Christianity and the American Commonwealth

[Soldier4Christ]

Originally published in 1898, "Christianity and the American Commonwealth" is one of the best summaries of the impact of Christianity on America.

Galloway leaves no historical fact unturned in his demonstration that America was founded as a Christian nation. Furthermore, he proves that without the Gospel and the application of all of God’s Word to all of life, civilizations turn despotic and crumble.

In a day when Christian leaders call for the abandonment of politics, Galloway’s book is a breath of fresh air. In many ways this book was prophetic. He saw what would happen if America rejected her Biblical foundations or if Christians retreated from their engagement in society.

Although written more than 100 years ago, Galloway’s arguments are persuasively modern and must be heeded by today’s church. There’s no doubt that the ACLU will be terrified when this book gets back into circulation! Over one hundred images have been added in this newly republished version.

[Shammu]

Thanks brother, though 24.95 + S&H  is a little steep for me. I went ahead and ordered the book.

[Soldier4Christ]

It is for me too brother. I remember reading the book when I was a kid. I am trying to find a used edition of the original at a price I can afford.

[Garden of Glory]

After a short search I have found an exerpt of Galloway's book, penned by himself. I do this as a service, not as an endorsement.




    Religion and Civil Government

    Charles B. Galloway

    Now, as introductory to this study of our earlier American history, and in order to get a vantage point from which to take the most satisfactory observations, I shall speak to-day on the general subject of religion and civil government. My contention will be that the governments and civilizations of all people are typed and determined by the character of their religions. And this proposition will hold good whether the religion be true or false. The deepest and mightiest thing in any nation's heart is its religion; therefore as is the religion so is the nation. "The kingdom of heaven is within you," some one once quoted to Frederick Maurice. "Yes," he replied, "and so is the kingdom of England." And to every true American we may say, "And so is the republic of the United States." Now if this discussion shall prove to be a demonstration, the application of these clearly ascertained principles to our American commonwealth will account for the history and reveal the true philosophy of our social and civil institutions.

    There is an intimate, a vital connection between the spiritual and political faiths of a people. As God hath joined them together, they can not be put asunder. So intimate indeed is this relation that the dominance of the one determines the characteer of the other. The heavens and the earth are in immediate and vital relation. And no people can have politically a new earth until they have first had spiritually a new heaven. On this point the distinguished Dr. Fairbairn has thus spoken:

    "Political thought is the religious idea applied to the state and the conduct of its public affairs, while religious thought is but our view of the polity of the universe, and man's relation to it. It follows that as man thinks in the one field he comes to think also in the other."

    But I should go farther, and say that a man's thinking in the political field is invariably, if not necessarily, determined by his convictions in the spiritual field. In the realm of the civil, as in the ecclesiastical, the old aphorism holds good: "Like priest, like people." The state is a true reflex of the Church; the civil law is a faithful rescript of the canon law. And, as in the days of the Hebrew theocracy, so in all lands and under all religions, there is a close connection between the sanctuary and the seat of judgment. The altar shapes the throne, the character of the crozier measures the strength of the scepter. Out of religious doctrines are developed political principles; and, therefore, the purer the religion the broader a nation's constitution and the wiser its civil polity. Religion is a political force as well as a spiritual influence; both a social dynamic and a celestial inspiration. With a slight modification I accept the statement of Prof. Seeley:

    "From history we learn that the great function of religion has been the founding and sustaining of states."

    And in language quite as emphatic that accomplished student on another occasion expressed the same critical judgment as follows:

    "Look almost where you will in the wide field of history, you find religion, wherever it works freely and mightily, either giving birth to and sustaining states, or else raising them up to a second life after their destruction."

    And even the skeptical but philosophically acute and observant Rousseau, himself a political leader and social reformer, gives assent to the same great doctrine in these strong words: "Never was a state founded that did not have religion for its basis."

[Garden of Glory]

" Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed.." must be applied, I suggest, to "Christian books" as well as the Word.

Therefore I have  researched the gentlemen that Galloway stood by in his exerpt I posted earlier (the ones I underlined):


Frederick Maurice: Son of a Unitarian minister, educated High Anglican, mainspring of the "Christian Socialist Movement", refuter of the destruction of the wicked,  founder of the ultra secret and at one time homosexual "Cambridge Apostle's" club (members: Hort and Westcott,  hatchet men of the KJV and constructors of the Revised Version of the Bible; Anthony Blunt, defrocked knight and homosexual, adviser to the Queen, MI5 [British CIA} officerand KGB spy; Aldous Huxley, writer and ardent evolutionist, Reference at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Apostles#Activities_and_membership)

