writing about?"For example, apparently Bellah wrote, "I
do not think the American civil religion is dead or dying" (1973:19) about two years
aftersaying in the 1971 Weil Lectures,"Americancivil religion is an empty and broken
shell" (1975:142). But the perceived need to define and clarify with consistency even-

TWENTYYEARS AFTERBELLAH

139

tually led to doubts about whetherclarity,precision,and consensuswere possible.

In anothersense,ACR in its third dimensionwas a victimof its own successes.
ACR held our attentionfor nearly 15 years, as we examinedit with greatpassion
and froma host of perspectives.Eventually,we exhaustedwhat could be said about
it, or at leastreacheda pointof diminishingreturnsin the discussion.Once we passed
July4, 1976, and realizedwe could get along withoutACR, less urgencyremained
for keepingit on our agenda.
Third, we did not lose sightof ACR by 1987as much as we reorderedits place
as a topic of academicpriority.ACR was re-locatedamong newertheoreticaland
duringphasesthreeand four.Also, becauseacademicswork
integrativeinterpretations
in a zero-sumsetting,new demandsfor scarceresourcesarose,and ACR fadedfrom
view in part becausenew concernscrowdedit out. ACR is still a part of academic
discourse,but it occupiesa lower priorityamong teachingand researchinterests.
Finally,ACR fadedfromour visionin partbecauseit neveraffectedthe discipline
of sociologyin a broadly-based,significantsense. To my knowledge,the American
and the AmericanSociological
Journalof Sociology
Reviewhave not publisheda single
articleon ACR since 1967.Amongthe "secondlevel"of general,sociologicaljournals,
only SocialForcesand Sociological
paidscant attention,and Wimberleyet al.
Quarterly
were
as
(1976, 1980)
responsibleas anyonefor that. The point is that socialscientists
interestedin religiontendedmerelyto talkamongthemselvesaboutACR, forwhatever
reasons,includingpoliticalones. Interestin Americancivilreligion,at leastas measured
by what was publishedin majorjournalsafter 1967, did not capturea sufficiently
broadbaseof academic,sociologicalinterest.Whendiscussionsof ACR wanedamong
those in the sub-disciplinesof religionand social science, it waned!
Lestone overstatethe casefora waningof the academicdiscussionof ACR during
the 1980s,a note of caution is appropriate.In reviewingBellah'sthought and the
variousresponses,one must placea possible"rise,plateau,decline"motifwithinthe
total periodicityschemeof the three dimensionsof ACR. That is, any shiftsin reactionto Bellahwereelicitedin partby a transitionin his positionfroma consensus
model of civil religiontowardone characterizedby critiqueand conflict.One way
in which the academicdiscussionof ACR respondedto ACR as socialconstruction
and as historicalrealitywasto look moreevaluatively,cross-culturally,
and politically
at the implicationsof civil religion,althoughthose responseseventuallydeclinedin
books or academicjournalsas well.
Ifwe returnto the historian's
premisethatcivilreligionis episodic(Marty,1976:187;
Wilson, 1979:21),then juxtaposinga rise and fall motifwithin a periodicityscheme
providesa senseof the statusof ACR twentyyearsafterBellah.Focusingon the first
dimensionof ACR as historicalrealitysuggeststhat ACR was at a low ebb in the
late 1970s,duringthe latteryearsof the CarterPresidency.
"Carter's
failureas a political
leaderwas, in part,publicrejectionof his civil religion .... They turnedawayfrom
Carter'spropheticview of power to Reagan'spoliticsof nostalgiafor the bygone
America"(Pierardand Linder,1988:255).On the one hand, Carterwas too overtly
sectarianin his religiouspronouncements
to be acceptableas a spokesperson
forACR;
on the otherhand,whenhe did invokethe rhetoricof ACR, he soundedtoo prophetic
and so was rejectedas a "moderncivil religionprophet . . . without honor in his
own country"(Pierardand Linder,1988:256).

