The President as High Priest: A Contemporary Case of Civil Religion

Introduction

Donald Trump’s presidency was marked by its nonconformist nature. The impact of President Trump’s policies, decisions, and appointments during a single term in office will likely be felt for generations to come. But what, if any, was his impact on American civil religion? In his essay “Civil Religion in America,” Robert Bellah describes and explains public faith in the United States. Specifically, Bellah analyzes the inaugural addresses of John F. Kennedy, as well as the words of several presidential contemporaries for evidence of the religious tenets established by the Founding Fathers and the Lincolnian “New Testament” scriptures.^[1] Bellah argues that these tenets construct an “American Israel” framework for understanding the historical origins of American civil religion and how it has evolved.^[2] In this framework, the President of the United States serves as the high priest of civil religion and gatekeeper of the public faith. How does Bellah’s model account for President Trump’s maverick approach? This essay offers a response that expands on Bellah’s foundation by analyzing President Trump’s inauguration speech and comparing it with those of former presidents. In doing so, it considers a change in presidential rhetoric over time. By Bellah’s standards, President Trump’s approach hinders the central pursuit of civil religion in America.

“Civil Religion in America”

Bellah defines American civil religion as “certain common elements of religious orientation that the great majority of Americans share…[that] have played a crucial role in the development of American institutions and still provide a religious dimension for the whole fabric of American life, including the political sphere.”^[3] It is important to note - as Bellah does immediately - that American civil religion is not Christianity. Though the two are closely related, American civil religion has its own unique religious elements. One key component of its belief system is a deity unlike any other deity. Bellah describes this deity as unitarian and concerned with things like order, law, and justice instead of salvation or love. This deity “is actively interested and involved in history, with a special concern for America.”^[4] The next two key components of civil religion are directly related to this deity: the American obligation to carry out God’s will on earth and America’s identity as God’s chosen land and people. Other components of civil religion include the religious legitimation of the President, the idea that sovereignty rests with the people but ultimately belongs to God, and the idea that the rights of human beings outlive politics.^[5] All of these beliefs establish the President as an elected priestly figure, called to represent the people before God and God before the people.^[6]

Despite all that is unique about the American civil religion, Bellah also highlights features adopted from Christianity. Bellah overlays these similarities on American history to create a metaphorical framework he calls “American Israel,” a concept inspired by the explicit words of Thomas Jefferson’s second inaugural address.^[7] “American Israel” is a Bible-inspired lens for understanding and assigning meaning to the people and events of American history. In it, Europe is Egypt, the colonists are the Israelites, America is the Promised Land, and George Washington is Moses.^[8] The Revolutionary War marks the completion of the Exodus, and the Civil War sparks a new question of national meaning.^[9] This meaning is exemplified in the life and death of Abraham Lincoln, a beloved martyr who “sacrificed” his own life in the name of national unification.^[10] Bellah describes Lincoln’s task as saving “the Union—not for America alone but for the meaning of America to the whole world,” and notes how his contemporaries likened him to Jesus Christ.^[11] The Gettysburg Address then becomes one of the central pieces of the “Lincolnian ‘New Testament,’” introducing the Christian themes of death, sacrifice, and rebirth to the civil faith.^[12] The divine purpose of each of these crucial moments in American history marks the establishment of a new form of government that shall “be a light unto all the nations.”^[13] The historical understanding of civil religion found in “American Israel” is significant, for it creates a foundation upon which all American presidents operate in their role as high priest.^[14]

Yet, though the foundations remain relevant, the American civil religion has evolved in its expression over time. Therefore, the most accurate analysis compares a president’s rhetoric to the Civil Commandments and to his contemporaries. We begin with an examination of the rhetoric in the first inaugural addresses and victory speeches of President Trump, of his party predecessor (President George W. Bush), of his true predecessor (President Barack Obama), and of his succeeding president-elect (President Joe Biden). Though these are unique works spoken to unique audiences in unique moments in history, President Trump’s three contemporaries follow similar rhetoric templates. They all frame their speeches with features of the civil religion and avoid any language that excludes other religions, even if the reference is explicitly Christian. President Trump appears to do the direct opposite. Though Trump does frame his speech with civil religion features, he presents the civil religion in a way that identifies a maverick identity with distinct implications.

