Posts tagged current events

Is America an inherently Christian nation? Pay attention to commentary by a broad swath of evangelical writers and talk show hosts and one might be led to believe so. Much time and many words are spent attempting to demonstrate that America is more than just a nation founded on principles of religious freedom and Christian values; that it is actually inherently Christian in a corporate or collective sense. But which statements are based on fact, and which statements are based on wrongly grounded sentiment?

I. Influence vs. Inherency
First, contrary to what secular revisionist historians promote in the name of tolerance and political correctness, it is true that the European colonies on the east coast of North America in the 1500s and 1600s were founded for the purpose of religious freedom, or the freedom to worship without government dictation and oversight. Those who laid out the framework of the American government in the next century were also influenced by Biblical values, both as a result of actual faith (in the case of some) as well as common grace knowledge (in the case of others). Thus the case can be made that Christianity was a strong factor in the history of the United States. But today that’s not quite the story we hear from either side. On the conservative side, it seems that many are not content to simply acknowledge the influence God’s people have had on America but rather must proclaim an inherent Christian-ness of the nation. As believers in the sovereignty of God we must certainly acknowledge his direct involvement, as an active being and not some passive deistic force — but we also must remember to not neglect to distinguish between special grace and common grace, wherein special grace refers to God’s specific, active involvement with the elect and common grace refers to the blessings that are extended even to the unregenerate.

There is a significant difference between influence and inherency.  To say that the United States, at its beginnings, was influenced by Christianity would be a correct statement.  To say that the United States, from its beginnings, was inherently Christian would be a falsehood.

Expanding further on this thought, it’s evident that many of the blessings that we have had in this country have been a result of the good that the church has done in the society, as well as the sharing in those blessings by the unregenerate due to common grace. The statement can also be made that a great deal of the decline in values today has been due to the church retreating from culture and instead choosing to create and live in a sheltered, sub-cultural bubble that has no positive impact on society.

We can not, however, legitimately go to the extreme to say that the United States is or has been inherently Christian, or the more common (but synonymous) statement that America is a Christian nation. I believe that the evidence is sufficient to prove that statement false. While it would be a logical conclusion if we could say that America is a modern-day chosen nation, as some directly or indirectly contend, that is not a true statement. This designation may only be held by the church — the true spiritual Israel, the people of God.  The modern day nation of Israel, as well as the United States of America, do not hold any special status. It is the church, not any political state, which holds the designation of being God’s covenant people.
Although this view may sound preposterous to some, it nonetheless has taken a strong foothold in the western church in recent times. From dispensationalists who teach that the nation of Israel is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, to Christian Reconstructionists who teach that the United States was once inherently Christian, has fallen away, and must be restored, this “special nation” idea is alive and active across the spectrum of evangelicalism.

The tendency among those who hold to the inherency argument, which I will categorize within the realm of dominion theology, is to look at Scripture passages speaking of the Old Testament nation of Israel, as well as Old Testament uses of the word “nation”, and automatically and unequivocally apply them to America. The parallel that some draw is to say that America is a covenant people and a chosen nation that has more recently become reprobate, much like Israel during the time of the prophets, and must return to God to once again be blessed.

The necessary balance to this extreme is to again recognize the good that the church has done in culture and seek to again influence culture rather than hide from culture — and remember that this has been a factor over the history of America, and not any inherent Christian-ness of the nation itself.

II. Cultural Involvement

In the first chapter of Genesis we have record of God’s command to “fill the earth and subdue it…” In the New Testament we also have record of Jesus’ command to “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.” These two commands form the basis of what many refer to as the cultural mandate. However, there are some disagreements over how to carry this out. The most common interpretation involves the obvious answer — global missions and evangelism — as well as a goal of bringing all things in life under the influence of the Kingdom of God. This means that whatever we do, we do for the Kingdom. Thus some callings are not “higher” or “lower” than others, but instead that each of us has a part in God’s work simply by effecting change in our respective spheres of influence.

Proponents of dominion theology, however, take it quite farther by interpreting this as a command to make the whole world — or at least one nation, presumably the United States — a Christian society with Christian laws, Christian rulers, and Christian behavior. Belief that America is inherently Christian is obviously a convenient first step.

A former director of Coral Ridge Ministries, a Reformed organization which — though opinions vary on this — seems to lean in the direction of dominionism, said the following:
“Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less… Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land — of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.”

This is one of the clearest examples of the intent, belief, and goals of dominion theology. One element, at least, is mostly in line with the Scriptural command — winning the world with the power of the Gospel is certainly part of what we are commanded to do, though it should be noted that in reality it is not us who are actually doing the winning but rather being instruments used in that winning.

