I found this post by Kurt Onken today at the Wittenberg Trail, and thought it was worth referencing.
The socially-palatable, seeker over-sensitive church has no future. This may appear to some to show that Christianity is losing ground. However, I disagree. I think Christianity has already lost ground in many churches. This is why people like the Internet Monk talk about the coming collapse of the evangelical church.
It’s time to take it back.
While I’m not a big supporter of the “America’s a Christian nation” thing, I do believe that the United States was indeed heavily influenced by Christian principles, and that historically, the so-called “separation of church and state” was never meant to exclude religion – even Christianity – from public life. James Robertson has re-posted from J.Grant Swank From MichNews.com an interesting collection of quotes from many of our founding fathers that deserve to be read. (You can go to the site to read Swank’s editorial comments, which I will not post here):
President George Washington wrote a prayer addressed to “O most glorious God, in Jesus Christ” and ended it with this: “Let me live according to those holy rules which thou hast this day prescribed in Thy Holy Word. Direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life. Bless O Lord all the people of this land.”
President Thomas Jefferson: “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis — a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
President James Madison: “Religion is the basis and foundation of government. We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
President Andrew Jackson: “I nightly offer up my prayers to the throne of grace for the health and safety of you all, and that we ought all to rely with confidence on the promise of our dear Redeemer, and give Him our hearts. This is all He requires and all that we can do, and if we sincerely do this, we are sure of salvation through His atonement.”
Patrick Henry: “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, property, and freedom of worship here.”
President Abraham Lincoln: “The ways of God are mysterious and profound beyond all comprehension. ‘Who by searching can find Him out?’ God only knows the issue of this business. He has destroyed nations from the map of history for their sins. Nevertheless, my hopes prevail generally above my fears for our Republic. The times are dark, the spirits of ruin are abroad in all their power, and the mercy of God alone can save us.”
President Grover Cleveland: “All must admit that the reception of the teachings of Christ results in the purist patriotism, in the most scrupulous fidelity to public trust, and in the best type of citizenship.”
President Woodrow Wilson: “America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of the Holy Scriptures.”
President Dwight Eisenhower: “Without God, there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Begin is the first — the most basic — expression of Americanism. Thus, the founding fathers of America saw it, and thus With God’s help, it will continue to be.”
Many of us, both liberal and conservative, seem to have forgotten our foundation and have forgotten what it really means to be a Christian. Maybe President Obama should take a few moments to read these quotes, and perhaps he’ll remember how it was that he got where he is.
“I was quite shocked…that most people thought the reason for Christianity is to make you happy. I shared that with the youth worker at my congregation…as I told him about that I invited him to bring the high school students to my class because I was expressing things about the faith and that particular Sunday I was going to talk about the Creed. So the youth came and they participated a little bit…when they went back to their own class they voted whether to come to my class anymore, and they voted not to, because they didn’t want to learn the substance of faith.
I was very disappointed, and I asked about what they were doing in their junior high class to prepare them for high school class. There they were doing “How Christianity helps us grow up.” But it was matters of “I need comfort when I break up with my boyfriend.” There’s more to Christianity than how its going to make you happy… Young people have very little doctrinal content. And that’s dangerous because, if it’s just feelings that hold them to Christianity, when their feelings aren’t there…they’ll move away .” – Dr. Marva Dawn from The White Horse Inn, 8-24-08
Thanks to Charles St-Onge for the quote.
This issue has been plaguing me for some time now. One of the issues that gave rise to the Reformation was the theological and Biblical ignorance of the Roman Church, including the leaders. Many of the local priests didn’t even understand the Latin that they recited daily from memory. Today, as “educated” as we are, with an amazing plethora of resources available for free on the internet, the contemporary evangelical church is largely ignorant. And, they apparently want to stay that way, even many of the leaders. I’ve heard from more than one pastor that they don’t have time to read or study (aside from what they have to do to prepare sermons, etc.). More and more sermons are on the level expressed above, “where do I find comfort when I break up with my boyfriend?”
It’s embarrassing, and it’s frightening. I’m putting my son, who’s a high school senior, though a self-study theology program (called “The Theology Program“), so at least he’s got some kind of foundation. He’s not getting it in the youth group. Fortunately, my wife and I taught 3 years of Jr High and High School classes (my wife has taught for longer) where we provided basic theology, but still, it was nothing like the education I had growing up. As a Lutheran in Confirmation class, I learned church history as well as basic theology, including the meaning of the creeds, and so on. It takes a church, not just one person.
