Some follow-up thoughts on "false assumptions"

On question 1: That there are people who believe that God has a special "covenant" relationship with America. I agree that the origins of that idea are from a small subset of American theological history. Yet even though the doctrinal content certainly isn't intact anymore, the basic assumption is definitely still intact. We see it in official pronouncements and in speeches from our politicos all the time. Reagan's inaugural "Morning in America" speech qouted Winthrop's famous "city on a hill" phrase, adjusting it of course to the needs of the millenial reign of democratic capitalism. And of course, there's the erstwhile D. James Kennedy giving us his own special "history" of America. Now I know he's not as popular as Dobson or Falwell, but he's got the moolah and he's indoctrinating thousands (at least) with his version of "Christian America". I can't remember the last time he actually preached the gospel. A large segment of the home-school movement is being taught this version of American history. The SBC (not exactly high-church Calvinist friendly territory) has become one of the biggest cheerleaders of the modern manifest destiny chant (which is supremely ironic, considering baptist history). That, and they're the ones calling for Christian parents to lead the "exodus" from public schools towards homeschooling. And it's the homeschooling curricula that is promoting this syncretistic "Christian America" ideology. So while the original doctrinal content is certainly missing from the "Covenant Theology" of the early American context, the imagery and language has certainly proved very useful for those wanting to sway public opinion.

As to the second point, that the founders were largely "orthodox" Christians: Again, I refer to D. James Kennedy. Hardly a week goes by without him extolling the orthodox Christian beliefs and virtues of our "beloved" founders. It's actually amazing to watch. Well.. revolting is more like it. The half-truths and not-so-subtle misrepresentations abound in his revisionist early America. What's amazing is that Kennedy is supposedly a solid Calvinist. If anyone should know better, it should be a theologian and pastor of his stature. Yet he slips the anonymous god of America into the pulpit and into too many Christian's homes; all because he's a "trusted" teacher. How can anyone be called an "orthodox" Christian if they're deeply involved in freemasonry (as most of the founders were), which is inherently syncretistic? Oh, and by "orthodox" I don't mean a sectarian subset of a particular denomination; I simply mean the beliefs and practices that are coherent with the early creeds and confessions of the Church; catholic, orthodox, and protestant. I'm not so concerned with doctrinal debates here. They're important, but in this case, I'd be happy to find a majority of Trinitarians among the founders! There's a few, but not many. Not many at all.

On point 3, the writing of the Constitution and it's deistic influences: This point has as much to do with many in the American church confusing which document should rule their life. Again, this is directed towards those who would argue for a Christian gloss on all the legal and theoretical documents forming our country's rules and actions. I do think it's important to recall that most of the founders were deistic, since Deism and Christianity are totally incompatible. Thus it puts the lie to the founders' supposed Christian orthodoxy. To argue that the founders were orthodox Christians is to betray the gospel for a pot of political porridge. Point 4 is really just an extension of point 3. My point (I think) is that this whole type of argumentation (the "Christian America" one) is dishonest rhetoric to support America's militaristic policies of conquest, but with a "religious" gloss. To the degree that that rhetoric succeeds, it corrupts the church with a false gospel. And every member of the body of Christ must fight this abomination with every ounce of their being.

On point 5, there's a sociological study somewhere that points out that early American's were much less "churched" than today. That, and their behavior was just as base as today's supposedly "more" depraved bahavior. We seem to always give in to the tendency to glorify the "good old days." Human nature doesn't change.

Which leads seemlessly to my next several points: The premise the America has never had imperial ambitions, that our wars are always defensive, and that "our" people are basically "good," and the following prescriptions to reform our nation/church (interchangeable?). These several points all come from my own assumption of America being an essentially Pelagian country. But it's a limited Pelagianism. It only applies to us. As far as the rest of the world (or anyone we deem the "enemy") is concerned, we're hard-nosed Calvinists! They're depraved! It's so convenient. We always get to be the good guys that way and everyone we don't like is the source of all evil. It allows every crime to be committed, all in the name of freedom, democracy, etc. (the ideology de jour). And since our "sins" come from without, the answers will then come from setting up a new rule, a new law, a new social crusade. Or a new real crusade. All for the glory of the god of democratic capitalism. You'll forgive me if I don't say hallelujah.

