What Would A Christian America Look Like?
Rodney Nelson November/December 2003
By Rodney Nelson
Illustration By Jack Slattery
A few years ago a friend of mine paid my way to a family camp sponsored by the American Heritage Party of Washington State. The AHP was a Washington State chapter of the Constitution Party before leaving several years ago and changing its name to the AHP. While at the family camp I put on my critical hat and attended several seminars led mostly by Reformed (Calvinistic) speakers.
Looking through the recommended book section, I noticed that much of the material was from a theonomist perspective. Theonomists are Christians who believe that society should adopt the Old Testament as the basis for law and culture. Modern theonomy, founded by Rousas J. Rushdoony, has become a very vocal minority within evangelical circles.
However, I knew that my friend and others I met at the camp were not theonomists. And I began to grow curious about which perspective would ultimately carry the day within the party rank and file. The AHP "adopts the Bible as its political textbook and is unashamed to be explicitly Christian."
A Class Visitor
I teach history in a Christian high school. Each year I teach a semester of U.S. government to seniors. During the semester I invite speakers from various political parties to visit the class and give a presentation on their political party. I have representatives from the Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian parties speak in class. A representative from the AHP came to speak one day. It was a very interesting presentation. He discussed the basic differences between a distinctly Christian political perspective and that of other political parties. He said the most important distinctive of a Christian view of politics is one of transformation. The objective of Christian political activism is to transform the institutions of society into the image of Christ. This includes government and politics. The theology this is based on is the "cultural mandate."
The cultural mandate states that it is the church's prerogative and mission to transform society for Christ. The original mandate was given in Genesis 1:28, 29, reiterated in Genesis 9:1, 7, and extended in Matthew 28:19, 20. Together these texts dictate that humanity's original mandate was to subdue the earth, and that the church is to make disciples of all nations, not merely disciples in all nations. Furthermore, they cite Matthew 16:18, where Jesus declares that the gates of hell will not prevail over the church, meaning that the church is an offensive force that even hell cannot overcome. Some theonomists take this so far as to teach that Christ will not come again until the church is triumphant over the world (human institutions), not just in a spiritual sense. Therefore, preaching the gospel is not the only goal of the church, but must be coupled with discipleship of all human institutions.
What If...?
What if the Christian church controlled all of society? What would it look like? Is it possible to envision a society that is distinctly Christian? Have we crossed this bridge before?
It is certain that there is a difference between establishing a Christian society and transforming a society into a Christian one. The Roman Empire was transformed into a Christian civilization that would come to be known as Christendom. The past centuries have taken their toll on Christendom to the point where we are now in a postmodern era—effectively ending Christendom in Europe and other Western countries.
The history of the United States is directly linked not to the transformation of an existing culture and society, but to the establishment of a society originating from Protestant Christianity. Therefore, when we speak of a "Christian civilization" it is necessary to qualify what is meant by the expression. The establishment of distinctly Protestant Christian colonies in English America was an experiment in religious freedom and diversity. The creation of a Separatist colony in Plymouth by the Pilgrims was an effort to gain freedom of religious expression and to establish a separate church community free from bigotry and persecution.
The Puritan experiment in Massachusetts Bay was more than a yearning for religious freedom; it was a deliberate attempt to establish a distinctly Christian society that would be a "city on a hill" for all the world to see. It would be a reformed community experiment in which church and state worked together to create a Christian culture with laws based on both the Bible and English common law. Separation of church and state was not only unknown, but was seen as counterproductive to the creation of a Christian society. Christianity was more than a spiritual endeavor; it encompassed all areas of life, including politics.
Roger Williams
Roger Williams challenged the Puritan notion of church and state relations by insisting that civil government should never interfere with religious affairs and that churches should never use the government to promote a particular religion. The separation between church and state was to guarantee and promote religious freedom and deny governmental favoritism of one church or religion. For this belief Williams was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1635. As a result, he founded the colony of Rhode Island as a haven for religious freedom.
Halfway Covenant
Despite efforts to preserve a particular notion of Christian civilization, the Puritan experiment faced the same problem that many Christian parents face with their own children. The fire and conviction of the original generation was dimmed in succeeding generations. Just as Christian parents cannot guarantee or determine their children's spiritual commitment for the future, so the progeny of the first generations of Puritans succeeded in diluting the spiritual formula and zeal of their forebears. As a result, a decision had to be made as to how descendants were to be incorporated into the fellowship of believers, since the fellowship was a covenant relationship of believers who confessed a relationship with Christ.
