Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Mixing religion and politics
A law firm devoted to protecting religious freedom has said that a pastor should be able to endorse or condemn a candidate from the pulpit without risking the church’s tax-exempt status. Setting aside the question of whether this is good law, is it good Christianity?
Non-Christians see Christianity as “too political,” David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons say in UnChristian. Some Christians agree. Darryl Hart, author of A Secular Faith: Why Christianity Favors the Separation of Church and State, told WoW that a pastor endorsing a candidate from the pulpit would be like “playing the Star Spangled Banner at the Lord’s Supper.”
Hart said, “Evangelicals used to realize that ultimately the salvation of men and women, boys and girls, was more important than the election of senators and presidents.” When Christians infuse the political realm with divine status, they can miss the significance of the Gospel. Hart said politics and the created order are good, but if God laughs at the affairs of nations, if the grass withers and the flower fades, “in the larger scheme of things, the affairs of the 2008 presidential election are not going to be important.”
Hart doesn’t think a candidate’s personal faith should be a litmus test for public office. He said Christians should have more confidence in the checks and balances designed to restrain even the most unscrupulous leader.
Jim Skillen, president of Center for Public Justice, disagrees with Hart’s separation of Christianity and politics. He told WoW Christians shouldn’t deify America, dabble in interest group politics, or think that Christianity can save the world through politics. But Christians should ask themselves this question: “How do we as Christians respond in obedience to God’s call to do justice, realizing that not all justice is done by government and that Christians can’t escape that call from God?”
If doing justice is a Christian calling, Skillen said, Christians ought to be making “the Scriptural vision, the whole meaning of the unfolding of God’s purposes in His creation as illuminated by Scripture” the context for fulfilling their responsibility. The Bible doesn’t outline public policy minutiae any more than it gives detailed parenting instructions, but it does give general guidelines public servants can follow.
back to top52 Comments to “Mixing religion and politics”
The law firm is correct as to how the law should be – but maybe not how it will work out in application.
“The Bible doesn’t outline public policy minutiae any more than it gives detailed parenting instructions, but it does give general guidelines public servants can follow.” Quite correct, and for this reason, the pulpit should be a place where the actions of the civil government and candidates are freely dicussable. Slavery’s end and the civil rights movement were driven in lare part by religious convictions applies to the poltical realm.
Report comment to moderator
I would agree that modern constitutional sense of “separation of Church and State” is not how the Founders envisioned a constitutional standard for Church/State affairs. Rather, liberty and equality of religious rights (for all folks not just Christians) were their drivers. See the new book by Christopher Eisgruber of Princeton and Lawrence Sager of University of Texas for more:
http://www.amazon.com/Religious-Freedom-Constitution-Christopher-Eisgruber/dp/0674023056
However “separation” still often makes sense as a desirable policy. Roger Williams and James Madison were both concerned about separating Church and State so as to preserve the purity of both.
Ministers often mixed religion and politics during the era of America’s Founding and engaged in some gross distortions of the Christian religion in favor of republicanism and the American Revolution which I have catalogued on my blog, like the insulting notion that the American Christian Tories because they remained loyalists were somehow less than “good Christians.”
Re slavery, but whatever the religious arguments the parties made, and indeed both sides of the debate appealed to their faith and the Bible, the Bible itself is not an antislavery book. Jesus did not abolish one social institution, not tyrannical government not slavery, not one. Christians looking to the Bible on matters such as the American Revolution or Civil War have to look elsewhere, otherwise they engage in novel, self-serving, “convenient” readings.
Report comment to moderator
My concern it that until recently, politicing from the pulpit was commonplace in democrat circles.
My favorite pastor has said that he was told in no uncertain terms that he could not have any political overtones in his sermons, without losing their tax-exempt status.
Now keep in mind, that this particular church has never had a politician speak at their pulpit.
But..it just so happens that he is an unabashed conservative. I have never heard him endorse or bash any specific candidate, yet he has reported being threatened by govt. thugs.
He now limits his political speak to the phrase;
“There is a good reason Jesus told the fishermen to cast their nets on the right side of the boat”
(with a little wink, at the word “right”)
I love that guy.
