Americanized Christianity: What is Love?

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person – though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die – but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation (Romans 5:1-11).

While the author claims to provide a beginning point for people to dissect their Americanized Christianity, so that they might “return home to the life and message of Jesus,” reading the list of ten signs he presents might lead one to suspect that Benjamin Corey has a political agenda, rather than a religious one. I don’t want to address each point of contention I have with this article, 10 Ways To Determine If Your Christianity Has Been “Americanized,” as to do so would call for something much longer and more tedious than I have the time or inclination to undertake currently. Instead, I have chosen several sections from the article which, I believe, sum up the main ideas and where it is off-track. You can find the original piece here. Read it, it’s not that long, and is interesting, even if written in a disdainful tone. He starts right off with the whole “the early Christians were Communistic pacifists” argument:

If your primary identity is legitimately that of a Christian, you’ll be open to learning about Christianity as it was taught and lived by the earliest Christians. However, from an American mindset, original Christianity and the first Christians appear nuts: they were universally nonviolent (against capital punishment, abortion, military service and killing in self-defense), rejected individual ownership of property in order to redistribute their wealth (Acts 2:44-45, Acts 4:35), and rejected any involvement with the government. When reading about them they seem rather un-American, and this will cause frustration or disbelief among those in Americanized Christianity (Corey 2015).

While Christianity is certainly non-violent, it is not “against” such things as capital punishment, military service, and killing in self-defense. The Fifth Commandment says, “You shall not murder.” Luther’s explanation of the Fifth Commandment sums up the meaning of this commandment, in light of Christ’s words, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount:

We should fear and love God so that we do not hurt or harm our neighbor in his body, but help and support him in every bodily need (Concordia Publishing House 1991).

This, however, does not mean that no one has authority to take another person’s life. Romans 13 commands us to submit to the governing authorities:

…for he [government] is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer (Romans 13:4).

Paul acknowledges here that governments, some of which carry out capital punishment, are authorities instituted by God. As such, we are to submit to them, at least until they command and act contrary to God’s Word. This would hardly constitute Paul – an early Christian – being “against” capital punishment. Furthermore, Paul continues to write contrary to Corey’s statement that the early Christians rejected any involvement with the government.

Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed (Romans 13:5-7).

The early Christians certainly may not have been in positions of authority within the government of the Roman Empire, but that does not mean they viewed governmental authority and submission to such authority and law as evil. To the contrary, we are commanded to serve the authorities instituted by God by gladly providing what they need or require (Concordia Publishing House 1991). Regarding their possessions, Acts 4:32 tells us that they (the believers) “had everything in common.” Rather than being an endorsement of communism, this scene gives us a glimpse of a restored creation.

God gives us property and resources for our neighbor’s benefit. The early Christians fully shared with one another, but not in the same way as the failed communist experiments of the twentieth century. Here there is no compulsion or involvement of the State – only believers are affected, and only goods are shared, not their production (Engelbrecht 2009).

This illustrates what is meant by a phrase popular among Confessional Lutherans, “God doesn’t need your good works. Your neighbor does.” I would also note that the believers are helping each other, not selling their property and goods to do charity work in the pagan slums.

Corey, in his second point, begins talking about love, and it is with this subject that we get to the real heart of the issue:

The chief calling of a Christ-follower is to love others. Whether a neighbor across the street, or an enemy across the world, Christ’s command is abundantly clear: we are to love one another. If your initial posture toward Muslims is that of viewing them as a threat instead of viewing them as people Jesus has commanded we radically and self-sacrificially love, then your Christianity might be Americanized (Corey 2015).

Is the chief calling of a “Christ-follower” really just to love others without condition? The chief calling of a Christian is to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that Jesus has commanded (Matthew 28:19). Love comes as a by-product of making Christians. Christians are commanded by Jesus to imitate the self-sacrificial love Christ showed by going to the cross, so that the world would recognize them as his disciples.

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another (John 13:34.35).

Paul presents this teaching again in Ephesians:

Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God (Ephesians 5:1-2).

What, to borrow a question from Haddaway, is love? Reading Corey’s piece one would get the impression that real love consists of serving real people around you, unconditional tolerance and acceptance of illegal aliens, homosexuality, and support for the welfare state.

