Sunday, July 04, 2004
One Nation, Under God
...As Neuhaus tells the story, America has now been drawn into a monumental struggle between Islam and the Christian West, a struggle that is spurring Americans to reclaim their identity as citizens of a Christian nation. In this sense, the post-September 11 display of patriotism can be taken as a hopeful development. The flags, the patriotic songs on the radio, the teachers and students praying at school, the upsurge in church attendance—all these are signs of America undergoing its restoration as a Christian nation.
What is ironic about this depiction of the nation is that in the fall of 1996 Neuhaus & Company were raising fundamental questions about the tenuous state of American democracy—calling America a "regime" and "the tyrant state"—and even suggesting the need for civil disobedience. Yet in the fall of 2001 democracy in America is the beacon of freedom, human rights, and human dignity for the rest of the world. How are we to explain this remarkable shift in thematics? Surely it has something to do with the election of President Bush in the intervening years, which, in the worldview of the neo-conservatives, buoyed the condition of the nation. But this points to a deeper reason that strikes closer to the heart of the issue. The reason is that Neuhaus has linked the destiny of Christianity to the future of liberal democratic nations in the Christian West, in particular to the future of what he considers to be the leader among these nations, the United States of America. As a result, the struggle to reclaim America as a Christian nation gets transmuted into a struggle over the terrestrial future of Christianity itself, a struggle of almost ultimate significance. In this context, reservations about America quickly move into the background for the sake of prevailing in the broader struggle for the survival of America and the Christian West.
To be fair, we should note that Neuhaus reminds us that Christians place their ultimate loyalty in no earthly city but in the city that is their final destination, the heavenly Jerusalem—an eschatological proviso, so to speak, meant to safeguard against an idolatrous allegiance to country. But no safeguard is effective without an accompanying ecclesiological proviso, without a positive and substantive account of the church.
Interestingly, there is no such account in Neuhaus's editorial. There are plenty of references to God, to Christians, to the Judeo-Christian tradition, to America as a Christian nation, but no clear references to the church....
...It is repeatedly maintained, for example, that God's blessing upon America as a nation has its roots in the "godly" perspectives and objectives of its founding fathers. To make such an assertion demonstrates either a complete ignorance of America's early history or, worse yet, an act of deliberate revisionism.
The truth is that a majority of our country's founders were non- evangelicals and many were Masons . They may have indeed used numerous references to "God" in their writings, but most of them knew nothing of the grace of God in Jesus Christ. Thomas Jefferson, for example, the man who contributed more to the framing or our constitution than anyone else, was a deist and hardly a model of moral rectitude. Accounts of his philandering and marital infidelity are well documented. And the so-called "Jefferson Bible," assumed by some to provide evidence of his commitment to Christian principles, was actually a bible lie had cut up with a pair of scissors to remove all references to such things as the shedding of blood for the remission of sins. He wanted nothing to do with the cross, and by the time he had finished with his “bible,” all that remained was a collection of platitudes he could use to add an apparent “godly” air to his political postulations. Benjamin Franklin, another major contributor to our founding literature, was a Rosicrucian who had no interest whatsoever in the truth as it has been revealed in and through Jesus Christ. ...
...To use Jesus' “good tree/good fruit vs. bad tree/bad fruit” principle as a standard for choosing politicians is also a serious misuse of Scripture. Jesus gave us those criteria to provide a way to identify true believers, not to select an acceptable slate of political candidates. If we were to actually apply Jesus' analogy as a standard for selecting our leaders, we would have to conclude that any politician — Republican, Democrat, Whig or Tory — that is not a believer is a “bad tree,” incapable of producing “good fruit.” ...
...Instead of crusading and picketing against all of the perceived evils in our culture, believers would better glorify Christ by leading the way in concrete acts of kindness and love. Instead of complaining about our government's tendency to waste money on useless programs, believers should open their hearts and their purses to care for the poor and needy. Instead of blocking the doors to abortion clinics (or worse), they should open the doors of their homes to pregnant women who don't need a “Pro-life” lecture, but a clear presentation of the gospel and loving assistance in carrying their babies to term. Instead of fighting to have “prayer in the classrooms” of our public schools, believers should be spending more time in prayer themselves. Instead of suing for the right to display a nativity scene in the public square believers should be “using the, public square” to tell anyone who will listen about the grace of God in Jesus Christ. These are but a few of the practical ways believers can demonstrate the love of Christ instead of becoming objects of ridicule by constantly engaging in all of the negative rhetoric about how bad our society is.
