**I am reposting the following in light of Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally he held this last Saturday (8-28) in Washington D.C. I am a Patriot, I am thankful to be an American; I love to understand and study our American Heritage — it is intriguing and informative. Nevertheless, there is a myth, and that myth is that America was through and through a Christian Nation in her origin; and that what America’s hope is is to return 
to our “Christian beginnings” and then all will be better. Now, following “Nationalism” and this myth makes sense for someone like Glenn Beck who is LDS/Mormon, and who believes that America is indeed the promised land; or this myth might make sense for those who are of a postmil persuasion (as many of the original “Americans” were — theologically), and hope to establish a golden age of humanity on earth (America representing her city on the hill or “Jerusalem”) thus ushering in the second coming of Christ. But, if we are truly Christ followers, I believe that our hope is in a Person — Jesus Christ — not in a “Land.” The problem is is that we’re in Babylon, not the “promised land;” we’re looking forward to the telos of all creation being realized at the second coming of Christ, in the New Jerusalem. I understand Beck’s misunderstanding, and I understand the postmiller’s wrongly placed emphasis; in fact I understand the desire for there to be a “Golden Age” wherein we can finally find peace and rest. Indeed, these are all great hopes, and desires; but they are misplaced if we think that we can hearken back to an earlier golden age, and try and resurrect something that really never was. This is all misplaced if we think part of our “heritage” was this great time of individual freedom and liberty; in fact this is part of the problem — Individualism that is! Individualism starts with “each man as the measure,” and then works from there; indeed, this is much more of a “Cartesian” way to conceive of man than a Biblical or Christological or Trinitarian way. Individualism makes sense, and fits in perfect with the LDS understanding of humanity; since each “man” is an “individual god” — with no real concept of the Trinity in mind (oneness shaped by threeness and threeness shaped by oneness — or the one and the many). Anyway, I’ve ranted long enough; read the rest of this post, and see what you think. I think Glenn Beck’s intentions are noble and “honorable,” but in the end they are misplaced.
__________________________
Often times, most times, America, and her origins, are claimed to be Christian . . . thus our self-proclaimed Christian Nation status. While it is true that our nation was originally to be a haven of refuge for “religious freedom,” and many of our founding Fathers were “Christians” (well some); it is not necessarily the case that the Christian ideals that were brought to the Americas were actually that Christian, conceptually. Scholars: Noll, Hatch, and Marsden certainly don’t think so; and they express their doubt very well in their book The Search for Christian America. Here is a summary of the first piece of their thesis in developing their argument:
1) We feel that a careful study of the facts of history shows that early America does not deserve to be considered uniquely, distinctly or even predominately Christian, if we mean by the word “Christian” a state of society reflecting the ideals presented in Scripture. There is no lost golden age to which American Christians may return. In addition, a careful study of history will also show that evangelicals themselves were often partly to blame for the spread of secularism in contemporary American life. . . . (Mark A. Noll, Nathan O. Hatch, George M. Marsden, “The Search For Christian America,” 17)
This is hard teaching, who can hear it? Does this bother you, these kinds of probing points? To clarify, these historians are not arguing that America does not have any “religious past,” note: . . . [I]n making our case, we do not want to contend that Christian values have been absent from American history. . . . Their presence, we agree, justifies a picture of the United States as a singularly religious country (p. 18). The key language, is “religious,” they will continue to argue that America does indeed have rich “Christian heritage;” but unfortunately what passed as uniquely Christian, was in fact, Christianity baptized in “Natural Theology,” and rationalist Enlightenment principles. Here is an example of what I am talking about, found in the Declaration of Independence:
. . . We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. . . . (full text here)
Notice the language of “self-evident,” this is Enlightenment Natural Theology, which starts with Nature/Creation as the methodological entry point for discussing spiritual things. In other words, and very simply, natural theology starts with man and works out/up from there. This is just one example of how our countries’ founding was not necessarily Christian. Here are some more penetrating questions offered by these historians, on what criteria should be used to determine if indeed America’s founding, heritage, and origin should be labeled Christian:
One set of questions has to do with how much Christian action is required to make a whole society Christian. Another way of stating the same issue is to pose it negatively—how much evil can a society display before we disqualify it as a Christian society? These kinds of questions are pertinent for all of early American history. When we look at the Puritans of the 1600s, do we emphasize only their sincere desire to establish Christian colonies, and their manifest desire to live by the rule of Scripture? Or do we focus rather on the stealing of Indian lands, and their habit of displacing and murdering these Indians wherever it was convenient? Roger Williams, one of the Puritans himself, asked these very questions and came to much the same conclusion as we have more than 300 years later. Again, do we place more emphasis on the Massachusetts Puritans’ desire to worship God freely in the new world or their persecution (and, in four cases, execution) of Quakers who also wished to be free to worship God in Massachusetts? (Mark A. Noll, Nathan O. Hatch, George M. Marsden, “The Search For Christian America,” 17)
Some tough, penetrating questions. How would you answer these? Are we a “Christian Nation?” And if you think so, or not, why?