Who cares, today? I don’t think the church we’ve been attending does. Churches today are offering more practical, “meaningful” topics to attract people to their classes. It’s not about education, it’s about marketing, experience and entertainment. It’s time for a new Western evangelical reformation, and the emerging movement isn’t it. Cultural relevance isn’t it.
The church needs to rediscover the Gospel, that Jesus is Lord (king) and that he’s got a plan. We’re not just here wasting time waiting to be taken away to some Heaven-Nirvana. We’re called (remember “calling?”) to a purpose, to start working for the Kingdom here and now.
To those waiting to hear the next “feel-good” sermon about what’s in it for you, this is what I have to say: “Suck it up. Wake up. Get over it.” Certainly there are benefits for you in the process; Christianity is a religion of “enlightened self-interest.” But recall the Bible talks about working out your salvation. That’s not working for your salvation, that’s putting your salvation to work.
Welcome to the New Reformation.
It’s music day at the ol’ blog, with three musical numbers to brighten your day. I’ll leave it to you to decide which is the good, the bad, and the just plain weird.
First, a little ditty from Quixote that would probably fall under my “Letter to a Christian Nation” heading.
Next, I’ll send you over to Dr. Winn for two Christmas tunes that are at the very least, out of the ordinary. One is a rather original rendition of “O Holy Night” that brought back memories of what used to be called “special music” in my hometown Lutheran church. The other tune is my family’s favorite rendition of “Blue Christmas.”
Enjoy! (or at least, experience…)
In keeping with prior posts on hermeneutics (that is, how to read and actually understand the Bible in some reasonable fashion), more hermeneutics, discovering the nature of God, and too many posts to link to directed at shaking a bit of sense into mindless pop Christian culture, check out Ben Witherington, once again, as he provides a great post on how we should read the Old Testament in light of the New Testament.
The “old dude” I’m referring to is “Saint” John Chrysostom, one of the gems of the Early (4th Century) Church. We don’t hear too much from Chrysostom, and some may never of heard of him. It seems as though many people assume that there were no brilliant theological minds between the Apostle Paul and Martin Luther (or Calvin, for you Reformed folks). Born in 349, Chrysostom was actually a contemporary of Augustine, who was 5 years younger. Chrysostom became the Archbishop of Constantinople, while Augustine joined the Church in Italy after being converted in Milan. Of course, at that time there was still only one church, although Rome always seemed to always claim a higher status. While both men are considered saints in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, the West seemed to follow Augustine’s thinking, while Chrysostom seems to carry more clout in the East. But, enough history.
The point that Witherington & Chrysostom make concerning the reading of the Old Testament is that since the coming of the New Testament (basically, I think, the appearance of Jesus) the Old Testament must be read and interpreted in light of the New Testament. Here’s a quote that Mr. W quotes from Chrysostom:
Now when you see these things merely sketched out you neither know everything nor are you totally ignorant of everything, but you know that a man and a horse are drawn there, though they are indistinct. But you don’t accurately [or fully] know what sort of emperor or what sort of prisoner it is until the truth of the colors comes and makes the face distinct and clear. For just as you don’t ask everything of that image/portrait before the truth of the colors, but if you receive some indistinct knowledge of what is there, you consider the sketch to be sufficiently ready , in just that same way consider with me the Old and New Testaments , and don’t demand from me the whole fullness of the truth in the [OT] type…For as in the painting, until someone draws in colors it is a shadowy sketch.
Much weirdness comes from reading the Old Testament separate from the New, and as a consequence confusing how the testaments fit together. Witherington says:
Now what is so interesting about this whole hermeneutical approach is that it believes that one must do justice to the history if one is to do theology and ethics right. Christianity was a religion grounded and founded in history, and so theology proper was a reflection on God’s mighty acts in history which had a before and after to them. It was not an abstract science or philosophy where one took ideas and simply linked them together without them arising out of historical events and their substance. In the end, Chrysostom’s hermeneutic mirrors that of Paul and the author of Hebrews. It would be my view that we should go and do likewise.
Good stuff again from Mr. Witherington. Go read the whole article.
Dear Christian Nation,
One of the problems that we have, and why some atheists and other forms of non-believers find Christianity nuts, is that so many of us read the Bible in ways that allow us to make it say whatever we want. Thus, we have those committed to a life of poverty, and also those committed to material wealth; we have legalists and antinomians, liberal pacifists and fundamentalist war-mongers, and the list goes on. Many non-Christians don’t understand that when Pat Robertson proclaims a natural disaster as punishment from God, or when Oral Roberts sees a 900 foot Jesus, they aren’t speaking for the rest of us. This individualized, subjective (and dare I say postmodern?) reading of the Bible is, at the very least, setting a bad example for non-Christians who are trying to make sense out of what we believe (or are supposed to believe).
