“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.“
These are the words of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There’s a whole lot of conviction, belief, and power crammed into that sentence. In fact, you could argue that it grants American citizens the most precious and essential individual liberties, all while protecting them from governmental intrusion. And, of all of these freedoms, with which one did our forefathers lead? That government should not create any laws establishing an official religion for the country, nor any laws that would prevent citizens from exercising the religion of their choice.
The earliest American settlers did not come to our shores in search of wealth, in pursuit of power, or out of a desire to explore uncharted territory. They were not inspired by Marco Polo, Christopher Columbus, or Ponce de Leon. Plain and simply, it can be argued that they were fleeing England more than that they were coming to North America. It appears that it was more appealing to the settlers to be anywhere but there, where the Church of England and the rule of government were one and the same. They couldn’t openly practice their religion in England without fear of persecution. They couldn’t be critical of the Church, because they were essentially rebelling against the mighty government.
More than one hundred and seventy years later, their progeny would establish an official, democratic system of government in that new land. And chief among their concerns was the freedom of religion. (Yes, the “bill of rights” came as amendments to the Constitution some five years later, but the point remains).
Fast forward 220 years. Glenn Beck leads a rally called “Restoring America,” in which he calls for the country to “turn back to God.” Citizens are up in arms over the establishment of Islamic mosques in different parts of the country, and very specifically, are vehemently opposed to the establishment of an Islamic cultural center two blocks from what is known as “Ground Zero.” Other citizens (and many of the same ones) refer to President Obama as a “Muslim” and mean it not only as an insult, but as a scare tactic. Many other citizens argue that government should be feeding the poor, taking care of orphans and widows, and protecting the environment because that’s what the Bible calls us to do.
Our forefathers would be rolling in their graves. That’s right. I said it.
And I’m a Christian.
How did we get here, so far from where our forefathers started? When did our religion become so intertwined with government? For most of my life, I’ve seen a growing sentiment from BOTH sides of the proverbial aisle that our government should behave more “Godly.” That its laws and other official acts should be reflective of the Christian values this country was founded on. Huh? I know, I know, you think I’m forgetting the “but, our forefathers were Christians” argument. I fully concede that point, but there is a huge difference between them being “Christians,” and their desire to establish a theocracy – a “Christian nation,” if you will. I think the Constitution is pretty clearly against the latter. That’s because it seems that our forefathers were able to do something that we can’t do today: separate our religious beliefs from our political ones.
I, for one, would love to see two separate conversations. The first would be about the country and its values, but without any mention of religion whatsoever. I know that seems like I’m checking my Christianity at the door, but I guess I just never saw Jesus (or the disciples, or Paul) trying to spread the gospel through government. If you believe the Bible, Christ didn’t come to establish a kingdom in this world, but in the one hereafter. That, for me, has always implied that Christian values shouldn’t be perpetuated/imposed through governmental or political means. Now, does that mean that we, as citizens of this country, shouldn’t have our voices heard within the representative system of government that our forefathers created? Absolutely not. As Christian citizens, we have the right to express our opinions and to vote for representatives who will be our voices – but I don’t see that process as a means of creating a “Christian nation.” Not only does it seem contrary to the Constitution, where the voices of citizens who follow all other religions (and those who follow no religion at all) should be heard just as loudly, but it also seems oxymoronic in the context of Christ’s example (of giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s).
The other conversation I’d love to have with my fellow Christians, as you can imagine, would be one about faith, without any mention of government whatsoever. What does it mean to be a Christian? What is our role in spreading the hope of the gospel in word and in action? How do we help all people in need without the aid of government? What is the role of the church in our society? These are all questions that I think are begging to be answered, but have gotten obfuscated in political discussion. When did we as Christians start looking to the government to do the Church’s work?
I apologize for the long, long post, but I’ve been struggling with this for the better part of 10 years. I guess some strong convictions just can’t be stated in one sentence.
Or can they?
Alex,
Thanks for offering a third alternative. I too am frustrated with those on either extreme who advocate the government’s enforcement of religious values. This is true of the radical right insisting that the government dictate moral code on issues of gay rights and abortion. It is also true of the radical left insisting on health care and environmental laws that appear unsustainable. Surely the government should be most judicious when considering legislation.
On one point I might argue. As a practicing theologian, albeit a humble one, I believe that the Kingdom is not only to be established, found, or expected in the hereafter. When Jesus instructed His disciples to pray, “Thy kingdom come”, I think there was a real sense of the possibilities of the Kingdom now. Having said that, I do not believe that the government or law is the expected vehicle for Kingdom work. The work of the Kingdom is in the hands of the King’s servants. Let me also state that the work of the Kingdom is FIRST in the heart of the believer and through the life of the believer in the world.
Let the mosque be built and let the builders realize the offense. Let the believer advocate for laws of morality and suffer disappointment in human endeavor.
