Francois Ntone
Christian America: A Nation Chosen by God?
The notion of a Christian America, a nation founded on biblical or Judeo-Christian principles, is a familiar one. People who self-identify as Christians still represent a large percentage of the population of the United States, and a recent report by the Pew Research Center even indicates that Americans are having more positive feelings about the various denominational groups. Yet today’s political climate, and the strong support expressed by conservative Christians towards the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump, can only raise questions about how Christian America really is, considering that nothing about him suggests any allegiance to the teaching of Christ. When Christians fail to live by the principles taught by the New Testament, detractors point to their behavior as proof that Christianity (and religion in general) is a bad idea and the source of many of the evils seen in the world. However, those who have taken the time to understand biblical teaching are compelled to point out the differences between true Christianity, as taught by Jesus and his apostles, and the corrupted forms that are in existence today. This debate is not new. It predates the Trump presidency, and is the reason why Richard T. Hughes wrote his 2009 book Christian America and the Kingdom of God, which is the focus of this article.
One sense in which America was seen as a Christian nation, according to Hughes, is its identification as a chosen nation, similar to Israel in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, God made clear the fact that he chose the people of Israel as his people with whom he made a covenant: if they obeyed his laws and decrees, they would prosper, but they would be cursed if they abandoned him and turned to other gods. As early as 1633 Thomas Hooker, before leaving England for the New World, preached a sermon where he declared that God was packing his gospel and taking it to a new nation because England had failed to live according to his principles. Much later D. James Kennedy, pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church (1959-2007) was proclaiming that America was intended to be God’s chosen nation but needed to repent in order to pursue its destiny.
Of particular importance to the idea of America as a chosen nation was William Tyndale’s translation of the Bible during the reign of Henry VIII in England. In his attempt to promote biblical literacy and religious reform, Tyndale added notes to his translation. In particular, the notes in the second version of the Tyndale Bible, published in 1634, emphasized the notion of a chosen nation and a covenant, an ideal England had miserably failed to represent. The Puritans who settled the New World shared this view. In particular, John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts, believed that God would be ratifying the covenant he made with the Puritans who left England if he allowed them to reach New England safely. In general, the New World colonies saw a strong parallel between their story and Old Testament stories: they were Israel, England was Egypt, and the wilderness of the New World was the Promised Land. And during the Revolution, New England was God’s chosen nation which was, with his help, going to be victorious over England.
Since the Bible itself mentions no chosen nation other than Israel, these claims about America as a Christian nation were obviously not based on any authoritative teaching. But more importantly, Hughes points out the error associated with assuming that the Old Testament concept of a chosen people and the Christian gospel are interchangeable:
“Finally, precisely because the Hebrew notion of the chosen people was national— even tribal— in scope and intent, any attempt to appropriate that myth for national purposes today leads almost inevitably to behavior that is alien to the universal purposes of the Christian gospel— to wars, for example, to massacres, to ethnic cleansings, and to destruction of those who are different from the ‘chosen people’.”
One of the noteworthy biblical passages introducing the concept of the chosen people is Deuteronomy 7:6 which states the following:
“For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.”
As pointed out by Hughes, this verse is at the end of a long statement which commands the Israelites to exterminate other nations in order to eliminate any risk of falling into apostasy. The destruction of Jericho, reported in Joshua 5:13-6:27, is a good example of this thinking, which the New England Puritans adopted when they launched wars of extermination against Native Americans in New England. Similarly the Afrikaners in South Africa, who were influenced by Calvinism, imposed an oppressive system of apartheid on South African natives.
Did Christian America Ever Conform to the Biblical Vision of the Kingdom of God?
That Jesus was primarily preaching about the kingdom of God is not a disputed fact today. Therefore, a nation that calls itself Christian would have to measure itself against the rules of conduct of the kingdom of God as presented in the New Testament. However, as pointed out by Hughes, the idea of the kingdom of God is found in the Old Testament as well. Indeed when, in 1 Samuel 8:4-22, God tells Samuel that the Israelites have rejected him as a king, the implication is that God intended Israel to be his kingdom. God then proceeds to warn Samuel against the evils that will come with a human king: war, violence and slavery. In other words, God is explaining to Samuel the intrinsic difference between his rule and the rule of a human king: wherever war, violence and oppression are seen, God’s rule is not present.