140

SOCIOLOGICALANALYSIS

Following Carter, Ronald Reagan offered a return to a conservative, priestly ACR

reminiscent of that of a generation earlier. His penchant for ACR rhetoric (cf. Tipton,
1984; Adams, 1987; Pierard and Linder, 1988) was reinforced by events such as the
Statue of Liberty celebration in 1986 and the televised testimony of Oliver North in
1987, that reminded us that ACR has not disappeared, but reemerged episodically,

in the 1980s.
Yet, as Wuthnow argues (1988a, 1988b), two ACR visions compete for our attention and may never be reconciled. Just as Marty (1974b) distinguished priestly from
prophetic civil religion, and as Bellah (1978b) allowed that ACR has different relationships to the republican and liberal heritages in America, so Wuthnow suggests
that in reality, "Two visions [of ACR] are fundamentally at odds, . . . divided along
a fracture line long apparent in discussions of civil religion" (1988a:398). These two
visions are theological opposites and parallelthose of priest and prophet, or republican
and liberal. As such, they "correspondin a general way with the ambivalent character
of the state in American society" (Wuthnow, 1988a:399).
These two theologically-basedversions of ACR "- one conservative, one liberalhave, by virtue of their very tendency to dispute one another, become less capable
of providing the broad, consensual underpinnings of societal legitimation that have
usually been associated with the idea of civil religion" (Wuthnow, 1988b:266). While
the conservative version of ACR fostering American identity has enjoyed greater
episodic visibilityrecently, a persistingliberaldesire to associateAmerica with a broader
vision of all humanity exists in tension with that view. Thus two visions of America
persist,and they are remarkablysimilarto those Bellah(1967)suggestedoriginally- one
emphasizingthe uniqueness of American experience and the other reinterpretingthat
experience in international terms.
CONCLUSION
American civil religion since Bellah (1967) has displayed an unusual life course.
It can be conceptualizedmost adequately in terms of three distinct, but related, dimensions varying through four phases during the past 20 years. As a social construction
brought into existence by Robert Bellah, ACR faded along with memories of the 1976
Bicentennialobservance. Subsequently, as a topic of intense academicdiscussion,ACR
nearly disappearedfrom the literature, was crowded aside by more pressing concerns,
or was reinterpreted in terms of alternative conceptual schemes.
As historical reality, however, ACR has been resilient, episodic, and dualistic.
After it declined in the 1970s, it reemerged in the 1980s. It continues to offer more
than one vision of American history and experiencethat Americans never may perceive
with a single eye. Hammond was right. ACR is a river with an identifiable current,
but with more than one form.

TWENTYYEARS AFTERBELLAH

141

SELECTEDREFERENCES
citationof allthe literature
is selectedin thatit doesnot attempta comprehensive
Thislistof references
(1975),Hammond
on Americancivilreligion.ConsultRicheyandJones(1974),KathanandFuchs-Kreimer
are the signifiHere
sources.
as
additional
Menendez
and
(1985)
Wilson
(1976),
(1979),Gehrig(1981a),
cant sourcesfrom phasesone and two (1967-77),plus as many relevantsourcesas possiblefromphases
threeand four(1977-88).Articlesfrompopularmagazinesgenerallyarenot included.For convenience,
citationsare listed accordingto the periodicityschemefrom the articleabove. Some authorsappear
in more than one phase.
PHASE 1: AMERICAN CIVIL RELIGION, 1967-73

Ahlstrom,Sydney E. 1970."The radicalturn in theology and ethics:why it occurredin the 1960s."

