Shortly before Thanksgiving, a coalition of religious leaders released an unusual statement reaffirming “fundamental truths about justice and the common good” and calling upon fellow citizens to join in defending those truths. The identity of the signatories was not so unusual: though much was made of Roman Catholic and Orthodox participation, evangelicals made up the bulk of the signatories. (Their names and the Declaration itself can be found at http://www.manhattandeclaration.org.) Nor are the issues unusual: the pro-life position on abortion and the traditional view of marriage are articulated with care, and with a spirit of compassion that is more rare than it should be in such documents. These positions are followed by a strong affirmation of religious liberty: signatories commit themselves to speak the truth and resist any attempt to force persons or institutions to comply with legal injustice.
What is a little unusual is that it’s not clear what the signatories want us to do about these issues. There is little guidance, for example, for the citizen who might affirm the traditional definition of marriage but is also troubled by the lack of legal protections for those in other relationships. Similarly bereft is the legislator who is morally offended by abortion, but who must consider the reality of a health care system that does not provide access to basic health care for all. These sorts of complexities may make for poor reading in a Declaration, but they are the stuff of politics, and they require not a lessening of commitment to moral principles on abortion and marriage, but a strengthening of commitment to the particular moral task of the state. On that subject, there is less here than there should be.
Perhaps this helps explain why most references to government, particularly when discussing religious liberty, are negative: “no power on earth, cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence.” The pledge to engage in civil disobedience, if necessary, is a particularly dramatic example. Civil disobedience does indeed have a long and occasionally distinguished history within the tradition of Christian political reflection and the Declaration quite correctly cites Martin Luther King’s eloquent argument that to counsel patient forbearance in situations such as those faced by black Americans was seriously to misunderstand the demands of justice.
Before we join the civil disobedience barricades, we need to dig deeper, look farther, and pray harder.Students of King might recall, however, that his argument went beyond an emphasis upon freedom and its defense.
Responding to the charge that he promoted anarchy, King insisted that the Christian who would break an unjust law must do so openly and in fact lovingly. We pursue public justice not because injustice is wrong simply, but because Christian love compels us to love the law and be grieved when it falls away from the norm of justice. King accepted the penalty for disobedience out of his pain for his community, but also out of his pain for the law. The moral framework of justice upon which King depended provided his activism not only its tools, but also its motivation.
The Manhattan Declaration could do with a bit of that civil rights love. Particularly in its concluding statements on religious liberty, the careful tone of the earlier discussions is overtaken by a competing rights-based spirit of “Here, I’ll take my stand.” The result may impress politicians that these Christian voters are determined to protect their views, but it can’t really be described as calling the state to its biblical task. In terms of articulating that clear vision of state responsibility, considering, for example, why certain Christian truths should be entrenched into law and not others, the Declaration is at best incomplete. Before we join the civil disobedience barricades, we need to dig deeper, look farther, and pray harder. Read the Declaration, sign or don’t sign, but be assured either way that there’s still a lot more work to be done.
–Paul Brink, Associate Professor of Political Studies, Gordon College
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Is America a Christian nation? From the writings of Columbus to the Mayflower Compact to the Declaration of Independence to the structure of the U.S. Constitution, America’s founders clearly applied Christian principles in the foundation of America.
James Madison, the artitech of the U.S. Constitution, stated ” Religion (is) the basis and Foundation of Government”. Madison was inspired by the Holy Bible in the formation of our three equal branches of government. He used Isaiah 33:22 ” For the Lord is our Judge. The Lord is our Lawgiver. The Lord is our King. He will save us.” Through this verse, Madison formed the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of our government.
The Declaration of Independence is the document that makes the U.S. Constitution legal. Of the 55 signers of “The Declaration of Independence”, 52 were deeply committed Christians; some of whom were ministers. It is the same Congress that formed the American Bible Society, immediately after creating the Declaration of Independence. That document says that our rights come from “our Creator” (God) and the U.S. Constitution was signed ” in the year of our Lord” in 1787 after the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783, ending the Revolutionary War with the documented writing ” in the name of the Holy and undivided Trinity” (God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit).
The very first act of the first congress was to bring in a minister and have congress led in prayer. The Continental Congress then voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of Scripture for the people of this nation. Afterward, four chapters of the Holy Bible were read.
In 1892, the Untied States Supreme Court declared ” This is a Christian nation.” and “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense, and to this extent,our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian”.
