Rough Draft, Part 3, "Theolotics."

In light of the Founding Fathers’ being influenced by Deism, and the views of the Puritans, it is easy for us to assume that the separation of church and state was asserted to prevent religious institutions from running the government. Yet the exact opposite is true. We see the Religious Right and many of us despair if they ever gain the support of the majority of the people and the politicians. We don’t want anyone’s religion “rammed down our throat.” Our movies reveal our bias in this matter quite clearly. In “Kingdom of Heaven,” the Bishop of Jerusalem is a cowardly, interfering irritant. In “Troy,” the Chief Priest of Troy is always meddling in the affairs of the King and his court. And it is the priest’s insistence upon taking in the Trojan Horse that dispels doom for the city. The religious officials are, by and large, represented as boisterous loud-mouthed and insistent fools who, when listened to, bring about disaster.

We often take it for granted that many ideas we have today that we consider good, such as compassion and humanitarianism, are and have always been common and are just good “common sense.” To believe such would be to make the same mistake as the Deists. That mistake is in assuming those things which seem to permeate our culture are merely common sense. Loving one’s neighbor as one’s self is not something that comes naturally to humankind, nor is it often demonstrated in our history. With the dawn of Christianity we begin to see it spread with the message of its founder, Jesus Christ, and become more common than it was. We see it demonstrated in such people as Telemachus, a monk whose death crystallized the opposition that led to the end of the Roman gladiatorial combats. We see it demonstrated in Saint Patrick, who was a slave in Ireland and, after having been freed, returns to the land of his slavery to bring them the light of the Gospel. We see it in Saint Francis, with his simple life and ready acceptance of poverty to reach the people. We see it in Billy Graham and Mother Theresa. We see it, in its fullness, only in those people in whom the Gospel is lived out.

However much the past has influenced us as a culture and as a nation, we can also look at the present day to discern our values. I have heard from several people that the USA is far more religious than Europe despite the rising trend of secularization (CITATION NEEDED). Therefore, at least some of us view us as a very religious nation – perhaps too religious. At the same time there are those who hate America and who decry us as the “Great Satan.” The truth, as is often the case, lies somewhere in the middle.

No other country gives as much money in foreign aid than the United States of America (CITATION NEEDED). We are, on the whole, a generous people who are willing to help out those in need. We are, of course, not perfect in our generosity given how many of our own struggle to make ends meet or who live in abject squalor.

It takes no great stretch of the imagination to see that we spend the vast majority of our money on entertainment. Movies, music and video games are big business. The movies and television we watch also reveal a great deal about what we are: hit reality shows such as Survivor and Fear Factor let us revel in the misery and backstabbing of our fellow human beings. Big Brother takes this to a whole new level by adding casual romantic flings into the mix, as did Temptation Island. Jerry Springer was around long before the others, however, and brought us to new lows by parading rather perverse people with even more perverse problems on a stage for our entertainment. Mr. Springer gave us some hope with his show, too: no matter how bad our lives seemed, we could always point to those unfortunate souls and say to ourselves “at least I am better then they are.”

The bottom line is rather simple. We would rather be entertained then help somebody out, and we like to be entertained largely by betrayal, illicit romances and sexual imagery. The programs we watch with an uplifting message we watch in order to feel justified for watching everything else and we quietly tell ourselves that we are not bad people. Or, if anything, we tell ourselves that because we work hard we deserve a little relaxation and entertainment. Let me be very plain: I’m not against entertainment. . The problem arises when we enjoy life in ways that it ought not to be enjoyed. Good fun with friends and family can be a tremendous blessing in our lives, and the laughter we experience can be the best medicine. However, if that laughter comes at someone else’s expense, our laughter is no longer medicine but poison.

(Look up “In God We Trust”, religious beliefs of America)

There is, however, a possible problem with how I have portrayed the current cultural climate of America so far. That problem is that just because a person or a country is Christian does not also mean that the person or country is sinless. Can it be possible that we are, in fact, a Christian nation and that we simply struggle with certain excesses as any culture does? When we think of the people who live in the United States of America, what comes to mind first and foremost?

