Do you want America to be a Christian nation?

[ExodusMe]

It would look like no theocracy that has every existed in human history, up to this point in time.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel. That constitution has already been signed.

That is what churches are for.

There is no point in human history where individuals have not been corruptible. There have also been times in human history where virtuous Christian leaders have carried their virtues to an excess where they had worse effect than the corresponding vices might have had. There is much more to effective governance that just being good.
Theocracy begins with the premise that godly leaders will act godly, and competently, and in those leaders, the flock can depend upon.
American government today assumes that all people are corruptible, and that individuals when taken as a whole have better judgment than an single expert, or even panel of experts.
Checks and balances are set in place in which the interests in society, for good or for ill, are set in competition against each other in order to keep the corrupting tendencies of fallen man in check. At the heart of the system is not just the population of the people, but the system works only if and when the people, who are the government, are highly morally formed and informed.

Christ-like morality is not an option for democracy, but
Christ, as he lives in the heart of individual Christians, is the essential cog in the machine. It is a population that has been formed in the way of Christ that brings the 'theocracy' into secular government. American secular government is not constitutionally bereft of God in the least, but depends on the maintenance of a Christian culture that expresses itself most fundamentally at the level of the individual. The form of American can be secular and morally neutral only because the people are neither.

The system breaks down when Christian culture breaks down, and when people assume that Christ is basically just an option or an add-on that some other icon may fulfill just as well.

I am sympathetic to your views, but I think that if Christian's were desperate enough they could create a theocracy that would be the most just society of humanity. We are just too comfortable in what we have.

No problem though as I don't think the forces exist that would make such a scenario. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I've never particularly understood the extent of the modern Christian commitment to democracy, given what the fruits of democracy have been (world and civil wars, officially sanctioned slaughter of millions of babies, a breakdown in all aspects of the family, etc.)

I can see viewing it as an acceptable form of government to live in, and one that is better than many tyrannies. I can see arguing that since there will always be strife until the Second Coming, we need to be satisfied with the imperfect. This is more or less how I view things.

But many Christians seem to think that commitment toward democracy is one of the central tenets of Christianity. Even when they criticize it, it is usually from the perspective of arguing that a given implementation is not sufficiently democratic, never that it is not sufficiently Christian. I'd even wager that a large number of Christians would be far more offended at someone questioning democracy than someone questioning the ancient tenets of the faith as laid out in, say, the Didache.

 

[SolomonVII]

I've never particularly understood the extent of the modern Christian commitment to democracy, given what the fruits of democracy have been (world and civil wars, officially sanctioned slaughter of millions of babies, a breakdown in all aspects of the family, etc.)

I can see viewing it as an acceptable form of government to live in, and one that is better than many tyrannies. I can see arguing that since there will always be strife until the Second Coming, we need to be satisfied with the imperfect. This is more or less how I view things.

But many Christians seem to think that commitment toward democracy is one of the central tenets of Christianity. Even when they criticize it, it is usually from the perspective of arguing that a given implementation is not sufficiently democratic, never that it is not sufficiently Christian. I'd even wager that a large number of Christians would be far more offended at someone questioning democracy than someone questioning the ancient tenets of the faith as laid out in, say, the Didache.

I don't think that(bolded) is true. I think that it is true that one of the central tenets of Christianity is that core of the faith is the individual being saved by Christ through personal relationship. This put the individual- not the tribe, not the nation, not the state, not even the family-but the individual, as the elemental element of Christian salvation, Christian morality, and Christian spirituality.

Democracy is merely a means that puts the decisions of the individual into the domain of the political.
Theocracy certainly is not a central tenet of Christianity either. It is also not something that needs to be romanticized by Christians, like the Islamists do with their comparable seventh-century caliphates.

One of the central tenets of Christianity though, and of Old Testament Judaism too, is freedom. Finding the parameters that enable freedom has been one of the central themes of the Bible.
One of the other central themes of Christianity is the 'least of my brother', those who are first will be last, and those who will be last, first. Democracy is a secular tool that partially enables this on a societal level.
That is what many Christians appreciate about democracy. It is not the tenet of the Nicene creed or any such thing, but it is an attempt to fulfill the dignity of the individual, and the absolute value of human freedom.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I don't think that(bolded) is true. I think that it is true that one of the central tenets of Christianity is that core of the faith is the individual being saved by Christ through personal relationship. This put the individual- not the tribe, not the nation, not the state, not even the family-but the individual, as the elemental element of Christian salvation, Christian morality, and Christian spirituality.

I agree that one's salvation is ultimately an individual affair (though of course the community of believers plays a huge role in it). I have no idea why anyone would base a system of government on this fact. Salvation is not politics; surely everyone in this thread can agree on that.

