Richard T. Hughes, distinguished professor of Religion at Messiah College, was interviewed today on Radio Times with Marty Moss-Coane on the topic of ‘Christian America.’ Hughes has recently written a book entitled Christian America and the Kingdom of God that deals with this topic, although it does not include etymologies of the term “Haimirich.”
Hughes’ view is that America is not a Christian nation, save for the fact that many people within the United States claim to be Christians. Rather our nation is comprised of many religions with each citizen being allowed to practice their own religion, as our founding fathers so desired. He notes that some of our founding fathers were Christians, but that most were Deists. It was not specifically Christian values or ideals, however, which started the fire.
It is an interesting and informative interview which you can listen to here (it’s the second hour of the program).
Was anyone able to listen to this interview? What are your thoughts on the topic?
13 October 2009 at 2.45 pm
I don’t recall America asking Jesus into her heart.
All seriousness aside, Christendom is over and we should weep for a moment and get back to work.
13 October 2009 at 3.55 pm
@Jason: I’m not sure we should even weep about Christendom. The marriage of church and empire throughout, while arguably doing some good, has also led to some of history’s most infamous travesties (i.e., Crusades, Inquisition, etc.). I’m happy for Christendom to be over and done with in the same way that I’m happy for the colonial model of missions to be over and done with.
13 October 2009 at 4.34 pm
I hate to, but I have to demur, Art. I agree with the premise, namely that America was certainly not founded as a “Christian” nation; yet, while many aspects of Christendom were inherently tragic, yet as Leithart argued in Against Christianity, just b/c the particular practice of Christendom were wrong and gravely so, does not make the idea of Christendom itself a mistake (Oliver O’Donovan has a similar pespective in his Desire of the Nations).
If by greatest tragedies, you mean the fact that those awful things were done in nomine Christi, then I fundamentally agree; however, if you mean they were the greatest tragedies in human history (which I doubt you do mean), then I could not disagree more. Since the rise of the Liberal state (including the “Wars of Religion” ending at Westphalia; see anything by William Cavanaugh, but particular his “Fire Dtrong Enough to Consume the House” in Modern Theology), there have been nothing but wars fighting for the unlimited voluntarist sovereignty of the individual will, or conversely the sovereignty of the collective will. One only has to look as far back as Jacobin savagery, all the way to the progressive and socialist Eugenics (not to mention the Holocaust), gulags and killing fields of this last century.
Such awful and atrocious evils, I would venture to guess, would not be possible under Christendom. The oceans of blood spliied in honor of the (liberal or Marxist) Modern state are for what end? I know it is not popular or expedient to have a vision of a ‘Societas Christiana’, but it is a vision that I do share, though as our culture further degradates into pernicious nihilism, I am not at all hopeful. When “choice” is your highest good, as it is for us, then you will have what we have: a post-Christian Nihilism, wrought out by the Death of God. Hope this helps.
13 October 2009 at 5.59 pm
I am all about trashing this idea of “Christian America.” There is no such thing as a Christian nation.
However, I don’t like people twisting the facts to prove a point. The notion that most of the Founding Fathers were deists is flat out wrong. “The Founding Fathers” is a proper name referring to the delegates at the Constitutional Convention. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists–Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin–this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith so we have the records.
13 October 2009 at 6.03 pm
Triple,
I would agree that the sheer magnitude of death the various political and secular machines of the 20th century are unmatched historically. I would however disagree that Christian movements have been any less vicious although perhaps less efficent. The Inquisitions and the Salem witch trials are often mentioned and misunderstood (by atheists and Christians alike.) I have in mind such things as the Rwanda genocides which were instigated in large part by the Christian teaching known as “Hamitic THeology” which held that Tutsis were superior racially to Hutus. The toll here is between 500-800k so its a large genocide and the brutality of these two Christian groups towards each other is likely unmatched by many similar events. Recorded rapes, murders, mutilations and like attrocities were universal.
Other less konwn (but more infamous) outcomes of CHristian rule might include things like Afrikaaner Calvinism (which was directly responsible for Apartheid, racial subjegation and the various wars and attrocities throughout southern Africa; in Zimbabwe, South Africa, and modern day Botswana.) Here it is impossible to assess the death toll that the unchecked radical calvinistic notion that whites were “elect” and blacks were not caused, but I would bet its in the tens of millions (since this movement ran from the 1700′s to the 20th century.
In saying all this, all I am saying is that politically and historically I remain unconvinced that Christians will do a better job, or will run a country more equitably. As the old adage goes, absolute power and corruption and all that…
13 October 2009 at 7.53 pm
Nick,
Would you agree that the biblical prophetic tradition is the primary basis for the secular liberalism? I think the historical evidence for it is hard to dismiss.
