Christianity: A "common belief system" basic to America?

Recently, I was sent an online commentary in which the author, radio personality Peter Heck, laments (as many conservative pundits seem to do these days) the apparent loss of America's grounding in the Christian "belief system", and the inevitable degradation of our society which will surely result - if it hasn't already - from such a turning away from our supposed founding principles.

As Heck asserts in his article, "Our Founding Fathers were wise and learned individuals who were students of political philosophy. When crafting the basis for our civilization, they could have chosen any of a number of belief systems, but they chose Christianity for a reason... it was because they understood that the absolute, moral principles that come from Christian scripture – respect for life, private property rights, charity, frugality, stewardship, benevolence, peaceful living, responsible liberty – were the best friend to a free society and should be encouraged."

Now I recognize that, in many ways, our society has become far more morally lenient than we have been in the past, and I agree that this leniency sometimes leads to unfortunate consequences. On the other hand, the status quo has often led to just as many negative ends. Christian virtues alone do not mean a nation will avoid making terrible mistakes.

However, Heck seems unaware of the possibility that such an ethical limit-expansion is precisely the result of the American experiment. For one cannot establish a nation founded on the core principles that "all men are created equal" and "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and that governments must derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed," and reasonably expect the members of that society to stand idly by and ignore what they see as limitations to their own achievement of such aims.

Those who abide by a certain moral guideline may certainly disagree with those who seek to change that guideline - in fact, that is to be expected. However, we live in a nation where it is also expected that, as we grow and change, there will be challenges to the system. Some of these will be accepted by the society at large and some will not. One might choose to lament the loss of a particular moral grounding, but we should hardly be surprised that, in a nation that prizes individual freedom and "unalienable" rights above all else, each of the myriad humans who inhabits our society will seek to have their own rights and freedoms firmly established in both the public and private arenas.

Further - and far more important, in my view - while I am sure that Mr. Heck is well-versed in political theory, I am not convinced he has an equal grasp on the essence of Christian theology.

For the above list of "Christian" virtues, as valuable as they are, are NOT particularly Christian values. In fact, the majority of the world's religions could claim them as their own. (Indeed, even the majority of Muslims, whom Heck seems to set apart as one of the religions who wouldn't be a good foundation for a free nation, would appeal to their own Scriptures in defense of their respect for life, charity, frugality, etc.) No, what separates Christianity and makes it unique is not a list of virtues that can be nationally claimed. Rather, the unique claim of Christianity is that followers of Christ ought to be willing to give up all their rights, not for the sake of a political agenda, but for Christ's kingdom. That is, Christ asks us for an allegiance greater than our allegiance to any nation.

The type of "Christianity" that Mr. Heck longs for is not Christianity at all, but a form of civil religion that is subjected to the all-encompassing American ideals that have made our nation a place of freedom, tolerance, and respect for the rule of law. This political system has many great qualities, to be sure. But being equatable to the Christian faith is not one of them. In fact, it is safe to say that if Christians were to truly follow Christ's teachings and live his Gospel, many more of them would be branded as "enemies of the state." For what nation wants to have as its majority belief system the willingness to lay down one's life for something higher than the safety of the nation?

More to the point, do we really believe that American individualism and the accompanying "pursuit of happiness" would be heralded by Christ as values to which his followers should aspire? And yet, many Americans seem to be unaware of any distinction between the values of our nation and the values of Christ.

Now, of course, this is not a simple either/or dichotomy. It is certainly possible to be a faithful believer in Christ while also living as a productive member of our American society. But while one can, in some circumstances, be dedicated completely to Christ and also live as a faithful American, one cannot be completely dedicated to America and also live as a faithful Christian. Why? Precisely because America is not founded on Christianity. It will often fail to maintain the image of a "Christian nation" which has been foolishly foisted upon it by so many well-meaning Americans.