Jesus calls us to get busy serving the least of these– to get our hands dirty, to embrace the position of “servant of everyone,” and to pour ourselves out as we endeavor to change the world right where we are. America on the other hand, invites us to view political power and force of government as the solution to the world’s problems, and that’s a tempting offer for both liberals and conservatives. If you’re more focused on what they could do than what you can do, your Christianity might be Americanized…If you advocate cutting government programs for the poor but don’t actually tithe yourself…If you say “we’re a nation of laws” in reference to immigrants faster than you quote what the Bible says about immigrants…If you think Paul’s prohibition on female teachers is straightforward, but Jesus’ teaching on enemy love is somehow open to a thousand degrees of nuance…Somewhere along the line, the Americanized version of Christianity taught us that defeating gay marriage was perhaps the most pressing issue of our time. Sadly, as Americans we’re taught to be self-centered and this is an incredibly self-centered view that completely ignores the global issues of our time. It is the mistaken identity that our issues are the issues. The most pressing issues of our time? Let’s start with the fact that 750 million people around the world don’t even have access to clean water or that 805 million people are chronically malnourished (Corey 2015).

Corey raises some interesting issues. This isn’t love, though. This is an enumeration of a political platform. Our primary concern shouldn’t be about “what I can do” to “change the world.” Both Christians and non-Christians can, and do, hold positions on all of these issues. And while love does manifest itself in good works for our neighbor, focusing on these works first is to put the emphasis in the wrong place. We should hate what is evil, Paul says, and cling to what is good. As Christians, speaking in terms of our relationship with the secular world, we should live at peace with everyone, insofar as it depends on us, and serve our neighbor in our vocation.

Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality (Romans 12:9-13).

Well-meaning Christians who look around and see all sorts of social problems chastise their fellow believers for not loving their neighbor. You must love your neighbor! You must be loving and tolerant of homosexuals. You must care for the needy! You must show compassion to immigrants, both legal and illegal! And, if you don't do these things precisely the way I deem acceptable, I will - lovingly, tolerantly, acceptingly - call you all kinds of names like Pharisee, insult you, and say you aren't a good Christian.

The thing which people who think like this don't get, however, is from where the love to which they exhort us comes. They think it comes from us. You're a Christian? Great! Get busy loving your neighbor. The more love you exhibit (Corey calls this “getting your hands dirty…”read do good works) the more evidence that you're really a proper Christian. Except, the love Jesus describes doesn't come from us, it comes from him. He commands us to be perfect, as our Heavenly Father is perfect. That's something we cannot do. 

They also forget that Paul told us to abhor what is evil.

Rather than being intentional acts which we perform to be better Christians, our good works flow from us organically; they are products of our New Man, the new creation God has made us into. Moreover, the good works which we do don't originate with us, even though we perform them. God has prepared them for us to do (Ephesians 2:10).

It's irritating to me to hear someone admonish The Church for not being loving enough, or Christ-like enough, or "whatever" enough. I already know I'm not a good Christian. But you aren't either. The Christian church is made up of sinners. We all need to repent, and believe the Gospel, and be forgiven.

Being tolerant and accepting of homosexual behavior, or people who disregard the laws of the nation, is not loving, it's easy. It certainly isn’t Biblical. When Christians unconditionally accept unrepentant homosexuals into their fellowships, and advocate politically for illegal aliens without condition, it may seem loving to the secular world, and it may feel good to those who are doing it, but it's not love. It is simply a way of avoiding a negative reaction from the secular and politically correct society in which we live. In fact, if we treat sinners – any sinner – this way and simply tell them that we love and accept them without delivering to them Law and Gospel, we do them the worst disservice. Paul continues expounding Jesus’ command to love in Ephesians chapter five, with an important, “but…”

But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God (Ephesians 5:3-5).

And, Paul doesn’t speak only of homosexuality (sexual immorality) as though it is some special, more grievous sin which is unforgivable. He includes all sin when he talks about what should not be named among us, and abhorred, and will disqualify us from our inheritance:

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:19-21).

