In recent times, there has been a lot of use of the term “Christian nationalism.” It is a term that is frequently employed by secular liberals against those of the “religious right.” Just as some Christians (including myself) have adopted the label “patriarchy” first used to describe their views in a negative light by feminists, and willingly embraced the label, so many Christians have willingly embraced the label “Christian nationalist,” with honor. Books by such authors as Steven Wolfe and Andrew Torba have espoused a “Christian nationalist” vision. But the term has not only come under scrutiny from some Christians. Is it possible for a nation to be Christian? Is the United States a Christian Nation? Was it ever? Is a Christian America desirable or even possible? That secular liberals have trashed the notion of a Christian America is understandable. That they have misrepresented the views of Christian patriots is understandable. After all, they have an ax to grind. What is more astonishing is that Christians have attacked the notion of a Christian America. Of course, many such attacks are by those of liberal denominations and theologically liberal persuasions, since theological and political liberalism are often linked. But some attacks are from conservative evangelical groups and thinkers. What these conservative evangelical critics have in common is usually a pietistic bent in theology, a repudiation of the political implications of the Gospel and Great Commission, and a rejection of the continuing applicability of the law of God. And all of them badly misunderstand, or deliberately misrepresent the meaning of the term “Christian America.”

One writer writes: “there is no such thing as a Christian nation…For example, there is no such thing as a Christian football team or a Christian business.”[1] Explaining himself further, the author goes on: “You can have a nation or a business that is guided by Christian values or influences, but that does not make the entity a Christian.”[2] The author then states accurately “God doesn’t save nations. He saves individuals…When Jesus died on the cross, he wasn’t dying for America, the nation; he was dying for the individuals that make up America…He was also dying for the people in all the nations of the world.”[3] Those who believe that America was or should be “Christian” do not deny that the fact that Jesus Christ died to save individuals and not nations. The author is unaware of any promoter of the view of a “Christian America” who advocates such. The author of this article is evidently critiquing a strawman. His theological faults come into view when he writes “God is not interested in building Christian nations; he is interested in building his kingdom.”[4] The author ignores the fact that the kingdom of God can include nations. Going on, the author denies that America is a nation in covenant in God, states that it is impossible for a nation to be in such covenant since Ancient Israel, and that God’s covenants are made solely with individuals and not nations. The problems with this view are that individuals make up nations, and that God deals with his people covenantally, as part of families, churches and societies, in addition to individually. Yet this is a mild criticism. Another article denies the concept of a Christian America in more harsh terms. “There is no such thing as a ‘Christian nation’” The Bible says the Lord establishes all nations on earth according to his purpose.”[5] The truth of the second sentence does not however, automatically prove the first one. The author then goes on to write that the Lord “created all gentile nations without distinction. The Lord created those nations and assigned us as he chose, and He says that no Gentile nation is any more godly (or Christian) than another.”[6] This is an incredible statement. In effect, the author claims that Puritan New England was just as Christian as the Third Reich. Can we take such a claim seriously?! To make his claim, the author quotes a slew of Scripture verses that establish that all (Gentiles and Jews alike) are fallen and deserving of the wrath of God. Proponents of a Christian America do not dispute the truth that all men are fallen and slaves to sin. But this truth does mean that a nation cannot be Christian. The author goes on to then write: “The belief that the United States is a ‘Christian nation’ is nothing more than American Christian self-righteousness combined with political mythology. Ironically, many of the United States nation’s founding fathers (Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, etc.,) were self-avowed atheists or theists, not Christians. Even the faith of the Puritans, or other quasi-Christian pilgrims is unclear.”[7] All we can say here is that the author is not only flawed in his perception of “Christian America,” but that he is simply wrong in regard to the historical record. None of the founding fathers were atheist, and the vast majority of them were born again Christians, with notable exceptions such as Jefferson and Franklin. (Madison, contra the author of this article, was indeed a believer). And his statement that the faith of the Puritans and “quasi-Pilgrims” was “unclear” is simply false, as any honest look at the historical record will attest. The author concludes that the “United States is merely a Gentile nation like any other on earth: one occupied by millions of sinful, lost and dying unbelievers together with some born-again Christians.”[8] With this we do not disagree, but this is not what we mean when we speak of a “Christian America.”

 

Clearly, then, misunderstandings of the meaning of a “Christian America” abound, and for this reason, it is incumbent upon those who advocate the concept to carefully explain what we do and do not mean by the term. In the following portion of this article, we will do just that.

 

A Christian America Does Not Mean:

First, that every American now is or ever was a Christian.

Proponents of “Christian America” do not believe that everyone currently living in the United States is a genuine, converted, born-again believer in Jesus Christ, or even that everyone currently living in the United States professes the Christian faith. Such an assertion would be patently absurd. Proponents of the United States as a Christian nation do not make such an assertion, although some of their critics have misrepresented their position to be such. Proponents of “Christian America” believe that entrance in the kingdom of God is not dependent upon being born in the United States, but rather, on being born again by the cleansing blood of Christ. Citizenship of residency of the United States does not make someone part of the invisible church, and it does not make someone part of the visible church, as being a member of Ancient Israel did under the old covenant. When proponents of “Christian America” speak of the nation being in a covenant with God, they do not mean that by such covenant, America will stand in the same condition as to God that Ancient Israel did. God no longer deals with a single nation as he did in the Old Covenant, but now deals with all nations. Indeed, the church of Jesus Christ has taken over the role of Ancient Israel under the New Covenant and is spoken of as a “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people,” (1 Peter 2:9) Note the similarity with the descriptions of Ancient Israel in the Old Testament. One does not need a degree in theology to figure out the fact that today the church is a spiritual Israel. Proponents of Christian America do not advocate that the United States is God’s chosen people, like Ancient Israel, or that in virtue of being in covenant with God, they stand in the same spiritual position as Ancient Israel in the Old Testament under the Old Covenant. Nor do proponents of a “Christian America” believe that everyone in the United States in the past was a true genuine believer, or even an outward professing believer. Such a belief about United States history would be proven false by that history itself. No one disputes the existence of deists and agnostics during the Founding Era of the United States, which history reveals were present in America in extremely small numbers and lacked any noticeable impact upon the character of the nation, or its actions. Very small numbers of Jews were present in America as well, and only a slightly larger of Roman Catholics were present. Plainly, then, even during the Founding Era, not everyone in the United States was a Christian. Nor can it be said during the colonial period that everyone was a Christian. Not everyone who accompanied the Pilgrims to Plymouth Rock in 1620 was a member of the Pilgrim Separatist church. Some were adventurers emigrating for financial and economic reasons, some of whom never joined the Pilgrim church. Proponents of “Christian America” would not claim that everyone in the United States in 1790, 1800, 1820, 1840 or 1860, for instance, was a Christian, either inwardly or outwardly. Such a conclusion would be simply absurd.

