The harms that "Heritage America" will do to the Church, our Gospel witness, and our republic.

American Progress (1872) by John Gast

Heritage America: Wise Men Have Left Us an Inheritance Ben R. Crenshaw, August 23, 2024 at Americanreformer.org

Ben R. Crenshaw is a Visiting Assistant Professor at the Declaration of Independence Center at the University of Mississippi. He is a Ph.D. candidate in Politics at the Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship at Hillsdale College.

I came across this article by Ben Crenshaw posted at Americanreformer.org while reading an article about the effort (unserious as it may be) of some complementarian pastors to revoke the 19th Amendment because they believe that women are too empathetic to be trusted with the right to vote.  Needless to say, I reject that sexist view as utter nonsense {The folly of the "Sin of Empathy" - A self-inflicted wound to Christian Fundamentalism or The deplorable shame of using Potiphar's Wife to discount sex abuse victims: A refutation of Pastor Doug Wilson}as have other Christian thinkers {The American Crisis of Selective Empathy And how it reaches into the church. David French}.  While thinking about how foolish some pastors willing to rail against women voters have become in mixing their politics and adherence to the Culture War with their responsibility before God to preach the Gospel, I decided to click on the link in the article about a term that I've seen thrown around of late: Heritage Americans.

I would imagine that some who use the term "Heritage Americans" are full-on "blood and soil" racists no different than yesterday's Klan members, and some others may use it out of a love for American culture and history without any racial overtones or designs on wielding power over others, Crenshaw's article leans toward the former, even though he denies that it is so.  In the end, this entire concept of "real Americans" is dangerous to the Church, our Gospel witness, and ultimately our Republic.  Let's look at some quotes of particular concern:

"Not all people merely by virtue of being human are capable of self-government. In fact, self-government is rare in human history, as most people are too poor, slavish, stupid, or vicious to establish good government and run it well. They are instead better fit to be ruled without, and even against, their consent." 

This line of thinking is the same sort of racism that was rampant during the era of Colonialism.  Crenshaw seems to think that Englishmen (and those like them) are the only ones capable of good government and self-rule {He says as much in the article), the world's other "inferior" people are best ruled against their consent.  His views are ugly, immoral, and entirely ahistorical.  In other words, this should be condemned plainly and as often as necessary to get the point across.

This racial viewpoint offered by Crenshaw is also poison to the Gospel.  God didn't create tiers of people, some inherently different than others, to suggest otherwise is to malign the goodness of God or to call into question his ability as Creator.  If that were not bad enough, this view would also taint evangelism because how could one expect a people who are too "slavish" and "stupid" to govern themselves to be able to understand / accept the Gospel, and even if they do, how could such lesser people make good disciples?  This whole pit of racism is revolting, it has nothing to do with a theology actually derived from scripture.

"Heritage America is unique in that it is not merely a Christian people seeking to govern themselves well, but to order themselves under intentional Christian government and civil law. To be a Heritage American, then, is to accept this form of religious polity and be willing to submit to laws and institutions that are explicitly Christian in their origin, nature, and purposes."

The problem with this is, as it is with all 'Christian' Nationalism, a question of who gets to decide which civil laws are "Christian" and which are not.  What Crenshaw wants to do is blur the line between theology and politics so thoroughly that all civil lawmaking becomes a theological exercise.  As we will see later, he also wants to limit that exercise to Protestant Christians with little regard for our Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ, let alone any regard to those who are not followers of Jesus.

In addition to the problem one can see with a legal code that is supposedly endorsed by Christianity with respect to who makes that definition and who it leaves out in the cold, we also have the little problem of Church History.  We have tried this game before, and it did not end well, at all, for the Church.  From the time of Constantine until the rise of modern nation-states, the Church was intertwined with the power of various kingdoms and empires.  This embrace of power over others rather than Jesus' power under others via a servanthood model {See my 6 hour seminar for a very deep dive: The Church and Politics} redefines Christian discipleship as a matter not of serving others and showing them the value of the Gospel, but instead one of compelling by force and punishing those who do not accept the Gospel.  In the past this resulted in the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition and the burning of heretics at the stake.  Needless to say, as a Baptist who believes in the freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and who considers Rogers Williams to be a hero worth emulating, this lust for power on the part of those who think they are helping the Church is terrifying.

