Achilles, Jesus, and the Christian Prince Archetype

Introduction

Many young men today will never forget the first time they saw Achilles, played by Brad Pitt, beam fearlessly towards Boagrius, otherwise known as Nathan Jones, the WWE star, delivering a simple yet devastating strike at the giant among common men. His route was humble, like a lion prancing without the slightest worry as it approaches its prey. The tower of a man hurled a nine foot spear like a missile towards our hero, who with the slight drop of his shoulder gracefully continued on. Quicker than a blink, Achilles leaped and quickly stabbed his foe between the head and shoulder, down to the heart. The mighty warrior fell, and it all took place in less than a minute. The armies on either side were stunned, as this much smaller man before them slayed a beast like it was nothing, they trembled at a man who fought for his people, not at the bidding of mortal men pretending to be kings, or even the gods! Surely, this was the disposition of the Israelites before David the giant slayer. Surely, this was the disposition of Gideon’s 300 against tens of thousands. Surely, this is to be our disposition as we consider our Champion-  Jesus Christ who, on behalf of His people, has conquered the World. There’s nothing wrong with admiring the Champions among us. 

The Archetype

Consider this a baptized version of the Great Man Theory of History, articulated by Thomas Carlyle,

“Universal History, the history of what man has accomplished in this world, is at bottom the History of the Great Men who have worked here. They were the leaders of men, these great ones; the modellers, patterns, and in a wide sense creators, of whatsoever the general mass of men contrived to do or to attain; all things that we see standing accomplished in the world are properly the outer material result, the practical realisation and embodiment, of Thoughts that dwelt in the Great Men sent into the world: the soul of the whole world's history, it may justly be considered, were the history of these…”

Samson or David. Achilles or Odysseus. Sigurd or Cuchulain. Aeneas or Gilgamesh. Every culture of human civilization has exalted flawed heroes, who against all odds triumphed on behalf of their people, many times at their own expense. There is something which captivates the human spirit about a larger than life figure, often ascribed higher levels of divinity or spirituality than the common person, who fights for us; who wins the wars we cannot afford to fight; who indeed fights the wars we cannot fight at all. Send out your champion, says Goliath (1 Sam. 17:9), and if he wins the day we will be your slaves- but if not, you will be ours. David, as the archetype regularly does in these stories, rightfully and courageously responds to the uncircumcised dog who would dare insult the One True God (1 Sam. 17:26). In the hero, the people of God are delivered, they are saved, and saved unto the service of their eventual King, the truest hero. 

The Gospel

Where myths and even Old Testament types come short, Christ fulfills. For the true hero, Jesus, is without flaw. There is no weak heel, like Achilles; in fact, it's his heel that crushes the Serpent (Gen. 3:15). There is no lust after women, like David, only a true love for his bride, the Church. In Jesus, all heroes lose their crowns. His crown of thorns is traded for a crown of glory, upon his resurrection and ascension, where He continues to tread on His enemies (Psalm 110:1). In Christ, the most severe battle, one which could never be won by mortal man, is accomplished. Death, sin, hell, and Satan himself are no match (1 Cor. 15:55-57).  As He rules over all things (Matt. 28:18), He deputizes even Pagans to do his bidding (Rom. 13:1-7) . Our prayers are for these lesser images of Christ are to be towards their salvation and utilization of the sword of righteousness. You are commanded to have an interest in these ministers of God, civil magistrates (1 Peter 2: 13 -17). In them, we are reminded of the highest King, Christ Jesus, and must acknowledge His name before them, that they would kneel. 

Church History

Reformers had absolutely no problem speaking highly of civil magistrates, as reflected in the following quotes:

“We have above set forth that our ecclesiastics…teach that to exercise the office of magistrate is the most sacred function that can be divinely given. Hence it has come to pass that they who exercise public power are called in the Scriptures gods. For when they discharge their duty aright and in order the people prosper both in doctrine and in life, because God is wont so to control our affairs that in great part both the welfare and the destruction of subjects depend upon those who are governors…” Tetrapolitan (Strasbourg) Confession, Chapt. 23 (1530)

“There is more true virtue in one politic man, who governeth the commonwealth and do his duty truly, than in many thousands of monks and hermits…” Heinreich Bullinger, author of the Second Helvetic Confession (see Chapt. 30 to see ‘Concerning the Magistracy’).

