There are not many questions in modern society that can divide quite as much as this one. Even asking or suggesting the question can lead to not just a few angry looks. And in my experience, many of the angriest looks often come from other well meaning Christians who feel that to simply ask the question is to somehow abandon the core tenets of the Christian faith.
To put it bluntly, that is both a silly and unfortunate response. The question is not only valid, but it is important. It is also a question that we are not the first to ask. There exists a deep and rich history of theological commentary spreading out over centuries from profound pastors and theologians who have attempted to think deeply on this issue, not only for America but for virtually every other country where Christianity has been so integral to the culture and value system. One thinks of Geneva under John Calvin, Scotland under John Knox, England under the Westminster Puritans, and the Netherlands under Abraham Kuyper just to name a few. To ignore this reality is simply to bury our heads in the sand.
In this article I will not aim to provide a full response to the question, that would take a full length book (perhaps a fun project for a future date). Rather, I want to allow one of the great early American theologians to voice his opinion on the matter, Charles Hodge. Charles Hodge is considered one of the most important Reformed theologians of history. He served as the Principal of Princeton Seminary during the mid 1800’s (back when Princeton Seminary was in fact a true seminary to the living God) and was discipled in the faith by Archibald Alexander himself (one of my all time favorite theologians and the man who served as the first principal of Princeton Seminary). In fact, Charles Hodge would later name his son Archibald Alexandar Hodge after his beloved mentor.
In short, a modern evangelical may disagree with Hodge’s assessment of this question, but they should do so thoughtfully. Hodge was no lightweight theologically. One need only browse the Table of Contents on his Systematic Theology to discover that fact. This does not mean that his assessments were always accurate, but it does mean that as evangelical Christians we should have a certain respect for the greatness of his work and consider his thoughts as studied and reliable. Further, as one writing in a generation so far removed from our own, his insights may provide an approach a bit less hindered by modernity’s bias.
Below is a section from Hodge’s Systematic Theology titled ‘Proof that this is a Christian and Protestant Nation.’ I provide the entire section below, and then I will offer some commentary afterwards. For a bit of context, this section in Hodge’s Systematic Theology is in the midst of his treatment of the fourth commandment, to honor the Sabbath. In the setup to the section copied below, Hodge acknowledges that American civil law, in his day, honored Sunday as the Sabbath, despite foreign-born citizens arguing that such a civil law was objectionable. He asks the question, “Why should any man, who has no faith in the Sabbath as a divine institution, be prevented from doing on that day whatever is lawful on the other days?” If you think about it, this actually gets to the heart of some important issues related to the question at hand, and provides the setup for the section provided below.
The quote from Charles Hodge below is lengthy, but I encourage you to read it in full as it provides a basis for discussion.
State of the Question
It is conceded, (1.) That in every free country every man has equal rights with his fellow-citizens, and stands on the same ground in the eye of the law. (2.) That in the United States no form of religion can be established; that no religious test for the exercise of the elective franchise or for holding of office can be imposed; and that no preference can be given to the members of one religious denomination above those of another. (3.) That no man can be forced to contribute to the support of any church, or of any religious institution. (4.) That every man is at liberty to regulate his conduct and life according to his convictions or conscience, provided he does not violate the law of the land.
On the other hand it is no less true,—
- That a nation is not a mere conglomeration of individuals. It is an organized body. It has of necessity its national life, its national organs, national principles of action, national character, and national responsibility.
- In every free country the government must, in its organization and mode of action, be an expression of the mind and will of the people.
- As men are rational creatures, the government cannot banish all sense and reason from their action, because there may be idiots among the people.
- As men are moral beings, it is impossible that the government should act as though there were no distinction between right and wrong. It cannot legalize theft and murder. No matter how much it might enrich itself by rapine or by the extermination of other nations, it would deserve and receive universal condemnation and execration, should it thus set at nought the bonds of moral obligation. This necessity of obedience to the moral law on the part of civil governments, does not arise from the fact that they are instituted for the protection of the lives, rights, and property of the people. Why have our own and other Christian nations pronounced the slave-trade piracy and punishable with death? Not because it interferes with the rights or liberty of their citizens but because it is wicked. Cruelty to animals is visited with civil penalties, not on the principle of profit and loss, but because it is a violation of the moral law. As it is impossible for the individual man to disregard all moral obligations, it is no less impossible on the part of civil governments.
