Recovering Christendom?
A plea not to lose the Gospel for the sake of culture
It is time to talk about Christian Nationalism, and the claim that we are a Christian nation. These issues are relevant to processing this election.
The people who appreciate our nation
I know many who think we are a Christian Nation and that we are to fight to recover those foundations. They are often very patriotic, in the best sense of the term. They love our nation. Many of them pursue or have lived in service to the nation. I commend them.
I appreciate so much about our nation and its form of government. Our Constitution is distinct in history. We have been on the cutting edge of encouraging democracy in the world. In God’s providence we were part of turning back the Nazi scourge. When I stood at the American cemetery in Normandy, I was moved by the sacrifice so many made.
I want the United States to thrive, not because we are good (we are sinners), not because we are “Christian” (we never have been), but because our form of government is among the wisest and best for human societies. I am for our well being simply because I want a government that is least harmful and most beneficial to its citizens. What I cannot be for is the United States to thrive because we have a “Christian” beginning.
The misuse of the label “Christian”
I would assert that the label “Christian” is wrong.
In all my years of reading on this matter, not once have I seen anyone base their argument for a “Christian” America by demonstrating that what defines the core of Christianity is at the core of our identity. The core is that without which it is no longer Christian.
What people say about being a Christian Nation
As long as I can remember, members of churches, at-large writers, and influencers on social media have argued for the Christian roots of our nation.1 The simplest version is that we are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles built into our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. I have a few questions to ask about that.
Where do they go to warrant this conclusion?
In simplest terms, those who advocate for our “Christian” roots engage in quoting portions of the writings or speeches of the founders of our nation, quotes which reveal the influence of the Bible, a belief in God, morals, individual dignity and rights. This is easy work. One does not have to go far to find such references in the Puritans, quotes about the importance of morality, and even recognitions of God in prayers. But I have to ask:
What else did you expect to find?
I have no quibble with the fact that the people who came to these shores over hundreds of years came out of Christendom. Christendom was the social-political-cultural world that developed from the predominance of the church in Europe for more than a thousand years. Everyone was a member of a church (that does not mean they knew Christ). Until the Reformation, everything was “under” the church.
Out of Christendom, people came here for many reasons.2 The Jamestown settlers were motivated by economic potential, the Puritans came to escape persecution brought on them as Protestants and to establish a “Christian” society (which failed, by the way). Later people left the old world to escape famine, for religious freedom, for financial gain. Those who came from Europe for whatever reason brought the culture, the morals, the vocabulary of Christendom — and it showed up in everything they said and wrote. On 90% of moral issues, they were in complete agreement — culturally.
This is absolutely unremarkable. What would have been remarkable was quotes from Confucius, the Buddha, or the Qur’an. When people find such references, they have proved nothing except the Western European origins of the first settlers.
The problem of anachronism
We make it remarkable by being anachronistic. What does that mean? It means we read their times as though they lived in our time.3
Here is what happens: Christians who live in a very secular age read the people of that time and conclude, by contrast with us, that there were pious. We say, “Oh my, look at that prayer of George Washington or the moral urgency of John Adams. We have lost so much. We must recover it.”
That is anachronism — not interpreting them in their time. But they must be interpreted in their time.
What was their time?
They were part of a “Christendom” culture which dominated every aspect of life until the “Enlightenment” — so named because those who gave it that label thought these thinkers as driving back the darkness of superstition and religion and divine authority with the light of reason. Ancient philosophers were rediscovered. Church authority was questions. It is difficult to pinpoint the beginning of this movement, but it certainly can be found as early as the Renaissance.
What happened as the ideas of the Enlightenment spread?
The Age of Reason took Europe by storm, but it did not arrive in a year. Change came slowly. The cultural influence of the Enlightenment grew over centuries. Think of it as a dye that was mixed into the water of Christendom one drop at a time. Think of it as a fabric where some of the threads of Christendom are removed and replaced with Enlightenment threads. By the middle of the 18th century, the fabric of Christendom was deeply rewoven with the threads of “the triumph of reason.”