Homosexuals, illegal aliens, adulterers, murders, liars, thieves, the self-righteous, gluttons – all people – need to hear that, though they are by nature sinful and unclean, and have sinned against God by their thoughts, word, and deeds, we have forgiveness through the holy, innocent, bitter suffering and death of God's beloved son Jesus Christ. The most loving thing in the world is for The Church to call sinners to repentance, and to believe the gospel. This is the Church's job, rather than being simply a social welfare agency, or leftist political activist group. We must be faithful to this mission and also compassionate in meeting needs. The good thing is though, when the first one happens, the second will follow.

What good is it for The Church to meet the physical needs of a suffering immigrant, if they will spend eternity in Hell because they are an unrepentant sinner? What have we done for the homosexual, if we have simply, oh so tolerantly, invited them to practice their behavior openly, but not called them to repentance? We have not done what Christ has commanded us to, that is certain. I’m not saying that we should forsake the physical needs of people who are suffering, far from it! I am saying that penitent sinners who have faith in Christ will perform good works – They can't help it. If they have a faith that is alive, good works will follow (James 2:22-23). I am also saying that a Christ-less Christianity, devoid of repentance and the forgiveness of sins as described in Corey’s article, which is really nothing more than a social welfare agency or leftist political activist group is no Christianity at all.

Works Cited

Concordia Publishing House. Luther's Small Catechism. Translated by Concordia Publishing House. Saint Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1991.

Corey, Benjamin L. 10 Ways to Determine If Your Christianity Has Been Americanized. Web Article. July 21, 2015.

Engelbrecht, Rev. Edward A., ed. The Lutheran Study Bible. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2009.

A Christian Nation

The Committee of Five:(L to R) John Adams, Roger Sherman,
Robert Livingston, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin.

At the beginning of October conservative news outlets were bemoaning the fact that a controversial statue of the 10 Commandments was removed under cover of darkness from the Oklahoma State Capitol grounds, after the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that its placement was a violation of state law. On social media the story about the removal of the 10 Commandments statue was juxtaposed against a story about a statue of Baphomet being erected in Detroit (Jenkins 2015). Baphomet, for those who aren’t up on their satanic worship, is a goat-headed representation of Satan. The two stories together were meant to show the change in American culture – from a Christian to a pagan, or at least an immoral, nation.

Some lawmakers have promised to bring the issue of using public money and/or property for religious purposes to the voters (KOCO News 5 2015). These legislators have vowed to introduce such a resolution when the Legislature reconvenes in February. KOCO news in Oklahoma City reports the following:

Its placement at the Capitol prompted requests from several groups to have their own monuments installed, including a satanic church in New York that wanted to erect a 7-foot-tall statue that depicts Satan as Baphomet, a goat-headed figure with horns, wings and a long beard. A Hindu leader in Nevada, an animal rights group and the satirical Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster also made requests (KOCO News 5 2015).

The Flying Spaghetti Monster

I am certainly no worshipper of Baphomet or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but this time opponents of the 10 Commandments statue have a point. Either all expressions of religion should be allowed on public property supported by public money, or none should. I tend to lean toward the idea that we should keep the Left and Right hand kingdoms separate. Bruce Prescott, a Baptist minister from Norman, OK who complained the statue violated the state constitution had this to say:

Frankly, I'm glad we finally got the governor and attorney general to agree to let the monument be moved to private property, which is where I believe it's most appropriate…I'm not opposed to the Ten Commandments. The first sermon I ever preached was on the Ten Commandments. I'm just opposed to it being on public property (KOCO News 5 2015).

These cases, we are supposed to believe, illustrate just how far the Christian United States has fallen from the principles of its founding. While the Founding Fathers would certainly be shocked at our careless treatment of the Constitution, the idea that America is a Christian nation just isn't supported by the facts. Certainly Christians were involved in the founding, but so were non-Christian deists and atheists. Also, what I will call American civil religion bears no resemblance to actual Christianity, though it borrows its language and forms. I present four prominent examples from among our Founding Fathers to illustrate my point.