If we’re going to allow it, then let it happen unfettered. If we’re not going to allow it, no one should be able to do it.
(even democrats in Compton, or Harlem, or wherever)
Report comment to moderator
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)
Report comment to moderator
From the original post: “Non-Christians see Christianity as ‘too political,’ [say] David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons (authors of “UnChristian”).
Yeah, non-Christians are so upset that Martin Luther King, Jr. was too political, right? Why couldn’t he just stick to preaching about heaven?
And those rascal Puritans who stirred up all that anti-slavery sentiment in early America and used their pulpits to do it. That must frost the non-Christians! Why couldn’t all those northern parsons mind their own religious business? (Tongue in cheek).
Seriously, the above statement by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons is too vague and subjective to mean anything. What does “too political” mean? For whom? When? Where? How?
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe wrote; “Jesus did not abolish one social institution, not tyrannical government not slavery, not one.”
Well, Moses did (and it was slavery).
Actually, Jon, your points are well taken and I just wanted to add that biblical anecdote.
Let me add further that Jesus was a big fan of Moses and was prone to quote him often. In fact, in the gospel of John, we read, “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.” John 1:17.
As wonderful as Moses’ mission to abolish slavery was (and to deliver the slaves from Egypt), Jesus’ mission was even greater–to abolish our slavery to sin and set us free from its eternal consequences.
Good for Moses! Great for Jesus! I’m glad Jesus didn’t lower his mission scope to the mere abolishing of harmful social institutions (a good thing indeed, but not as great as the ultimate mission His Father gave to him).
Report comment to moderator
Daryl Hart (quoted above) wrote; “Evangelicals used to realize that ultimately the salvation of men and women, boys and girls, was more important than the election of senators and presidents.”
Huh? What evangelical on earth has ultimately forgotten this?
I have never used our church’s pulpit to endorce a politician in my life, but that is my choice. If I came to the point where I thought it right to do so, I guarantee it won’t be because I think that that is more ultimately important than “the salvation of men and women, boys and girls.”
Hart could also say (my paraphrase); “Evangelicals used to realize that ultimately the salvation of men and women, boys and girls, was more important than feeding the poor and clothing the needy.”
If he had said that, my response would also have been, “Huh?”
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think there is good legal or theological ground for banning any and all endorsements of candidates or policies in a a church/or by a minister.
But I also think it is by and large an ill-advised and misdirected thing for a spiritual leader to attempt to do in his ecclesiastical role. It has too much potential to alienate many of the very people we want to reach with a higher message of hope that both includes and transcends this world.
But when it comes to such things as slavery, abortion and the preservation of marriage, it may well be worth standing up for Christian values (even with an endorsement if necessary) even if it is PERCEIVED as political.
Report comment to moderator
Moses didn’t abolish slavery but rather was concerned about the bondage of his ethnic group. The Mosaic law specifically allowed for slavery.
Report comment to moderator
I see no reason one any tax exempt entity to be treated differently than others.
If you can without losing tax exempt status, while working in a soup kitchen, tell those in line to vote for ‘candidate X’ because X will push for legislation to provide more government funding for soup kitchens then pastors should be allowed to tell their flocks to vote for whoever fo0r any reason without losing tax exempt status.
Lefties have, through the courts, discriminated against pastors and churches while leaving other tax exempt entities alone. Only the left discriminates today.
Report comment to moderator
We all know that the Bible/religion can be used to justify the right thing politically and morally. I can also be used to justify the wrong thing. See Fred Phelps et al. Everything they assert is justified with appeal to scripture as authority.
Report comment to moderator
Historically Moses abolished and shattered the Egyptian institution of slavery for Hebrews for all practical intent and purposes and that is all I meant.
Report comment to moderator
It was a pretty incomplete mission by modern standards, to be sure, and slavery did continue rather universally in the ancient world. You make a good point. Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
It appears to me that conservative Christians have given up on the ability of their faith to transform people and make a difference in their lives. Instead they’ve bought into the idea that politics and government will do what their faith apparently couldn’t. Interesting.