It’s interesting you picked Africa for your examples. As you know, Africa is a mess and will probably continue to be for some time to come. It’s really hard to lay all of that at the feet of Xy. As bad as apartheid was (and it was very bad indeed!), isn’t crime, aided by government incompetence and corruption, killing even more in S.A. today? I was in S.A. just two months ago, and I can attest that the people there live in constant fear. Granted, it wasn’t very safe in the apartheid era if you were outspoken politically. But I dare say that your average person felt safer.
Afrikaner Calvinism provided justification for apartheid, but it’s not fair to say it caused it. Obviously, European imperialism and colonialism were pervasive in all of Africa. (White rule was no less true under British rule before the Afrikaners took power in 1948.) Sadly, Xy in many varieties was misused as a justif ication. The use of Calvinism in SA was not unique; it fit the norm.
Your “tens of millions” number is highly questionable. I’d really like to see evidence of that. The indignity of apartheid was what made it particularly contemptible. But in terms of health and living in relative safety, you can certainly make the case that blacks were better off in SA than most other African countries. Remember, I’m not saying that your average black would prefer SA. I know that if I were a black in SA, the indignity of white rule would have been too much to take.
The white-black conflict in SA is really not all that different from the white-native peoples conflict in North America or Australia. In both cases, the European vision of land use and development differed from that of the native populations. Sadly, this conflict of vision was to the detriment of the native peoples. The only difference with southern Africa is that white populations in No. America and Australia were able to overwhelm the native populations.
I don’t think Xy had much to do with any of this. Unless, of course, you want to say that missionaries to the American Indians were their biggest defenders. (Read _Cherokees and Missionaries_ by William McLoughlin of Brown Univ.)
13 October 2009 at 9.07 pm
Much of the Christianity that Americans practice actually is deistic moralism so really the idea that America is a Christian nation is true in the way many people mean it.
The idea that America is or ever was a truly christian (ie. biblical grace, faith, justice, Jesus etc) nation is ridiculous.
13 October 2009 at 9.15 pm
Not to mention that stellar supposed Christian nation annihilated Native Americans systematically in a literal genocide. We just conveniently label it differently. That is no more different than anything the other nations did— Kill people based on their race, ethnicity, and culture.
The assertion that our nation was free and equal only applied to those who fit a very narrow definition. Those outside of it were either kidnapped, enslaved, killed or displaced.
13 October 2009 at 10.14 pm
my my how easy it is to chase rabbits.
The interview reminds me of Kierkegaard’s critique of his Danish brethren. The absurdity of this present discussion avails itself as we seriously discuss which is worse – “Christian” massacres/political disasters over against all others. Is this something to legitimately argue? History is full of atrocities within the church and outside of it. The issue really seems to focus on universal ethics. American Christians have thought for too long that because our laws have some sense of Judeo/Christian semblance that abiding by the law means our ethics are in line with the New Testament. This was Kierkegaard’s frustration with his own people. The flaunting of “Christianity” without the depth, relentlessness, and suffering the New Testament portrays is nauseating at best and a complete misrepresentation of the gospel at worst.
What we have is a Christianity in America that more resembles the observation by Marx that “religion is the opiate of humanity.” I agree with Hughes, we have a lot of people claiming this opiate (because it makes them feel good) but less still who are actually living out the demands of the gospel.
14 October 2009 at 12.10 am
Manlius,
I certainly agree that one cannot seperate political and imperial concerns from religious ones. I guess my point was that Christian nations (such as South Africa, Rwanda, Kenya, etc…) are no better or worse than secular nations or Buddhist nations or etc… Hence the thought that a country established as a Christian nation is a better nation is,l IMO, just short sighted.
As for the tens of millions comment and the relative safety of apartheid, I think this is right if you consider the 1950′s until the post apartheid period. Surely the death toll was less and life in SA now is way worse than under apartheid. It is not true, however, if you begin as I did in the 1700′s and continue through the next 3 centuries in which the killing of blacks was commonplace by various police, civilians and in general whites. Also notice my guess is based not just on south africa, but on the other apratheid nations which were effected by Afrikaner Calvinism.
As for a source, the best treatment of this would be Rian Malan’s “My Traitor’s Heart.” Malan was a journalist in SA during the 60′s and 70′s and watched the deconstruction of formalized apartheid. He also happens to be the great great great (etc..) grandson of Daniel François Malan, one of the architects of apartheid.
So my guess at numbers is combining three nations over a period of 250 years and I would include “legal” killings which were likely illicit. As I said, however, its just an educated guess and the number shouldn’t be taken too seriously. It may be off, but I would think that the figure would have to be at least a few million. It certainly would not seem (having said all that) that Dutch Calvinists were any better at equity and kindness than your average secularist.