"As already mentioned, the Americans were overwhelmingly Christian, and so religious liberty and tolerance was more specifically Christian liberty and Christian tolerance. That tolerance was intolerant toward many world religions and religious practices judged to be harmful to soul and body; instead, toleration was primarily extended toward overcoming denominational differences among Protestants."

Tellingly, Crenshaw admits that the Heritage Americans he so much admires and wants to give power to failed to give liberty or freedom to anyone that didn't fit within their own definition of being "one of us."  Honestly, he's giving them too much credit.  There was a reason why Roger Williams was forced to flee Massachusetts Bay Colony and found Rhode Island, the Puritans with power in the colony abused it just as any student of human nature could have predicted. 

"Heritage Americans must love liberty in its fullest sense—freedom from external tyranny and internal despotism—and seek spiritual freedom in community with family, friends, and neighbors. Heritage America embraces religious liberty and tolerance toward Christian differences, and might even tolerate Christian-adjacent religions if its adherents agree to live according to Christian civil laws, norms, and cultural expectations."

We have seen this fail miserably in John Calvin's Geneva, in the slaughter of the Thirty Years War, and in the rise of antisemitism that ran parallel to the launch of the Crusades.  It doesn't work.  Freedom for us, but not for you if you disagree, is a recipe for disaster.  It will result in oppression, violence, and evil done in the name of defending Christ and the Church.  The thing is, never once did Jesus Christ ask his disciples to force anyone to follow him.  Never once did Jesus tell his disciples to seize civil power and enforce "laws, norms, and cultural expectations."  This quest for power is popular among today's 'Christian' Nationalists, like Crenshaw, but it is foreign to the work and words of Jesus in the Gospels, and it has harmed the Church each and every time it has been tried.

"These traits are what constitute Heritage America. You might formally be an American citizen by birth or naturalization, but unless you understand these deeply-rooted and traditional aspects of American identity, you cannot be a Heritage American—a true American. Nor is it the case that one can merely pay lip service to these ideals. Instead, what is outlined above is a description of a tangible way of life. Because Heritage America is a habit of living, those outside the tradition can be grafted in. The concept of engrafting—of adopting and integrating into the trunk of a tree branches that are foreign to it such that what was once separate becomes one—is the best way to think about becoming a Heritage American if you are not one currently. It is a particular way of life that is proud and exclusive, but it is welcoming to those who want to live in this manner"

And here is where Crenshaw's racism moves beyond harming the Church and our Gospel witness to threatening the future of the Republic.  The moment we allow there to be an ideological test for "true Americans" we've lost.  If one must pass a test of beliefs in order to be considered a "real" American, the 1st Amendment is a joke.  This trend toward those in the Blue and Red partisan camps viewing each other as un-American (or even, as "enemies of the state") has already caused violence and a dramatic erosion of kindness and decency in our politics.  Rather than seeking to heal this partisan divide, Crenshaw and the concept of "Heritage Americans" would purposefully rupture it further.

"Can you be a Heritage American if you’re not a Christian? What if you are a Jew, a Muslim, or an atheist? Ideally, of course, all Americans would be Christians, whether sincerely or nominally. However, a polity of pure saints is not practical or likely, and so toleration of those who dissent is necessary. There is a balance that must be struck on this point. Non-Christians can be tolerated, as long as they acquiesce to living in an unashamedly Christian America (i.e., submitting to Christian civil law, government support for Christianity, Christian moral, civil, and religious norms and customs, etc.). At the same time, both public and private citizens should be concerned to help the Christian Church flourish in our nation, since a collapse of Christian conversions, church plants, and influence will mark the end of America. Toleration of non-conformists thus presupposes cultural and religious dominance of some sort. This dominant culture ought to be Christian culture."