The solution was the Halfway Covenant (1662), introduced by Richard Mather, which gave partial membership rights to those as yet unconverted to Puritanism. Under it, the children of covenant members could not partake of Communion until they made a profession of belief by the age of 14, thus promoting closed Communion. Solomon Stoddard saw an inconsistency in this by noting that Puritan belief held that a believer could not be certain of their salvation, so how could a person partake of the Lord's Supper, since it was predicated on verification of their salvation experience? Open Communion resulted and would lead to protestations by Jonathan Edwards (Stoddard's grandson) calling for closed Communion. He was removed from his church for this "heresy."
The Need for Revival
As a result of such measures, Puritan churches became more and more formalistic and preached a "lifeless morality." The need for revival was apparent and arrived through the First Great Awakening (1730-1760). Such historic figures as John and Charles Wesley in England and Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield in America changed the spiritual landscape in the American colonies. The Great Awakening led to the founding of new colleges, thousands of conversions or renewed commitments to Christ, increased missionary activity.
And this renewed dynamic of freedom of religion quickly gave rise to an emphasis on political freedom. Political freedom would be encouraged by the Puritan belief in a congregational form of church government (each congregation governed itself). Puritans believed that government power should be limited by the consent of the governed, citizens should choose their own leaders, and private property should be protected by government. The Great Awakening gave the American colonies the awareness that if all men are equal in God's eyes, then all men should receive equal justice under the law, and true political freedom is possible only if participation is not determined by religious affiliation.
History's Lesson
Despite the opposition from certain religious leaders in the early colonies of America, the historical trend was for greater religious freedom and, by the time of our nation's founding, the separation of church and state.
The First Amendment to the Constitution exemplified these two attributes. The "establishment clause" guaranteed that government should not favor or establish one religion (or Christian denomination) as the official state religion, hence prohibiting government interference in the freedom of religion. The "free exercise clause" guaranteed the free expression of religious belief without government censure or interference. In other words, if government favored one religion over another, then freedom was prohibited. If freedom of religion was paramount, then government could not establish a state church, thus prohibiting government interference with religious expression. The First Amendment did not refer to separation of religion from public life. It referred to the interference of government in church affairs, and churches using the state to promote or enforce a particular religion. The intent of the First Amendment was to demonstrate that genuine religious freedom is accomplished when government stays out of a church's business, and when churches mind their own business. This did not mean that religious and moral values had nothing to do with public affairs, however. It meant that one particular church or religion would not control the government to the exclusion of another.
What About Now?
To state that America has been a Christian nation in its historical heritage is correct. The very founding of the Republic drips with Christianity. However, it was not founded by a single Christian denomination. The identity of America as a Christian nation derives from the mosaic and tapestry of Christian denominations that founded pieces of what would be the United States. The Protestant heritage of America saw each sect of Protestantism make its mark and contribution to the landscape of Christianity in America. However, no one sect dominated that heritage, though Calvinism's influence was indelible.
Protestant Christianity formed the foundation of a society that existed under the common moral base of Judeo-Christian belief and morality. There was freedom of expression, reflecting the diversity of Christian denominations and belief. Contemporary America witnesses the transition of this heritage into a postmodern society on which the common Judeo-Christian heritage is being chipped away piece by piece in all areas of society. But what would a re-Christianizing of American society look like?
Such a change would proceed from a different set of circumstances from those in our history. There would need to be a turning of the general public consensus to a renewal of historic Judeo-Christian beliefs and the values that underpin the cultural identity of America. We are not just talking about another Great Awakening or revival within the church at large, but a return to a broad consensus of Judeo-Christian values by the general public. One example might be shifts in positions on abortion. While the majority of Americans personally do not approve of abortion in general, there continues to be a consensus supporting a woman's right to have an abortion. These conflicting values are still in tension in the body politic. A majority of Americans abhor partial birth abortion, and view it as infanticide rather than abortion.