Second, that the majority of American citizens were ever saved or cleansed by the blood of Christ.

That America is not currently a Christian nation in almost all senses of the term is indisputable.[9] Pew Research reports that only 63% of Americans identify as Christian. A Gallup poll taken in 2006 recorded the percentage of Christian professors in America at 80% of the U.S. population, so this is a notable decline.[10] However, the 63% percentage is of professing Christians; the actual number of true believers is much lower. While there is no way ultimately to gauge the heart of professors, by looking at the “fruit” of such people, polls indicate what we already know to be true: many of these are false converts and false professors. Evidence of this is seen in the fact that Barna Research has identified that only 25% of the American population are practicing Christians, a category which Barna defines as “identify as Christian, agree strongly that faith is very important in their lives, and have attended church within the past month.”[11] Of course, this definition is still loose enough to permit self-righteous hypocrites, so the number of true converted believers is likely somewhat lower.

In the past, the number of professing Christians was by far in the majority. However, this does not mean that some of these were not false professors. French visitor to the United States, Alexis de Tocqueville reported of America’s spiritual state:

It may be fairly believed that a certain number of Americans pursue a peculiar form of worship from habit more than from conviction. In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America.[12]

This is a historical fact. However, proponents of “Christian America” do not maintain that the majority of American citizens were ever truly converted, throughout our history. Indeed, Scripture teaches that the number of true believers is small, compared to those of the unrighteous. (Matthew 7:14) This does not mean, however, that there cannot be mass conversions or nationwide revivals. History testifies to this, and there is no theological reason why it cannot happen again. Simply because the number of true genuine believers is small does not mean that they cannot direct culture of the course of history. Indeed, history has always been changed and made by dedicated minorities. As R.J. Rushdoony put it: “History has never been dominated by majorities, but only by dedicated minorities who stand unconditionally on their faith.”[13]

Third, that the church or state should force belief in Christ or mandate church attendance.

Church and state governments have indeed mandated church attendance during the course of human history. For example, the Roman Catholic Church had its inquisitions, but among the Protestants this practice has occurred as well. In 1559, Queen Elizabeth I set forth the Act of Uniformity, which among other things required church attendance:

And that from and after the said feast of the Nativity of St. John Baptist next coming, all and every person and persons inhabiting within this realm, or any other the queen’s majesty’s dominions, shall diligently and faithfully, having no lawful or reasonable excuse to be absent, endeavour themselves to resort to their parish church or chapel accustomed, or upon reasonable let thereof, to some usual place where common prayer and such service of God shall be used in such time of let, upon every Sunday and other days ordained and used to be kept as holy days, and then and there to abide orderly and soberly during the time of the common prayer, preachings, or other service of God there to be used and ministered; upon pain of punishment by the censures of the Church, and also upon pain that every person so offending shall forfeit for every such offence twelve pence, to be levied by the churchwardens of the parish where such offence shall be done, to the use of the poor of the same parish, of the goods, lands, and tenements of such offender, by way of distress.

 

Interestingly enough, it was Republican England during the protectorate of Oliver Cromwell that repealed this law, which was reinstated following the restoration of the monarchy. Proponents of Christian America do not believe that the state should mandate church attendance for citizens. They only believe that members of a church may be disciplined by their churches for failure to attend. However, this is ecclesiastical discipline, which can only embody excommunication and the barring of the Lord’s Table, and which can only be meted out to church members, not to citizens of the state. As head of the Church of England, Queen Elizabeth I, who harbored popish leanings, retained the system established by Henry VIII, which was a fusion of church and state, and did not abide by the biblical institutional separation of church and state. Hence, what we can see here is that the mandating of church attendance is an act more in the line of Romish popish tyranny than biblical republican civil government. The early Puritans also mandated church attendance, as did the early Anglican settlers in Virginia, but in this the former were simply exercising a leftover Episcopal idea that should have been discarded in the Puritan attempt to “purify” the church of Jesus Christ.

As for forced belief in Christ, proponents of “Christian America” do not advocate such; indeed, forced belief is a feature of Islam, not of Christianity. The word Islam itself means submit. It is the Muslim, not the Christian, method of conversion, to poise a scimitar above someone’s head and command “Submit or die!” The Bible is quite clear that the Christian faith cannot be forced; it must be willingly accepted by faith by the recipient. A forced conversion, done at gunpoint, or by threat of civil punishment, can hardly be considered genuine. Civil government cannot change the inward heart; hence to force conversions would be futile and not even possible. Such a claim can only be made by the willfully ignorant; even a cursory knowledge of the Christian faith will reveal it to be devoid of such ideas.