If going to a church service means one is going to be subjected to a half-hour campaign commercial for candidate X, or this or that bill in congress or the state house, or the latest zoning issue before the city commission, one can just as easily sit at home and watch TV or read the paper.
Will God be taking sides on the minimum wage or how much we spend for paving the county roads next year? Will the Sunday bulletin have an ad for Huckabee underneath the order of service? Will the electronic scroll outside on the church sign say “Vote Republican this November”?
Report comment to moderator
In opposition to Anlir, I have very few qualms about the use of the pulpit to spread a political message. If one doesn’t like the message, they can always leave. However, I will concur with Hart that its not always the greatest idea for both sides. Identifying the church with specific political policies limits their appeal to potential new members among other drawbacks. Attending an American evangelical church while travelling with parents at the age of 13-14, I was quite surprised to see an American flag next to the pulpit and wondered what nationalism had to do with Christianity.
Anlir is correcting the irony in which a faith thought to be transforming on its own has had to resort to the use of the government to implement the change their faith couldn’t inspire. Its even more ironic when considering evangelicals traditionally demand a limited government.
BTW, Joel, its quite a stretch to identify the Puritans with the abolitionist movement. The movement originated with the Quakers and received some support from the second awakening not the Puritans whose merchant ships helped bring slaves to the South and the West Indies in the triangular colonial trade.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
My point would be that churches have a special and unique role to play in people’s lives, which doesn’t involve fighting over whether Pine Street or Market Street will get paved this year.
If churches are just another political entity, why not just join the local political party? Why pay a premium of 10% (”tithe”) to go here an endorsement of candidate X, when one can go to their local campaign headquarters (or website) and hear it for free?
Have churches lost their confidence in the ability of their Faith to change people? Wasn’t that the whole point of them existing in the first place?
I’ve read the New Testament, and I don’t recall Jesus getting involved in politics. If I remember, he said His kingdom is not of this world. Maybe I read the wrong translation.
Report comment to moderator
You are correct — Jesus was not a very political person however the adherents of the church are of this world, hence the institutions they belong to, including the church, tend to get involved in politics.
Churches exist for the communion of the saints. The saints (and sinners) do have worldly concerns. The transformative power of faith does not need to be limited by the church but can exist in the political realm.
The tithe is a voluntary fee and in reality no-one goes to church to hear a political endorsement even if thats what they hear. They go for fellowship, sharing and the hearing of God’s Word and if the exposition of this word leads a pastor to endorse one canidate over another than so be it.
(My daughter once exclaimed during the collection in an Anglican church; “You have to pay for this?”)
My caution for the Church is not to endorse any individual as the individual is fallible and depraved. An endorsement of Larry Craig in the last election may no longer appear to be a good idea. Hence, I would think any pastor worthy of a bachelor’s degree would take a stance on an issue not a person or party.
Report comment to moderator
(My daughter once exclaimed during the collection in an Anglican church; “You have to pay for this?”)
Oh man that’s hilarious! I rarely laugh out loud, but that busted me up.
Report comment to moderator
#15, HRW wrote; “It’s quite a stretch to identify the Puritans with the abolitionist movement.”
The first anti-slavery tract ever written in the American colonies was written by the arch Puritan, Samuel Seward–an interesting guy. He was actually one of the Salem witch trial judges AND a few years later, he repented profusely and publically for his part in that. As part of his ongoing repentence, he became an early advocate for better treatment of women and for the abolition of slavery and other humanitarian causes.
I’t not a stretch at all, HRW. American slavery first became controversial in New England, where Puritan roots ran deepest. When nearly all secular voices were sinfully silent, Congregationalist ministers and Quakers both lit the torch for themes like equality and freedom. Harvard and Yale (Puritan institutions) were early hotbeds of abolitionism. Preachers with deep Puritan roots like Jonathan Edwards Jr., Benjamin Trumbull, Nathaniel Taylor, Jeremiah Day, Nathan Strong, Theodore Dwight and many others should be remembered for their politically incorrect (often unpopular) anti-slavery courage. Noah Webster (1758-1843) also tapped his Puritan roots to take up the unpopular anti-slavery torch.