The number of Americans who claim to be evangelical, born-again Christians is rising in proportion to the general population (Impact, May 2003). This indicates that evangelical Christianity is making an impact on society and in the lives of people. It does not seem likely this can be passed off as a societal fad, as was common in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It also seems evident that the 2000 and 2002 elections indicated a disparity and polarity between "middle America" and everyone else. People do vote their lifestyles and
consciences.
The current state of affairs in America is one of transition and shifting, and not merely negatively. In this reidentification of American values, Christians will play a role. The role will not be a return to the "good ole days" of Puritanism in the 1600s, but perhaps a return to values and principles that historically have undergirded America since its inception—ones not identified with a particular theology or denomination. The civic values of America are still there—values that find their genesis in the original Christians who founded this nation—and transcend sectarian differences.
This does not mean America is a "Christian nation" as understood by the original Puritans, Pilgrims, Baptists, Quakers, etc. What it does mean is that the vision of Roger Williams may win the day, in a society that upholds the virtues all Christians can agree on and in which freedom of religion is the norm. In such a society government and church respect the God-ordained roles given them and will work together to maintain religious freedom and governmental neutrality.
The Founders understood that government's establishment of a particular religion or denomination denies the freedom of all churches to worship without hindrance. Conversely, denying freedom of worship to any one religion means government establishes others as being legitimate or illegitimate. Does the First Amendment equate to America's being secular, as is the current trend of thought? No. It means that government is neutral toward favoring one religion over another, and affords all religions free expression of belief. The current legal maneuver of using the establishment clause to overrule the free exercise clause was not the intention of the Founders.
What Is Christian America?
Christian America is the historic legacy and heritage of the original Christian values shared by all Christians in the founding of the British colonies and in the founding of America. It reflects the "moral consensus" of Protestantism and Catholicism in the diversity of expressions exemplified by Christians who came to America for religious freedom. The variety and diversity of Christian religious expression gave birth to religious freedom in America.
Today we witness the process of chipping away that religious and cultural heritage by secularists and humanists using a new definition of tolerance and political correctness to redefine the moral consensus of America. What we are witnessing is the redirection of America to a different set of moral values; ones not reflective of a Christian cultural consensus. Religious freedom is being co-opted to mean secularity in public religious expression and limited to a purely private affair, not meant for public consumption.
Christians are commanded to be salt and light in the world. This characteristic should exemplify the Christian life in every type of society.
Seeking to renew the Judeo-Christian moral consensus in America is a duty of every Christian. However, religious liberty must be the center of all such efforts. As Christians honor the Lord through their lifestyles, society will reflect the values inherent in those characteristics. Revival is a vital aspect of this transformation process: changed Christians in turn change society. More Christians in society will produce a more Christian-friendly culture and therefore a freer society for all people. Contrary to the opinion of some detractors, a diverse and varied Christian populace leads to freedom for all people, Christian or otherwise. This is the great lesson of the American experiment in religious and political liberty.
Christian Politics
So, what about the efforts to create a distinctly Christian political party? Will such an effort guarantee Christian representation in the political process? Historically speaking, Christians have been major voices in most of the political parties that have existed in America. George Washington cautioned against the rise of political parties as creating factions that could destroy liberty. The rise of Federalists and Democrat-Republicans (Jeffersonian Democrats) guaranteed the permanence of the two-party system on the American political landscape. Is the time now for a Christian party?
The real question is what type of Christian party. Who will control it? Will it represent all Christians (Catholic, Mainline, Evangelical, Orthodox), or will it represent a narrow sector of Christians in America? What will be its theological construction (Calvinist, etc.)? Will it strive to build a broad-based Christian agenda of common values and principles shared by all Christians? Pragmatically, will it be merely a voice, or a power broker in the political system? How will it reflect the Savior's words in Matthew 10:16— "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves" (NIV)?*
As stated earlier, the American Heritage Party is in the process of identifying who is its constituency. But whatever may come out of this process should never be seen as a monolithic attempt to represent all Christians. As with Protestant churches, a single Christian political party can never represent all Christians, especially in a nation that prides itself on religious and political diversity.
What would a Christian America look like? Let us ensure that we find out through revival and regeneration, not through the imposition of any particular view of Christian orthodoxy.
______________________
Rodney Nelson, a teacher of history and government, lives in Richland, Washington.
______________________
*Texts credited to NIV are from the Holy Bible, New International Version. Copyright