Trump Versus His Contemporaries

President Trump’s inaugural address features two explicit references to America’s public faith. The first reference is towards the end of his speech, where Trump, discussing America’s duty to other countries and Americans’ duty to each other, declares “When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.”^[15] President Bush says that “Our democratic faith is more than the creed of our country, it is the inborn hope of our humanity, an ideal we carry but do not own, a trust we bear and pass along.”^[16] President Obama says that for all a government can accomplish, it is the “faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies.”^[17] And President Biden closes his victory speech by saying that one key component of American success is “faith in America and… each other.”^[18] Unlike President Trump, each of President Trump’s contemporaries separate private religion from the civil religion, referencing some other form of faith directly related to the public cause. President Trump, however, uses a metaphor heavily associated with intimate expressions of religion, thereby calling on Americans to integrate their national pride into their private lives. The remainder of his speech suggests this can be accomplished through the public faith.

The second reference is when President Trump promises that soon, “A new national pride will stir our souls, lift our sights, and heal our divisions… we all bleed the same red blood of patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American Flag.”^[19] Again, a reference to a national spirit as a source of national reinvigoration is not rare. President Bush says that “Americans are generous and strong and decent, not because we believe in ourselves, but because we hold beliefs beyond ourselves. When this spirit of citizenship is missing, no government program can replace it. When this spirit is present, no wrong can stand against it.”^[20] Similarly, President Obama says that the spirit of service must inhabit all Americans for the country’s success, and that “honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism” have been some of the key reasons for American success in the past.^[21] President Biden says that, in addition to faith, success can also be accredited to “full hearts and steady hands… love of country, [and] a thirst for justice.”^[22]

However, President Trump’s idea of what unites and distinguishes Americans is unique. Trump suggests that all Americans share one thing: being American. This is in direct contrast to the understanding of his contemporaries and Bellah’s definition of civil religion. Bellah says that American civil religion “is not the worship of the American nation but an understanding of the American experience in the light of ultimate and universal reality,” and Presidents Bush, Obama, and Biden all reflect that idea in their rhetoric.^[23] President Bush says that “America has never been united by blood or birth or soil” but instead by “ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests, and teach us what it means to be citizens.”^[24] President Obama says America is “bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions, greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction” and that our “patchwork heritage is a strength.”^[25] He focuses on shared experiences, saying that “because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass.”^[26] President Biden also focuses on diversity, saying that his support team was “the broadest and most diverse coalition in history,” a true reflection of America that he wants to carry into his administration.^[27] President Trump, however, believes nationality to be the root of American identity and unity. And his usage of “national pride” (as opposed to a shared spirit of America) directly implies that it is America that makes Americans instead of Americans who make America. This is also reflected in his campaign slogan: “Make America Great Again.” Whereas his contemporaries all imply that America’s greatness lies within the heart and spirit of the people - something to be prioritized once again - President Trump suggests that greatness is found in the past, rooted in the institution instead of the population.

But this does not mean that President Trump disregards the people. Instead, it is quite the opposite. Compared to Presidents Bush, Obama, and Biden, Trump has a higher reverence for the people that stretches past the limits Bellah outlines. The most prominent point of President Trump’s inaugural address is the idea of returning power to the people. He says that “what truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January 20th, 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again,”^[28] and that “a nation exists to serve its citizens.”^[29] And this is not abnormal. President Obama holds similar beliefs, saying that what matters is not the size but the functionality of the government.^[30] He measures government success based on “whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.”^[31] All of this, he ensures, is rooted in the desire to rebuild trust between the American people and their government.^[32] President Bush highlights a similar concept of the government and people working together, saying “Government has great responsibilities for public safety and public health, for civil rights and common schools. Yet compassion is the work of a nation, not just a government.”^[33] President Biden says he believes that America is about people, and pledges to “give everybody in this country a fair shot. That’s all they’re asking for: a fair shot.”^[34]

President Trump, however, goes further than just returning the power to the people. He exalts them. When discussing the demands of the American people, he says that “These are just and reasonable demands of righteous people and a righteous public.”^[35] It should be noted that the delivered transcript reads: “These are the just and reasonable demands of a righteous public.”^[36] The difference is that “righteous public” alludes to federal sovereignty resting with the American people, whereas “righteous people” suggests that the American people are incapable of being wrong. When Trump addresses the public, he says “Your voice, your hopes, and your dreams, will define our American destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way,” using explicitly Christian rhetoric - usually reserved to describe God - to describe the people.^[37] The idea of the people’s goodness as an eternal guide ironically echoes Jesus’ rejection of the title “Good Teacher” in Mark 10: “No one is good except God alone.”^[38] Trump’s declaration that his administration would be guided by the people because of their inherent, God-like qualities is especially unique; fellow Republican president, George Bush, feels the complete opposite about the public. Early in his inaugural address, Bush calls Americans “flawed and fallible,”^[39] asking them to “seek a common good beyond your comfort; to defend needed reforms against easy attacks; to serve your nation, beginning with your neighbor.”^[40] Whereas Bush not only implies that the people can be wrong, he also establishes himself as God’s middle man, paraphrasing Jesus’ command to love one’s neighbors as oneself. Though both Bush and Trump were Republicans who lost the popular vote, they take opposite approaches to the people, with conflicting views on the virtue of the American public.