Much is made of the fact that Thomas Jefferson, writer of the Declaration of Independence and third President, published a New Testament. He is often said to have extolled the moral teachings of Jesus as, “…the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man” (Monticello n.d.). His work, however, often called the Jefferson Bible, is anything but orthodox. The Jefferson Bible is notable for its exclusion of all of the miracles of Jesus, or anything supernatural. Jefferson literally used a razor to cut out the moral teachings he admired, pasting them into a volume while leaving out such trifles as the Resurrection and any indication that Jesus was Divine (Monticello n.d.). It is not a work that would be accepted by any orthodox Christian body, and could arguably be called blasphemous. The words recorded in Revelation 22:18-19 come to mind[1]; Jefferson will surely have to give an account for removing and discarding God's word in such a manner.

George Washington is rightly considered Father of Our Country, as the nation looked to him to set precedent and offer guidance during the early days of the republic. Perhaps that is the beginning of the confusion and ambiguity regarding America's collective spirituality. The subject of Washington's religion is still hotly debated today. What we know for certain is that Washington was an Anglican. He served as a vestryman and as a church warden. He attended worship services regularly, but very rarely participated in Communion (Neill 1885). He believed that religion was important to public order, morality, and virtue. Washington also believed in prayer as evidenced in his writings, and his presidential executive orders. When speaking about things religious, he often referred to “God,” “heaven,” and “Providence,” but rarely to Christ, something which is also odd for a devout Christian. This is exemplified by Washington’s National Thanksgiving Proclamation on October 3, 1789:

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us. And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best (Washington 1789).

Washington was also a Freemason, something which would not be tolerated, or at the very least be frowned upon, by orthodox Christian bodies today (The George Washington Masonic National Memorial Association, Inc. n.d.). Judging him by his church participation, and putting the best construction on it, Washington was perhaps a grudging Anglican, who saw religion – specifically Christianity - as a way to provide an additional layer of stability for the nation he was integral in creating.

Though he sometimes wrote and spoke in deistic terms, John Adams was a Christian, who professed that Jesus was the redeemer of mankind. He was a Congregationalist, though later in life he became a Unitarian (McCullough 2008). Confessional LCMS pastors would certainly have barred him from receiving the sacrament of the Altar but, in the context of the Founding Fathers, John Adams was a strong Protestant Christian. He argued with atheist Thomas Paine, who derided orthodox Christianity, and Adams viewed the morality of the Christian religion as important to the life of the country (Paine Relief! n.d.).

Benjamin Franklin considered himself a Christian, but stated in his autobiography that he was a deist (Franklin, Franklin's Autobiography 1916). He believed in "virtue" which, to be certain was informed by his Puritan upbringing, but he did not claim any of the spiritual aspects of the Christian faith. In fact, Franklin wrote in his autobiography that he believed the most acceptable service to God was doing good to man (Franklin, Franklin's Autobiography 1916). In 1728 Franklin published a formal statement of his religious beliefs. This statement omitted any mention of the religious dogma one would expect from even a liberal Puritan. Most conspicuous by its absence was any statement of belief in the divinity of Jesus or in the substitutionary atonement. Even a cursory reading of his statement will show that Christian theology played little part in Franklin’s thinking:

I CONCEIVE then, that the INFINITE has created many Beings or Gods, vastly superior to Man, who can better conceive his Perfections than we, and return him a more rational and glorious Praise. As among Men, the Praise of the Ignorant or of Children, is not regarded by the ingenious Painter or Architect, who is rather honour'd and pleas'd with the Approbation of Wise men and Artists. It may be that these created Gods, are immortal, or it may be that after many Ages, they are changed, and Others supply their Places. Howbeit, I conceive that each of these is exceeding wise, and good, and very powerful; and that Each has made for himself, one glorious Sun, attended with a beautiful and admirable System of Planets. It is that particular wise and good God, who is the Author and Owner of our System, that I propose for the Object of my Praise and Adoration (Franklin, Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion 1728).

Franklin, like many people in our day, wanted to claim the label of Christian while redefining Christianity to be rationalism mixed with whatever "spiritual" things tickled his fancy, as well as with a liberal helping of good works. In fact, I believe it to be true that the "Christianity" of America – American civil religion – is a religion of works.