This is not to say that even with good hermeneutics (the art of interpreting ancient texts such as the Bible) we won’t have disagreements; however, I’m certain that we’d have significantly less disagreement over many important passages, with just a little dedication to truth. After all, aren’t we supposed to be dedicated to truth?
Ben Witherington has posted a brilliant piece called Hermeneutics– A Guide for Perplexed Bible Readers, that should be of interest to Christians and may also be of interest to non-Christians. It may also upset a number of Christians who insist on creating their own private reality.
Witherington first makes a good case (please pay attention to this) for why Christians should work a bit harder to try to understand the Bible correctly. The problem, however, is that many of us simply don’t want to hear this; actually treating truth as something worth working on interferes with our “making it up as we go” brand of reality. In other words, hermeneutics interferes with their heresy.
Witherington says:
But why would we need a guide to the perplexed in regard to the interpreting of the Bible? After all, don’t Christians have brains and the Holy Spirit to guide them? Well yes, but all modern brains are affected in the way they think by the modern cultural milieu in which they are immersed. They are affected as well by their whole educational progress (or regress) through school as well.
And frankly, ancient Biblical cultures, languages, and modes of conveying meaning are often so different from what modern ‘common sense’ may deduce that we do need some guidelines to help us interpret the Biblical texts which came out of very different cultures and circumstances from our own, ESPECIALLY if we are only trying to interpret the Bible on the basis of one or more English translations, none of which are perfect representations of the original language texts.
Witherington also gives three rudimentary rules of interpretation, with a brief explanation of each rule:
Some may feel that these rules are meant to explain away some things, or to discredit some “pet” interpretations; however, these are simply rules for actually understanding what the Word of God actually means. Doesn’t this seem important? However, as sad as it is, there will be many who simply reject this approach as being “liberal,” or based on reason rather than “spirit.” These people will go on with their own version of reality based on subjective, individualized, out-of-context readings of the Bible, in effect taking the position that their own understanding is more authoritative than the Bible itself.
Sounds terribly postmodern, doesn’t it? Again, I’m not against different opinions on what a text means, and certainly not when it comes down to the application of a text’s meaning. However, if you’re going to simply pull meaning out of the air, why use the Bible at all?
There will be verse-mining and rumors of proof-texting. It’s unfortunate and apparently inevitable, especially when Christians reject “the good sense that God gave you.”
Dear “Christian” Nation:
Please pay attention: You are not being persecuted if people hate you because you’re a jerk.
Almost daily, as I visit the blogs of Christians and Atheists, scan and delete e-mails, and read the occasional Christian newsletter, I see examples of obvious stupidity on the parts of Christians. It is, it seems, rampant in American Evangelicalism, Fundamentalism, and other para-Christian isms. If you’ve taken a look at Sam Harris’ $16.95 Letter To a Christian Nation, you’ll have seen that it was prompted by the large amount of “hate” mail he received, much of it from folks claiming to be Christians.
Harris writes:
Since the publication of my first book, The End of Faith, I have received thousands of letters and e-mails from religious believers insisting that I am wrong not to believe in God. Invariably, the most unpleasant of these communications have come from Christians. This is ironic, as Christians generally believe that no faith imparts the virtues of love and forgiveness more effectively than their own. Please accept this for what it is: the testimony of a man who is in a position to observe how people behave when their faith is challenged. Many who claim to have been transformed by Christ’s love are deeply, even murderously, intolerant of criticism. While you may ascribe this to human nature, it is clear that the hatred these people feel comes directly from the Bible. How do I know this? Because the most deranged of my correspondents always cite chapter and verse.
Harris has a good point. However, it must also be pointed out that anti-Christians are even worse… All you have to do is visit the same atheist / Darwinist blogs to see how absolutely vicious, obnoxious and stupid some (not all, or even most) atheists can be. (And, of course, Harris doesn’t appear to be bothered by viciousness when it’s directed toward Christians.) Self-righteousness is an ugly thing, whether it’s an atheistic self-righteousness or a pseudo-Christian self-righteousness.
