How could Deism become popular in the early United States, replacing Protestant Christianity as the belief system with the highest number of adherents? How would a majority or plurality of Americans being deist effect the future of the nation?
First, Deism at least as formulated in the 1700s would be counted as a branch of Protestant Christianity.
So a belief system that rejected the idea of a deity who gets directly involved with the lives of human beings, rejected also the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of/is a Person of said deity, and in fact rejected the notion of and need for personal salvation altogether - thereby rejecting the three core beliefs of Christianity both Protestant and otherwise, at least at the time with which we are concerned - would somehow be considered to be a form of Christianity?
How do you figure that?
Well, it depends on which Deist we're talking about, really. Some accepted Jesus' divinity, others rejected his divinity but still honored him as a great teacher. God was the Great Watchmaker and Architect of the universe, not a personal deity. Some Deists believed in an afterlife where God would mete judgment, others believed in reincarnation, and some believed in no afterlife.
Well, it rather depends on your viewpoint. The people at the time had no problem calling their beliefs 'Christianity', even if they were rather disconnected from what the general body of Christendom for 2000 years believed.The above is basically what causes me to question its automatic inclusion in the realm of Protestant Christianity.
I will say, though, that if the OP question were to be recast essentially as "what if the majority religious belief of the populace in the Early U.S. were not automatically predicated upon the notion of sin and personal salvation?" then that might change things a bit in terms of the developing culture and history. Then again, it might not, considering how many Americans in OTL historically gave (and give) little more than lip service to the teachings traditional to Christianity in the first place.
Well, it rather depends on your viewpoint. The people at the time had no problem calling their beliefs 'Christianity', even if they were rather disconnected from what the general body of Christendom for 2000 years believed.
There was actually a serious discussion within the early US Episcopal church about dropping Trinitarianism(!?!), so it wasn't just Thomas Jefferson musing in his study.
This the period where rationalism and enlightenment are in vogue, and (a large chunk of) Christianity was presented in those terms. This is between the First Great Awakening and the Second (where religious fervor and personal salvation were considered important), and in a period where fervor was 'emotionalism' and considered suspect (often) rather than good.
Being a good Nicene/Chalcedonian Anglican/Episcopal myself, reading about some of those debates was scary.
Well, it rather depends on your viewpoint. The people at the time had no problem calling their beliefs 'Christianity', even if they were rather disconnected from what the general body of Christendom for 2000 years believed.![]()
Okay, now there's something I had either not been aware of or had forgotten about.There was actually a serious discussion within the early US Episcopal church about dropping Trinitarianism(!?!), so it wasn't just Thomas Jefferson musing in his study.