Both the sacred and the solemn elicit reverence, a reverence for something other than our selves. Both invite us to be reverent, but reverent toward very different appearances. The appearance of the sacred, whether in a temple or in nature, elicits a reverence toward the more-than-human. The solemn, on the other hand, resides in the all-too-human—in civic spaces, such as court rooms, and city council meetings.
We can feel reverence for different things such as our ancestors, the beauty of nature, and at national cemeteries. I am not sure if these feelings are different from the feeling of reverence for a God. They are quite different, however, in terms of the language we use, the stories we tell, and their consequences.
My worry today is that groups like the Christian Nationalists are violating significant “solemn occasions” with their “sacred agenda.” To understand my worry, we must start with Donald Trump’s pattern of turning solemn occasions into self-performances, such as riding the escalator to announce his candidacy for President. Instead of showing reverence for serious events, he plays with them. In a sense, he has banished the feeling of solemnity from public life, at least for his followers, especially Christian Nationalists.
Almost by definition, CNs overlook the solemnity of public events—from court proceedings to oath taking—because they see events from their view of god’s providence. For them, all seriousness belongs to God. Democratic procedures, on the other hand, rest on the reverence for human dignity as it is manifested in courts of justice and other public proceedings.
It seems important to make a distinction between a naïve and a critical reverence. U.S. laws have sanctioned everything from slavery to genocide. A critical stance does not erase the legal order, but rather seeks to improve it. The history of people who have protested unjust laws as well as of those who have protected the rule of law creates the context for our responsibility to maintain a critical feeling of solemnity toward “solemn occasions” in civic spaces.
No better way to practice this critical solemnity than thinking about the act of taking a public oath of office. I have an image of an oath-taker standing with one hand raised and the other hand on the Bible. Is this a solemn occasion or a sacred one? The ceremony uses the Bible (a sacred text) in administrating the oath, but the oath is a promise to fulfill the duties of the office, not to obey a God. It is a serious occasion but not a sacred one. It is, in other words, a solemn occasion.
Solemn occasions might seem all-too-human. They rest on our best efforts to protect and to provide for each other. They link us to such values as freedom, justice, and community. They provide occasions to be serious about our life together and the challenges we all face.
Christian nationalists, it seems to me, destroy the solemnity of civic life by dismissing the all-too-human and pushing their religious ideology into the civic realm. Instead of taking our efforts at living together seriously, they ignore our efforts and preach their sacred alternative.
True believers, after all, do not see themselves as subject to processes of argument and persuasion. At the same time, their beliefs may remind us that humility makes us human. We are not gods, but neither are we without dignity and honor. Our words and actions can create occasions that deserve a solemn response; a response that not only reminds us of what we have achieved, but also what we should protect.
Comments