Category: Christian Culture

Opium for the Masses

One of the better known quotes (actually it’s a paraphrase) of Karl Marx is this statement about religion. “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” By it, he meant to castigate religion as a means used by the elites to pacify the masses, to make the ills of this world bearable.

A statement by Czeslaw Milosz, a Polish poet who lived under both the national and international forms of socialism, shows a much better understanding of the issue. “A true opium of the people is a belief in nothingness after death – the huge solace of thinking that our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders are not going to be judged.” (from a review of Milosz: A Biography in World magazine, 12/8/18 issue.)

Like almost everything Marx said, his statement was wrong. Religion, with its call for justice and an end to oppression and a hope for a better life, kindled a fire for freedom and justice in the hearts of man, not dreamy illusions. That cry for justice, fairness, the realization for God’s promises of peace and prosperity has been part of man’s yearnings since earliest times. So has the desire to see wrongs righted, to see violence and oppression recompensed. A hope and belief in the ultimate prevailing of justice is a necessary part of a healthy psyche.

It is the fondest dream of the blackguard that their betrayals, greed, and oppressive activities will go unpunished, that using others for their ends will be okay, that Nietzsche’s superman ethics are true, and death proves that truth. If death ends it all, then the antics of blackguards — from the political strong man to the dictatorial boss to those using others as their stepping stone — will, most likely, never be judged, never punished. What a solace for their souls! Now that’s a most powerful opiate!!

But as World concluded the article: “Real solace comes from believing in life after death, with a righteous and compassionate Judge.” Blackguards beware! Opiates generate illusions!

Christianity And Our Founding

I’ve recently finished reading several books that, broadly speaking, focus on the question of the relationship between Christianity and our nation‘s founding. For my own curiosity, I’ve decided to express my beliefs on the question. The three books I’ve read recently on this were: Defending the Declaration by Gary Amos, Reading the Bible With the Founding Fathers by Daniel Dreisbach, and Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? by John Fea.

Defending the Declaration was interesting in the way it traced the wording of individual phrases of the Declaration to a long history of Christian thought. The author’s conclusion? “The American Revolution … was ‘Christian’ in that all the principles included in the Declaration of Independence agreed with, and probably grew directly from, the Biblical teaching about revolution as formulated by major Catholic and Protestant theorists over a span of seven hundred years.” (p. 149)

Reading the Bible was interesting because it is one of the few books I’ve seen on this subject that is written by someone who appears to know the Bible. Many histories on this subject seem to overlook any reference or allusion that isn’t a direct quote. Many historians have noted the heavy influence of the Bible on 17^th & 18^th century American culture, but Dreisbach proves it. His conclusion: “From the Pilgrim fathers to the founding fathers and beyond, Americans have looked to the Bible for guidance in creating and administering a well-ordered political society. … [N]o source was better known or more authoritative and accessible in their culture than the Bible. Christianity in general and its Sacred Text in particular shaped many of the underlying values, beliefs, and assumptions that informed their political thought and were vital to the construction and administration of their system of laws and civil government. ….[Also,] ideas derived from other sources were often evaluated in the light of Scripture, and the founding generation looked to the Bible to strengthen, validate, or sanctify ideas emanating from these other sources.” (p. 234)

But the most interesting book – because it is so infuriating – is John Fea’s book. The book purports to answer the question Was America founded as a Christian nation, but fails miserably. The first issue is that the terms are discussed, but never defined. Especially crucial is, what does Fea mean by a “Christian” nation? I cannot find a definition, which allows the author to denounce various actions and beliefs as not part of a Christian heritage. For example, he criticizes the colonists as not being theologically pure. But to what? To Calvinism, appears to be the answer at one point. But that means the Quakers in PA and the Church of England parishioners in VA both prove America was not Christian. Say what?

Fea also argues the documents of this era do not have Christianity embedded in them. These are political documents, and the Bible is sparse on details of the type and format of government God wants. When historians say a country is Christian, they mean things like what is the source of the ethical values underlying the laws, and what values are appealed to as the justification for the actions being taken.

Most of the evidence presented in this regard clearly shows that Christianity was the dominant world view of almost 100% of the leaders and people. This is done even when totally ignoring crucial issues such as the foundation of the Common Law (which formed the basis of all colonial law), the evidence of Christianity applied in people’s lives presented by commentators such as Alexis De Tocqueville, and the significance of the church service dedicating the nation to God performed on the first day of the new government in 1789.

Unfortunately, the author makes the mistake of “reading back” into history. Unfortunate though it may be, few Christians of that era understood that slavery and Christianity were incompatible. (Christianity and racism are also incompatible. Does that mean that no person who made a racist statement can be called a Christian? Obviously not.) Worse, the author appears to view history through Enlightenment eyes. Historians have tried mightily for a long time to prove that America was a product of the Enlightenment. To do so, they’ve associated ideas such as natural law and rights as Enlightenment ideas, ignoring the long line of Christian thinking, based on Paul’s writings, behind those concepts. Fea does not attempt to set the record straight.