The 8th century B.C. brought a new generation of prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Micah and Hosea. Isaiah put forth a vision with a universal scope presenting Israel as a light to the Gentiles, as opposed to the tribal focus associated with the notion of a chosen people as described in the Pentateuch. In general the new prophets were witnesses of a national history marred by constant wars, social injustice and misguided alliances by the Israelite kings who wanted to maintain their privileges. These prophets offered a new vision that emphasized social justice and peace, while pointing out the futility of war, and Hughes provides many biblical quotations to make that point.
It is therefore apparent that the biblical narrative is not flat, but evolves in time. Clearly some Christians choose to cling to an older model such as the notion of a chosen nation which allows them to use divinely prescribed violence to further their purposes, while paying no attention to later prophetic revelations. Hughes, in agreement with scholars such as Gordon Brubacher and John Dominic Crossan, proposes what should actually be, in my opinion, considered trivial by any Christian: of these two models, the one to be retained by Christians is the one that is supported by Jesus himself in his teaching and his activity. Clearly Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Hosea and Micah have the Christian answer.
In defining the kingdom of God, Hughes refers to a statement by Crossan:
“The kingdom of God was what this world would look like if and when God sat on Caesar’s throne. . . . This is very clear in these parallel phrases of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6: 10: “Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” The Kingdom of God is about the Will of God for this earth here below. . . . It is about the transformation of this world into holiness, not the evacuation of this world into heaven.”
While the full realization of the kingdom of God, as announced in the Bible, is obviously in the future and corresponds to the resurrection of the dead, Crossan’s definition emphasizes its earthly and here-and-now aspects. Hughes elaborates on this statement when he says:
“While the Bible presents the kingdom of God as (1) earthly, (2) concerned with peace and justice, and (3) future, it also presents that kingdom as partially present, even in the here and now. The kingdom is present wherever and whenever human beings carry out the mandates of God’s rule. When human beings promote economic justice, especially for the poor, the kingdom of God is present. When human beings reject war and work for nonviolent solutions to national and tribal disputes, the kingdom of God is present. And when human beings work on behalf of policies that are favorable to the long-term health of this island planet, the kingdom of God is present, simply because the health of the planet is crucial for peace and justice among human beings.”
Needless to say, Hughes provides numerous New Testament references to show the tight connection between the kingdom of God and the ideas of peace and economic justice, a simple matter given the abundance of references. He also emphasizes the paradoxical nature of the kingdom, which is an upside-down kingdom in the sense that the poor and society’s rejects are elevated, while the rich and powerful are brought low. The paradoxical nature of the kingdom is proclaimed by the prophet Zechariah when he announces a king sitting on a donkey. With Jesus the paradox is full blown given his numerous statements suggesting that those perceived as insignificant by society are the greatest in the kingdom of God.
The context of the paradox is the situation in the Roman Empire: the empire routinely used violence to dominate other nations, oppress the poor and elevate the rich. The emperor himself, who led this unjust state of affairs, had declared himself god, and any statement perceived as a challenge to his divine status was considered subversive, even deserving death. The Roman Empire was therefore the opposite of the kingdom of God, a typical example of the kingdoms of men which rely on violence to maintain unjust systems that favor the few while oppressing the many. That is the dynamics of empire. Even on matters of peace, there is a sharp contrast between the kingdom of God, where peacemakers rely on patience, kindness, love and humility, and the Roman Empire which imposed its Pax Romana through violence. According to the biblical prophets, all such kingdoms will be overthrown and replaced by God’s rule. Unfortunately, the dynamics of empire applies even to nations that are called democracies, such as the United States, as they rely on military might to impose their will and maintain a system that greatly favors the rich and the powerful at the expense of the poor.
