Resentment in a Body

Last updated on: January 12, 2017 at 12:05 am by Scot McKnight

Resentment in a Body 2017-01-08T20:45:15-06:00 Scot McKnight

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

D. G. (Darryl G.) Hart, in spite of donning a bow tie, is an exceptional scholar, thinker, and writer. His latest is about one of my favorite writers and appears in the most unlikely of locations: in the Library of Religious Biography. It is unlikely because this series concerns major religious persons while this book is on the most irreligious of characters, none other than H.L. Mencken. The book is called Damning Words: The Life and Religious Times of H.L. Mencken.

Many have no idea who Mencken is — a famous journalist, author, opinion-ator from Baltimore. He was known (and still is) for his caustic approach to religion, not least in his coverage of Bryan’s famous Scopes Trial in Dayton TN, and this forms the backdrop for Hart’s informed, unfootnoted, constantly-quoting biography. I’ve read Terry Teachout’s spectacular biography of Mencken called The Skeptic, but I like Hart’s improvement of Teachout’s because of Hart’s finesse with the religious environment of Mencken, and environment that caused Mencken’s negations and vituperations to be a witness to the religious world of Mencken. Hart does this well, perhaps a little too well (see below), and it sheds light on Mencken himself. [Image of Hart]

Hart sees Mencken through the grid of the Enlightenment, through his German background, and through his stubborn make-up and contrariness against the religious and moral assumptions of a very Christian society that annoyed him from sunup to sundown and well beyond. I have been reading Mencken for years but can only read him in small bits as his acid tongue and sacrilegious and blasphemous beliefs, bound up as they always are in the strongest forms of rhetoric possible, become too much. But in bite size chunks, the man is a hoot and quotable and sometimes insightful into the Christian faith. I agree with Hart that Mencken was brilliant at what he did.

Even though Mencken would eventually be received into communion in the Lutheran church, his dissent from American pieties contributed to his emergence as one of the most astute observers of American Christianity whose mocking might have done more good for the body of Christ if his devout readers had not been so shocked by his irreverence (10).

[Mencken] The Methodists avoided everything of that kind. They surely did not neglect Hell in their preaching, but when they lifted up their voices in song they liked to pretend that they were booked to escape it (16).

His father was a tobacconist and had a business he expected Mencken to follow, but H.L. was unsuitable to the business at all levels and a failure at it and he was saved when his father died early. His journalism led to a scientific approach — just the phenomena — and to a distance safe for judgment, which became his living. Here are some of Hart’s finer descriptions of Mencken’s mode: [Image of Mencken]

In his own words, a “private editorial column devoted wholly to my personal opinions and prejudices” “launched me as a general assassin” (59).

Mencken’s column stood out, not only because it was signed or because it was provocative, but also because the rest of the editorial page was so dull. He went out of his way to be controversial. The trick was to expose frauds, which fit in with progressive reformers and muckrakers. But Mencken’s knack was to bring to light all shams—even those of do-gooders. Demonstrating hypocrisy was too easy for Mencken. His outlook highlighted the gap between human idealism and execution, especially among the uplifters and moralizers who thought they could actually improve people, society, or governments (60).

Why was Mencken like this? Hart begins to explore this at times and here’s an example, and I will say more about this below, for Mencken was a German, idealized the place and especially it’s arch critic, Friedrich Nietzsche:

He located the source of his outlook as “fundamentally anti-Anglo Saxon” and said that if he had “any spiritual home at all it must be in the land” of his German ancestors. For Mencken, England represented a form of self-righteous smugness that he associated with democracy and egalitarianism while Germany still upheld the ideal of the superior man and distinguished civilization unadorned by the sentimental trappings of equality (85).

From Mencken’s reading, the enlightenment championed by Nietzsche was an acquired taste for superior men. The lower castes could still have their old beliefs” (87).

Mencken is famous for his quotables about Puritanism. Thus, “Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy” and “Show me a Puritan and I’ll show you a son-of-a-bitch.” For Mencken Puritanism was as much the imposing of one’s views via politics, law, and social mores as it was a theology or a historical movement. Hence, it becomes a cultural force he despised, and it was one that left him on the outside. Hence, “At the bottom of Puritanism one finds envy of the fellow who is having a better time in the world, and hence hatred of him. At the bottom of democracy one finds the same thing. This is why all Puritans are democrats and all democrats are Puritans” (81).