- Men moreover are religious beings. They can no more ignore that element of their nature than their reason or their conscience. It is no matter what they may say, or may pretend to think, the law which binds them to allegiance to God, is just as inexorable as the law of gravitation. They can no more emancipate themselves from the one than they can from the other. Morality concerns their duty to their fellow-men; religion concerns their duty to God. The latter binds the conscience as much as the former. It attends the man everywhere. It must influence his conduct as an individual, as the head of a family, as a man of business, as a legislator, and as an executive officer. It is absurd to say that civil governments have nothing to do with religion. That is not true even of a fire company, or of a manufactory, or of a banking-house. The religion embraced by the individuals composing these associations must influence their corporate action, as well as their individual conduct. If a man may not blaspheme, a publishing firm may not print and disseminate a blasphemous book. A civil government cannot ignore religion any more than physiology. It was not constituted to teach either the one or the other, but it must, by a like necessity, conform its action to the laws of both. Indeed it would be far safer for a government to pass an act violating the laws of health, than one violating the religious convictions of its citizens. The one would be unwise, the other would be tyrannical. Men put up with folly, with more patience than they do with injustice. It is vain for the potsherds of the earth to contend with their Maker. They must submit to the laws of their nature not only as sentient, but also as moral and religious beings. And it is time that blatant atheists, whether communists, scientists, or philosophers, should know that they are as much and as justly the objects of pity and contempt, as of indignation to all right-minded men. By right-minded men, is meant men who think, feel, and act according to the laws of their nature. Those laws are ordained, administered, and enforced by God, and there is no escape from their obligation, or from the penalties attached to their violation.
- The people of this country being rational, moral, and religious beings, the government must be administered on the principles of reason, morality, and religion. By a like necessity of right, the people being Christians and Protestants, the government must be administered according to the principles of Protestant Christianity. By this is not meant that the government should teach Christianity, or make the profession of it a condition of citizenship, or a test for office. Nor does it mean that the government is called upon to punish every violation of Christian principle or precept. It is not called upon to punish every violation of the moral law. But as it cannot violate the moral law in its own action, or require the people to violate it, so neither can it ignore Christianity in its official action. It cannot require the people or any of its own officers to do what Christianity forbids, nor forbid their doing anything which Christianity enjoins. It has no more right to forbid that the Bible should be taught in the public schools, than it has to enjoin that the Koran should be taught in them. If Christianity requires that one day in seven should be a day of rest from all worldly avocations, the government of a Christian people cannot require any class of the community or its own officers to labour on that day, except in cases of necessity or mercy. Should it, on the ground that it had nothing to do with religion, disregard that day, and direct that the custom-houses, the courts of law, and the legislative halls should be open on the Lord’s Day, and public business be transacted as on other days, it would be an act of tyranny, which would justify rebellion. It would be tantamount to enacting that no Christian should hold any office under the government, or have any share in making or administering the laws of the country. The nation would be in complete subjection to a handful of imported atheists and infidels.
Proof that this is a Christian and Protestant Nation
The proposition that the United States of America are a Christian and Protestant nation, is not so much the assertion of a principle as the statement of a fact. That fact is not simply that the great majority of the people are Christians and Protestants, but that the organic life, the institutions, laws, and official action of the government, whether that action be legislative, judicial, or executive, is, and of right should be, and in fact must be, in accordance with the principles of Protestant Christianity.
1. This is a Christian and Protestant nation in the sense stated in virtue of a universal and necessary law. If you plant an acorn, you get an oak. If you plant a cedar, you get a cedar. If a country be settled by Pagans or Mohammedans, it develops into a Pagan or Mohammedan community. By the same law, if a country be taken possession of and settled by Protestant Christians, the nation which they come to constitute must be Protestant and Christian. This country was settled by Protestants. For the first hundred years of our history they constituted almost the only element of our population. As a matter of course they were governed by their religion as individuals, in their families, and in all their associations for business, and for municipal, state, and national government. This was just as much a matter of necessity as that they should act morally in all these different relations.