This is not intended to be an exhaustive survey of the religious beliefs of the founders. These examples, however, show what the founders all seemed to have in common, and it wasn't Christianity; it was moralism. Moralism is not Christianity. Luther once commented:

All religions that depart from the true Christian religion are ex opere operato (by the outward act), that is, teach, 'This I will do, and that will please God.' But one must hold fast to the rule that every opus operatum (outward act...work) is idolatrous (Luther 1967).

There are really only two religions in the world - Christianity, and idolatry. Christianity is characterized by fallen, sinful human beings, who are saved by faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Idolatry, in particular the worship of self, is characterized by man, feeling some vague need for redemption, attempting to redeem himself through some outward act, or work. This religion of virtue and good works is what united the founders, atheist, deist, and Christian. And, in terms of civil righteousness, one could say that the United States has a morality based on Judeo-Christian principles. The United States is not, however, Christian, and never has been, because Christianity is not a works-based religious system.

The Constitution is a social contract in which the rights of man, given to him by Nature and Nature’s God, are protected and enshrined. Like any other contract, the duties of the parties to that contract are enumerated. For the purpose of keeping civil order, the American civil religion of virtue is sufficient as it basically adopts the second table of the Law as its basis. Theoretically, however, any defined system of morality could be substituted for the base. It is a system which is concerned with behavior and adherence to the rules – whatever those rules might be. It is a religion devoid of Christ. It certainly does not address the primary problem of mankind, which is sin.

The perfect illustration of what I mean is the prayer of the VFW chaplain on Memorial Day, one of the American civil religion’s sacred services:

Almighty God our Heavenly Father, in Your hands are the living and the dead; we give You thanks for all those, our comrades and sisters, who have laid down their lives in the service of our Country. May they rest in peace, and may light perpetual shine upon them. May the good work of seeking justice for the oppressed and peace for all mankind be rewarded with success, that their sacrifices shall not have been in vain. And may we never fail to remember the awesome cost of the freedom which we enjoy (Veterans of Foreign Wars 2012).

Or another:

O Lord God of Hosts, as we gather to honor and pay respects to our comrades and sisters who have departed this life, it is fitting that we remember first our great Nation. You have given us a rich and beautiful land for our heritage. We humbly pray that we may always prove ourselves a people constantly aware of Your favor, and therefore anxious to demonstrate our gratitude in seeking to know and to do Your will. May our land be blessed with honest and productive industry, and a people of integrity who are anxious to learn and willing to respect one another. All this we ask of You, Almighty God, in Your Holy Name (Veterans of Foreign Wars 2012).

To whom are these prayers made? Who is the “Almighty God?” The second prayer makes its petition in “Your Holy Name.” Which name would that be? It doesn’t really matter, as long and it is sufficiently generic to allow all people to insert the god of their choice. Christianity, though, is not a generic religion. It all hinges upon the question, “Who do you say that I am?” to which Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” The American civil religion of virtue which is practiced by well-meaning Christians in the public square does not allow its practitioners to assert Peter’s answer. If they did, they would also have to accept Baphomet and Flying Spaghetti Monster statues. Rather than allow the square to become cluttered with idols, they opt to cleanse Christianity of Christ in an effort to make it acceptable to everyone. They know that the chaplain means Jesus when he says, “…in Your name…” and that’s a work acceptable in their sight.

Christianity, contrary to the American civil religion, is the life and salvation God has given to mankind in and through Jesus Christ. It is the truth that mankind, having been plunged into sin by the disobedience of our first parents Adam and Eve, cannot please God, and are by our very nature sinful and unclean. We deserve nothing but God's wrath and eternal punishment. But God, before mankind ever did anything to merit his favor, graciously atoned for our sin by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and counts as righteous all who believe in Jesus. Moreover, man cannot by his own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ or come to him. God instead grants man repentance and faith through the working of his word.

There it is, Christianity in a nutshell: The blessed exchange of Christ's righteousness for my sin. This has nothing to do with the religion of morals and virtue to which the majority of our Founding Fathers adhered. Theirs is a religion of works, partially designed to provide stability to a government and society. It also appeals to something deeper in mankind's sinful nature, whether the founders meant to do that or not. The American civil religion of virtue and morality also appeals to our sinful spiritual desire to please God on our own terms, by our own works, rather than through faith in Christ and his work on the cross.