As he wrote in A Book of Prefaces, underneath the various legislative aspects of Comstockery [imposition theme again] was “the dubious principle—the very determining principle, indeed, of Puritanism—that it is competent for the community to limit and condition the private acts of its members” (107).

As much as Mencken clothed his invective in the fabric of invective, his was a naysayer’s that defied categories. It was one part village atheist and one part town drunk. He loathed the legislation that the devout passed, especially since the laws affected him directly. But he was an amiable critic who, rather than letting his believing inferiors get the better of him, decided to play along. Mencken was fully patriotic and arguably among the most anti-American of Americans (129).

I have two criticisms to raise of Hart’s fine book, and they are not much more than tweaks. First, while Hart clearly has pointed to a feature of Mencken’s motherlode, I don’t think he sees its importance enough: Mencken was a wannabe aristocrat, a high brow wannabe, but he had an inadequate education arising from a working class into an inadequate location in society. To be sure, Mencken was a stunningly great writer — regardless of contents — and he impacted American society noticeably. But a deep-seated ambition drove him and out of that ambition Mencken took deep refuge in Germany, which he idealized into a country of superior men as expressed by Nietzsche, and his perch then became as a perceived outcast that developed into a sustained resentment against all things American, all things “Puritan,” and all things established. Hart sees these themes but they deserve more attention and it seems the grid of “resentment” could be brought into play.

“In a few years,” he wrote, “the Mencken family will be at an end.” He wondered if he would have had an easier life in Germany, and concluded that he still found “it impossible to fit myself into the accepted patterns of American life and thought.” He confessed that he remained “a foreigner” (219) Germany had been a source of his sense of superiority—a civilized nation of superior men—that provided a world historical perch from which Mencken could look down on Anglo-American moralism and progressivism (223).

[Mencken on USA] Here the general average of intelligence, of knowledge, of competence, of integrity, of self-respect, of honor is so low that any man who knows his trade, does not fear ghosts, has read fifty good books, and practices the common decencies stands out as brilliantly as a wart on a bald head, and is thrown willy-nilly into a meager and exclusive aristocracy (225).

My biggest criticism of this book on Mencken is that Hart is too appreciative and not critical enough. Mencken wears thin and only so much can be taken of the man before he becomes a total turn-off. The man never missed an opportunity to criticize Christianity and Jesus and his take on Jesus is that of Nietzsche. During an election season once again shaped too much by the Christian faith, we find this:

Protestant dignitaries, he observed, were agitated about the political polemics and called for a return to the simple faith of Christ who “preached no complicated mysteries and demanded no pedantic allegiance.” As much as Mencken, a man who “loved peace and deplored the uproars now going on,” preferred this approach, he concluded that the religion of Jesus was as unworkable in 1920s America as it was in first-century Palestine. The Sermon on the Mount was a “sweet dream,” but with “no more reality than a young man’s hallucination of the damsel who has snared him” (183).

In a book on his religious faith, while Hart is unafraid to cite some of Mencken’s harshest of terms, Hart seems to want to rescue the man into a religious biography on account of the environment. Too often Hart quotes the harshness but then points out how alert Mencken was to the nuances of the Christian faith.

With the subtext of a twinkle in his eye, he observed the ironies and folly that generally attended attempts to express or capture the higher truths. Mencken mixed sarcasm and respect for religion in ways unrivaled by other debunkers, iconoclasts, or skeptics (205).

This respect, while it had nuance (and Hart points me to his perception and appreciation at some level of Machen), emerged at some level as a kind of courtesy perhaps. Mencken was a vulgar critic of the faith and his vulgarity needs to be emphasized more.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

January 11, 2017

There is a Promised Land (Jonathan Storment)

Next Post

January 12, 2017 Adam, Evolution, and the Imago Dei (RJS)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

In Roman armor, what purpose did the belt serve?

Select your answer to see how you score.

A decorative piece Holding the rest of the armor together A weapon storage Protecting the waist