“The Public introduction of True Religion, or Public Reformation from corruptions, must ordinarily be carried out by the Prince, or the Supreme Magsitrate: for it belongs to His office, as the examples of Moses, Joshua, David, Asa, Josaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, and also Constantine the Great, Theodosius, and others show…” Amandus Polanus (1561-1610)

Modern day Reformed Christians ought to remember that Calvin’s Institutes and many Confessions were dedicated to magistrates, and not merely to pay lip service, as Calvin said:

“When good magistrates rule, we see God, as it were, near us, and governing us by means of those whom he hath appointed.” He would have quickly been rebuked today, as shown recently by William Wolfe’s meme of Trump as Napolean saying, “save us President Trump.” These midwits were quick to dodge the joke and go straight for the doctrine, as if Wolfe belives justification rests on Trump alone. “We see God” in good governance, says Calvin, as they go on their pietistic rants. 

The Application, the Christian Prince, and Conclusion

Today, as Populism surges, many professing conservatives and liberals alike detest the Great Man with vitreal. The outside observer - being anyone who does not aggressively maintain norms unique to the 20th or 21st centuries- would find it odd that critics were most outraged by Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s use of the phrase “Christian Prince” in his perennial work The Case for Christian Nationalism. He writes, 

“The Prince is the first of His people- on whom the people can look upon as father or protectorate of the country….I envision a measured and theocratic Caesarism- the prince as a world-shaker for our time, who brings a Christian people to self-consciousness and who, in his rise, restores their will for their good…” 

His endorsement of Sabbath laws, Cultural Christianity, or the assertion that America has exported depravity abroad did not seem to catch their gaze and anger quite like the Christian Caesarism. What accounts for this? Such would be the subject of an entirely different article, but for now we may confidently say: its cope. If nothing else, a simple departure from the old ways in which civilizations - Christian and Pagan- revered their magistrates. They prefer their Brave New World to that of our forefathers. 

But we do not have to settle for this. We can admire the strong men of our time, the Champions of our age. This is a good, natural, and biblical inclination. Holding Christ as the Universal Champion, whose Meditorial Kingdom will continually exert dominion on Earth, we can delight in those whom He has ordained to maintain earthly civil affairs- we are commanded to. 

Drowning ourselves in the seas of thousands of pietistic disclaimers will not change how the world spins, at the rhythm of those who lead; and lead they do, indeed, regardless of our holy huddles. Pray for Great Men to rise up to defend Christendom. Be the Great Men who defend Christendom. Pray that the Christian Prince would emerge from our ranks. 

The Great Confusion of the Great Commission

Introduction

What if we have misunderstood the Great Commission? Many evangelicals today, myself included, were raised to believe that evangelism is the primary, if not exclusive, mission of the Christian life. If that’s true, then why is the foundational passage- Matthew 28: 18-20 - never directly referenced again in the New Testament? If the Great Commission is obviously the mission of the Christian life, or of the Church, how come the phrase wasn’t invented until the 19th century?

Inspiration and Disclaimer 

This essay was inspired by the recent message given by Pastor Kevin DeYoung at the CrossCon24 event a few weeks ago. As will be clear, I fundamentally reject many of the points he made from a Biblical and historical perspective, but I will restrain myself from dissecting his quotes too much. Rather, the larger point of this work is to critique the impulse which drives thought paradigms like this. DISCLAIMER: I am not saying the Great Commission, evangelism, or Gospel-centric thinking are not important; they are of the utmost importance. I will double down on this at the end of the article. Anyway, Here’s some of his message:

“My message is to make sure that when we talk about God’s mission in the world, and the mission of the church, that we have our story straight. Increasingly you hear some christians tell a story of God’s work in the world that is less about saving sinners, bringing them into the church- the church as a witnessing community, the church as an outpost of the Kingdom-less about that, less energy, enthusiasm, toward that and more about a call to transform culture, save civilization, and even create, build, or restore Christian nations…15 years ago if well meaning churches starting drifting in their God given mission it was because their energy was around the arts, justice, shalom, human flourishing, all good things– but not mainly, the story the Bible is telling…I want to remind you that the story of God’s work in the world is church centric and soteriological, rather than nation-centric and civilizational…[they believe] the church [merely] plays a supportive role…the vision in this impulse of God’s work in the world is nation centric rather than church centric, so that the energy of the church is directed toward the building of Christendom and the establishment of a Christian civil society…”

