Jon Meacham and Tim Keller Discuss the End of "Christian America"

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Here's an interesting discussion (taped on Good Friday) about the state of Christianity in America (h.t. Shane Rosenthal).

Comments

[Merritt]

Was their really ever a Christian America? I feel like at best we were a Pelagian America. I mean how could we be a Christian nation when we were founded upon the fact the we serve no sovereign here?

[Zrim]

It seems like the doom and gloom language ("end of Christian America") is the language of those trying to simply revitalize themselves. It's a bit like how Mike Spencer (internet monk) waxes gloomy about the demise of evangelicalism when it is arguable that, depending on what one means, evangelicalism has actually never been stronger. I mean, can we really say that Rick Warren is unsuccessful?

Where Spencer expects evangelicalism to rise from the ashes better for its testing, it may be that the sub-text here is that Christian America was a good idea and, for all its failures, will come out the other side a better product. For my part, though, just as evangelicalism is conceptually bankrupt I think the Constantinianism which funds Christian America is equally ill.

[Bill Hornbeck]

Thanks for the video. What I thought was particularly interesting was the opinion of one who expressed the need for some set of beliefs to form the basis of our laws. I thought how true!

To put it in my words, Christianity has always provided to America the truest, most logical, most documented, and most widely-accepted set of beliefs to form the basis of our laws. When voters (particularly Christians) passively accept the tolerance and diversity arguments and actions of those who use those smoke screens intending to withdraw Christianity from politics that such influence of Christianity on American laws and politics diminishes. Such misled voters do not consider that some set of beliefs will form the basis of our laws, whether it be one's own personal beliefs or some other religion or some other documented set of beliefs.

There is not going to be a vaccum. It is just a question of which set of belierfs should form the basis of our laws.

Where else can we better learn what is just and righteous than in the Bible?

Is it better to let someone hide the basis of their beliefs that will motivate them to enact laws, and yet then allow them to vote on whatever set of personal beliefs motivates their votes?

As "blue collar" evangelicals turn into "white collar" educated evangelicals and understand that they do not need to hide their Bible when they enter the legislative halls, then we may see some stabilization if not reversal in the apparent decline of the influence of Christianity on at least the politics.

But, we also must consider that we can be wrong in our application of Christian principles to laws. I think prohibition against alcohol is one example.

We also must consider that wisdom and skill are important qualities in a legislators. Just because someone is a Christian and another person is not a Christian is not the sole litmus test for whom we should elect.

But, most importantly. God's Will will determine the influence of Christianity on politics and other culture. God's Will is primarily for the gathering and protection of His elect. God's Will is not primarily for the establishment of a Christian America at least as some think of it. Thanks again!

[Zrim]

But, Bill, America is derived from Athenian democracy, not Israel's theocracy.

You ask, "Where else can we better learn what is just and righteous than in the Bible?" If you think America is just and righteous, then apprantly lots of other places. Is there no accounting for general revelation?

[Bill Hornbeck]

Hi Zrim!

It is both, as you may infer. America is indeed derived form Athenian democracy, but that is certainly not our only role model, maybe not even our primary role model. Israel's theocracy has had a profound influence on our nation: "In God We Trust", not "In Democracy We Trust".

Yes, general revelation is important. I did state: "Just because someone is a Christian and another person is not a Christian is not the sole litmus test for whom we should elect."

“I’d rather be ruled by a wise Turk than by a foolish Christian,” so goes the saying wrongly attributed to Martin Luther.

But, let us reveal the basis of our beliefs and the motivation for our enactment of laws, and let us not be hesitant to elect Christians who declare Christianity as their basis of their beliefs and the motivation for our enactment of laws.

In summary, let us consider everything and not be distracted about whether or not America is till a Christian nation nor by the tolerance and diversity arguments. Thanks again.

[Zrim]

"...let us not be hesitant to elect Christians who declare Christianity as their basis of their beliefs and the motivation for our enactment of laws."

May I vote for Mitt Romney?

[Bill Hornbeck]

Yes, Zrim, you may vote for Mitt Romney. I did state in my prior comment:

"Just because someone is a Christian and another person is not a Christian is not the sole litmus test for whom we should elect."

“I’d rather be ruled by a wise Turk than by a foolish Christian,” so goes the saying wrongly attributed to Martin Luther.

I would also add that just because someone calls themselves a Christian does not mean that they are a Christian or that they base their political actions on true Christian beliefs.

Thanks for this exchange.

[Lloyd]

Bill:

Just because someone say's that they are a Christian, is not enough reason to vote for them.

Please recall "Jimmuh" Carter.