We should not, therefore, lament the decay of the American civil religion of virtue. We certainly should not attempt to establish, through the reimagining of history, a bastardized Christianity, devoid of Christ, as the American civil religion, pretending that our Founding Fathers were pious, churchgoing, orthodox Protestant Christians. We should instead gather regularly around Word and Sacrament. We should pray for our leaders, our nation, and our fellow man. We should deliver the Gospel to them in the context of our vocations, as Christ intends us to.

We should not spend so much time trying to “church up” the court square. Saving faith in Christ cannot come from American civil religion. Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ (Romans 10:17). The word of Christ has no place in American civil religion. Besides causing problems with those among whom we live, setting up a nativity scene – or a 10 Commandments statue – does little to evangelize our neighbors. I’m not saying we should retreat from the public square, just that we shouldn’t allow the Left Hand Kingdom usurp what belongs to the Right Hand Kingdom. We are, after all, free to be faithful, and we must listen to God rather than men. So, when the government attempts to infringe on our right to free expression of religion, or to redefine the meaning of the First Amendment to be freedom of worship, or force us to do something against our conscience, then we must resist. Until that time, though, we must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.

Bibliography

Franklin, Benjamin. "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion." beliefnet.com. 1728. http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/65/Articles_of_Belief_and_Acts_of_Religion_1.html (accessed October 16, 2015).

Franklin, Benjamin. Franklin's Autobiography. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1916.

Jenkins, Nash. "Hundreds Gather for Unveiling of Satanic Statue in Detroit." Time. July 27, 2015. http://time.com/3972713/detroit-satanic-statue-baphomet/ (accessed October 15, 2015).

KOCO News 5. 10 Commandments Statue Removed from Oklahoma Capitol. Oklahoma City, October 6, 2015.

Luther, Martin. Table Talk. Edited by Theodore G Tappert and Helmut T Lehmann. Vol. 54. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1967.

McCullough, David. John Adams. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2008.

Monticello. "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth." Monticello. http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/life-and-morals-jesus-nazareth (accessed October 15, 2015).

Neill, Rev. E. D. "Washington's Religion." The New York Times, January 2, 1885.

"Paine Relief!" Classic Works of Apologetics. http://www.classicapologetics.com/special/painerelief.html (accessed October 16, 2015).

The George Washington Masonic National Memorial Association, Inc. "George Washington, The Mason." The George Washington Masonic National Memorial. http://www.gwmemorial.org/washingtonTheMason.php (accessed October 16, 2015).

Veterans of Foreign Wars. "The Chaplains Handbook." Veterans of Foreign Wars. 2012. https://www.vfw.org/OMS/Leadership/05_ChaplainHandbook/2012ChaplainsHandbook.pdf (accessed October 16, 2015).

Washington, George. "Thanksgiving Proclamation." George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress. October 3, 1789. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gwhtml/gw004.html (accessed October 16, 2015).

End Notes

[1] I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book (Rev. 22:18-19).

Happy Winter Solstice from the Christkindlemarkt!

So, we went to the Christkindlemarkt in Daley Plaza in downtown Chicago this afternoon after church. I was terribly disappointed, as there were so many people crammed into the plaza that no one could move. We couldn't even press our way through the crowd to get a mug of Glühwein. I was ticked off about this, and then I came across an interesting display on the east side of the plaza, near the nativity scene

It's a big wire-framed "A" lit with red "holiday" lights (calling them Christmas lights seems somewhat inappropriate). It says "Happy Winter Solstice". It says that Sol Invictus (the Unconquered Sun) is the reason for the season. The display brightened my day, even though about half of the lights were dark, and I had to take a picture of my kids in front of it.

The display was placed by the atheists of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. You can read a short news article about the "A" here. They make a big deal saying that there can be no freedom of religion until government is completely separated from religion and it's influences. I agree. Sadly, as those on the political left often do, this group attempts to equate the public expression of religion and public displays of religious symbols with the government sanction and/or establishment of religion. We Christians often try to duck this argument, opting to go along to get along. If we allow what the Establishment Clause means to be redefined, however, we will wind up without the freedom of religion or the right to express our religious beliefs publicly.