Great takes on these comments can be found here from Jon Harris and here from Stephen Wolfe, who was clearly in Kevin’s mind when he made these remarks. Some quick critiques right off the bat: I doubt that Kevin intends to imply that the cultural aspects of the Gospel, evangelism, and their effect on civilization, are not important. I know he cares about these things too, but unfortunately these ideas have out ran him in the last several years. This rhetoric echoes the “we just need to focus on the gospel” call that many at The Gospel Coalition have been making for the last twenty years. 

Unfortunately for them, we now have a historical record from which to judge these emphases. Have more people been saved, has the church grown, or has the nation transformed through individuals in this time? Clearly not, and it's not because congregations were not being told to focus on the gospel and evangelism. As a proud southerner I can tell you first hand, that’s practically all we talked about on Sundays, as we included the sacrament of the invitation at the end of each service. Funny enough, now my friends 20 years later only know Christianity in terms of the Gospel and evangelism, not Church history, the study of doctrine, or what the Bible might have to say about their taxes, after school programs, or their neighborhoods. 

There are two larger errors with respect to his remarks here. 1) Conflation of meanings for particular terms, namely “Church” and “soteriological.” In his rebuttal, Stephen Wolfe agreed that it is not the primary function of the Church to regulate local commerce, recreation sports leagues, music conservatories, and other aspects of culture as DeYoung seems to imply. They are able to agree on this because they are speaking with respect to the Institutional Church. But should the church have involvement in all the things previously described? Absolutely. Is this a contradiction? Not at all. We should not conflate the meaning of the term “Church” with “church,” that is, the Body of Christ; disciples of the Lord Jesus. This allows us to agree with Kevin; yes, God’s mission is church-centric, that is, believer-centric. Because our usage of the term includes more than just the institution, we can have a better understanding as to the aim of the Great Commission. 

Comments like DeYoung’s would imply that the “soteriological” aspect of the Church’s mission is almost exclusively about justification. Of course Kevin would not say that, he would include the sanctification of Christians as a part of their redeemed life. Interestingly that brings us to a fun syllogism explaining the dilemma at hand:

• The Great Commission is the mission of the Church.

• The Great Commission includes more than merely the conversion of individuals.

• Therefore, the mission of the Church is about more than merely evangelism and justification. 

Disciples must be taught to obey all that Christ has commanded, and He commanded many things that are not immediately related to how to be saved, but rather how to live once you are saved, and these things play out into all of life. This is the real disagreement: the Great Commission is in fact about civilization transformation, because Christ has inherited the nations, not merely an institutional church, lest we be Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

“The Lord has said to Me,

‘You are My Son,

Today I have begotten You.

Ask of Me, and I will give You

The nations for Your inheritance,

And the ends of the earth for Your possession.

You shall [h]break them with a rod of iron;

You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.” Psalm 2: 7-9

“He will judge Your people with righteousness,

And Your poor with justice…He shall have dominion also from sea to sea,

And from the River to the ends of the earth.

Those who dwell in the wilderness will bow before Him,

And His enemies will lick the dust.” Psalm 72: 2, 8-9

I’ll spare you all the other numerous passages mentioning Messianic prophecies fulfilled in Christ which appear to be about far more than DeYoung’s emphasis on “saving sinners..” Of course the Messiah has saved sinners and will continue to save them until the eschaton, but He is also accomplishing far more than that in history, a point we will return to when we explain the Greatness of the Great Commission. 

But yes Kevin, God’s mission IS church-centric and soteriological, if by that we mean His mission is driven by the Body of Believers for the justification AND sanctification of the nations. 

