*By Larry G. Truitt | Ramblings of a Country Preacher*
*An opinion and biblical reflection*
I often hear people say, “America was founded as a Christian nation.” When
asked what they mean, they point to churches, the faith of early settlers,
biblical language in public speeches, and the influence of Christian
morality.
I acknowledge that influence. Christianity has helped shape American thought,
institutions, and public life. But influence and obedience are different
things. A nation can borrow Christianity's language while refusing Christ's commandments.
That is the distinction I believe we must face honestly. When I question
whether America has ever been a Christian nation, I am questioning whether the
name accurately describes our national conduct. I am not denying the faithful
Christians who have lived here.
Jesus asked:
> “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?”
> —Luke 6:46, KJV
That question reaches beyond an individual profession. It challenges churches
and every public claim made in His name.
Christian influence deserves an honest
definition
Christian influence can mean that biblical ideas helped shape moral
convictions, that churches established ministries, or that believers worked to
relieve suffering. Those influences deserve acknowledgment.
But Christianity's presence in a society does not establish that everything the
society does is Christian. Neither does the faith of some founders make every
institution they established an expression of obedience to Jesus.
The federal Constitution established no Christian church or Christian
profession as the basis of national membership. Article VI prohibited religious
tests for federal office, and the First Amendment protected religious exercise
while prohibiting Congress from establishing religion. Early state arrangements
differed, and some supported churches through taxation.[1]
That history matters. Yet my concern goes deeper than constitutional wording.
Even an official declaration of Christianity would leave the question of
obedience unanswered.
> “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.”
> —1 John 2:3, KJV
Religious persecution cannot be made
Christian by religious language
Consider the Puritan authorities in Massachusetts. They sought to maintain a
religious society, but denied liberty of conscience to those whose beliefs
challenged their own. Quakers, Baptists, Catholics, and other dissenters faced
exclusion. Four Quakers were executed between 1659 and 1661. Mary Dyer was
hanged in 1660 after returning from banishment.[2]
These were colonial events, before the United States existed. Nevertheless,
they belong to the history frequently invoked when people describe America's
Christian beginnings.
How does hanging a religious dissenter demonstrate obedience to Jesus? How does
punishing a Catholic or a Quaker for conscience fulfill the command to love our
neighbors?
> “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate
you.”
> —Matthew 5:44, KJV
Those who persecuted others may have sincerely believed they were defending
truth. Sincerity did not make their methods faithful to Christ. Religious power
became a means of coercion.
As a Friends pastor, I cannot celebrate the Christian character of colonial
society without remembering the Friends who suffered under its authorities.
A Bible in the hand did not justify
slavery
Slavery presents another searching question. People could attend church, hear
sermons, and speak of God's providence while claiming ownership of other human
beings.
How could a person profess Christian love while treating another person's
labor, body, and family as property?
Jesus gave a command plain enough for anyone willing to apply it:
> “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye
even so to them.”
> —Matthew 7:12, KJV
Would the slaveholder willingly have exchanged places with the enslaved?
Christian abolitionists challenged that contradiction. Quaker Benjamin Lay
condemned slavery among those claiming the Christian religion. We must also
acknowledge that some Quakers owned slaves. Our own religious heritage must
undergo the examination we apply to others.[3]
Faithful Christians who resisted slavery deserve remembrance. Their witness
also shows why “Christian influence” cannot be treated as one undivided force:
religious people appealed to Christianity both to defend an oppressive system
and to demand its abolition.
The moral question must therefore reach beyond who quoted Scripture. It must
ask how Scripture was interpreted and whether the resulting conduct obeyed
Christ.
Native peoples deserved the love we
professed
The treatment of Native Americans also challenges comfortable stories about
Christian America.
One documented example is the federal Indian boarding school system. Religious
organizations participated in a system that sought to assimilate Native
children, including through the suppression of their languages, religions, and
cultural practices.[4]
Calling a program Christian education did not establish that its methods
followed Jesus.
Having served among Native people, I take this question seriously: Did those
who came speaking of Christ honor the people before them as neighbors? Did they
recognize their dignity, listen to them, and treat their families with love?
