A "Christian" Nation Wouldn't Act This Way

The quote from the Federalist papers illustrates part of the problem. It reflects a view that some, such as those enslaved from Africa and all the Europeans from countries that don't speak English, don't even count as people. The quote is, in fact, a lie. The "common religion" of which it speaks must be some sort of domesticated servant of the elite, not the radical message of Jesus Christ.

I'm disappointed by McLaren. By asking "when?" he gives the phrase "Christian nation" respectability. The very concept of a "Christian nation" should be questioned.

A straightforward reading of Jesus and Paul in the New Testament reveals that the idea of a "Christian nation" is contrary to their ideals and to their visions for their followers. In fact, both Jesus and Paul are deeply suspicious of the state and seem to want to keep it at arm's length.

This does not mean that they saw religion as a private matter that is apolitical. By contrast, they understand the religious movement they fostered as deeply political. It offered an alternative way of living that contrasted with the power of Imperial Rome. It offered an alternative community that contrasted with Roman citizenship. But it was not supposed to set up a competing empire: "a Christian nation." Instead, to use Jesus' imagery, Christians were supposed to be spread throughout the nations of the world like yeast in bread, offering a different vision of human life.

But in the fourth century Christians achieved political power and started to adjust Christian ideals in order to justify empires. This has been one of the primary dilemmas in Christianity ever since, and Christians needs to re-read the New Testament to be reminded of the distinctive vision of Jesus and Paul.

I think that a Christian's response to the phrase "Christian nation" should be: "I hope not, because building Christian nations is not in our mission statement."

ANOTHER INCONVENIENT TRUTH:

If the U.S.A. were truly a Christian nation it would not have fought any of its wars. It would have let its enemies have their way.

Betweeen "thou shall not kill", "turn the other cheek", and "love thine enemy", the only appropriate response for a Christian nation faced with attack is to accept a pacifist martyrdom, just as Jesus did.

The US became a "Christian Nation" when right-wing fanatics like Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Haggard, et. al. hijacked the name Christianity, rallied their lemmings behind it and established a theocracy under Cheney. Let's hope we can restore our democracy in spite of the constant cynicism, negativity and intolerance of Limbaugh's hate radio and RNC Fox News. Let's hope the brand Christianity can be restored to the loving words of Jesus.

Here is my definition of irony:

America considers itself a "Christian nation" because the founding fathers were mostly Christian or Deist, and because Christianity is still the dominant religion. Yet for all the fancy buildings, high-tech presentations and self-sustaining media, we are becoming callow in our spirituality. And many are falling away from the faith.

Contrast that from other countries that are definitely not "Christian nations" where people could be beaten, raped, tortured, and even killed for saying they are a Christian. Yet in places like China, Vietnam, and the Muslim world, Christianity is growing by leaps and bounds. In China alone, more than 3,000 people give their lives to Jesus every day. Here in the Christian nation, people don't even have the stamina to sit through an entire service, while there they are experiencing Pentecost daily.

That's ironic.

President Obama was correct in stating that the United States is not at war with Islam. The government of United States has no right or authority to declare war on any religion. Do American Christians really believe that Christianity benefits by being associated with all that America represents in the Muslim world? To many Muslims, America appears as the great fountain of pornography, debased entertainments, abortion, and sexual revolution. Does it help our witness to Christ that all this would be associated in the Muslim mind with "Christian" America?

I criticize President Obama, not for stating that America is not at war with Islam, but for failing to be honest in clarifying that we do face a great civilizational challenge in Islam. Islam is, in effect, the single most vital competitor to Western ideals of civilization on the world scene. The logic of Islam is to bring every square inch of this planet under submission to the rule of the Qur'an. Classical Islam divides the world into the "World of Islam" and the "World of War." In this latter world the struggle to bring the society under submission to the Qur'an is still ongoing.
This ambition drives the Muslim world -- and each faithful Muslim -- to hope, pray, and work for the submission of the whole world to the Qur'an. Clearly, most Muslims are not willing to employ terrorism in order to achieve this goal. Nevertheless, it remains the goal.

We have to consider what it means to be a Christian in the modern world, as opposed to what it meant to be a Christian in the ancient world. There are too many so-called religious people all over the world who cling to ancient pre-modern beliefs that have nothing to do with the core Christian values written down in the four Gospels. If Jesus were alive today, he would not be trying to insist that the world is 6,000 years old. He was not alive when all the millenialist clap-trap was written in the Book of Revelations. But there are many things which Jesus was not, and according to the Gospels he was not tolerant of those who clinged to their own version of dogmatic religion. He was not tolerant of sinners, but accepted those who sincerely repented of their sins. The best modern-era role model we can look to for guidance today is John Wesley and his early Methodist movement in England, or to Christianity as it exists today in many eastern Orthodox communities.

Too long people have said anything and as long as they said "it's God's will" or "that is what Chirst believes" you can't disagree or you aren't a "true" Christian as if not believing in the flat tax makes you a satan worshipper.

From what I can tell about the emerging church, it appears to be a serious distortion of the Biblical truths and miracles revealed in the New Testament.

Our nation for most of its history was considered to be a Christian nation. This is not to say we haven't had some blind spots. Our status as a Christian nation can easily be found in hundreds of quotes from our founders, resolutions by Congress, and findings of our Supreme Court on several occasions even into the 1950s.

Rev. McLaren has taken the meaning of "e pluribus unum" out of context. It means "from many into one." McLaren would have you believe that the motto celebrates our diversity when in actuality it celebrates our diverse backgrounds and cultures coming into one common culture, and that culture was based upon the Judeo-Christian principles revealed in the Holy Scriptures.

Our strength as a country is best described by John Jay in Federalist paper No. 2:

I often note with equal pleasure that God gave this one connected country to one united people-a people descended from the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in manners and customs. They fought side by side through a long and bloody war, establishing liberty and independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other. It appears like this inheritance was designed by God for a band of brethren united by the strongest ties. They should never split into a number of un-social, jealous, and alien sovereignties.

Federalist Papers in Modern Language, by Mary E. Webster, pg. 20

Thank you, Rev. McLaren, for your thoughtful essay, As a Catholic I think we are less Catholic Americans and more the Catholic Church in America than we were a century ago. This transition has required not only the interior renewal of individuals, but we have reflected on how our Church influences and changes the nation on larger social and cultural dimensions,

From Apostolic times until now, the Church has given her best when, accourding to St. Paul, she "was in the world, but not of the world." Or in the words of the alledged "other Jesuit motto,"
when we "comforted the sorrowing, and discomforted the comfortable."