I really appreciate your response, Hink! I absolutely agree regarding your point on “The Kingdom.” I was using it in more earthly terms in my post, meaning government, law, power, etc. To that end, how do we, as servants, do the work of the Kingdom here on earth, without the use of those such vehicles? That’s one of the questions I think needs to be answered absent political rhetoric.
It’s always good to hear from you!
I too struggle with this idea, but for different reasons. As a picker of nits, and a history teacher, there are two things about this post that I feel need a further examination, especially as they relate to American History and the mythology of our status as a “Christian Nation” that you’re talking about.
First, the earliest permanent British settlers weren’t coming to escape religious persecution. They did, in fact, come for economic gains. The Virginia colony established in 1607 was sent with a charter by James the I to send back natural resources to Britain, who was suffering financially due to ongoing wars with Spain. The Pilgrims didn’t arrive until 1620 (and even then, roughly half of the passengers aboard the Mayflower weren’t Pilgrims). Historians to this day disagree over the motives of the Puritans and debate how much they were really escaping persecution. Also, regarding fleeing from religious persecution, look at the history of Catholics in the United States. Irish Catholics in the early 19th century, and Southern and Eastern European Catholics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, were openly discriminated against. The Know-Nothing Party, The Emergency Quota Act of 1921, etc. All that to say if we were a nation founded on the ideal of religious freedom, that ideal was hollow at best and false at worst.
Second, many of the major founding fathers were not Christians. They were, at best, Deists. Thomas Jefferson (who is given near God-like status by many conservative Christians) created his own bible by cutting out the parts of the gospels he didn’t agree with. Ben Franklin believed in God, but not in the divinity of Jesus, hell, salvation, or most other Christian dogma. This doesn’t mean that these weren’t Godly men, or that they were Atheists. But they certainly weren’t strict Protestant Christians. The “our forefathers were Christians” argument isn’t even really an argument at all.
Now, that’s not to say that our country wasn’t settled or founded by people with strong Judeo-Christian values. It was, undoubtedly. But this myth that we’re a Christian nation founded by Christians is galling. There is a reason that the Bill of Rights, the most important one, spells out (very clearly) the separation of Church and State. This is why the outrage over the Muslim cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero really bothers me. Is it insensitive? Maybe. Is it being done to push certain buttons? Possibly. But for people to say “I think you have the right to build but you shouldn’t exercise it”….that’s disturbing.
So….sorry to answer your diatribe with my own. But I do love honest discussion without vitriol or appeals to false authorities. Keep it up!
Good stuff, Josh! Thanks for the clarification and edification on several of these points. Your diatribes are always welcome here!
Truthfully, I wondered about the motives of the Pilgrims when I wrote the post, and even did some scant research on the subject before posting (meaning I did a five minute Google search). As I am not a historian, I will concede to your points related to persecution v. gain. Whether myth or not, though, it’s what most of us have been taught to believe about the country’s history. My point being that, as a nation, we felt it important enough to perpetuate that as part of the American story, and we STILL don’t heed the actual lessons from it. One thing that does seem to be well-established is the idea that the Church of England and the “government” in that era were practically one in the same, no? (Granted, we’re dealing with monarchies then versus democracies today).
As to the question of whether or not we were founded on the ideal of religious freedom, as you point out, I think the Constitution is fairly clear on that point. Now, practically, is that the way it has played out? I’m pretty sure that’s a no. That’s the reason for this post! But, just because we haven’t lived up to the ideal practically doesn’t mean it wasn’t the forefathers’ intent.
Finally, I actually called Topher before I posted this and had the conversation about our forefathers being Deists. Honestly, I just didn’t think that drawing that distinction was essential to my point, but I’m certainly glad you brought it up. It’s an important piece to dissect as part of the overall conversation.
You’re right in that it’s not essential to YOUR point, and I should have clarified that. I guess I brought that up to argue against your hypothetical detractors. It’s a lot easier for people to say that we’re a nation founded by Christians instead of a nation founded by Proto-Capitalist Deists influenced by the rise of Modernity and the Enlightenment.
I’d like to think this is what conversations at the Pow were like, but I seem to only remember dirty jokes and farts. I’m partly to blame for that.
Good arguements in general and plenty of good discussion points that should be talked. I just thought I’d put my two cents in refering to Glenn Beck. I don’t know if this was your intentent, but you make is sound a little like Beck is supporting some sort of religious state (i.e. a theocracy). I might be wrong, but that was my first impression. From what I’ve gleaned from Beck’s “Restoring America” agenda, he is calling more for a spritual revival of the poeple as opposed to any sort of governmental action or institution. I think there is a big difference in that distinction.
