The Christianity that Made America Great

[Soldier4Christ]

The Christianity that Made America Great
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Though humanistic, secularist forces have been steadily chipping away at America’s Christian heritage, perhaps the greatest threat to the stability and perpetuation of American civilization is what has happened to Christianity itself. The vast majority of the Founders, Framers, and Judiciary of early America were unquestionably aligned with the Christian worldview in general, and Protestantism in particular. They went on record stating quite forcibly that America’s political prosperity, popular government, and even human happiness are dependent on the moral foundation of the Christian religion. For example, after serving two terms as president of the United States, George Washington articulated in his farewell address to the nation the essentiality of Christian morality to national survival:

    Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? (1796, emp. added).

When one compares the Christianity that was practiced by the majority of Americans in early America, with the Christianity that is being practiced in 21st century America, one cannot help but marvel at the disparity. Consider the following four contrasts.

First, those who professed Christianity in early America believed firmly that Christianity was the one and only true religion. The vast majority of them believed that all other belief systems (i.e., Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and Atheism) were false. They even largely rejected Catholicism as an acceptable expression of Christianity. But in today’s politically correct climate, few are willing to assert that all other religions are defective. Pluralism has softened attitudes to the extent that most Americans no longer recognize the superiority of Christianity to every other ideology—and its critical role to national survival.

Second, those who claimed to practice Christianity in early America were staunch in their advocacy of sexual purity. They believed homosexuality to be a great wickedness that would undermine human civilization. They frowned on and stigmatized divorce, and never in their wildest dreams would they have anticipated that abortion would become widely practiced, let alone legalized. Yet, even as an unrestrained judiciary systematically coerces the nation to sanction same-sex marriage, those who profess to be Christian have been gradually relaxing the historic Christian stance against sodomy. Those in America who claim to be Christians have the same likelihood of divorce as do non-Christians, and a majority of Christians disagree that divorce without adultery is sin (“Born Again...,” 2004). Attitudes against abortion have likewise eased.

Third, the practice of the Christian religion by early Americans was focused on God and Christ—not on the worshipper. A reverential awe characterized the worshippers’ demeanor when they worshipped God. They came before Him with a cautious seriousness and a respect that would appear today to be austere, staid, boring, and insincere. When one sees the direction that much of Christendom has gone, wherein worship has been transformed into “inner-tainment,” in which worshippers clap their hands, sway to rock-type music, and otherwise work themselves up into a frenzy that resembles the pagan worship practices of the Old Testament (cf. 1 Kings 18:26-29), the dilution of Christianity is evident. The shift from the rational to the emotional, irrational, and “touchy-feely” is an obvious by-product and reflection of the same abandonment of truth, right, and spiritual sanity that characterizes American civilization as a whole.

Fourth, early Americans were unflinching in their view of afterlife. They believed that all men would one day stand before God at the Judgment and give account for their behavior while on Earth. They believed that all people would then be ushered to one of two eternal abodes: heaven or hell. They embraced the historic Christian doctrines of eternal punishment in hell and everlasting bliss in heaven. For example, in the early state constitutions, it was not uncommon to require those who wished to hold public office to believe in “a future state of rewards and punishments”—as in the constitutions of South Carolina and Tennessee, and to believe in God as “the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked”—as in the constitutions of Pennsylvania and Vermont (The Constitutions..., 1785, pp. 81,146; The Constitutions..., 1797, pp. 257,274). Yet, even as courts, schools, and parents have softened their attitude toward firm and uncompromising punishment for lawbreakers, even so, many Christians are now questioning the eternality of hell. The overemphasis on tolerance and acceptance that has gripped Christendom has effectively muted Bible teaching on punishment that will be inflicted on the majority of humanity by a just God (Matthew 7:13-14).

The implication of this social scenario is that the bulk of those who claim to be Christians are unsuitable and unable to assist in recalling America to its moral senses. By opting for the “fun and games” approach to the practice of the Christian religion, they, too, have become infected with the entertainment-oriented, pleasure-crazed lifestyle of the population at large. Instead of being a part of the solution, they have become a part of the problem. They are essentially unfit to assist the nation in achieving a spiritual reawakening and a return to the foundational biblical principles that made America possible.