Fourth, non-Christians or dissenting Christians cannot hold contrary opinions in an attitude of general Christian consensus.

Joe Morecraft III points out:

 By the late-middle 18th century in the colonies, their population was approximately 3,000,000 people, 900,000 of whom were Scots or Scots-Irish, 600,000 were English Puritans, and 400,000 were German or Dutch Reformed. In addition to these numbers were Anglicans, that confessed a Calvinistic Creed in the Thirty-Nine Articles, and many French Huguenots who were devout Calvinists. All this means that well over two-thirds of the colonial population, as Lorraine Boettner said, “had been trained in the school of Calvin.” So, as Leopold von Ranko, a German historian wrote, “John Calvin was the virtual founder of America.”[14]

Yet even in this staunchly Christian environment, non-Christians such as Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen lived and worked alongside such stalwart Christians as Patrick Henry and George Washington. The deists and infidels, small in number, coexisted with the Christians in a Christian society with a generally Christian consensus. Non-believers such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin even rose to prominence and influence among the ranks of a generally Christian people, with Jefferson becoming governor of Virginia.[15] Nevertheless, because there was a general Christian consensus of belief, unbelievers like Jefferson, Franklin, Allen and Paine had to some extent keep their heretical beliefs private, lest they bring down upon their heads the censure of the community and the social ostracization of the common people. This does not mean that these men were not known as unbelievers during their lifetime, (because they were, at least in Jefferson’s case), but it does mean that whatever heterodox beliefs were held by these men, their writings and statements to that effect were made for the most part during their private lives, and not their public lives, in which they, (at least in Jefferson’s case) praised Christianity. This is ultimately what advocates of a “Christian America” desire; a social order in which anyone is free to hold any belief he chooses or none at all, but in which he cannot publicly practice anything but the Christian religion, or publicly advocate beliefs or practices not in keeping with the same. Thus, without policing the heart, such a Christian culture and social order will nevertheless ensure that only Christian influence directs and sustains the culture and life of the nation. Though Thomas Paine’s Common Sense had sold well in the colonies prior to Independence, along with the thoroughly Christian and even more popular Lex Rex and Vindicae Contra Tyrannos, when he later published The Age of Reason, his popularity in the newly independent United States took a nosedive. “…there was little support for The Age of Reason by Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Rush, John Jay, and Benjamin Franklin[.]”[16]

 

As for the supposition that the Other Founders embraced “The Age of Reason” or its mindset: Jefferson advised Paine never to publish the book. Benjamin Franklin, Paine’s patron and friend gave his protégé the same advice. After reading a draft, Franklin noted: “He who spits against the wind spits in his own face. If men are wicked with religion, what would they be without it?” John Adams, once a fan of Paine, having received his copy, called Paine a “blackguard” who wrote out of the depths of a malignant heart.” And Washington, previously one of Paine’s fiercest advocates, attacked Paine’s principles (without referring to his name) as unpatriotic and subversive.[17]

A writer for Newsmax reports of Paine, who had gone over to France during the period of the French Revolution:

Despite sending pleas for help to his former brethren in America, Paine, unaided, rotted in a French prison awaiting the guillotine. Gouverneur Morris, observing Paine’s activities, reported to Jefferson that the fallen angel was now a drunk who amused himself writing essays against Christ. And although James Monroe eventually rescued Paine, he came back to America in disgrace. He was denied citizenship in his home state and buried, upon his death, with no monument to mark the spot, no memorial to remember the man who previously had united a country under the inspirational sway of “Common Sense” and “The Crisis.” His grave was desecrated. This might seem cruel, but Paine’s treatment by his former friends provides a clear-cut, unequivocal message for our time, which is this: It is flat-out deception to claim that Paine’s Bible-bashing “Age of Reason” is representative of America’s Founding Era. Those who do so are, at best, ill informed and, at worst, liars and scoundrels.[18]

Those who hold to the concept of a “Christian America” believe that non-believers can indeed hold dissenting views from the Christian majority, at least in their private lives, but that such dissent cannot be allowed to influence the public life of the nation. And the regard for which Paine personally was held by the American people is illustrative of the kind of reception one will likely receive in a Christian society should one publicly advocate such dissent. The “Christian America” thesis also takes into account the right of Christians to dissent from each other. No advocate of the “Christian America” thesis wishes to return to the practice of establishing a single Christian denomination as the state church and requiring members of other denominations to monetarily support it. While they recognize that such is certainly constitutional, they do not believe that is biblical. Proponents of a “Christian America” do not advocate a state church to which everyone by law must belong or support, whether they support the views of the state church or not.

 

Having now examined what a Christian America does not mean, we shall now examine what a Christian America does mean.

 

A Christian America Does Mean:

First, that in our founding charters, constitutions, and institution, we subscribed to a basic Christian ethic.

First, let us consider the charters. The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I, in 1606, reads:

We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their desires for the furtherance of so noble a work, which may, by the providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the glory of His Divine Majesty, in propagating the Christian religion to such people as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God.

The charter of New England, granted by King James I, declares:

We, according to our princely inclination, favoring much their worthy disposition, in hope thereby to advance the enlargement of Christian religion, to the glory of God Almighty

The Charter of Massachusetts Bay, granted by Charles I, includes this statement:

Whereby our said people, inhabitants there, may be so religiously, peaceably and civilly governed as their good life and orderly conversation may win and incite the natives of the country to their knowledge and obedience of the only true God and Savior of mankind, and the Christian faith, which in our royal intention and the adventurers free profession, is the principal end of the this plantation.