Later on, revivalist Lyman Beecher (1775-1863) opposed slavery at great personal cost and controversy. He passed his convictions on to his famous preacher son, Henry Ward Beecher (1813-1887) and his more famous daughter Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811-1986) who wrote “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” the book that did more to undermine slavery than any other in her day. Revivalist preacher Charles Finney (1792-1875) carried a lifelong passion to save souls, free slaves and advocate the application of Christianity to daily life regardless of race. We must praise our Puritan ancestors for lighting this torch and keeping it hot.
Report comment to moderator
Not being a church goer, I suppose I really have no dog in this hunt. It just seems to me that if churches expounded on the principles (loving your neighbor, caring for the poor, justice, etc.), and left it to the individual to express it in their personal political involvement, they’d come out a lot further ahead. Maybe that’s too much to hope for.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, I know of no Puritan merchant ships that trafficed slaves to the South. Some colonial merchant ships may have done that, but I’ve never seen any evidence that they were Puritans. Most of the merchant classes in the American colonial days were not Puritans. The colonies had many different kinds of people with many different kinds of agendas and values.
If some isolated examples can be found, that does not change the fact that Puritans were the first to speak out against such practices.
Report comment to moderator
#20: It just seems to me that if churches expounded on the principles (loving your neighbor, caring for the poor, justice, etc.), and left it to the individual to express it in their personal political involvement, they’d come out a lot further ahead.
Just stop already. You are making way too much sense.
Report comment to moderator
#11, “The Bible/religion…. can also be used to justify the wrong thing. See Fred Phelps et al. Everything they assert is justified with appeal to scripture as authority.”
What Phelps does is as absurd as those who appeal to the First Amendemnt of the Constitution to try to make public expression of faith illegal. Whacked people can appeal to anything to turn it on its head.
Appeals to Fred Phelps in discussions like this ring to me a bit like appeals to Hitler who also would appeal to whatever served his hateful agenda. Such appeals do, however, evoke univeral agreement in us as well as bipartisan disgust.
It should be noted that patriotic conservative-types do more to actively resist Fred Phelps than any other type I know. Heard of the “Patriot Guard?”
Report comment to moderator
#20: “Not being a church goer, I suppose I really have no dog in this hunt. It just seems to me that if churches expounded on the principles (loving your neighbor, caring for the poor, justice, etc.), and left it to the individual to express it in their personal political involvement, they’d come out a lot further ahead.”
If you were a church-goer, Anlir, perhaps you would know first hand that you pretty well described what every church I have ever gone to does, and tries to do better.
Report comment to moderator
By the time Harvard became politically antislavery, the Unitarians had already begun to take over. Unitarians and Universalists also played leading roles in the abolition movement in the 19th Century.
The Quakers were the ones who got the ball rolling in America. There’s no question that both orthodox and heterodox religious folks used religious arguments against slavery. But the converse is true. Fred Phelps was a bit of a reductio ad absurdum (but the point remained valid; if you’ve ever head their arguments they are all scripturally based). During the Civil War plenty of devout orthodox Christians used the Bible to argue on behalf of slavery and the confederacy. And that’s because unlike with for instance homosexuality (see Leviticus) the Bible gives no clear prohibition against slavery and plenty of passages can be reasonably viewed to justify the practice.
Report comment to moderator
Let me note something about Moses & Egypt, and this directly relates to my point of corrupting religion for political purposes. Moses bringing his people out of bondage makes a nice metaphor for freedom from tyranny. However, that’s all it is: a metaphor — Moses did not do what he did for concept of political liberty, personal freedom or self government. Yet many of the Whig preachers, who argued on behalf of the American revolution from the pulpit, did exactly that: Distort the Bible to argue the story of Moses was about political liberty, self-rule and republicanism, which were, in reality, 18th Century Whig ideas, not authentically biblical ideas. One of those preachers absurdly argued that the Ancient Israelites had a “republic,” when in reality they had a theocracy.