You may note that I said “pseudo-Christian self-righteousness.” The reason is simply this: self-righteousness is simply the antithesis of Jesus’ teachings, his example and of the Christian Gospel itself. Remember things like “love your enemies,” “bless those who curse you,” and “turn the other cheek?” Remember also “take heed, he who thinks he stands, lest he fall?” What about “without love, you are as irritating as off-beat tambourine” (my interpretation). Do you understand that if you fall into any sort of self-righteousness you have, at that point, completely lost the Gospel? All of your foolish, arrogant, stupid “you atheists should rot in hell” comments are in a very real sense, un-Christian.
But wait, there’s more: Pithy sayings are an embarrassment to thinking people everywhere.
You can’t impress people with a smug, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.” In fact, it’s my guess that there’s a very good chance that you’d completely embarrass yourself in any intelligent conversation with a non-Christian. Now, I have nothing against someone with a quiet, simple faith; some of these are, in fact, some of my favorite people and I don’t mean to offend them. But, a simple faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster won’t do anyone any good; faith must be based in Truth as Paul points out:
For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Romans 10:2,3
Again, we find ourselves back to self-righteousness.
The people I am really speaking to are the smug, obnoxious folks who think that a bumper-sticker slogan is a great thing to yell at an atheist. A month or so ago an atheist friend of mine was confronted by a number of these obnoxious folks, who uses such witticisms as:
1. “Thank God for the Atheists!”
2. “I’ll pray for you!”
3. “I don’t believe in atheists!”
4. “God bless you!”
5. “So, do you, like, believe that the world just poofed itself into existence with no Creator?”
To you, I ask simply that you please shut up and start trying to use that brain (and heart) that God gave you.
Now, I know that there are stupid people everywhere, and that stupid Christians are no more stupid than stupid non-Christians (I mean, after all, you do believe in God, so I give you credit for that). But seriously, go back to my first point (about the persecution of jerks) and give it some thought. If an atheist is a stupid jerk, it’s nothing to me. However, if you say you’re a Christian and you’re a stupid, loud-mouthed jerk, it embarrasses all of us, and just gives a sense of credibility to people like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and others who hold you up as the example of the social devolution that religion causes.
Okay?
Dear Christian Nation,
So we’ve come to the conclusion that we don’t have a Christian nation, at least at the present. Not as we’d like it to be, anyway. We can’t seem to force everyone to say “under God” or pray every day, and we’re resigned to the fact that the Blue Laws are probably gone for good. So, what do we do? Obviously, we create a Christian Ghetto!
The term “Christian Ghetto” refers to a pseudo-Christian pop subculture that has been constructed for two main purposes, that I can see. One such purpose (I’m not sure if this is the primary or secondary purpose) is to be able to market “Christian” books, music, clothing and other kitsch to the middle-class western evangelical Christian population. The other reason is to both insulate and isolate Christians from the contamination of “the world.” This latter reason probably comes from a mis-translation of the John chapter 17 where Jesus prays that the church be “in the world but not impacting the world.” (Yes, that’s sarcasm.) The evidence of this Christian Ghetto includes Christian bookstores, Christian radio and TV networks, “Christian” music, “Christian” movies, “Christian” novels, and the list goes on. Much of this isn’t for evangelism or education (which I don’t have a problem with). I’m guessing that most of it in terms of dollars is simply “safe” entertainment for Christians.
But now we have a new frontier, one which has frightened the Christian Ghetto for a few years now: the internet. It’s wild, it’s woolly, and we’re not sure how to deal with it. We’ve got online communities growing like fungi in places like MySpace and YouTube, and blogs off all kinds. What’s the Christian going to do with the Net? Why, create an online Christian Ghetto, of course!
My friend Mike pointed out on his blog a couple of months ago the obvious and embarrassing habit conservative Christians have (it is, really, only the conservatives…) of copying the cool worldly trends that they don’t approve of. I don’t spend much time in the “ghetto” (it creeps me out, to be honest) so I wasn’t aware of these things. Leave it to an atheist to discover embarrassing things about Christians. So, here, for your further embarrassment, are some cheap Christian-ghetto rip-offs:
GodTube: Here, your family can watch safe videos, some even with a Christian message (caution: not all Christian videos are theologically sound). There actually are some that are hilarious, including the series parodying the Mac man vs the PC man. This series is very well-done. Note that I’m not against the videos, per se. I’m just grossed out by the “ghetto” mentality of the whole GodTube thing.