Annalsof the AmericanAcademyof Politicaland SocialScience387:1-13.
. 1972a.A ReligiousHistoryof the AmericanPeople.New Haven: Yale University.
. 1972b. "Requiemfor patrioticpiety." Worldview15(8):9-11.
Alley, Robert S. 1972. So Help Me God. Richmond,VA: John Knox.
Bellah, RobertN. 1967. "Civil religionin America."Daedalus96:1-21.
. 1968. "Response,"pp. 388-93in Cutler, q.v.
World.New York:Harper& Row.
. 1970.BeyondBelief.Essayson Religionin a Post-Traditional
Review,SupplementalSeries
.1973. "Americancivil religionin the 1970s."AnglicanTheological
(1):8-20.
Brogan,Denis. 1968. "Commentary,"pp. 356-60 in Cutler, q.v.
Cherry, Conrad. 1969. "Two Americansacredceremonies."AmericanQuarterly21:739-54.
. 1970. "Americansacredceremonies,"pp. 306-16 in Hammondand Johnson,q.v.
. 1971. God'sNew Israel.EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
. 1972. "Nation, church, and privatereligion."Journalof Churchand State 14:223-33.
Analysis31:67-77.
Coleman,John A. 1970. "Civil religion."Sociological
Cutler, Donald R. (ed.). 1968. The ReligiousSituation:1968. Boston: Beacon.
"Definingcivil religion."1973. ChristianCentury90:308.
Fenn, RichardK. 1972."Towarda new sociologyof religion."Journalfor theScientificStudyof Religion
11:16-32.
Gustafson,JamesM. 1970."Foreword."Annalsof the AmericanAcademyof Politicaland SocialScience
387:ix-x.
Hammond,PhillipE. 1968. "Commentary,"pp. 381-88 in Cutler, q.v.
and Benton Johnson (eds.). 1970. AmericanMosaic.New York: RandomHouse.
Herberg,Will. 1973."America'scivil religion:what it is and whenceit comes."ModemAge 17:226-33.
Lynn, RobertW. 1973. "Civil catecheticsin Mid-VictorianAmerica."ReligiousEducation68:5-27.
Mead, Sidney E. 1967. "The nation with the soul of a church."ChurchHistory36:262-83.
Academy
Neuhaus,RichardJohn. 1970."Thewar,the churches,and civilreligion."Annalsof theAmerican
of Politicaland SocialScience387:128-40.
Pfeffer,Leo. 1968. "Commentary,"pp. 360-65 in Cutler, q.v.
Smith, Elwyn A. (ed.). 1971. The Religionof the Republic.Philadelphia:Fortress.
Stauffer,RobertE. 1973. "Civil religion,technocracy,and the privatesphere:furthercommentson
culturalintegrationin advancedsocieties."Journalfor the ScientificStudyof Religion12:415-25.
andtheNew Majority.New York:Association.
Streiker,LowellD. and GeraldS. Strober.1972.Religion
Thomas,MichaelC. andCharlesC. Flippen.1972."Americancivilreligion:an empiricalstudy."Social
Forces51:218-25.
Nation:The Ideaof America'sMillennialRole.Chicago:University
Tuveson, ErnestL. 1968. Redeemer
of Chicago.
Whitney,John R. 1968. "Commentary,"pp. 365-81in Cutler, q.v.
Wilson,John F. 1971. "The status of civil religion,"pp. 1-12 in Smith, q.v.

142

SOCIOLOGICALANALYSIS

PHASE2: AMERICANCIVILRELIGION,1974-77
Anthony, Dick and Thomas Robbins. 1975. "From symbolic realism to structuralism." Journalfor the

ScientificStudyof Religion14:403-14.
Balitzer, Alfred. 1974. "Some thoughts about civil religion." Journal of Church and State 16:31-50.
Barnette, Henlee. 1976. "Civil religion in America." Review and Expositor73:151-59.
Bellah, Robert N. 1974a. "American civil religion in the 1970s," pp. 255-72 in Richey and Jones, q.v.
(revision of Bellah, 1973).
. 1974b. "New religious consciousness." New Republic 171 (21):33-41.
. 1974c. "Reflections on reality in America." Radical Religion 1:38-49.
. 1974d. "Religion and polity and America." Andover Newton Quarterly 15 (Nov.):107-23.
. 1975a. The Broken Covenant. New York: Seabury.
1975b. "Rejoinderto Lockwood: 'Bellah and his critics'."AnglicanTheologicalReview 57:416-23.
. 1976a. "Civil religion and the American future." ReligiousEducation 71:235-43.
. 1976b. "Civil religion: the sacred and the political in American life." PsychologyToday9 (1):58-65.
. 1976c. "Comment on 'Bellah and the new orthodoxy'." SociologicalAnalysis 37:167-68.
. 1976d. "Response to the panel on civil religion." SociologicalAnalysis 37:153-59.
. 1976e. "The revolution and the civil religion," pp. 53-73 in Brauer, q.v.
Bennett, W. Lance. 1975. "Political sanctification: the civil religion and American politics." SocialScience
Information 14:79-102.
Bonhovsky, Frederick 0. 1976. "American civil religion - and others." Worldview 19 (10):13-19.
Bourg, Carroll J. 1976a. "Foreword." SociologicalAnalysis 37 (2):n.p.
. 1976b. "A symposium on civil religion." SociologicalAnalysis 37:141-49.
Bowden, Henry Warner. 1975. "A historian's response to the concept of American civil religion." Jour-

nal of Churchand State 17:495-505.