In a word I think it would be safe to say: individualism. Fast food chains advertise with “have it your way” and other such slogans to appeal to that distinctly American sense of individualism that says “I want what I want, and in the way I want it.” The famous American dream is the freedom to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. America may be a young country compared to the other nations of the world but we, too, have our myths that strongly contribute to our personal outlook on life. These myths are those of individualism and relativism.[1]

The first American myth that helps define us as a people is that of rugged individualism. America is thought of as the land of opportunity where a poor person can “make it big” and, in so doing, somehow “succeed” in life. In Fitzgerald’s work “The Great Gatsby,” the main character Gatsby throws lavish parties on a weekly basis. Some think it is to flaunt his wealth which he came to by mysterious means that hint at involvement with bootlegging. However, the aim of these parties is to try and find a woman he used to love named Daisy who has since gone on to become married. After they meet up again, this does not stop them from striking up an affair. It is important to remember that it is Gatsby’s lavish parties to which he invites hundreds of people that enable him to meet Daisy again and that these parties are only made possible through his money. Gatsby falls into the category of nouveau riche, someone who does not come from wealth, like many of his guests, but rather has made his own fortune. However in the end Gatsby’s frivolous lifestyle, and that of his friends, leaves two people dead (one of them being Gatsby himself) and his murderer having committed suicide. When Nick attempts to arrange a funeral for Gatsby only three people show up, including Nick.

Although a work of fiction we see echoes of these stories quite often in the U.S. The media is never afraid to inform us of who has had an affair with whom among the rich and famous. Indeed, we have an entire channel that is dedicated to keeping us informed on this subject. We blame tabloids for endlessly asking if one actor is having an affair with another actor’s wife but do not blame ourselves for keeping the tabloids in business.

Compare such a lifestyle with what we find in the Bible. The author of Ecclesiastes tells us:

I denied myself nothing my eyes desired; I refused my heart no pleasure. My heart took delight in all my work, and this was the reward for all my labor. Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done and what I had toiled to achieve, everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind; nothing was gained under the sun.[2]

David was, originally, the youngest son of a shepherd and yet he finds himself chosen by God to become the King of Israel to replace Saul.[3] From humble origins he goes on to slay Goliath and attain the crown. When King David saw Bathsheba bathing on the rooftop he did not deny himself his desires for another man’s wife and had the husband’s death on the battlefield arranged.[4] Although David took in Bathsheba after her husband’s death God was displeased with what he had done.[5] King David’s domestic problems extend to encompass his entire family. Later on, when one of his children rapes another we learn that although David was furious[6] he did nothing about it. Absalom, another of David’s children, takes the matter into his own hands. Absalom takes vengeance on Amnon, the rapist, and has the man killed.[7] David’s inaction leads to Absalom thinking that the king will not act to dispense justice where it is due and, by voicing that he will indeed see justice done for the people of Israel he wins enough support over them to threaten Israel with civil war.[8] David, in being callous enough to poison another man’s family has wrought destruction upon his own household by once again being blind to right and wrong. In Absalom’s civil war David reaps what he has sown.

In denying himself nothing his eyes desired, David reminds us of the many glamorized people who lead frivolous lives that we summarily glamorize. We often imagine the American individualist as a rugged person who cuts against the grain to find his own way to success in whatever form success happens to take. But we never stop to consider how we often identify as that even if the goal we seek is an evil one. One popular singer captured this idea very well when he sang:

Yes, there were times, I’m sure you knew
When I bit off more than I could chew.
But through it all, when there was doubt,
I ate it up and spit it out.
I faced it all and I stood tall;
And did it my way.[9]

We reframe individualism as some sort of noble sacrifice[10] regardless of what is being sought after and, in so doing, isolate ourselves from any sort of reproach. I am sure that often a person must fight overwhelming opinion, or even the spirit of his age, in order to make a change that actually is for the better such as the leaders of the Civil Rights movement in American history. However, we also convince ourselves that whatever we may seek is right based simply on the fact that we have to fight against cultural tides to achieve it.