Among the many references to Jesus’ teaching provided by the author, Matthew 25 appears as an interesting one since it happens to be the only one available in the New Testament that actually describes divine judgment. Ironically, the only criterion given in Matthew 25 for admission in the kingdom of God is treatment of “the least of these”. There is no mention of worship, rituals, or churchgoing. If anything, that points to the importance of kingdom of God ethics in Jesus’ teaching. Indeed, we recall that Jesus himself said “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21)
Hughes points out that to many Christians, Paul’s doctrine of justification by grace through faith seems to be in conflict with kingdom of God ethics which obviously emphasizes works. He then proceeds to examine Paul’s teaching in detail, showing its consistency with Jesus’ kingdom of God ethics. Paul’s starting point is the fact that Jesus emptied himself unto death, and God lifted him up and put everything under his feet (Philippians 2:5-8). Paul even states in 1 Corinthians 15:24-25 that Christ will destroy every ruler, every authority and hand the kingdom to the Father. These are rather subversive statements in the Roman Empire, since the emperor is one of those rulers.
According to Hughes, Paul joins Jesus in expressing the paradoxical nature of the kingdom of God when he points to Jesus’ self-giving love as something unknown in the world, and then declares that God’s wisdom is foolishness to the world while the wisdom of the world is simply foolishness. Indeed, it would have been utter foolishness in the Roman Empire to assume that a man who died a shameful death on the cross would be the ruler of the universe. But Paul insistently claims that God’s wisdom is expressed in Christ’s radical self-giving love (he died for undeserving sinners), and is “not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish.” (1 Corinthians 2: 6-7). Paul further says that “none of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (I Corinthians 2: 8).
Paul’s ethic has its foundation in the statement “Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 2:5). As we know, the mind of Christ is a mind of humility, compassion and self-giving love, and Paul urges Christians to be imitators of Christ. His view on social justice is based on equality before Christ, as expressed in Galatians 3:26-28 and various other passages. For convenience, Galatians 3:26-28 is reproduced here: “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
It is also evident that Paul valued peace and love. His teaching about love is famous among Christians. He urged believers to be kind and not to repay evil with evil, and was himself a Christian model in his acceptance of persecution and suffering with no urge to retaliate.
Hughes mentions that it is also important to recognize another important element of the kingdom of God, which is forgiveness. Indeed given the high standard of the kingdom of God, it is impossible to meet its requirements. But God forgives our imperfections (which is grace) if we are humble and give up our claims to innocence. He also wants us to forgive others who offend us.
A Historical Perspective on Christian America
Hughes explains that Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in 316 C.E., and emperor Theodosius the Great made it the only legal religion in 391 C.E.. While Christians had been occasionally persecuted in the early days of the movement, the roles were now reversed and those who refused to convert to Christianity now became persecuted. In the 6th century C.E., Justinian I proclaimed his new status as the head of both the state and the church, and the church became subservient to the empire. Given the focus of the empire on increasing its wealth through military conquest and oppression of the poor, it is easy to see why, in order to serve the state, the church would have changed its own focus from kingdom of God ethics, with its emphasis on serving the poor and the disenfranchised, to an emphasis on ceremonial forms and liturgy. It became more important to belong to the church, participate in the Eucharist, and confess one’s sins. In fact, the monastic movement was an effort to get away from the imperial church and regain some aspects of the kingdom of God ethics.
Therefore the Roman Empire became a Christian empire, but this was a compromised type of Christianity. Insofar as there is something called Christian America, it has its roots in the “Christianized culture that thrived in medieval and Reformation Europe”. However, medieval Christianity was coerced and took on violent and authoritarian forms. During the Reformation, on the other hand, John Calvin tried to create in Geneva a state whose values were shaped by the principles of the kingdom of God as he understood them. He did not use coercion, but used careful teaching and preaching. Geneva became a model of theocracy. Many of those who, later, settled the New World colonies were Calvinists who took with them the notion of State Christianity and, through rules and regulations, actually managed to create some successful theocracies in the settlements. In that sense Christianity in America was never coerced, but it was similar to Christianity in the Roman Empire in that it emphasized churchgoing and personal piety rather than kingdom of God ethics. Also something essential to the kingdom of God must have been missing, as seen in the attitudes that led to expulsion or even execution of dissenters, and brutal treatment of natives believed to be children of the devil.