This all comes from my Augustinian view of the human condition. I've been a political animal from early childhood, and I've always wanted to figure out the "best system" for organizing and balancing human interactions. I started out quite the idealist (and in some ways I still am, or else why would I be doing this?). I wanted to see a system that would give us the best balance of freedom and equality. I was willing to listen to the various theories, from the left or the right. Each has their strengths, but I was never satisfied. Neither side gave the full story of our impulses and our desires, both for the greater good or of selfish impulses. While I looked at several religious traditions in my own search, the one that most cohered with my personal experiences was Christianity. It wasn't the miracles. It was the honest description of the human condition that sold me on its truthfulness and accuracy to experienced reality. Thus my political search has traveled down a similar path. If we get the human part wrong, all the rest will necessarily be an ever-widening array of disconnections from reality (I'm not discounting the reality that our idolatry and disconnection from reality is originally based on our rejection of the true God. Our social and political confusion is certainly a subset of that). So, am I left? Am I right? No, I'm Christian. And if Scripture is accurate to the reality that exists beyond our personal experiences of it, then I have at my disposal the resources of the Sovereign God of the universe through His Holy Spirit, given to me through the work of His Son Jesus of Nazareth.

The church is the bride of Christ. And I fear she (or at least too large a part of her) is acting the part of the whore in my little neck of the woods. That's why I sub-titled my site "For the health of the church." She is my Jerusalem above. I am commanded to love her as Christ loves her. I'm joined to her whether I like it or not. It's just sad that I feel this way. Thankfully, Christ's victory is never dependent on how I or any other Christian feels. His victory is guarranteed by His overcoming work on the cross, and He, through His church, will prevail. But it will only be by His means. It will never come about through corruption. The sword of His eternal word is sufficient. We need fight with no other.

Ten False Assumptions Underlying the Idea of "Christian" America

Here are ten assumptions that I believe motivate many American Christians in their understanding of God's relationship to this nation:

1. That God has a special "covenant" relationship with America; thus causing America to be under the blessings/cursings dichotomy that God specified with OT Israel.

2. That the founders were largely orthodox Christians.

3. That even if some of the founders were deistic, they weren't influential in the writing of the Constitution.

4. That since most of the founders were "orthodox" in their Christianity, the founding documents are therefore refective of "Christian" concepts.

5. That the general population was more "godly" than we are today.

6. That America has never had imperial ambitions.

7. That all of our wars have been defensive.

8. That American's are basically a "good" people.

9. That getting "under God" recited nation-wide will bring America "back to God."

10. That putting the ten commandments in public buildings across America will do the same thing.


I'm sure there are more issues that I haven't hit on here, but these are what came to mind as I was considering what I hear from the usual "Christian Right" crowd. What are the assumptions underlying these beliefs? Is it in any way consistent with historic Christianity? Am I just being overly anabaptist in my assessment? Or is it appropriate to question the basic assumptions behind the relationship between the American church and the state? Are we just struggling with a post-Constantinian church/state relationship? Are we actually in a post-Constantinian environment? Anyway, these are too many questions to ask at once; so I'll just ask that if you so desire, please take one of the above statements and run with it. Open it up. Consider what it means to be the church in our current environment; both in terms of speaking to the church about its calling, and then to the larger culture.

And here's a big question for ya: How do we communicate all this to our friends and relatives and fellow church goers/Christians? How do we reclaim a proper ecclesiology? What does it really mean to be the church here and now?

The President's Speech

Last night's speech by the president gives me great comfort, but not because I am so swayed by his explanations. I'm heartened by the fact that he thought it necessary to give the speech in the first place. I am especially gratified that he thought he needed to speak at a "friendly" venue, such as Fort Bragg, NC. That choice in itself indicates that his policy and approval rating is in trouble. I was especially surprised that so many people chose not to watch his speech here in West Michigan. On the 11pm news, most of the people interviewed said they didn't watch him. That doesn't necessarily mean they disagree with him (it was a mixed bag), but it does mean that his argument isn't getting across to those he wants to get his argument across to. Especially in this neck of the woods. That's bad for Bush. Hopefully that's good for our common future.

