However, most of the questions had to do with "intelligent design," or ID.  They were primarily rhetorical, like "Isn't ID an attempt by right-wing religious fundamentalists to get their faith into the classroom?" or "If the debate is really about science, why is tonight's even just sponsored by Christian groups?"  I answered them by sticking to the scientific methodology that was the basis for the video.  It was telling that after I explained this several times, subsequent questioners said they understood this.  However, they still wanted their "questions" answered in their own way, and sever were getting quite testy. (2)

Is there any legitimate basis for criticizing evolution and its functional paradigm? Yes. But I'm not going the ID route. Instead, let's deal with the meta-narrative of evolution. That meta-narrative is deterministic naturalism. (Yes, there are others, but they all seem to end up as obscurantists. So we will deal with the most consistent position.)

The premise is that the universe is simply matter/energy. Whatever form this matter/energy takes is of no real concern because that's all there is. Period. And all that happens, the bouncing of atoms off atoms, everything that happens -- even life itself -- is simply an anomoly of the universe. The material is all there is.

So what's wrong with that? (This is where it gets fun. But we'll boil it down to simple principles, for the sake of space.) If everything is mechanistically determined, where is free will and where are knowledge and science? If what we're experiencing is simply an anomoly of this mechanistic universe, how do we know anything? And how can we know even that?

To be concise, the naturalistic framework for evolution is trapped in a neo-Platonic/Kantian confusion about reality, perceptions, and truth. The framework for determinism does not fit reality, and this leaves Darwinism and other evolutionary models all open to a fundamental criticism of their validity. If the paradigm is so seriously flawed, then how can we accept its conclusions?

So why bring this up? Rob Boston praises the state of California for demanding that Christians, despite their beliefs, teach evolution.  (Mr. Boston goes so far as to state that evangelicals who hold to traditional special creation should not hold certain jobs.  Nice.) The state steps into the life of a religious establishment, completely in violation of the First Amendment. (Hear any complaints from the Left on this one? Nope. Dead silence.) And why? Because they don't teach evolution but instead propose an alternative. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. If you're going to teach pluralism, implicit in Tolerance is a willingness to put up with something you don't like or agree with. Not so in California. Not so for Rob Boston. So much for Tolerance from the Left. (chuckle)

There are a couple of major concepts on this issue floating around the Ethernet, and certainly many minor variations.  One would normally hope that history would be clearer, just facts that can be easily read and comprehended.  But most times in history are a mixture of a variety of motivations. Few then, as few today, ever have a world view that is not affected by the surrounding world.

Some on the secular side see no room for Christianity in history.  They treat the founders as pure secularists who thought the idea of a "Christian nation," and even Christianity itself, absurd.  (Certain ones did.)  In the middle there are those who see both at work in our history -- Liberalism with its rational base and Christianity as the predominant societal influence in both culture and thought, especially in Natural Law. On the other end are those who see everything in our system reflecting not only this Christian world view but even projecting the construct of the Constitution as a Christian document, having borrowed its structure not from the rationalists but from the Bible.

What we have on both sides of the discussion are facts that each side chooses to prove its point. What is uncommon is a systematic picture of the whole of history -- not just a few writing for supporting either side's position -- where we can see the efforts of the whole in beginning this Great Experiment.

The principle of Liberalism is a generally secular principle.  It is secular in that it is not a particularly Christian doctrine and it can exist without the support of Christian doctrine.  Within Liberalism we find a sense of intellectual and social openness that we understand as Pluralism.  A major component of Pluralism, Tolerance, has a foundation in both Christian theology and history.  None of these are necessarily contrary to Christian thought and none of them are exclusively godless.  They were developed in a framework of rationalism and its rebellion against the Church State.  But some of rationalism's founders were not so anti-Christian as others. Descartes, for example, sought to prove God's existence through Reason alone while at the same time making man the measure of all things.  (Yes, looking back we see a contradiction that was not so significant at the time.  Let's keep each occurrence in its historical context and avoid the wrapper of our current experiences.)

So, now we approach the question -- Is America (or more specifically, Was America intended to be) a Christian nation?  A lot of this depends upon how we understand the term "Christian Nation" ?  (1) If by Christian Nation we mean a nation with theology as its law, the answer is certainly No.  (2) If by Christian Nation we mean one that is designed around Natural Law and personal liberty, including free moral agency (as opposed to socialism), the answer is Yes.  (3) If by Christian nation we refer to the collective ethic of society, the conscience behind law, the answer is again Yes.  (4) If by Christian Nation we mean that nobody is welcome who is not Christian, again the answer is No.  There are likely other understandings of the term Christian nation, and you may wish to explore them further on your own.

Number One is the favorite position of the Dominionists, and I think it lacks some historical completeness.  It's not that it's wrong, but like the exclusively secular position of some, its error is incompleteness.

Number Four is held by very few.  Most of the times it appears is as a red herring argument by those who have a simple hatred of Christianity in general.

