by Resolved: Christians should henceforth avoid the temptation to make the sweeping, but generally unhelpful, self-serving, and (in many contexts) un-Christian declaration that “America is a Christian nation.”
I think Sarah Palin is starting to play the Jerry Falwell role for the media’s coverage of evangelical Christianity’s views on politics: presume that she represents the dominant, or perhaps only, view. I understand the rationale: she’s entertaining, accessible, seems to be everywhere, and feeds into our fears about those crazy Christians. I’m not a fan of Sarah Palin, and I’m not a fan of the way she portrays the relationship between Christianity and politics, but her speech a few days ago to the Women of Joy conference did at least serve to start some conversations. Palin said that it’s “mind-boggling” to “hear any leader [especially one named Obama] declare that America isn’t a Christian nation.” (I think Obama stated that America is “no longer just a Christian nation.”)
I would approach it from a different angle: I find it puzzling when Christians still insist on the blanket declaration that America is “a Christian nation.” In many circles it is inflammatory, and it can come across as self-righteous. If we mean that most Americans identify as Christians, we should say that. If we mean that the Constitution includes principles derived from a Christian worldview, we should say that. If we mean something else, we should be specific. Is there any Christian purpose to proclaiming that America is a Christian nation?
The Bible speaks of individual Christians, not Christian institutions. If pressed, I would define a Christian nation (or university or club or family) as one that seeks to follow Christian moral teachings in all it does. Our country is far from that. To call the United States a Christian country is to take the Lord’s name in vain.
BTW, it would be interesting to speculate on what a Christian nation would be like. I think it would not use the instruments of government to encourage people to become Christians. Christian faith is a matter of choice. In that respect, I think our nation is Christian.
I myself wouldn’t assert that this is a “Christian nation”; I wouldn’t assert it because the statement seems undiplomatic, empirically misguided, and (as Rob suggests) wholly unclear as to what exactly it is claiming. Nor do I hear this assertion made by other people; but then, I tend to hang out in academic settings, and I don’t watch the 700 Club. (Is that what the program is called? Is it still going?)
Still, if there are those who talk about it being a Christian nation, I wouldn’t be too severe in my criticism. In my view, for much of the nation’s history the American political tradition has in an important sense been constituted by a sort of Yin-Yang tension between secularist and what I’d call providentialist conceptions of the country. It’s been a fruitful tension, in many ways. Some of our current “culture war” difficulties, I believe, reflect the fact that from about the 1960s (in the school prayer decisions, most conspicuously)the secularist conception was embraced by the nation’s legal and academic elite not just as an important and legitimate conception, but as a sort of official orthodoxy– one that would be (erratically) enforced in the courts. Instead of being one of two competing big tent parties, the more providentialist view was thereby relegated to a sort of marginal and heretical status, and the by-and-large healthy tension was upset. It’s not surprising that the proponents of the providentialist view are resentful, and that they sometimes try to fight back.
I would take “Christian nation” rhetoric as reflecting an effort to uphold or reassert the providentialist conception that has been officially marginalized. Poliltical rhetoric is rarely nuanced and precise, of course. But although the “Christian nation” formulation seems to me unfortunate and unduly narrow, the effort to maintain the providentialist conception is understandable, legitimate– and even, in my view, laudable.
Those are helpful comments, Bob and Steve.
A couple of questions prompted by Steve’s comment: First, do you think the effort to maintain the providentialist conception is laudable because the providentialist conception itself is true, or because it is useful, or because it is evidence of a vibrant and engaged grass-roots political culture, or for some other reason? And isn’t the American providentialist tradition also an American exceptionalist tradition? If so, doesn’t that make the “Christian nation” rhetoric more complicated and perhaps tending more toward self-righteousness?
Good questions from Rob. My answers would be yes, yes, yes, possibly, sort of, and not necessarily.
In case that wasn’t perfectly clear, I would add this: it seems to me that one may well believe (and I think this was Lincoln’s mature view) that America has a special role in the providential scheme without believing that America enjoys any special providential approval or favor.
Yes, but this can all be turned around.
Is it more meaningful or tolerant … less inflammatory or self-righteous to declare that “America is not a Christian nation” or is “no longer a Christian nation”?
What does this blanket denial mean? If it only means that most Americans once did but no longer identify themselves as Christian, then why don’t the deniers just say that? If it only means that our constitution once was but no longer is derived from a Christian worldview, then why not just say that? If deniers mean something else, why not specify?
I suspect it’s because both Obama and Palin intend something that’s almost impossible to state exactly within the confines of political rhetoric. They mean something interpretive as well as normative, aspirational as well descriptive.
In any case, if we are to condemn one we should condemn both.
Eric, I agree with you on the statements “America is not a Christian nation” or “no longer a Christian nation.” I think Obama’s statement that America is not “just” a Christian nation is in a different category — it’s a more obviously sociological statement (at least obvious to me, but I might be biased), especially in the context of trying to explain America’s intentions to a skeptical global audience after some of the sweeping providentialist rhetoric of his predecessor.