As we have contemplated these issues, we have become increasingly convinced that it is a serious mistake for believers to identify with any political party or “ism” in this world. Rather than to show a commitment to certain causes, identification with. a particular political party has the effect of compromising the effectiveness of a believer's witness. By aligning ourselves with a particular political party, we often unwittingly alienate those who may identify with an opposing party, thus unnecessarily erecting a stumbling block that can only hinder the credibility of our witness to Jesus Christ. We are certainly free to evaluate the relative merits of the various political systems in our culture and to hold whatever convictions about such matters as seem appropriate in light of the teaching of God's word. But we also know that political affiliations are a source of much strife and contention all over the world. Should we not, therefore, avoid unnecessary alienation from those we hope to evangelize by not wearing such political convictions on our sleeves?
To the Jews, wrote Paul, I became like a Jew, to win the Jews ... To those not having the law I became like one not having the law . . . so as to win those not having the law. . . To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do this for the sake of the gospel, that I might share in its blessings" [Ist Corinthians 9:20-23]. Should we not say, “To the Republicans I became like a Republican to win the Republicans,” or, “To the Democrats I became like a Democrat to win the' Democrats”? Again, we are not saying that we must chuck all of our private views and convictions about political issues. We are simply suggesting that the gospel would be better served if we kept such things to ourselves when witnessing to the lost.
We can illustrate this principle by considering a well-known preacher/politician. Assuming for the sake of our illustration that Jesse Jackson is truly the believer he claims to be, does his strong political association with the liberal wing of the Democratic party and his identification with “black causes” serve to aid or hinder the effectiveness of his witness? Suppose he had a burden to share the gospel with an unsaved person who happened to be equally strongly committed to the conservative wing of the Republican party. Do you really think that Mr. Jackson's political image would not create a stumbling block to sharing the gospel? Or, suppose he had a burden to witness to an unsaved white person who also happened to be an enemy of the government's “affirmative action” policies. Do you really think Mr. Jackson's well-known participation in “black activism” would not make it more difficult to gain the ear of such a person? Let's come at the problem from a different direction. When you hear the name “Jesse Jackson,” what first comes to mind? Do you immediately think of one committed to the gospel of Jesus Christ, or do you picture someone well known for his political exploits?
Again, we have no reason or desire to cast aspersions on Mr. Jackson's profession of faith. Nor do we deny his right to hold whatever political views he deems appropriate. The issue is whether the public personality he has created for himself by his various political affiliations aids or hinders his effectiveness as a “minister” of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We think the latter. He has placed himself in a position where it is impossible for him to be “all things to all men.” We could just as well have used Pat Robertson — another “preacher/politician” — to illustrate our point. All we would have to do is reverse the political party references. Considered together, in fact, these two public figures illustrate our point even more poignantly. What if an equal number of believers who support each of these two men were to find themselves called to fellowship within the same local assembly? Do you think their political polarization would aid or hinder their willingness to make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace [Ephesians 4:3]? Would they be able to set aside their role as political adversaries to be of one mind [2nd Corinthians 13:11] in spiritual matters? Not likely. ...
That Deism was the true revolutionary influence in the political, social and economic life of colonial America during the eighteenth century is increasingly recognized by historians of many schools. Ultimately it provided that political philosophy which would produce the American Revolution. At the same time, it brought in its wake a new theological outlook which was quite conducive to revolutionary activity. It is not too much to say that the separation from England could not have taken place unless there had first been a revolt against the Puritan world and life view in the colonies. That is to say that it was the profound shift away from orthodox Christian belief that is at the roots of American democracy....
Before the founding and expansion of Israel, dispensationalists were more or less content to teach their doctrine, look for signs of the times, and predict in sometimes great detail what was going to happen in the future. They were history's great spectators and explainers: They had the "sure word of Bible prophecy" to help them interpret world events and show how such events were leading to Christ's return. As futurist premillennialists, they believed that they would be raptured before most end-times events actually took place, but they expected to be here long enough to see history moving decisively in a predetermined direction. In essence, they sat high in the bleachers on history's fifty-yard line, watching as various teams took their positions on the playing field below and explaining to everyone who would listen how the game was going to end. For the first one hundred years of their movement, then, they were observers, not shapers, of events.
But all that changed after Israel reclaimed its place in Palestine and expanded its borders. For the first time, dispensationalists believed that it was necessary to leave the bleachers and get onto the playing field to make sure the game ended according to the divine script. As the world edged closer and closer to the end, dispensationalists became important players in their own game plan. When they shifted from observers to participants, they ran the risk of turning their predictions into self-fulfilling prophecies.
Since the Six-Day War, then, American dispensationalists have taken a much more hands-on approach. Fearing for Israel's security, dispensationalists have become more than predictors of Israel's future. They have organized politically to offer various kinds of support to the Jewish state. They have forged strong and unprecedented relationships, much to the surprise and dismay of people on the left. At the same time, dispensationalists have continued to seek the conversion of Jews to Christ, though their close personal and political ties to Jews and Israel have sometimes complicated their evangelistic enterprise. By the end of the twentieth century, dispensationalists were Israel's best friends, for better and, as we will see in the next chapter, for worse....
