"America and Christianity" (Part 2) The Christian State

In our last visit, we came to understand that America over the years has been considered by most as a Christian Nation. This was confirmed by statements from the Founders and by affirmations from American courts. We learned this Christianity was an organic Christianity that produce its own culture. However, it was not a Christian State as one understands from previous nations that ruled under the Christian banner. This was reflected in the mysterious Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796. With this organic Christianity prevailing in the country while believing Christianity was essential to the success of the nation, why would they avoid establishing it as a Christian State?

In their wisdom, I think they understood from their own experience that the history of the Christian State did not present itself very favorably. It had actually proved itself to be damaging both to the Church and to the State. We do find that Scripture teaches that governments are ordained by God and derive their powers to govern from Him. However, the biblical view presented in Scripture establishes a definitive separation between the Church and the State. President Jefferson wisely coined the phrase "Separation of Church and State" when writing to the Danbury Baptist. Though this phrase is not found in the Constitution, the concept is embodied in the 1st Amendment. This separation does not suggest that government should be indifferent to religion or that religion should not be supportive of the government. They were simply to remain within their realm of service, one not meddling in the role of the other. They were to be co-workers together in the maintenance of society and ensuring peace and tranquility to the people at large. This is reflected in various governmental statements and opinions expressed throughout our history.  

"The great, vital, and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ." -  Journal of the House of the Representatives of the United States of America (Washington, DC: Cornelius Wendell, 1855), 34th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 354, January 23, 1856

"Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement." - John Hancock. Independent Chronicle (Boston), November 2, 1780

"Has [government] any solid foundation? Any chief cornerstone?… I think it has an everlasting foundation in the unchangeable will of God… The sum of my argument is that civil government is of God." - James Otis, The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved (London: J. Williams and J. Almon, 1766), pp. 11, 98. 

"[T]he Christian religion… is the basis, or rather the source, of all genuine freedom in government… I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of Christianity have not a controlling influence." -  K. Alan Snyder, Defining Noah Webster: Mind and Morals in the Early Republic (New York: University Press of America, 1990), p. 253, to James Madison on October 16, 1829.

"Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both." - James Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson (Philadelphia: Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), Vol. I, p. 106.)

I think James Wilson correctly understood a government is most effective in achieving its purpose when its religion and its law are conducive to each other. That was the genius and unique experience of the American System. They did not want a government ruled by the hand of the Church, yet they did not want one so distant as to be indifferent to it. Previous attempts by the Church to be the ruling force of the State had proved to be a disaster to both the nation and the Church. Nations ruled by religions have proved to be cruel to non-conformists and absolutely a terror to freedom. However, the history of governments without religion has proved little better. With its many shortcomings and failures, the American system while embracing both achieved a level of freedom never before experienced in human history. 

The philosophy taking form within the concept of time concerning government was rooted in the fact the people did not want the State telling them how to worship. The Church was to guard and protect orthodoxy among its congregants. The Puritans sought the freedom to worship in a way they believed aligned with Scripture. Still, they weren’t looking to create a world that tolerated deviances from their understanding of religious practice. That tolerance would eventually take form in the Constitution of the United States as it is embodied in the 1st Amendment. This freedom opened the door for all kinds and forms of worship. Slowly but surely the face of Christianity began to change. 

With a new world of freedom in play, forms of worship began to develop in the church over time. We began to embrace less of our Puritan beginnings which held a high view of God and a low view of man and began gravitating towards a much higher view of man. Puritan theology sought to involve their faith in every area of life. Everything they did revolved around how it reflected upon the Church and the glory of God. Time would see Christians become more focused on themselves and how they felt about God. Emotional stirring became more important than orthodox doctrines. If some form of worship stirred them emotionally and made them feel like they had experienced some measure of God, it mattered not that it wasn't established church doctrine, it became a form of their worship as long as they could be emotionally stirred. Perhaps you can see the effect this has had on the Church, with the event of American freedom came this religious freedom. This was a good thing in that it brought peace from persecution and oppression, however, the adverse effect is also present. For nearly 1,500 years there was one faith in the visible church, which is not to say there was no division, but one visible church. 

The Church of England would distinguish itself from the Roman Catholic Church by reason of reform. Then our Puritan fathers would break with the Church of England and come to America. With no religious boundaries evolving as American Freedom broadened, the temptation of breaking with established forms of worship became too great. The Church began to take on new forms of worship and doctrines that were introduced by charismatic and influential men. New denominations began to form, at first the core beliefs were similar and different bodies could fellowship. As the church drifted farther and farther from orthodoxy, new splinter groups and denominations would institute doctrines and forms of worship that would separate whole Christian communities from joint worship. Today Christianity has emerged consisting of hundreds of denominations and independent groups with forms of worship that are so diverse viewing from one end of the spectrum to the other, it does not even appear to be the same faith. These groups are sending missionaries around the world to preach what they deem to be the Gospel. This Gospel is now so diverse many times these Christian groups find themselves in competition with each other. 