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

CONCLUSION

George Washington offered another haunting observation in his farewell address that ought to give every American pause:

    Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices? (1796, emp. added).

Washington was asking rhetorical questions—questions that carry their own affirmative answers. In other words, the “permanent felicity” (i.e., happiness and well-being) of the nation is intimately connected to “its virtue” (i.e., adherence to Christian morality). Hence, America’s national survival is “rendered impossible by its vices.” Its widespread abandonment of the moral principles of the Bible portends its doom.
REFERENCES

“Born Again Christians Just as Likely to Divorce as Non-Christians” (2004), The Barna Update, [On-line], URL: http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=170.

The Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (1785), (Boston, MA: Norman & Bowen).

The Constitutions of the Sixteen States of America (1797), (Boston, MA: Manning & Loring).

Washington, George (1796), “Farewell Address,” The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm.


Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Scripturally Speaking" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and ( articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org

[Soldier4Christ]

 Pluralism, Christianity, and America
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Since America has been methodically massaged for some 50 years by pluralistic, humanistic, multi-cultural, politically correct influences, Christians are being marginalized and are facing forthright discrimination and persecution. To see where America is logically headed, look carefully at what is happening to those nations that historically have been affiliated with Christianity, but are further along in their abandonment of the moral and spiritual principles of the Christian religion. For example, Fritz and Marianna Konrad live in Herbolzheim, Germany with their two children Rebekka and Josua. As professors of the Christian religion who avow strong attachment to the Bible, in 2000, the Konrads opted for homeschooling and sought exemption from public school attendance for their children for religious reasons on the grounds that “school education does not suit their beliefs because of sex education, the appearance of mythical creatures such as witches and dwarfs in fairytales during school lessons and the increasing physical and psychological violence between pupils at school” (Konrad v. Germany, 2006, p. 2, emp. added). The school authorities rejected their petition. So the Konrads took their case to German court.

In its 2001 ruling, a German court conceded that, indeed, “Basic Law granted the parents both freedom of religion and the right to educate their children with regard to religious and philosophical convictions, which also included the negative aspect to keep their children away from convictions which would be harmful in their opinion” (Konrad..., p. 2). Though the court did not question the ability of the parents to provide an academically suitable education for their children, nevertheless, the court ruled against the parents’ freedom to homeschool on these astounding grounds:

    That freedom, however, was restricted by the State’s obligation for education and tuition. Hence compulsory school was not a matter for the parents’ discretion. The applicant parents’ wish to let their children grow up in a “protected” area at home without outside interference could not take priority over compulsory school attendance. Even if children could be sufficiently educated at home, the State’s obligation to educate under the Basic Law would not be met if the children had no contact with other children. Attending a primary school, with children from all backgrounds, would enable children both to gain first experiences with society and to acquire social competences. Neither would be possible if the parents were authorized to educate the children at home” (pp. 2-3, emp. added).

Unbelievable! The government’s right to educate children takes precedence over the parents’ right to do so (especially since the State must not be deprived of tuition money).

The Founders of America insisted that the parents had sole authority and discretion to educate their children. It was not only not the obligation of the State to do so, the State had no authority to do so. The American government was designed to receive its authority from the people—not vice versa. Indeed, the Founders of American government insisted that the people derived their rights and authority from God—not from the State—and that the State has no right to interfere with the people’s inalienable rights. Indeed, the Bible teaches that God invested the authority to educate, train, and raise children in parents and the home (Genesis 2:24; Ephesians 6:1ff.). Yet, the humanistic European judicial system maintains that the government has the right to override parents’ wishes in order to ensure that the children socialize with children “from all backgrounds,” i.e., Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and atheists.

When the case went to the Court of Appeal, the court reinforced the lower court ruling, further insisting that

    even though the applicant parents’ right to educate their children included religious education, they were not entitled...to the exclusive education of their children. The State’s constitutional obligation to provide children with education was on an equal footing. The court stressed that the decisive point was not whether or not home education was equally effective as primary school education, but that compulsory school attendance require children from all backgrounds in society to gather together. Parents could not obtain an exemption...if they disagreed with the content of particular parts of the syllabus, even if their disagreement was religiously motivated. The applicant parents could not be permitted to keep their children away from school and the influences of other children (p. 3, emp. added).