But I would go even further and say that you are wrong even when we restrict ourselves to non-political decisions. Christian morality is decidedly based in the context of the community. This goes back to the ten commandments; why would "Honor thy father and mother" be the first commandment with a promise if the individual was the primary focus?

Democracy is merely a means that puts the decisions of the individual into the domain of the political.
Theocracy certainly is not a central tenet of Christianity either. It is also not something that needs to be romanticized by Christians, like the Islamists do with their comparable seventh-century caliphates.

I would say that Christianity endorses no system of government above any other. That being said, theocracies and monarchies are generally based on the ideas of honoring the proper authorities, which is an idea with a good deal of justification within Christianity. Democracy is based on trying to follow each individual's preferences as closely as possible, whether those preferences be good or bad, and I don't see much support for this idea within Christianity. That doesn't necessarily mean that a democracy can't be a good government for a Christian to live or work within, but I think there is a very real danger in convincing ourselves that democracies are an essential reflection of Christian ideals.

One of the central tenets of Christianity though, and of Old Testament Judaism too, is freedom. Finding the parameters that enable freedom has been one of the central themes of the Bible.

Whenever freedom comes up in the Bible it's generally in a very different context from how it is viewed in democracies. It most certainly does not indicate that everyone should be able to do as they like, as much as possible (which is an impossible desire in any case; but the conceit that we should arrange for this situation is the foundation of every democracy).

One of the other central themes of Christianity is the 'least of my brother', those who are first will be last, and those who will be last, first. Democracy is a secular tool that partially enables this on a societal level.
That is what many Christians appreciate about democracy. It is not the tenet of the Nicene creed or any such thing, but it is an attempt to fulfill the dignity of the individual, and the absolute value of human freedom.

Two things:

First, both Jesus and the apostles after Him made clear that they were not in the business of overthrowing the current ruling authorities. And it should be noted that those authorities were largely anti-Christian and unjust in other ways. If realizing the goal of "the last shall be first" meant overthrowing the government and putting the power in the hands of the people as a whole, surely the first Christians would have attempted this. But they did. Again, the Kingdom of God is not of this world.

Second, how is the desire for the last to be first working out in modern democracies? We have a ruling class of politicians who largely got into their positions using advantages that the vast majority of people do not have, and who stay there by abusing their power and connections. As we have seen recently (and as anyone on either side of the aisle can agree on, though their examples might differ) powerful enough politicians can flaunt the law with little to no repercussions for their actions. The only way that the little guy can affect this situation is to cast a single solitary vote, and in many cases there is no serious alternative for him to vote for (and when there is an alternative, it's usually from a politician who runs on lies and doesn't do a thing to help when he gets into office anyway).

 

[SolomonVII]

I agree that one's salvation is ultimately an individual affair (though of course the community of believers plays a huge role in it). I have no idea why anyone would base a system of government on this fact. Salvation is not politics; surely everyone in this thread can agree on that.

In fact, I have already made the argument against government playing the churches role of proselytizing the religion.
The system of government is based on the idea that individuals are the best to make decisions regarding their own lives, and finding ways to empower us to do just that.

But I would go even further and say that you are wrong even when we restrict ourselves to non-political decisions. Christian morality is decidedly based in the context of the community. This goes back to the ten commandments; why would "Honor thy father and mother" be the first commandment with a promise if the individual was the primary focus?

The commandment is not addressed to the community collectively honoring their mother and father, but to the individual to honor his or her own mother and father. Overall, a family of ten may bring great honor to their parents collectively, but the commandment is not addressed to the children as a collective, but to the individual.
It is a basic conservative principle that we change the world by changing ourselves.

I would say that Christianity endorses no system of government above any other. That being said, theocracies and monarchies are generally based on the ideas of honoring the proper authorities, which is an idea with a good deal of justification within Christianity.

I would submit that any system of government that does not advocate anarchy in some form or another is based upon honoring the proper authorities. Jesus himself changed the messiah narrative from one where the kingship would put him in competition with the Roman state, into a messiah narrative where his kingdom is not of this world. His was the kingdom of the heart, the kingdom of free men following him, becoming his friend in the most personal and intimate of ways, mano a mano so to speak.

Democracy is based on trying to follow each individual's preferences as closely as possible, whether those preferences be good or bad, and I don't see much support for this idea within Christianity.

