Recent Papers: Implicit Memory and Christian Nationalism

I want to apologize for not writing here more often. Parenting, ministry, and studies get most of my time these days. I did, however, want to share some of my recent papers for your reading pleasure. In sharing this, I hope to give you window into where my studies have taken me recently. God bless you!

Introduction

            How does an individual’s working picture of the past come to be? Further, how does this working picture of the past inform events and arguments happening in the present? Beyond learning facts about the past from historical sources, an individual imports lived experiences into their view of the past as well. An exercise of how this working picture, sometimes called implicit memory, stands behind the ongoing debate over how to understand the impact of Christianity at America’s founding is offered below. The easiest revelation of one’s implicit memory of the past is finding events or documents which correlate well with their position.

The first example: America was founded as a Christian nation. Douglas Wilson writes, “When the Constitution was adopted, nine of the thirteen states had official ties to a Christian denomination. Out of the fifty-five men at the Constitutional Convention, fifty of them were orthodox Christians.”[1] Mark David Hall argues, “America’s founders were influenced in significant ways by Christian ideas when they declared independence from Great Britain, drafted constitutions, and passed laws to protect religious liberty.”[2] Daniel Driesbach states, “Eighteenth-century Americans lived in a culture shaped by Christianity and its sacred text.”[3] Given this evidence, could there be any doubt that when the Declaration of Independence said that rights came from the Creator, the Creator in their minds was none other than the Christian God of the Bible?

            The second example: America was not founded as a Christian nation. John Fea notes, “The Treaty of Tripoli, which included the assertion that the United States was not founded on the Christian religion, was signed by President John Adams, and ratified unanimously by the Senate. The text of the treaty was published in several newspapers, and there was no public opposition to it.”[4] John Wilsey argues, “Rather than uniting religion and the state, thereby creating a Christian nation, the [Constitutional] Convention intended to establish an environment in the new republic wherein the state would not interfere with the individual consciences of its citizens in religious matters.”[5] Such an intent would explain why Jesus Christ was not expressly acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution. How could a nation desiring to glorify God through government neglect to name the Savior in founding documents? Does this insinuate that personal liberty must have been more important in the Founders’ eyes than furthering what Puritan immigrants had begun centuries prior?

            The implicit memory of the reader will likely be reflected more in one of the two paragraphs above than the other. There may be a natural draw to one paragraph over the other. One’s working memory of the past plays heavily into how decisions are made for the future, what is envisioned as possible, and the disposition one has to current events. Behind the modern arguments within evangelicalism over Christian nationalism is the long-debated question of whether America had a Christian founding or intended to be a Christian nation from her conception. This paper does not aim to answer that multi-faceted question. However, the support for Christian nationalism from America’s supposed Christian founding presents a case study for how memory of the past, whether true or false in accurately reflecting history, empowers debatable truth claims and disregards information which could disrupt deeply held beliefs. Beyond mere information intake and recollection, memory works to construct a picture of the past within man which then serves to assist daily experience and interpretation. This phenomenon is understood as implicit memory, and such memory has physical and spiritual implications.

This paper argues that the implicit memory of America behind Christian nationalism presents an incomplete picture of the past, neglects the effects of sinful exceptionalism in American history, and fuels unrepentance from exceptionalism within American life. Sinful exceptionalism rises above recognizing a distinction from another to the level of partiality for one’s group at the expense of another. As it will be shown, this type of exceptionalism was present at America’s founding as Puritan immigrants justified taking land from native Americans. Prior to giving examples of false implicit memory, special attention must be given to properly define nationalism, followed by a proper definition of Christian nationalism. Rather than deciding whether to support or condemn Christian nationalism entirely, this paper will highlight the implicit memory that empowers supporters of Christian nationalism to envision a future for the United States which does not address incorrect theology and practice appropriately. Supporters of Christian nationalism can present strong arguments for the future of the nation without asserting that America was founded as a Christian nation.

Defining Terms

            Before proceeding further, it will be necessary to define certain terms: implicit memory, nationalism, and Christian nationalism. This author will define implicit memory as the product of lived experience and factual knowledge collected consciously and unconsciously. Nationalism will be defined as an intentional ideology of loyalty to one another, sharing a common land, language, and loves, seeking the collective good. Christian nationalism, therefore, is the Christianization of this nationalistic pursuit with an added desire for eternal reward. While not given a specific heading, exceptionalism which is sinful is understood as rising above an acknowledgement of one’s uniqueness to an improper acknowledgment of being better or favored by God as a nation more than other nations.