This myth of individualism for individualism’s sake is certainly not a Biblical one. While Sinatra adds later in the aforementioned song that if a man “has not himself then he has naught,” this is a far different cry than Jesus’ cry: “Then Jesus said to his disciples, ‘If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.[11]’” The Christian message is not one of eradication of identity but rather a willingness to sacrifice any idol, even the idol of one’s self, to God through Jesus Christ as an act of worship. Or as one Christian band has phrased it, “Are you ready to give up everything?”[12]

The second myth of relativism is merely that of individualism applied on a mass scale. We love our individuality in the United States and, when many people love their individuality we are left with often conflicting interests. Hence we often describe people as “doing their own thing,” by which we mean someone is merely pursuing his or her interests with the understanding that we all do exactly that. Doing what I want is freedom, or so goes the train of thought. Other people are merely doing the same thing, even if they think they are believers in something like objective meaning or truth. There a human being is boiled down to being understood as a collection of desires and since it is wrong to tell anyone that what they want is wrong, or to stop someone from “doing their own thing,” we accept the great differences in what people desire.

There are some fundamental problems here. First is the assumption that whatever we want cannot be wrong. To those of us who are parents, babysitters, or child care professionals – do we treat children this way? If a child wants another helping of French fries, do we let them have it? If so than this may help to explain the sudden obesity problem amongst our young people. Hopefully, however, we recognize the common sense knowledge that merely because a child wants something that we should let him have it. Do we not prevent young children from sticking their fingers into electrical sockets or from chewing on wires – and with good reason? Indeed with good reason: for the sake of the child we do not allow what the child wants despite how much the child may scream about not getting his way. This fundamental aspect of humanity does not change as we grow older, sadly enough. We may learn to better control ourselves but there is always that urge to do what we want without the thought, or even the dismissal of our conscience, that may tell us such a thing that we want may not be good. Considering David and Bathsheba once again, if David had listened to that voice in his head that, I hope, told him not to engage his fantasies in such a fashion then his household might have been a far more peaceful one and Uriah, Bathsheba’s husband, need not have been murdered.

There is a great American hypocrisy here. We tell ourselves that there is no right or wrong, that morality is merely relative based upon what we like or do not like. We believe that it is wrong to judge someone else. Yet despite telling ourselves this we hold people accountable for breaking laws that they probably wanted to break to meet their own desires. How can we hold people accountable if we assert that it is not right to do so? Is there some confusion here? Absolutely. Yet this is the American state of affairs. The freedom we think of is the freedom to do what I want and when I want to do it without being stopped by someone else because we are free to want, and pursue, whatever it is that we desire. Yet none of this is Biblically justified. Biblical freedom is that which we experience in light of God’s aim to: “open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.”[13] Biblical desires are to be found in God, “Delight yourself in the Lord and he will give you the desires of your heart,”[14] not by rabidly pursuing them ourselves and often to the detriment of ourselves and others.

I would expect that a Christian nation would have been expressly founded by Christians, or would at least have a strongly Christian culture. I will not deny that Christianity plays a significant role in our culture but it is not a defining one. Indeed it is the other way around. We Americans tend to be quite individualistic in our faith, sometimes claiming that we have been given individual words from God that may contradict the Bible but they were indeed from God and not merely us reading our own desires into God.

---

[1] Ibid., 71, 81, 103.

[2] Ecclesiastes 2:10-11

[3] 1 Samuel 16:11-12

[4] 2 Samuel 11:16

[5] 2 Samuel 11:27

[6] 2 Samuel 13:21

[7] 2 Samuel 13:28-29

[8] 2 Samuel 15:1-14

[9] Frank Sinatra, “My Way”

[10] Apel, 59

[11] Matthew 16:24-25

[12] Pillar, “Everything”

[13] Isaiah 42:7

[14] Psalm 37:4

Rough Draft, part 2, "Theolotics"

A Christian Nation?

How we approach politics from a Christian perspective today largely depends on how people approached politics in the past. What prerogative do we have, historically speaking, to pursue a politically Christian agenda? Would we be merely reasserting the Christian faith of our forefathers or would we be attempting to read into the Founding Fathers’ motives?