2. It is a historical fact that Protestant Christianity is the law of the land, and has been from the beginning. As the great majority of the early settlers of the country were from Great Britain, they declared that the common law of England should be the law here. But Christianity is the basis of the common law of England, and is therefore of the law of this country; and so our courts have repeatedly decided. It is so not merely because of such decisions. Courts cannot reverse facts. Protestant Christianity has been, is, and must be the law of the land, Whatever Protestant Christianity forbids, the law of the land (within its sphere, i.e., within the sphere in which civil authority may appropriately act) forbids. Christianity forbids polygamy and arbitrary divorce, so does the civil law. Romanism forbids divorce even on the ground of adultery; Protestantism admits it on that ground. The laws of all the states conform in this matter to the Protestant rule. Christianity forbids all unnecessary labour, or the transaction of worldly business, on the Lord’s Day; that day accordingly is a dies non, throughout the land. No contract is binding, made on that day. No debt can be collected on the Christian Sabbath. If a man hires himself for any service by the month or year, he cannot be required to labour on that day. All public offices are closed, and all official business is suspended. From Maine to Georgia, from ocean to ocean, one day in the week, by the law of God and by the law of the land, the people rest.
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 343–344.
I’d like to offer a few comments as a response to Hodge that might at the very least offer some Hodgian framework for us as we think about our own response to this question.
First, in Hodge’s opening paragraph, he makes it plain that what he understands as a “Christian nation” is not a nation where every person is a Christian. This is quite consistent with virtually every respected political theology through the ages. Christianity is not a religion that can or should be coerced upon people through force or pressure. In other words, unlike other major religions in the world (and the countries where those false religions prosper), a “Christian nation” would not use the sword as a means of converting nonbelievers.
Second, Hodge deals with both the general “mind of the people” and the framework of the government. He states that in “every free country the government must, in its organization and mode of action, be an expression of the mind and will of the people.” The point here is simply that the way a nation organizes its institutions and legal framework is a reflection of the hearts and minds of the people of that land. A mode of government does not simply appear out of thin air, it develops as response of the hearts and minds of the people.
Third, and very importantly, Hodge notes that religion “attends the man everywhere. It must influence his conduct as an individual, as the head of a family, as a man of business, as a legislator, and as an executive officer. It is absurd to say that civil governments have nothing to do with religion.” Here, Hodge is nearly prophetic for his time. There is a modern sentiment among Christians in America that our Christian values and beliefs are proper for our own faith and managing our own household, but they are improper values to claim as truth for society as a whole.
This position became quite famous in the 80’s when the late Mario Cuomo, the then governor of New York said that said he opposed abortion privately, but wanted to allow it as a matter of public policy. What Hodge is saying is that it is impossible for a Christian to speak that way. He’s saying that if we believe a particular value or virtue is objectively good (meaning God has stated the case with clarity in the Bible), then it is not only good for us privately at home, but our belief is that it is truly good for everyone everywhere. To take another example, the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin that distorts God’s good and wonderful vision of marriage and sexuality. For a modern Christian to state they believe homosexuality is a sin privately, but that it would be a good thing for society to normalize and legalize homosexuality, would be for that Christian to have a self-defeating faith. In other words, and to put this in the plainest terms, if we believe something to be true and good, then we really believe it to be true and good.
Fourth, it is helpful to see how Hodge acknowledges that every government has a charged framework that it operates from. The common modern sentiment (as an outflow of postmodernism) is that there exists some irreligious moral neutrality, which is the standard that governments should be tuned to. It is therefore the godless mind that has the best perspective on moral neutrality, and it is the godless mind that can therefore clearly see through all the charged religious ideologies and help society arrive at a clear moral standard.
This is a preposterous and illogical way of thinking, but it is actually the way most people think. A few obvious challenges to this view are:
- The so called “standard” of modern secular thought is an ever-changing target. The issues that are considered the gold standard of general secular morality were considered outrageous abominations only a handful of years ago. This is a result of secularism having no objective framework to build their morality from.
- Modern secular ethics are not neutral in any way. In fact, the very idea of a “neutral” morality is self-defeating. All claims to moral clarity are charged in one direction or another, for the simple fact that they are a claim in the first place! When, decades ago, the secular sentiment was that divorce was permissible at any time and for any purpose, this was a claim to truth charged in a new direction. There is no neutral. Legislation is always one charged concept of morality against another charged concept of morality. The question the law attempts to answer is not view of morality is popular, but which view of morality is objectively true.
