Is America a Christian Nation?

This question may be more complicated than it first appears, for the answer depends entirely on what one means by “a Christian nation.” Wayne Grudem does an excellent job of breaking this question down into nine possible interpretations, along with their respective answers, in his book Politics According to the Bible.[1]

As Grudem explains, this question cannot be answered with a simple “yes” or “no.” Unfortunately, heated debate and frustration have often surrounded this issue. But the matter can be largely resolved if we simply take the time to define what we mean. This helps avoid misunderstanding and prevents disagreeing parties from talking past one another.

So is America a Christian nation? Let’s look at nine possible meanings of that question along with their specific answers.

George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation

(Acton.org) posted by John Couretas

[New York, 3 October 1789]

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor– and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be– That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks–for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation–for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war–for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed–for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted–for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions– to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually–to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed–to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord–To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us–and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

In Intellectual Neutral

(Reasonablefaith.org) by William Lane Craig

A number of years ago, two books appeared that sent shock waves through the American educational community. The first of these, Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know, by E.D. Hirsch, documented the fact that large numbers of American college students do not have the basic background knowledge to understand the front page of a newspaper or to act responsibly as a citizen. For example, a quarter of the students in a recent survey thought Franklin D. Roosevelt was president during the Vietnam War. Two-thirds did not know when the Civil War occurred. One-third thought Columbus discovered the New World sometime after 1750. In a recent survey at California State University at Fullerton, over half the students could not identify Chaucer or Dante. Ninety percent did not know who Alexander Hamilton was, despite the fact that his picture is on every ten dollar bill.

These statistics would be funny if they weren't so alarming. What has happened to our schools that they should be producing such dreadfully ignorant people? Alan Bloom, who was an eminent educator at the University of Chicago and the author of the second book I referred to above, argued in his The Closing of the American Mind. that behind the current educational malaise lies the universal conviction of students that all truth is relative and, therefore, that truth is not worth pursuing. Bloom writes,

There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative. If this belief is put to the test, one can count on the students' reaction: they will be uncomprehending. That anyone should regard the proposition as not self-evident astonishes them, as though he were calling into question 2 + 2 = 4. These are things you don't think about. . . . That it is a moral issue for students is revealed by the character of their response when challenged—a combination of disbelief and indignation: "Are you an absolutist?," the only alternative they know, uttered in the same tone as . . . "Do you really believe in witches?" This latter leads into the indignation, for someone who believes in witches might well be a witch-hunter or a Salem judge. The danger they have been taught to fear from absolutism is not error but intolerance. Relativism is necessary to openness; and this is the virtue, the only virtue, which all primary education for more than fifty years has dedicated itself to inculcating. Openness—and the relativism that makes it the only plausible stance in the face of various claims to truth and various ways of life and kinds of human beings—is the great insight of our times. . . . The study of history and of culture teaches that all the world was mad in the past; men always thought they were right, and that led to wars, persecutions, slavery, xenophobia, racism, and chauvinism. The point is not to correct the mistakes and really be right; rather it is not to think you are right at all.1

Since there is no absolute truth, since everything is relative, the purpose of an education is not to learn truth or master facts—rather it is merely to acquire a skill so that one can go out and obtain wealth, power, and fame. Truth has become irrelevant.

Now, of course, this sort of relativistic attitude toward truth is antithetical to the Christian worldview. For as Christians we believe that all truth is God's truth, that God has revealed to us the truth, both in His Word and in Him who said, "I am the Truth." The Christian, therefore, can never look on the truth with apathy or disdain. Rather, he cherishes and treasures the truth as a reflection of God Himself. Nor does his commitment to truth make the Christian intolerant, as Bloom's students erroneously inferred; on the contrary, the very concept of tolerance entails that one does not agree with that which one tolerates. The Christian is committed to both truth and tolerance, for he believes in Him who said not only, "I am the Truth," but also, "Love your enemies."

Now at the time that these books were released, I was teaching in the Religious Studies department at a Christian liberal arts college. So I began to wonder: how much have Christian students been infected with the attitude that Bloom describes? How would my own students fare on one of E.D. Hirsch's tests? Well, how would they? I thought. Why not give them such a quiz?