In our day we have largely lost the desire to take any author’s original intent into mind when reading a text. We bring our own experiences into the text and, from the foundation of ourselves, we explore the text in our own light. What the author wanted to say was relevant only to him or her self, and what my friend “gets out of it” may be totally different than what I do. During the Enlightenment this was most certainly not an acceptable means of interpreting a given text. People, by and large, still believed in an objective truth; that is a truth which exists regardless of what anyone believes. Therefore we should not read our own methods of interpretation into the past to discern what the religious intentions of the Founding Fathers were.

We are all influenced by the common ideas of our time, and the people who propose them. Some of the foundational people for the Enlightenment were John Locke, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton. Bacon asserted that the foundation of human knowledge was observation and experience and not abstract principles.[1] What we know should be based on what we observe through our senses and what we ourselves experience, rather than on mere ideological frameworks. Newton then applied the same reasoning to the sciences[2] which has helped to establish the foundation of the scientific method that we have today which is based upon repeatable and observable phenomena.

Locke took this reasoning with him into the realm of philosophy and, by extension, theology. According to Locke, human experience and rationality were superior to religious dogma[3] and were what should be used to determine the validity of any belief. Therefore if we find certain Biblical assertions to be irrational then they must be wrong. What Locke does is help to usher in a fundamental shift in religious authority. We must no longer bring our minds in line with the authority of the Bible (and the traditions of the Church for Roman Catholics) but rather the Bible must fall in line with our ability to reason.

Given the sudden and, for the times, explosive discoveries and assertions of the scientific and mathematic communities people began to focus on the rationality, reason and logic of God. God, if He existed, had created a profoundly ordered cosmos. These discoveries captured the minds and imagination of many and seemed to speak volumes about God; so much so that the Christian religious tradition was sometimes rejected in favor of the purely reason-centered, rationalistic approach to religion. This is, quite simply, Deism. A rational but distant Deity whose existence is testified to by nature but who is not all that involved with the lives of Its creation.

Not all Deists rejected the authority of the Bible or of the Church. As a whole the movement lacked any sort of structure and was a collection of people who asserted the supremacy of human reason over and above anything else and who therefore assumed that God must be purely rational and reasonable just like them. Some, like Thomas Paine, attacked Christianity as a barrier to moral improvement and social justice.[4] Others attempted to reconcile belief in such a supremely rational Deity with the salvation offered by Jesus Christ, the importance of prayer and regular church attendance.[5] Regardless of their own person taste for orthodoxy, all Deists thought that the “rational, mechanistic harmony of nature revealed a deity,” and some even attributed the characteristics of love and divinity to nature itself.[6] Thus, at its core, Deism was a movement that saw mechanical brilliance and genius in the orderliness of the natural world and believed that these things testified to God’s existence or bespoke nature’s own divine nature.

There are similar sentiments in the Bible. The very beginning of the Bible, the first chapter of Genesis, relates that it was God who formed all that exists.[7] Furthermore the Psalmist declares that “the heavens declare the glory of God and the skies show his handiwork.”[8] Saint Paul relates to the Roman Church that God’s anger is upon those who deliberately deny the truth concerning Him because the world itself speaks to His existence and therefore they are without excuse.[9] Christians and Deists can agree that the nature of the world speaks to the existence of a divine agent. However, while Enlightenment Deists spoke of the flawlessness of nature the Bible also speaks of its fallen nature: “We know that the whole of creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.”[10] The natural world speaks to us about God’s existence, but the natural world is itself subject to imperfection. We have seen much of nature’s imperfection in the recent tsunamis, hurricanes and earthquakes that have claimed countless lives in the new millennium.

Enlightenment Deism was neither atheistic nor was it Christian. It repeatedly questioned those Christian teachings which they thought were unreasonable, such as Christ’s sacrificial death.[11] No rational God would suspend the laws of nature to work such irrational things as “miracles” and therefore Deism undermined Christianity and Judaism[12] by denying the supernatural core of these religions. Deism supplanted its own five key foundational truths, as documented by Edward Herbert:

1) There is a God

2) God ought to be worshipped

3) Virtue is the principal element in worship

4) People should repent of their sins

5) There is life after death where evil is punished and good is rewarded[13]

