Is America a Christian Nation?
Believe it or not, this is a more complicated question than one might imagine.
On the one hand, those who argue against the proposition point to several key pieces of evidence. First, many if not most of the Founders of the country cannot be described accurately as Christians but as Deists, persons who believe that a benevolent Creator set the world in motion but no longer intervenes in it. Indeed, Washington would never publicly admit to being a Christian and Jefferson was regularly accused of being hostile to Christianity and famously took his scissors to the Bible to cut out any incidences of divine interaction.
Further, the United States has always been home to a multitude of faith traditions and, indeed, was imagined from the beginning to be a religious haven. The first of the Amendments to The U.S. Constitution, collectively known as the “Bill of Rights,” states clearly that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This not only guaranteed freedom of belief but also ensured that no single religion would be given privileges over others.
So on both historical and constitutional grounds, you can argue strongly that America is definitely not a Christian nation.
At the same time, though, it’s difficult to contend that any faith has exercised even close to the amount of influence that Christianity has. The first universities in the country – including most of what we now call the “Ivy League” – were established to train Christian clergy. An overwhelming number of welfare institutions from hospitals and orphanages to immigration and refugee services were established by churches. For many years, church attendance was considered a cultural value, and while that has waned in recent decades in some parts of the country, belief in God – and usually this means the Christian God – still runs high.
Further, whatever the current church-going habits or religious beliefs of the population, Americans adorn themselves in religious imagery and language, from the motto “in God we trust” on our money to the “so help me God” that Washington improvised in his acceptance of the presidency. Indeed, it’s hard today to imagine a candidate for our highest office closing a major speech with any words other than “God bless America.” As Darrin Grinder, author of The Presidents and Their Faith, says in a recent CNN interview, “It’s going to be a long time before anyone who openly admits that he or she is an agnostic or an atheist is elected.”
For these reasons, those who support the notion of a “Christian America” can convincingly argue that the de facto stance of this country has been to privilege the belief of, if not simply Christianity, at least what’s often called “the Judeo-Christian tradition” because of its central place in this nation’s evolution.
Beyond how one answers this question, however, two elements of the debate are worth noting. The first is the energy, even ferocity, behind the answers people on either side of the divide give. There is much at stake, it would seem, in identifying America as either Christian or pluralistic. This seems particularly, and somewhat paradoxically, true of believers who want to “keep God in America,” but overlook Jesus’ words “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36) or his admonition to “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:7, Matt. 22:21, Luke 20:25). Given their belief that God founded America and indeed has given it a privileged place in the history of the world, conservative Christians often act as if a pluralistic America is tantamount to sacrilege. Christian belief and American identity are for many interwoven so tightly that we might with good reason describe the prevailing religion of this country “Americanity.”
Those who oppose identifying the United States as Christian are hardly less vehement. Such an identification runs the risk not only of betraying our constitutional heritage, they argue, but of inviting a theocracy in which the rights of persons who hold “minority” faiths or no faith at all are jeopardized. Influenced by Jefferson’s more absolute sense of “the wall of separation between church and state,” they take the first amendment not as admonition to protect religious freedom from the interference of government but instead to protect government from religion.
Beyond the passion each position exhibits for their views, however, what interests me even more is the tendency of both sides to overlook the biblical implications of claiming God’s divine providence. Throughout the Bible, Israel enjoyed not only special favor but significant responsibility because of its relationship with God. The promise made to Abraham, the principal forebear of both Judaism and Christianity, involves both blessing and duty: “I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing” (Gen. 12:2).
While Presidents invoking God’s blessing on America may neglect the biblical sensibility that we are always “blessed to be a blessing,” early religious leaders in the United States did not. John Winthrop, one of the founders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, preached a sermon in which he imagined America as a “city set upon a hill.” But while Presidents since, most particularly Ronald Reagan, took that image to establish a divine exceptionalism for this country, Winthrop himself believed that America would be blessed by God only to the degree that it followed God’s ordinances.
And what are those ordinances? The prophet Micah answers as clearly as any: “what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (6:8). Israel is again and again admonished to care for the poor and warned that they will be judged not simply, or even primarily, on their religious practices but on their treatment of the vulnerable. Indeed, religious practice apart from acts of mercy is rejected by God as false piety. As Amos warns those who “lie on beds of ivory and…eat lambs from the flock,” while others go hungry (6:4-6):
I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt-offerings and grain-offerings, I will not accept them; and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the melody of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. (5:21-24)
Here is religious devotion more than ample to satisfy the pious cravings of anyone from the right that is simultaneously anchored in a social consciousness that would warm the cockles of the heart of anyone on the left.