So I did.

...click here to finish reading article...

Thanksgiving

(Stand to Reason) by Greg Koukl

Which president made a proclamation to make this an official holiday?

I thought it would be interesting to read Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Proclamation of October 3, 1863, in light of the recent understanding of "separation of church and state." Thanksgiving has been celebrated since 1621, but it became a national holiday thanks to Abraham Lincoln. Thanksgiving isn’t just a time to give thanks, because we ought to be giving thanks on a regular basis. It is a time to give thanks corporately, as a community, as a nation. That was Abraham Lincoln’s contribution in 1863.

I was trying to remember where this was exactly in the Civil War. In mid-1863 the tide of the war had just turned. Gettysburg was the turning point in early July--the 1st, 2nd , and 3rd of 1963--and on the 4th Vicksburg fell under Grant after a long five or six month siege there. It was a bad week for the South. So there was a big turning point in July and things started going the way of the Union. There was plenty to give thanks for, in a sense. Yet at the same time there was a bloody war continuing, and lives were still being lost. It would two more years of unimaginable carnage before the Civil War would end.

In the midst of this difficult time, President Abraham Lincoln declared Thanksgiving a national holiday and he did so with these words. Listen closely, especially in light of the present atmosphere of so-called separation of church and state.

Proclamation of Thanksgiving*
Washington, D.C.
October 3, 1863

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God.

In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.

Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People.

I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the Unites States the Eighty-eighth.

By the President: Abraham Lincoln

William H. Seward,

Secretary of State

And so we have done now for some 131 years. We have set aside the day. On that day all over this country the post offices are closed, banks are closed, people observe the national holiday. But are they observing the holiday that Abraham Lincoln instituted in 1863? No, not quite.

Abraham Lincoln, in his official capacity as president, acknowledged that we owe everything to God. He called on us to humble ourselves in penitence for our disobedience, confess our sins with contrition, ask for God’s mercy and give Him praise for his love, for all of His care for us. This is not the Thanksgiving our country now officially observes, for it is de facto illegal for those under the color of governmental authority to take the initiative to honor God in this way.

You can’t do it in public places

We can’t do that anymore. We can’t do it in schools. We can’t do it on government property. We can’t even put a cross on a hill in San Diego because people are offended by that. Why? Because the government owns the air, I guess.

Now, my point is not to try to get prayer back into schools. I actually don’t think we can turn back the clock on that one. Any prayer we succeeded in having included would have to be too general and "pluralistic" to be acceptable to the God Who demanded we have no false Gods before Him. My point is to show how far removed the present atmosphere of the so-called "separation of church and state" is from what was understood by our forefathers. The current practice is not the original notion of non-establishment that the Bill of Rights mandates, and Lincoln’s comments make this clear

Notice how natural it was for someone like the president of our country--many would say the greatest president our country has ever seen (and probably the saddest)--in the midst of an agonizing trial of national proportions--the civil war--to call the nation to repentance, prayer, and thanksgiving to God.

What a man. And what a change we have gone through since then to now.

*Source: The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler.

Obama Signs 'Hate Crimes' Bill

(Onenewsnow.com) by Charlie Butts

The "hate crimes" bill approved recently by Congress could be a problem for broadcasters -- most importantly, Christian broadcasters -- now that it has been signed into law.

President Barack Obama has signed into law a measure that adds to the list of federal hate crimes attacks on people based on their sexual orientation. Congress approved the legislation last week as part of the $680-billion FY 2010 Defense Authorization bill. Appended to the hate crimes amendment was a statement ensuring that a religious leader or any other person cannot be prosecuted on the bases if his or her speech, beliefs, or association.

But Craig Parshall, chief counsel for National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), discounts that statement, pointing out that such laws in other countries have been used to silence people of faith. He believes the law approved by Congress is potentially dangerous as it relates to comments made about homosexuality or another religion.

"Under the criminal law of incitement, if something is said in a broadcast that another person uses as a motivation to go out and commit an act of what they call 'bodily injury' in the statute, then a broadcaster could be held criminally liable," he explains.

