Is this land our land?

In my last post in this series I am doing about the religious right and politics I concluded with a comment to the effect that the religious right operates under the assumption that America has been stolen from Christians in this country. The religious right operates under the assumption that America was founded as a Christian nation and that it has been taken away from us by those who are hostile to the faith.

There are several questions that can be addressed under this heading.

1. Was America indeed founded as a Christian nation?

2. Is the whole idea of a "Christian nation" biblically legitimate?

3. If America wasn't founded as a Christian nation, does it still owe any duty to God?

4. If it was founded as a Christian nation, what authority does that history carry today?

5. If it was founded as a Christian nation, is there any biblical precedent for how we as Christians can respond when the nation has turned it's back on Christ?

I won't go into detail on each of these things, but here are a few thoughts to chew on.

To seek to answer the question of whether or not America was founded as a Christian nation is to step into a quagmire. Secularists generally say it was not - it was founded as a secular nation. The religious right says that America was absolutely founded as a Christian nation. Between those two poles are people, both secular and Christian, who say it was kind of a mixed bag.

In the reading I have done on it I think it is patently obvious that those who first came to America on Mayflower did come to found a Christian society. I think there is no doubt that it was the intention of early Americans to set up a Christian society.

Where it gets tricky is when we move ahead from the Mayflower to the revolutionary war era and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. While the founding fathers of America may in one sense be considered the pilgrims, the founding fathers of our current republic are those who signed the Declaration of Independence and prepaed the constitution.

It is at this point that the arguments start and the fur really begins to fly. Folks like D. James Kennedy and David Barton have no doubt that these founders intended a Christian republic. Others like Nathan Hatch, Mark Knoll, and George Marsden take a more nuanced view of things. And, if you have read the new Christiancounterculture e-newsletter, there is C. Greg Singer who says that the founding fathers were far more influenced by deism than Christianity.

For my two cents on this I have no doubt that our founding fathers thought of themselves as Christians and thought that they were founding this nation on Christian principles as they understood them. So, in that regard, I could go with the idea that our founding fathers sought to establish a Christian republic. However, I am not so sure that what their understanding of Christianity would correspond with my understanding of Christianity.

One of the more interesting takes I have found on this is from a Theonomist named Dennis Woods at his website "ISmellarat." I'm not a theonomist but I do find some of the things he says to be very interesting. For instance, he compares our constitution to the Scottish Covenanters, the Mayflower Compact, the Magna Charta and the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. In each of these, there are explicit statements that they existed purposely for the advancement of the Christian faith.

In their Solemn League and Covenant, the Scottish Covenanters say:

All with one voice approve ad embrace the same, as the most powerful mean, by the blessing of GOD, for settling and preserving the true Protestant religion with perfect peace in his Majesty’s dominions, and propagating the same to other nations, and for establishing his majesty’s throne to all ages and generations.

The Mayflower Compact includes these words:

Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith,

The charter of English Liberty, the Magna Carta, says:

KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom,

The Preamble to the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut includes these words:

. . . where a people are gathered together the Word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such people there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people . . . enter into combination and confederation together, to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus which we do profess . . ."

In one sense all of these quotes confirm the religious right's contention that our ancestors built nations, and our nations on Christian principles. However, Woods points out that there is a kind of declension that sets in by the time of the writing of our constitution. Rather than explicitly declaring that God is related to Jesus Christ, we have "nature's God.' Moreover, Woods points out that the Federalist Papers have no references to the Bible, but twenty eight references to pagan Greece and Rome. True, many of the founders, in private correspondence talk of their Christian beliefs, but these Christian beliefs seem to be sublimated in our constitution, or at least watered down a bit.

This doesn't prove that they intended to create a secular republic. They simply wanted to avoid favoring one church over another. But it is curious to note that the founding fathers didn't give the same explicit endorsement to the Christian faith in the constitution that those who had gone before them had. None of us can get into their minds, maybe they just assumed it was understood.

In either case, I do think America's "Christian Origins" are a mixed bag at best. Certainly, our "Christian origins" were not as explicitly as "Christian" as were the Scottish Covenanters.

But then the issue comes up as to whether or not the idea of a "Christian nation" is biblically legitimate. I have had some good discussion on this recently with my friend Terry from Pruitt Communications. I personally have trouble with the idea of affixing the adjective "Christian" to a modern geo-political entity. The church is a "Holy Nation" and I don't think you can call something else a holy nation in the same sense. However, my friend Terry has correctly pointed out that nations are not inevitably secular. Regardless of the position of the founding fathers of any nation, every nation is still accountable to God. So, lets hypothetically suppose that it can be proven that our nation was founded as a secular nation, that doesn't in any way relieve its rulers from their accountability to God. We are all accountable to God and governments are still accountable to God.