That would be defining democracy in its most simplistic form, maybe in a Randian or even a hedonistic way. It is precisely what I rejected in earlier posts where I stated that belief in Christ is not optional to the system of American government. He is essential. The way that I am defining the statement is not in a denominational or sectarian way either. One does not have to be a Catholic or a Lutheran or even a Christian to be bound to the truth of Christ. Christ is truth, and the truth is as valid and as rigid for an atheist as it is for anyone. That means that the his truths are not optional, any more than gravity is optional. A free society only functions if individuals make their choices informed by the truth, who is Christ. He is the concrete example of who a man must be in order for freedom to be functional. His way lays out the parameters of what it means to be free.
That is not optional in a society of free men.

That doesn't necessarily mean that a democracy can't be a good government for a Christian to live or work within, but I think there is a very real danger in convincing ourselves that democracies are an essential reflection of Christian ideals.

Definitely, democracy is not a tenet of the faith, nor ought it be. But freedom is. Empowering the individual is. People often go to the Bible and use it as if it were some kind of manual of how to run a society. They may try to model a theocracy like in Judges, or like a Davidic monarchy, or even equate the model of the early Christian communities with a socialist society.
I think a better read is to understand that the Bible does not provide answers. It provides a vision, and let's us struggle with a means to bring that about.

Whenever freedom comes up in the Bible it's generally in a very different context from how it is viewed in democracies. It most certainly does not indicate that everyone should be able to do as they like, as much as possible (which is an impossible desire in any case; but the conceit that we should arrange for this situation is the foundation of every democracy).

Democracy is not the enemy here. The current American system of government is not the problem. Garbage in, garbage out. I will reiterate, Christ working in the heart of free men is not a frill. It is essential for a government based on freedom to work. When people who do not believe in Christian ideals, but feed any and all kinds of subversive ideals into the system, it is not the system that is malfunctioning.
Look, Rumplestilskin is a fable. There is no system in the world where straw can be fed into the system and golden garments are what comes out of the system.

Two things:

First, both Jesus and the apostles after Him made clear that they were not in the business of overthrowing the current ruling authorities. And it should be noted that those authorities were largely anti-Christian and unjust in other ways. If realizing the goal of "the last shall be first" meant overthrowing the government and putting the power in the hands of the people as a whole, surely the first Christians would have attempted this. But they did. Again, the Kingdom of God is not of this world.

I don't know how this applies as an argument to be made against what I said. The overthrow of a government, violent or otherwise, is not something I had been advocating. On the other hand, what Christianity did to the anti-Christian governments was the opposite of 'garbage in-garbage out'. The baptised army of Christ fed free men into that system. Rome was transformed.
It is not a coincidence that countries like America were birthed from that kind of process. Hospitals, universal education, finding ways to make the last first, and the first the servant of the last is what has been fed into the system. America is not an anti-Christian system of government. Something 'subversive' was fed into that Roman system, and this has changed the world ten, twenty, a thousand fold for the better, in so many ways.
I am an advocate for Western civilization precisely because of those changes.

Second, how is the desire for the last to be first working out in modern democracies? We have a ruling class of politicians who largely got into their positions using advantages that the vast majority of people do not have, and who stay there by abusing their power and connections. As we have seen recently (and as anyone on either side of the aisle can agree on, though their examples might differ) powerful enough politicians can flaunt the law with little to no repercussions for their actions. The only way that the little guy can affect this situation is to cast a single solitary vote, and in many cases there is no serious alternative for him to vote for (and when there is an alternative, it's usually from a politician who runs on lies and doesn't do a thing to help when he gets into office anyway.

Well, in general, democracies based in individual freedom and checks and balances on political leaders are working much better than anything else when it comes to the principle of the last to first. Venezuela is but the lastest fiasco of the top down approach of making the last first through the 'benevolence' of a heavy handed government; the daddy knows best model, and daddy alone has the power to smite all those nasty greedy capitalists and power brokers.

The poor people in America are doing materially better than the kings of the age of Christian monarchies ever lived.

I see no purpose served at denigrating the American system in favor of some kind of theocratic monarchy with a daddy knows best strong man making the decisions for us.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I don't think that we're going to hash out our differences until you make clear what you mean by "authority" and "freedom." These are two of the most confused terms in the modern world.

Let's start with authority. It is often confused with power and persuasion. That is, people will say that the authority is the one who can force you to do something against your will or that authority is the one whose actions are convincing to you. I would say that all of these miss the point. Someone has authority over you if they can command you to do something, and you are obligated to do it, regardless of whether or not you understand why you were commanded to do this. For example a father has authority over his sons throughout his life, but may very well not be able to convince them of anything or be able to force them to do anything. For example when his sons are young a father might not be able to convince them that it is a good idea for them to go to bed, and when the father is on his death bed he might not have any power to stop his sons from fighting over his inheritance, but in both cases his sons are obligated to follow his commands.