Or an outspoken broadcaster could be held to be co-conspirator, adds Parshall. He says the supposed bodily injury could be something as insignificant as someone being jostled during a rally or shoved in a protest march.Parshall acknowledges the amendment that was passed to provide some degree of protection for Christians, but points out that interpretations of such statements are ultimately left up to the court.

"And that's always a problem," he laments. "We have a court system that has been notorious for getting it wrong when it pits the power of government on one hand and the free exercise of religious rights of individuals on the other."

According to the NRB attorney, there could also be repercussions in agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Internal Revenue Service. Parshall says the FCC, for example, could develop rules on what broadcasters can and cannot say about homosexuality, possibly jeopardizing their licenses.

"Public school curriculum could be built entirely on the idea of what is illegal hate in our culture," says the attorney. "And our children could be indoctrinated [to believe that] if you criticize another religion or mention Jesus as being the only way, that's hateful--- [or] if you say that homosexuality is a sin, that's hateful."

And then there is the IRS, which Parshall says could apply the hate crimes law as a national policy on homosexuality and other world religions.

"And [they] could start taking a look at Christian non-profit ministries and [telling them if they] want to be tax exempt, [they] can't speak hatefully about other groups," he suggests. "That would be defined as not criticizing Islam or not being critical of the homosexual lifestyle. Those are just a few of the ripple-out effects."

Parshall contends that an examination of the motive behind the hate crimes law reveals it is not about hate -- and will have no effect on stopping crime, because that is already outlawed in all 50 states. In his opinion, it is designed to shut up the opposition -- Christians specifically -- and close down any debate against the homosexual lifestyle.

The NRB spokesman does expect lawsuits to be filed against the hate crimes law after it is signed.

"Simply Unprecedented" - President Obama and the Gay Rights Movement

(Albertmohler.com) by Albert Mohler

"This was a historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the President of the United States. It's simply unprecedented." Those words were spoken by Joe Salmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, just after President Barack Obama spoke to the group's 13th annual national dinner.

The Human Rights Campaign is one of the leading organizations promoting what it describes as "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights." The group's annual dinner, held Saturday night, featured well-known politicians and entertainers popular in the LGBT community, as well as an appearance by the President of the United States. President Obama's speech was a matter of controversy long before he arrived. Though pledging soon after his election to be what he called a "fierce advocate" for gay rights, the President has frustrated the gay rights community with what they see as inaction and hesitation in dealing with their agenda.

Indeed, the Obama administration has been under sustained pressure from the gay rights community -- a crucial sector of its political support -- and the HRC dinner was seen as an opportunity for the President to reassert his identification with gay supporters. Mr. Obama was the second sitting president to appear at an HRC dinner. President Bill Clinton appeared before the group in 1997.

Addressing the group, President Obama spoke of the obstacles in the way of the agenda hoped for by gay activists. The President told the group that they faced a continuing fight, adding: "I'm here with you in that fight."

In the course of his address the President took credit for a federal hate crimes bill that was passed last week by a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. He also pledged to push for an employee non-discrimination bill and fully-inclusive hate crimes legislation.

But the greatest attention was directed at the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that bars openly-homosexual individuals from serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. "I will end don't ask don't tell," the President pledged. "That's my commitment to you." Nevertheless, the President did not stipulate any timetable for this action -- a fact noted by his audience.

The President's perceived lack of action -- and his refusal to hold his administration to a timetable for action -- meant that many in the crowd were disappointed. Though his speech was repeatedly interrupted by eager applause, a good many activists complained that his speech was politically expedient. At TIME.com, John Cloud summarized the President's message with these words: "I'm with you. But I can't do much for you."

Nevertheless, in contrast to that reading of the President's comments, others understood Mr. Obama to make a sweeping series of promises. In addition to pledging a repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, the President also pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

The President said:

And that is why -- that's why I support ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country. I believe strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away and passing laws that extend equal rights to gay couples. I've required all agencies in the federal government to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as the current law allows. And I've called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996, stipulates a federal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman and protects any state from being forced to recognize a same-sex marriage legal in another state. The law was passed by huge majorities in both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The opposition of the homosexual community to the law has multiplied since the advent of legalized same-sex marriage in a handful of states.