This was propagandistic abuse of the Bible for political purposes. The Bible never speaks of political liberty as in an unalienable right to liberty. Every time the word “liberty” or “freedom” is used in the Bible it refers to spiritual, not political liberty.
Dr. Robert Kraynak of Colgate aptly noted that Exodus had nothing to do with political liberty or the concept of “republicanism” that America’s Founders delivered:
http://www.positiveliberty.com/2007/08/exodus-does-not-support-political-liberty.html
Report comment to moderator
Jon, I don’t agree with you. Anti-slavery sentiments were common among Puritans and in their schools long long before unitarian notions began to emerge in a few circles. We have already disagreed on when Unitarianism even began to develop. I think you overstate the case and call it prematurely.
It is true that some Bostonians who began to doubt the trinity also did oppse slavery, and they were drawing from a long history of such notions among earlier Puritans in that conviction. Good for them.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe wrote, “Moses bringing his people out of bondage makes a nice metaphor for freedom from tyranny. However, that’s all it is: a metaphor.”
That’s ridiculous, Jon. What Moses did in bringing his people out of bondage in Egypt was not a only a metaphor, it was an actual deed. He did it. Moses did it on God’s call and that does not necessarily exclule motives related to political liberty, personal freedom or self government–but of course not in the 18th century sense of those phrases, nor in the sense of any other time but Moses’ own time.
But to say that some have used the Bible for political or propaganda purposes is like saying the sun is hot.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, the reason the Bible is such a timeless and valuable book is because it does focus more on spiritual freedom than on earthly or political freedom.
Dr. Robert Kraynak is incorrect. The Israelites were slaves by political mandate under political rule. Moses delivered them. Result: political liberty for self determination (and a lot of wandering in the desert).
Who are you agruing with Jon? Anyone in our century? I don’t know anyone who is claiming that the Old Testament covenant was democratic.
Who is claiming that they had a Bill of Rights rather than Ten Commandments? Are you shadow boxing?
Report comment to moderator
So far, all of Anlir’s posts have been right on the money.
Christians would also do well to remember that it is God Himself who establishes kings on their thrones (or in today’s vernacualr, presidents in their offices).
Perhaps we should do the best we can to make informed choices when we vote and then pray that God’s will be done.
For good or for ill, whomever God places in office is acording to His will and then our obligation is to support God’s choice for us.
Christians throughout history and around the world have often been governed by less than desirable heads of state. He is sovereign over it all.
Report comment to moderator
Not shadow boxing just throwing out ideas to stimulate thought. There are folks who argue almost everything about the Constitution, Declaration and the Founding era comes from the Bible. See for instance, David Barton, William Federer, and the late D. James Kennedy. Much of the homeschooled crowd has bought into this nonsense. In fact, there’s a pending resolution in the US House of Reps. that repeats the “Christian Nation” talking points. It won’t go through. But that dozens of House members seem willing to vote for it is appalling.
Dr. Robert Kraynak’s book is one of the many sources from the right that debunk this “Christian America” nonsense. And kudos to the Family Research Council for giving him a platfrom to express many of the ideas I’ve put forth here:
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WT04C02
Report comment to moderator
Anilr wrote, at #16; “I’ve read the New Testament, and I don’t recall Jesus getting involved in politics.”
Anlir, I guess this means that you don’t think that politics has (or should have?) anything to do with healing the sick (health care) or feeding the poor, or challenging social injustices. Jesus sure did those things and more but that’s not politics, right?
In a real sense, in Jesus’ day, religion WAS politics and politics was religion (the distinction was not as clears as it is today for us). His accusers had political fears and movtives for getting him crucified and yet God had deeper spiritual reasons for letting Jesus dies on that same cross. I guess they were at “cross” purposes that led to the same event.
Jesus’ followers should “get involved” in whatever helps make a better world and do so freely in the spirit of Christ, while knowing that we also have a better world coming.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
Christian America is not nonsense. We originated as a Christian nation with a secular government. There’s more to America than government and politics and much of that America was and is Christian. And of couse, much of it is not. But we did begin with the conviction that it is God, not government, who gives us our rights and freedoms. Government is simply the means to preserve them.