Prof. (John Robert) Seeley: Wrote in his book, Natural Religion the miracles  "pollute" Christianity and that science and logic purified it.  Highly criticized over his theories about  the humanity of Christ (pre-"D'Vinci Code"-ist?) An ardent theocracist and British Empire promoter known for his "ethnocentrism", a polite Victorian term; we would use the term today "race-supremacy". A strong colonialist and honored by with a knighthood for his views. See James4:4 Refernce at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seeley

(Jean-Jacques) Rousseau: I quote: "...contended that man is essentially good, a "noble savage" when in the "state of nature" (the state of all the other animals, and the condition man was in before the creation of civilization and society), and that good people are made unhappy and corrupted by their experiences in society." " He viewed society as "articficial" and "corrupt" and that the furthering of society results in the continuing unhappiness of man. Rousseau was one of the first modern writers to seriously attack the institution of private property, and therefore is considered a forebear of modern socialism and Communism. Rousseau also questioned the assumption that the will of the majority is always correct. He argued that the goal of government should be to secure freedom, equality, and justice for all within the state, regardless of the will of the majority."  {Reference verified and authenticated by Adm. -Link deleted due to our non-solicitation rules, with the co-operation of the poster.}

As of yet, I have not discovered who "Dr. Fairbairn" was. Will try some more research if asked.

But I think there is little need to check any more of Galloway's "accomplished student(s)" ... armed with "critical judgment" or his "skeptical but philosophically acute and observant"  witnesses for myself, anyway, for I trust what  St. Paul said "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." 2Cor. 13:1

"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Galatians  4:16

[Soldier4Christ]

GoG,

I didn't say that Galloway was a Christian nor did I endorse the book as a "Christian" book but rather as a historical book and how Christianity formed the U.S.

As for a book on Christianity and how to be a Christian I only endorse one book and that is the Holy Bible.

[airIam2worship]

As for a book on Christianity and how to be a Christian I only endorse one book and that is the Holy Bible.

Amen, that is the only Book on how to live. 

[Garden of Glory]

Pastor Roger

1. I never questioned Methodist Episcopal Bishop Galloway's christianity, nor have you or I even mentioned it until now.
I have simply reported his own quoted sources' backgrounds, which some souls would consider highly questionable.

2. An historical book based on one's views of christian civilization written by a self-proclaimed christian, evangelist, christian college founder and editor of the "Christian Advocate" newspaper is more than likely, at least by normal rules, a christian of some type, wouldn't you say?

3. I never hinted that your high endorsement of his book was about "Christianity and how to be a Christian"; it is standard for a born again Christian to proclaim it is the Bible alone that as our Instruction Book, and I pray that never changes. I fail to see what this has to do with Galloway's controversial quotations from dubious men.

4. You say Galloway's book is "prophetic", "a breath of fresh air", and "persuasive". This made me research his positive usages of the words of other men, men who clearly are  not of the ilk I would call Christian,or viable in any Christian's defense, nor wish to put into any of my own writings as friendly support for a political, let alone on spiritual matters of such high-priority.

If I was reading a Billy Graham book, and I found he highly lauded anti-christian men as godly men, it would make me research, pray and question; wouldn't you?

[airIam2worship]

So great is my veneration for the Bible that the earlier my children begin to read it, the more confident will be my hope that they will prove useful citizens to their country, and respectable members of society. -    John Quincy Adams
 

[Soldier4Christ]

Segregating the Church from the World

By Gary DeMar

There are some Christians who take themselves out of the battle over worldviews by using the Bible to make their case. They believe the Bible teaches that Christians should stay above the fray of social involvement. I’ve dealt with many of the arguments for this position in Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths.1A pastor in Auburn, Alabama, takes an approach that secularists have used to silence the church while giving meaning to the church. James L. Evans, pastor of Auburn First Baptist Church, criticizes Roy Moore’s book So Help Me God and its call for the state, the state of Alabama in Moore’s case, to acknowledge God. Evans writes:

    sn’t the church a public acknowledgment of God? When congregations pray, aren’t they engaged in public prayer? When the Bible is read, doesn’t that count as Bible reading? . . . People of faith who accept these arguments need to realize how they demean the role of the church in the world.2

Moore is not demeaning the “role of the church in the world,” because, if we follow the logic of Pastor Evans, the church is not really in the world because the church’s message is confined to the institution of the church. If a pastor preaches on the evil of despotic governments, individual Christians can nod in agreement but not take the wisdom of a pastor’s counsel beyond the doors of the church. “As long as you preach your sermons and teach your Sunday school lessons in the context of a church service and keep your views private,” secularists would argue, “we have no problem with your religion. It’s when you make your religious views public that we object and will do something about it.” Here is how one editorial writer put it: Christians can “rant and rave against humanism and feminism and any other `ism’ on Sunday, come Monday, the children belong in school.”3

“Christians, Keep Your Faith Personal and Private!”