So was America founded as a Christian nation (not a theocracy, but Christian), or was it a product of the Enlightenment? The answer is obvious to anyone who approaches the question in an open manner. When defined as above – as the ideal being sought, the source of the underlying values and justification for community/governmental actions – the answer to his question must be a resounding “yes.” That such an answer is not what the author likes, or is used by others in ways that cannot be justified, does not change the answer.

Parenthetically, it is both amusing and ironic that the author makes the claim he is both a “Christian and a Christian college history professor.” Fea is identified as a professor at Messiah College, a college that, at one time, was closely associated with the Brethren in Christ church. I know a little about Messiah. I would ask Fea in what way he defines “Christian” in this connection. My understanding is you will not find a monolithic doctrinal belief among either the faculty or the students. Nor do all practice the doctrines they speak. The driving focus of the school has long ceased to be religious in nature, and many documents coming out of the college scarcely mention God. Is he lying, or does his statement have validity? I think it does, but seeing that it does will illuminate the way America was founded as a Christian nation.

Means yield ends

On the face of things, it appears that few things are harder to understand in the ethical realm than the idea that the means chosen determine the end achieved. Only means consistent with the end goal will bring success.

Most people realize this and live it out on a direct, practical level. But when it gets beyond the immediate, practical events, then people seem to forget the principle. Most people realize, on a personal level, that cooperation leads to a better life than conflict does. Yet expand the idea to a social level, and suddenly many people believe that using force against [taking money from] their neighbor is the proper way to achieve the goal they desire. If you doubt that, just substitute the usual method of using force – taxation – in the sentence: many people believe that taxing their neighbor is the proper way to achieve the goal (improve their child’s education, e.g.) they desire. How many people do you know that would disagree with that?

It’s been noted by many scholars that socialism is an attempt to achieve liberal ends by conservative means. The liberal ends are peace, prosperity, happy life, etc. The means chosen by socialists are increased use of force (taxation), restrictions on people’s activities to achieve their goals (regulations), playing favorites (subsidies), etc. It should be no surprise to anyone when the socialist’s policies yield an end state of hatred, class warfare, and a deterioration of prosperity. It’s no surprise because that is the resultant end state created by the means chosen, i.e. taxation, regulations and subsidiaries yield hatred, class warfare, poverty when their implications are worked out. Happens every time.

Liberalism (liberalism as in the beliefs of John Locke, the Founding Fathers, etc.) itself suffered from a similar problem. Liberalism borrowed the end state promised by Christianity – peace, prosperity, happiness – but hoped to achieve it using only some of the means Christianity asserted as necessary. In short, they aimed at Christian goals by secular means. In Christian political theory, the end state of peace, prosperity and happiness was the result of God’s blessing, itself a result of people living the justice and righteousness demanded by God. Liberalism expected peace, prosperity, and happiness while living a life of greed, envy and lust. It didn’t work either.

With centuries of historical experience to observe, you’d think people would understand better. Only means based on a consistent Christian worldview will achieve results pleasing to God and truly helpful to our fellow man. And yet, so often I hear people recommending the use of anti-Christian means, hoping to achieve a Christian goal. Or the use of forceful means to achieve a freedom goal. It ain’t going to work, folks!

Johnson Amendment Repeal

President Trump is promising to, finally, get rid of the Johnson Amendment. This amendment – an example of how politicians use the force of government to silence and crush their enemies – forbids 501(c)3 organizations, such as churches and many non-profits, from campaigning for or against a political candidate. The penalty for doing so is the loss of the organization’s tax status. It is an egregious display of raw political power and a total violation of the First Amendment.

However, there’s probably not a pastor alive who plans to use his church parishioners as a political machine to sway elections. I’m sure that, for the most part, the reason few pastors even speak to “political” issues has little to do with the Johnson Amendment and the IRS. While many would say that the Bible holds the answer to all our problems, few believe it enough to explore what the Bible says about politics and political issues beyond a few life-style concerns.

This is symptomatic of a cancer at the heart of today’s Christendom. The Pietistic Movement has totally convinced many of America’s Christians that the Bible does not speak to social issues, only to individual issues. That’s why one article I read on this issue claims that almost half of America’s Christians don’t want the pastor to speak on political and social issues. They are comfortable where they’re at, and don’t want anyone, even God, to disturb them.

I hope the repeal passes. It is an encumbrance on speech that should not occur in a “free” country. However, I doubt repeal will change much by itself. From what I can see, most parishioners hold the pastor’s advice in low regard anyway. The morning sermon should give a warm, fuzzy feeling, not advise us on how to live, is a common thought.

Oh my! Maybe it’s time to adopt Wesley’s idea of living a life of piety without adopting the constraints of pietism.