Conservapedia: This one goes over the edge, in my opinion. They even have a patriotic flag-thingy at the top. Obviously they found wikipedia too liberal for Christian use. According to the site, they feature “over 11,950 educational, clean, and concise entries” Now, the question is, can you trust anything with such an ultra-right spin? Well, according to their front page today, “The LA Times praised our entries on the tuba, Claude Monet, the nation of Latvia, Robin Hood, polygons, and The Renaissance.” Whoa!
Today I received an e-mail plug for a WordPress plug-in at a site called MyChurch. Well, I started poking around MyChurch (never did get around to checking out the plugin) and guess what? You guessed it, it’s a “Christian” MySpace! Granted this site may have some cool features, as it allows churches to set up their own networks; it’s probably nice for churches who don’t have a tech team to build and support a stand-alone website. But, the thing is just to myspacey for my taste, and it does plug itself as “a Christian social network” and says “Join MyChurch to stay connected with your church and friends!” As much as I like the internet, I think if you need something like MyChurch to stay connected with your church, there are some problems.
Again, I don’t have a problem with Christians making little video things and I don’t have a problem with social networking. What I see as problems are the rather obvious ripoffs of non-Christian (and oft-criticized) ideas, and the fact that they exist to propagate the Christian Ghetto mentality. This can be likened to the concept of “parallel play” in toddlers: children 2 or 3 years old will sit and play blocks, and appear to be playing together. But, they are not necessarily interacting, they are just playing by themselves next to someone else. It’s not the same thing.
As Christians, we are supposed to be “in the world” not “alongside and not interacting with the world.” The Christian Ghetto fails to accomplish the mission of the church by establishing at best a parallel culture (and often an Amish-like encapsulated culture) rather than being present to impact the world. You see, it’s possible to be a Christian on YouTube, or MySpace, and I tend to like Wikipedia a lot…
So, once again, my challenge to the Christians in this nation is be find out what it really means to be a Christian in this nation.
Dear Christian Nation (continued):
The other day I pulled up one of the large, mainstream news sites (probably to check on how Paris Hilton is doing) and was greeted with the headline of the moment, something about the economy being healthy because American spending is strong. Now, I’ve probably seen a hundred similar headlines over the years, but this time it really struck me what it was they were saying: we judge the health of our country by how much we spend.
Wow.
Now, I took economics in one of the handful of colleges I passed through, and I understand the basics. I know about GNPs and Trade Deficits and why it’s occasionally necessary to help overthrow a government or two if it helps our economic stability. I understand the Fed (actually, as my Econ Prof told us, “no one understands the Fed”) and interest rates and how in a free market system, it is the movement of cash that is the foundation of our economy.
And, it’s not just the basics. It’s not just about buying essentials, like affordable housing, food and clothing. No, it’s about buying bigger homes, SUVs, 40 pairs of shoes and gluttonous amounts of junk food. It’s large screen TVs, Xbox 360s and thousand-gig iPods. It’s crap, most of it. Seriously. Does it really add to the quality of your life? Well, yes, perhaps it does; but that’s really beside the point.
Now, tell me this: What does buying stuff have to do with being a Christian nation? What fruit of the Spirit does spending come under? Or is being able to buy cool stuff the real point of Jesus’ parable of the Talents? How did “give us this day our daily bread” grow into, “and a really hot stock portfolio?”
If America was really a Christian nation, wouldn’t we measure the strength of our economy on how much we were able to give to third-world countries? (By the way, that’s “give” as in assistance, not by building up a military presence.) Wouldn’t that, in fact, be one of our primary goala?
I think I’ve already established that we’re not a Christian nation. The real issue, however, is this: as Christians living in this so-called great nation, what are we called to do? If we believe in the Sermon on the Mount, if we believe in having “the mind of Christ” and reflecting the glory of God to the world, what should we do? Voting Republican is not enough; for that matter, it may not even be relevant.
We’ve got to stop imagining that America is the Promised Land and that the Kingdom of God starts here. As I’ve mentioned, America isn’t mentioned in the Bible. American can be a blessing to the world; we all know we can afford it, and that there are places that need (as opposed to want) it. And, it’s not just about evangelism; we’ve got to remember the words of Jesus:
“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me. … I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” Matthew 25:35, 36, 40
Let’s stop pretending to be a Christian nation, and just start trying to be Christians.
In my review of Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation, I tossed out the idea of writing my own letter. The more I’ve thought about it, the better it sounds. So, I’ve decided to start – only I’ll write it a chunk at a time, and do it for free. Maybe if it’s good, I’ll repackage it and try to get $16.95 for it.