Jay Bookman, writing in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, states that “faith should be personal, not political.”4 This was the view of the Roman Empire and every despot who used the sword in defense of his divine right to rule. The biblical message was not confined to the church. Even those outside the Christian community understood this. Vocal and physical opposition was raised against those who preached the message of Christ’s kingdom:

    “But the Jews, becoming jealous [that Greeks were embracing the full implications of the gospel] and taking along some wicked men from the market place, formed a mob and set the city in an uproar; and coming upon the house of Jason, they were seeking to bring them out to the people. And when they did not find them, they began dragging Jason and some brethren before the city authorities, shouting, ‘These men who have upset the world have come here also; and Jason has welcomed them, and they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus’” (Acts 17:5–7).

Claiming there was another king other than Caesar had political implications. You could believe there was another king, but you couldn’t say it because other people might believe it and act on it. This is exactly what despotic governments want Christians to believe. The church does its thing in its self-imposed cloistered community, while the long arm of civil government and its courts and schools do their thing. The hope is that if civil government ever becomes tyrannical, it will respect the jurisdiction of the church and let it continue its ministry. History is not on the side of such misguided optimism.

A Pastor Who Knew Better

The position taken by Pastor Evans has not been shared by everyone, and thankfully so. Charles B. Galloway, author of Christianity and the American Commonwealth; or, the Influence of Christianity in Making this Nation,5 shows a great deal of perception in a sermon he preached on the Duties of Christian Citizenship:

    That is a cheap conception of the Christian religion which limits the sphere of its operation to what has been called “other worldliness”—to a ceaseless contemplation of and concern for the things that are heavenly. It takes the whole man—the entire sweep of his being—and is concerned for everything that affects his character and destiny from daily bread to eternal life.6

He goes on to reinforce this idea in his address on The Ethics of Politics delivered in 1907. “We should abolish, and forever banish,” he says, ‘the false distinction between the sacred and the secular. The functions of citizenship are as sacred as the songs of Zion. The ballot is as holy as the book of common prayer.”7 What’s interesting about this statement is that Galloway delivered it to the Press Association of Mississippi, explaining that as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ “he did not submit to a limitation of his activity that might help defeat the gospel that he was commissioned to preach. He frequently said that he did not believe in two consciences, one for politics and one for prayer-meeting; one for the ballot box and one for the church pew.”8 He was echoing Paul’s sentiments about the role of the civil magistrate and its relation to civil government. If civil government is off limits to the gaze of God’s Word, then what will stop a tyrant from oppressing the Church? Paul urged Christians in his day to offer “entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings . . . on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness” (1 Tim. 2:1–2). Christians today see this situation as normative for all time. It’s not. All first-century Christians could do, if they were not Roman citizens, was pray and petition the government because they had no political voice or standing in the empire (Acts 22:22–29). This is not the case in America.

Galloway continued his argument for the proper relationship between the Christian as churchman and the Christian as citizen. “The duties of citizenship and Christianity are not in conflict. No fealty to God can be disloyalty to country. Nor can patriotic service to country be infidelity to God.”9 Galloway’s biographer comments: “He believed that the duties of citizenship rest upon the same moral and spiritual foundation as to the claims of the church, and that there can be no reduction of the privileges and obligations of the citizen without doing violence to every public interest and to the kingdom of God as well.”10

The Church as Ghetto
Blacks were treated this way for the longest time. Segregation was a part of daily life in the black community. We forget, or have never been told, that Washington, D.C., from 1920 to 1960, “was a financial, spiritual, and cultural stronghold. Because Washington was a segregated city, blacks simply created their own metropolis.”11 A case can be made that black society in Washington rivaled that of white society in almost every respect, but there was a line you could not cross, no matter how educated a black person you were or how skilled you might be as a musician or an athlete. Blacks remained segregated. The same thing will happen to the church if Christians follow his misguided worldview.

[Garden of Glory]

Yes, I read Mr. DeMar's opinion in my researchings earlier. Sadly, his knowledge of life in the Roman Empire does not jive with anything I have studied.
His urgings to post the Law (The 10 Commandments) in public as patriotic is clear; I wonder if he also believes they are "done away with at the Cross"?
I suppose "display" sounds alot like "obey", and folks leave it at that.

However, none of this  addresses my four concerns either.

Galloway's book uses fellows like Frederick D. Maurice(a universalist and Socialist), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (a humanist and proto-Communist) and Prof. J.R. Seeley (a doubter of Christ's coming in our flesh and racist imperialist) to bolster the theory of his book.

This does not seem to bother anyone but me.

I wonder why...