Brauer, Jerald C. (ed.). 1976. Religionand the American Revolution. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Cole, William A., and Phillip E. Hammond. 1974. "Religious pluralism, legal development and societal
complexity: rudimentary forms of civil religion." Journalfor the Scientific Studyof Religion 13:177-89.
Demerath, N. J., III and W. C. Roof. 1976. "Religion - recent strands in research," pp. 19-33 in Alex
Inkeles, James Coleman, and Neil Smelser (eds.), Annual Review of Sociology2.
Donahue, Bernard F. 1975. "The political use of religious symbols: a case study of the 1972 presidential
campaign." Review of Politics 37:48-65.
Eisenstein, Ira. 1976. "Is the U.S. ready for a civil religion?" ReligiousEducation 71:227-30.
Fenn, Richard K. 1974. "Religion and legitimation of social systems," pp. 143-61 in Allan W. Eister

in the ScientificStudyof Religion.New York: Wiley.

(ed.), ChangingPerspectives
. 1976. "Bellah and the new orthodoxy." SociologicalAnalysis 37:160-66.
Garrett, James Leo, Jr. 1974. " 'Civil religion': clarifying the semantic problem." Journalof Church and
State 16:187-96.
Gleason, Philip. 1977. "Blurring the line of separation: education, civil religion, and teaching about
religion." Journal of Church and State 19:517-38.
Greeley, Andrew M. 1975. "The civil religion of ethnic Americans." ReligiousEducation 70:499-514.
Hadden, Jeffrey K. 1975. "Review symposium: editor's introduction." Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion 14:385-89.
Hammond, Phillip E. 1974. "Religious pluralism and Durkheim's integration thesis," pp. 115-42 in Allan

in the ScientificStudyof Religion.New York:Wiley.

W. Eister(ed.), ChangingPerspectives
. 1976. "The sociology of American civil religion: a bibliographic essay." SociologicalAnalysis
37:169-82.
Hart, Roderick P. 1977. The Political Pulpit. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
Henderson, Charles P., Jr. 1975. "Civil religion and the American presidency." Religious Education

70:473-85.
Johnson, Benton. 1976. "Comments." SociologicalAnalysis 37:150-52.
Jones, Donald G. and Russell E. Richey. 1974. "The civil religion debate," pp. 3-19 in Richey and Jones, q.v.
Kathan, Boardman W., and Nancy Fuchs-Kreimer. 1974. "Bibliographyon civil religion." ReligiousEducation 70:541-50.
Kessler, Sanford. 1977. "Tocqueville on civil religion and liberal democracy." Journalof Politics39:119-46.
Lincoln, C. Eric. 1975. "Americanity:the third force in American pluralism."ReligiousEducation70:485-99,

575-76.

TWENTY YEARS AFTER BELLAH

143

Linder, Robert D. 1975. "Civil religion in historical perspective: the reality that underlies the concept."

Journalof Churchand State 17:399-421.

Lockwood, Joan. 1975. "Bellah and his critics: an ambiguity in Bellah's concept of civil religion." Anglican