Dear “Christian” Nation,
I hate to tell you this, but you don’t exist. I mean, as a “Christian” nation. Not even close. And, in spite of all of the right-wing rhetoric, you never did. Of course, many of the pilgrims and settlers came to the New World in search of religious freedom – that is, freedom from one state church or another. And, much of the time “religious freedom” meant freedom for their particular group, but not necessarily for anyone else.
Very few of the immigrants came over with evangelism in mind, although I am sure there were some. However, off the top of my head I can’t think of any famous St. Patrick-type missionary that we can look to as a model of the typical immigrant. There were, however, a few who came over to conquer in the name of one church or another. It’s not the same thing. Most immigrants came over to either escape from what they saw as tyranny (not necessarily a bad thing), or to make a better life for themselves (not necessarily a bad thing, either). However, these are not selfless reasons. Many came over in a spirit of independence and materialism; two things which are still deeply embedded in American philosophy and politics, and in fact, are what characterize the U.S. in the eyes of the world. These, by the way, do not qualify as “fruit of the Spirit.”
The “God” of “in God we trust” is not necessarily the God of the Bible. Our founding fathers were not necessarily Christians. Some were deists. Some, like Thomas Paine, were outspoken atheists. Many were Masons. It is rumored that Ben Franklin may have even dabbled in Satanism for a time. However, there was generally a Judeo-Christian worldview, which flavored much of what was written. Notice that a pyramid and the “all seeing eye” are prominently displayed on our money, not a cross or a “Jesus fish.” Furthermore, our founding fathers were rebels, traitors and arguably terrorists (remember the Boston Tea Party?). How would they fare today up against Homeland Security and the Patriot Act?
American history is an embarrassment, by Christian standards. The bloodiest, cruelest war we’ve fought was our own Civil War, which was arguably motivated not by a desire to free slaves, but simply by greed. Certainly some Christians, as well as others, became heroes of the Underground Railroad. Others just killed each other. Then, of course, after they were emancipated, blacks still had to fight for “equality” in the North as well as in the South. In fact, immigrants of all nationalities and religions have had to fight for acceptance in this so-called Christian nation. And, let’s not forget the Native Americans: certainly our treatment of them is a testimony to our Christian charity.
We do have, of course, many acknowledgments of a Creator, besides the slogan on our money (which is an oddity, don’t you think, considering Jesus’ statement that you can’t serve “both God and mammon?” It would seem that our every use of money causes us to make a choice.). Public prayer (to the consternation of atheists) has been standard in our government since the beginning. However, I can’t help but think that this is merely an example of Pascal’s Wager, a way of hedging our bets. “Under God” is in the pledge of allegiance, but of course added much, much later. And then, there’s “Manifest Destiny,” the concept spun to promote western expansion, that God had destined us for greatness. Here’s John O’sullivan’s take, from 1839:
The expansive future is our arena, and for our history. We are entering on its untrodden space, with the truths of God in our minds, beneficent objects in our hearts, and with a clear conscience unsullied by the past. We are the nation of human progress, and who will, what can, set limits to our onward march? Providence is with us, and … we proclaim to the millions of other lands, that “the gates of hell” — the powers of aristocracy and monarchy — “shall not prevail against it.”
The far-reaching, the boundless future will be the era of American greatness. In its magnificent domain of space and time, the nation of many nations is destined to manifest to mankind the excellence of divine principles; to establish on earth the noblest temple ever dedicated to the worship of the Most High — the Sacred and the True.
I should mention here that the United States is not mentioned in the Bible.
While the United States may have the most vocal Christian presence in the world, it is still not known as a nation that embodies any of the characteristics of what would be considered “Christian.” The image of the typical American is not Billy Graham, but the Marlborough Man. We are not the nation of charity and spirituality, we are the nation of rugged individualism, of materialism and of power.
I am not by any means anti-American. I believe our original Constitution (if we can find it among all of the amendments) is probably the best ever written. All I’m saying is that there is nothing about our government or our country that makes America specifically “Christian.”
And, that’s the way I like it. I believe in the freedom of religion. To me, that means keeping Government out of it. However, that doesn’t mean that Government is to ignore or protect us from religion. That’s not freedom, that’s just insanity; to ignore religion is like ignoring race or age. People are who they are, Christian, Jew, atheist or ambivalent.
So, we’re a nation with a checkered past, and a stewpot of hundreds of faiths and non-faiths. Whatever else we are, one thing is sure: we are not, and never were, a “Christian” nation.