The gospel gives us no permission to despise a person's ancestry or to confuse
conversion to Christ with the destruction of a people's identity. Christian ministry
must answer for its methods as well as its stated intentions.
Religious language can become a covering
for evil
This is my central concern: America has repeatedly wrapped wrongdoing in
religious language.
That does not mean every expression of public faith is dishonest. It means that
invoking God can become a way to avoid the moral scrutiny His commandments
require.
Jeremiah confronted people who trusted their connection with the LORD's temple
while continuing in injustice. In Jeremiah 7, God demanded changed conduct
toward neighbors, strangers, the fatherless, and widows, and an end to shedding
innocent blood.
The temple's presence did not excuse their behavior.
Neither can our church buildings, public prayers, or patriotic references to
God excuse ours.
> “They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him.”
> —Titus 1:16, KJV
Religious words become dangerous when they persuade us that our side no longer
needs correction.
Presidents must be measured by the same
commandments
My concern about religious defenses of Donald Trump is this: whenever
supporters claim God's approval for him, his conduct still must be examined by
the commandments of Christ.
The same standard applies to every president and every political party.
Calling a leader God's instrument cannot excuse dishonesty, cruelty, pride, or
injustice. Believing God permitted someone to hold office does not establish
that God approves everything that person does.
We should examine specific words and actions honestly. Supporting a candidate
does not mean endorsing every decision. But Christians are responsible for the
wrongdoing they knowingly defend and the claims about God they make.
When we condemn misconduct in an opponent and excuse it in an ally, we
surrender our moral credibility. When political victory becomes our evidence of
God's approval, we risk mistaking power for righteousness.
The church must retain the freedom to call its own preferred leaders to
repentance.
Christian morality must reach the
neighbor we would rather overlook
A nation influenced by Christian morality may recognize some Christian
principles without consistently living by them. That influence can produce real
good, but its reach must be examined.
Does our concern for truth extend to claims that help our political side? Does
our defense of religious liberty extend to those whose doctrines we reject?
Does our concern for innocent life extend across national borders? Does our
love of neighbor include the poor, the stranger, and the person we fear?
Jesus did not give us permission to stop obeying when obedience became
politically inconvenient.
> “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one
to another.”
> —John 13:35, KJV
We are saved by grace through faith. Obedience is the fruit of that faith, and
persistent, defended disobedience calls our profession into question.
The name must answer to the life
I love this country enough to believe it should tell the truth about itself.
America has experienced Christian influence. Faithful believers have served
their neighbors, confronted injustice, and borne costly witness here. America
has also permitted grave wrongs to be defended in Christian language.
Both belong in an honest account.
My objection is to treating Christian influence as proof of national
righteousness. The history of persecution, slavery, and the mistreatment of
Native peoples demands a more searching judgment.
A Bible in the courthouse does not excuse a whipping post outside it. A church
steeple does not sanctify a slave market. Speaking the name of Jesus does not
transform oppression into Christian love.
The question I want the church to ask is whether we are obeying the Christ
whose name we claim.
> “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own
selves.”
> —James 1:22, KJV
When we have sinned, we need repentance. When we have harmed others, we need to
seek justice and make things right. When we have used religion to excuse
wrongdoing, we need the courage to confess it.
**Being called Christian must never take the place of living in obedience to
Jesus Christ.**
---
Historical sources
1. [National Archives:
Constitution](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript);
[Bill of
Rights](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript);
[Library of Congress: Religion and the State Governments](https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html).
2. [Massachusetts Archives: Quakers in Massachusetts,
1656–1781](https://digitalarchives.sec.state.ma.us/quakers/); [Massachusetts
Commonwealth Museum: Religious
Intolerance](https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/commonwealth-museum/exhibits/online/two-colonies/a-tale-of-two-colonies_15.htm).
3. [Library of Congress: Abolition and Anti-Slavery
Movements](https://loc.gov/exhibits/african-american-odyssey/abolition.html).
4. [Department of the Interior: Federal Indian Boarding School
Investigation](https://www.doi.gov/node/40661); [Bureau of Indian Affairs:
Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative](https://www.bia.gov/service/federal-indian-boarding-school-initiative).
No comments:
Post a Comment