There were inconsistencies. Many of the founders believed strongly in the power of reason, and at the same time could speak of praying to God, trusting ourselves to providence, and the rights with which we are endowed by our Creator (remember, evolution was still 100 years in the future).
My point is simple: they were people of their times. They can be understood only in their times.
They were the leaders of their time
What we do not appreciate is how odd it would have been if they had not referred to God, prayer, and morality. Even atheists of that day referenced “providence.”
Their influencers were anything but evangelical theologians. Classical philosophy, especially the Roman virtues (not the Christian ones) had a huge role in their thinking. This is irrefutable.4
I do not think the founders were conservatives seeking to establishing a “good old days” of government by church and state, under the revelation of God. That is what they were fleeing from. They were pioneers in the application of political progressive thinking of their day, mixed with the assumptions of Christendom.5 We are only further down the same road.6
That is my historical argument, but it still leaves me with a theological objection. That is the most serious.
What is a Christian Principle?
A few years ago a friend told me that he believed we are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. He nodded at me like this was obvious. It was shortly after that conversation that I mused, “What is a Christian principle?”
What he meant was moral codes, things like honoring marriage and sex within marriage, protecting the vulnerable, and personal God-given rights. But I have to ask: What makes those “Christian”? Don’t other religions hold them?
But most importantly: Is it right to use the label “Christian” to refer to principles when we omit what is essential to the distinctiveness of Christianity?
Ok, I know that is a lot to consider, so let’s walk through this a step at a time.
What is the principle that is required to make something “Christian”
In logic there is a term “sine qua non.” It means “if I remove this thing from X, then what is left is no longer X.” By application, the sine qua non of Christian is what must be included in its content if it is to remain “Christian.”
And what is that?
The answer is obvious — you can believe in one true God, in his character, in his law, in his sovereignty, in his final judgment but not be Christian. Muslims believe those truths. Orthodox Jews believe them But they are not Christian for one reason:
Unless and until you state that God has sent his Son, to be incarnate for us and for our sins, to die as a substitute for us, bearing the punishment we deserve, completing the work of redemption once for all — then rising bodily in resurrection, never to die again — and now offering without price, contrary to what we deserve, the exhaustive grace of forgiveness to any who trust in him — unless and until you include that you are not Christian.
If you remove that principle, no matter what else you keep of morals or principles of human dignity, you are no longer talking about “Christian.”
Christendom does not mean “Christian”
The outcome of Christian regeneration is not the same as the message of Christianity. Believing the Gospel makes people into law-keepers, but law-keeping does not make people Christian.
This is so obvious I have to ask, How can we miss this?
Do not minimize the distinction. It is a huge matter, not a minor one.
And how can we not see the consequences? When we leave out what is the sine qua non of Christianity but still use the label “Christian,” we create massive confusion and proclaim a false Gospel.
What difference does it make? It is careless. Our carelessness with the meanings of words leads to a perversion of our message. God says such people deserve the anathema of God (Galatians 1:6-9).
What you can and cannot say
If you want to say America was founded by people who were shaped by the culture of Christendom, mixed with enlightenment faith in reason, have at it. But that does not mean we are Christian.
If you want to argue against immorality and for the wisdom of a moral order given by God, have at it. But you are not arguing anything “Christian.”
We are not Christian by this definition. I find no reference to or mention of Christ crucified as the Savior of all who trust in him anywhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.7
And it’s worse than that
At the root of the Christian nation thesis is the assertion that the true God gave his law to guide our behavior, and all we need do is know who God is and live by his law.
But is that true?
God gave his law to his covenant people Israel, enforcing his revelation with signs and wonders — yet that nation, within 40 days, had abandoned their doctrine of God and engaged in law-breaking. The law is designed to show us that salvation must come from outside of us — from God’s Redeemer.
Do you think I am exaggerating?
