Pluralism: A Future and a Hope for Religious Diversity in the United States
- Oct 9, 2007 - 9
Since our beginning as a nation, the American experiment has intertwined the religious character of its citizens with the religious neutrality of the state. “Faith-based movements across our history have created some of the greatest progress in our history. The abolitionists in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century, the great fights for social welfare, child labor laws—all [were] led by faith-based groups,” declares Senator Joseph Lieberman, a self-professed observant Jew, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 2000, and who now serves in the Senate as an independent. “And of course the Civil Rights Movement did the same….You can’t separate God from America. You go right back to the Declaration of Independence. We have to always remember that the Constitution … promises freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.”
One of the most influential statements on what God has to do with America goes all the way back to John Winthrop, the Puritan governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, who led a fleet of eleven vessels and seven hundred passengers to New England in the spring of 1630. Unlike Bradford’s separatists, who completely broke with the Church of England, Winthrop’s Puritan community hoped to reform the Church of England from within. They believed it had been corrupted by Catholic practices and rituals and was under God’s judgment for heresy. In the New World, they felt, they would be sheltered from God’s coming wrath upon the church and could start afresh to live in faithful covenant with God.
Winthrop’s 1630 sermon “A Modell of Christian Charity” has since become well known as “The City upon a Hill,” influencing America’s self-understanding down through the centuries—for example, President Ronald Reagan alluded to it in his 1989 farewell address. Winthrop’s message, based on the text of Matthew 5:14, in which Jesus told His followers that they were the light of the world, a city set upon a hill, challenged the Puritans to holy living. He compared their community to the Israelites moving into the Promised Land, cautioning them to remain faithful to God and warning them of the perils of idolatry.
Although Winthrop is no role model for civil leadership today (his Puritan vision of God’s providence did not allow for the concept of democracy), his Christian vision would later find common ground in the founding fathers’ attribution of basic human rights to the God of Judeo-Christian heritage.
Clearly, America was founded on a divine experiment rooted in Judeo-Christian worldviews. This does not mean that America was ever a “Christian nation,” nor does it mean that we should pine for a return to some kind of “Christian” era in America’s past. During the Reagan era, respected historians Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, and George Marsden wrote a book titled The Search for Christian America, intended to temper what they saw as an overly romanticized view of America’s Christian heritage. In a later edition, they reflected on the developments stemming from the resurgence of a conservative Christian political agenda: “It seems as though the proponents of restoring a Christian America are as adamant as ever in promoting that ideal. Although we have … seen occasional evidence of spokespersons for the Christian political right acknowledging that the United States never was or will be the Kingdom of God, we cannot claim that these views have often penetrated to the core of politically conservative Christian communities.”
I will go on record as a perceived spokesman for the conservative Christian political agenda that the United States never was, nor will be, the kingdom of God, and any attempt to identify it as such is idolatrous. What we need today is not a return to the past, but a turning to a future that has never been: a healthy pluralism in which all views are allowed, encouraged, and respected, and in which a healthy respect for the value of religion in America’s past, present, and future permeates society.
This article is excerpted from Richard Land’s book The Divided States of America? What Liberals AND Conservatives are missing in the God-and-country shouting match! (Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2007), available at local bookstores and at FamilyBookstore.net.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Citizenship, Christian Citizenship, Church and State, Human Rights, Religious Liberty
9 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Oct 9th, 2007, at 5:01pm, Fred Nassar wrote:
I agree with this position. I think it is unfortunate that many evangelicals will not even look at Romney as a candidate because he is a Mormon. There are a number of examples of ungodly/non-believing Kings in the Old Testament that God used to bless and show favor to the Jews. It was within this favorable context that God used the Jewish people to accomplish His purpose. I think a Romney presidency would be conducive to promote healthy pluralism in which all views are allowed, encouraged, and respected, and in which a healthy respect for the value of religion in America’s past, present, and future permeates society. Although Romney’s faith is not in line with orthodox Christian doctrine, he may well establish a climate in this country that will allow our nation to turn back to the true and living God and spare judgment upon this nation.
2 On Oct 10th, 2007, at 8:20am, Danette Green wrote:
Everyone is allowed by God to make their ‘choice’ about Who they serve. However, regardless of their beliefs, God will judge their decision if they choose not to accept His Son Jesus Christ. We need to be careful about what we encourage, respect and allow.