The end of the second sentence tells you everything you need to know about why this is absolute madness for Christianity and the Church: "whether sincerely or nominally." That is exactly what doomed the expressions of Christianity in Europe prior to WWII.  Everyone was "nominally" a Christian, but many were just paying lip service to that faith, or were counted as being a part of the Church with zero evidence that they even wanted to be.  This Cheap Grace horrified Dietrich Bonhoeffer, to have faith in Jesus Christ reduced to something that one could simply claim with zero discipleship simply because a person was meeting "cultural expectations" is a slap in the face of the Gospel.  The truth is, I don't want nominal Christians in my Church, and nor should any pastor worth his/her salt.  We need committed Christians, we need men and women willing to embrace self-sacrifice and service for the sake of others, we need people willing to pray for their enemies, and willing to turn the other cheek.  'Christian' Nationalists will eventually say the quite part out loud if you give them a chance.  Here Crenshaw has admitted that "nominal" Christians (i.e. ones without real saving faith) are good enough to be Heritage Americans, the Gospel of Jesus Christ has a much higher bar for inclusion: real genuine life-altering, Fruit of the Spirit producing, faith.

By the way, I don't want government support for Christianity.  That support is a Faustian Bargain, the costs are in the fine print.  Far better to have a government that is neutral, that protects the rights of all, and allows the Gospel to compete in the marketplace of ideas.  On a level playing field, the Gospel has nothing to worry about.

In the end, an article such as this one will garner enthusiastic cheers from those whose primary concern is earthly power for people who look, act, and think just like "us."  It should also make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up if you happen to look, act, or think outside of the mythical Heritage American mold.  The concept of Heritage Americans could be rejected solely on the basis of how it dismisses the slaughter of Native Americans, enslavement of Blacks, and contributions to American history of those who weren't White or didn't speak English.  On that basis alone this idea ought to be soundly rejected as an ugly relic of the racism of the past.  However, the way in which Crenshaw, and many others like him, present this as a boon to Christianity and the Church only enhances the danger that these ideas pose.  Make no mistake about it, there is no room at the Cross of Jesus Christ for racists, and no need for the Gospel to wield power over others.

For further reading, see also:

The Kingdom, The Power, and The Glory, by Tim Alberta: A book review

Why plans to build a "Christian" Nationalist Retreat Center in Franklin, PA is not a good idea for the local churches or our town.

Jesus and John Wayne: A few responses to a thought provoking book

The Watchman Decree: 'Christian' Nationalism's 'name it and claim it' dangerous prayer

The posts in my ongoing "Scripture refutes Christian Nationalism" series

Sermon Video: The Messiah foretold - Genesis 3:15

In what direction does history flow?  Is it cyclical, like many in the East believe (Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism) and many of the ancients believed (Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Gnosticism), or is it linear, proceeding from a definite starting point and heading toward a defined goal?  From the beginning, Judaism (and later Christianity) has viewed history as linear, with a starting point being the creation of the universe by God, and a final goal, the reconciliation of that same creation to the will and love of its Creator.  Contrary to the views of many, evil has not always existed, for it has no independent existence of its own, but rather is only a marring and a mockery of that which God has created.  Evil is rebellion against the will of God, and as such, it has no long-term prospects, for God will certainly bring all things once more under his dominion.  This much is made clear to Adam and Eve, in the garden where God placed them to act as stewards of his work of ordering the chaos.  When Adam and Eve chose to follow the path of Lucifer (now Satan) who had rejected obedience to God's will in favor of an illusory independence, God reasserted his sovereignty by declaring that one day a descendant of the woman would crush forever the rebellion led by Satan (although at great cost to himself).  In the end, there will be no more death, suffering, pain, or indeed, evil.  History is moving forward to its glorious goal, the hinge of which is the arrival of the promised Messiah, a promise made by God from the very beginning.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Our mandate to be intrafaith but not interfaith - 1 Corinthians 10:18-22

While trying to help the community of the church at Corinth, a small minority among the people of Corinth, Paul warns them about "participating" with the pagan idol worship of their neighbors.  While Paul concedes that idols "are nothing" in reality, he still warns them that to worship anything/anyone other than God himself is to become "participants with demons".  What are we to make of this perspective?
As Christians, we believe in the Gospel proclamation that Salvation is found in/through Jesus Christ, and no other source.  As such, we cannot pray/worship with those who follow other religions, as these are not valid paths to God.  It is not a question of respect or dignity, for Christians ought to treat everyone with kindness, but a question of Truth.  It is perfectly acceptable (and encouraged) for Christians to dialogue with those of other faiths, to work together on things like disaster relief and public health initiatives, and to insist upon their equal right to live and worship freely, but the line has to be drawn between working and living peaceably together, which is good, and worshiping together, which is not acceptable.  Why not?  Because, as Paul says, "Are we trying to arouse the Lord's jealousy?"  God refuses to share the devotion of his people.  If we, as Christians, attempt to divert our required devotion from God to other things, (whether they be other religions or materialistic pursuits) we will, as Israel of old learned, anger God.

