The ‘American’ god of ‘Moralistic Therapeutic Deism’

Posted on by

J. Todd Billings highlights the work of Christian Smith, and his research on spirituality in America. Smith has identified an all too common, unfortunately, belief system that often masquerades as being spiritual (at best) and as Christian (at worst). Here is how Smith itemizes what characterizes an “American Theology”:

  1. A God exists who created and orders the world and watches over human life on earth.
  2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
  3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
  4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.
  5. Good people go to heaven when they die. [Christian Smith, Soul Searching, 162-63 cited by J. Todd Billings in Union with Christ: Reframing Theology and Ministry for the Church, 22.]

Smith calls this ‘Moralistic Therapeutic Deism’, and I think his analysis is spot on! We live in a “post-Christian” society; the “post” part is characterized by the above anthems of what it means to be a “believer.” We have domesticated God to our own liking, and use him as our personal Genie in a bottle when the time or situation calls for it. We are non-committal, and lovers of self; and so the kind of tame god described by Smith above suits us just fine. This god doesn’t interfere, unless we ask him, to; and he fits into the status quo of our bourgeois paper made world. This god is nothing more than a coping mechanism; unfortunately, this god is everywhere.

2 thoughts on “The ‘American’ god of ‘Moralistic Therapeutic Deism’”

  1. I’m discovering that Christian Smith loves to come up with names for things, usually three word names. I’m reading his The Bible Made Impossible right now, where he claims that the typical conservative evangelical approach to Scripture he labels biblicism defeats itself because of “pervasive interpretive pluralism”. In other words, the idea that all anyone needs is the Bible which, because of its inerrancy and perspicuity, will lead the reader to a clear set of propositional truths defeats itself in that among those who hold this idea one finds a host of mutually exclusive conclusions about a whole set of doctrinal concerns, including those of fundamental significance.

    Anyway, I know this isn’t the topic of your post, I’m just finding myself agreeing with much of Smith’s arguments, on the popular doctrine of God issue (moralistic therapeutic deism) and biblicism (pervasive interpretive pluralism), but I get a bit annoyed at the labeling – everything becomes an -ism. That’s probably a fairly superficial complaint, but it makes me a bit uneasy as I read him.

  2. @Adam,

    I need to read that book from Smith. I read Congdon on Smith and that book, and Congdon discusses Smith’s label of PIP too. He labels something that I think we have all been aware of for some time (at least those paying attention). I agree with him on PIP.

    It does seem he has a penchant for labeling by 3s; I can see how this is annoying, and at the same time it makes his point memorable. Yet, I think this can become a problem too; when we sort of “can” things like this. If we don’t continue to be vigilant in thought, these kinds of labels can foster postures of apathy—and thus not real continued critical engagement with the issues. I think Hank Hanegraaff epitomizes this mode at the popular level; he “cans” everything, and ultimately this only leads people further into an introverted fundyism that engages at this level instead of a rigorous level—and of course we can all fall into this, even if we don’t use 3s πŸ˜‰ .

    Thanks for the point, Adam; I think its a good one, and that it relates to the ethos that this post is addressing.

Comments are closed.