President Trump’s disruption of the civil religion status quo is also made evident in his discussion of America’s divine obligation and exceptionalism. All of his contemporaries reference these concepts in some way. President Bush notes America’s divine “calling,”^[41] saying “the stakes for America are never small,”^[42] for “If our country does not lead the cause of freedom, it will not be led.”^[43] Bush also says that God’s purpose is “achieved” in America’s duty, and through subdued Biblical imagery, implies that this duty is to serve one another.^[44] President Obama also clings to the idea of duty, stating that

What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility – a recognition on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world; duties that we do not grudgingly accept, but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task. This is the price and the promise of citizenship. This is the source of our confidence – the knowledge that calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.^[45]

Obama returns to Bush’s idea of America as a world leader, declaring that “America is a friend of each nation, and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity. And we are ready to lead once more.”^[46] President Biden is a bit less material in his understanding of America, arguing that “once again, America’s bent the arc of the moral universe, more toward justice.”^[47] He also says that he believes America to be “a beacon for the globe”^[48] who will lead “not only by the example of our power but by the power of our example.”^[49] Biden pledges to unite the country to “embark on the work that God and history have called upon us to do.”^[50] All three men identify this duty as delivering the American social order to the world.

In contrast, President Trump speaks less about duty and more about destiny. He says that Americans “share one heart, one home, and one glorious destiny.”^[51] He proposes that “From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this moment on, it’s going to be America First…We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow.”^[52] Trump’s understanding of America’s vocation is not to collaborate with others to bring the American social order to the world but instead to exist in competition with the world (and win). This is America’s glorious destiny: to become unstoppable through unification, under his leadership and God’s divine protection. He asserts that “When America is united, America is totally unstoppable.”^[53] He affirms this position when he quotes Psalm 133, which states: “how good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity.”^[54] This inclusion is yet another direct implication of America as God’s chosen people. When Trump encourages his audience that they ought not to be scared, he explains that “…most importantly, we will be protected by God.”^[55] His statement suggests a condition to God’s protection (his presidency) and signals the divine sovereignty and ordination of America’s success. Not only does Trump betray America’s duty to the world for winning, but he also inserts America into the Bible, implying that this success is not just ordained metaphorically, but in actuality as well.

Applying Bellah’s Model

The distinct presence and deployment of civil religious themes in President Trump’s inauguration in comparison to his contemporaries signals a maverick spirit for his presidency. This spirit helped him win the presidency in 2016, and Biden combatted this spirit to beat him in 2020. Sidney Blumenthal observes how President Trump compares himself to former presidential maverick and civil religion icon, Abraham Lincoln: they are both honest Republicans who are incredibly “Presidential” and proven winners.^[56] An understanding of Lincoln’s iconic role in “American Israel,” and a grasp of Trump’s maverick nature in civil religion, begs the question: To what extent does Bellah’s framework facilitate interpretation?

Understanding Lincoln’s role in an “American Israel” framework may extend analysis into the contemporary age.^[57] As indicated in his inaugural address, President Trump ran on the platform of making America great again and restoring it to its original glory. Like Lincoln, he was called to lead in a time of crisis. Just as Lincoln introduced the values of death, sacrifice, and rebirth to the civil religion, Trump introduced three new values in his inaugural address: a literal understanding of “American Israel,” the full exhortation of the people, and a new grasp of “America First” that applies to both America’s duty to the world and Americans’ duty to their country.^[58] Ultimately, Trump’s presidency was enshrouded with the religious worry of the end-times in which he would strive to bring America back to greatness.^[59] And in this way, he very well may be an icon of civil religion.