The charter of Carolina, granted by Charles II in 1663, speaks of the petitioners “…being excited with a laudable and pious zeal for the propagation of the Christian faith.” And the Charter of Privileges granted to William Penn record:

Because no people can be truly happy, though under the greatest enjoyment of civil liberties, if abridged of the freedom of their consciences as to their religious profession and worship; and worship; and Almighty God being the Only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits, and the author of all divine knowledge, faith and worship, who only doth enlighten the minds and persuade and convince the understandings of the people, I hereby do ordain and grant.

More examples could be given, but these taken from Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court David J. Brewer’s book, entitled The United States: A Christian Nation will suffice. It is obvious, therefore, that a basic Christian ethic was subscribed to in our colonial charters. Second, let us consider our founding constitutions. Our examples are again taken from Brewer. The Mayflower compact, beginning with “In the Name of God, Amen” is widely known. The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut are obviously Christian as well:

Forasmuch as it has pleased the Almighty God by the wise disposition of his Divine Providence, so to order and dispose of things that we…knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require, do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one public state or commonwealth…to maintain the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also the discipline of the churches, which, according to the truth of the said gospel, is now practiced among us.

And the list goes on. The 1777 Constitution of Vermont:

Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of people ought to observe the Sabbath, or the Lord’s Day, and keep up and support some kind of religious worship, which to them will see most agreeable to the revealed will of God.

This, Brewer notes, is repeated in 1786 Constitution of Vermont. The 1778 Constitution of South Carolina declares: “The Christian Protestant Religion shall be deemed the and is hereby constituted and declared to be the established religion of this State.”

Brewer records that the framers of the 1778 Constitution of South Carolina went on to state that

no agreement or union of men upon pretense of religion should be entitled to become incorporated and regarded as a church of the established religion without agreeing and subscribing to a book of five articles, the third and fourth of which were “that the Christian religion is the true religion; that the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are of divine inspiration and they are the rule of faith and practice.”

In several colonies and states, a profession of the Christian faith was a condition of holding civil or public office. Brewer records that in colonial Pennsylvania, “all persons who also profess to believe in Jesus Christ, the savior of the World, shall be capable…to serve this government in any capacity, both legislatively and executively.” In Delaware’s 1776 Constitution, every officeholder was required to swear the following oath: “I, A.B., do profess faith in God, the Father, and in Jesus Christ His Only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; and I do not acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.” South Carolina’s constitution stated that: “No person who shall deny the being of God of the truth of the Protestant religion, or of the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the state, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department of this state. Brewer states that this remained in force until 1835, when “Protestant” was changed to Christian, and continued until 1868. The Constitution, he notes, disqualified those for civil office “who shall deny the being of God.” Hence, atheists were debarred from holding civil office in South Carolina.

New Jersey’s 1776 Constitution declared:

…that no Protestant inhabitant of this colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right merely on account of his religious principles, but that all persons professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall deem themselves peaceably under the government as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the legislature.

South Carolina’s 1776 Constitution debarred those from public office who were not of the Protestant faith. The 1777 Vermont Constitution required the following oath from members of the House of Representatives: “I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the Protestant religion.” Maryland’s 1776 Constitution required those appointed to public office to “subscribe a declaration of his belief in the Christian religion.” The state’s 1844 constitution contained a similar provision, which required “a declaration of the of belief in the Christian religion, or of the existence of God, and in a future state of rewards and punishments,” as a qualification for office. Mississippi’s 1817 Constitution debarred those from public office who denied the existence of God or of an afterlife: “… no person who denies the being of God or a future state of rewards and punishments shall hold any office in the civil department of the State.”[19]

Third, the basic Christian ethic can be seen in the United States’ institution. Christian principles abound in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and structure of civil government in the United States, as well as in many of those of the state governments. In addition, the Constitution incorporated the biblically based common law, into the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States concluded that “that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania,” in Vidal v. Girard’s Executors. The Christian sabbath, not the Jewish Sabbath, or any other religious holy day, is recognized in the U.S. Constitution, and in 1905, in all but nine of the state constitutions. Note also the presence of Congressional chaplains, days of thanksgiving and prayer, and even the name of God, as used in legal documents, such as constitutions, and in government business, such as in judicial oaths, and in oaths of office, which was understood to refer not to some generic deity, but to the Triune God of the Bible.

Second, that our formal establishment as a unique and sovereign nation derived from the adherence of the American people and their leaders to a Christian worldview.                                                           

Joe Morecraft observes:

What were most Americans thinking in 1776? We can further answer that question from the origin of most colonists and from the books they were reading. Calvinistic Christianity was the dominant religion among most colonialists who had migrated from Europe. Alexis de Tocqueville in his Democracy in America, written in 1834, wrote that in the colonies, “Christianity reigns without obstacles, by universal consent, consequently, as I have said elsewhere, everything in the moral field is certain and fixed.” By the late middle 18th century in the colonies, their population was approximately 3,000,000 people, 900,000 of whom were Scots or Scots-Irish, 600,000 were English Puritans, and 400,000 were German or Dutch Reformed. In addition to these numbers were Anglicans, that confessed a Calvinistic creed in the Thirty-Nine Articles, and many French Huguenots who were devout Calvinists. All this means that the well over two thirds of the colonial population, as Lorraine Boettner said, “had been trained in the school of Calvin.” So as Leopold von Ranko, a German historian wrote, “John Calvin was the virtual founder of America.” The American mind can also be seen in the books Americans were reading in 1776. Two of the most popular, best-selling books in the colonies in 1776 were written by Calvinists. The first was Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, written by French Huguenot DuPlessis Mornay, and the second was Lex Rex, by Scottish Presbyterian Samuel Rutherford. The colonists were highly literate and they read books from a variety of viewpoints. Often they would quote these books, even from athesistic ones like Common Sense by Thomas Paine or John Locke’s Arminian-rationalist writings. But they were largely masters, not salves of these non-Reformed authors. They were selective and discriminating in their choice of quotations to buttress their arguments adopting their non-Christian worldviews. Both DuPlessis and Rutherford drank deeply from the Bible and from Reformed writers on political-theological issues, e.g., John Knox, John Calvin, and Theodore Beza, all of whom wrote on a biblical approach to civil government.[20]