To watch this video, click on the link below:

Saved in spite of, not because of, their church

Last night was the first of three classes I'm giving on What Every Christian Should Know About: World Religions (You can watch the video, read materials here: World Religions class ) During that discussion, we talked about two religious groups that are associated with, but not a part of, traditional Christianity: Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.  It was my conclusion, and I believe a fair and accurate one, that the theological differences  between these two groups and traditional Christianity (as typified by the Nicene Creed, as both of them are non-trinitarian) prevents them from being considered a part of the Church/Christianity.  It should be understood that such statements, whether coming from a simple local pastor like myself or an official body like the Southern Baptist Convention, the UMC General Assembly, or the Vatican (to name a few), are pronouncements directed at the official organization and its stated beliefs.  Such assertions ought not, and cannot, in a blanket way apply to individuals belonging to those groups anymore than they could speak on behalf of an American Baptist, Lutheran, or Presbyterian.  What applies to the whole does not automatically apply to its parts.  The reason why is very simple: Not everyone in any given church believes what that church officially believes.  I know, shocking, right?  Each church has people who rebel against official teachings, those who mistakenly believe things other than what their church officially believes , and those who are simply ignorant on the issues.

Which brings me to the point that prompted this post: The further that a church is from the heart of the Gospel, the more likely it will be that those who are a part of it who are/will be saved (however many that might be), were/will be saved in spite of not because of that church.  This could be true at a local church under the sway of a false teacher or faltering under a culture of apathy or pride, in a denomination which has forsaken its Gospel roots, or with groups that like the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons who seem Christian to the general public despite their rejection of that which is affirmed by the Church as a whole.  God, and God alone, will judge the living and the dead.  He alone knows what level of belief and understanding (about who Jesus is, how redemption works, etc.) is necessary for salvation, what level of mistaken ideas can be present and yet the Spirit will still regenerate and indwell that person.  It does not seem radical to me to recognize that there are people in even the most theologically correct church/denomination who are unsaved due to an unrepentant heart (they have not heard the Gospel though it was preached to them), and at the same time, that there are people in some of the worst examples of theologically warped churches (even cults) who despite being exposed to false ideas about Jesus or salvation, have been called by the Spirit of God, have repented of their sins, and have been saved by his grace.  Far better, of course, for a church to be working with the Gospel than against it, far better to dwell in truth, than to see dimly through falsehood.  Far better to be a part of a church where the Biblical Gospel is preached and affirmed, than one where it can barely be glimpsed.

In the end, God will judge hearts and welcome those into his kingdom whom he has called, and he isn't asking us for our opinion on the matter.  As a people called to witness to the Gospel, we can only weigh statements and pronouncements whether from individuals or churches, judge them according to the Scriptures, and seek to promote truth and counter falsehood wherever it be found.  May the whole Church of Christ be a benefit not a hindrance to the Gospel.

An Opportunity to Learn.

Do all religions worship the same God?

Do the religions of the world worship the same God?  This fundamental question begs an answer to this question: What is Truth?

Christianity is built upon several presuppositions about knowledge and Truth which must be understood which will then answer the first question.

Truth exists and is knowable by mankind.  Not simply truth from my perspective, but Truth that exists apart from my belief or disbelief in it.  If Truth doesn’t exist, or if it is unknowable, humanity’s quest for it has been doomed from the start and the meaning of life cannot be determined.

Truth claims that are mutually exclusive cannot both be true.  In other words, either God exists or God doesn’t exist, both can’t be true; either humanity is fallen/corrupt or humanity is inherently good, both can’t be true, etc.