According to Hughes, the Founders, and Thomas Jefferson in particular, were concerned about the religious wars of 17th century Europe and all the associated violence. Given the growing number of denominations in America (Catholics, Quakers, Anabaptists, etc.), they were afraid those denominations might be cast against each other and repeat the violence seen in Europe, and they had no interest in creating a state religion. The documents they wrote, namely the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, were actually a setback to the Calvinist agenda. The Declaration of Independence was written with God in mind, but was a reflection of the Deism embraced by Jefferson, rather than the God of the Bible. Its political principles were grounded on “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”. Indeed the Deists believed in a God they saw as the guardian of a moral order. This God was more universal and was visible in the laws of nature, and from him came the self-evident truths they were proclaiming. In fact, when Jefferson later ran for the presidency, he was attacked by the Calvinists for preaching atheism and the “morality of devils”.
As for the Constitution, it has statements that prevent the establishment of a state religion and also forbid the state from denying the right of individuals to freely exercise their chosen religion. In addition, it removes religion as a criterion for holding office. Therefore both documents clearly were an obstacle to the Calvinist goal of a state religion. Later and even recently, religious leaders have claimed that the Founders were Bible-believing Christians like them, who wanted to create a state religion. In reality, the Founders may have been religious, but not necessarily Christians. Their goal was pluralism, not a single religion.
The Battle for Christian America – The Second Great Awakening
One cannot talk about the religious history of the United States without mentioning the major revivals known as the Great Awakenings. The first one was “the Great Awakening— a religious conflagration that swept up and down the eastern seaboard from 1734 to 1743, transforming the colonies into Christian centers of piety, zeal, and learning.” According to Hughes, the Great Awakening united thirteen separate colonies in a common, essentially Christian self-understanding, and led to the Revolution. Jonathan Edwards claimed, in 1742, that the Great Awakening would usher in the final reign of God in all of the earth, and in those days, some preachers saw the Revolution as a Christian undertaking and political freedom as a Christian virtue. Samuel Sherwood expressed the thought that America was the kingdom of God, and even linked the Revolution to the final battle in the book of Revelation.
The Great Awakening was short lived, and studies suggest that the quarter century after Independence was a rather weak one for Christianity, which was facing competition from Deism, rationalism, and skepticism. This implies that there was no real golden age for Christian America, and this explains the need for a Second Great Awakening. Given the weak state of church life, and given that the Constitution did not allow Calvinists to promote a state religion, the movement associated with the Second Great Awakening had to rely on persuasion in order to promote a Christian culture in America.
Historians place the start of the Second Great Awakening in 1801, when a major ecumenical revival gathered in Cane Ridge, Kentucky, thousands of people, sinners who were “slain in the spirit, danced, barked, jerked, and fell to the ground under the influence of the Holy Ghost.” The same year, in Connecticut, Timothy Dwight, president of Yale University, was leading students in a revival in reaction to Deism.
Hughes reports the following: “The revival did not rely upon preaching alone. Revivalists sought to ban the Sunday delivery of mails and restrict the consumption of liquor. They launched innumerable efforts to evangelize both the nation and the larger world. They created the American Bible Society to distribute Bibles, the American Tract Society to distribute Christian literature, and the American Education Society to promote Christian education at the outposts of the American frontier. Indeed, they established church-related colleges throughout the nation at such a rapid pace that, by 1860, the number of these colleges had reached 173, up from only 9 in 1780.”
The work done by Charles Finney during the Second Great Awakening is remarkable. According to Hughes, “Finney traveled from town to town and city to city all over the United States, proclaiming the good news of salvation, but also proclaiming that America could and should become an outpost of the kingdom of God.” Finney’s primary goal was to promote the biblical vision of the kingdom of God, rather than to establish Christianity as the dominant religion. Aware that Jesus came to liberate the prisoners, heal the sick, and give sight to the blind, he urged his followers to contribute to transforming society in specific areas such as prison reform and the abolition of slavery. Harriet Beecher Stowe’s anti-slavery book Uncle Tom’s Cabin happens to be a product of the Second Great Awakening.
But the Second Great Awakening was also a reaction to the perceived Catholic threat, as Catholics were growing in numbers, and Protestants believed Catholicism was against the cause of liberty. So while some like Finney used it for social reform, others used it to push for a Christian, Protestant agenda. That agenda was successful in that people now thought in Christian, Protestant categories, and observers generally agreed that Protestantism had a deep influence on Americans.