Such a view is not compliant with Bellah’s vision of America’s future. In the concluding pages of Bellah’s essay, he presents his “three times of trial” framework.^[60] Bellah breaks down American history up until that point (1967) into three separate trials: one concerned with the feasibility of independence, one with the institutionalization of democracy, and the last with “responsible action in a revolutionary world.”^[61] Bellah says that the world seeks to obtain the material and spiritual things that America already has, and that “Americans have, from the beginning, been aware of the responsibility and the significance our republican experiment has for the whole world.”^[62] Bellah predicts that if the United Nations becomes a major world power (which it has), American civil religion would require a change. It would have to gain a new, international symbolism, or become “simply one part of a new civil religion of the world.”^[63] Not only would this shift pose no threat to American religion, but instead it would be a “fulfillment”^[64] of it, for “such an outcome has been the eschatological hope of American civil religion from the beginning. To deny such an outcome would be to deny the meaning of America itself.”^[65] As indicated in his inaugural address, President Trump’s “America First” sentiment denies the historical duty that lies near the center of American civil religion and replaces it with America’s success. Trump reiterates the ultimate favor towards America’s ventures (or being granted a divine inability to fail). Furthermore, Trump’s explicit rejection of globalism - in the context of his “America First” ideology - suggests a pure disinterest in the public religiosity of the world.^[66] Considering the previous levels of religious engagement by his contemporaries, the resulting retreat from world affairs fueled by this disinterest appears antagonistic.

“Civil Religion in America” as a Framework for Today

The biggest strength of “Civil Religion in America” is its appropriate assessment of United States history through the Cold War era. Bellah sees beyond his time of writing (1967) to a time where globalization is common practice, and the world has begun to “catch up” to the United States thanks to its far-reaching influence on global affairs. However, this strength also bears with it a limitation. Though well-suited for its era, Bellah’s framework is not tailored for American life today. Though 1960s Americans were divided on many issues, they maintained a willingness and desire to unite for the sake of a greater cause, as demonstrated (with exceptions) by the general response to the Cold War, Space Race, assassination of John F. Kennedy, and Civil Rights Movement. These moments shaped and challenged American identity, enabling the United States to have a civil religion. Without the ability to unite on a broader scale, there would be no “great majority of Americans” for Bellah to analyze.^[67] A primary difference between the America Bellah discusses and America today is that, in addition to being greatly divided, contemporary America has a wide distrust of the government, media, and each other, preventing it from coming together under a single cause. The nation’s response to the global pandemic is evidence of this idea.

Considering these differences, the question remains: What has changed? Why is Bellah’s framework ill-fitting for American life today, when it accurately predicted global trends beyond its publication? Is it due to short-sighted design? Or hyper-accuracy? Two major developments that Bellah could not predict were the effects of post-industrialization on the religiosity of the U.S. and the rise of the digital age (and accessibility to information). These changes have contributed to growing secularism (including the “Spiritual but Not Religious” movement) and disenchantment with the government in the United States. These changes eliminate the need for the American civil religion to be expressed in explicitly religious terms, thus relieving the President of their role as American High Priest. In an era of widespread “not my president” sentiments, the President is no longer a unifying figure, central to Americanism.

But perhaps these developments are not an undoing of Bellah’s framework, but instead a continuation of it. Due to some world-changing event (i.e. the Vietnam War, Watergate, the Iraq War, rise of the digital age, etc.) or combination of events, “American Israel” has splintered like the Christian Church following the Reformation. Civil religion has been individualized, removing the need for a high priest as spokesperson between God and man. No longer dependent on a handful of sources for political opinions or news, people are more civilly independent and selective in their leadership. Instead of a single priestly figure who dictates faith for the public, Americans may now choose their own pastor/denomination that best suits them. Instead of being an issue of the country’s duty to the world (i.e. American destiny & globalization), American civil religion has become a question of each citizen’s duty to the world they are in, both domestically and abroad (e.g. issues of climate change, human rights, and world hunger).

Further analysis is needed to determine what form American civil religion takes in an age of growing secularism and decreasing religiosity. Does it use the same explicitly religious terms? Does it have the same core beliefs and goals? What role, if any, does the President play? And how much weight do public speeches (such as the inaugural address) have on the American faith? This analysis could be best approached by filling in the American Israel framework from 1967 to today, identifying the major events that lead to the splintering of the American civil religion. In continuing the framework, special attention should be paid to if/when it falls apart, and why.

Despite the need for further consideration, however, there remains value in analyzing recent presidential inaugural addresses with Bellah’s framework. Such an analysis stands to show how American Civil Religion has changed from a generic public faith to an individualized and private one. The deviations of President Trump’s inaugural address embody the necessity for such a shift; America has diversified to the point that a broad public faith cannot serve a great majority as it did in the past.

Conclusion

Robert Bellah’s essay, “Civil Religion in America,” offers a conceptual framework for understanding the public faith that all Americans share. By continuing this framework, we can begin to determine the impact of recent presidential perspectives on American civil religion. By historical standards, President Trump’s speech may signal a new Lincoln; however, national pride is not the root of American civil religion. Instead, Bellah’s interpretation creates a much more nuanced faith connected to an obligation to bring the American social order to the world.