14 October 2009 at 3.52 am
[...] The Myth of a Christian America Making the case that America was founded as a deist, rather than Christian, nation. Meanwhile, the Catholic Anarchist said… “I’m currently knee deep in readings related to the question of the status of the “local church” in Roman Catholic ecclesiology and how local churches (understood in different ways of course) relate to the “universal” church. This issue of course involves explorations of the meaning of “catholicity” and the exercise of authority at the various levels of the church. Indeed, much of the reading has me coming back to the idea that the church has been struggling to get beyond a pyramidal and territorial view of ecclesial authority toward an understanding rooted in the image of ecclesial and episcopal communion. The latter is a much more open (or “deliberately vague,” in Roger Haight’s terms) concept that allows for a richer sense of episcopal authority, leaving behind the mechanical and rigid jurisdictional view of Christendom.” [...]
14 October 2009 at 10.16 am
Thanks for your response, Nick.
I guess I would just say that apartheid did not invent white rule. Colonial rule was white rule by default, and the architects of apartheid were simply trying to justify the continuation of white rule in a post-colonial situation.
I would also question blaming Afrikaner Calvinism for white rule in Rhodesia. We’re talking about a totally different context. What influence did the Afrikaners or Calvinism have there? Ian Smith ‘s justification for white rule was very different than Afrikaner nationalism.
And speaking of Zimbabwe, it’s very troubling to admit that Mugabe’s evil regime has made Ian Smith look like quite the prophet.
14 October 2009 at 10.37 am
Manlius,
Ian Smith is too recent. Think back to Cecil Rhodes (from which Rhodesia derived its name) and the Boer expansion into the Transvaal. The Boer expansion occured as early as the late 1700′s and continued into the late 1800′s. It was at this time the Rhodes (the founder of De Beers, by the way) began to use British expansion as a way of securing mining territories. So I would say that Zimbabwe (aka Rhodesia) had a good century or more of Afrikaner Calvinism and Boer rule, which was fairly vicious towards blacks.
Ian Smith was not particularly religious, but one is hard pressed to seperate “colonialism” in Africa from missionary endeavor and Christianity. If you read the various arguments written through the 18th, 19th and early 20th century for white rule, it is often peppered with religious language and argument – and this white rule also led to some pretty vicious responses towards native cultures.
By the way we agree on Smith. It is indeed the case that Ian Smith was right; even though thats a horribly non PC thing of you (and now me) to say. This is the enigma of much of southern Africa. It seemed to work best under white rule, but the racial inequality created a system of unchecked abuses.
14 October 2009 at 12.06 pm
But Cecil Rhodes was not a Boer. He was English. He fought the Boers in the Boer War. Yes, some Boers settled in Rhodesia, but they were not the majority. They certainly didn’t have any power. In fact, Rhodesia’s British rule was a constant threat to the Boer Republics.
In short, Rhodesia’s history is connected to South Africa through the British rule, not the Afrikaner. I don’t think Boer nationalism had any influence over Rhodesia’s politics, racial or otherwise.
You’re certainly right about the enigma of southern Africa. It’s obviously a clash of cultures. I was recently in a very small, rural village in Mozambique. While the people there are a delight, they certainly could be criticized, from a Western perspective anyway, for not developing the land on which they live. The simple fact is they don’t wish to. They are used to the subsistence way of life. It’s their choice. Who are we to say they should do otherwise?
Still, as Westerner, it’s not hard to come up with a quick to-do list of things they could get started with right away. The cook we hired for the trip was a white Zimbabwean, and he was telling me out about all the ways he would approach developing the land and farming it. None of them required many resources, but they were all ingeniously resourceful. And therein lay the cultural divide of southern Africa. The Western mindset immediately noticed the potential of the land, while the native mindset was quite comfortable with the status quo. Who’s to say which is right? Both are simply different visions. Unfortunately, the two visions are irreconcilable. That’s the story of southern Africa.
14 October 2009 at 1.37 pm
Manlius,
Maybe I wasnt clear enough, let me quote myself with some emphasis..
“Think back to Cecil Rhodes (from which Rhodesia derived its name) and the Boer expansion into the Transvaal. The Boer expansion occured as early as the late 1700’s and continued into the late 1800’s. [b] It was at this time the Rhodes (the founder of De Beers, by the way) began to use [u]British expansion [/u] as a way of securing mining territories.” [/b]
So yes, Rhodes was English, and used british expansion as a way of trying to gain territoy for mines (he even wanted to unite the entire eastern coast.) But before and during his entrance and expansion the boers had pushed into the transvaal. Inbetween the Boer and English kcokeying for territory native groups were often caught in the crossfire. As the british came to power the boers moved north and as the Brittish took over outposts the Boers fought back. My point is that this whole time (beginning in the late 1700′s and continuing through “The Great Trek” and onwards) the Boers continued to dominate natives groups through successive settlements; the Natalia, then the Orange Free State and then the Zuid Afrikaanse Republiek. Along the way the Boer dispensed a justice based on the notion that they were elect and their black african counterparts were chattle. Not to mention the Zulu wars which also caused the death of numerous natives and were sparked not only by the British but by Boer influence (ala Kruger and his Kommandos) in the Transvaal Republic.