In a significant portion of his address, President Obama spoke of the fact that gay and lesbian concerns "raise a great deal of emotion in this country." He did not counsel the homosexual community to be patient, but he did ask for understanding. He spoke of advances made over the last three decades, but then reflected that "there's still laws to change and there's still hearts to open." Furthermore, "There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones -- good and decent people -- who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted. And that's painful and it's heartbreaking."

The President's promises were sweeping. Nevertheless, the most remarkable section of his address included a truly unprecedented promise. The President told the group that his expectation is that when they look back over the years of his administration, they would "see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians."

Then he spoke these words:

You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.

Those words represent a moral revolution that goes far beyond what any other President has ever promised or articulated. In the span of a single sentence, President Obama put his administration publicly on the line to press, not only for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, but for the recognition that same-sex relationships are "just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman."

It is virtually impossible to imagine a promise more breathtaking in its revolutionary character than this -- to normalize same-sex relationships to the extent that they are recognized as being as admirable as heterosexual marriage.

The attendees at the Human Rights Campaign's annual dinner heard the President of the United States make that breathtaking pledge. Was the rest of America listening?

Less Religion Means More Government

(Acton.org) by Anthony Bradley

Soviet communism adopted Karl Marx’s teaching that religion was the "opiate of the masses" and launched a campaign of bloody religious persecution. Marx was misguided about the role of religion but years later many communists became aware that turning people away from religious life increases dependence on government to address life’s problems. The history of government coercion that comes from turning from religion to government makes a new study suggesting a national decline in religious life particularly alarming to those concerned about individual freedom.

The American Religious Identification Survey, published by Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., reports that we should expect one in five Americans to identify themselves as having no religious commitments by 2030. The study, titled “American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population,” reports that Americans professing no religion, or Nones, have become more mainstream and similar to the general public in marital status, education, racial and ethnic makeup and income. The Nones have increased from 8.1 percent of the U.S. adult population in 1990 to 15 percent in 2008.

According to the study, 22 percent of American 18 to 29-year-olds now self-identify as Nones. For those promoting dependency on government to handle the challenges of everyday life, as well as those who wish to take advantage of a growing market for morally bankrupt products and services, the news of declining religious life is welcome.

The increase in non-religious identification among younger generations highlights a continued shift away from active participation in one of the key social institutions that shaped this country. It may also come as no surprise, then, that according to the research firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, voters under 30 are more liberal than all other generations. When asked about their ideology, 27 percent of those under 30 identify themselves as liberal, compared to 19 percent of baby boomers, and 17 percent of seniors. Pragmatic utilitarianism, favorable views toward a larger role for government in helping the disadvantaged, and a lack of ethical norms characterize this young segment America’s population.

The most significant difference between the religious and non-religious populations is gender. Whereas 19 percent of American men are Nones only 12 percent of American women are. The gender ratio among Nones is 60 males for every 40 females.

The marketplace and society in general will both reap the consequences of high numbers of male Nones. If more and more men are abandoning the religious communities that have provided solid moral formation for thousands of years, we should not be surprised by an increase in the explosion of demand for morally reprehensible products as well as the family breakdown that follows closely behind. With consciences formed by utility, pragmatism, and sensuality, instead of virtue, we should expect to find a culture with even more women subjected to the dehumanization of strip clubs, more misogynistic rap music, more adultery and divorce, more broken sexuality, more fatherlessness, more corruption in government and business, more individualism, and more loneliness.

Alexis de Tocqueville cautioned in his 1835 reflections on Democracy in America, that the pursuit of liberty without religion hurts society because it “tends to isolate [people] from one another, to concentrate every man's attention upon himself; and it lays open the soul to an inordinate love of material gratification.” In fact, Tocqueville says, “the main business of religions is to purify, control, and restrain that excessive and exclusive taste for well-being which men acquire in times of equality.” Religion makes us other-regarding.