With the success of the Second Great Awakening, some simply assumed that America was a Christian nation by definition. Therefore they found no reason to challenge the evils of American society such as slavery. Black thinkers such as David Walker and Frederick Douglas pointed out the inconsistency associated with such an approach to Christianity. Also, the national scope of Christian America soon turned into visions of intervention in other lands. In 1836, the Baptist minister William R. Williams stated that “the evangelical character of our land is to tell upon the plans and destinies of other nations.” Ideas such as the above, the belief that American core values reflected the natural order of things and were grounded in “self-evident truths”, the Puritan assumption that America was the chosen New Israel, and the millennial notion that America would transform the world into the Kingdom of God, all contributed to the doctrine of Manifest Destiny. This doctrine emerged in the 1840’s, and by the end of the 19th century, was used to justify the taking of Native American lands and the occupation of the Philippines. It was also used to justify the Mexican War, which resulted in the taking of territories that had previously been part of Mexico. Hughes provides many examples of statements by religious and political leaders used to justify the use of warfare for a “Christian” purpose.
The Gospel of Wealth
Even though the Second Great Awakening cannot be directly blamed for the gospel of wealth, as previously mentioned, it led to the assumption that America was a Christian nation by definition, and therefore there was no need to question the internal inconsistencies in Christian America.
After the Civil War, America entered a period called the Gilded Age (1865-1900) characterized by greed and the buildup of unprecedented wealth by the ones called barons of industry who built their fortunes on the backs of millions of working poor. While the poor worked long hours under oppressive conditions, religious leaders accused them of laziness, drunkenness and immorality, while praising wealthy entrepreneurs for their diligence, honesty and Christ-like character. The reasoning was simple: given the available opportunities in the land, anyone who remained poor only had himself to blame. The Calvinists also referred to the Old Testament assumption that God blesses his elect with prosperity while cursing the damned with poverty. Apparently no serious thought was given to reconciling the huge divide between the rich minority and the poor majority with the principles of the kingdom of God as taught by Jesus.
Given the state of devastation of the south after the civil war, the gospel of wealth primarily took root in the north. The arguments used for its justification, as reported by Hughes, are of interest. For example Dale Carnegie, in 1889, justified the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few as follows:
“It is . . . essential for the progress of the race, that the houses of some should be homes for all that is highest and best in literature and the arts, and for the refinements of civilization, rather than that none should be so. . . . While the law [of competition] may be sometimes hard for the individual, it is best for the race, because it insures that survival of the fittest in every department. We accept and welcome, therefore, as conditions to which we must accommodate ourselves, great inequality of environment [and] the concentration of business . . . in the hands of a few.”
Carnegie then concludes:
‘Such, in my opinion, is the true Gospel concerning Wealth, obedience to which is destined some day to solve the problem of the Rich and the Poor, and to bring “Peace on earth, among men Good Will.”’
Of course the reference to “Peace on earth, among men Good Will” suggested that the gospel of wealth was going to be the correct way to the kingdom of God. Ironically, today we still hear that trickle-down economics is the way to solve societal problems in America.
Hughes also reports that the Reverend William Lawrence, episcopal bishop of Massachusetts, put together arguments to show that moral, hard working men inevitably prospered, while immoral, lazy men were bound for poverty. He then declared that “godliness is in league with riches”, a conclusion that profoundly contradicts New Testament teaching.
The Social Gospel
Compared to Protestants, Catholics were recent immigrants who were seriously victimized under the gospel of wealth. Hughes points to James Cardinal Gibbons, archbishop of Baltimore, as a Catholic leader who stood for the right of Catholics to join unions. As a result, Catholics dominated the first national labor union, the Knights of Labor, which was started in 1869.
Protestants on the other hand, were slower to see the inconsistencies of the gospel of wealth. Walter Rauschenbusch, pastor of the Second German Baptist Church in New York City, who worked closely with immigrants, provided the theological basis for the social gospel which urged Christians to participate in a massive ministry to the poor, to the “least of these”. Charles Sheldon popularized social gospel ideas with his 1897 novel In His Steps, in which he argued that Christians should be guided by the question “What would Jesus do?”