So perhaps on this Fourth of July when we celebrate and give thanks for the liberties and luxuries that citizenship in this nation affords, the question both religious and secular alike might ask is not, “Is America a Christian nation?’” but rather, “What would it be like if America acted like one?”
Post image: Chaplain Jacob Duché leading the first prayer in the First Continental Congress at Carpenter’s Hall, Philadelphia, September 1774; artist unknown.
This is my first time posting a comment on your blog, so let me begin by thanking you for posting some very thought-provoking articles!
Now for my comment. Your suggested question at the end of the article is an excellent one! My congregation had a short service of patriotic hymns and videos before our regular worship service this past Sunday. While much of the service had a pleasantly surprising prayerful feel to it, there were a number of times when I felt extremely uncomfortable. These were the times when a song or video either equated Christianity and America to be one and the same, or exalted America and its ideals in a very romanticized way.
The reason for my discomfort is that, while people claim we live in “Christian nation,” it’s usually overlooked that many things taking place within our borders (as well as some things our nation does outside its borders) don’t seem to demonstrate a true desire to follow Jesus, or at least, they don’t demonstrate a lot of success at doing it.
For example, if America was truly a “Christian nation,” why is there so much poverty, hunger, and homelessness in our land? I know there are plenty of organizations that help people in these situations, and I’m grateful for them. But when I look at the way America’s political system functions, being heavily swayed by who has the most money and often showing favor to those who have money and power, I don’t see this as being particularly “Christian” behavior.
As another example, I point to the reaction by many in the general populace when Osama bin Laden was killed. People were rejoicing and celebrating at the assassination of a human being. Yes, I understand this particular human being was responsible for some pretty bad things, but the truth is, he was still a human being. He was still a person made in God’s image and likeness. He was still a person for whom Jesus gave His life. In no way do I defend any of the bad things that bin Laden did, but if we really lived in a Christian nation, shouldn’t people have mourned at his death instead of celebrating it? Shouldn’t we have looked upon it as the sad end of a darkened life, rather than a victory for the “good guys” over the “bad guys”?
These are just a couple examples, and in no way do I intend them to be offensive. However, I often find myself caught in the tension between trying to understand and live what it means to be faithful to my God and trying to interact with my surrounding culture in a meaningful and respectful way. Your article, and especially your closing question, have given me some words to work with. So thanks again!
Amusingly, Richard Rohr comments in THE NAKED NOW, that most Christians these days are deists that happen to have named their God, Jesus.
First, your credibility is suspect. You really need to read a little about what you speak of. I highly suggest you read a book called “The Jefferson Lies” by David Barton. You may also want to consider which church Washington attended. You throw out myths and false information as your assumptions and build on them without challenge. Read the book and then reconsider even your most basic points.
Everything you say after your opening few sentences is irrelevant because you failed to recognize basic truth in them. To even suggest that Jefferson was not a Christian is to be simply ignorant. You have not researched this but you have simply speed the rhetoric that you have heard that suits your agenda.
Thanks for your comment, Dan. I assume you mean the book by David Barton with the forward by Glenn Beck? I’m sure you’re aware that Mr. Barton has been widely accused of “outright falsehood” by respected historians. You can look here for just one review of his work. By and large, the opinion seems to be that Mr. Barton plays fast and loose with the facts to push not a historical, but rather a theological and cultural agenda. Needless to say, I am as suspect of Mr. Barton’s bias as you apparently are of mine. Thanks, again, for posting.
What is ignorant are those that tend to follow a certain belief or certain people with certain beliefs and not examining the other side and coming up with an educated opinion or belief.
While I appreciate your attempt to provide a reasoned approach to the question, reality suggests that the answer is not so much a matter of reason, as it is the divide between the christian right’s use of religion to justify their misogynistic, homophobic, racist xenophobia, and everyone else attempting to justify a pluralistic point of view.
Both left and right employ a “cherry picking” hermeneutic in their approach to the bible and subsequent theology. You can reference the prophetic witness to support your position, but what about the Torah? What about Leviticus? The history of christianity in the United States is rife with schism after schism, because some alpha monkey disagreed with another about the degree to which people should be punished for so-called aberrant behaviors.
