Our Liberty Theme Park

Too many politically conservative Christians misunderstand America’s chief end.

By
130
The Christian flag is on display with the American flag in Lexington, Massachusetts. (Photo by John Tlumacki/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

An NPR political correspondent asked me this past week for thoughts on the opportunities and challenges House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson faces. She was knowledgeable about the attacks on him as well as the cheerleading for him. She wanted other perspectives and called me because I edited World magazine for 29 years, resigned two years ago, and could speak as a mostly conservative, definitely Christian journalist.

What might I offer? Maybe a step back from the immediate controversies over aid to Israel/Ukraine and domestic spending. Maybe some longer-term perspective about ends and means. I like the first question in the Westminster Shorter Catechism, a central Protestant document from the 1640s: “What is the chief end of man?” The answer is “to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” That’s also a good question to ask about nations: “What is America’s chief end?”

Conservative Christians have been and are divided on that. Some believe that to glorify God we should attempt to make America a modern version of ancient Israel, a holiness theme park with (officially) zero tolerance for wrongdoing. They say we should follow the laws laid out from Exodus to Deuteronomy and have severe penalties for disobedience. Theologian Rousas Rushdoony made the comprehensive argument for this in The Institutes of Biblical Law (1973), and a half-century later politicians like Lauren Boebert offer slimmed versions.

I’ll offer two reasons why those views are wrong. First, although some Christians and Jews turn the Old Testament—the Hebrew Scriptures—into a series of exemplary stories, it’s more a history of defeat. The book of Genesis shows how Adam and Eve lived in an ideal environment but still messed up. Later, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all had family dysfunctions. They had descendants who fell into slavery in Egypt but eventually grew into a nation that returned to a promised land with some unique advantages.  

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
130
By
Comments (130)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    A valuable and important article. I’m glad the Dispatch published this.

    Collapse
  2. Stephen Clay Settle

    Him being a devotee in seeming good standing (for now) in the First Church of Trump, Mike Johnson would not be my first choice for sheriff, much less chief priest. That said, I must take issue with Marvin Olasky's wholesale rejection of this thing he calls "Christian nationalism."

    Shortly before the outbreak of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln correctly noted that a nation divided as ours was could not stand, and his words proved prophetic. America was sundered, and it took a terrible war to reunite it, if only superficially.

    I suspect we are approaching that point again today, if we aren't already there.

    Those on America's so-called "left" understand something that their adversaries on the so-called "right" appear loathe to admit, namely that the legal and legislative arenas present a battleground for whose principles and values will define our public canon. And when the claims characteristic of both sides are largely irreconcilable, one contestant must win and the other must lose and retire from the field.

    Example: Is a human life in gestation a being possessing intrinsic value, hence deserving of legal protection, or an entity no more worthy of respect than a hangnail or a festering appendix? Again, one view must prevail while the other will be denied, even suppressed, for the simple reason that thesis and antithesis cannot coexist in public policy. Moreover, as much as apologists for the democratic process and "consensus" may bemoan the autocracy of our courts, it remains true that a conversion of hearts and minds often occurs downstream from the coercive impact of government action. Had African-Americans in the 1960's awaited a volitional shift in attitudes on the part of white majorities, especially in the South, they and their descendants would still be hoping in vain for a seat at the lunch counter.

    Therefore, while Olasky and others may object, the central concerns before us do involve a matter of who controls the levers of power. Contrary to the febrile fantasies of free market enthusiasts and Marxists alike, the State is not about to wither away. Thus the question remains, to whose whistle does the old dog answer? Will it be the "Christian nationalist" with the Ten Commandments as one's guide or the legions of agnostics with their secularist dogmas rooted in moral relativism?

    Olasky may mock the "Christian Disneyland" template, but the perennially optimistic claims expounded on behalf of classical liberalism, as championed by partisans on the "left" and "right" alike, are downright risible when viewed through an unsentimental and demythologized lens of American history.