On another note, I was surprised at his lack of religious language in this speech. He has regularly used either scriptural or generically religious language in most of his speeches to great effect. The fact that he (his speech writers) chose to not use that technique is in itself interesting. I'm not quite sure what significance that choice may have. It may have none, but it did surprise me nonetheless. Speaking of Bush's use of "God-Talk" in his speeches, here's an interesting piece about just that. I got the link from a discussion board I occasionally frequent (Is that possible, to "occasionally frequent" something?). I think Mark Roberts begins to open up some intriguing issues about Bush's (and by extension, much of America's) "theology," though I wouldn't be so quick to lay the term "evangelical" on Bush, since he has never claimed that term for himself. Just ask Bush's own people. And besides, the term evangelical has become such a wax nose, that it's doctrinal content is effectively non-existent.

Anyway, as you may guess, I'm actually still home; though I'm still considering going out to Pennsylvania to see my dad. In any case, I will get back to recounting my own theological version of American history. It's just taking longer than I thought.

Some links to consider

Here are some good links today to consider that I think can offer some light on what it means to be Christian now. In today's Christianity Today website, their editorial speaks quite well of what we should and should not look to as our final standards in deciding what is right and true. All I can say is: "Well done!" In an interview that they link to, we see Stanley Haurwas's take on what the church's primary responsibility is. I haven't read through the whole document, so I'll reserve my whole-hearted praise till later. But he's always worth listening to, even if there are areas of disagreement. Another piece has an early statement from Fr. Richard John Neuhaus at IRD. Anyway, until I get to the next installment of my whirlwind tour of America's theological and philosophical history, these will have to do. BTW, I head out (Lord willing) to Pennsylvania and NYC on Saturday morning for a week, so my posting may be sporadic or nonexistent until I get back. I hope my car decides it wants to go! So then, let me know what y'all think of these articles. Are they on target or are they lacking in some way? How?

A little exile and a lot of American history

The theme I've been trying to unpack in my own understanding of what the church is and its role in relation to the larger culture has led me repeatedly to the New Testament language of exile and the Old Testament periods of actual exile for the Israelites. While during the OT period, the exile of God's people was predicated on their apostasy and unfaithfulness; God warned them ahead of time that they would be expelled from the land if they didn't obey Him, in the NT period, the same language is used, but in a markedly different way. The NT church exists as an organic community of internal exiles living in the midst of all the temporary kingdoms. These momentary kingdoms are all established by God in His providential manner, yet are all also entirely contingent. They are all at least secondary to God's kingdom, which is both here spiritually and being looked forward to for an eventuall fullness upon Christ's return.

This kingdom of priests that we are live in a world that does not acknowledge our power, or even our relevance. The sad thing is, we don't acknowledge our power and relevance either. We effectively deny both by allowing ourselves to be snookered by the various bells and whistles that are thrown our way as the "latest answer." Of course, the "conservative" evangelical church in America has imbibed deeply of the latest draught of political power, and thus has believed the lie that God's kingdom can be advanced by these momentary means. After all, doesn't the "end" justify them? But the problem is the end. American evangelicalism has bought into a deeply flawed doctrine of salvation which is itself established on a false understanding of the human condition. American evangelicals believe that if we just get enough laws, put in the right judges, elect enough "conservatives," and so on, then we will inaugurate some great revival. This underlying assumption is based on a Pelagian view of mankind. BTW, by Pelagian, I mean the view that says that we are sinners because we sin, not that we sin because we are sinners. In other words, our natural state is that of innocence, and that we are born with a "clean slate" or tabula rasa. This view stands in contrast to the classic Christian view of mankind being born into sin; the whole "original sin" idea. This other philosophical notion is an enlightenment idea and not a basic Christian idea. This, along with a few other philosophical ideas, undergirds almost all of our assumptions about ourselves and western society. If this isn't dealt with, then the rest of our analysis is going to be skewed. And as we all know, fault lines grow as they spread.

But I digress. So, the American evangelical concept is based on a theology that owes more to Charles Finney than to John Calvin, the Puritans notwithstanding. What unites these two seemingly disparate forces (Puritan Calvinism and Finneyite revivalism) into modern evangelicalism, and its idolatrous relationship with our government, is this: Puritan Calvinism saw America as the "city on a hill." They existed in a context that saw no real separation between church and state. They looked at this "new world" as a holy commonwealth, both in regard to the church and the civil government. Thus, when they saw this New Israel established on these shores, they thought in explicitly ecclesiastical terms, but with a civil component. While I certainly agree with the Puritan's Calvinism, their view of God's kingdom being coterminous with the civil authorities owes more to their European state-church roots than to an exegetical reading of the Old and New Testaments. So, in Puritan thought, they were establishing a new beachhead for God's kingdom, a beachhead that saw no real separation between the civil/religious authorities.