- The Bible teaches that the “fear of God is the beginning of wisdom” (Psalm 9:10). The modern secular mindset has rewritten that ancient and well-worn statement to say “the fear of God is the beginning of foolishness.” To this we simply cannot agree. Biblically, and logically according to Natural Law, we cannot gain real wisdom for life unless we begin with the most basic understanding of reality, that God exists and we are the product of his creation, designed to worship him and live according to his good law. If we alter that starting place for wisdom, we discover we are no longer in a position at all. We untether ourselves from all stable positions. We become anchorless and meaningless. In a secularist’s godless vision of life, “right” and “wrong” are simply conventions made to pass the time, nothing more. We might strongly believe in our moral positions, but without God there is no truth behind any belief. It’s just opinions being shouted into a great empty abyss. It sounds absurd, because it is absurd. Nobody can truly live by an honest godless worldview.
Fifth, we note how Hodge rightly acknowledged that the bulk of Americans in his day were Protestant Christians. “By a like necessity of right, the people being Christians and Protestants, the government must be administered according to the principles of Protestant Christianity.” While this might sound absurd today, all we note here is that it wasn’t absurd in Hodge’s day, back in the early 1800’s shortly after America was birthed. America was founded largely Protestant Christians. Our earliest mythos that shaped the very fabric our cultural heritage is that of the Puritan Pilgrim crossing the ocean to escape religious persecution in Europe in their boat called the Mayflower. It is only in extremely recent history, that these stories stopped being shared and celebrated in every public school in our nation. As Hodge says, “This country was settled by Protestants. For the first hundred years of our history they constituted almost the only element of our population. As a matter of course they were governed by their religion as individuals, in their families, and in all their associations for business, and for municipal, state, and national government.”
Further, the earliest institutions of Harvard and Princeton were built as Christian seminaries to raise up a godly pastorate to feed the the people of America spiritually, and to send missionaries into the West. The legal framework that shaped our nation was an inheritance from the English Common Law, which is itself a fruit of Protestant Christianity shaping and envisioning a society built upon the framework of Scripture.
Sixth, we note that what seemed so obvious to Charles Hodge in the 1800s is less obvious now. Hodge looked around at the culture he lived in, imperfect as it was, and he saw the fingerprint of Protestant Christianity everywhere. Not just in its churches, but in the hearts and minds of the people that made up the nation. The ethos of Protestantism was so embedded in culture, that by and large even nonChristians lived according to the standards even if they didn’t hold the underlying faith that supported those standards.
Perhaps as a helpful comparison, I might suggest what it was like for me to live in Thailand. Thailand is largely Buddhist. When I lived in Thailand, I held to my own Protestant faith vehemently, yet I knew that when I walked outside, and paid my bills, and interacted with society, the very air I was breathing was Thai Buddhism. I did not expect the Thai people to think like me, rather I learned to adjust my lifestyle (in every way possible without sinning) to the Thai way of life.
Today, much of America is still deeply embedded in those Protestant roots. Living in a city like Chicago makes it often difficult to appreciate this fact. But one only needs to drive a few hours south to realize that America is a very big country, and there a whole lot of people in it that really love Jesus. The same roots that Hodge acknowledged are still present in our nation, but much has changed.
- Hodge took for granted that all business shut down on the Lord’s Day in order to honor the Sabbath. Today, we couldn’t imagine that world.
- Hodge took for granted a Protestant vision of marriage and divorce as the general code of American law. Today, Protestants are fighting to hold onto the last vestiges of that vision.
- Many of the quaint and assumed Christian artifacts that were naturally embedded in the American culture have been systematically removed. Many schools no longer recite the Pledge of Allegiance which states that we are “one nation under God.” Courthouses no longer make people swear an oath upon the Bible. Politicians are sworn into office with their hands upon alternate religious texts.
My point is not to complain about these things, but rather to acknowledge a reality. The new religions of secularism and pluralism are gaining traction upon the American psyche and many American institutions, from our Universities, to our press, to our media, to our churches. How and why this happened is another project for another day. It is simply helpful, from time to time, to read the pages of history, in order to know where we have come from. This is after all the country that we live in. It is the country that we have inherited from great men and women who have come before us who sacrificed much to gift us the world we take for granted.
The question of whether America is a Christian nation is a worthy question, with incredible consequences depending on how we answer it. Was America a Christian nation? Charles Hodge had absolutely zero hesitation in answering that positively. Is America still a Christian nation? That’s a tougher question. I believe the answer is yes, there is a core and central driving framework that is still rooted in a Christian worldview and ethos. Yet much has changed, and we are certainly at an important turning point that takes great wisdom for Christians to navigate faithfully.