Further, the court commented on the State’s right to indoctrinate children with evolution—the very circumstance that Americans have been enduring for half a century: “As far as the applicants complained that the school’s syllabus was too scientific and denied any divine influence on the creation and the history of the world, the court found that freedom of religion did not grant the freedom to deal with any possible conflicts between science and religion” (p. 3, emp. added).

Having lost their case in the German courts, the Konrads appealed to the European Court of Human Rights in hopes of achieving their aim. They made their petition on the basis of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 which reads:

    No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions (Konrad...,” p. 6, emp. added).

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

Seems clear enough. Regarding the views of the Konrads, the court noted that they find that it is their obligation to educate their children in accordance with the Bible and Christian values. They infer from numerous quotations from the Bible that their children’s education is an obligation on them which cannot easily be transferred to third persons. They submit that, by teaching their children at home, they fulfil a divine order. Their children’s attendance of a primary school would inevitably lead to grave conflicts with their personal beliefs.... Compulsory school attendance would therefore severely endanger their children’s religious education, especially regarding sex education (p. 6, emp. added).

Yet, like the German courts, this international tribunal ruled against the parents on the misguided grounds of the alleged value to society of diversity and pluralism:

    The provision...aims [at] safeguarding pluralism in education which is essential for the preservation of the “democratic society”.... In view of the power of the modern State, it is above all through State teaching that this aim must be realized.... Therefore respect is only due to convictions on the part of the parents which do not conflict with the right of the child to education.... This means that parents may not refuse the right to education of a child on the basis of their convictions (pp. 6-7, emp. added).

Observe that these declarations contain misrepresentations and erroneous hidden assumptions, i.e., that parents are unreliable determiners of their own children’s education and that the “right to education” means the right to be educated in public school by the State—not the right to be educated at home by the parents. The Konrads did not “refuse the right to education” of their children. They simply refused the right of the State—with its anti-Christian bias—to educate their children. They want their children to be educated; but they want them to be educated by themselves at home.

Americans would like to think that such things do not and cannot happen in this country. Yet, the indications are that America is moving swiftly in the same direction. American judges have commenced to cite foreign and international law in their decisions. For example, retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor repeatedly declared the necessity of relying on international law (“O’Connor: U.S. Must...,” 2003; “O’Connor Praises...,” 2004). Likewise, parents increasingly are being overruled by school and political officials in their efforts to shield their children from liberal ideology. Last year, the “Left Coast” 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that parents do not have a fundamental right to control when, where, and how their children are taught about sex (Parker, 2005). The Lexington, Massachusetts Superintendent of Schools recently insisted that the school system had no legal obligation to notify parents when children were being exposed to materials that advocated homosexuality and same-sex marriage (Jan, 2006). What a shame. And what a far cry from the convictions of the architects of American civilization who insisted that public education should have as its first concern the teaching of Christian principles. As Noah Webster so poignantly expressed:

    In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed.... No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people (1843, p. 291, emp. added).

REFERENCES

Jan, Tracy (2006), “Parents Rip School Over Gay Storybook,” Boston Globe, April 20, [On-line], URL: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/04/20/parents_rip_ school_over_gay_storybook/.

Konrad v. Germany (2006), European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), September 18, 35504/03, [On-line], URL: http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/KonradDecision.pdf.

“O’Connor Praises International Law” (2004), WorldNetDaily, October 27, [On-line], URL: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41143.

“O’Connor: U.S. Must Rely on Foreign Law” (2003), WorldNetDaily, October 31, [On-line], URL: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35367.

Parker, Kathleen (2005), “Parents Take Another Hit in the Culture Wars,” Orlando Sentinel, G3, November 6, [On-line], URL: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/orlandosentinel/access/922392231.html?dids =922392231:922392231&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Nov+6%2C+ 2005&author=Kathleen+Parker%2C+Sentinel+Columnist&pub=Orlando+ Sentinel&edition=&startpage=G.3&desc=Parents+take+another+ hit+in+the+culture+wars.

Webster, Noah (1843), A Collection of Papers on Political, Literary, and Moral Subjects (New York, NY: Webster and Clark).


Copyright © 2006 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "In the News" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and ( articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org