Did You Know?: A Christian Nation

Did You Know? America, a Christian Nation

The other day a friend sent me an email entitled “Did You Know,“ that included a list of prominent individuals who had assisted in the founding of our country. The mailer’s intent was to show proof of our nation's Christian origins. And I understood the mailing to be a pitch from the Christian “right” for bolstering the Bush Administration. It was an impressive list of Founding Fathers, but it failed to have the intended effect upon me, for two reasons.

First it was classic prooftexting. Now prooftexting (argumentation by selective quoting) is good at initiating discussion, but it is always inadequate to settle the point. As a debating device it has strategic weaknesses. It usually leaves out things that others can't help but notice; it leaves its flanks exposed. And it doesn't address the whole issue; it fails to win the opponents over. Prooftexting works best on those already convinced of the premise.

Then, too, prooftexting loses the respect of the debate judges by its attitude of triumphalism. It believes it has played the trump card, which presumes all other cards are irrelevant if not discredited. The holder of a trump card moves as if there is no need to consider what cards the others are holding. Such pyschologizing only works on weak opponents. Self-congratulation risks looking silly when the defense attorney has not yet spoken. Or to use a different image, a President dressed in combat suit on an aircraft carrier with a banner announcing “mission accomplished.”

I have no quarrel with the presence and profundity of Christian influence in our nation's founding years. This doesn't need to be argued. But it can not be extracted from the historical context and made the single or overwhelming factor without ignoring a lot of history. To confound the issue, this particular list of "did you knows" spoils its case by trying too hard. It jarringly included a name that spoils its point, namely Thomas Jefferson, a non- Christian and, to some, an infidel. (He apparently gets included because he referred to our “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence.)

There really is no need to hang yourself out there in the wind with Thomas Jefferson stitched loosely onto the Christian flag. Good history does not deny the strength of the influence of Christianity. There is no need to profess that other historical influences were pale or even inimical to Christianity. America has a rich heritage--Christian and otherwise. All elements have been subject to challenge and corruption--the Christian part no less than the other parts. A "return" to Christian principles is as honorable as (not "more" honorable than) a "return" to other principles--such as tolerance, appreciation of diversity, bowing to freedom of speech, criticism of authority, distrust of the privileged, honoring individual rights, celebrating personal integrity, including mercy with justice, and a multiple of others with roots in English radicalism and the Enlightenment. The collaboration of influences informing our Founding Fathers was serendipitous, which is more wondrous than just evangelical.

In truth, the did-you-know list may be more helpful than at first glance. By including Jefferson, the samples thus embrace many of the "other" sources of our heritage. Jefferson was a "radical" philosopher and a true Enlightenment man. He can't be left off an honest list.

It is possible that the compiler of the list, by adding Jefferson’s name, meant to show how these sources of our heritage coordinated with the Christian environment to edify our founding leaders, but I doubt it. The only reason why today we have trouble seeing how these “other” elements cooperated with the Christian contribution and were uniquely brewed together at the Philadelphia Convention is because we prefer to "use" history for our current political agenda and dip back into the “Founding Fathers” pot to prove whatever we are championing at the moment. It is a technique to make our opponents seem less than true Americans.

If the list is inadequate as history, it is equally deficient as propaganda for our current President’s brand of Christianity. It tries too hard. I understand that George W. Bush considers himself an evangelical Christian, which theologically places him with a “subdivision” of the broad Christian community, and historically places him in connection with a “periodized” development. “Evangelicalism” as the term is used today is mostly a post-17th century development. (Who is a “true” Christian is for another discussion.)

Observers have noted that many of George W. Bush’s political stands line up with those of his supporters on the religious right-wing. When the President speaks of his “conservative program,” his supporters, as he intends, know him to mean “evangelical” program. If Bush’s program for Iraq is Christian, it is Old Testament. Is it any wonder that many of those who object to his approach, do so as Christians?

Now for some old-fashioned free speech (criticism). I do not doubt George Bush's personal piety, but the urge to trump those who challenge Bush’s vision for America , as a means to discredit them for not understanding Bush’s God-ordained leadership, demonstrates a simplified, hence distorted, picture of what is going on around us. How can we expect Bush, as a Christian, to restore our past when he epitomizes a narrow understanding of our heritage. When his vision for America was challenged by John Kerry, Bush could only respond by saying that Kerry was too complicated to understand--meaning that Kerry could not "lead" America with his mushy thinking. Half (plus 1%) of voters agreed in November, 2004 (though many had changed their minds by November, 2006). But we all look through the same wet windshield. The difference is that Kerry saw the images as "complicated," while Bush claimed to see things clearly and prefers to continue driving down the road with the wipers off, scoffing at Kerry's inconsistencies.

I grew up in “fundamentalist” circles, where I was led to believe that Catholics were not real Christians. And I am sure many voted against Kerry for that reason. Mixing religion and politics is risky business. But “cooking” history to bond the mix endangers ones integrity. Packing all references to God and the Ten Commandments together in a did-you-know list, along with the anomalous inclusion of Jefferson, makes the “Christian list” suspect. Simplification and hazy comparisons too easily lead to bad conclusions.

President Bush is not God’s vicegerent anymore than King George III was, so in that sense his Christianity should not be part of the political argument. But when he epitomizes a version of Christianity that since has been “adjusted” by the New Testament, and which is off-center with America’s heritage, his supporters really ought to find some more convincing grounds on which to defend him.

Christianity undeniably is a deep-seated part of America’s heritage, but we would be wise to study how the Founders handled their Christianity. Today liberals often make the same mistake the “did-you-know” conservatives do. One group wants “separation.“ The other wants “conjoining.“ Our founding leaders both joined, and separated religion and politics. They were superb multitaskers. They honored both arenas the way one admires a juggler, who does not throw his balls into the air to get rid of them but to create a performance that utilizes all of them. Historically, when Christianity hogs the show, it loses its wholesomeness. The democracy our ancestors stitched together gave place for multicolored balls. Our founding leaders (including the many Christians) would be greatly disappointed in us, I fear, if they saw us reverting to throwing one ball of one color in the air all the time. Have we lost the “genius” of those years?

Doug Good