While there were Enlightenment philosophers who could defend these assertions, they strike me as being simply taken from the Bible and read into nature with some slight modification particularly with the third point. As simplistic as it sounds, worship is the principal element of worship and not virtue. The pattern of the Ten Commandments reveals that first and foremost one must worship God and then, out of the worship, comes virtuous action that is pleasing to God. First and foremost, the Israelites were called to worship the “Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.”[14] There is a similar warping of Christian doctrine concerning the fifth fundamental point of Deism. Whereas the Deists focused on social action, the primary focus of Christianity is worship and is the ultimate basis upon which people shall be judged. As the ascended Jesus revealed to the church of Smyrna through John, “’Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life.’”[15]

The Deists, who claimed to have come to these conclusions via their reason and by observing nature, seem to have been heavily influenced by the momentum of Christian truth while undercutting its authority. I am not sure how the natural world of earthquakes and predators speaks to the need of people to be virtuous, to repent of their sins, or most significantly that there is life after death. Neither is the author of Ecclesiastes who writes: “’Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth? So I saw that there is nothing better for a man than to enjoy his work, because that is his lost. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him?’”[16] By looking at the world in and of itself, how can one see if anyone rises or descends to anywhere after the grave? The Deists may have supposed that it was their reason which led them to such conclusions, but it seems somewhat suspicious that they are trying to assert what the Judeo-Christian traditions asserted merely without the religious baggage. If anything, Darwin showed us that the natural world is one where the strongest would survive. Tennyson echoed this sentiment with his “nature red in tooth and claw.”

Regardless, the third and fifth Deist points reflect their high regard for social justice. Such echoes are found in the Declaration of Independence’s first and second paragraphs[17], which go to length to assert the rights of those who are subject to social injustice. This is not to say that the Church was not interested in social justice, rather that social justice was the war cry of the Deists of the time. Furthermore, while the Declaration of Independence includes references to God, those references are couched in Deistic, distant language of Deity such as “Nature’s God” and “the Supreme Judge of the world.”[18] However, God was thought of as the basis for the moral justification of the Declaration of Independence when the Fathers wrote: “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them ( a people)… that all men are created equal… endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” and “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intention.”[19] These ideas of separate and equal station for all people, who have certain fundamental rights merely because they are human, and the Fathers’ appeal to the “Supreme Judge of the world” for the moral basis of their objections all have Biblical roots. In the Garden of Eden, God creates men and women to be equal partners who, in their emotional and physical intimacy, become “one flesh.”[20] Paul has the Biblical equality of all people in mind when he writes to the Galatians and explains that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”[21] In God all people are of the same worth. In God all people were made equal with certain undeniable rights that they possess merely because they are human, and are therefore made in the image of God Himself.[22]

Deism began a clear decline in 1809 in the wake of Thomas Paine’s death as well as its failure to speak to people’s needs for emotional guidance, spiritual guidance, worship and a community of faith.[23] It remained somewhat popular among the institutions of higher learning however, and Holmes notes that it would be “surprising if Deism had not influenced the founding fathers because most were young men when the movement started.”[24] That we see Deistic language used in the Declaration of Independence itself is a strong sign that the founding fathers were at least familiar with the movement. Their personal writings, however, can shed further light on their individual beliefs.

There is little controversy regarding the religious convictions, if any, of three notable founding fathers; namely Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Franklin thought that all religions were, in fact, the same;[25] Adams was a Unitarian which, in many ways, is a form of Christian Deism,[26] and Thomas Jefferson is said to have “epitomized what it means in America to be a man of the Enlightenment.”[27] Furthermore, he wrote his own version of the Bible with all of the miracles removed; such an act is very indicative of his Deistic views.

The views of George Washington and James Monroe are highly controversial. For Washington’s part, he maintained a strict Sabbath, but he never received communion following the Revolutionary War and his church attendance was considered rather inconsistent.[28] The latter may be explained by the poor quality of roads and inclement weather keeping him from making it to church. He was, however, far more concerned with ethics and morality than theology[29] and while this may seem to draw him closer to the Deist camp, there are many Christians throughout history who have had little to no interest in theology but have maintained a Biblical faith. Despite such a low view of theology, Washington maintained that “reason and experience both forbid us to expect national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”[30] What is most interesting is that even shortly after his death, people were trying to claim George Washington as a hero of their religion.[31] Which speaks to how important it was even in Washington’s day for the nation to be perceived as having strong Christian roots. This occurrence raises a troubling question for us Christians: are the pews so devoid of real saints that we must edit them into our history and into our creeds? We do not need Christian heroes because we have Christ, but what we do need is Christians of integrity.