Report comment to moderator
<
This is a nice idea and certainly the notion that God grants men an unalienable right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, property and equality is part and parcel of America’s Declaration of Independence. However, as Dr. Kraynak points out, the notion is not biblical.
Report comment to moderator
#32: anything to do with healing the sick (health care)
Benny Hinn, do you sell policies?
Report comment to moderator
#34, how is it not biblical? Is it unbiblical? No.
The Bible introduces us to God, the giver of all things that pertain to life (2 Peter 1:2). And God gives on His own terms.
It is also biblical to say that God ordains governing authorities. And God ordains on His own terms.
It is also biblical, however, that humans have a range of freedom to determine their own systems of governing and in so doing to affirm or reject the gifts and ordinances of God. He does not force them on us. And I prefer governments that do not force them on the people either.
The notion that God is the giver and ordainer is biblical and that is my point. I am grateful for Founders who were willing to attribute our rights and liberties ultimately to God. I think this is the main reason why our Revolution stuck and resulted in great benefit, while the French Revolution and the Russion Revolution largely did not.
Sounds to me like Dr. Kraynak is wrong again (but I only have your claims to go on).
Report comment to moderator
#33: who gives us our rights and freedoms
Surely you understand that religion isn’t about rights and freedom, but restriction and suppression?
Report comment to moderator
Your religion may be about restriction and suppression, RDEAN, but mine isn’t. I follow Jesus who said, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free!” John, chapter 8.
Report comment to moderator
No Joel, you don’t just have my words to go on. I’ve given you a link to a long address Dr. Kraynak gave to the Family Research Council.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WT04C02
Re the American and French Revolutions, the French, like the Americans, also appealed to a generic deity as the guarantor of their political rights. The addage common in the American Revolution “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God,” fits just as well with the ideals of the French Revolution as it did with those of the American.
As far as God ordaining government, Paul in Romans 13 noted this in the context of commanding submission to an unelected pagan tyrant — Nero. The Declaration of Independence notes men have God-given unalienable rights and may engage in political rebellion if governments don’t secure those rights, the exact opposite of what Paul seems to be saying in Romans 13 (that you submit to governing authorities, no matter who they are, because they are ordained by God).
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
I simply disagree with a few things that you said that Dr. Kraynak believes or teaches. You are using some person of whom I have not heard or read as some sort of authority. It’s a non-point to me. From your descriptions, he sounds incorrect.
The French Revolution was virulently anti-clerical and anti-Catholic. They stole tons of property from the church and church leaders were targeted for executions. They did have worship services in parks to nature deities though during the French Rev. and they paid lip service to the god of Reason.
This is QUITE different from what we saw in America’s founding. It was very pro-church, pro-faith and pro freedom for faith and for churches. That was not at all true of the French Revolution. Polar opposites on that score.
There is no literal context of commanding submission to Nero in particular in Romans 13. Re-read the text.
Report comment to moderator
I do know Romans 13 quite well and apparently you don’t realize that Nero was the ruler Paul was commanding believers at that time to submit to.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, I think you are not reading my comments carefully.
Once again, I wrote; “There is no literal context of [Paul] commanding submission to Nero in particular in Romans 13.”
That’s true, is it not?
Of course I know that Nero was likely the emperor when Paul wrote this letter but if you will actually read Paul’s words in Romans 13, he is talking about submission to governing authorities (plural) in general, not to Nero in particular. I was clear in my distinction.
Report comment to moderator
That’s a distinction without a difference. Nero’s specific rulership fit within the general rule. The net effect of Paul’s command was that believers are to submit to ruling authorities whether “just” and “godly” or unelected pagan tyrants like Nero. This makes the act of political rebellion (aka revolution) arguably unbiblical.
Report comment to moderator
Some of the most important social progress we have made in America (especially against slavery and for civil rights and also for greater respect for life) came because preachers & ministers had the courage to mix religion with politics.
Yes, it must be stated that we are making progress (not enough, admittedly) against the abortion industry in that there are several hundred thousand fewer abortions a year now than in the early 90s (according to recent repots).