Proponents of the social gospel generally argued that it would usher in the kingdom of God. One of its strong advocates, Washington Gladden, rejected “the establishment of any form of religion by law in this land”, even though he wanted to see a nation whose purposes and policy priorities were guided by Christian principles, and felt that the social gospel would lead to that. While Rauschenbusch came to the conclusion that the kingdom of God would partly remain a future reality, other social gospel protagonists continued to believe that a Christianized nation would lead to a perfect social order.
The social gospel was generally aligned with the biblical vision with its focus on social justice. However, it had a serious weakness associated with its endorsement of messianic nationalism, the belief that Christian America had to lead the way for the rest of the world. A good example is Josiah Strong, author of the 1885 popular book Our Country, who was both a proponent of the social gospel and a believer in the manifest destiny doctrine, and the idea that the Anglo-Saxon race represented the “purest Christianity and the highest civilization”. Beliefs that assume the superiority of some humans over others obviously violate the principle of equality in Christ.
The Battle for Christian America – Fundamentalism
According to Hughes, the fundamentalist movement grew in the early twenties in response to “population shifts, the emergence of industrialization and the American city, the rise of evolution theory, and the emergence of biblical criticism”.
The industrialization of America occurred during and after the Civil War, and cities such as New York, Boston and Philadelphia were created in the north. Both immigrants (non-Protestant) and rural Anglo-Saxons migrated to those cities. This led to crowded tenements where poverty, hunger, disease and crime were rampant, a situation exacerbated by the gospel of wealth. So the working poor organized in unions, which were considered threatening to advocates of Christian America who saw them as representing a rise in alien power with liberal politics and subversive religions.
In 1859, Darwin published his book On the Origins of Species, which laid the foundation of the theory of evolution. The theory was received by fundamentalists as a rejection of the biblical teaching that God created man in his image. In addition, German scholars in the late 19th century began to propose evolutionary explanations for the origins of the books of the Bible, thereby introducing biblical criticism, which fundamentalists viewed as an attack against the assumption that the biblical texts were given by God to prophets like Moses.
Fundamentalism found its driving force among reformed churches (particularly Baptist, Presbyterian), and the general atmosphere that had been created by the Second Great Awakening. In particular, it embraced the Calvinist goal of making the nation an outpost of the kingdom of God. During these times of tremendous change, fundamentalists felt they had to defend the truth of the Bible and Christian America as a place of timeless truths. For that purpose, they identified five truths: the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, the substitutionary atonement on behalf of sinners, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and Jesus’ imminent premillennial return to reign on earth with his saints. These five fundamental truths had to be defended at any cost for the survival of Christian civilization.
The virgin birth of Jesus Christ, the substitutionary atonement on behalf of sinners, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus were already accepted by orthodox Christianity, even though the fundamentalists’ emphasis on the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Jesus was part of a worldview where belief in miracles and the supernatural had to prevail over the scientific approach of the 18th century enlightenment. But by introducing the inerrancy of the Bible, the fundamentalists made the Bible a divinely authored book of scientific truths that could not be contested, and where the literal interpretation was the only acceptable one. It was no longer a book of theology with room for paradox, ambiguity, mystery. Hughes states that the inerrancy of the Bible placed the Bible in a straightjacket: either it was true or it was false. It became “uncomfortable with dialogue, ill at ease with diversity, and suspicious of pluralism.” Furthermore, the new emphasis was on correct beliefs rather than a focus on the ethics of the kingdom of God. According to Hughes:
“The fundamentalists’ vision for Christian America, therefore, was a vision based on what they regarded as correct beliefs, especially with respect to biblical criticism and evolutionary theory. But their preoccupation with correct beliefs lent to fundamentalism an inherently defensive nature, a reluctance to dialogue with its enemies, and a tendency to bifurcate the world into good and evil. Those whom the fundamentalists viewed as good were those who upheld God’s eternal truths, at least as the fundamentalists understood those truths. And those they viewed as evil were those who did not.”