History of the Phrase

The ngram viewer above certainly surprised me. Surely it cannot be that the phrase “Great Commission” was not used until the 1800’s, right? Well as far as I can find, this is the case, including a peer-reviewed journal article from The Gospel Coalition’s Themelios publication (I remind you that Kevin DeYoung was once a Council member for TGC, funny enough). Really, I’ll keep this section short just by quoting that article:

“It turns out that this passage may have got its summary label from a Dutch missionary Justinian von Welz (1621–88), but it was Hudson Taylor, nearly 200 years later, who popularized the use of ‘The Great Commission’. So, it seems like Welz or some other Post-Reformation missionary probably coined the term ‘The Great Commission’ and since that time, the passage has been the theme for countless mission talks and conferences. (It may be of some comfort to Web-sceptics to know that I ended up finding this bit of history in a hard-bound book on the history of world missions belonging to a colleague here at John Brown University.) What I realized both from my exegetical work, and somewhat confirmed by this historical find, was that for the first 1600 years of the greatest exponential mission-driven expansion of the life of church, this passage was read and understood as the trinitarian foundation of ecclesiology, not as fanfare for missiology….”

Thanks TGC, I could not have said it better. In light of this and DeYoung’s comments, it appears that the Great Confusion of the Great Commission to be about the methods of its application, which we get to in the end of this piece. 

Biblical Witness

The Greatness of the Great Commission is emphasized in the New Testament, but not in the way you may think. Do we regularly see the Great Commission quoted by the authors of the epistles? No, not really. Do we regularly find Paul, Peter, John, James, Jude, or others telling congregations, “every member of missionary,” or “that the story of God’s work in the world is church centric and soteriological, rather than nation-centric and civilizational” No, not really. What we do find, in copious amounts, may be summarized in two guiding principles: Worship the Triune God in Spirit and Truth, and love one another as Christ has loved you. 

In these two principles the church, the body of Christ, can fulfill the Great Commission as the nations are discipled. Further developing the sanctification idea, I would posit this: the emphasis on justification over sanctification in the application of the Great Commission settles only one problem in the Adamic dilemma. Christ has restored us from the sin of Adam, yes and amen. But now He has also restored us to the original task Adam was given, which believe it or not was not about eating certain fruit. Adam’s first task was about taking dominion of the Earth, which now - in Christ- we are implored to take in hand again, having our fellowship resorted with the Father. Make disciples, take dominion. This is the Great Commission.  We in fact can agree that the mission of the church is the Great Commission, so long as we know what that means.

“Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,

That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.

His dominion is an everlasting dominion,

Which shall not pass away,

And His kingdom the one

Which shall not be destroyed.” Daniel 7:14

Historical Witness

Clearly evangelism has always played a pivotal role in the Church, otherwise it would have never left the Roman province of Syria-Judea. Evangelism and missions blessed the Church, spreading the good news of the King of Kings across the known world in a matter of decades. As Rome fell and Christendom emerged, evangelism continued to expand the dominion of Christ across disparate and diverse peoples, be they in Europe, Asia, or Africa. All these things being said, and praise be to God and those saints for such grace, the modern mind would expect to find exhortations through the centuries calling parishioners to make the Great Commission the chief end of their lives, but alas, this is not the case. 

We do find Augustine’s call to see the City of God triumph over the City of Man. We find that call carried on by the medievals, even in the most remote monasteries like Iona that preserved the culture of the West against all odds. We find the civilization of Christ protected from barbarous Muslims, whom soft evangelicals today allegedly would have evangelized instead. In every place we look in the history of the church we indeed see sinners saved through evangelization, but we also see civilization itself built and maintained. 

Like leaven in the loaf, the Kingdom of God spread organically over the centuries, quality over time. whereas the modern approach appears to have the Amazon Prime mindset of inserting the gospel anywhere, by any means, at this moment or else.  Church Fathers through the ages seem to align with two principles articulated by the New Testament, knowing that evangelism would be a natural product of the faithfulness of the Church. 