The colonists thus had a generally Christian worldview in 1776. Undoubtably, their Christian worldview was formed as well by the many sermons they heard from biblically orthodox preachers. Steven K. McDowell and Mark Beliles record:

In an adult’s lifetime in Colonial America, the average adult listened to about 15,000 hours of biblical exposition by the clergy. Their influence on public education was equivalent to what is held today by the modern media.[21]

The common people thus had a Christian worldview. And what of the leaders? We will look at two of them as examples of the rest: Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and James Madison, widely considered the “Father of the Constitution.” Of Jefferson, authors Gary Amos and Richard Gardiner note:

It is no contradiction to say that Jefferson adopted a Christian view of law and rights even though he himself was not a Christian in the traditional sense. Jefferson was immersed in a Christian culture. Whether he personally acknowledged Christ as savior means little to whether his theories were Christian. Jefferson absorbed, by cultural osmosis, the general worldview of his Christian mentors. Jefferson’s cultural context was thoroughly Christian. His education did not occur at the hands of deists in Paris, but at the feet of clergymen in Virginia. Between the ages of nine and sixteen, he was tutored by two orthodox ministers: Rev. James Maury and Rev. William Douglas. When he studied law at the College of William and Mary he was not the pupil of Voltaire. His mentor was George Wythe, a “devout Christian by no means a deist.” Jefferson called Wythe “my second father, my earliest and best friend.” Jefferson embraced the creator-redeemer distinction. He also embraced the basic principles of law and rights common to Catholics, Puritans, Presbyterians, Baptists, and other Christian groups.[22]

It is important to recognize that despite the influence of the heterodox heretical minister Joseph Priestly upon Jefferson’s personal views, and his creation of the infamous “Jefferson Bible” in which the miracles of Jesus were expunged, Jefferson had nothing but praise for Christianity in public life. Only in his private life did he give voice and pen to his heterodox beliefs and only in the privacy of his own study did he mutilate the Bible to fit what he perceived to be human reason. Jefferson’s distrust of strong, central government and his promotion of state’s rights were beliefs that showed the obvious impact of his Reformed heritage upon his thought. The belief that the depravity of man required that checks and balances be placed on civil government was product of Reformation and Calvinist thought, and did not emanate from Locke, but from Calvin and his theological successors. Despite, then, the great influence of the French Radicals upon him, Jefferson was far more influenced, perhaps unconsciously, by the Reformation, then by the Enlightenment.[23] (This is not to deny the fact that the Enlightenment had a greater influence on Jefferson’s thought than on most of the other Founding Fathers, but it is to state that this influence was not as great as often believed).

And what of Madison? Amos and Gardiner write of him:

As a young man, Madison had determined to become a minister. He had the words of the Westminster Confession memorized at a very young age. He attended the college of New Jersey (Princeton) intending to be ordained a minister of the gospel. Madison’s principal philosophical influence came from John Witherspoon, Madison’s professor at Princeton. Witherspoon was an ordained Calvinist minister with very traditional Christian views. Witherspoon also strongly supported religious liberty. Arguing from the Westminster Confession and other Puritan sources, Witherspoon convinced Madison that the only correct principle upon which to establish a Christian republic was liberty of conscience. During his studies at Princeton, Madison reconsidered his professional goals and decided to put his energy toward a legal profession rather than the ministry. He felt he could serve the nation better in that forum. Nevertheless, his religious training continued to permeate all of his work. James Smylie had convincingly argued that Witherspoon’s Calvinism was the “source of [Madison’s] political presuppositions.”[24]

The worldview of the American people and their leaders was thus thoroughly Christian. Indeed, “the legal theory used by the Founders derived from Christianity [,]”[25] not the Enlightenment. While some of them, notably Jefferson, may have used phraseology designed to appeal European Enlightenment thinkers, their political worldview was nevertheless formed primarily by their Christian common law backgrounds, not by the new and radical ideas coming from Europe. Indeed, R.J. Rushdoony has pointed out that the American War of Independence, was, far from being a revolt against the old order of Christian thought, was rather a Conservative counter-revolution, to preserve the ancient Christian common law rights and liberties of the colonists against the “enlightened despotism” of King George III. To this I would only add the excesses of the Glorious Revolution, which had the effect of destroying the divine right of kings in favor of the divine right of Parliament. The colonists were not substituting legislative tyranny for executive tyranny; they wanted their common law heritage, not the Enlightenment idea that the voice of the people as embodied in the state was the voice of God. Thus, in this sense, the American War for Independence can be seen as a repudiation of the Enlightenment in favor of the old social order of Christianity. It was the triumph of the old Christian worldview over the “enlightened” worldview of European Enlightenment thinkers, who divinized the state, and divorced it from subservience to God and his law. While Jefferson and others may have used Enlightenment phraseology in documents such as the Declaration of Independence, in order to appeal to the sensibilities of European Enlightenment thinkers, they, and the people of the American colonies, understood these terms as expressions of Christian thought. It may have been Christian thought rendered ambiguously, but it was Christian thought, nonetheless.

Third, that the bulk of the men who founded our nation as well as the people they governed acknowledged the Christian God as their sovereign.

First, we shall examine the Founding Fathers. Consider for example, this quote from Samuel Adams: “We have this day restored the sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven, and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let his kingdom come.” And John Quincy Adams noted that: “The highest glory of the American Revolution is this: it connected, in one dissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” While not converted to Christ personally, Benjamin Franklin too, acknowledged the Christian God as sovereign.