The religions of the world make mutually exclusive Truth claims, not complimentary ones.  If reincarnation is real, then the Eastern religions are correct and the Western ones are wrong.  If there is only one God, then the monotheists are right and the polytheists are incorrect, etc.

The Truth claims of Christianity are exclusive.  Christianity requires the belief in the divine/human nature of Jesus Christ, in his virgin birth, sinless life, vicarious death and resurrection.  If this is True, it negates the Truth claims of all the other world religions, for none of them afford Jesus Christ his exclusive role as Savior and Lord.

          The basis of Christian Truth claims is the revealed Word of God.  Christians don’t claim to have discovered the Truth, they are only recipients of Truth that has been given by God.  The Word of God forms the basis for all Christian theology and morality.

Do the religions of the world worship the same God?  No, no they don’t, for their claims regarding who that God is, what that God has done, and what that God requires of humanity are mutually exclusive.  It is on this basis that Christians have, since the founding of the Church, sought to share the Gospel with those who do not believe, it is not an act of arrogance, nor does it derive from a sense of superiority; Christian evangelism is driven by compassion, for just as God desires that none should perish by failing to believe in his Son, so too do his people want their fellow man to find God’s grace and mercy through Jesus Christ.

The Dead-End of Anti-Intellectualism in the Church

One of the favorite themes of a growing number of politicians is an anti-intellectualism aimed at scientists, professors, and intellectuals of all kinds.  They combine this thinly veiled envy with a heaping dose of blue-collar mentality and grand conspiracy theories.  The end result is best illustrated by the insanity of the long-running anti-vaccine movement, a movement that is immune (pun intended?) to scientific evidence for it is all dismissed as being part of the global conspiracy involving governments, the CDC, the UN, and many more.  This same anti-intellectualism continues to be attached to issue after issue, to the detriment of our democracy, for few things are as dangerous to a healthy democracy (yes, I know, our gov't is a Representative Republic, but most people don't know the difference between that and a Democracy) as a purposefully uninformed electorate.
The Church is equally at risk when in the grips of anti-intellectualism.  Many evangelicals routinely belittle the public education system (thereby slandering the many good God-honoring men and women working in it), and look upon the higher education system with nothing short of hatred.  Secular though this education may be, it is still absolutely necessary that the people of God be an educated people.  Why?  Because when they're not, they're easy prey to heretics, charlatans, and frauds, not to mention the politicians who look at them with disdain while pandering to their hot button issues.
Just today I came across two examples of anti-intellectualism that are a clear danger to the Church.  The first was also mixed with racism (not a good combo) in that it was a protest against the teaching of the basic tenants of Islam to school children.  As a former teacher, I'm aghast at the idea of limiting the knowledge of the world that our children are given, and as a pastor, I'm entirely convinced that Christian children need to know the basics of not only Islam, but Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto, plus the ancient religions of the Greeks, Egyptians, Norse, not to mention the basic ideas of Communism, Fascism, and a host of other ideas that make our world tick and explain how we arrived at where we are.  Why?  Because ignorance is a haven for horrible ideas, and ignorance breeds bigotry like cockroaches.  When a Christian teens goes off to college, private or public, religious or secular, that teen needs to know his/her place in the world, needs to know where he/she stands and has little chance of being prepared for the many ideas that will soon flood his/her way if we've chosen to shelter those inside the Church from the many competing ideas that exist in our world.  Teachers need to teach, not pretend that ideas don't exist, how can a high school senior possibly understand the world that we live in today without knowing about the world's religions?  How can people appreciate the government that we do have if they are ignorant of the horrific alternatives that have already been tried?
The second example was once again the same ol' anti-intellectualism of the KJV Only movement, this time from a Chick Publications video that denigrated a seminary education (thereby slandering the many God-honoring men and women who work at America's seminaries) and instead elevating an "ignorance is bliss" attitude about the Bible.  In the video, David Daniels dismisses the manuscript evidence for the Bible, mocking the scholar and archaeologists who continue to work in this field, and treating the term "textual criticism" like a profanity instead of the vital tool that it is.  Why is anti-intellectualism a cornerstone of the KJV Only movement, the answer is quite simple: the entirety of the historical evidence, modern scholarship, and the way in which translations work are so firmly against their belief system that the only way to avoid total embarrassment is to dismiss the opposition as part of a huge conspiracy led by the dreaded intellectuals.  To say this attitude gives the Church a black eye is an understatement.
The Truth is not our enemy.  Facts, history, and knowledge are not the enemy of the Church, never have been, never will be.  We serve a risen savior, a Messiah whose life, death, and resurrection are firmly established in history, to veer off into anti-intellectualism, as a Church, is not only needless and foolish, but a dead-end.