I agree that we are, in part, a culturally christian nation, as evidenced by the stance some ardent atheists take in talking about Jesus, as if he were a historical character.
The issue for the right is deeper than what we call ourselves. They want to impose a punitive christian theocracy on everyone, of the same ilk as the Islamic Republic of Iran. The question would be, whose brand of theocracy?
I’m writing this, because a friend of mine from our seminary days posted a link to your blog on his Facebook wall. I respect his opinion, though I am now an atheist. I do, however, appreciate your attempt to frame the issue in moderate terms.
“The question would be, whose brand of theocracy?”
Great question! It’s this kind of question that makes me support a clear separation between religion and state. Within Christianity, there are too many differences in belief and practice to make being an officially “Christian nation” a comfortable prospect for me. And there are too many people of different religions in this country to make me comfortable with any one of them becoming an official “state religion”. No matter which religion / version of a religion is in power, there would be far too much potential for vehement or violent disagreement, and too much opportunity for the religion in power to persecute those it didn’t like or agree with.
Basic Political Science 001. Christian people that make this claim have not educated themselves in our history and politics. I have always asked, if the founding fathers where leaving a Theocracy why would they want to set one in the Americas? If the founding fathers wanted a Christian nation, why did it take until the McCarthy era to change our money to “In God We Trust?”
If they believe the Bible, why did Jesus say, leave to Cesar what belongs to Cesar, but His world was not of this world (paraphrased)? Religion and Politics should not mix, according to their Jesus and the intentions of our founding fathers.
Wonderful thoughts again DJL! I was remarking to my wife last night that I always have the troubling stomach catch when I hear anyone say, “God bless America” because among the reasons you mention here, it gives America the feeling of the ‘new’ Israel, the privileged child of God, which conjures up in my mind the many ways Israel reacted by going and conquering in the name of Israel’s God.
I also wonder, since I am a digital native and often converse and interact with people from various parts of the world, that I am also given pause by the simple understanding that I have of a truly global world that is highly connected, not just by God, but by the fact that we can see and interact and impact the lives of those people thousands of miles away in a multitude of ways. The phrase of “God Bless America” in that context takes on amazing gravity when viewed through the lens of “Blessed to be a blessing”. I thank you again for your question posed at the conclusion of this article… truly intriguing and provocative!
Good reflections on a challenging topic. As I consider this topic, several ideas come to mind. We ask the question, but what are the implications for the answer? No religion I know suggests entire countries are subject to salvation or damnation. So even if we’re deemed a Christian nation how does that affect my standing before God?
I agree that sometimes the government has to guard itself from religious bullies pushing for a theocracy, just as the church has to guard itself from the government limiting free speech and equal protection under the law.
But it is helpful to understand who we are as a people as it relates to values because values lead to laws and policy (government’s domain) but they are often rooted in religious conviction (personal domain). It is neither productive nor possible to have public discourse scrubbed clean from the influence of faith.
Sometimes I think I would be a good thing for this nation no longer to be considered a Christian nation. It would challenge individual Christians to live out the values of Jesus personally. Many limited-government Christians think the church became weaker and softer when “helping widows and orphans” became a government responsibility. If a person can transfer the call of justice and mercy to become the government’s responsibility, I can focus my attention on pursuing the American dream and taking care of number 1.
One last thought – I’ve often thought about the meaning of Jesus’ charge to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.” If God created all and owns “the cattle of a thousand hills” what part is Caesar’s? Just askin’.
Pardon me for coming in late, but with the upcoming 57th Inauguration for Barack Obama I would like to say, I agree that “Americans adorn themselves in religious imagery and language,” which is set along side the “’so help me God’ that Washington improvised in his acceptance of the presidency.” Unfortunately, despite David Baton’s argument to the contrary, the notion that Washington improvised a religious codicil to his oath of office is much more of an American legend than an historical fact.
David Barton lists several historical authorities such as The Chief Historian of the United States Capitol Historical Society, the Library of Congress, … , the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, the , Architect of the Capitol, and other notables have affirmed that “so help me God” is a traditional practice dating back to George Washington. The problem here is that currently the above mentioned websites do not promote the notion that Washington added “So help me God.” If you check with a notable like Ed Lengel, editor-in-chief of The Papers of George Washington, who wrote the book, Inventing George Washington, page 105, you’ll read
his conclusion: “In sum, any attempt to prove Washington added ‘So help me God’ requires mental gymnastics of the sort that would do credit to the finest artist of the flying trapeze.”