Much is made of the fact that there is a “separation of church and state” built into the U.S. Constitution. This is not exactly true, at least not in the way those on the left purport it to be. The phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. The term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written by Thomas Jefferson in a now famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text of President Jefferson’s letter reads, in part:

"... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

The Danbury Baptist Association wrote to Jefferson of their concerns regarding the lack of explicit protection of religious liberty in their own state constitution, and against a government establishment of religion. As a religious minority in Connecticut, the Danbury Baptists were concerned that a religious majority might establish a state religion at the cost of the liberties of religious minorities. Jefferson assured them that the U.S. Constitution would in no way permit such an establishment, and that “…religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions…” This separation of church and state, as understood by Thomas Jefferson at least, had nothing whatsoever to do with public expressions of religion. To Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists, separation of church and state had everything to do with the establishment of a national/state religious body, and avoiding the national/state oppression of religious minorities.

It wasn't until 1947 that the Supreme Court, albeit nebulously, defined just how the “wall of separation” was to be built. As a result of Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), Neither state or local government can: 1) set up a church, 2) pass laws that aid one religion, all religions, or favor one religion over another, 3) force a person to attend or stay away from church, or believe in any religion, 4) punish a person for holding or professing religious beliefs, 5) levy a tax, in any amount, to support any religious activities or institutions, 6) openly or secretly participate in the affairs of any religious organization, or vice-versa.

A second important test established by the Court, known as The Lemon Test, is taken from the case Lemon v. Kurtzman 403 U.S. 602 (1971). The test consists of three parts: 1) whether the law or conduct has a secular purpose, 2) whether the law or conduct has as its primary or principle effect advancing or inhibiting religion, and 3) whether it fosters an excessive entanglement of government with religion.

To the chagrin of the New Atheist movement, The Court has ruled that public displays of religious symbols, such as the Christian nativity scene or the Jewish menorah, do not constitute a breach of the Establishment Clause when they are all displayed together, and along with secular holiday symbols, in celebration of the national holiday of Christmas (yes, it is a national holiday, believe it or not).

The Christkindlemarkt (Christ child market) which is set up in Daley Plaza every year in Chicago is clearly a Christian event, complete with nativity scene. Alongside the nativity scene during Hanukkah each year is a large Jewish menorah. Any citizen or group who wishes to exercise their freedom of religious expression in this public space may do so (as the atheist group has demonstrated by the presence of their display) and the event is not in breach of the Establishment Clause. Should any religious or secular group be prohibited by government from exercising that freedom of expression at the Christkindlemarkt, however, it would then violate the Establishment Clause.

To say that there is no place in American society for public displays of religion or religious symbols, strictly because they are by nature religious (the so-called freedom "from" religion), is simply not justified by the U.S. Constitution, or by case law.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissenting opinion to the McCreary County, Kentucky, ET. Al. Petitioners v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky ET.Al. case, observed that the same week Congress submitted the Establishment Clause as part of the Bill of Rights for ratification by the States, it enacted legislation providing for paid chaplains in the House and Senate. Justice Scalia goes on to remind his fellow justices that, “The same Congress also reenacted the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787, 1 Stat. 50, Article II of which provided: ‘Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.’” And, it should not be overlooked that the First Amendment itself accords religion – and no other manner of belief – special constitutional protection. I am sure that the atheist activists at the Freedom From Religion Foundation would not agree that these early actions of Congress are equally valid today, since those on the Left generally consider the U.S. Constitution to be a “living, breathing document”, meaning that its interpretation changes as American society changes, and that moral values simply evolve along with society and culture and are therefore not absolute.

The views of American citizens, however, have not changed significantly where this issue of public expression of religion is concerned. Justice Scalia rightly points out that our Presidents continue to conclude their oath of office with the words, “So help me God.” The Congress opens each session with a prayer; those prayers are lead by official congressional chaplains. The Supreme Court opens its sessions with the prayer “God save the United States and this Honorable Court”. We have the phrase “In God We Trust” on our currency. When we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States we corporately acknowledge that we are one nation, under God. Justice Scalia finishes his thought with these words:

“As one of our Supreme Court opinions rightly observed, ‘We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.’ Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313 (1952), repeated with approval in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 675 (1984); Marsh, 463 U.S., at 792; Abington Township, supra, at 213.”