There are many who speak as though you can use the label “Christian” without any clear statement about redemption by his blood. They say that Christian culture is simply right thinking about God and morals. Consider this:
Before the West could embrace Christian law and justice, it first needed to embrace Christian doctrine. Morality is the fruit of the underlying beliefs. And the West was built on the knowledge that the God of the Bible is real, He is Triune, He is holy, and He has communicated His commandments through His Word. This was the groundwork on which the moral structure of the West was established.
Notice what is missing? He leaves Jesus and his death out of this formula.
The rest of the article argues that we must recover this worldview if we are to recover its morality. In the end, the author says we need to proclaim the “Good News”.
We especially need the gospel, in all of its politically incorrect and ‘Christian nationalist’ glory. We need to proclaim the sovereign crown rights of King Jesus everywhere we go. Only with Christianity can the West again flourish.
The Gospel is not the message of Christ crucified for sinners. Rather, it is about the reigning Christ, intent to conquer the world and reclaim his rights.
Let me be candid: if that is a message I preached in my church, I would expect the elders to censure me for denying the Gospel.
Salvation by Grace Alone Except for Moral Nations?
Alongside of this error, is an assumption I encounter repeatedly — that God once blessed America because of our Christian founding, because we are moral and good. That too is an utter denial of the Gospel — God finds no nation or person righteous,
There never have been and never will be a moral nation — at best we will be a nation of hypocrites that insist on our moral superiority while living as we wish.
My Plea
Would you consider this?
Make much of the message. Talk about who God is and what he has achieved to bring about the end of sin and death, and the cleansing of our lives and human society from sin. This comes exclusively in Jesus the Christ and his finished work upon the cross. Only in his name and by his blood can this happen.
Why then will you or I confuse the message, turn the law into some kind of code of conduct which we can live by if we get our theology right (that has never happened and will never happen)?
Why would you use the word “Christian” when there is nothing about Christ crucified in what you label with that term?
Can we simply be people in Christ who represent the Gospel without confusing it with the culture?
I am not saying that Christians as citizens should be indifferent to the moral confusion that rises from our secular day. I am saying we need to drop the “Christian” label from our principles since without the message of Christ crucified we are not speaking a Christian message.
I would also say we need to flee the idolatry of thinking that government coercive force can change the human heart — or that unholy means (think immoral candidates) can achieve holy ends.
That does not mean we are silent. It means we are careful. We make Christ the center, the 99% of what we explain, the last word of our hope.
We can argue the case that the moral order given and fixed by the true God is good. We can say that governments are to reflect the moral code which has been universally agreed upon for millennia. We can argue that abandoning it will reap terrible human suffering in the decades to come.
And we can say that with a tagline, “Here is the amazing news. The God who gave us his good laws to rule our lives, is the God who calls us all law-breakers, worthy of condemnation — and the same God who has made a way of forgiveness and a new creation through the death and resurrection of Jesus.”
The books on this matter are extensive, as a visit to Amazon will tell you. I have found it helpful not to read only those who focus on this one issue, to learn from the best of scholars who focus on the Revolutionary War.
The idea that there was uniformity in the motives and cultural assumptions of every immigrant to the colonies is contrary to reality. See Albion’s Seed.
This error in logic is, by the way, the fault with all critics of figures of history who happened not to be conformed to the new morals of the 21st century.
Barnard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, makes it clear that the founders and framers were deeply indebted to pre-Christian, Roman thinking. Gordon Wood shows clearly that many of the founders were anti-religion and pro-reason, to the point of being grieved at the rise of the 2nd great awakening.
Just read the excellent work of Gordon Woods, The Radicalism of the American Revolution. Did you know that many of the founders were deeply disappointed with the rise of evangelical influence in the 2nd Great Awakening? Read the book.
Andrew Wilson does a good job of showing how many streams were merging at the time of the Revolution. The founders were anything but conservatives trying to recover Christendom. Carl Trueman’s work, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, shows this so clearly.
The church is the only Christian nation, as it is composed of those who are in Christ by receiving and resting in his blood paid salvation, who submit to him as Lord. Christ rules the church and his people. But when a church ceases to affirm the truth of Christ’s atoning deathm even it ceases to be Christian. See J Gresham Machen, Christianity or Liberalism.