Are we a Christian Nation?

This was a hotly debated topic on a yahoo group I belong to, so I decided to post some of my answers here.
___________________________________________________________________

Its a very sticky issue in my opinion. I took the question to mean are we still culturally a Christian Nation? I think my mind dismisses the notion of a theocracy so quickly that I assumed you meant culturally Christian.

I think we'd all agree that our system of law and justice was written by men who held predominantly Christian values and that what they wrote was heavily influenced by the bible. One of the values our founders upheld was separation of church and state: the complete opposite of a theocracy. Context is very important when examining something static, like a written document. This is a great example of the need for context because we can't forget that Christ made all of his comments in a theocratic state when that was the norm. We read his comments from a secular state in a time where there are very few theocracies left. (Ironically most of those that remain are Muslim.)

So it would be far easier for us to answer the question, "have we fallen away from the values of our founding fathers?" As opposed to something as open ended as, "Are we still a Christian nation?" Even that first question is tough though. Our nation was born in a time of revolution, in the midst of a period of expansion and colonialism. We were forged alongside the birth of the age of reason. We forget these day how many of the founding fathers were deists. They believed that God set the world in motion and then sat back to observe instead of interfering. That was not a new belief, but it was popular at the time because modernism came from a core belief that everything could be explained given enough time. The founding fathers were very effected by the age they lived in and it effected their Christianity.

I grew up in a religion that sought to explain everything. There was surely a correct bible principle that could be derived from scripture. Toward that end, great effort was made to cobble together proof texts by subject and create a consistent opinion on every belief. They were a denomination forged in modern thought.

Our founding fathers were actually being radically innovative by suggesting that power (authority) came from the people and not from the king. In a premodern thought the King got his power from God so to challenge him was to rebel against God. So the founders were really making a pretty anti-Christian statement by saying the government derived authority from those governed. Most of us would hesitate to put that kind of responsibility on sinful man when it could come from God. Yet here we have highly conservative churches that are extremely influenced by modernist thought. So how much were the founding father's values leaning on Christianity? How much on anti-Christianity?

As a post-modernist, I practically get stoned in the church parking lot for suggesting that there may be more than one way to look at things. Like a husband who walks around the north side of a barn following deer tracks and a wife who walks along the south side looking at wild flowers. On the drive home they start arguing whether the barn was red of green. They were both right the north side was painted red and the south side green. The issue is perspective and what a shame it would be for the couple to get divorced over something they were both right about. Yet we take things to the extreme politically and religiously all the time when its merely a matter of perspective. Worst of all we are missing the key lesson--that God might create people differently, with unique perspectives, because God is larger than both extremes.

Bringing it back to the question at hand, especially Brian's post--How do we deal with the idea that heaven is a kingdom, yet the best way to rule on earth seems to be democracy?

When answering such questions, we often look at times Christ was asked questions about reconciling his Jewishness with living under Roman law. I find the more telling answer from the time when Christ was asked about Jewish law. He was asked which commandment was greatest and he answered love. Were the commandments invalid? Surely not. But what are they worth apart from the context of love? The pharisees had turned them into a club and used them to beat people.

To me there is no difference between the law of the land, Roman Law, and the Rules of Religion, "Mosaic Law." Its all still made from a sin perspective. Well at least Mosaic Law was laid down by God, what we have now is entirely man made--biblically based--but entirely man made. It's all still from a sin perspective. Find me a church that doesn't have a policy and procedures manual. They need one because its unfair to respond one way to one crisis and then respond differently when someone else has the same problem. That is fair. At least its what passes for fairness on earth. What does God say is fair? What about turning the other cheek? First shall be last and last first? Going the extra mile? What about dieing for the crimes of another?

All of Christ's comments need to be understood as coming from a divine perspective. It isn't how things work here on this planet but we are still called to be like him. That's what it means to be a Christian, right? Well at least that's part of it. We live in a time that most reminds me of Judges. Everyone does what they think is right. So no matter what laws we abide by we must have Christ's perspective or it won't work. It's a paradox but its got God all over it.

P.S. This all counts double when it comes to Authority. I can't count the number of religions types that insist I need to be under someone's authority.If you want a picture of Godly authority read chapter 8 in "The Shack."

Therefore: it is right to help illegal immigrants. It is also right to vote to tighten or close our borders. It is wrong to exploit an illegal worker though they are today's slave class. Can you vote them into your church? Absolutely. But why on earth should you bother having a membership? Are you sure that you should be voting people in? Isn't it a kingdom, under "authority?"

A. R. Bunch