Regarding Jesus’ imminent premillennial return to reign on earth with his saints, the word “imminent” implied that Jesus would return soon, and the world “premillennial” implied that he would return before his thousand year rule announced in Revelation 20. Fundamentalists generally adopted the premillennial theory of itinerant British preacher John Nelson Darby, which was popularized by annotations in John Scofield’s Reference Bible published in 1909. According to the theory, the history of the world consisted in 7 dispensations. The current time corresponded to the 6th one, and Jesus would return during the 7th one, when the “rapture” would occur: Jesus would “spirit” the elect to heaven from which they would witness the 7 years of Tribulation during which the antichrist would rule. Before these events, the Jews would return to their homeland and rebuild the temple. The antichrist would primarily oppress the Jews during his 7 year reign. But at the end of the 7 years, Jesus would return and save a remnant of the Jews who have converted to Christianity. He would then defeat the antichrist in the battle of Armageddon and reign for 1000 years. The resurrection of the dead and the final judgment would then occur.
In the early years, many fundamentalists believed America was beyond repair. They took refuge in the biblical vision of the kingdom of God, refusing to fight or vote, claiming citizenship in the kingdom of God, and saying Jesus would come back soon, which made it futile to “become embroiled in a battle to save the sinking ship of civilization.” However after World War I, they appear to have changed their minds. Among other things, they apparently found an opportunity to vilify Germany, the nation they saw as the source of evils such as evolution theory and biblical criticism. Their new fight was to stand against those evils and protect Christian America from their destructive power. Therefore fundamentalists shared with the Second Great Awakening a commitment to a Christian America. However, Hughes points out differences in the objectives of the two movements: while the Second Great Awakening fought against slavery, for prison reform, and for common schools throughout the country, fundamentalists fought for an inerrant Bible and against the teaching in schools of scientific theories that did not conform to a literal interpretation of the Bible.
The Scopes trial of 1925 was about the prosecution of a teacher, Scopes, who wanted to teach evolution even though state law (Tennessee) prohibited it. William Jennings Bryan, a man who had run for president, prosecuted the case. But journalist H. L. Mencken, in his reporting, unfairly depicted Bryan as the prototype of the ignorant rural fundamentalist. Even though Scopes lost the case, the reporting damaged the reputation of fundamentalism and contributed to its demise. At that point fundamentalists simply assumed that America was hopeless as a Christian nation, and withdrew again from participation in national life, remaining in a cultural ghetto for 50 years. Hughes highlights Billy Graham’s role in redirecting the movement towards evangelicalism in later years:
“After World War II, significant segments of fundamentalism morphed into a kinder, gentler form of the Christian faith under the leadership of revivalist Billy Graham. In effect, Graham was calling fundamentalists back to the evangelical spirit of the nineteenth century, reflected in the Second Great Awakening, and many who made that transition considered themselves evangelicals, not fundamentalists.”
The Rebirth of Fundamentalism
Once again, immigration was one of the factors leading to the resurgence of fundamentalism. This time, it was not just European immigration, but populations from Asia, Africa, some with completely different religions (Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism), were involved. These new waves influenced the younger American generations which tended to reject Christianity, blaming it for the failures of society and the evils of racism, the Vietnam War, etc. The older generations, on the other hand, considered this counterculture as unpatriotic, subversive, anti-American. The 60’s and 70’s were decades of serious upheaval threatening American culture. This created an opportunity for fundamentalism to rise again, with the goal of restoring the perceived tranquility of 19th century Christian America.
Jerry Falwell, a Baptist preacher from Lynchburg, Virginia, inspired by President Nixon’s reference to a “silent majority” that supported the Vietnam War, claimed, along with other like-minded religious leaders, that a “moral majority” was ready to support the goal of a Christianized American life, culture and politics. In 1979, they created a religio-political organization called the Moral Majority. This was followed by the creation of the Family Research Council by James Dobson in 1981, and the creation of the Christian Coalition by Pat Robertson in 1989.
Unlike all the earlier movements, the fundamentalism that reappeared in the late 1970s and 1980s deliberately sought to achieve its goals through political engagement. Fundamentalists pushed their senators and representatives for legislation favorable to prayer in public schools, for banning of abortion and for banning the teaching of evolution in public schools. They also used the political process to undermine efforts towards diversity and pluralism by fighting the Equal Rights Amendment, gay rights and the US-Soviet SALT treaties. Of course the opposition by fundamentalists to women’s rights is in direct violation of Galatians 3:27-28.