Comparing this with our more modern notions of the Great Charge, it's funny how the collapse of the West runs parallel to our “Gospel-Centeredness” running rampant under the Banner of the Great Commission. Turns out when you tell believers their sole focus as Christians should be evangelism, everything else in politics, education, labor, healthcare, etc. goes downhill. Further, the enemies of God appear to capitalize on our well-intended but misguided theology. “Those Christians will blindly place their kids in our anti-Christ school system , because they believe their kids are missionaries,” they remark, “they’ll let us flood their nation with millions upon millions from the third world because it's an opportunity to evangelize,” they say. Don’t worry about the poison in your food, you’re not focusing on the gospel and evangelism. Don’t worry that you're buying a house at 300 times the cost as your grandparents, you’re not focusing on the gospel and evangelism. Don’t worry that you have essentially become the bond-slave to major corporations and government bureaucrats, you’re not focusing on the gospel and evangelism. We uphold evangelism while undermining Christendom and we don’t even notice what we’re doing.  I would argue that all of these things undermine the Greatness of the Great Commission. 

 The Greatness of the Great Commission

The greatness of the Great Commission is rooted in the authority of Jesus Christ, King of Kings and Lord of Lords. “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me…”(Matt. 28:18)  He said, which we might expand with the words of Kuyper, “there is not one square inch in the whole domain of human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!” He has authority over everything: art, media, literature, car horns, squirrels, court rooms, sanctuaries, rows of corn and cotton, music, cartoons, t-shirts, and more. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations…teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you…” Contrary to the previously neglected ideas, we must teach the education system what Christ has commanded. We must teach our governments what Christ has commanded. We must run our housing markets, as Christ has commanded. Our food industry, labor regulations, and culture as a whole must be in the spirit of what Christ has commanded. Funny enough, this is a bit more than merely evangelism. 

And, to make more folks mad, sometimes these things can sometimes be done without a proof-text. I am not going to find an explicit passage of Scripture which will teach me how to change a light bulb, but I will certainly find all of the principles necessary to make me a productive, efficient, and effective man in all things, including the changing of a light bulb. Those statements could be a separate article in themselves, but I include them to drive home the point that every realm of life is to be taken for Christ, that is the thrust of the Great Commission, as it is a fulfillment of the Dominion mandate (Gen. 1:26-18).  We do not get to hide behind lack of proof-texts for the situations we find ourselves in, we - like Solomon- are to pray for Godly wisdom to discern such circumstances. 

Anyway, the Great Commission involves nothing less than evangelism and missions, but it also includes far more. The Great Commission involves nothing less than the institutional Church, but it also includes far more. The Great Commission involves nothing less than the clergy, but it also includes the common man, and not every man is Phillip the Evangelist. The Great Commission is great because it spreads the Greatness of Christ into every realm of life, not just the ecclesiastical.

The Point

My point is not that we abandon evangelism, that is not at all what I am saying. My point is that we acknowledge the biblical, historical, and natural reality that not every member of the body of Christ is called to make the primary focus of their lives evangelism- this simply has not historically been taught or practiced in the last 2000 years. My point is that laymen  should not be chastised or guilt tripped into thinking that their concerns for the utilization of their gifts is somehow lesser if it is not in submission to evangelism. Pastors indeed should exhort their congregations to evangelize, but also to take dominion in every walk of life. All believers should be ready at any time to evangelize, and further, to give a defense of the faith, but they should also be encouraged that they too are participating in the Great Commission without necessarily evangelizing. The ordinary man catechizing his ordinary family is participating in the Great Commission. The ordinary homemaker whom the world will never know, but whose actions keep the world running, is participating in the Great Commission. The craftsmen who is more excellent than every mainstream manufacturer, exemplifying Christian virtue, is participating in  the Great Commission. Those common activities of common Christians within the commonwealth, who further Chrsitian dominion in all things, are participating in the Great Commission, not just when they evangelize. Until we recognize our misunderstanding of these most sacred marching orders of the last century or so, we will continue to see Christendom crumble- dying the death of thousands of gospel pamphlets, while common Christians are not employed to take dominion for Christ in all things. No need to be confused brother or sister in Christ, the Commission really is Great, and there are plenty of ways for you to participate in it. 

America Is Christian: In 5 Proofs

The assertion that America was a Christian nation is rejected by many today, either due to malice or a kind of ignorance. The first is typically from those who already hate true Christianity or see themselves as wiser than the caricature of an evangelical they maintain in their hardened hearts. The second represents many evangelicals who remember hearing something about the Pilgrims escaping religious persecution, or know that we have ‘In God we Trust’ on our money, but have never been introduced to overwhelming evidence in support of our explicitly Christian past. In this article we will quickly explain five proofs which demonstrate the indisputable reality of America’s history as a Christian nation. 