After World War II, congress declared “In God We Trust” on our currency. Christian holidays of Christmas and Thanksgiving have been declared national holidays and ” one nation under God” is in our Pledge of Allegiance. Every preamble to each state in the union makes an unapologetic declaration of God in their state constitution.
References to God are engraved on numerous national monuments. On the Washington Monument it is engraved o n the aluminum capstone, the Latin phrase Laus Deo, which means “Praise be to God.” Lining the walls of the stairwell are carved tribute blocks that declare such biblical phrases as “Holiness to the Lord”; “Search the Scriptures”. On the U.S Capital, in the house chamber is the inscription, “In God We Trust.” On the Supreme Court building in a number of places are images of Moses with the Ten Commandments. When you enter the Jefferson Memorial, you will find many references to God. A quote that runs around the interior dome says, “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the minds of man.”
While liberals have tried to remove references to God and confuse people with misinterpretations such as “separation of church and state” , this phase is not even in the U.S. Constitution. The phase “separation of church and state” was first written by President Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Baptist Association of Danbury in Connecticut. The founding fathers did not want a government run by religion as in the ” Church of England”, where people could not worship freely. Therefore a separation was intended to protect government from control by religion and to protect religion from control by government, not to build a confrontational wall to keep government and religion separated.
History shows that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams and many other of our founding fathers established America as a Christian nation. Here are some of the recorded references of what they really said:
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever”.
Thomas Jefferson, 1781
“Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only Law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited…What a paradise would be this region be!”
John Adams, 1756
“We have been assured , Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that built it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.”
Benjamin Franklin, June 28, 1787
“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor”
George Washington, October 3, 1789, who not only started the tradition of being sworn in as president with a Bible, he knelt down and kissed the Bible. President George Washington later said ” It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”
“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
Chief Justice John Jay, October 12, 1816
With all this President John Adams stated ” The Bible is the best book in the world” and President Thomas Jefferson stated ” The Bible is the soursce of Liberty”
These are just a few of the several hundred documented quotes and writtings of our founding fathers. If a president or politian made any of these statements today, the liberal media would viciously attack them as intolerant religious extrememists and liberal judges would accuse them of violating the very Constitution that they created.
As President Eisenhower and later President Ford stated, “Without God there can be no American form of government nor an American way of life. Recognition of a Supreme Being is the first impression of Americanism. Thus the founding fathers saw it, and thus with God’s help, it will continue to be.”
The historical record is clear. America is a Christian nation. As President Ronald Reagan once said ” If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.”
Frank Aquila is a Manteca resident and president of the South San Joaquin Republicans. He can be emailed at mantecarepublicans@yahoo.com
Bill,
Great article, thanks for posting. I love Jesus and come down on the left side of the political spectrum and fully agree with Brink’s assessment. I think far too often we on the left cry “separation of church and state” without really understanding the concept. We must acknowledge that a secular/humanist worldview needs to be treated the same as a Christian world view under the law. A secular world view isn’t a neutral starting point for discussion in the public square.
By the same token, often, those of the right demand that we return to a Christian worldview; but that isn’t a neutral starting point either. Thus the distinction that you make regarding civil society is important as it must not be co-opted by either worldview. It must rather exist as a framework for understanding how these multiple worldviews can best exist together. We live in a pluralistic society and both worldviews need to have the same rights and responsibilities under the law. Now that indeed is a difficult conversation to have; but I promise to bring an extra marshmallows.
Disclaimer: I studied under Paul Brink at Eastern University when I majored in PolySci so I am proudly biased.
But that isn’t what the article argues. It did not call for a Christian nation. Rather, the author would more likely argue that all faith communities, including secular humanists trying to blind us with SCIENCE, ought not be discriminated against per 1st Amendment. It questions blanket declarations concerning prohibitions for same sex rights when civil liberties are not the same thing as some Church order. Civil society is not church. It encompasses many compteting worldviews that must respect the other in the Public Square.
One faith community cannot force its own confessions and mores on the multversity that makes up civil society, So Pete Stark, Babs Boxer, and the Christian Right should all sit down and have some nice hot cocoa with cinnamon marshmallow from Rachel Dunn Chocolates on Detroit in Concord, CA
Amen! Our CHRIST-ian rights and privileges are being sytematically stripped. Please join us in the fight to restore America back to a CHRIST-ian nation. Check out this site and tell your friends and family.
http://www.1nationundergodforever.com
Love in Christ, Cat888