Numbers Two and Three reflect the ethic and conscience of our nation.  It was not always as secular as some of today's secular apologists might pretend.  For instance, the Bible is the most quoted document in the founding of this country, but those quotes are most often in sermons. Yet it was those sermons which motivated people to join both the revolution and the principles of freedom -- they are founding quotes.  To reject these as foundational to our nations beginnings would be the same as rejecting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s sermons as not being part and parcel of the civil rights movement. Some things belong to their times and should be accepted as part of the public motivation, the character of the movement as a whole.  Christianity in all its components was critical in the founding of the United States.

If the United States were intended to be as secular as the Secularists and Pluralists claim, then our revolution would likely have been more like the (definitely secular) French Revolution.  But it was not.  Instead of turning churches into museums, we set the church free from the federal government.  Instead of limiting religious liberty we enhanced it.

The modern concept of freedom that our nation enjoys today came from a combination of Christian theology and the Liberal movement.  In Europe, Christianity was responsible for the ending of slavery, long before the Enlightenment.  The ending of slavery in the US and England was a combination of a very liberal mindset for the era, combined with a very, very Christian world view.  We cannot separate George Whitfield, John and Charles Wesley, William Wilberforce, and John Newton from the anti-slavery movement in either nation.

How has the US ever behaved as a Christian Nation? Besides the ending of slavery, we see, all over the country, rescue missions, homeless shelters, crisis pregnancy centers, food banks, and so much more, the vast majority of which are run by Christians.  A small percentage are municipally operated, but its a small number.  Even theological liberals get in the game from time to time. The Hope Center in Edmond, OK, was co-founded by the city's ministerial alliance, but has been operated mostly by evangelicals.  (Though I will admit it has been a few years since I've been in touch with the agency, that was its condition about a decade ago.)  The strongest push for its operation was by a Mennonite Brethren (and evangelical, of course) pastor in the town.

World War I was a strange situation in our behavior.  It's the only war I know of in US history (I'm certainly not a student of the wars of the United States) where the belligerents stopped to celebrate Christmas together before restarting their mutual killing of each other.  (Yes, it's a strange contradiction, but at least it stopped the war for a day.)

I fear that America is no longer a Christian Nation. It was at one time (Two and Three).  But today we lack conscience and principle.  Half of our people seem to oppose defending the nation, and that seems to reflect more on our national conscience then even the extreme evils of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.

To become a Christian Nation again is not to merely enact a certain set of laws.  It is to establish a Christian ethic by changed hearts. And to do that will require reaching the world with the Gospel, and quickly.  Today China is seeing new Born Again Christians at a rate equalling about two times the Columbus, Ohio, metro area, annually (nearly 10,000 per day).  While their nation is going to go through some serious changes in the next decade, ours continues to decline. Let us pray for Revival and Renewal. For people to come to Christ and the church to awaken.

When we challenge the Left and Secularists regarding religious liberty and Free Exercise, let's not forget to make full use of that liberty in proclaiming the Gospel.

cross-posted at:  Evangelical Perspective

How would you remedy the "pervasive presence" of these evangelicals in the military?

How would you remedy the First Amendment's Free Exercise protection for public employees, such as military personnel?

How would you remedy the apparent conspiratorial nature of Campus Crusade ("conspiracy to overthrow the world") with its existence as a recognized non-profit?

I was listening to a local talk show this afternoon on a Christian radio station. A black believer called the host to discuss the question of why blacks vote Democratic, especially in light of the significant moral matters (abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, marriage and family). The black brother stated as a possible reason the historical matters regarding the original poor behavior of Democrats and the subsequent poor response of the Republicans.

What bothered me was not the character of the interaction. There was no prejudice expressed on the part of either participant. What got my attention was the host's response regarding the black community's nearly monolithic voting history. He pursued the matter as it relates to the welfare stated. It's an over-simplification, not founded in any prejudice, but in as I see it, an ignorance of the greater black community.

Short-sightedness plagues many of us. My eyes were opened to more than I ever imagined when I had the opportunity to work with World Impact for two years, back in the 1970s. But few of us get the opportunity to reach across a cultural barrier, to see what someone else is going through. It's not an easy lesson, but it is a valuable lesson.

We white evangelicals like to talk about personal incentive and how far one can go in this world. And however true that is, we often forget the trials that have affected other cultures. It's easy to not know what others have experienced -- and the closer community of other cultural groups as opposed to the individualism of the white community. The net is that we don't always understand and we're not always adequately sensitive.

We (rightly, I think) promote personal incentive as the way out of despair. It's really modern (very Adam Smith) of us, but it seems inadequate. But should we not promote right policies to deal with certain serious social problems (not to promote socialism, of course)? Can we not be more active in finding solutions for others in need -- especially when we share a common faith with them? Is this not the place for a positive Christian influence in society's values? It does not have be partisan: It must be Christian.