Do we want to be a “Christian country”?

This question has sparked fierce debate in the US in light of the visible rise of what’s called “Christian Nationalism” in the Trump era. While most other countries' circumstances are not comparable, it’s still an interesting question in a context where many Christians believe they are fighting a culture war against an aggressively secular worldview in which traditional Christian values are being trashed. For those who feel that, the question is how best to respond. Is it through the pulpit and Christian witness? Or is it through the ballot box and Christian involvement in politics? (I will ignore the hopefully tiny minority who may feel it’s through insurrection)  

So what, exactly, do we mean by a “Christian” country, if we use the word as an adjective in that way? This is not as easy to answer as it may first sound. On the one hand, we might say, “a country whose laws are based on Christian values.” But even that is rather subjective, if not also vague. Based to what extent, and in what ways? Christian liberals would have a quite different definition of Christian values than Christian conservatives. To simply say, “the values of Christians like me” doesn’t quite cut it. Christian socialists would have a different definition of what a Christian economic policy should look like. Or would economic policy not feature in the “Christian characteristics” of a Christian country? It would surely need to, if it is to raise revenue for social spending in support of Christian values.   

The well-known atheist, Richard Dawkins, was recently in the news for having declared himself to be a “cultural Christian”—by which he meant that he now admits to appreciating living in a country that has been shaped by Christian culture. And yet, he remains clear that he wants nothing to do with Christian beliefs as such. How does the thinking of someone like Dawkins inform what people might have in mind by a “Christian country”? Does a Dawkinesque cultural Christianity meet the definition?  

Talking of beliefs leads us to the extent to which Christian beliefs should be promoted in a Christian country. One of the battlegrounds in the US is Christian prayer in schools: would a truly Christian country legislate that? Would state schools be required to teach Christianity as the one true and right religion (which a Christian country would surely believe it to be), rather than teaching comparative religions? Where would guaranteeing religious freedom for other faith groups fit in a Christian country?   

If Christians controlled the legislature, what laws might they pass (or for that matter, repeal) in promoting a Christian agenda? In the following examples, I am not taking a side, merely posing the questions, because we all know these will provoke intense debate.

Should abortion be banned? Or simply abortion until a certain date in the pregnancy? Or allowed only for certain reasons? If so, up to what date and for what reasons?   

What about same-sex marriage? Since conservative Christians hold to a doctrine that marriage is only between a man and a woman, should a Christian country ban it? After all, if same-sex couples are living in sin and going to hell (don’t shoot the messenger, I’m only following the premise) then wouldn’t banning such liaisons be a Christian kindness? Or, should a Christian country ban same-sex marriages but allow civil partnerships; does that make a difference?   

Already it’s clear from the nature of these questions that much depends on the degree of intervention that is perceived to be appropriate for a “Christian country.”

For comparison purposes, we may note that around 60 countries continue to criminalize homosexuality, of which (interestingly) circa 40% apply that only to male relationships. Should a Christian country follow the lead of countries such as Nigeria, where homosexuality carries a penalty of 14 years imprisonment? In Nigeria’s northern states, where Islamic Sharia law applies, it is legally punishable not just by flogging but also by death. What should a Christian country do?  

Dawkins’ confession to liking at least some aspects of Christian tradition—cultural Christianity, as he calls it—calls attention to the connection between Christian beliefs and cultural values. It’s an uncomfortable question, but do we need to ask ourselves whether what we believe to be our “Christian” way of thinking on certain things might instead be reflecting a cultural conservatism? If we are inclined to use the phrase “traditional values,” then it might be as much or more the latter. It is all too easy to read the Bible as supporting what we already believe anyway (this is an unconscious “confirmation bias”).         

I am not saying there is anything intrinsically wrong with the idea of traditional values, and still less, traditional beliefs (indeed, Christian orthodoxy is classically defined by traditional beliefs, as outlined in the early creeds). But this does, of course, always depend on what we mean by those traditional values; what we think they are and who decides. What role (if any) do unelected Christian pastors or theologians play in all this (and who chooses which pastors or theologians)? 

For example, Christians were traditionally against contraception: the Church of England was opposed to it until 1940. Is that what we mean? Of course not, you may say. But why not? Why was the opposition dropped? The answer is surely because they realized that this traditional belief or “value” was wrongly founded (not because it was being imposed on society by an aggressively secular worldview).

In the UK, our traditionally Christian country denied the vote to women on the same terms as men until less than 100 years ago. I can’t even think of a Bible verse to support that (other than by implication—”reading-in” female inferiority), so where did it come from? Obviously from men, including Christian men. Let’s be very careful about promoting something because it’s a “traditional” belief,  when so often in the past the church has found itself on the wrong side of history in such matters.  