Don’t get me wrong, I am thankful to be an American, and am thankful for the “freedoms” we have in this country; but I don’t think it does anyone any good, especially for “people of the Truth,” to pretend like we had a Christian nation in the past; and continue to have one today (although I think most would agree that we definitely don’t live in a Christian Nation today). This takes us full circle, then, what is a “Christian Nation,” to begin with?
Oh yeah, you all need to read this book at some point!
Thanks for reposting this, Bobby. I think I already responded to the first printing, so I’m not sure what I’m repeating, here.
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the appropriate role of Christians in our nation and it often seems as though loyalty to Christ and loyalty to country/society are in a tug-of-war in the hearts of many believers right now.
The “Promised Land” belief really does affect the way people live and react to governmental abuses. It’s not just postmills,though, as citizens of a variety of eschatological perspectives and sects have become quite agitated lately and are corporately rallying behind those such as Glenn Beck who vocalize a desire to put a stop to the evil that is being done in the name of America.
The idea that America was once something more to which we need to return puzzles me a bit. Certainly, our founders appeared to have a desire to “do” civilization “right”, we have had ups and downs, and I suspect there have always been those who pray and work for our government to be one that honors God. And perhaps the proportion of believing leaders was once much greater than it is today. After all, “righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.”
But there has always been civil unrest or war (internal and external) or religious clashes or economic distress or racial tension (black/white is just the most recent manifestation, as is evidenced by your mention of the treatment of the Indians in the one excerpt, above).
The concept of “Christian nation” is indeed an intriguing one…particularly when I look at world history and see that, even from the time of Constantine, when Christianity gets officially tangled up in the affairs of civil government, it is usually (always?) bad for the purity of devotion to Christ which the Christian faith espouses.
Oh–
And this:
Notice the language of βself-evident,β this is Enlightenment Natural Theology, which starts with Nature/Creation as the methodological entry point for discussing spiritual things. In other words, and very simply, natural theology starts with man and works out/up from there. This is just one example of how our countriesβ founding was not necessarily Christian.
makes an excellent point, IMO. It begs the question as to whether we have ever had a truly Christ-centered governmental system, or whether it’s really been all about what “we” can do as a people and we’ve only included Him when it serves to achieve our own purposes.
Excellent post. Personally I think all the religious posturing by Glenn Beck is seducing far too many believers. We equate getting away from the political left with drawing close to God, and it just isn’t so. All it means is that we’re drawing closer to the political right. I firmly believe that a choice for the lesser of two evils, is still a choice for evil. Joining ourselves with moral unbelievers, at the cost of the unity of the true faith and true doctrine is the first push down the slide of universalist heresy. Scripture is pretty clear that we aren’t to be unequally yoked, and yet so many people are willing to plow with this guy. I just don’t get it.
As far as America’s Christian Heritage…if we hold that it is true, then it was pretty weak. The nation was built by systematically eliminating the natives who were already here. The earliest economy was propped up on the subjugation of other races. I could go on, but it’s clear enough. (Clear enough for me anyway.) If our forefathers were Christians, they happily supported a whole lot of devilish stuff. They were quick with the lingo however…to paraphrase heather, they “included Him when it serve[d] to achieve [their] own purposes.”
With this point:
It begs the question as to whether we have ever had a truly Christ-centered governmental system, or whether itβs really been all about what βweβ can do as a people and weβve only included Him when it serves to achieve our own purposes.
Heather, who sent me over by the way, hit the nail on the head. It was an awakening for me when I first began to realize that this nation was never truly a Christian nation, at least not in the sense that many on the religious right would assert.
This was an excellent post by the way. Thank you for re-posting it for those of us new to your blog.
Pingback: “Restoring Honor”: Glenn Beck and America as a Christian Nation « The Narrow Gate
All great points, each one of you. I’m glad to see the critical thinking here; so often as Mike mentions, us Christians think associating with “conservative” political mores makes us more “spiritual.” But of course the Gospel isn’t a cluster of ethical concerns; instead it’s a Person!
Welcome, Terry. And, again, thanks for the feedback to you all.