3 On Oct 10th, 2007, at 10:01am, Nathan Falco wrote:
I have to say that I agree with Dr. Land’s position only to a point. Through the eyes of democracy and freedom yes, we should allow and respect other religious belief systems, if Roger Williams has taught us anything. However, through the eyes of faith we should not simply consider Christianity just another “view” that is on equal footing with all the rest. That will only lead to spiritual decay and a core breakdown of spiritual truth. As Christians we are commanded to speak the truth into the darkness so that God’s Word will not return to Him void. I cannot and refuse to hold back the urging of the Holy Spirit to evangelize all lost people of every faith, or no faith at all, just for the sake of being “politically correct”!
BTW: Romney is a Mormon, not a Christian; that puts him on the same team as an unsaved politician; all the same, I agree that he could help create a more favorable environment for evangelicals as well.
4 On Oct 10th, 2007, at 11:31am, Harry Rockefeller wrote:
I believe Dr. Land has three errors in this post. One, the United States is actually a republic and not a democracy. Does the Bible support a democracy over a republic? Does the Bible prevent a civil servant from taking an oath to the Christian Triune God? Two, I presume you actually mean the civil government(s) in the U.S. can never be the “kingdom of God”. What does this mean? Is the civil government the kingdom of Satan? Are you trying to make null and void Romans 13:4-6 where the Bible literally says the civil servant is a servant of God? And lastly, It is a sad poke when you claim those who want to place our civil government under Jesus Christ to be idolaters. Some are simply attempting to submit all authority and power to Jesus Christ as Colossians 2:8-10 says to do. Until or unless you exegete political pluralism I must label it a philosophy of “empty deceit ... and not according to Christ”.
5 On Oct 12th, 2007, at 6:10pm, Stuart Bechman wrote:
As an atheist, I generally find very little from Mr. Land and the ERLC that I can agree with. But on Mr. Land’s most recent article on Pluralism and Religious Diversity, I have to say that I am quite impressed with his stance and conclusions articulated in the article. I share his perspective (and I hope no one holds that against him!) that diversity and tolerance are the core values of this country that have made it great and are worth defending. Bravo!
6 On Oct 18th, 2007, at 7:42am, Nathan Falco wrote:
While offering no offenses or “hard feelings” toward Mr. Bechman, I believe that Post 5 speaks for itself on the much-hailed “problem” in the Church today. Our Church leaders just don’t “get it”.
7 On Nov 1st, 2007, at 8:42am, Pam wrote:
I completely agree with your positions on religious freedom but I do disagree with you that “you” get to say who is really a follower of Jesus Christ and who is not. I believe that is a position taken by only the Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior. He is the only decider so before you try to upsurp His position, you need to pray about it and verify with Him that indeed your opinion is His opinion.
Theological arguments will not be resolved until He personally returns to the earth. Until that time, we just need to accept the fact that there are many things we just do not know and we need to “Love One Another” and follow Christ’s teachings.
Again, I ask you to pray about it.
8 On Nov 2nd, 2007, at 2:17pm, Nathan Falco wrote:
In all humility I would have to offer that we can know if a person is saved. True, Christ alone knows what is ultimately in the heart of each person, but the Bible does clearly teach that we can know if we are saved. One of the prime indicators the Bible speaks of is a person who bears spiritual fruit. Christ says, “you will know a tree by its fruit; a bad tree cannot produce good fruit”. If taken to the logical conclusion, the claim that no one can say whether or not someone is saved would give anyone “license” to behave any way they want and call themselves “Christian”, something that Paul warns against repeatedly.
9 On Feb 10th, 2008, at 2:43pm, Rev. Steven P. Beck wrote:
I must protest this example of false teaching. We do not need more people believing they are right just because we want everyone to get along; we are human and we are sinful, without God’s grace and salvation we never will get along. God’s word is true, the rest of us are just liars with well wishes. The road to eternal punishment is paved with good intentions. Honorable or not, political correctness is a bane to mankind. We should be done with it. Enough of this feel good well wishing, let’s preach the truth not what people have itching ears for. We need to know that there is an absolute and that God is it. Not a god of man made doings who only has the authority we wish him to have. The Bible is God’s word, how dare we believe that there are other words just as perfect as his.