Rob, I agree with you completely. The problem isn’t just with the ways in which we can dissect Palin’s claim. The problem is also that underlying the claim is a “restorationist” worldview that is neither grounded in historical reality nor theologically valid.
The reality is that there was never a pristine period in America’s history in which we could have been called a “Christian nation.” Even our Constitution, which I agree includes some principles that were influenced at some marginal level by Christian ideas, initially failed to recognize the full humanity and political rights of Black slaves and women. What’s “Christian” about that?
Theologically, I mostly agree with Bob. Having an Anabaptist theological streak, I’d go even further and suggest that all political power, Biblically speaking, is under eschatological judgment. Romans 13 requires us to recognize God’s providential hand in government authority, but the entire arc of the New Testament refers continually to Second Temple Jewish eschatology. To suggest that any “nation-state” other than the Kingdom of God has priority in this eschatological scheme IMHO is a grave error.
David, I’m not sure I follow your use of the word “Christian.”
Granting that America is not perfect or pristine, why would that prohibit calling it Christian? “Christian” does not ordinarily mean perfect or fulfilling all eschatological standards. When I call myself “Christian,” I certainly mean no such thing.
And, for example, when I say that Baptists are Christian and Buddhists are not, I am saying something obvious, important and yet not commenting about eschatology at all. I am identifying the influences and aspirations of separate religious groups.
If I say, the government of William Penn was Christian and the government of Pol Pot was not, I am making a similar statement about influences and aspirations. Do comments like this about William Penn and Pol Pot really imply that Penn’s government was the fulfillment of the Kingdom of God? To me, they just convey ordinary and useful information about influences and aspirations.
Pol Pot’s governemnt is obviously less Christian than William Penn’s, but neither immanentized the eschaton.
Eric — “Christian” I take to signify “following in the way of Christ.” You’re obviously right that no Christian does this perfectly — it is a matter of intention and direction, not to mention of the Holy Spirit. It involves particular beliefs and practices, and participation in a particular community.
My contention is that the United States of America has never been “Christian” in the sense I’ve described. Our founding beliefs are those of Jefferson, not Jesus. The “Declaration of Independence” certainly is not a statement of humble faith in the Triune God. The U.S. Constitution is a brilliant bit of 18th century political philosophy, which I greatly admire, but which owes very little to the politics of Jesus. The men who founded our nation were in significant part not followers of Jesus at all.
Whether the Massachusetts Bay Puritans, or William Penn, were more intentionally Christian is a different issue. It’s also a different issue to ask whether some of the principles of the U.S. Constitution are broadly consistent with reason, and in that sense broadly consistent with Christian Truth, or whether Christian moral energy has been a vital force in our civic life. Both of these facts certainly are true, but this sort of broad congruence and civic energy do not make us a “Christian Nation.”
I think it’s long past time that the myth of Christian America be put out to pasture. It’s a false teaching that has particularly corrupted the evangelical branch of the Church in the West and that has despoiled our political witness. (I’d also be curious to hear from our Jewish and Muslim colleagues on this blog how they feel about “Christian America” rhetoric).
David, if we agree that to be “Christian” does not demand eschatological fulfillment, your criticism of evangelical “Christian nation” talk becomes more a dispute over terms. You have particular definitions of “nation” and “Christian” that are narrower than seems fair to presume all others hold. I don’t think arguments of this kind can support the dire charges you make against evangelicals.
For example, your understanding of American nation seems to narrowly equate it with U.S. government. Thus, you treat Jefferson and the Drafters as founders of the American nation. I think many people employ the word “nation “in a broader, more organic sense where, for example, the history of Massachusetts Bay is not “a different issue” from American national identity. Indeed, I think most American people consider the stories of the Pilgrims and the Puritans to be essential to our national identity. Don’t you?
Another example: you would not call American politics “Christian” despite the fact that they result from “Christian moral energy” and lead to a rationally adapted political order “broadly consistent with Christian Truth.” But if being Christian is “a matter of intention and direction” not eschatological fulfillment, then doesn’t the fact that American politics consistent with Christian Truth (direction) arises from Christian moral energy (intent) indicate Christian intent and direction?
Couldn’t we call a nation Christian just because its politics demonstrate popular Christian motives and evince important results broadly consistent with Christian Truth?
But, most importantly, if someone uses terms in this way, is this really evidence that they are corrupted and despoiled? I don’t think so.
Eric said: Couldn’t we call a nation Christian just because its politics demonstrate popular Christian motives and evince important results broadly consistent with Christian Truth?
I respond: I think the short answer is “no.”
First, I don’t think there’s any way to measure what “mix” of “Christian motives” or “results” is enough. Obviously, no pluralistic group of people will evince entirely “Christian motives” or entirely right results. What is the tipping point?
Second, and perhaps more importantly, I don’t think you can redefine the phrase “Christian nation” to refer to some sort of broad cultural sensibility. The term refers to the structure of the nation-state, particularly as refelected in its governmental structure and laws. The “Christian America” narrative used by the religious right certainly takes the term in this sense — or else why would they spend so many resources on influencing law?