Heather,
Btw, you’re point on post mil is true; it’s not just them, which is really ironic. Most Christians in America are dispy premil, which theologically flies in the face of the kind “holy” rally there is for our country by dispies — theologically it just does not make sense. Like I said, we aren’t in the promised land, but Babylon (which means we can pray for the peace of our country, but truly, Christians are foreigners whereever they are).
Great post. I would not even call myself a patriot at this point unless it is to the Kingdom of God. I like the way Rich Mullins put it: “I will call you my country, but I will be longing for my home. I wish I could you take you there with me.”
I love America, but I do not feel any real loyalty to it. I personally find it disturbing that many churches in my area are quick to honor our military personnel, but no where near the same attention is given to our missionaries. They scarcely even acknowledge that there are martyrs in the world today as well. It seems that in the church, of all places, we should be honoring those who risk their lives for the True Kingdom far more than those who would risk their lives for what ultimately is a sinful, ungodly nation. I don’t want to disparage the military too much (my brother-in-law is actually being deployed to Afghanistan), but it seems that the church in America has it completely backward in this regard.
If the church in America is indeed a church. This is another issue that I think many people are not facing. I really need to finish my blog post on the subject (it has been sitting in edit mode for over a week now and in my head for several months). But from what I have read in the Barna statistical studies, the conservative (meaning high) estimate of actual Christians in America is 7%… of church attenders. Think about that one for a bit.
Thanks, Matthew.
I think you’re right, we need to honor those who have “given” their lives for the Gospel — in fact isn’t this a basic characteristic for all Christians, supposed?
I think the Church is pops up where ever Christ is truly proclaimed — hearkening to the Protestant invisible/visible dialectic of the Church. Yeah, you should post your post; where’s your blog?
“…how much evil can a society display before we disqualify it as a Christian society?”
I think a “Christian” society during this present age is not really a Biblical concept. Sin and death will be here until Christ returns. So, the amount of evil or good does not disqualify a society from being called “Christian,” the Bible does.
I have mixed feelings about such talk. On the one hand, it is compelling to think of what a Christian society would look like, how all could be centered around Christ, could proclaim Christ and Him crucified, etc, etc. And on the other hand, it almost seems like an affront to what Scripture tells us about the fleeting nature of our existence, of this type of existence itself(!) to want to settle down and build a city, as Cain built Enoch.
We are wanderers, pilgrims, outside the camp, rejected and despised as He was – and yet we are Kings who WILL reign with Christ eternally. I’d much rather wait for the Lord’s renewal of all things than settle for that which will rust and be consumed by the worm.
Know what I mean?
What bugs me is that some Christian brethren actually consider Washington (who was a Freemason), and others, to be Christians, when they were not.
Where does their allegiance lie? With the kingdom of Christ, or with the kingdoms of the world?
-h.
Good points, Hiram.
What bugs me is that some Christian brethren actually consider Washington (who was a Freemason), and others, to be Christians, when they were not.
You know, I’ve wondered about this, too and fear it’s not just liberals who have engaged in “revisionist history” undertakings. While I can agree with the claims of Providential direction and oversight of our nation and government, the concept that the founding fathers were specifically Christian in orientation seems to be a bit of an exaggeration. And, for what purpose?
That sort of influence makes it really difficult at times to remember we are sojourners here when we are repeatedly told America is our “promised land” and that we have a Christian heritage which must be defended on a political level.
Good points, Hiram! I agree with your points, thanks for the feedback.
Heather, indeed; ah, we’re starting to sound like Anabaptists π !
Thanks, Bobby. I decided to bite the bullet and get that article written. You can read it here:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmorethanimusic.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F08%2Fchristian-nation.html%3Fspref%3Dfb&h=928aa
No way to edit posts once they are made…..
Try this happier link.
http://morethanimusic.blogspot.com/
weβre starting to sound like Anabaptists
I must confess we live in an area with a lot of Mennonites, so there is a constant visual challenge to take the call of “separation” seriously.
But my understanding is that Anabaptist theology is Arminian in orientation. At least, I think the groups around here are.
I pretty sure I could not quite cross that bridge.
Matthew,
Great, I’ll be over to read it, soon!
Heather,
I was thinking about the Anabaptists attitude toward “Church/State;” the separation notion.
I was thinking about the Anabaptists attitude toward βChurch/State;β the separation notion.
That’s what I thought you meant.
Seriously, though, I’ve struggled with whether the overall Anabaptist theology is “more” right than others because I can see the logic in their strict separation of Church and State. The “you can lose your salvation” aspect continues to be a check for me, though, and then I wonder whether I’m wrong about the separation as well.