The next step leading to today's situation came when there was a slide towards Deistic and enlightenment beliefs among the leading intellectuals, and even more importantly, among the theologians and pastors during the colonial period. This period, stretching from the mid 1700's to the early 1800's, was characterized by a populace that was largely unchurched and even when they were, were very lukwarm in their religious affections. The leadership of the main churches in the colonies moved away from the Calvinism of their forebearers towards an Arminian theology that focused much more on man's free will than God's sovereignty. This, along with the move towards greater unorthodoxy in Theology proper (doctrine of God), such as the Unitarianism and Deism of the Congregationalists, informed the intellectual thought of most of the founders and their religious (and secular) supporters. America's founding documents can be read much more accurately if read in light of these factors. "Nature's God" is straight up Deism, yet vague enough to be acceptable to more devout (yet less discerning in my opinion) Christians. This god that is less than the God of the Bible became the god of the republic.

The next big change naturally followed this earlier change, in that it moved from the trinitarian God of Scripture to the unitarian god of Deism on the theological side, while on the human side it moved from the earlier Calvinism to Arminianism, and then to an outright Pelagian revivalism borne out of the enlightenment idea of the absolute rule of reason over revelation. Again, this view assumes that men are naturally born "good," or at least neutral in their moral inclinations, and that any evil that comes from them is due to environmental effects. In this sense, we've all become Rousseau's god-children. It was, after all, Rousseau who said (approx.) "Men are born free, yet everywhere are in chains." Mon Dieu! We're French (at least philosophically) after all!

Well, the Buzz is about to close, so I better end this post now. As you can see, my main interest in dealing with American issues is to look into the theological and philosophical precedents that have led to what we have today. It may seem rather ivory tower, but it plays out into real life pretty quickly, and with devastating results if based on unreality. I'll continue with the period of "Manifest Destiny" leading into the Darwinian period next, Lord willing.

American Church Issues

Well, here's the initial post concerning the issues I sent the email about. To get things started, here's some reading material that I would recommend to, I believe, better understand the dynamics of what it means to be a Christian in America. These books will largely come from a theologically "conservative" perspective, yet not necessarily in a way that fits with other senses of the modern term conservative. A large part of what has made it so difficult to deal with issues accurately has been the degradation of the language and its misuse. Terms need to be explained more than ever if we are to clearly understand what is being said. In any case, here's a foundational article by Christian Smith that I believe helps tremendously in extricating us from our cultural blinders. A very helpful book that I recently read by conservative Lutherans called "The Anonymous God" opens up much of what the problem is in identifying the god of America with the God of Scripture. And while this isn't necessarily directly (though indirectly it certainly is) related to the issue of the church in America, I believe the book by Meic Pearse called "Why The Rest Hates The West", written from an evangelical Christian perspective, yet from Wales, provides a much needed outside perspective to what is facing our country and culture now. Finally, here's a document that is quite remarkable, in that, apart from its tired use of the 95 theses model (understandable though, considering the appropriate comparison to Luther's environment), actually presents a cogent explanation of what American Christians need to be most aware of, and beware of, in our national religious expression. I hope to soon start putting up my own words on these and other issues. But until then, I thought these links would be a good start.