So in contrast to this view, should we just stand back and let the nation continue to go deeper into moral decline? No, absolutely not — but involvement must only be with the proper perspective. Returning to some idealized Victorian lifestyle (such as the ideals of Vision Forum and other similar organizations) will not fix the cultural problems. Pretending that the nation was once corporately Christian will do nothing to bring about real change. Seizing control of a power-hungry political party, donkey or elephant, and using it while being used will only result in a deeper quagmire. The only thing that can bring about real change is transformed hearts. Not transformation through grassroots politics, not transformation through making sure every family practices homeschooling, not transformation by making sure fathers rule their families as prophets, priests, and kings — assuming the role of mediator between God and family, not transformation by denying women education or voting rights, not transformation by controlling the media, but transformation by God’s people working within the spheres of influence they have to glorify God and point others to him. We must never back down from promoting truth in areas where Scripture is clear. Though some advocate a message of tolerance in all areas, we are not wrong to recognize the truth of Scripture and hold to areas where right and wrong are clearly spelled out. Still, we must give grace to one another in areas where Scripture is unclear or not specific and two may reasonably disagree and both be in right conscience. Failure to do so would be nothing less than counterproductive, silencing the very message of grace that we as Christians ought to be taking to the world.

So should Christians become involved in the political arena? By all means, just as they are involved in any other occupation or area of interest. We must remember that all callings are equal, however, and a Christian politician is not better than a Christian teacher, a Christian electrician, a Christian programmer, etc. We must just do the best we can, to God’s glory, in the different spheres of influence we have.  For the one whose sphere of influence happens to be politics, there is nothing wrong with making our present home look a little more like our future home — as long as this is what we have in mind and not simply a little temporal satisfaction that our favorite party, whatever that is, rules this part of the world. If all of us were to go seize the political sphere and make it our own, would we not in some ways be guilty of the error of the Zealots and to the extreme, even be making Jesus out to be a liar when he said his kingdom is not of this world?  But instead we should all remember our role as ambassadors of a better kingdom, communicating the message of our King to those in the foreign land we’re in. If we start to think of the United States as “home” — by believing that it is actually a corporate people of God, even a reprobate corporate people, we’ll lose sight of our actual identity as citizens of an eternal kingdom by having replaced it with the short-lived glory of temporal, earthly nation.

III. Cautions and Closing Comments

In summary, we need to remember that while there can certainly be blessings for Christians (and non-Christians too by common grace) if we do influence culture in a way that better points to the truth of God’s word, we can all too easily see that as the end in itself and assume that God has to think more highly of us for doing so. If we adopt this attitude then we’re in effect saying that our work has earned our standing with God, rather than that our standing with God is due to his declaration of us as righteous in Christ.

Finally, it is important to point out that this distinctly America-centric form of Christianity is in effect saying to the rest of the world that our nation has a special claim to Christ’s kingdom that all others do not have. Christians in other nations can be made to feel as if they are second-class compared to their American counterparts, or that they need to “westernize” in order to really please God, or that they are being ignored while Americans focus near-sightedly on their own interests.

So in conclusion, dominion theology takes what God commanded and takes it to an extreme, going beyond the commandment and into an area that is unsafe and potentially dangerous. We must certainly engage the culture and effect change to God’s glory in the areas in which we have influence. We also must certainly take the Gospel to all the world and to all people. But we also must always remember our citizenship is in heaven first and foremost, and not on this earth. Our identity is shared with Christians across the world, and not just under the flag of the United States of America.

IV. Notes and Quotes
Treaty of Tripoli, 1796: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

George Grant, Coral Ridge Ministries (Pro-dominionism): “Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less… Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land — of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.”

Meredith Kline (Anti-dominionism): “One radical fault that undermines the whole Chalcedon position is the failure to recognize that the socio-geo-political sector of the Israelite kingdom of God was a part of the total system of kingdom typology established through the covenantal constitution given to Israel in the law of Moses – just as much so as was the cultic sector.”

http://www.covopc.org/Kline/Kline_on_Theonomy.html

Robert Bowman Jr. (Anti-dominionism): “[A]re Christians supposed to be taking dominion at all? Granted that there is some confusion among American Christians as to what taking dominion would mean, is there a sense in which this really is the mission of the church? A careful reading of the Bible indicates otherwise. Simply put, the Bible never commands Christians to take dominion. A search for such a mandate proves fruitless. The Bible never even hints that this is to be a responsibility of the church between Christ’s first and second comings.”

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0024a.html

Gary DeMar (Pro-dominionism): “All government requires a reference point. If God is to be pleased by men, the Bible must become the foundation of all their governments, including civil government. This means that Biblical law must be made the foundation of all righteous judgment in every government: personal (self government), ecclesiastical, familial, and civil.”

About page from The American Vision (Pro-dominionism – Christian Reconstructionist – Theonomist): “American Vision’s (AV’s) mission has been to Restore America to its Biblical Foundation—from Genesis to Revelation since 1978.”