Now, of course, authority is usually not absolute (in fact only God has absolute authority) in that there are commands that an authority can give which should not be followed. For example, a commander has authority over his soldiers, but if he commands them to torture a group of children they are not obligated to follow that command (note that, in the end, this is because the command violates the commands of a higher authority, namely God). But outside of these issues an authority can very well order those under him to do things without explanation of coercion, and they are obligated to do it.

What I think that many advocates of democracy believe is that authority only comes from persuasion. That is, if you vote for someone he has authority over you because you agree with his positions and have agreed to let him represent you. Usually some sort of social contract idea is smuggled in to explain why people are still under the authority of people that they did not vote for, saying that people must necessarily have agreed with the whole system including when it does not go their way (though note that in practice this is the part of democracy that usually fails the most; people generally don't respect the authority of those that they didn't elect, but only their power to coerce them by force of the police, and as we have previously noted coercion is a different thing entirely). This flawed notion of authority at the center of the arguments for democracy tends to corrupt the notion of authority generally, leading to the current situation where people cannot recognize authority properly at all, but instead confuse it for coercion and persuasion.

But perhaps you have a more coherent notion of authority which not only is compatible with democracy, but which necessarily leads there.

As for freedom, the word is even more confused than authority in the modern age, so I won't even attempt discussing it until I see what definition you are using.

 

[MoonlessNight]

With that being said, I still can't resist responding to this:

The baptised army of Christ fed free men into that system. Rome was transformed.
It is not a coincidence that countries like America were birthed from that kind of process.

You say this as though Rome's Christianization led to it being a democracy, or as though America developed directly from Rome. Neither is true. Rome was a republic before Christ, and it never returned to being one even after it became Christian; not even in Byzantium which was the unbroken continuation of the Roman empire. It's only after an extremely long period of time, well over a millennium, that we arrive at America. Forgive me if I have hard time seeing the obvious direct cause of events being things that happened centuries and centuries prior. You may as well argue that its no coincidence that the election of Donald Trump was birthed from the kind of process that started with the Battle of Hastings (whatever that means).

 

[SolomonVII]

Forgive me if I have hard time seeing the obvious direct cause of events being things that happened centuries and centuries prior. You may as well argue that its no coincidence that the election of Donald Trump was birthed from the kind of process that started with the Battle of Hastings (whatever that means).

The end result of Western civ is the Donald?!!!!
Is that what you are really hearing!!!!?

I wasn't in any way even imply anything remotely like that, not in the least.

But I am pretty sure that Jesus had a pretty profound effect on society, all the same. If he didn't, then best that he does not even return, I think.

He was very open to the possibility too, that it would all be for naught, and that he would return to a faithless world that he in no way affected in the least.

 

[Waterwerx]

I was reading Psalm 126 and it seems pertinent to America. The poll is kind of rhetorical as any Christian should want other people to become Christians. I guess the question's purpose is mostly to tackle the assumptions of Christians who prefer a pluralistic society over a theocracy. I understand theocracies have failed repeatedly throughout history, but if the intention of the Church is to be in communion with God, shouldn't our government be that way also? Even if we attempt to have a theocracy in America and fail, wouldn't that be better than a democratic society based on the popular opinion of heretics, apostates, & infidels?

Here is a question to start the discussion

Should Christians aspire for America to become a theocracy & how does this connect with whether you want America to become a 'Christian nation'? I will let you decide what is meant by 'Christian nation'.

Thanks

No, because it was never intended for Christianity to rule as a theocracy. We've already seen what happens when Christianity or a religion tries to rule/govern a nation or group of nations. Christianity is concerned with the individual and conversion of said individual, i.e. choice.

 

[MoonlessNight]

The end result of Western civ is the Donald?!!!!
Is that what you are really hearing!!!!?

I wasn't in any way even imply anything remotely like that, not in the least.

But I am pretty sure that Jesus had a pretty profound effect on society, all the same. If he didn't, then best that he does not even return, I think.

He was very open to the possibility too, that it would all be for naught, and that he would return to a faithless world that he in no way affected in the least.

My point is that it makes as much sense to claim that President Trump is the direct culmination of what began in the medieval age as it does to claim that American democracy is a direct culmination of what began with the apostles: none at all.

 

[ExodusMe]

No, because it was never intended for Christianity to rule as a theocracy. We've already seen what happens when Christianity or a religion tries to rule/govern a nation or group of nations. Christianity is concerned with the individual and conversion of said individual, i.e. choice.