I have no problem with the atheists, secular humanists, and free-thinkers exercising their right to free expression. I tolerate their "A". Whether they like it or not, the atheists have to tolerate my public nativity scene. It establishes Christianity as a national religion about as much as their half-hearted display establishes Sol Invictus as America's supreme being.

Religion Questions

Detail from the St. Peter and Paul Altar Painting,
 Weimar, Germany
by Lucas Cranach, the Younger, 1555.

These questions were sent to me by a friend who is taking a world religions class. I thought it would be interesting to present the questions, along with my gut-reaction answers, to the loyal readers of THL. I know I'm a little long-winded, and for that I apologize. - THL

Is Christianity good or bad for social and political life?

I fear this question is too broad to answer. You have to define "Christianity", "good", "bad", "social", and "political". This covers quite a bit of ground. I suspect, however, because of the nature of the second question, that there are some preconceived notions about what Christianity is and how it effects people's interpersonal relationships.

If you mean by Christianity the religion that teaches that the guilt of mankind's sin has been paid for by Christ's sacrificial death on the cross and his resurrection from the dead, I would say that it is good for social and political life. The regenerate Christian, according to the Bible, is made into a new creation upon his conversion. All his sins are forgiven, and he is encouraged to lead a life commensurate with the new creation into which he has been made. In fact, the truly regenerate man will seek to flee from the "works of the flesh" (things like sexual immorality etc, which St. Paul says are evident to all people), and do good works, exhibiting the "fruits of the spirit" (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control).

If, however, one means Christianity as defined by its detractors, then it is definitely not "good" for social and political life. This false Christianity - a sexually repressive, morally exclusive, bigoted system meant to brainwash and control the masses - would be a detriment to society. This is "Christianity" as described by the communist and progressive leftist. This is the Christianity against which they compare their socio-political system of atheistic statism. This Christianity has no basis in reality, except in those isolated times and places where sinful men give into their sinful human nature and worship their own rules and traditions rather than God, and it can never last long.

Roman Military Standard

What about Christianity contributed to the decline and fall of the Roman empire?

Nothing, as far as I can tell. Assuming we are talking about the fall of the western Roman Empire in AD 476, I would say that Christianity had little, if nothing at all to do with its demise. (Remember, a perfectly legitimate Latin speaking Roman emperor sat on his throne in Constantinople as ruler of the eastern half of the empire, and would until the city was captured by the Ottoman Turks in 1453.)

Liberal scholars may like to draw a correlation between the emperor Constantine declaring Christianity to be legal with the so-called Edict of Milan in AD 313 and the fall of the western empire just over 100 years later, but I believe that correlation to be a false one. The western empire fell due to a combination of many factors: 1) a mass influx of barbarian immigrants who were not assimilated into roman culture, 2) a series of devastating wars against invading barbarian tribes, 3) a lack of capable, educated, and virtuous leaders, 4) economic instability. This list could go on for quite some time; these are just major issues that sprung to mind. In all that I've read about Rome, though, no one seriously ascribes Christianity a significant role in the downfall of the west.

If one was forced to assign Christianity some role in the fall of the west, I suppose one could say that the state sponsored persecutions of Christians caused significant division in Roman society, and consumed manpower and resources that could have been better used shoring up the failing empire. For example, Diocletian persecuted Christians ruthlessly, but the average pagan Roman felt sorry for their Christian neighbors. To them it surely seemed that, as strange as the Christian might have seemed to them because of their beliefs, no one who followed a religion that taught honesty in trade and love for ones neighbor could be too much of a threat to the state. It is for this very reason that some scholars believe the persecution of Christians was unsuccessful in stamping out the religion.

Worshiping the Triune God in the name of the Risen Christ does not bring about the demise of empires. Man's worship of himself and his quest for power, fortune, and glory does.

The Hodgkins Lutheran

+ Jesus Christus Dominus Est +

Sent from my iPhone