This is not to lay the blame upon American freedom, it is simply a result of man's natural tendencies. We are a sinful people, it is the natural tendency of the fallen human nature to have its own way, to promote its own ideas, to think ourselves better and wiser than others. We have a similar case in the History of Israel with the rule of King Solomon. Israel reached its height in prosperity and peace, and as a result division and diversity arouse and the ancient church drifted in its form of worship.

We find after the death of King Solomon, his son was to take the throne. The Kingdom had been degrading for years with sinful leadership in the State and comfort in the church. Rehoboam, Solomon's son we may suppose, knew of the division growing among the nation, and probably hoped by going to Shechem, and treating there with the ten tribes, to prevent it: yet it proved the most impolitic thing he could do and hastened the rupture.

The people complain not of his father's idolatry and revolt from God; that which was the greatest grievance of all was none to them, so careless and indifferent were they in the matters of religion,  it seems their greatest concern was to be able to live at ease and pay fewer taxes. The nation would become divided and the church so diverse the Kingdom divided and the Church became corrupt in its worship. There is an eerie tone to the sound of that for some strange reason.

Back to American freedom and Christianity. Our current view of both has changed from the early years of our nation. The main aspect of Puritan freedom was freedom of worship, everything else flowed out of that. Freedom today is the freedom to succeed in personal achievement and wealth. To be able to choose one's path and pursue it, to live in comfort and enjoy our wealth, everything else flows out of that. Christianity today for the most part is seen as a means to achieve that personal wealth and success. It is presented as a gospel that promotes what we want and desire, therefore embracing it is conducive to what we call the American dream. It is what some call our best life now. This is not what American Christianity use to be, nor is it the original American dream. 

 

When Noah Webster stated: "[T]he Christian religion… is the basis, or rather the source, of all genuine freedom in government… I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of Christianity have not a controlling influence." he was not suggesting a theocracy where religious law was instituted. He was expressing the idea that civil freedom as we know it in America and civil peace in government as we have experienced, is only possible to maintain when the people and culture are influenced by the very nature of who they are and how they view the world, and that growing out of the principles embraced in the Christian religion. Right government is instituted, not because it is of religious law, but because the right government simply grows out of a right understanding of the world and the people in it. Webster believed the best source of that came from the Christian faith. 

Once that source is changed, the culture and government will change. The purpose and idea of freedom will take on new forms. The laws of society will evolve, and what once was deemed unlawful will begin to appear right and acceptable. Old ways will seem confined and archaic, what was once offensive will become celebrated. What was once shameful will now be an expression of pride. Days and months will be set aside to celebrate the new cultural views emerging. I know this because a simple view of human history, government, and cultural behavior proves it to be the natural course we always take. We build up a society on certain principles, then those principles become tiresome to following generations and we slowly undo what those before us built. 

This generally does not end well, as these changes occur there will be some who cling to the previous principles. They will usually be overrun and squelched by new cultural norms. The holdouts usually make the mistake of trying to return to previous successes by political means and forcing those old principles through governmental changes. This almost never works for any length of time and always fails in the end. For the principles to work, you must have a people who understand and embrace them, to force them by law kills the very freedom and purpose for which they were maintained. 

I say this because I see this happening to us, we have been changing for a long time. Things are now beginning to tilt heavily to opposing ideologies. Some are gathering in groups to resist these new ideologies. But the path to resistance is not politics and government. We must understand no non-Christian wants to be governed by perceived Christian principles. When there are Christian principles that non-Christians embrace, they will defend them to their last breath insisting they are not Christian ideas, but only good human reason. By doing so, they can then embrace all laws and government as human intuition and have the freedom to move society wherever that intuition leads them if they can be persuasive enough.  That is not to say a Christian should not be involved in politics, it is his duty to vote and influence society as much as he can to promote Christian piety, especially in a free society such as ours. He should speak his voice concerning morality and right government as he understands it. It is even a good thing for him to seek political office if that is within one's reach. However, he must understand, he will not turn a nation by turning its politics. The nation will go the way of the people in such free societies as ours, be that in their wisdom or be that in their ignorance. 

The American Christian must realize he is no longer living in a Christian society influenced by the Church, at least a church holding its historic beliefs. His government no longer sees Christianity as essential to its maintenance and cares not if it governs by such principles as are conducive to it. Our purpose as Christians is not to resist the government to overturn it or impose Christian principles upon people that reject them. Our purpose is the same as it has always been, live and preach the Gospel. Our founders understood a Gospel-saturated people will by nature embrace Christian principles and uphold good government. Thus the high importance they place upon the diffusion of Christianity. 

May God bless,

David