Church & State

Reflections on Republocrat: The Secularization of America

This post continues my chapter-by-chapter review of Republocrat, by Carl Trueman (Part 1, Part 2). The chapter in focus here is the second, entitled The Slipperiness of Secularization. It’s thesis is that the US may seem to be less secularized than Britain, but probably isn’t. The reason is that here in the US, the church itself has become secularized in many ways. Hence, even though church attendance and religious language are far more common here than in the UK, these do not reflect genuine Christian faith and practice. To put it another way, Britain only seems more secular because it is more authentic about its unbelief rather than dressing it up like we do here.

After brief introductory paragraphs, Trueman develops the chapter under these headings:

  • America: The Exception? (p. 22)
  • British Christianity: The Dying of the Light (p. 23-25)
  • The USA: Secularization, Religious-Style (p. 25-28)
  • Secularization: Subtle and Speciously Orthodox (p. 28-32)
  • The Patriot’s Bible and Beyond (p. 32-36)
  • The Celebrity Syndrome (p. 37-39)
  • Conclusion (p. 39)
2346 reads

The Zealots: Rendering Unto Caesar

If you are a believer in the Lord Jesus as your Savior, I ask you the following question: “Are you a Christian American or are you an American Christian?” You may answer with some bit of perplexity, “What’s the difference?” Well, pondering the answer to that question involves more than just playing a game with words. In the phrase “Christian American” the operative word is “American” and the modifier is “Christian.” In the phrase “American Christian” the operative word is “Christian” and the modifier is “American.” Is there a difference here worth noting?

For years now some patriotic Christians have proudly borne the title “Christian American” without realizing the subtle way in which they may unintentionally be denying their calling as “citizens of heaven” (see Phil. 3:20 and I Pet. 2:11). A true believer has been translated from this earthly “kingdom” into a “heavenly” kingdom (Col. 1:13). That does not mean that we should drop out of this world. We are to submit to the government, pay it our taxes and obey its laws. Jesus told to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” (Matt 22:21). Admittedly, it is not always easy to decide where the line is between our duty to the government and our duty to our Lord. But one thing we cannot deny—our allegiance first and foremost is to the Sovereign King of Heaven. That is why we are Christians who happen to be Americans (or Canadians or Israelis) not Americans who happen to be Christians.

It is encouraging to know that this is not a new problem but one that was faced by Jews and Christians in Biblical days as well. During the first century A.D., the relationship of a believer in the one true God to the ruling power, i.e. Rome, was an issue that divided the Jewish people who first heard the message of Jesus. Understanding this ancient problem may help us to more intelligently decide what should be our duty to our own “Caesar,” whatever be the country where we live.

873 reads

Faith and High Office: Do the Religious Beliefs of US Presidents Matter?

PrayingPosted with permission from Baptist Bulletin July/Aug. 2012. All rights reserved.

Do the religious beliefs of U.S. presidents matter? Though the question is not new (Baptists, as well as Protestants and evangelicals in general, wrestled with “the Catholic issue” when John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960; Kennedy spoke to allay their fears), American voters appear to be headed toward a 2012 election with unusual religious features. As of this writing, the top-tier choices include a vaguely “Christian” candidate and an indisputably Mormon candidate. The latter appears certain to become the Republican nominee for president. This development has many taking a fresh—and anxiety-tinged—look at what they believe about separation of church and state.

For conservative Christians, the situation is especially uncomfortable. They believe deeply that President Obama’s political philosophy and policies are harming the country and that he must be defeated, yet they find Mitt Romney’s Mormonism disturbing. After all, though the Mormon religion is suffused with old-fashioned American values, it’s a religious newcomer born entirely by reinventing major components of the Christian faith—and that sort of reinventing is a profoundly “unconservative” thing to do to the religion that built Western civilization.

The situation has exposed confusion about the relationship between faith and high office. Left-leaning news outlets frame stories as though “religion in government” were a novel and dangerous idea. (See But many toward the center and right are apparently confused as well. According to an ABC News-Washington Post poll, 66 percent of Americans believe “political leaders should not rely on their religious beliefs in making policy decisions,” suggesting that, in the minds of many, faith and governance should have no relationship at all. Among conservatives, while some occasionally parrot the “separation of faith and politics” rhetoric of liberal secularists, more than a few tend to overstate the role of faith in government. (Take for example, the ABC News article “Rick Santorum Regrets Saying JFK’s Religion Speech Made Him Want to ‘Throw Up.’” See also “My Take” by R. Albert Mohler Jr. and “A More Accurate Reading.”)

10408 reads