    The arch-revolutionary John Adams, perhaps alarmed at the zeitgeist he had helped to incite, observed, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." His remark, of course, begs the question: Are Americans now or have they ever been so morally pristine and justice-oriented as to merit the title of "a moral and religious people?" Are our political deliberations and the culture which hosts them so "exceptional" as to qualify this country as unique and exemplary of a distinctly superior order, an America Immaculata, as many "conservatives" desperately long to believe, preponderant evidence to the contrary notwithstanding?

    Or, Trumpism aside, will America persist on the path of ongoing "revolution," evolving as a bastion of political correctness, afire with evangelical zeal for reversing climate change and offering reparations for past injustices, as "progressives" envision its future? Will veganism ultimately triumph?

    And finally, a third way of sorts: Shall our dominant values more accurately reflect the irrepressible mindset of the mountain men, lawless and likely sociopathic figures of American lore who sang of a land "where the water flows and the green grass grows, and the sound of the Gospel never goes?"

    Today, their disdain for the restraining hand of authority finds its political expression in libertarianism, whose overriding tenet resembles the war-cry of an aggrieved toddler: "You're not the boss of me!" Such intrepidity demands a "right" to get stoned on cannabis, to abort one's child, and to hunt female caribou who have just given birth, thus assuring death not only to the mother but to her calf as well. And dare any government agency attempt to deny them any or all of the above, they dream of a moment when they might brandish their firearms in defiance, under that yellow rattlesnake banner warning "Don't Tread On Me." Either that, or maybe they'll storm the U.S. Capitol again.

    That last vignette may best define the attitude endemic to most Americans, including a majority in Ohio who recently approved aborting prenatal children throughout all nine months of pregnancy, as well as "transgendering" without their parents' consent others chosen to be born. If such nihilism is a function of the blessings of liberty, then God spare us both. Like Athens on the verge of anarchy in the 7th Century BC , modern America appears evermore ripe for the sort of corrective represented by the ancient legislator Draco, from whom we now derive the adjective "draconian." A tyrant, a dictator, harsh and yet fair by the standards of his day, he saved Athens, and one may suggest, by extension all of what we now revere as "Western civilization." George Will may celebrate America as "the firstborn of the Enlightenment," and yet the past 247 years represent a case study in Enlightenment thought gone wild, to wit, an apotheosis of autonomy and the elevation of "free-dumb" over truth, license over self-discipline, and an ever-metastasizing catalog of "my rights" over any attention or deference to the common good.

    Once more, and speaking of Disney in this age of gender adaptability, America appears as some insatiable monster resulting from the unnatural union of Peter Pan and Pinocchio and whose preternatural yelp is "I won't grow up!" and "I've got no strings on me!" Such has developed steadily as the American creed. As T.S. Eliot noted in his poem 'East Coker,' "In my beginning is my end." Make no mistake, we're on our way there.

    The longer I live, the more I'm inclined to think that this nation and our world would in many ways be better off had we lost our beloved revolution. At minimum it might have furnished a solid rebuke to many Enlightenment-era nostrums that survive to bedevil our society. It might have discouraged the French Revolution, one of the most unfortunate events in Western history. In any case, dismiss or deplore my sympathies as those of a theocrat, an integralist, an advocate of Christo-fascism, 'Fulton Sheen meets the Taliban,' or whatever, I suspect some species of "Christian nationalism" may be required to cure America of its addiction to Americanism itself, meaning again a maniacally libertarian idolatry of the unholy trinity of me, myself, and I. This remains a congenital malady personified by no less than Thomas Jefferson, who declared, "In defense of liberty, it may be necessary at times to make common cause with error." Fraught words, indeed, from a confused soul who would also decry slavery as "a hideous blot on society" while holding more than 600 such individuals in bondage, among them a 13-year old girl whom he exploited as his "love interest."

    You think Donald Trump is a paragon of inanity and self-contradiction? Or just want to know why we're in the mess we're in? Read more of Jefferson.

    Collapse
  3. Rawkki54

    From dispensation to dispensation, believers have pointed out that they have always erred and not remained faithful to God's holy dictates.
    As Peter states at the Council of Jerusalem:
    "Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" Acts 15:10

    Collapse
  4. Kbg

    I had to chuckle at the Horowitz quote. I assume he's familiar with Robespierre.