Historically, religious communities in the United States addressed the needs of local communities in way that were clearly outside the scope of government. For example, as David G. Dalin writes in “The Jewish War on Poverty,” between the 1820s and the Civil War, Jews laid the foundation for many charitable institutions outside the synagogue including a network of orphanages, fraternal lodges, hospitals, retirement homes, settlement houses, free-loan associations, and vocational training schools. These were also normative activities for both Protestant and Catholic religious communities on even a larger scale in communities all over America before Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.

The reported decline in religious life is an omen that virtue-driven local charity will decline, the passion to pursue the good will wane, and Americans will look to government to guide, protect, and provide. As we turn our lives over to government control, our capacity for independent thought and action are compromised. The real “opiate of the masses,” it would seem, is not religion but the lack of it.

Doing Unto My Political Other: 7 Suggestions for Christians in the Public Square

(Scriptoriumdaily.com) written by John Mark Reynolds

Rhetoric detached from morality harms people and societies.

Political talk has had an ugly side, but things are getting worse. Hateful talk is no longer underground, but practiced openly and shamelessly. Mainstream politicians are more willing to tolerate association with fringe rhetoric.

Why is this so?


Is There a Breakdown in Shared Ethics?

It is hard to talk to someone when you have nothing in common.

Some research suggests that Americans share many common values, but this research obscures differences in how we prioritize values when goods come into conflict. For example, most American value personal liberty, but when it comes to health care many Americans place a lower priority on this than on a strong social safety net. Those that make the opposite choice, valuing liberty over services, seem cruel to the other camp.

They agree on the values, but have fundamental differences on how to apply them.

Persistent and pervasive ethical differences can begin to strain the republic’s politics by discouraging compromise. When the gap between our assumptions and our opponents grows too large, our opponents become not just wrong, but perverse or wicked. Nobody hastens to compromise with the immoral!

The results are bad when pressed to an extreme. Some Americans will not even listen to a fair exposition of moral views with which they disagree, even if the majority of the nation believes them.

American Christians should not behave this way. Jesus called us to love our enemies in a nation ruled by cruel Caesars. Any religion that can love Tiberius can surely find room to love Obama or Gingrich.


Seven Suggestions for Political Discourse

Living in a republic means making political decisions. From Socrates to Reagan, wise political heads have given good advice on how to conduct oneself in public life. I don’t always live up to their wisdom, but these ideas are worthy goals.

Be slow to speak.

The new media environment lends itself to haste. We size up a candidate or a policy in the blink of an eye and few encourage us to reevaluate the situation. “Blinking” may sometimes be necessary in a crisis, but it is a horrific way to form our general principles and opinions.

Strong opinions encourage authentic dialogue.

One bad reaction to a toxic political environment is to develop mushy and “inoffensive” public opinions, but it is hard to talk to people who will not say what they really think. We should argue hard for our ideas in the public square and see how things turn out.

Arguing forcefully helps minority opinions get a hearing. If we relegate ourselves to safe discourse, the tendency is to repeat what the present cultural power brokers accept with small variations.

Attacking ideas is different than attacking people.

Ideas have no feelings, but people do. Hurtful talk about actual people, and the President and Glenn Beck are real people, ought to be merited by their actual behavior. We must weigh harm done to their persons against harm they are doing. While it ought to be legal to call the President the “Antichrist,” nobody should do it without overwhelming proof.

An actual Hitler or Stalin (in the modern context one thinks North Korea’s Dear Leader) is a worthy target for pointed personal barbs, but the local zoning board member rarely is. American politicians are often wrong, but it is hard to think of any that merit comparison to the Taliban or to the present Chinese oligarchs.

Those are real bad guys.

Authenticity is useful, but posturing is not.

Few things are more irritating than reading a piece that seems written to get the writer “good-guy” points with the establishment in his or her own group. This happens on both the left and right and is a temptation for all of us. Instead of saying what we think, we write to curry favor with our betters in hopes of praise or reward.

Anti-intellectualism prevents discussion.

The United States is not a pure democracy for the very good reason that a majority of the people can be and often are wrong. Democracy killed Socrates and mob rule in France killed liberty during the French Revolution.

