A Non-Christian USA
Grilling soup and boiling steak.
July, 2018
Skeptics often claim that if the United States were to wipe away Christianity, many societal ills would be cured. Today, more than ever, the Biblical worldview is under attack in the USA. The danger in that approach, however, is that it's bound to give exactly the opposite of the intended results.
This week, BibleRef's social media pages will feature a quote from a founding father of the United States, John Adams. We're sharing this to illustrate why it's important not to mutate "separation of church and state" into "scrubbing religious influence from American culture." In short, Adams points out that the nuts-and-bolts design of the American political system presumes a certain worldview in the people. If that worldview significantly changes, the system will no longer function properly. Applying it to the wrong culture would be like pouring liquid soup on a barbeque grill, or boiling a steak.
In his own words:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. – John Adams
Not surprisingly, this is a controversial point to make. It's particularly galling to some to realize Adams was referring to a distinctly Judeo-Christian sense of "morality and religion." And yet, there is objective logic behind his conclusion.
Despite pop culture claims, religions approach fundamental issues, such as human rights, from drastically different perspectives. For instance, assuming there is objective, unifying value in all human beings is an inherently Christian concept, rooted in mankind being image-bearers of God (Genesis 1:27). Note, carefully, this is not an inherently religious idea, since religions like Hinduism and Islam explicitly reject the idea of universal human equality. And speaking of "inherent human value," from a natively atheistic perspective, is gibberish. If humans are "nothing but" animals, which are "nothing but" mindlessly churning matter, there can be no rational basis for claiming unity or equality as meaningful concepts.
History bears out the danger of a non-religious government worldview, regardless of the system. When a culture rejects belief in God, atrocities are the result. And most historical atrocities start by dividing people into categories of "desirable" versus "undesirable," or those worthy of life, and those who are not. Many religions and worldviews leave room for this, but not biblical Christianity. The only efficient way to let man choose which people are worthy of equality is to remove the "religious" angle and start denying the intrinsic value of all human life.
For example, it's fashionable today to refer to the "moment of birth" as the point where certain rights kick in. There are those in the pro-abortion camp who honestly believe killing a human being ten seconds after birth is "murder," but killing the exact same organism one minute earlier is "choice." Why? Because having a non-religious (subjective) moral view makes it easy to excuse anything. This was the point of Animal Farm's mantra of, "all animals are equal…but some are more equal than others." Losing the restrictions of "religion" makes it easier to excuse anything the government does, since only the government gets to define what's "good."
More immediately, Adams' point about vices such as avarice and revenge is critical. If "the people" are generally selfish, ignorant, unkind, greedy, and uncontrolled, then a system of government controlled by "the people" is going to do far more to enable evil than to protect good. The freedoms it allows become excuses to indulge in sin and excess that counteract the benefits of those freedoms in the first place. Such a society is doomed to slide further and further towards chaos and anger; a system designed to allow a "moral and religious" people freedom turns into a system self-destructed by an "immoral and selfish" people.
Objective history, logic, and the teachings of various faiths all support the same idea. Religion—Christianity in particular—is one of the few defenses human beings have against nihilism and oppression. Beyond any doubt, Christianity has done more to improve the knowledge and freedom of mankind than any other philosophy. So this statement by Adams is not outdated, nor is it bigoted. We can't beg for unity while espousing worldviews which make unity meaningless. We can't stand on a moral platform built exclusively through Judeo-Christian ethics, and then try to dissolve Judeo-Christian ethics.
Legally, of course, we "may" do exactly that—the people, both individually and as a group, have absolute freedom to decide what kind of worldview they use. There are many systems of government well-structured to "handle" an immoral, ungodly people. Of course, those who escape such systems define them as tyrannical and oppressive. The USA can either abandon Judeo-Christian morality and religion, or it can maintain stability and freedom—but it cannot do both. The US Constitution is literally not designed for an amoral, areligious people.
Adams' perspective is incendiary in today's political climate. But it's strongest defense is simple observation: the proof is in the pudding. Both on paper, and in practice, only the Judeo-Christian worldview grounds values which the US Constitution assumes are fundamental. Only that worldview matches the strengths and weaknesses of this particular form of government. Trying to apply the US Constitution through the lens of some other cultural ethos would be like trying to grill soup, or boil steak: a complete and total mismatch.
This, of course, doesn't mean all US citizens must be Christians, or must accept Christian ethics. But if American culture fully abandons Judeo-Christian influence, it will also forfeit the benefits offered by a system which was designed, intended, and dependent on "a moral and religious people."
-- Editor