TheologicalReview57:395-415.
Long, Charles H. 1974. "Civil rights - civil religion: visible people and invisible religion," pp. 211-21
in Richey and Jones, q.v.
Lor, Aaron, 1975. "From civil to traditional religion." Religious Education 70:514-18.
Marty, Martin E. 1974a. "A nation of behavers." Worldview 17 (5):9-13.
. 1974b. "Two kinds of two kinds of civil religion," pp. 139-59 in Richey and Jones, q.v.
. 1976. A Nation of Behavers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
. 1977. "God's almost chosen people." American Heritage 28 (5):4-6.
Marx, Leo. 1974. "The uncivil response of American writers to civil religion in America," pp. 222-53
in Richey and Jones, q.v.
McDowell, Jennifer. 1974. "Soviet civil ceremonies." Journalfor the ScientificStudyof Religion 13:265-79.
McFadden, Thomas M. (ed.). 1976. America in Theological Perspective.New York: Seabury.
Mead, Sidney E. 1975. The Nation with the Soul of a Church. New York: Harper & Row.
Moltmann, Jurgen (ed.). 1974. Religionand Political Society. New York: Harper & Row.
Moodie, T. Dunbar. 1975. The Rise of Afrikanerdom.Berkeley: University of California Press.
Neal, Marie Augusta. 1976. "Civil religion, theology, and politics in America," pp. 99-122 in McFadden, q.v.

as Revelation.New York:
Neuhaus,RichardJohn. 1975. TimeTowardHome:The AmericanExperience
Seabury.
Novak, Michael. 1974. ChoosingOur King:PowerfulSymbolsin PresidentialPolitics.New York: Macmillan.
. 1975. Review of Time TowardHome by Richard John Nehaus. New Republic173 (Nov. 22):30-32.
. 1976. "Peril to Christianity or opportunity for ecumenism? a consideration of American civil
religion." Encounter37:245-58.
Regan, Daniel. 1976. "Islam, intellectuals, and civil religion in Malaysia." SociologicalAnalysis 37:95-110.
Reynolds, Frank E. 1977. "Civic religion and national community in Thailand." Journalof Asian Studies
36:267-82.
Richardson, Herbert. 1974. "Civil religion in theological perspective,"pp. 161-84 in Richey and Jones, q.v.
Richey, Russell E. and Donald G. Jones (eds.). 1974. AmericanCivil Religion.New York: Harper & Row.
Robbins, Thomas, Dick Anthony, Madeline Doucas, and Thomas Curtis. 1976. "The last civil religion:
Reverend Moon and the Unification Church." SociologicalAnalysis 37:111-26.
Ross, Don S. 1975. "Civil religion in America." Religion in Life 44:24-35.
Schneider, Mary L. 1976a. "The American civil religious course: problems and perspectives." Religious
Education 7:317-29.
. 1976b. "A Catholic perspective on American civil religion," pp. 123-39 in McFadden, q.v.
Smith, Elwyn A. 1977. "The civil religion: is it a viable concept?" Journalof EcumenicalStudies 14:113-24.
Smith, Kalmin D. 1975. "The politics of civil religion." American Benedictine Review 26:89-106.
Stauffer, Robert E. 1975. "Bellah's civil religion." Journalfor the Scientific Study of Religion 14:390-94.

Strout, Cushing. 1974.The New Heavensand the New Earth:PoliticalReligionin America.New York:
Harper & Row.
Wallace, Ruth A. 1977. "Emile Durkheim and the civil religion concept." Review of ReligiousResearch
18:287-90.
Warner, W. Lloyd. 1974. "An American sacred ceremony," pp. 89-113 in Richey and Jones, q.v.
Wilson, John F. 1974. "A historian's approach to civil religion," pp. 115-38 in Richey and Jones, q.v.
Wimberley, Ronald C. 1976. "Testing the civil religion hypothesis." SociologicalAnalysis 37:341-52.
, Donald A. Clelland, Thomas C. Hood, and C. M. Lipsey. 1976. "The civil religious dimension: is it there?" Social Forces 54:890-900.

PHASE3: AMERICANCIVILRELIGION,1978-82
Ahlstrom, Sydney E. 1978. "National trauma and changing religious values." Daedalus 107:13-30.
Albanese, Catherine L. 1981. America: Religiousand Religion. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
. 1982. "Dominant and public center: reflections on the 'one' religion of the United States."

SouthAtlanticQuarterly81:14-29.

144

SOCIOLOGICALANALYSIS

innovationandthe crisisof Americancivilreligion."

