Empire and Shalom (Sept 24-30)

This week’s snapshots:

Happy Saturday!

We’ve been at the capital church of Life.Church’s influence, decking out a new office suite and Learning Center. I never know what to think of Life.Church - they are an enigmatic mega church to me because on the one hand, I think I would like to live my life according to their propaganda. On the other hand, it’s blatant propaganda to me; functioning as a bottleneck rather than a floodgate for how you think.

Paul says to think on pure, noble, right, good, excellent, lovely things - so some bottlenecking is necessary. But for whatever reason, these statements feel glossy on the outside and insubstantial on the inside. Maybe it’s the formatting - too corporate, too copy/paste when you’ve seen the exact poster in the exact spot in exact replica churches all around the country. Whatever it is that detracts the substance from the sentiment, it probably tells you more about me than about Life.Church, which I hope you realize is also how this series of questions is going ;)

Picking up from last week’s question about erasing American history, we have this double-whammy:

2b. What is the truth of our nation's founding? Was it founded on Christian principles?

The assumptions this question was presented with is that a) because America was founded on Christian principles, it should continue running on them and b) that this founding is being glossed over. Rather than answering this question as though it were asked from a curious assumption, I’m answering the bias.

First off: nobody I have encountered in real life (by reading, listening, or subbing) denies, omits, or plays down that Christianity as it was in the 1700s had a huge influence on the founding of America. The debate (if there is one) is whether or not those principles should still be running our country 300 years later.

Now, history is written by victors, and in today’s economy, victors are whoever has the most cash. The story is further complicated by the fact that today, we are giving voice to a wider variety of primary sources in our present interpretation of the past. Consider your own example: we lived through the 2020 pandemic, but I submit to you that even you, though you are a *primary witness* probably don’t know “the truth” of said pandemic - and if you were being cited as a source, wouldn’t be cited as “the truth” but an element of “the truth” which would be concluded from interviewing a large swath of primary sources, many of whom would be intentionally unlike yourself. The narrative I offer you in answering these questions is as follows: history and especially the truth of history are subject to interpretation, and it’s important to note what narrative you are being offered as well as to keep an open eye on your own narrative as you attempt to interpret what has happened and what is happening.

Here are some examples of interpretive truths regarding our nation’s founding history: 

• The 13 colonies were barely united and certainly NOT unanimous in their betrayal of their passport country to make a country of their own. 

• Many of the very first colonists were religious extremists who couldn’t get along with the religious leadership of their mainland and exiled themselves in an attempt to practice their extremism without censorship. 

• Many other initial colonists were entrepreneurs who didn’t want the overreach of a monarchy defining their capitalism.

• The United States were perhaps united less by righteous indignation and more by mutual financial benefit.

• The “Christian principle” of adhering to a commonly-held interpretation of the Bible as the sole source of political truth kept millions of Americans in brutal slaving conditions that were so inhuman that the country would have divided less than 100 years after uniting if it weren’t for a violent enforcement of freedom. In fact, the only way to enforce freedom in this country seems to be violence…

These statements are comprehensible and factually correct, of course, but they’re told from a narrative that oversimplifies human lives into ignoble soundbites. They are no more and no less true than a narrative that oversimplifies human lives into noble ideals. Some of the generalization might be more or less factually accurate based on region and timeline, but a fact interpreted is not more or less true because of the interpretation; the narrative just serves a different purpose.

As to the Christian principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as they were originally intended… It is, by definition, the diversity of religious expression in the first 13 colonies that lent itself to the unique constitution created for the United States, which was among the first written to promote freedom of religious expression. Rather than making like the Anglicans, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Ottomans and forcing the infant nation to adopt a single narrative about how society ought to love their neighbors, widows, orphans, and aliens, the U.S. constitution attempted to provide an open source framework under which Puritans could maintain their legalism AND Quakers could keep on shaking AND Baptists could ignore Holy Spirit etc. without fear of religiously righteous retribution from other narratives.

This preservation of freedom was a difficult compromise to draw from so many parties who were each thoroughly convinced that theirs was the SINGULAR TRUE expression of Christianity. And amidst all of that controversy, which principles are we supposed to assume are generically Christian, and which are unique to the specific cult of Christianity they came from? The death penalty is derived from Christian principles, as is slavery, as is patriarchy; the separation of church and state was derived from Christian principles, as well as “all men are created equal,” as well as freedom of speech and so on. 

I would argue that if you showed the Apostles our constitution, even our constitution amended, they would probably shake their heads (Paul would probably have quite the letter to send to us). And in the same breath, I would suggest that Holy Spirit was present at and inspired the drafting of said constitution.

If you see the United States’ Christian influence as glorious, you’re right. If you see it as damning, you’re also right. I was impressed as I sat in on the Junior M.U.S.H. class that they made students read original documents from both sides of the Revolutionary War (revolutionaries and royalists) to evaluate the effect that their decisions had on history. I mean, have you ever wondered what might have happened if the royalists swayed the colonies instead of the revolutionaries? What would it have looked like if the colonies had agreed to “submit to” the “divine” violence of King George, as royalists convincingly interpreted that Paul in Romans demanded of God’s people? What would America’s Christian legacy be if we had refused to fight the Roman - excuse me, British - Empire by imperial (violent) means and instead took a martyr’s approach?

The strength of approaching Christianity as a historic belief system that influenced the Founding Fathers is that while slavery was upheld on Christian principle back then, it is no longer considered a Christian principle now - and today’s Christians don’t take any flack! (although we don’t talk enough about the slavery still happening in American prisons nor the lack of apology from the church to the oppressed in our nation, buuuuut). We get to decide for today how we want to found our nation for tomorrow - we have a say in what principles the USA of today expresses. And yeah, some of them are historically present as far back as our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, but some of them get to be brand-new!

What do you suppose the children of 2300 will say about the “Christian principles” guiding our century? Will they find the principle of love? Love expressed as patient and kind, that does not envy or boast, that does not demand its own way or keep a record of being wronged; that never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures every circumstance? 

I’m sure there are other important Christian principles that should guide our policy (after all, can national laws be made the same way as individual convictions?), but if they don’t drip with love, do we even want them to be associated with our historic religion?

If you can accept the glory and the damnation, I imagine you’re in a good position to evaluate what “Christian” principles are still doing violence today and which Christian principles are putting an end to violence today, and are (somewhat?) happily participating in establishing justice and ensuring domestic tranquility alongside We The People. :)

How would you tell “the truth” of our nation’s founding? What narrative interpretation are you employing to do so? What Christian principles do you think we should maintain? Which ones can move along into historicity?

I know there’s a lot of bold questions to choose from today, but tell me about one?

—Beth