1. Did Christians found this nation? 

Overwhelmingly, yes. There’s no telling the story of the United States of America without mentioning the colonies which came together in order to form her, and there’s no mentioning them without their explicitly Christian way of life. Original colonial charters stated: 

“We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God…” - Jamestown Charter, 1606. 

“IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten…Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country..Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick..” - Mayflower Compact, 1620.

“being animated with a laudable and pious zeal for extending the Christian religion... hath humbly besought leave of us that he may transport..” - Maryland Charter, 1632. 

We could go on and on, but even cursory inquiries into this subject matter would dumbfound the most ardent skeptic. The primary sources overwhelmingly demonstrate that Christians settled what we now call America. Even aside from these commonly referenced settlements, one cannot forget the older Catholic settlements scattered about the South. Ponce de Leon named Florida after the Spanish Easter celebration, where eventually the St. Augustine settlement would be named after the beloved saint of Hippo. Near modern day Tampa Bay, Hernando DeSoto arrived on Pentecost, naming the area “Bay of the Holy Spirit.” All of the aforementioned locations, and plenty more the Spanish would settle, were founded to promote the Catholic faith and win glory for their rulers. Unfortunately, their zeal for  Roman Catholic supremacy  drove them to slaughter the members of the first Protestant community in North America, the Huguenots at Fort Caroline in 1564. 

Whether early groups came for religious freedom, evangelism, economic prospect, or the allure of discovery, they almost universally did so in the name of Christ. Even Columbus himself stated: 

“Our Lord opened to my understanding (I could sense his hand upon me) so it became clear to me that it [the voyage] was feasible.... All those who heard about my enterprise rejected it with laughter, scoffing at me.... Who doubts that this illumination was from the Holy Spirit? I attest that He [the Spirit), with marvelous rays of light, consoled me through the holy and sacred Scriptures... they inflame me with a sense of great urgency...No one should be afraid to take on any enterprise in the name of our Savior if it is right and if the purpose is purely for His holy service.... And I say that the sign which convinces me that our Lord is hastening the end…is the preaching of the Gospel recently in so many lands.”

2. Did they do it with the intention to Christianize the area?

Some of the previously mentioned charters speak of the propagation of the Christian religion, but was this vision abandoned? As more colonists came from Europe, and more complex styles of Governance would be needed, was Christianity still a cultural and political emphasis? Absolutely. 

“Our said people... be so religiously, peaceably, and civilly governed [that] their good life and orderly conversation may win and incite the natives of ... [that] country to the knowledge and obedience of the only true God and Savior of mankind, and the Christian faith, which ... is the principal end of this plantation colony…” - Massachusetts Charter of 1629.

“Excited with a laudable and pious zeal for the propagation of the Christian faith... in the parts of America not yet cultivated or planted, and only inhabited by ... people who have no knowledge of Almighty God. " - Charter of North Carolina, 1662.  

“when a people are gathered together, the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people, there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God…to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess… which, according to the truth of the said Gospel, is now practiced amongst us”- Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, 1639

“Considering with ourselves the holy will of God, and our own necessity that we should not live without wholesome laws and civil government among us, of which we are altogether destitute; do in the name of Christ and in the sight of God combine ourselves together to erect and set up among us such government as shall be to our best discerning agreeable to the will of God.” - Charter of New Hampshire, 1639. 

The New England Confederation, comprised of multiple colonies and cities, was established in 1643, stating: 

“We all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, namely to advance the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ..”

Secularists today have bullied you your entire life claiming that even if Christians supposedly had a hand in the founding of this nation, they did not really want to Christianize anything, just spread the knowledge of reason and technology with good morals. The primary sources say otherwise. 