On the general question of their adherence to the biblical vision of the kingdom of God, Hughes notes that Reverend Joel C Hunter had to resign soon after he became president of Robertson’s Christian Coalition in 2006: his vision of expanding the organization’s agenda beyond abortion and gay rights to include poverty reduction and global warming was judged unacceptable. Hughes also points out that the origins of the so-called “religious right” can be traced to the mid-70’s and are tied to support of racial segregation in Christian schools such as Bob Jones University.
According to Hughes, fundamentalists and evangelicals (except for evangelicals such as Tony Campolo, Bryan D McLaren, Jim Wallis and Ron Sider) have similar beliefs and primarily differ only in their demeanor, as fundamentalists seem to enjoy fighting against their enemies while evangelicals do not: “In a word, the difference between fundamentalists and evangelicals was the difference between Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, on the one hand, and Billy Graham, on the other.” In the political arena, as a block, fundamentalists and evangelicals have been on the republican side since the 1980’s. George W Bush received 68% of their votes in 2000 and 78% in 2004, and their leaders have expressed their approval of his priorities in no uncertain terms. Therefore, a look at Bush’s worldview is a good indication of the fundamentalist/evangelical worldview.
Bush’s main initiative was the War on Terror which was carried out primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan at a high cost in human lives. Support for the associated militaristic enterprises was high among conservative Christians. In fact their support level was higher than support among the general population. In an attempt to explain why conservative Christians abandoned the biblical vision to support these policies, Hughes studied Bush’s public statements and identified three dominant myths: the myth of the chosen nation, the myth of American innocence, and the myth of the millennial nation.
The myth of the chosen nation is seen in the fact that Bush repeatedly declared that it was America’s mission to promote Freedom all over the world, a mission ordered by the Author of Freedom himself. He even used Jeffersonian language to justify his focus on liberty. But while the Founders would have thought of promoting these ideas of liberty by example, Bush promoted them through utter violence and claimed he was doing God’s will. Hughes states that “By introducing the element of force, and by suggesting that God had authorized that force and had called the United States to implement that force, George W. Bush subverted one of the great legacies of the American people— the notion guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence that while all men are entitled to liberty, they are also entitled to life. In this way, he virtually destroyed the myth of nature’s nation and placed in its stead the nonsensical and oxymoronic notion that God forces all human beings to be free.” Hughes gives examples illustrating Bush’s assumption of America as a chosen nation. For example, quoting a passage from John’s gospel out of context, Bush proclaimed that America is the light shining into darkness, even though only Christ qualifies to be that light. Furthermore, Bush and his administration essentially assumed that their enemies were fundamentally evil and subhuman. Given America’s mission to rid the world of evil, he issued a warning to the world: “every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” No thought was given to trying to understand why America was hated by some people outside of the United States.
The myth of American innocence can be seen in the fact that Bush, going beyond any of the previous administrations, advocated and conducted preemptive warfare, while at the same time proclaiming America’s goodness: “We are not conquerors; we’re liberators.” In general there was a belief in the Bush camp that only America could lead the world because America was guided by “sound principles and high ideals”. But there is something wrong with the idea that one can justify violence and other wrong conduct in the name of promoting “sound principles and high ideals”. It no longer matters that thousands of people are killed, that torture is used, or that lies are used to justify the means.
Regarding the myth of millennial America, Hughes examines Darby’s premillennial theory and points out that it assumes the return of Israel to the Promised Land. When Israel proclaimed itself a homeland for all Jews in 1948, and then won the 6-day war in 1967 against Egypt, Jordan and Syria, fundamentalists were convinced they were witnessing the fulfillment of prophecy. They have since then unconditionally supported Israel. They have supported Israeli settlements on the West Bank and they have encouraged a military buildup in America. They now see Islam, instead of the Soviet Union, as the antichrist and look forward to the battle of Armageddon which will oppose the forces of good and the forces of evil. They believe America will play a role in hastening the coming of these end time events, and some even believe God intends to use nuclear weapons in the conflict. They actually look forward to the conflict given their belief that God’s elects will be protected from it by the “rapture”.
Hughes ends his book with a brief comparison of America with both the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire. All of them were Christian nations in some sense, but fell far short of the standard of the kingdom of God as proclaimed by Jesus.
Leave a Comment