Monroe’s views are even more difficult to know. In public he readily acknowledged “Almighty God” and a “Creator.”[32] Bishop Meade, who knew the Virginian founding fathers and their families well, mentions Monroe five times in his writings but says nothing concerning his religious faith; this is in sharp contrast to his detailed accounts of Madison’s and Jefferson’s views, the latter of which he dismisses as an unbeliever.[33] What we do know is that Madison was a Freemason, and his association with them could have readily influenced his religious views.[34]

At the same time, concerning the first five presidents and, collectively, ten wives and female children among all of them, seven were orthodox Christians.[35] It has often been said that behind every strong man there stands a good woman. However, to assert the fundamental Christian identity of our nation based merely on the faith of these seven women is too much of a stretch to reasonably make. While Deistic philosophy was based on God,[36] it was also based upon nature and, for some people, nature even replaced God. What we can safely say is that the founding fathers were familiar with Christianity but, like most people of all times, were heavily influenced by the popular views of their day and the women in their families. Still, this does not mean that simply because their faith was imperfect that their faith was also nonexistent. Deism may have been a popular idol of the day, but all people of all ages have idols whether they are Baal, Deism, or Hollywood. Given that Deism has Christian roots, those who were not Deists themselves, or Unitarians such as Adams, probably believed in some combination of Christianity and Deism. To what extent that leaves for any of them to be genuine Christians is, of course, a matter of debate. What we can safely say is that Christianity had a strong influence upon the nation, but probably more so amongst the common people than the founding fathers themselves.

We would be remiss in thinking that the definition of America’s religious culture can or is sourced entirely among the elite of the nation at its founding. There were people who were here long before the Founding Fathers and there cultural influence is still with us. These people were the Puritans who, regardless of how stodgy and prudish we think they were, were also bold individualists and courageous people who tried to make a stand against tyranny.[37] According to Samuel Eliot Morison, the Puritans were part of a “cutting edge,” which took democracy, humanitarianism and universal education from Europe to the untamed land of North America.[38] The Roman Catholic scholar Christopher Dawson echoes Morison’s views when he asserts that our beliefs in progress, the rights of mankind, and being politically moral, ultimately come from the Puritans.[39]

---

[1] David L. Holmes, “The Faiths of the Founding Fathers,” 40

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid. 41

[5] Ibid. 44

[6] Ibid. 45

[7] Genesis 1:1

[8] Psalm 19:1

[9] Romans 1:20

[10] Romans 8:22

[11] Holmes, 47

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid. 46.

[14] Exodus 20:2-3

[15] Revelation 2:10

[16] Ecclesiastes 3:21-22

[17] The Declaration of Independence

[18] Holmes, 47

[19] The Declaration of Independence

[20] Genesis 2:24-25.

[21] Galatians 3:28.

[22] Genesis 1:27.

[23]Holmes., 44.

[24] Ibid. 50.

[25] Ibid., 56.

[26] Ibid.,73.

[27] Ibid.,79.

[28] Ibid., 60-62.

[29] Ibid., 66.

[30] Edward J. Melvin, C.M., The Founding Fathers, 85.

[31] Ibid., 68-69.

[32] Ibid., 105.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ibid., 109-110.

[36] Melvin, 84.

[37] Pat Apel, Nine Great American Myths, 26.

[38] Ibid., 33.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid.

Rough Draft, Part 1 - "Theolitics"

Introduction

There are perhaps no uglier words to hear together in a single sentence than “politics” and “religion” because of their polarizing effect. Like it or not both are here to stay, despite what anarchists and Richard Dawkins might want. Any attempt to put the two together, at least here in the U.S., is often met with strong resistance. Therefore, our contemporary gurus tell us, we are to separate them entirely from one another in our lives, especially where Christianity is concerned. Problem solved.