    And of course then there's the New Testament.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Kim

    I want to give Mr Johnson the benefit of the doubt, but I am a bit cautious. I think there is a huge difference between living your life according to your religious convictions and making it law (i.e. entering into a “covenant marriage” yourself vs rolling back the “no-fault” divorce laws for the entire country). I am not convinced that making a law changes the heart.

    When I think of Christian Nationalists I’m reminded of the Tower of Babel. I’m reminded of the Israelites rejecting God’s rule and crying out for an earthly king. I’m reminded of the Israelites looking for a savior, primed for a political solution and crying out for the release of Barabbas.

    Those “Christian” leaders calling for people to “storm the cockpit” don’t remind me that laws won’t change hearts and minds. They don’t remind me that true influence come when one lives peaceably within society as Joseph and Daniel. No, they have gotten off on a rabbit trail that leads to division and chaos…Babel.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    David Wallover

    The rabbit trails below are amusing...sort of. The opinions expressed are maddeningly/delightfully buckshot in their breadth. And in a sort-of amusing way, I'm inclined to believe that they illustrate Mr. Olasky's premise: America's self-stated chief end is liberty. He quoted Lincoln. He might well have started with the watershed document, the Declaration: "All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Against the backdrop of European monarchies of the time, the Declaration was revolutionary indeed. Against the backdrop of today's mashup in Western Civilization, it's a tame assertion that risks losing its cohesive power. The "revolution" that has characterized the West ever since we teed it up, has descended into a glorified "self-serve" lunch counter, masquerading as liberty. "Self-restraint" is no-longer a welcome participant in our national conversation. Such discussion isn't directly political in nature. It's a character issue, and therefore, not one that can be legislated. Such thinking seems to be implied by some in the comments who point out that cultural issues are detached from political issues, as though one can maintain this self-serving approach without there being political ramifications. But politics is nothing more or less than the organized expression of the culture's "special of the day." We cannot detach the two aspects from one another. They're joined at the hip.

    Olasky's premise, then, has merit. It is sound. However, if liberty is our nation's chief end, then we need to ask the follow up question: When do we tip from liberty to anarchy? Our political establishment is not a given; it IS an ongoing experiment; it is the cumulative result of constantly shifting cultural forces. If those cultural forces spin too far beyond the centripetal force of politics to hold things together, we face potentially serious problems.

    And despite the objections of some that Trumpists are the bigger problem, there are pressures from the Left that are equally to blame for fomenting the Trumpian reaction. "Your honor, have mercy!" the boys cried after they murdered their parents. "We're orphans." Such is the legacy of the Left. The generation-long leftward drift of the Democrats is what we should be noting. That drift does result in the appearance that the radical Marxists are a small vocal outlier. But such an observation loses the larger point. The perpetual leftward draw of the extremists on the party as a whole over time is at least as concerning as the flashpan on the Right. The Left's influence on the culture is far more profound. So, if you are on the Left, congratulations on your long game. But it may prove a pyrrhic victory. You may not be able to sustain politically what you have unleashed culturally.

    Mind you, I don't disagree with anyone's expressed concerns about Trump, et al. I have lost my political home. But my cultural home is of greater concern to me. I think we are in a hot mess both culturally and politically; and further, that both sides ARE equally to blame. In this light, I am grateful that Olasky is calmly asking us to reassess the nature of the problem so that, perhaps, we can come back to a healthy ongoing experiment, as opposed to blowing up the lab.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Traceyclairet

    Wonderful to see your name among Dispatch writers, Mr. Olasky, and wonderful to get your take on Christian nationalism. I think it is still very difficult for Christians who take holiness seriously to wrap their heads around the necessity of liberty; but the founders hammered all that out with great care and foresight, and those who really want freedom to practice their faith would do well to study their arguments.

    Collapse
  8. J. Everett Schubert

    I am a Christian. An evangelical Christian. An ordained deacon in an evangelical church, no less.