3. Did they establish Christian governments and laws?

If the section that follows is not enough to convince you, nothing will, so here I hope to whet your appetite.  As for Christian Laws, The Massachusetts Body of Civil Liberties (1641) was the precursor to her Constitution and General Laws. In it the author Nathanial Ward, a minister himself, literally quotes the Mosaic Law when describing criminal penalties. For example:

“(Deut. 13. 6, 10. Deut. 17. 2, 6. Ex. 22.20)

If any man after legall conviction shall have or worship any other god, but the lord god, he shall be put to death.”

or

“(Lev. 20. 15,16.)

If any man or woeman shall lye with any beaste or bruite creature by Carnall Copulation, They shall surely be put to death. And the beast shall be slaine, and buried and not eaten.”

His inspiration came from John Cotton’s Abstracts of the Laws of New England, where he recommended the same for magistrates and civil governments. Something must have been in the water. Get a load of these statements from the Fundamental Constitution for the Province of East New Jersey (1683):

“All persons living in the Province who confess and acknowledge the one Almighty and Eternal God, and holds themselves obliged in conscience to live peaceably and quietly in a civil society, shall in no way be molested or prejudged for their religious perswasions and exercise in matters of faith and worship; nor shall they be compelled to frequent and maintain any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever: Yet it is also hereby provided, that no man shall be admitted a member of the great or common Council, or any other place of publick trust, who shall not profaith in Christ Jesus…Nor by this article is it intended, that any under the notion of this liberty shall allow themselves to avow atheism, irreligiousness, or to practice cursing, swearing, drunkenness, prophaness, whoring, adultery, murdering or any kind of violence, or indulging themselves in stage plays, masks, revells or such like abuses; for restraining such and preserving of the people in diligence…That all marriages not forbidden in the law of God, shall be esteemed lawful..”

Many secularists and atheists try to claim John Locke as one of their own, though he personally helped draft the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina in 1669, which stated:

“No man shall be permitted to be a freeman [full citizen] of Carolina, or to have any estate or habitation within it, that doth not acknowledge a lod, and that God is publicly and solemnly to be worshipped…”

The document went on to promise religious liberty to non-christians, though the supremacy of Christianity was acknowledged. 

Another great place to look for questions regarding intent would be in preambles to State Constitutions, which according to Pew Research Center, “God or the divine is mentioned at least once in each of the 50 state constitutions and nearly 200 times overall.”  Only four do not mention “God” once. 

Perhaps we should also remember the earliest documents associated with our eventual Constitution, they too maintained the Spirit of Christianity’s role in governance:

“That we do hereby declare ourselves a free and independent people, that we are and of right ought to be, a sovereign and self-governing people under the power of God and the general Congress…”

Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence, 1775

“To all to whom these Presents shall come, we, the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greetings. Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven…And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in congress…”

Articles of Confederation, 1777

“The good people of the several colonies…justly alarmed at these arbitrary proceedings of parliament and administration, have severally elected, constituted, and appointed deputies to meet, and sit in general Congress…in order to obtain such establishment, as that their religion, laws, and liberties, may not be subverted…”

Declarations and Resolves, First Continental Congress, 1774.

“It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it [the drafting of the Constitution], a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.”

Federalist No. 34, 1788, Madison. 

“We the people of the United States, in a firm belief of the being and perfections of the one living and true God, the creator and supreme Governor of the world, in His universal providence and the authority of His laws: that He will require of all moral agents an account of their conduct, that all rightful powers among men are ordained of, and mediately derived from God, therefore in a dependence on His blessing and acknowledgment of His efficient protection in establishing our Independence, whereby it is become necessary to agree upon and settle a Constitution of federal government for ourselves, and in order to form a more perfect union, etc.”

Anti-Federalists proposal for the Preamble to the Constitution, William Williams, 1788.

It's worth noting that even ‘off-shoots,’ if you will, of America also commissioned their governments in the Spirit of Christianity, in keeping with out heritage:

“We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government…invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.” Constitution of the Confederate States of America, 1861

Any self-proclaimed intellectual from the modern era who would argue that terms like ‘God,’ ‘religion,’ or similar terms can be used generically, and therefore do not necessarily imply Chrsitian commitment from the writers, are being intellectually dishonest. It is well established that the country was overwhelmingly christian at the times of these writings respectively, and therefore reflected moreso the whole rather than any minority faction.