Anthony,Dick andThomasRobbins.1982."Spiritual
Daedalus111:215-34.
Balitzer,Alfred. 1979. "The civil religiondebate."Religionin Life 48:175-87.
Bellah,RobertN. 1978a."Commentaryand proposedagenda:the normativeframeworkfor pluralism
in America."Soundings61:355-71.
. 1978b."Religionand legitimationin the Americanrepublic."Society15 (4):16-23.
and Crisis38:317-22.
. 1978c. "The role of preachingin a corruptsociety."Christianity
. 1980. "The Japaneseand Americancases,"pp. 27-39 in Bellah and Hammond,q.v.
. 1982. "Religionand power in America today."Commonweal109:650-55.
and PhillipE. Hammond(eds.)1980.Varietiesof Civil Religion.San Francisco:Harper& Row.
Bennett,W. Lance.1979."Imitation,ambiguity,anddramain publiclife:civil religionand the dilemmas
of public morality."Journalof Politics41:106-33.
Iran."Journal
andState.21:223-46.
Braswell,GeorgeW.,Jr. 1979."Civilreligionin contemporary
of Church
Christenson,JamesA. and Ronald C. Wimberley.1978. "Whois civil religious?"Sociological
Analysis
39:77-83.
An Examination
Crockett,H. Dale. 1982.Focuson Watergate:
of the MoralDilemmaof Watergatein the
Lightof Civil Religion.Macon, GA: MercerUniversityPress.
Taste.New York: Seabury.
Cuddihy, John Murray.1978. No Offense:Civil Religionand Protestant
Fairbanks,JamesDavid. 1981. "Thepriestlyfunctionsof the presidency:a discussionof the literature
Presidential
StudiesQuarterly
forthe studyof presidential
on civilreligionandits implications
leadership."
11:214-32.
Storrs,CT: Society for the ScientificStudy
Fenn, RichardK. 1978.Towarda Theoryof Secularization.
of Religion.
Gamwell,FranklinI. 1982. "Religionand the publicpurpose."Journalof Religion62:272-88.
An Assessment.
Storrs,CT: Societyforthe ScientificStudy
Gehrig,Gail. 1981a.AmericanCivilReligion:
of Religion.
. 1981b."TheAmericancivil religiondebate:a sourcefor theory construction."Journalfor the
ScientificStudyof Religion20:51-63.
Politics
Comparative
Goodin,RobertE. 1981."Civilreligionand politicalwitchhunts:threeexplanations."
14:1-16.
Hammond,PhillipE. 1979. "Civil religionat bay." The CenterMagazine12 (5):51.
. 1980a."Civilityand civil religion:The emergenceof cults,"pp. 188-99in Bellah and Hammond, q.v.
. 1980b. "The conditions for civil religion:a comparisonof the United States and Mexico,"
pp. 40-85 in Bellah and Hammond,q.v.
Handy, RobertT. 1980. "A decisiveturn in the civil religiondebate."TheologyToday37:342-50.
Henry,Patrick.1981."'And I don't carewhat it is':the tradition-historyof a civil religionproof-text."
Journalof the AmericanAcademyof Religion49:35-49.
Hughes,RichardT. 1980."Civil religion,the theologyof the republic,and the freechurchtradition."
Journalof Churchand State 22:75-88.
Jolicoeur,Pamelaand Louis L. Knowles.1978. "Fraternalassociationsand civil religion:Scottish rite
freemasonry."Reviewof ReligiousResearch20:3-22.
Levinson,Sanford.1980."The'Constitution'in Americancivil religion,"pp. 123-51in PhilipKurland
CourtReview.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
and GerhardCasper(eds.), 1979- TheSupreme
and Civil
Linder,RobertD. and RichardV. Pierard.1978. Twilightof the Saints:BiblicalChristianity
Religionin America.Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
Markoff,John and Daniel Regan. 1981."The rise and fall of civil religion:comparativeperspectives."
Analysis42:333-52.
Sociological
McGuire,MeredithB. 1981. Religion:The SocialContext.Belmont,CA: Wadsworth.
Mount, C. Eric,Jr., 1980."Realism,norm, story,and character:issuesin the civil religiondiscussion."
Journalof Churchand State 22:41-52.
65:88-102.
Noble, DavidW. 1982."RobertBellah,civil religion,and the Americanjeremiad."Soundings
Purdy,SusanS. 1982."Thecivil religionthesisas it appliesto a pluralisticsociety:Pancasilademocracy
in Indonesia(1945-1965).Journalof International
Affairs36:307-16.
Rice, Daniel F. 1980."SidneyE. Meadand the problemof 'civilreligion'."Journalof ChurchandState
22:253-74.

