The United States as a Christian Nation
Social Causes Dominate Religious Agendas without a Biblical Basis
Many Americans like to identify the United States as a “Christian” nation. This becomes a very relative notion in that not all will agree with what it means to be a “Christian” nation. Religion has played and still does play a significant part in American politics, perhaps more in the decades preceding the 1960s. The identification of the so-called “moral majority” in the late twentieth century wedded religion and conservative politics even more and forced candidates to appeal to significant groups within the electorate. Additionally, social issues such as abortion and same sex marriage have galvanized strong religious lobbyist movements. Yet, to what extent does any of this point to a “Christian” nation?
Contemporary Christians are Unlike those of History
Contemporary Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, represent large communities that frequently pool lobbying power to affect social issues and legislation that either supports or infringes on their agendas. For the Catholic Church, utmost priority is given to the elimination of abortion and the recent communication by the Bishop’s Conference to Barack Obama highlights this. [1] The January March For Life is still chiefly a Catholic affair.
Modern Christians take their call to action from social and egalitarian considerations: extensive charities that aid the poor both in the United States and abroad; justice for millions of illegal immigrants – predominantly Mexican, environmental stewardship, and an end to indiscriminate wars such as the preemptive foray into Iraq. All of these are good causes. However, in many cases the causes have become the objective basis of religious expression, rather than a consequence of personal and community spiritual commitment.
Although by no means the litmus test of Christian commitment, knowledge of the Bible by modern Christians is generally deficient. Few college students, even in the “Bible Belt,” have fleeting familiarity with either the Old or New Testaments. While it is popular to say, “What would Jesus do?” and wear a WWJD bracelet, few could discuss the life or teachings of Jesus. In some ways Christians could learn well from Muslims that know well their sacred scripture and build upon that knowledge in order to live faith-based lives. [2]
Early Americans knew the Bible well. Reading any portion of 19th century Congressional records, the reader will be struck with the thousands of connections and even direct allusions to Old and New Testament writings. During the Civil War, the American Bible Society made it priority to issue a Bible to every soldier on either side of the conflict. [3]
Causes Flow out of Personal Knowledge
The story is told that former Civil War general, Lew Wallace, wanted to write a story discounting the resurrection of Jesus. The result of his inquiry was the book Ben Hur, a powerful story of redemption. [4] Where biblical knowledge was once a staple in every home and the teaching of the Bible was the focal point of Sunday School classes and sermons, today’s Christians are sustained by platitudes, bumper stickers, and homilies devoted to social considerations.
Yet this is to be expected. What is to be believed? Subjected to literary and theological criticism, the sacred scripture of Christendom is no longer seen as a “scripture.” It is part historical, part metaphorical, part allegorical, is full of internal contradictions, etc. Or so the scholars say. By “deconstructing” the Bible, scholars have undercut the basis for religious commitment as well as the basis of Christian charity and social causes.
Sacred scripture cannot be legitimized in the same way a Shakespearian play might be subjected to tests of authenticity. The very nature of religion and faith rejects this approach. Religion in America in the twenty-first century is a hybrid of theological and exegetical deconstruction and this has left the average adherent with nothing more than worthy causes to champion, in the name of religion, but without underlying authority or commitment.
[1[ Baltimore Bishop's Conference, November 16, 2008
[2] See Bible Literacy Report, April 2005 at BibleLiteracy. Further observations from author's college classroom experiences.
[3] See Ronald C. White, Lincoln's Greatest Speech: The Second Inaugural (Simon & Schuster, 2002) Chapter 5.
[4] Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict Vol. I, (Thomas Nelson, 1992)
see also:
Paul Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in the Modern American Culture (Harvard University Press, 1992)
Bible
|
What do you think about this article?
Comments
Latest Articles