[nChrist]

Yes, I read Mr. DeMar's opinion in my researchings earlier. Sadly, his knowledge of life in the Roman Empire does not jive with anything I have studied.
His urgings to post the Law (The 10 Commandments) in public as patriotic is clear; I wonder if he also believes they are "done away with at the Cross"?
I suppose "display" sounds alot like "obey", and folks leave it at that.

However, none of this  addresses my four concerns either.

Galloway's book uses fellows like Frederick D. Maurice(a universalist and Socialist), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (a humanist and proto-Communist) and Prof. J.R. Seeley (a doubter of Christ's coming in our flesh and racist imperialist) to bolster the theory of his book.

This does not seem to bother anyone but me.

I wonder why...

Hello Garden of Glory,

I assume that it bothers you because of your agenda. From what I see, you seem to be trying to compare the authors of a history book with the inspired by GOD authors of the Holy Bible, and that won't work. I've also heard that the book being discussed is excellent in describing American History. I already know this history book being spoken of is NOT inspired by GOD, nor is there any claim that it is. SO, take it or leave it with the quality of the contents.

I've done a great deal of study in the on-line version of the Library of Congress, and it's excellent. There is literally tons of excellent information there for the student of American History. I might also add that there are huge numbers of documents that glorify JESUS CHRIST there.

I'm a little bit confused with your argument here. Are you arguing against the Christian founding and history of America, or are you simply arguing against this specific book? If you are arguing against the Christian founding and Christian history of America, overwhelming tons of evidence would make that impossible. If you're arguing about this specific history book, I would be curious if you investigate the authors of every book you wish to read, other than the Holy Bible.

I really don't know what your purpose is unless you're trying to make another argument that we are living under Law and NOT the Gospel of God's Grace. The facts and evidence on that would also be overwhelming unless you wish to ignore the New Testament, and more specifically the writings that pertain to what changed at the CROSS. Those writings would be primarily those of the Apostle Paul since GOD revealed to Paul a mystery not known by men of other ages or by the other Apostles. That mystery pertained to the church which is the BODY OF CHRIST and specifically what changed at the CROSS - The Gospel of the Grace of God - an end to the Age of the Law - and a glorious beginning of the Age of Grace. A beautiful and true manner of describing this for believers is:  JESUS CHRIST is our All in All!

Love In Christ,
Tom

Philippians 1:21-22 NASB  For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.  But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose.

[Soldier4Christ]

Brothers and sister,

I have read this book from cover to cover and I have used it in helping to homeschool children. It is an excellant history book of the early U.S. and nothing more. It is simply that a History Book. It is not the Holy Bible nor should it be considered as such or attempted to be used as such.

[nChrist]

Pastor Roger,

Brother, I remember specifically looking for this book when I was doing research about today's so-called "Separation of Church and State" that is one of the biggest lies ever told. It sounds good until you find out that it removed religious freedom that people in this country enjoyed for over 200 years. The research was for one of my web pages at:

http://www.sirinet.net/~blkidps/church.html

The modern concept of "Separation of Church and State" really amounts to shoving God out of public view and trying to silence the mouths of every Christian in this country. The funny thing about this modern concept is that it's nothing but a LIE, and it was invented by liberal rogue judges who ignored our Constitution and actually made law. It was never the job of judges in this country to make law.

Representatives of the people are the only ones allowed to make law in this country. We appear to be in the midst of a crisis on several fronts involving rogue judges trying to make law and run rough-shod over the wishes of the vast majority of the people. That would be over and above their gross violation of the Constitution and their abuse of power. They have actually taken it upon themselves to change the "Balance of Powers" prescribed and defined in our founding documents. ONLY the people can do that, so it is past time to send the Judicial Branch of government a demand that they cease making laws and abolish ALL of the laws they have made WITHOUT the authority of the Constitution, the people, the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, or any other entity that would allow them to make law. In short, certain judges and groups of judges have made themselves dictators in a free country. It is far past time for the people to remove the thrones that these judges have made for themselves and make laws that would forever remove their ability to abuse power.

Brother, I'm far too shy on this subject, but I'm trying to come out of my shell and voice my opinions. 

Love In Christ,
Tom

Psalms 103:17 NASB  But the lovingkindness of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear Him, And His righteousness to children's children,

[Soldier4Christ]

Amen brother, I think that you should come out of that shell.

The judicial branch is supposed to enforce the laws of this land not make them. People such as the ACLU in conjunction with muslims, atheists and other non=Christians are making use of the judicial system to aid them in silencing Christians. Silencing the truth allows them to better further their false agendas. I agrre totally that those judges that are cahnging or making new lines should be removed their thrones and given the throne they truly deserve. The throne I am speaking of sits behind a set of metal bars.