When America fails to look like a Christian nation, we ought not look to some previous time when we were morally upright, and seek to bring back that era. Rather, we ought to grieve in our idolatry and foolishness, call ourselves to repentance, pray for the healing of our nation, and look to the One who is our true source of hope: not a belief system, but a person -- Jesus Christ.

it wasn't that long ago...

Lest we think that the U.S. is really beyond doing/thinking terrible things, this week we heard recordings of former president Nixon's comments that abortion would be appropriate in the case of "a black and a white." And then, there's this:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-06-23-eugenics-carrie-buck_N.htm?csp=24&RM_Exclude=Juno

Always remember that even the country you love is capable of grave sins (even today), and that Christ calls his followers to be citizens of a kingdom that is not like the nations of the earth.

Re-posting: Commentary on Iran

Although a bit biased to the left, this is, I think, nevertheless a well-reasoned and informative commentary on the current state of ideology and politics in Iran:

http://www.continental-philosophy.org/2009/06/18/the-iranian-disbelief/

Westphal on being a good listener...

"If I am a good listener... I try to hear what is said, but I listen just as hard for what is not said and for what is said between the lines. I am not in a hurry, for there is no pre-appointed destination for the conversation. There is no need to get there, for we are already here; and in this present I am able to be fully present to the one who speaks. The speaker is not an object to be categorized or manipulated, but a subject whose life situation is enough like my own that I can understand it in spite of the differences between us... This does not mean that I never say anything, but I am more likely to ask questions than to issue manifestos or make accusations."

(From "God, Guilt, and Death")

this week's "my favorite lyrics"...

Jamie Barnes - Three Suns (from the album "Honey From the Ribcage")

Idleness is the devil's playground
He's spinning me, dizzily, on the misery-go-round
Legs and hands are bound
Idolatry is the lover's defect
We're falling down, bowing down, with our faces pressed to the ground
Legs and hands are bound

But you and I know that those statues guard the shore
But you and I know, we can see it out our window
That there's three suns on the rise, just over the highway that goes out my way
When I take you home
We both know

Fireworks are a celebration
When lives are spared and sirens blare
But when thunder threatens overhead we're running scared
Anxiety is a mental breakdown
'Obsessiveness,' 'compulsiveness,' and social paralysis
A big selfish mess

But you and I know that this little child will grow
But you and I know, regardless of the snow
Because there's three suns on the rise, just over the highway that goes out my way
When I take you home
We both know

Sarah Coakley's interesting approach to systematic theology...

In a recent speech/essay, theologian Sarah Coakley described her current project, a systematic theology which she is calling "théologie totale" (total theology). I'm very interested in reading her book when it finally comes out. Below is an excerpt of her speech which describes some of her methodology:

"[Théologie totale] is devoted precisely to the excavation and evaluation of what has previously been neglected: to theological fieldwork in a variety of illuminating social and political contexts (not merely those of privilege, in fact especially not); to religious cultural productions of the arts and the imagination; to neglected or side-lined texts; and to the examination of the differences made to theology by such factors as gender, class, or race (all these relate to chapters in my forthcoming systematic project). In short, théologie totale makes the bold claim that the more systematic one’s intentions, the more necessary the exploration of such dark and neglected corners; and that, precisely as a theology in via, théologie totale continually risks destabilization and redirection.

In an important sense, then, this form of systematic theology must always also remain, in principle, unsystematic if by that one means open to the possibility of risk and challenge. This playful oxymoron (unsystematic systematics) applies just to the extent that the undertaking renders itself persistently vulnerable to interruptions from the unexpected—through its radical practices of attention to the Spirit."

Graham Ward on reading...

"Reading is dangerous; for the powers it incarnates and releases are unforeseen. A butterfly spreading its wings in Osaka can have tidal effects off the coast of Portugal, according to popular accounts of what contemporary scientists define as 'chaos theory'. Reading, or the appropriation or performance of a representation, similarly has indeterminate consequences."

My translation: Read! Who knows what might happen?! :-)