Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed


  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    NEWS TIPS!

    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!


    RightMichigan.com

    Buzz

    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    Is the United States a Christian Nation


    By Political Agenda, Section News
    Posted on Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 02:33:06 PM EST
    Tags: Barack Obama, Turkey, G20, Summit, Christian Nation, United States, Constitution (all tags)

    The News: President Obama made the following statement at a press conference in Turkey,

    "One of the great strengths of the United States is ... although we have a very large Christian population -- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." [1]

    So to the question on the table, is the United States a Christian nation? Oddly enough, this is a question that even we Christians have to ask about our own Christian communities: Is this or that particular Church a Christian Church? Christian reformers, like Martin Luther and John Calvin, wondered if the Roman Catholic Church was a Christian Church. By the way, the Roman Catholic Church wondered the same thing about Calvin and Luther. Today in the protestant community, you will hear homosexual pastors of some denomination argue that the bible is a collection of cool stories (not to be interpreted literally), so we must not take too seriously the teaching of Scriptures that says homosexuality is wrong.[2] Also there is, the "Open Theist" movement, in which there is a belief that since mankind has free will then God can be wrong about the future.[3] And so as Christians we ask ourselves, are these groups (or denominations) Christian and if they are not, what is the standard for verifying their lack of Christian credentials?

    Now I believe that in answering the question, are we a Christian nation, we must apply the same standard that Christians apply in verifying a group's Christian credentials. I say this because Christianity (like many other terms) find their true meaning by looking at what they meant historically, because the true meaning of the term Christianity is historically qualified within the Christian Church. In other words, I would not look to Marxism or Communism for the definition of a Christian.

    What then defines a Christian, whether it be a Church, country or person? May I suggest that at least four ingredients are necessary for such a declaration?

    1. One must believe in the inerrancy of the 66 books of scriptures.

    2. One must believe that these 66 books are the inspired words of God.

    3. One must believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Son of God and that He is the sufficient and only savior of mankind.[4]

    4. One must believingly submit (from the heart) to ingredients 1, 2 and 3.

    If any ingredient is missing, then I suggest that you are not dealing with a Christian Church, group or person, or country for that matter. Now before we do our analysis, allow me to suggest one more thing. It is insufficient, foolish and ultimately unfruitful (in the case of defining a group) to define that group by the individual testimony of its members. Instead, what we must do is look at the official declarations of that group. In the case of the Church, we must consider the Scriptures alone and in the case of our country, we must consider our Constitution. Accordingly, a University with a student body made up of mostly Jews is not necessarily a Jewish university unless it says so in the school's charter; after all, a school's location could account for its large Jewish population.

    Now upon reading the constitution of the United States (which I did), I found no declaration of the inerrancy of scriptures. I found nothing about our country being bound to Holy Scriptures and I found nothing even beginning to resemble a declaration of our country's submission to Jesus as lord over us. We do find that these Christian principles governed the lives of most of the Framers but we do not find that fact expressed in our constitution. Indeed, our constitution was informed by the Framer's Christian worldview, even though they stopped short of creating a Christian Nation. It is not as if the Framers scratched off Holy Scriptures and wrote United States Constitution. Moreover, I defy anyone to show me that the United States constitution was intended to be a summary of the Bible in the same way a Church's Confession of faith is.

    I wished the framers were more candid about their Christian worldview as they penned the Constitution. I wished they included the Lordship of Christ over this country. They did not and so I am lead to the inescapable and disappointing conclusion that Obama may have been right about this one. But he is right only within the narrow scope of his conclusion that this is not a Christian nation. The fact still remains that the set of values he alluded to that binds us as a country, are indeed Christian values even if the President doesn't think so.  

    Danian Michael,
    Political Agenda.

    Footnotes:

    [1] I found the quotation on The Huffington Post website (www.huffingtonpost.com)

    [2] Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop of the Episcopalian Church, accounts a conversation he had with Archbishop of Canterbury that the Bible is basically subjectively qualified based on your own interpretation. Basically; the Bible is what you make it. To read his comments follow the following link: (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2009/03/gene_robinson.html)

    [3] ("No other God: A response to open theism" by John Frame) John Frame answers some of the main claims of the open Theist for example: Since mankind has free will God can be wrong in His prediction of the future.

    [4] The puritan William Gouge (1575-1653) in his commentary on the book of Hebrews said the following, "The main point which is aimed at throughout the whole sacred Scripture, especially in the New Testament, is the principal scope of this epistle, and the mark whereat the apostle aimeth therein, namely this, that Jesus Christ is the all-sufficient and only Saviour of man."

    < RightMichigan Exclusive: An Interview with Representative Gail Haines (R-Waterford) | The Weekend in the Sphere >


    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit


    Display: Sort:
    Christian Nation (none / 0) (#1)
    by Eric T on Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 08:18:42 PM EST
    The People of this nation, the majority are  Christian. Our customs, traditions, values, many laws have come from the Nations Christian Heritage. We have the ability to elect representatives that reflect our values. If politicians wanted to pass laws that allowed, infant sacrifices, cannibalism, polygamy, gay marriage, Some version of Islamic law that allows cutting off thieves hands or feet. People can decide if they don't want those social issues, by voting. The problem is when the courts bypass the will of the people on these social issues.

    Our government is suppose to stay neutral on religion.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    I think this was designed to maximize freedom, at a time when people were leaving Europe to seek religious freedom here in the U.S. The framers did not want to establish an official church like the Anglican Church, (Church of England).

    I think there was great wisdom in NOT allowing an official church to be created. The possibility for corruption would be too great, and it would eventually be used as a political arm of the government.

     You can see that the 1st Amendment is designed to protect the people and Churches from the government. Here is a recent example of where a government is trying to control the Church.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6055696.ece

    Here in this link, you can see a politician trying to change church doctrine for his political purposes, It is almost as if this politician feels he knows God's word better than the Pope. We know he don't, and if he tried this in Iran or some hardcore Islamic country they'd probably tell him to "Take his lame ideas and shove it"
     If you look closely you can see how the media tries to paint the church as backwards.


    Display: Sort:

    Login

    Make a new account

    Username:
    Password:
    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search