Finally, from the perspective of what I understand to be God’s mission in redeeming the world, I don’t see any utility in speaking of any “Christian nation.” God redeems all the nations through Christ by the Spirit working through the instrumentality of the Church. There is no missional role for a particular “Christian nation,” and IMHO the rhetoric of “Christian America” has gravely damaged the unity and witness of the Church.
David, these arguments may support your position somewhat, but they hardly seem to be the kind that could justify the strength of your denunciations against evangelicals.
Indeed, you begin with what seems like a significant argument for agnosticism. You point to our radical inability to determine and assess group motives or identity. But that supports caution against insistiting either that America is or is not a Christian nation. You aren’t agnostic at all about your negative assertion.
To the contrary, you are both able to determine that America is not a “Christian nation” and to discern the exact meaning that evangelicals intend for the term. How is all this possible if it’s so hard to make these kind of precise determinations about pluralistic groups?
When we hear people talk about a “Christian nation,” why not interpret their meaning charitably to refer to something other than a primary mechanism for eschatological fulfillment antagonistic to the ecclesiastical role?
We can understand the use of “Christian nation” as we do similiar constructions like “Christian marriage” “Christian family,” “Christian community,” “Christian fellowship,” “Christian university,” “Christian business,” “Christian society” as not threatening the role of the church. When we talk about these things or “Christian art,” “Christian music,” “Christian literature,” “Christian philosophy,” “Christian legal theory,” we don’t usually mean to assert that the “Christian ______” is a replacement for the church or the primary means of eschatological fulfillment.
I certainly don’t follow how, as you argue, that concern with legal institutions demonstrates a belief that law is a primary means of bringing in the kingdom of God. I am surprised — given our own interests in law — that you would suggest this.
In any case, since we are concerned with the unity and witness of Christians, shouldn’t we be very cautious before we draw the worst possible interepretation about the statements of other Christians?
Eric, I’ve been an evangelical for over 35 years. I did my history thesis at an evangelical college on the idea of “Christian America.” I was deeply involved in a local church for over 20 years that bought into the “Christian America” narrative hook, line and sinker. I’m reasonably confident that my assessment is accurate.
Moreveover, I did not “denounce[] evangelicals,” of which I am one — I criticized the “religious right,” which I take by no means to be coextensive with evangelicalism.
Finally, I didn’t suggest at all that any concern whatsoever with legal institutions is per se a form of Constantianism. My concern is with the elevation of this concern to a status that it should not occupy.
As a hopefully relevant aside, let me offer this anecdote. At a church I once attended, every July 4 weekend, there was a “Patriotic Sunday” church service. During this service men dressed in their old military uniforms marched up to the platform as a huge American flag unfurled, literally covering over a wooden cross with the slogan “He is Lord of All” that hung over the baptistry area at the front of the church. This was idolatry, plain and simple. It happened year after year. I understand that same church, this past year, at its Christmas Eve service, put on a salute to U.S. military troops (on the birthday of the Prince of Peace!). This is the fruit, in my long experience, of “Christian America” talk.
David: our experience of those with whom we are closest and most emotionally involved rarely produces objectivity. Don’t we often react more strongly to imperfections in those whom we love best than to serious faults in strangers? The danger of the anecdote is that we are seduced by its heated particularity to ignore cold general facts.
Since I have every desire to respect your experience but also the experiences of many others who disagree with you with at least equal foundation, I am quite sure that anecdote and personal experience in a particular congregation are not sufficient to resolve this kind of dispute.
Objective studies, one of which is discussed here http://www.faithandleadership.com/blog/03-12-2010/mark-chaves-what-congregations-are-more-political, show that evangelicals have a less politicized faith than other Christian groups. In my experience as well as historically, flags and patriotism make their regular appearance in many non-evangelical Christian denominations that lack “Christian America” talk. In general, I remain unconvinced that evangelicals have a self-evidently distorted view of the importance of legal/political issues. Your anabaptist theology is wonderful, but its radical separatism is not the only reasonable theological perspective nor a neutral perspective from which to judge idolatrous intent.
If you did not mean to denounce evangelicals, I am happy to understand your remarks as referring to the “religious right.” But the following, which you wrote above, seems to be written about evangelicals, not the religious right, comparing them to other Christian groups: “[the myth of Christian America] it’s a false teaching that has particularly corrupted the evangelical branch of the Church in the West and that has despoiled our political witness.” If that was not intended to denounce evangelicals, I hope you’ll forgive what seems a reasonable mistake.
I’ll leave you with an anecdote, too. I have known many Roman Catholics whose principle public expression of their identity was to criticize their church. Frequently, they were once enthusiasts for a particular interpretation of Roman Catholicism and then had a shift in their theological thinking. On the basis of their new found understanding, they were unremitting in criticizing those who held the same views today that they had held yesterday. I have generally refused to accept their unendingly dim view of their own brethren, thinking them overcritical because of an otherwise laudable desire to see their church perfected.
Peace to you in Christ Jesus!