4. Did they require lawmakers to swear allegiance to Christian morality, and sometimes explicitly His Word?

No need for any opinion here:

“Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:  “I, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.” Delaware, 1776. 

“No Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect  who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature. . .”

New Jersey, 1776.

“I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration”

Pennsylvania, 1776. 

“Every member of the house of representatives shall be of the Protestant religion. . . . That no person shall be capable of being elected a senator who is not of the Protestant religion. . . . The President shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless at the time of his election, he . . . shall be of the protestant religion.”

New Hampshire, 1784

“Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration: “I . . . do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seized and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution, as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected.”

Massachusetts 1780

“And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, ” I ____ do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Diverse, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion.”

Vermont, 1777

Critics who insist on their denial in light of these references imitate the sentiment Isaiah addressed, “Ye shall hear indeed, but ye shall not understand: ye shall plainly see, and not perceive..” Have mercy on their hardened hearts! 

5. Have there been Supreme Court decisions which declared us a Chrsitian nation?

In an era dominated by decisions coming from the Judicial branch, many Americans unconstitutionally look to the highest Court of the land to give them their rights. Let them have their cake and eat it too. You want the Supreme Court to get the final say on laws? What about these previous decisions? 

 “The historical record of America overwhelmingly demonstrates that the United States is a Christian nation.” [paraphrase] 29 Feb, 1892 Holy Trinity vs. U.S. 

This decision proceeded to provide a similar form of argumentation to this article, proving the Christian heritage of America. 

Other State Supreme Court decisions in our history have pronounced the same: 

"The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice…” People v. Ruggles, 1811, New York case condemning public blasphemy. 

“Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania;…” Upedegraph v. Commonwealth, 1824, Pennsylvania case condemning blasphemy. 

“the denial of God, his creation government, or final judging of the world, made wilfully, that is, with the intent and purpose to calumniate and disparage him and impair and destroy the reverence due to him, is blasphemy. Under the same statute, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, is blasphemy…It appeared to recognise [Massachusetts Law], not only the Christian religion, but one form of it, Protestant Christianity, as the established religion, which was to be maintained as well as protected by the power of the government; to the support of which all were to be holden to contribute, and upon the ministrations of which all were to be compelled to attend” Commonwealth v. Kneeland, 1838, Massachusetts case condemning blasphemy. 

The last blasphemy conviction was issued in 1928, just look up Charles Lee Smith v. Arkansas. See the several blasphemy cases? What people regularly meme or tweet now could have landed them in jail, or worse. As the Theologian James B. Jordan as noted, “the church in the United States of America cannot be said to have much credibility, power, or authority left. Men do not fear to rape the Holy Bride of Christ [His church]. What Emperors once did not dare to do is now done with impunity…”

Anyway, the point here is not to argue we should be turning to the Supreme Court or State courts to make laws, that’s unconstitutional. The point is that if one were to proceed with that line of argumentation they would have to deal with the instances where our courts declared us to be a Christian nation. Did they change their minds? Perhaps. But they at least at one time said these things, and there’s nothing you can do about it! 

Conclusion: 

Should folks contend that we are not a Christian nation today, I would not fight against that claim too strongly. I might qualify we are a Christian nation- we always have been-but we are just not currently living faithfully to God. We are a Christian nation in rebellion. No one believes present day America is a spotless beacon of Christian virtue, currently proud of our formal and informal establishment of the true religion. That being said, hopefully after reviewing the evidence above you can see we were in fact a Christian nation. We were, one, founded by Christians, who, two. intended to Christianize the area, who, three, at different times instituted Christian governments and laws, who, four, expected their elected leaders to be Christian, and, five, our highest courts have acknowledged all of these historical realities. From here our civil discourses can be guided more intentionally to recover the things which made us great, namely formalized allegiance to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Jesus Christ. 

“I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing that that the Good book and spirit of the Saviour have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses…Whether we look to the 1st Charter of Virginia..or the Charter of New England…or the Charter of Massachusetts Bay…or the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut…the same objective is present: A Christian land governed by Christian principles…I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had in the Bible and their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under law, and the reservation of powers to the people…I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country…” Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Earl Warren, 1954.