I have lived, Sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that “except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe that, without his concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel…

That Franklin was referring to the Christian God is indisputable. The reference to a sparrow falling to the ground without God’s notice, is from the words of Jesus Christ in the sermon on the mount, and Franklin next quotes from Psalm 127, and references the tower of Babel in Genesis. Plainly, Franklin was referring to the Triune God of Christianity, not the impersonal god of deism that was uninvolved with creation. And this from a man who has accurately been described as the least Christian all our founding fathers, who repudiated his Calvinist heritage as a teenager, and upbringing throughout most of his life, and expressed “some doubts” as to the divinity of Christ. Like Jefferson, Franklin admired Christianity and Christian morality, which he described as the “best the world ever saw or is likely to see,” but apprehended that it had “received various corrupting changes.” In this strain of thinking, Franklin and Jefferson were creatures of the Enlightenment, but in this they can be set apart from most of the rest of the Founding Fathers, who were orthodox or probably orthodox as can be determined, in their theology. But for our purposes here, it is important to note that whatever Franklin’s privately expressed doubts about Christ’s divinity, he acknowledged the God of Christianity (the Triune God) to be sovereign of the nation. Interestingly, Franklin’s hatred of Calvinism abated throughout his life, and at its end, he wished his grandson to be raised a Presbyterian. Sadly, however, there is no evidence that Franklin became converted before his death, despite this fact. John Hancock acknowledged the Triune God as sovereign:

Let us humbly commit our righteous cause to the great Lord of the Universe…Let us joyfully leave our concerns in the hands of Him who raises up and puts down the empires and kings of the earth as he pleases.[26]

This is not a reference to the impersonal god of deism, but once again, a reference to the Christian God, for Hancock indisputably acknowledges divine providence. And Patrick Henry stated:

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.[27]

This is a profound quote, which at one stroke sweeps away any trace of the idea that America was founded on religious pluralism. To the contrary, the founders of the nation were establishing a distinctively Christian nation, and while they promoted a pluralism of Christian denominations, they did not promote a pluralism of religions. For our purposes, note that Henry acknowledges Jesus Christ as the cornerstone upon which the nation was founded. Thus far, we have only examined a select few founders as illustrative of the rest. Considering them as a group, we can see that the vast majority acknowledged the God of Christianity as their sovereign. M.E. Bradford writes, speaking of the 55 men who framed the United States Constitution:

…with no more than five exceptions (and perhaps no more than three), they were orthodox members of one of the established Christian communions: approximately twenty-nine Anglicans, sixteen to eighteen Calvinists, two Methodists, two Lutherans, two Roman Catholics, one lapsed Quaker and sometime Anglican, and one open Deist – Benjamin Franklin, who attended every kind of Christian worship, called for public prayer, and contributed to all denominations.[28]

Second, we shall examine the population of America at this time period in history. John W. Whitehead reports:

When the Constitution was adopted and sent to the states for ratification, the population of America numbered only about three and one half million. The Christian population, however, numbered at least two million…It doesn’t take a great deal of insight to conclude that many of the people of the United States at the time of the drafting of the Constitution were Christian. The rest of the non-Christian population lived under laws that were ither written directly from the Scriptures or influenced by them.[29]

Clearly then, both the people of the United States and their leaders acknowledged the God of the Bible, the Christian God, as their sovereign, not the state, not man, and not the impersonal god of deism. They did not deify human reason, nor were they atheists. They were Christians, outwardly, if not inwardly.

Fourth, that the laws of the nation must respect, honor and derive from the God of Christianity.

Proponents of “Christian America” believe that one feature of a “Christian nation” is that its laws must align with the word of God, and respect and honor the Christian God. Proponents of Christian America do not believe that law is merely the creation of the state, or that the people of the nation are at liberty to choose any law-order or law code they wish to place themselves under. Rather, proponents of “Christian America” believe that the nation’s law must serve God first, and only in doing this, will they serve the people of the land. Proponents of Christian America understand that the failure of nations to align their laws to God’s word and to respect and honor him in their law will bring the judgment of God upon their land. They understand that the only way to avoid being dashed to pieces with Christ’s iron rod (Psalm 2:9) is to “serve the Lord with fear…and kiss the son,”  (Psalm 1:11-12) in other words, the only way to stave off national judgment is for civil rulers to make themselves the slaves of Christ,  not just in their private lives, but in their public lives and in the administration of the government. In the affairs of government, they must serve the Lord, which obviously indicates that there is a specifically Christian way of administering government distinct from other ways of administration. Civil government is not neutral, and it cannot be separated from the Christian faith. It is not something that Christians and non-Christians can administer on a political pluralistic basis.

Proponents of Christian America understand that political pluralism is nothing else than political polytheism. The Lord of Heaven and Earth tolerates no other gods in the private lives of citizens, and he tolerates no other gods in the public life of citizens. The Triune God does not accept idolatry, whether it is practiced by individual man or by corporate man. For the state to serve another god, whether that be the autonomous “rights of man” as upheld by the French Revolution, or the state itself, as in the modern nations of the world, is to displace the one and true God and deify something else in its place. God will not have this. Neither will he have the civil rulers of a land fearing man and not God, such as when they bow and scrape to the will of lobbyists and special interest groups, such as sodomites, feminists, etc.[30] Civil rulers, however, are commanded to fear God, not man. (2 Samuel 23:4; Deuteronomy 1:17) Proponents of Christian America, believe therefore that it is the duty of nations to honor and serve the living God. It is incumbent upon them to do so, because their very national survival is at stake. If nations fail to serve the living and true God in the affairs of state and in their national life, they will incur the wrath of Jesus Christ and therefore “perish from the way.” (Psalm 2:12) Throughout the history of the United States, its laws were in many cases, derived from God’s laws and honored him. The laws in our nation’s past honored God and derived from his law. Whitehead explains:

Up to the time of the drafting of the Constitution and beyond, state laws forbade anyone from holding office unless he was a Christian. Moreover, as late as 1864, the Maryland Constitution required a belief that a citizen desiring a public office must have declared “belief in the Christian religion, or of the existence of God, and in a future state of rewards and punishments.” In New Hampshire, a requirement that senators and representatives should be of the “Protestant religion” remained in force until 1877. In most states there were religious requirements for citizenship and voting, religious oaths, laws prohibiting blasphemy, laws requiring a trinitarian faith, or a firm belief in the infallibility of Scripture, and laws banning non-Christians as witnesses in court. There were also in many states laws that called for imprisonment of anyone who was an atheist. A writer named Warren Chase recorded that in the 1820s “an old man was imprisoned sixty days in Boston for publishing in his own paper the fact that he didn’t believe in their orthodox God.” The laws up to and after ratification of the Constitution were premised on the fact that the respective states were Christian, and anti-Christianity constituted treasonable activity or belief. Since the basic foundation of the government was Christian, it had to be protected legally.[31]

Proponents of “Christian America” believe that the nation’s laws should recognize God, and therefore support blasphemy laws and Sunday laws, as they have existed throughout American History. They support adopting Christian oaths and tests for public offices at the state level as they have existed throughout much of American History, and even at the National level should the Constitution be so amended to allow for it. Having said this, however, it is important to note that as the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, is by its very nature, a Christian oath, calling upon the Christian God, as a witness, not Allah, not Vishnu or Shiva, the Great Spirit, or whatever deity, including himself, that the man about to take office professes. Hence, even without a Christian oath, non-believers are effectively barred from civil office at the national level. Proponents of “Christian America” would go beyond this, however, and advocate that the laws of America derive from God’s laws.

Hence, they are or should be theonomic, in their view of civil law. Accordingly, they favor amending the civil laws to require restitution to be paid by thieves to their victims, and equitable punishments meted out to crimes of like proportion (the lex talionis principle of justice). They advocate the legal treatment of abortion and as murder and advocate the death penalty of murder with no exceptions, as well as the death penalty for treason, at least in most cases. They advocate that the judicial system must conduct fair and impartial trials, that judges and juries must make rulings with complete and total justice as defined by God’s law, must not pity the guilty, but must mete out the appropriate penalties. They advocate swift and sure justice and favor the gradual replacement of prison confinement with public execution for crimes meriting the death penalty, and/or restitution for crimes which do not so merit capital punishment.  They recognize that God’s laws penalize deviant sexual behavior as well as sexual behavior that attack the institution of marriage and family, and thus advocate for the criminalization of such sexual behavior that the Bible criminalizes. Hence, they advocate for the criminalization of adultery, sodomy, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. They also advocate for changes in the divorce laws and family courts, limiting divorce to the allowances made for this in Scripture, and for supporting, not attacking, the nuclear family in family law courts. In the area of economics, they advocate the government of their nation to abide by biblical law; in other words, they are not to not to steal from their citizens through unjust taxation, which would include property taxation, sales taxation, and a host of other unbiblical taxation, as well as false weights and measures, the general equity of which would prohibit inflation, fractional reserve banking, and require the backing of currency by precious metals, preferably gold.

In national defense, proponents of “Christian America” advocate an armed forces large and technologically advanced enough to protect the nation from foreign invasion, yet small enough to be unable to tyrannize the citizenry. They advocate the augmenting of such a national armed forces with state and local militia. Should war occur, they believe that it should be waged to bring about victory, and that the aggressor should be fought until it is incapable of exercising aggression again. In such war, collateral damage should be avoided to every extant possible, and bombing limited to military targets and industry. In International affairs, they believe the nation should deal fairly and justly with other nations of the world, making all attempts to avoid incidents and wars as far as is possible with them, but to never surrender American sovereignty, or the freedoms of the American people, and at this line in the sand, stand firm and tenaciously. Lastly, there will be little to no meddling in the private lives of virtuous citizens; there will be vastly less government regulation, oversight, control, and surveillance of the citizenry, though the myriads of bureaucracy and bureaucratic codes that fill volumes and regulate much of everyday life that is no concern to the nation.

Above are merely broad and general principles of civil government that a nation that derives its laws from God’s laws will implement. A nation that derives its laws from God’s laws will end up with an administration of government that closely approximates the above statements. One last point is that the laws of the nation must respect, honor and derive, from the Christian God, and not another god. Proponents of a “Christian America” recognize no place in the legal system of Sharia law. It is God’s law that our laws must be derived from, not those of the false and nonexistent god Allah.

Sixth, we are bound by covenant to honor God.

God deals with his people in terms of the Covenant of Grace, as well as in terms of the social covenants that they make with each other, which would include marriage, and the subsequent family, the gathering of believers united into a church and covenanting together, and the citizens of a political entity dwelling together under covenant. These are God ordained, covenantal institutions, and God deals with his people in terms of them. But besides being bound by covenant in this respect, the people of the United States are bound by covenant in a different respect. Contrary to the belief of many critics of “Christian America” America is indeed in a special national covenant with God. The original settlers of the nation entered into covenant with the maker of heaven and earth. This covenant, not only with each other, but with God, is expressed in the Mayflower Compact:

IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great BritainFrance, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience. IN WITNESS whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of EnglandFrance, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini; 1620.