    But I'll admit, when I see a public figure, particularly an elected official, being particularly over-the-top about reminding people how good of a Christian they are, my defenses go up, and I get skeptical about their sincerity. It shouldn't be this way. But alas, it is.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pbanuski

      One would think an ordained deacon in an Evangelical tradition would be familiar with this passage from Matthew considering it's part of the Sermon on the Mount.

      "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." Mike Johnson is a hypocrite.

      Collapse
      1. J. Everett Schubert

        I'm quite familiar with that verse, thanks. I was being implicitly critical of Johnson, not defending his methods.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pbanuski

          Then why did you establish your "credentials" and then write "but I'll admit?" If anything you could have shared your credentials and then written "so it's no surprise..."

          It seemed an odd way to criticize someone.

          Collapse
    2. Hikingguy

      I disagree. It should be that way. Jesus told us about people who make public displays of their piety and what they are really after. He said to go in your closet and close the door when praying. I think your skepticism on this point serves you well.

      Collapse
  9. BEE

    This is a great piece, Marvin. I can't agree more. I worry about our country's future, but I also have faith in the foundation that our founding fathers, and God, have given us.

    Collapse
    1. Hikingguy

      God had nothing to do with it. America is a secular Republic-if we can keep it.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        WilliamJ

        Sheez, you can't (shouldn't?) tell him he can't have faith in what God has given us. He's not saying anything about forcing you to share his faith.

        Don't try to shout down people that express their faith - it is just as legitimate in the public square as any other view.

        Collapse
      2. BEE

        “In God we trust”

        “One nation, under God”

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pbanuski

          In God We Trust was adopted in 1956.

          One nation, under God was adopted in 1954.

          Try again, Bee.

          Collapse
          1. Rawkki54

            Those standards have always been true. They were codified in the 1950s.

            Collapse
          2. BEE

            Another parasite. How sad!

            Collapse
      3. Jim.H

        We won’t, because all “secular” societies will eventually become socialist over time…..

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pbanuski

          That's a bad argument. Plenty of states that are not explicitly secular also have socialist policies. One has almost nothing to do with the other.

          Collapse
          1. Jim.H

            All of those socialist policies have continued to expand over the last 20 years.....so while the state may not be overwhelmingly secular, enough of them are and continued to vote for more socialist policies....

            Collapse
  10. Brianlpierson

    Thoughtful commentary from a conservative Christian is always welcome but Mr. Olasky perpetuates a false equivalency: "Liberty is now under assault from both the cancel-culture left and the cancel-elections right. The far left and the far right each look to models abroad: The far left still praises Cuba, the far right loves Hungary. "

    The "far left," as described here, comprises a miniscule percent of the Democratic party - low single digits. No Democrat I know - and none currently holding office - "praises Cuba." Similarly, while "cancel culture" is hopelessly vague, if the reference is to college students shouting down conservative speakers, they, too, are a miniscule percentage of Democrats and I'm unaware of any elected Democrats supporting that behavior.
    By contrast, the "cancel elections" authoritarian right comprises the majority of Republicans, including the party's undisputed leader and a majority of elected officials.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      WilliamJ

      I was going to say something similar, but from the other side. The left has been far more illiberal for far longer, and commands much more cultural (and real power) - academia, media, etc. The right is more recent to illiberalism, and are a unique danger in the short term, to be sure, but are largely a reaction to what Olasky describes, the illiberal thirst for power from the left.

      From a certain perspective, your view makes perfect sense, but its only part of a bigger story.

      Collapse
    2. BEE

      The democratic leader in the House was a 2016 election denier. Far left, pro-hamas terrorists are storming our streets, attempting to scale the fencing around the White House and defiling the nation's capital entirely, akin to January 6th. I'm not sure it's a false equivalency at all.

      Collapse
      1. Hikingguy

        A false equivalency would be to compare Hakim Jeffries with the idiot who actually dispatched a dense mob of dense imbeciles to go after the Capitol. Spare me.

        Collapse
        1. BEE

          Is this the same mob that attacked about a week ago? Or a different one?

          Collapse
          1. Hikingguy

            You're adorable when you play dumb. More, please.

            Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Pbanuski

      Yes, the Cuba/Hungary thing stood out as either a bad-faith argument or a desperate one.

      Collapse
Load More