Thanks, Jared. I think an open discussion, without harsh words or judgment, are exactly what we need today. As to your point about Beck, I did not hear the speech itself and am not intending at all to attack his message point by point. That being said, it seems to be conclusively established by all media outlets that his message was one of “returning” to our spiritual roots. That message, coming from many other people, probably wouldn’t cause me to be critical. However, no matter how you paint it, Glenn Beck is clearly a political person (even if not directly in politics) with a political agenda. Where was he with this message three years ago? And why was Sarah Palin one of the featured speakers, someone who is about as divisive politically as anyone today? So, I suppose I’m not attacking the message as much as I am the messenger – in my opinion, this rally was a political act, not a spiritual revival.
So what of people like Martin Luther King, Jr. that advocated government to act on the part of social justice for his brothers and sisters? When does feeding the poor not enter in to basic human rights? I get what you are saying and I agree with most of it, but we on the Progressive Christian side advocate such things not just because of our faith, but because they a basic rights. That’s what our government is here to protect and enrich, be it laws on the books or new laws, right? Is it up to the Church to enforce MLK’s dream?
Matthew, I totally agree. I meant to be very careful about the distinction between “American” values and “Christian” values. Even if our faith informs our opinions about American values and what it means to be a good citizen of this country and planet, we have to be careful not to expect our government to act on them solely because of a religious bias. Indeed, I think that many people, religious and not, can often agree on basic human rights. To that end, we can ask our government to protect or enable those rights as “human” or “American” values. But, that is a conversation I believe needs to occur between ALL citizens of this country, no matter their religious perspective.
Really good thoughts, Alex! You know how I feel about Beck, so I won’t bother discussing that here.
I agree with Matthew re: government’s role in feeding the poor, etc. I don’t think it’s just our Christian duty to feed the poor, take care of widows and orphans, and protect the environment (because the Bible tells us to), but rather that it’s our duty as humans. I wouldn’t necessarily label the government’s involvement in social justice as a lack of separation of church and state. That being said, I would be more likely to entertain the idea of leaving those responsibilities to the church, if I felt that Christians, left to their own devices, would actually feed the poor, care for the widows and orphans and protect the environment. If we could count on the church to do it, I would be more willing to say that the government need not get involved.
I appreciate the encouragement, L-Pie! I think I’ve addressed some of your questions in my response to Matthew above. The social justice initiatives can and are pursued by many American citizens of different religious perspectives. However, so are the counter-perspectives, which ask that such initiatives be sustainable in terms of spending, taxation, etc. Both are perfectly acceptable political views by Christian American citizens, and as citizens, we should be respectful of those two perspectives.
Your second point is the more intriguing one to me. My immediate reaction is to say “exactly!” and then to ask, “and what does this say about the Church, then?” I think what we face is a chicken and egg situation. I’ve heard some argue that if government would step out of some of the social justice initiatives, that the Church (and other citizens) would fill that gap. On the other hand, I’ve heard that government has stepped in to some of these issues because the population (including Christians) did not. One way or the other, there’s no doubt that as Christians we’ve increasingly relied on government to pursue these issues. I’d venture that we spend more time trying to lobby our government officials to do these things than in actually trying to do them ourselves. I suppose my bottom line is that if, as Christians, we believe this is what we’ve been called to do, then we should just do them and leave government out of it. If we fail because we can’t get Christians to get on board, then that’s on our heads, not the government’s. (And I’m as guilty of this as anyone).
I think you have a really good point that maybe, “we spend more time trying to lobby our government officials to do these things than in actually trying to do them ourselves.” In my opinion, that’s a the crux of the problem. Even the people who think the government should be doing more (because the needs aren’t being met) are (possibly) more involved in lobbying than in meeting needs themselves. I feel some conviction when I frame the situation that way.
Here’s one problem I have with all social service being provided by the church: our churches are struggling financially! I read a statistic recently that said that 5% of Americans tithe regularly. F-I-V-E! Christians, as a group, are not giving their money to churches, even in a form that is generally thought of as an expectation written in the Bible. I know that one argument is that if we paid less taxes, we would have more money for tithing and supporting social ministries, but I have little faith that Christians would actually give enough money to support the programs that are necessary to feed the poor, care for the orphans and widows, and protect the environment. The church I currently attend is very active in social ministry. They provide ministries at the church, as well as financial support for missionaries and local social services agencies (food bank, women’s shelter, etc.). Unfortunately, our church is experiencing a budget crisis. We have come up short of budget every single month. How can we expect churches that are having trouble paying their pastors and keeping the lights on, to pick up the slack if the government turns over the programs for its neediest citizens?
I will also mention one more point. (I’m trying not to be too cynical here, but…) The churches that do seem to have plenty of money are not spending that money on services for the poor. They are doing things like building huge auditoriums and gyms, and providing their members with McDonald’s and Starbucks (in the church or church complex).