And in other colonial civil covenants as well, such as the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut:

  FORASMUCH as it hath pleased the Almighty God by the wise disposition of his divine providence so to Order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Harteford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the River of Connecticut and the Lands thereunto adjoining; And well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affrays of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and connive ourselves to be as one Public State or Commonwealth; and do, for ourselves and our Successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation to gather, to maintain and pressure the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said gospel is now practised amongst vs; As also in our Civil Affairs to be guided and governed according to such Laws, Rules, Orders and decrees as shall be made, ordered & decreed, as followeth:—

Other such covenants could be given, but these two will suffice. Our Puritan forefathers, both in a familial and national sense,[32] covenanted together and with God, to build a distinctively Christian society, where family, church, state, business, education, and every other area of life was governed and practiced according to the word of God. In civil affairs, the nation covenanted to administer its government according to the word of God. But in its national life, America’s people have turned away from the national covenant that their forefathers made with the King of the Universe. Rather than maintain a distinctively Christian society or state, they have pursued materialism and other false gods, including their supreme one, the federal, (more accurately national) government, to which all bow and look to for support and sustenance. Americans have thus broken covenant with God and have become covenant breakers. And thus, rightly has God’s wrath been poured out upon America, as it does upon every nation which does not keep its law, but especially upon those nations that have previously agreed to do so! And thus has America suffered many of the curses of Deuteronomy 28, with more curses invariably to follow. Advocates of Christian America understand that unless America wishes to be dashed to pieces like a clay pot by Christ’s rod of iron, she must again kiss the son and serve him. America’s people must repent therefore, and once again honor Christ in their public and national life. It is imperative for the nation’s survival, therefore, that America renew her covenant with God and abide by its terms, else she will be dashed to pieces, and she will perish from the way as did the Greek and Roman Empires, and all other nations and empires of the earth that refuse to make Christ their King and submit to his law. As William Einwechter notes:

We, the posterity of the courageous, committed Christian founders of America have become covenant breakers. We have broken the covenant made with God and Christ to raise up America as a Christian nation that would to the world in both church and state. We are now suffering the just curse of God upon covenant breakers, upon those who have repudiated the Lordship of Christ (Ps. 2:12) The solution is not an easy one, nor one that can be carried out in short order. We must repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generations” (Isa. 60:4), and return to Jesus Christ and to the colonial covenants of our forefathers. “Thus, saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways and see and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls” (Jer. 7:16; cf. 18:15) [33]

 

[1] https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/is-it-correct-to-say-that-america-is-a-christian-nation.html

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] https://versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/is-the-united-states-a-christian-nation-and-part-of-the-church

[6] Ibid

[7] Ibid

[8] Ibid

[9] We say almost all, because in one sense of the term America still is a Christian nation, a sense in which we will examine below.

[10] https://news.gallup.com/poll/187955/percentage-christians-drifting-down-high.aspx

[11] https://www.barna.com/research/changing-state-of-the-church/

[12] Quoted in Gary DeMar America’s Christian History: The Untold Story (Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision Inc. 1993-2010) p. 8

[13] For a historical example of this, it will be recalled that only one-third of the American population during the American War for Independence were Patriots; one-third were Tories, and one-third stood aloof, neutral between the two sides.

[14] Joseph C. Morecraft, III, The American Mind in 1776 (Georgia, Tim Renshaw Consulting, 2022) p.

[16] Gary DeMar America’s Christian History: The Untold Story (Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision Inc. 1993-2010) p. 245

[17] Quoted in Ibid p. 246

[18] https://www.newsmax.com/pre-2008/paine-s-christianity-part/2003/09/04/id/677042/

[19] For nearly all of the foregoing information, the author credits David J. Brewer in his The United States: A Christian Nation as his source.

[20] Joseph C. Morecraft, III, The American Mind in 1776 (Georgia, Tim Renshaw Consulting, 2022) p.

[21] Mark A. Beliles and Stephen K. McDowell America’s Providential History (Charlottesville, Virginia: The Providence Foundation 1989 [1991]) p. 122

[22] Gary Amos and Richard Gardiner Never Before In History: America’s Inspired Birth (Richardson, Texas: Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1998) p. 129

[23] Ironically, Jefferson’s worldview, as distinguished from his heterodox private beliefs, was far more Christian than that of many Christians today, who form their worldviews from public school, the opinions of friends, television and American culture, than from the Bible. Many Christians in the church today could benefit from incorporating Jeffersonian political ideas into their political theories over that of “woke” pastors and social justice supporting “Christians.” It is indeed a sad day in Christendom when the worldview and political thought of a heterodox heretic is more aligned with Christian thought then that of church pastors, such as, to name a name, Russell Moore.

[24] Ibid

[25] Ibid p. 156

[26] Quoted in Mark A. Beliles and Stephen K. McDowell America’s Providential History (Charlottesville, Virginia: The Providence Foundation 1989 [1991]) p. 149

[27] Quoted in Ibid p. 184

[28] M.E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: The Dramatic Story of the Men Founded Our Country (Westchester, IIlinois: Crossway Books, 1982) viii.

[29] John W. Whitehead, The Separation Illusion: A Lawyer Examines the First Amendment, 1977 [1982]) p. 18

[30] A prime example of this is when elected officials vote according to public opinion, rather than by the teachings of the Bible concerning the administration and function of civil government.

[31] John W. Whitehead, The Separation Illusion: A Lawyer Examines the First Amendment, 1977 [1982]) p. 18

[32] We add these distinctions, because it is not only the direct physical descendants of the Puritans that we are addressing, but to all who have emigrated to America from other lands, and thus bind themselves and their descendants to the National Covenant with God. When such emigrants settle in America, the Puritan fathers become their national ancestors.

[33] William O. Einwechter, The Christian Colonial Foundations of America