For myself, I still want to hold on to the distinction between the "Holy Nation" and the "nations." I wouldn't ever want to separate the word "Christian" from the idea of regeneration. There are those in our nation who assume they are Christians because they assume that America is a Christian nation. Maybe there is a third way here, where we can protect the association of the word "Christian" with regneration, while still affirming the nations accountability to God.

But finally, I want to ask if there is any biblical precedent for the situation we find ourselves in today? I think you can see that I am dubious about whether or not we should really call ourselves a "Christian" nation, but for the sake of argument, let's suppose we can. Let's say that we were founded as a "Christian" nation and now the nation has been stolen out from under us (the idea that it has been stolen out from under us is a premise I don't accept - any secularization of our country has more to do with Christian withdrawal from the poltical and cultural spheres in the 19th and 20th centuries than it does with a "hostile" takeover - we left and the secularists came in).

There is a biblical precedent. God gave the land of Israel to the people of Israel and the Romans came and conquered that land. The people of Israel were prisoners in their own land. They looked for a Messiah who would come and deliver them from Roman oppression. This Messiah would come and drive the Romans out and restore the kingdom to Israel.

One of the reasons that Jesus was rejected as Messiah is that He refused to conform to the Messianic expectations of the people of Israel. He wouldn't kick the Romans out. He said crazy things like "my kingdom is not of this world." He didn't come in with a militaristic or political agenda and so He was rejected by His countrymen.

The parallel to me seems pretty obvious. The land of Israel was given to the peope of Israel by divine right. I don't think there is any way to say that America was given to us by divine right, but even if it was, Jesus gives us an example here. Though Israel was conquered by Rome, Jesus didn't buy into the rhetoric that "this land is our land and it was stolen and we gotta get it back." So, I ask the question about whether or not Jesus would buy into similar rhetoric in modern day America? I don't think so.

Paradoxically, the people of the New Israel, the Christians, did end up conquering Rome. It wouldn't come about for several hundred years, but it did. As the Christians engaged in good deeds, their light shined before men and men gave praise to their Father in heaven. As they suffered biblically and graciously they defeated their enemies by their martyrdom. Eventually, the Messianic expectation of the Jews of Jesus day did come to fruition, just not in a way that they expected. As someone has well said "Christianity is perpetually defeated, yet it always outlives its conquerors."

There is so much more to say. I have to go back to what I have said before - I am in no way encouraging Christiain withdrawal from the cultural and political spheres. I think the problems we face today are a result of that withdrawal. However, as we engage we need to engage for the right reasons. I don't think we can spread godly Christian influence by a warfare or siege mentality. Also, in our anti-authority, postmodern age, most folks aren't going to be persuaded by arguments about the Christian roots of America.

What will help make change in our world is Christian involvement in the cultural centers of the world as insiders. Also, our love, service, and gracious attitude toward suffering will make a powerful difference in the world.

I'm going out of town today so I won't be back to check the comments till Saturday, hope some of this is worth your time reading.

Comments

[Bill]

RE: "The parallel to me seems pretty obvious. The land of Israel was given to the peope of Israel by divine right. ... "

In our founding father's wisdom (Holy Spirit Wisdom?) they designed a government that would allow each and every governmental unit to reign in righteousness if just 51% of voters cast their vote for a righteous man.


RE: "Christianity is perpetually defeated, yet it always outlives its conquerors."

For most of our nations existance -- up to the 1920's, our nation appeared to be a Christian nation because our representatives appeared to be, for the most part, righteous men. But since that period, we have changed our thinking (or our collective memory forgot Who gave us the right to be free) and now even Christians don't vote for the most righteous man -- excuse me, "person". Now we vote for whomever we "like". -- or even, vote against the one we dislike with no regard for the consequences.

So, yes we were given a nation that could have been Christian in deed, if not in name. But we tossed it out and told God we don't want it that way anymore.

Now we have a government of judicial tyrants comprised of persons who disregard the rule of law -- which used to insure that the majority ruled the nation -- in favor of their own view of morality -- arbitrarily calling anything that is infidel to their view of morality, unconstitutional.

A parallel can be drawn comparing the exile of the children of Isreal when they turned away from the blessings God promised them in their form of government to a more "worldly" way of governing themselves.

Read Jeremiah 23 ( http://www.awstar.org/tsk.php?book=24&chapter=23&verse=28&phrase=1 ) to see what God said He would do because His chosen people turned from Him. Read it again and substitute the word "politician" for "prophet".

Maybe if all of us who say we are Christians would stop spending our energy debating the issues and simply vote for the most righteous person on the ballot, we could reclaim the nation God blessed us with. -- But for that to work, we would actually need to be able to discern "righteousness", wouldn't we?