Sermon Video: "How many will be saved?" Luke 13:23-30

In this passage, Jesus responds to a very important question that is asked of him, "how many will be saved?"  Will the grace of God be triumphant, bringing in vast multitudes of the Lost into the kingdom of God, or will only a tiny remnant be saved with many who thought they were following Jesus disastrously mistaken?  Those within the Church who tend toward universalism see the grace of God as victorious, perhaps even beyond the boundaries of the Church to include other religions and philosophies.  On the opposite end of the spectrum from this optimistic viewpoint, lies those whose pessimism sees the holiness of God as victorious, even within the boundaries of the Church where they look and see mostly apostasy.  Which is the correct view, should we expect a Church that is overcoming the World, or one that is hemmed in on all sides and persecuted?
Jesus doesn't, as usual, directly answer the question, but instead he offers an analogy about entrance into the kingdom of heaven, declaring that it is only through a "narrow door" that requires "every effort" to walk through.  There are several ways in which the "door" to heaven could be thought of as "narrow".  That there is only one door, one way to heaven, is one way, and that the door is only accessible to those who have been washed clean of the impurity of sin is another.  It might also be that the door is narrow because only few will enter into it.  While it is true that Jesus speaks negatively of the chances of the rich entering through such a narrow door, the end of his answer makes it clear that heaven will be filled with those who have come to accept the Gospel from all over the world.
The universalist is too optimistic, for there is only one door and those who have not put their trust in Jesus won't find it, but the pessimists on the opposite end of the spectrum are equally wrong, for the grace of God will surely save all those whose trust is in Jesus.  After all, our hope is in Him, and in what He has done, not in our own imperfect understanding of it.  The wisdom of Jesus' answer to the question is that heaven will be missing people who expected to be there, for whatever reason, but failed to trust in him, but at the same time, heaven will be overflowing with those who were written off by men, only to be redeemed by God.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

"All Christianity concentrates on the man at the crossroads" G.K. Chesteron

In his book, Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton explains the difference between Eastern philosophy/religion and Western philosophy/Christianity by focusing on fatalism versus free will.  To those who believe in pantheism ("all is God") or panentheism ("all is in God"), "existence is a science or a plan, which must end up a certain way." (p. 128)  After all, without separation between God and man, what use is there in trying to change anything, what hope is there in reform?  Thus the Buddhist ends up denying existence and seeking to extinguish it rather than trying to change it.  Christianity (and by with it Western philosophy) views life differently, "to a Christian existence is a story, which may end up in any way."  Thus the focus upon the crossroads, it matters a great deal which road a man takes in life because God has created man to have life and being of his own, to be able to choose to not do what God wants, and to be able to choose to love God.  Without freewill, and you can't have freewill without a transcendent (separate) God, what's the purpose of anyone's life?
This may seem like an area of interest only to philosophy or comparative religion students, but in reality, our attitudes about our place in this world and our relation to God have profound effects upon how seriously we take our personal responsibility for the choices we make.  With every horrific act of violence reported on TV due to the latest shooting or suicide bombing, people want more and more to believe that evil is something abnormal in the human brain.  It is only the "crazy" people who do such things we tell ourselves as we search for what went wrong in someone's life to turn them into such a madman.  Evil is choice, the vast majority of evil in our world is the result of the mundane choices to choose evil or good on the part of ordinary people.
Christianity offers an alternative road.  Jesus stands at the crossroad, holding up a sign that says, "I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)  Will people pass him by, laughing at the guy who hasn't realized yet that life is meaningless?  Will they stop, look to Jesus, and allow him to lead them down a new path?  It makes all the difference in the world which path we take.  You see, "all of Christianity concentrates on the man at the crossroads."