TWENTYYEARS AFTERBELLAH

145

in American
Cultureby JohnF. Wilson.Journalof Church
Richey,RussellE. 1980.Reviewof PublicReligion
and State22:519-20.
Robertson,Roland. 1981. "Considerationsfrom within the Americancontext on the significanceof
church-statetension."Sociological
Analysis42:193-208.
Smidt,Corwin.1980."Civilreligiousorientationsamongelementaryschoolchildren."Sociological
Analysis
41:25-40.
. 1982. "Civilreligiousorientationsand children'sperceptionsof politicalauthority."Political
Behavior4:147-62.
Watts,John T. 1980."RobertBellah'stheoryof America'seschatologicalhope."Journalof Churchand
State22:5-22.
West,EllisM. 1980."A proposedneutraldefinitionof civil religion."Journalof ChurchandState22:23-40.
Williams,Peter M. 1980. PopularReligionin America.EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Reviewof Religious
Wilson,John. 1980."Voluntaryassociationsand civilreligion:the caseof freemasonry."
Research22:125-36.
Wilson, John F. 1979. PublicReligionin AmericanCulture.Philadelphia:TempleUniversityPress.
Wimberley,Ronald C. 1979. "Continuityin the measurementof civil religion."Sociological
Analysis
40:59-62.
. 1980. "Civil religionand the choice for president:Nixon in '72." SocialForces59:44-61.
, and JamesA. Christenson.1980."Civilreligionand churchand state."Sociological
Quarterly
21:35-40.
. 1981. "Civil religion and other religiousidentities."Sociological
Analysis42:91-100.
.1982. "Civilreligion,socialindicators,and publicpolicy."SocialIndicators
Research10:211-23.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1982. "America'scivil religion."Democracy2 (2):7-17.
PHASE4: AMERICANCIVILRELIGION,1983-88
Adams, David S. 1987."RonaldReagan's'revival':voluntarismas a theme in Reagan'scivil religion."
Sociological
Anslysis48:17-29.
Bellah, Robert N. 1984. "The returnof religion."Religionand IntellectualLife 1 (2):40-56.
. 1986. "Publicphilosophyand public theology in America,"pp. 79-97 in Rouner (a), q.v.
. 1987. "Competingvisionsof the role of religionin Americansociety,"pp. 219-32 in Bellah
and Greenspahn,q.v.
and FrederickE. Greenspahn(eds.),1987.UncivilReligion:
Interreligious
Hostilityin America.New
York:Crossroad.
, RichardMadsen,WilliamM. Sullivan,Ann Swidler,and Steven M. Tipton. 1985.Habitsof
the Heart.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Bocock,Robert.1985."Religionin modernBritain,"pp. 207-33in RobertBocockandKennethThompson
(eds.), Religionand Ideology.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.
Campbell,KarlynKohrsand KathleenHallJamieson.1985."Inaugurating
the presidency."Presidential
StudiesQuarterly15:394-411.
Dean, Eric. 1983. " 'The insolubleproblem':civil religionor Christiannation."Encounter
44:353-67.
Demerath,N. J., IIIand Rhys H. Williams.1985. "Civil religionin an uncivil society."Annalsof the
AmericanAcademyof Politicaland SocialScience480:154-66.
Eslinger,RichardL. 1984. "Civil religionand the year of grace."Worship58:372-83.
Flowers,Ronald B. 1983. "PresidentJimmyCarter,evangelicalism,church-staterelations,and civil
religion."Journalof Churchand State25:113-32.
Hughey, Michael W. 1983. Civil Religionand MoralOrder.Westport,CT: Greenwood.
Liebman,CharlesS. andEliezarDon-Yehiya.1983a.CivilReligion
in Israel.Berkeley:Universityof California Press.
. 1983b."Thedilemmaof reconcilingtraditionalcultureandpoliticalneeds."Comparative
Politics
16:53-66.
Little,David. 1984. "Americancivil religionand the rise of the pluralism."UnionSeminaryQuarterly
Review38:401-13.
in the UnitedStates(2nd ed.). New York:Scribners.
Marty, Martin E. 1986. Protestantism
. 1987. Religionand Republic.Boston: Beacon.
McBrien,RichardP. 1987. Caesar'sCoin:Religionand Politicsin America.New York: Macmillan.