All that to say, Im willing to concede that my numbers may be too high, although Im unsure how to assess the actual numbers…
14 October 2009 at 1.38 pm
stupid HTML tags not working – why doesnt your blog allow html tags art?
14 October 2009 at 1.54 pm
My only point is that Rhodesia did not base its racial politics on Boer Calvinism and/or nationalism. Furthermore, in sheer numbers the Boers were not great enough to influence Rhodesian politics. To put it in geo-political terms, Transvaal did not influence Rhodesia. In fact, Rhodesia’s entire bent was to resist Transvaal.
14 October 2009 at 2.25 pm
I suppose we just disagree on this point; my readings suggested a great deal of Boer influence in Rhodesia (and surrounding nations) before the late 19th century.
I am not by any means an expert on Transvaal history or on the boer wars which were fought in Rhodesia; (nor the Zulu wars which seemed to me to have been instigated not by English but by the Boers.) In fact, unlike you, I have never been there; (I just read about politics a bit and discuss things with my brother in law who is an SA.) Perhaps my original claim was too great; but I would still maintain that Afrikaner Calvinism was not a benevolent force, but rather was fairly vicious towards native black Africans.
14 October 2009 at 2.27 pm
Oh, and if you mean Official Rhodesia, I think we agree on that. E.G. English ruled and colonized Rhodesia was not Calvinistic nor Dutch.
14 October 2009 at 8.33 pm
How much white settlement was there in Rhodesia before the late 19th century? I don’t think very much, but I should go back and check my history.
We definitely do agree on Afrikaner Calvinism. It missed the boat big time on the inherent dignity of every human being. Of course, on the positive side of the ledger for Calvinism in SA, we do have the Belhar Confession from the the Reformed churches of the Coloured and Black populations.
It’s been nice chatting with you, Nick, about South Africa on a post originally about America. You’ve gotta love the blogosphere.
14 October 2009 at 10.00 pm
Lest I be confused that I am asserting that a “Christian ruler” in “Christendom” are wholly convertible with “good” or “just” or “equitable” rule, that is not at all the point of what I was getting at. Of course Afrikaner Calvinism had very deep flaws; it was a petulant outgrowth of a rather dreary (late Medieval voluntarist) Augustinianism appropriated by Calvinism. You may ask: aren’t you a member of a Reformed (OPC) church, to which I will respond rather heartily, “yes!”. I happen to have a very good Pastor, and I admit that it weren’t for him, I would no longer be Protestant, but that is neither here nor there. I understand why Calvinists are Calvinists; I am just no longer comfortable with that title for myself.
Not to mention that, for all intents and purposes, Christendom was dead by the time of the ascendency of Afrikaner Calvinism; you could possibly make the argument that by the Council of Florence in 1438 (I think!), with the “agreement” between East and West (which was no such thing), Christendom was dead, not to mention the cultural differences exascerbated during the Carolingian Renaissance and thereafter.
I think St Augustine’s De Civitate Dei (particularly V.24-26) is a great explication of what a Christian ruler is to look like; particularly his extolling the virtue of Theodosius, the grandson of St Constantine the Great, who after attacking the Thessalonians did pennace and repented of his wicked actions. He acknowledged that his kingship came from God alone, and he was responsible to God; this is what Christendom is about. The King of a people is responsible to God, and he is to answer to God (O’Donovan makes this very point in Desire of the Nations). However, my own vision of a renewed Christendom may be a delirious Postmillennial Pipedream, a waxing nostalgic of epic proportion; though, with the collapse of Enligtenment neutral “reason”, all we have left is the Christian Narrative (building on Milbank’s Ontology and Hart’s Rhetoric) of Peace, and we must out-narrarate all other narratives and tell better stories. I do think that narrative, that “everything divine is therefor Human and vice versa” (J.G. Hamann) due to the communicatio idiomatum, is a much more convincing narrative that the current cultural grammars of the day.
15 October 2009 at 10.26 am
Manlius –
It was good chatting with you as well.
18 October 2009 at 10.22 pm
Christian Nation? True, a myth.
As the 1st Amendment which was added in 1791 says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.