Ephesians 4:24 ( http://www.awstar.org/tsk.php?book=49&chapter=4&verse=24&phrase=5 )

[Bob Sacamento]

the idea that it has been stolen out from under us is a premise I don't accept - any secularization of our country has more to do with Christian withdrawal from the poltical and cultural spheres in the 19th and 20th centuries than it does with a "hostile" takeover - we left and the secularists came in

I would suggest that this assertion needs more nuance, just like the assertion that "Our founding fathers created a Christian nation." Like I said in a comment a few days ago, see Mark Noll and George Marsden if you want to get this from people who really know what they are talking about, but anyway ... Take academia for example. The universities went from a British character-building model, with an American evangelical Christian spin, to the German secular research model because the 19th tycoons who supported the universities told them to stop producing preachers who were telling them what to do with their money and to start producing engineers who could help them make more. The church, and the Christians in a position to make the choices, did indeed compromise, but they did so under alot of pressure. Maybe the evangelical churches could have held on if they had shown some guts, but there were powerful interests that wanted the church out of the way. Similar things happened in some other aspects of society.

[Jeff Roediger]

The majority of our founding fathers were indeed diests. They recognized, however that any nation in existance, or in the process of being formed must needs have a moral basis on which to form the rules, commonly known as laws, of governing a people. The chose Christian morality as the basis in large part because most of the people that came to the colonies considered themselves Christians, they also recognized them as, shall we say, the best moral basis in existance. As our host astutly noted, in their arguments in favor of a federal constitution, Hamilton, Jay and Adams do not mention God, Jesus, or Christianity once in the Federalist Papers. Nor, if memory serves me, is the subject brought up in the Anti-Federalist papers.
Reading biography's of Jefferson, or his translation of the New Testament scriptures one discovers he was very much in favor of the morality of Jesus, but, in fact, believed christians were weak people. I was quite taken aback when i read his translation of the NT. All references to Jesus as God, miracles and resurrection were removed leaving, in my opinion a shell of a book. Mr. Jefferson, was no fan of serious Christians.
And, one need only look to the pulpits of the revolution era. More often then not the preaching was comprised of speaches by the ministers and pastors in favor of independence over against the preaching of Christian doctrines.
I, for many years believed in my heart that America was a "Christian Nation", but as i researched the subject I became heart broken, almost in denial, that we are not a Christian nation. Nor, as i grow deeper in my relationship with Jesus do i want to claim any nation other that heaven as my home.
I do, however personally believe that Christians can and indeed must be involved politically in this great country, because if not our morals then whos?
Jeff

[Bob]

The United States of America was DISCOVERED by people (CHRISTIANS and others) who were being PERSECUTED for their beliefs. Where God comes in is that he provided the knowledge, wisdom, and the perseverance to search for another place BELIEVERS can find refuge (the CHRISTIAN'S land of milk and honey). We simply followed the Holy Spirit to a land that God would provide ALL WHO WORSHIP HIM a home, without being persecuted. Unfortunately, much like Israel did, we began to forget God and start worshiping other Idols (mainly money, wealth, power, buildings, success, industrialization, gold...you get the point). Today, we are beginning to reap what we have sowed. God's hand of protection is beginning to lift because we as a nation has turned away from him. NOT because of ABORTION, STEM CELL RESEARCH, SCHOOL SHOOTINGS, GOD OUT OF SCHOOL, PRAYER, DRUGS...no those are merely symptoms of a much larger sins, the sins of GREED, IDOLS, and the one we never seem to talk about..LOVING OUR NEIGHBOR AS OURSELF. We as believers must separate ourselves from this sinful world (mainly because the evil one rules the wold until Jesus returns) and hold within our own boundaries the virtues and values that the Wod of God teach us. Remember Matthew 13:24 Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'
28" 'An enemy did this,' he replied.
"The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'
29" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "

[Terry]

Modern evangelical thinking is that institutions are secular by assumption and individuals may be religious. The only exception is churches, which are only there to re-enforce the private world of religion. These are merely so because it our American philosophy, not a Biblical standard. To see more of my thoughts on this check out my posting

http://pruittcommunications.blogspot.com/2004/07/christian-nation.html

[Jeff Price]

David/Terry,

Perhaps it's because I don't have time to read all the comments or perhaps it's something else going on that I am unaware of, but I am curious about the motivations for these posts. You both seem to be advocating a stance that proclaims that politics will not redeem our nation and that only the Gospel will. I absolutely, 100%, agree with that statement.

My question is why do you continue to beat that drum? Who believes the opposite of what you are saying there? And while we will not redeem our nation through politics, don't we need to be engaged in politics to both put the Gospel message into action and put feet on our faith?

I really mean no disrespect and I hope I have not offended in any posts on my own blog. I really just want to know the motivations here, so I can figure out if my own are on the right track.