This is only a superficial answer at best. The simple truth is that we don’t exist within all these little, entirely separated spheres throughout the day because everything we do has one common factor: that we did it. In other words, wherever we go, there we are. To deny this rule at work in our lives will lead us to living a totally hypocritical life in which we complain that people in some country are being treated like animals, and then go on to prove that people really are just animals anyway.[1] Both atheists and Christians take their religious views with them into Congressional meetings and political debates. While the spirit of the age tells us that this should not be, it nevertheless is.

Furthermore, Christians are called upon to follow God’s commands and not necessarily our modern sensibilities. At the same time we can listen to the spirit of the age and see if there is any truth in its declarations. While the Bible is the source of all truth, that doesn’t automatically lead to our practicing it perfectly. We shouldn’t feel uncomfortable or unwilling to examine what the Bible has to say concerning any contemporary issue.

As an evangelical Christian, I find it a struggle to be both political and faithful. Politics, at least how we do it here in the western world, is largely about compromise. However we cannot compromise God’s law. Where does this leave us? At first glance, it may seem to lead us absolutely nowhere. This committal to compromise turns many Christians off from the political process and we comfort ourselves in this abandonment by telling ourselves that Jesus wasn’t a politician. He didn’t pass laws but he did change hearts, and so shall we. If we do this, no matter how tempting, we give in to the world which tells us that there is one place where God does not belong – in our national concerns or identity. We also shortchange God by telling Him that he either doesn’t belong there or we give up on making Him fit. Frustrated we end up where we began, with the total separation of our political life from our Christian one.

There is also the dilemma of forcing our views upon a populace that doesn’t necessarily want to be a Christian nation. This would be a tyranny of ideas that brings about outward compliance with Biblical standards but no inner transformation. We would also be ignoring Amos’ warnings against idolatrous Israel, “I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies (Amos 5:21).” Outward obedience without inward repentance does nothing for someone who does not believe.

We also have to understand the dilemma clearly. This is not a battle of reclamation or anything of the sort because, despite what some of my contemporaries believe, we are not a Christian nation. The fact that the ten commandments occupies space in some of our government buildings, and the occurrence of many American revivals tells us that God has most definitely been at work in the hearts of the American people. Nor can we ignore the Christian Medievalism that eventually produced the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and the influence of Christianity upon many Deists. Still, the founding fathers themselves were mostly Deists themselves and while they acknowledged an all-powerful God it is not necessarily the same God, no matter how much the Deists conveniently borrowed from Christian theology.

Our identity as a non-Christian nation is also not limited to the past – we can see that quite plainly with today’s culture. We love our Grey’s Anatomy and The OC, which care more about putting pretty people in front of a camera rather than speaking to God’s glory. We ogle over the poor fools that Mr. Springer parades on his show so that we can breathe a sigh of relief and say “At least I’m not like that person.” We spend much more time agonizing over what will happen on the next episode of 24, or where we can download more songs for our IPODS than in contemplating how to minister to people in our workplace. And if we do consider the Bible at all, it is mostly to quote it at someone else so that they’ll do what we want rather than quote it to ourselves in order to do what God wants.

I honestly sympathize with the Religious Right. I understand the desire to dedicate our nation to God as an act of worship. The political soapbox is not the ultimate pulpit, but a life transformed by the supernatural power of the cross most certainly is. While God is sovereign over all human projects, including political ones, that doesn’t mean that He supports any one given ruler over and against another. We may like or dislike President Bush but his election does not necessarily mean that God is a Bush-supporter or even a Republican or Conservative; it only means that God can use Bush to fulfill His purposes for the world. Before we sell our souls to any political leader we would be wise to remember that God didn’t approve of Pharaoh either, but Pharaoh was also chosen to fulfill God’s purposes.

Still, asking Christians not to be just that in their politics is like asking them to hold their breath while they vote. The dilemma we are left with is not whether or not one can be both a Christian and a politician, but rather to what extent are we Biblically, not politically, justified in bringing God into our politics and what that should look like. And that is where we will begin.

---

[1] G.K. Chesterton, “Orthodoxy,”

"Theolitics" - A Work in Progress

Readers,

I am currently working on a book concerning the Biblical understanding of how one should go about one's politics specifically here in the United States of America. For purposes of discussion and, hopefully, enjoyment I intend to post my work on this site as I work on it.