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark at #33: Christian America is not nonsense. We originated as a Christian nation with a secular government. There’s more to America than government and politics and much of that America was and is Christian. And of couse, much of it is not. But we did begin with the conviction that it is God, not government, who gives us our rights and freedoms. Government is simply the means to preserve them.
There’s nothing specifically Christian about the Founders’ idea of God, though. Many were Christian, some were Deists (Paine indisputably, Jefferson and a few others most likely) and all were keenly aware of the danger of mixing God and government.
The Declaration of Independence refers to “their Creator,” and does not specify it as the God of the Bible. It also refers to “nature’s God,” which fully accords with Deist thought. The Constitution is completely devoid of religious language.
There is no strong case that the Founders saw America as a “Christian nation,” just as one where freedom of conscience, including in matters of religion, would be respected and upheld.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
I thought you meant a denial that Nero was the leader to whom Paul told believers to submit.
I’m amenable to alternate interpretation of that passage — that Romans 13 doesn’t necessarily forbid rebellion in certain circumstances. But it does provide for somewhat of a stumbling block to believers who want to rebel or refuse to submit to government. And nowhere in the Bible is there a “right” to rebel ala America’s Declaration of Independence.
I do see a distinction between “submit” and “obey.” If government commands a believer to sin, or what’s clearly outlined as sin in the Bible, obviously you can refuse to obey. Just be prepared to accept the legal consequences by submitting to the legal authorities.
Report comment to moderator
Steve,
I agree with most of what you write except I would note Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen and a few other minor figures were the “Deists” among the Founders. The key Founders including Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison and Washington were neither Deists nor Christians, but something in between with rationalism as the trumping element. The term of art that an evangelical scholar coined is “theistic rationalists.”
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
It’s a distinction I was making simply for accuracy’s sake which I made clear in my comment. It just seemed to me that you missed it.
When Paul wrote to the Romans, he was not sure he would ever get there personally. It was also befre the Neroian persecutions of Christians got hot. Yet, Years earlier, Claudius had exiled the Christians and Jews from Rome and they had recently returned. So there was a history of tension already. Paul wanted the Christian community in Rome to keep the peace with the powers and authorities and not be seen as a threat for rebellion. Well, they soon got mistreated as perceived threats anyhow.
I don’t think that Paul’s words were meant to imply that governing authorities are beyond accountability either. In general principle, Christians should be good citizens and not be agitators. Paul was speaking to general principle in my view.
If I lived in 1776 and had the Christian convictions that I carry now, I would understand and respect any Christian who chose not to rebel based on Romans 13. History teaches that the vast majority of Revolutions do not culminate with a net benefit, especially for the people. Often one tyrany replaces another.
The American Revolution turnhed out to be rather special in my view. It did result in net gains for the people and the world. But I have the benefit of hindsight and I respect both sides of the debate and difficulty faced by those at the time who faced huge risks either way and had no luxury of hindsight.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
Re 48, points well taken.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG,
I include as Founders of America, the Puritan Founders as well. They provided much of the groundwork, the culture and values, that made us ripe soil for the political founders of the late 18th century who carried us to the next level.
For me, the founding of America was a fascinating process and is not limited to the 1770 & 80s, because America is not limited to its political structure and documents.
Report comment to moderator
My assessment is that Washington, Adams, Benjamin Rush, Madison and other founders were independent-minded Christians, at least that’s how they saw themselves. We can let God judge that view in specific for Himself in the end.
What matters as founders is their respect for the Christian faith and for the free-expression thereof in this country.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
When I say that we are generally a Christian nation with a secular government, and you take issue, is it that you disagree that we have a secular government or that we are largely Christian in our heritage and our make-up?
As a Christian myself, I don’t mind haveing a basically secular government as long as it affirms our right to believe and practice our faith freely. And that right goes also to those who don’t believe. The only danger, in my view, is when people want to use government to establish “secularism” into some sort of state religion, as it were. I think we made it some 200 years without establishing any “ism” as a state religion but it takes vigilence to keep the healthy balance.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!