Orthodox Peace Initiative

I'm working through the idea of getting together (organizing?) those who are theologically "conservative", yet opposed to our nation's current policies, whether internationally or domestically. In America, it's quite common to see the intertwining of supposedly theologically conservative beliefs with socially and politically conservative ideology, with the opposite being those who adhere to a liberal belief, both theologically and politically. This dichotomy is false on several different levels, in that it ignores the inherent problem of assuming that Christian orthodoxy can be fitted to any political ideology. As many commentators have pointed out, Christian teaching transcends the political spectrum, in that modern liberalism and conservatism both presuppose an essentially materialist framework for their ideologies, which orthodox Christianity cannot accept. Thus, while individual positions can be agreed with in a limited way, the underlying assumptions propping up these modernist beliefs are diametrically opposed to the beliefs of the historic Christian faith. Every Christian, no matter their denominational affiliation, is to always test whatever is presented before them through the testimony of holy Scripture. Christians may, and should, also use the testimony of other believers from throughout Christian history, and even pre-Christian history, in order to better understand the issues at hand. And Christians should also use to their advantage the sanctified reason of non-Christian thinkers from every age on a host of different topics. Yet in using these various resources, every Christian is to always examine these varous views in light of what Scripture already attests to, whether on issues related to theology directly, or any any others issues of importance. The difficulty in doing this has always been in keeping the proper balance of seeking to be faithful to God and His revelation, while allowing for relative wisdom from those outside of Christian teaching. Often times, the tendency among Christians is to lurch towards only listening to those from within their own tradition, as though God only spoke through them as the "holy remnant". This tendency relegates all other views, whether from outside that particular Christian tradition, or even from outside of Christianity itself, as being wholly corrupt, not having any use under any circumstances. The other tendency, just as wrong, in the other direction, is to assume that since their can be a relative wisdom in other traditions, whether within Christianity's expressions, or further, in other non-Christian beliefs and practices, then that thus proves that each view, whether Christian or not, is a reflection of a deeper, though ultimately unknowable, truth, that is to be given equal weight. This tendency eviscerates the centrality of Christian witness, both to spiritual and temporal claims, and thus cannot be claimed as an orthodox expression of the faith.

to be continued...

Idolatry

I'd like to start working through this statement step by step and see how it flesh's out.

Thesis 1.

1. When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ said, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," he called us to become citizens of His Kingdom.

There's a lot to unpack in just this first statement. Christ commanded repentance of those who were listening to Him, whether in His day or us now.

Repentance means changing one's mind, so that one's views, values, goals, and ways are changed, and one's whole life is lived differently. Mind and judgement, will and affections, behavior and lifestyle, motives and plans: all are involved. Repenting means starting a new life. (New Geneva Study Bible, p.1756)

He then says that "the kingdom of heaven is at hand." In saying this, Christ is declaring that the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God, is breaking into this world, and that it is breaking in through Him, Christ Jesus. The kingdom was not to be thought of as some far distant entity that would only come to fruition in a far away future. This kingdom that Christ spoke of was beginning with His advent. His miracles were a sign that this kingdom was beginning right there, right then. The question we're left with is this: What is the 'kingdom' that Christ is speaking of? What is the nature of this kingdom? What does it mean to become a citizen of Christ's kingdom? In what ways is His use of political language similar yet different than the way it's used by the powers of the world. What is the shape of citizenship in Christ's kingdom? What is its characteristic?

In the following theses, we will further unpack what this citizenship entails.

Some Questions

Some questions that popped into my head tonight while I was sitting in Barnes & Nobles drinking some Sumatra (mmmm) and reading Lou Dobbs' new book "Exporting America: Why Corporate Greed Is Shipping American Jobs Overseas":

Is nationalism just fiefdoms (European tribalism) writ large? If so, is economic nationalism just an extension of local/parochial/ethnic allegiances? What is the appropriate Christian response to this? If our primary allegiance is to Christ and to those who are called by His name (the church universal), to what degree can we be allied to a particular national interest? If (by historical standards very wealthy) American workers are being hurt, but foreign workers are being helped by "outsourcing", should we not support this as a means to "lift up" the poor around the world? But what if neither are being helped by this process, but instead these multi-national corporations are only pursuing short-term goals of personal enrichment at the expense of the "host" nations and workers? In this case are these corporations acting simply as parasites, feeding off the host until its energy is exhausted, and then it moves on to its next victim? As a people, should we see these various corporations as a confederation of similarly motivated interests (a sort of United States of Capital) working together (not in some dark conspiratorial way, but in an open and completely understandable fraternity of common interests) to advance their own material interests? If their interests are for their own enrichment and their own self-perpetuation, over and above any national/local/community loyalties, should we then not be concerned to see to a policy being enacted that would limit those impulses? While I don't agree with Dobbs' strong Americanism/nationalism, since my primary allegiance is to Christ (unconditionally) and His church (conditionally), and then further down the line to my country (very conditionally, no matter what country), I nonetheless agree with his concern over the rapacious appetite of the corporate empires that have effectively supplanted (and co-opted) our other governing structures. We stand at the crossroads, being asked to choose. Every moment we buy a product, we stand at the crossroads. Every moment we watch a television program, we stand at the crossroads. Every moment we accept and then propound a political view, we stand at the crossroads. We are always making choices. We are always being political. It's not a question of if, but which political and ethical position we are going to take and are taking. Just some questions on a friday night.