Experts are not always right, but they usually are. Christians have always understood that a calling to leadership most often requires intense training and hard work. We are people of the Book and thus long for literate leaders as well. An excellent model was an Englishman whose work helped shape American culture: John Wesley.

The great evangelist and shaper of English culture John Wesley was at home in the pulpits of Oxford and on the streets. He was well educated and could argue well, but also knew how to move men’s hearts. There is no anti-intellectualism to be found in Wesley and he was no blind admirer of popular trends.

The recent trend to worship the whims of the mob, even the Christian mob, smacks more of Robespierre than Wesley.

Intellectualism prevents authentic discussion.

Just as bad is the posture that feigns intellectual interest, but never really listens to opponents.

President Obama has done a good job talking about finding common ground, but he has sometimes communicated a sneering attitude towards those who persist in disagreeing with him. He is not alone in this attitude as many in the cultural elite confuse their own jargon with knowledge and professional skills with wisdom.

It is easy to confuse the trappings of intellectuals with being an intellectual. Mainstream media often is more interested in someone sounding “smart” than in his or her actual accomplishments. Especially if accent or ethnicity does not fit stereotypes of intellectual achievement the candidate will face a higher barrier to acceptance. Having the “right opinions” also allows for a greater pass from the media in this area. A medical doctor like Tom Coburn is not given the same presumption of intellectual acumen as people with “better” opinions.

Sometimes commentators confuse intellectual achievements with wisdom. University or college education is valuable, but it is not the only way to learn important truths. In particular there is no evidence that most American college education by itself is making us wiser. Wisdom can exist in many different types of people and can be gained from many different kinds of experience.

Resentment of this intellectualism breeds more anti-intellectualism that in turn breeds more intellectualism. Real dialogue vanishes.

Be charitable in your assumptions about your opponent.

This last really sums up all the rest. It can be summed up in the wisdom of Jesus Christ that we should do to others what we wish they would do to us. Never was this advice more important for American Christians who are involved in politics.

Where Have All the Christians Gone?

(FOXnews.com) Bruce Feiler

Christianity is plummeting in America, while the number of non-believers is skyrocketing.

A shocking new study of Americans’ religious beliefs shows the beginnings of a major realignment in Americans’ relationship with God. The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) reveals that Protestants now represent half of all Americans, down almost 20 percent in the last twenty years. In the coming months, America will become a minority Protestant nation for the first time since the pilgrims.

The number of people who claim no religious affiliation, meanwhile, has doubled since 1990 to fifteen percent, its highest point in history. Non-believers now represent the third-highest group of Americans, after Catholics and Baptists.

Other headlines:

1) The number of Christians has declined 12% since 1990, and is now 76%, the lowest percentage in American history.

2) The growth of non-believers has come largely from men. Twenty percent of men express no religious affiliation; 12% of women.

3) Young people are fleeing faith. Nearly a quarter of Americans in their 20’s profess no organized religion.

4) But these non-believers are not particularly atheist. That number hasn’t budged and stands at less than 1 percent. (Agnostics are similarly less than 1 percent.) Instead, these individuals have a belief in God but no interest in organized religion, or they believe in a personal God but not in a formal faith tradition.

The implications for American society are profound. Americans’ relationship with God, which drove many of the country’s great transformations from the pilgrims to the founding fathers, the Civil War to the civil rights movement, is still intact. Eighty-two percent of Americans believe in God or a higher power.

But at the same time, the study offers yet another wake-up call for religious institutions.

First, catering to older believers is a recipe for failure; younger Americans are tuning out.

Second, Americans are interested in God, but they don’t think existing institutions are helping them draw closer to God.

Finally, Americans’ interest in religion has not always been stable. It dipped following the Revolution and again following Civil War. In both cases it rebounded because religious institutions adapted and found new ways of relating to everyday Americans.

Today, the rise of disaffection is so powerful that different denominations needs to band together to find a shared language of God that can move beyond the fading divisions of the past and begin moving toward a partnership of different-but-equal traditions.

Or risk becoming Europe, where religion is fast becoming an afterthought.