146

SOCIOLOGICALANALYSIS

McGuire,MeredithB. 1987. Religion:The SocialContext(2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

New York:Garland.
Menendez,Albert J. 1985. ReligiousConflictin America:A Bibliography.
Mirsky,Yehudah. 1986. "Civil religionand the establishmentclause."Yale Law Journal95:1237-57.
New York:OxfordUniverandtheMakingof Americans.
Moore,R. Laurence.1986.ReligiousOutsiders
sity Press.
Moraska,Ewa. 1986."Civil religionand state powerin Poland,"pp. 221-32 in Thomas Robbinsand
Relations:Tensionsand Transitions.New Brunswick,NJ:
Roland Robertson (eds.), Church-State
Transaction.
Neuhaus,RichardJohn. 1986."Fromcivil religionto publicphilosophy,"pp. 98-110in Rouner(a),q.v.
Parkinson,Thomas. 1983."'When lilacslast in the door-yardbloom'd'and the Americancivilreligion."
SouthernReview19:1-16.
Grand Rapids,MI:
Pierard,RichardV. and RobertD. Linder. 1988. Civil Religionand the Presidency.
Zondervan.
Rouner,LeroyS. (ed.). 1986a.CivilReligionandPoliticalTheology.Notre Dame, IN: Universityof Notre
Dame Press.
(ed.). 1986b."To be at home:civil religionas common bond,"pp. 125-37in Rouner(a), q.v.
Seneviratne,H. L. 1984. "Continuityof civil religionin Sri Lanka."Religion14:1-14.
Stahl, WilliamA. 1984."Comingto terms:definingstructuresof meaningin the civil religionand nationalitydebates."UnionSeminaryQuarterlyReview39:73-84.
Tipton, Steven M. 1984. "Religionand the moralrhetoricof presidentialpolitics."ChristianCentury
101:1010-13.
Toolin, Cynthia. 1983."Americancivil religionfrom 1789-1981:A content analysisof presidentialinauguraladdresses."Reviewof ReligiousResearch25:39-48.
Turner,BryanS. 1985[1983]."Socialcement,"pp. 234-44in RobertBocockand KennethThompson
(eds.), Religionand Ideology.Manchester:Universityof ManchesterPress.
. 1986."Religion,state, and civil society:Nation buildingin Australia,"pp. 233-52in Thomas
New Brunswick,
andTransitions.
Tensions
Relations:
Robbinsand RolandRobertson(eds.),Church-State
NJ: Transaction.
in America.Lanham,MD:UniverVaracalli,Joseph.1983.TowardtheEstablishment
of LiberalCatholicism
sity Pressof America.
Wald, Kenneth. 1987. Religionand Politicsin the UnitedStates.New York: St. Martin's.
Wilson, CharlesReagan.1984. "Americanheavens:Apollo and the civil religion."Journalof Church
and State26:209-26.
Wilson,John F. 1986. "Commonreligionin Americansociety,"pp. 111-24in Rouner (a), q.v.
Woocher,JonathanS. 1985. "Sacredsurvival:AmericanJewry'scivil religion."Judaism34:151-62.
ofAmerican
Jews.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.
TheCivilReligion
. 1986.SacredSurvival:
Wuthnow,Robert.1988a."Dividedwe fall:America'stwo civil religions."ChristianCentury115:395-99.
. 1988b. The Restructuring
of AmericanReligion.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
SOURCESCITED, NOT DIRECTLYRELATEDTO AMERICANCIVILRELIGION
Bercovitch,Sacvan. 1978. The AmericanJeremiad.Madison:Universityof WisconsinPress.
New York:Antheneum.
Magruder,Jeb Stuart. 1974.An AmericanLife:One Man'sRoadto Watergate.