Hi Waterwerx, seems like you are jumping in on the tail end here. Previously stated, a theocracy does not mean that the citizens do not have a choice of what religion they belong to. You are just projecting an archaic understanding of theocracy in your response. This is the common failure of most persons who have replied to this thread.

Also, it could be said that democracy only gives its citizens an illusion of choice as many persons would not have liked to have to choose between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. If someone told you that you can either eat dog doo or cat doo for dinner I don't think you would consider that much of a choice.

I think for any fruitful discussion to be done on this topic people need to quit projecting their understanding of failed theocracies throughout history. I am not proposing USA to become a theocracy like the Vatican or Saudi Arabia. I am assuming the best possibility. The leaders of the theocracy are Christian's who are in communion with God and obedient to His will.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Hi Waterwerx, seems like you are jumping in on the tail end here. Previously stated, a theocracy does not mean that the citizens do not have a choice of what religion they belong to. You are just projecting an archaic understanding of theocracy in your response. This is the common failure of most persons who have replied to this thread.

Also, it could be said that democracy only gives its citizens an illusion of choice as many persons would not have liked to have to choose between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. If someone told you that you can either eat dog doo or cat doo for dinner I don't think you would consider that much of a choice.

I think for any fruitful discussion to be done on this topic people need to quit projecting their understanding of failed theocracies throughout history. I am not proposing USA to become a theocracy like the Vatican or Saudi Arabia. I am assuming the best possibility. The leaders of the theocracy are Christian's who are in communion with God and obedient to His will.

One thing that I've noticed is that when imagining a theocracy, or indeed any non-democratic form of government, modern Christians will imagine the worst possible variation and refuse to consider any other picture.

But when it comes to democracy they'll only consider the ideal. Even the current examples don't really count, since their problems will be excused away. Democracy would work, if people informed themselves to better do their civic duty. Democracy would work, if the powerful didn't exploit their connections to turn themselves into a de facto ruling class. And so on. The reality is that we don't live in a perfect world, and we certainly won't until the second coming, so it doesn't matter what would happen with a perfect populace. (And besides you could just as easily say that a theocratic monarchy would work if it was ruled by a perfect sovereign).

 

[ExodusMe]

One thing that I've noticed is that when imagining a theocracy, or indeed any non-democratic form of government, modern Christians will imagine the worst possible variation and refuse to consider any other picture.

But when it comes to democracy they'll only consider the ideal. Even the current examples don't really count, since their problems will be excused away. Democracy would work, if people informed themselves to better do their civic duty. Democracy would work, if the powerful didn't exploit their connections to turn themselves into a de facto ruling class. And so on. The reality is that we don't live in a perfect world, and we certainly won't until the second coming, so it doesn't matter what would happen with a perfect populace. (And besides you could just as easily say that a theocratic monarchy would work if it was ruled by a perfect sovereign).

Absolutely, it seems like a pretty interesting thought experiment. When you consider how governments have been formed throughout history it seems to come from a rebellion of some sort. It is interesting to imagine what sort of rebellion would lead to a godly personal hero establishing a theocracy and if that person could maintain their godliness to rule appropriately or what type of system would need to exist to prevent that person from corruption.

 

[SolomonVII]

My point is that it makes as much sense to claim that President Trump is the direct culmination of what began in the medieval age as it does to claim that American democracy is a direct culmination of what began with the apostles: none at all.

At this point, I really am no longer interested in what kind of point you are trying to make. It is a laughable response that merits no further discussion.

 

[MoonlessNight]

At this point, I really am no longer interested in what kind of point you are trying to make. It is a laughable response that merits no further discussion.

It's called an reductio ad absurdam. Specifically I am showing that your claim (that the political influence of the early Christians directly led to American democracy) is ridiculous by considering a claim with the same argumentative form (that events in the early medieval ages led to Donald Trump's presidential victory) but which we both agree to be ridiculous.

If you can't follow that explanation, then I agree, this merits no further discussion since profitable discussion would require that both parties be able to follow the complicated arguments inherent to the field of political philosophy.

 

[SolomonVII]

...

 

[Queller]

Yeah, but that only shows that we need to have better scrutiny of persons who claim to be Christian. What does that look like? Not sure, but maybe we could get a 10 year history with testimony of their local pastor and wife, etc... or something.

In a theocracy the aim of an elected official will be the advance of the gospel through the government as an instrument. What that looks like I do not know, but I highly doubt a non-Christian would be that elected official.

Democracy & pluralism do not allow this. That is why we are constantly bickering over useless things like healthcare, etc... Not to say they are not important, but they are not as important as the advance of the Gospel.

How would a theocratic government advance the gospel without suppressing all other religious beliefs?

How would say, a Buddhist, know that his/her religion wouldn't be outlawed?