You may say that these are “obviously” silly examples; but are they really? Approach it another way: should a Christian country be complementarian or egalitarian vis-à-vis the roles of women in society? Should the taxation system be geared towards encouraging stay-at-home mums as full-time homemakers?

Or what about divorce? Should it be banned, or at least penalized? Based on Jesus’ absolute prohibition of divorce and remarriage in Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18, with no exceptions, would it not be appropriate for a Christian country to legislate accordingly? We wouldn’t be much of a Christian country if we completely ignored the founder’s unambiguous words on this. Yes, I know that in Matthew 5:32 Jesus offers an exception “for sexual immorality,” but it’s still Mark and Luke versus Matthew (two-to-one). Which version of Jesus’ pronouncements should a Christian country adopt?  

The eras when many nations were so-called “Christian” countries reflect, at best, a mixed bag so far as genuinely biblical values are concerned. It is hard to speak of those periods as a golden age. We sent small boys up chimneys. We burnt people at the stake for being heretics. The last hanging for heresy was in 1697. The last hanging for being homosexual was in 1835. We supported the slave trade, for its economic benefits, and even when it was eventually abolished in 1807 we generously compensated the slave owners rather than the slaves (slaves in the colonies were not freed until 1838). Catholic and Protestant nations alike colonized other countries and imposed forced conversions on their native people groups (no doubt because it was seen as good and right for them from a Christian perspective).

I am not suggesting that any of these were valid expressions of behavior for a Christian country, to which we would be in danger of returning today. But they were seen that way at the times, which are not that long ago. Might the realization of that cause us to be slightly circumspect in answering our question? Being careful what we wish for?      

Perhaps the obvious question that we have yet to ask is what the Bible has to say about these things. Answers will, of course, vary, depending on the verses that we consider most relevant and the beliefs that we derive from those verses. Although the word “biblical” has its problems as an adjective, there certainly is such a thing as biblical values; the difficulty will mostly lie in determining what they look like, enacted, in practice. For example, the Old Testament prophets regularly needed to challenge the people of God for failing to pursue justice, mercy, and kindness (especially towards the vulnerable, the outcast, the stranger, and those in need). A Christian country would surely need to affirm those values, but Christians would disagree as to what that looks like as a legislative agenda, and who is going to pay for it.  

If we look to Jesus, it is clear that he had no agenda for pursuing a “Christian country.” Nor did he want his followers to do that—or at least, not through governance, only through intrinsic influence. He rejected the idea of becoming King by force, disappointing the Zealots. In John 18:36, he said, “My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world.” 

It seems that Jesus had in mind that the relationship of Christians to the world around them should be shaped by metaphors of being “salt” and “light.” The relevant text is Matthew 5:13-16:

“You are the salt of the earth. But what good is salt if it has lost its flavor? Can you make it salty again? It will be thrown out and trampled underfoot as worthless. You are the light of the world—like a city on a hilltop that cannot be hidden. No one lights a lamp and then puts it under a basket. Instead, a lamp is placed on a stand, where it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your good deeds shine out for all to see, so that everyone will praise your heavenly Father.”

This passage has so much on which we can profitably reflect concerning our relationship to the society in which we live. The Apostle Paul seems similarly to have the idea of “Christian flavoring” in mind in Colossians 4:6, when he encourages our words always to be “full of grace, as though seasoned with salt.”

It seems invidious to select one element from that Matthew 5 passage, but perhaps we might reflect on what it means to “give light to everyone in the house.” To me, the sense is of serving others by sharing and modelling generally recognized biblical values; certainly, though, not by imposing them. Similarly, with “letting your good deeds shine out for all to see.” It’s high time to get over the Reformed aversion to “good deeds.” Christians are called to do good in society, not just to preach about what’s good. We need to be in the boat rowing with everyone; not just standing on the riverbank shouting instructions through a megaphone.

It’s also worth reflecting on Jesus’ desired outcome here: that “everyone will praise your heavenly Father.” The “everyone” is not just our fellow Christians. This reminds us of what was said about Jesus in Luke 2:52: “He grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and all the people.” Clearly, Jesus having favor with all the people was not universally the case—ironically, he found the least favor with the religious people—and, toward the end, the crowd called for Barabbas to be released instead of him. But perhaps as Christians, we also should normatively be characterized as finding favor with people as well as with God. This is unlikely to happen if we’re perceived to be fighting a culture war against them.  

Interestingly, these words of Jesus offer us values to reflect on based on metaphors rather than specified concrete actions. They invite us to ask the Holy Spirit to help us to know what those values should look like in practice day-to-day—in wisdom, serving, and modelling, and through good deeds that will be recognized as flavoring the society in which we live.