Implicit Memory

            Implicit memory is best understood in contrast with other forms of memory. In The Logic of the Body, Matthew Lapine builds upon the work of neuroscientist Joseph Ledoux while keeping an eye to the historic theological anthropology of Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin. The author writes that memory can be understood in three separate categories: episodic, semantic, and implicit.[6] Episodic memory relates to experiences an individual endures while semantic memory pertains to facts learned outside of explicit events. Implicit memory is the unconscious or non-conscious connections made through these two means of memory. Lapine writes, “Implicit memory is responsible for unconscious associations, general habits, and affective priming.”[7] Episodic and semantic memories contribute to implicit memory, but implicit memory uses this information to empower future thoughts, actions, and decisions. Implicit memory is not a conscious work done by the individual, but a formation of ideas, events, and desires melted together within the mind by the soul.

Lapine’s work is centered on responding to traumatic events and memories correctly in pastoral care, but his research highlights well how the human body and soul work together through memory. Lapine writes, “I am recommending a tiered psychology. It may be that theologians have not recognized the extent to which lived experience is vital to our sanctification and the extent to which the church as a social body ministers health and holiness to its members.”[8] He elaborates: “Thought and feeling work in tandem to enable a sort of top-down governance within psychological tiers, but with bottom-up reciprocity.”[9] As an example, implicit memory uses episodic and semantic memories to analyze and judge historical events and people in accordance with what has been known of the past, and naturally combats information that does not coincide with the implicit memory’s understanding of the whole. It is not that implicit memory cannot change, but that it is resistant to change. Implicit memory is the result of physical changes within the brain, understood as neuroplasticity, as directed by the soul, regardless of whether that resulting memory is true or false. Implicit memory explains how one’s view of an historical event could be judged favorably while another individual condemns the same event.

            Typology in Scripture is a phenomenon of implicit memory. James Hamilton states, “God’s promises shaped the way the biblical authors perceived, understood, and wrote. As this happens again and again across the Scriptures, from account to account, book to book, author to author, patterns begin to be discerned, patterns that have been shaped by promises: promise-shaped patterns.”[10] Human authors of the Bible, reflecting on the promises of God, interpreted people and events through the lives and stories of others who would be described in Scripture. Hamilton notes, “Those who embrace what the biblical authors teach will also seek to embrace the habits of mind, patterns of thought, and interpretive practices that the biblical authors model in their writings.”[11] Current knowledge of neuroplasticity and how the brain forms habits of thought through memory shows the wisdom of God in creating types in Scripture. Studying Scripture repairs implicit memory, for factual knowledge combined with the experience of living in Christ after conversion prepares the believer to properly interpret life events and to make Spirit-empowered decisions for the future. The Christian should aim to not only read Scripture through the lens of Scripture, but also to live in reality through the lens of Scripture.

Nationalism

            Nationalism is best defined as being in contrast with its opposite: imperialism. In The Virtue of Nationalism, Yoram Hazony writes, “Imperialism and nationalism are formidable and opposed ideals that have contended with one another in the past, and they have resumed their old conflict in our day.”[12] While imperialism seeks to outsource values and practices beyond its borders, nationalism is predominantly concerned with one’s own land and people. For Hazony, this concern is expressed through a nation’s loyalty to itself and to the collective self-determination of the nation’s citizens.[13] The author argues, “A world of independent national states is the best political order to which we can aspire.”[14] Hazony’s nationalism is built upon the assumption that there is not one solution or doctrine that works in every culture universally: “One can have no better destroyer than an individual ablaze with the love of a universal truth.”[15] For Hazony, religious beliefs are included in the idea of universal truth that cannot exist for nationalism to flourish worldwide. Nationalism, as understood by Hazony, allows groups that are loyal to one another to pursue the best means and ends for themselves without outside influence. This form of nationalism cannot tolerate a universally true religion like Christianity.

            Other forms of nationalism do allow for universal values, such as the case for nationalism put forth by Yael Tamir in Why Nationalism. Tamir writes, “The need to belong to a cultural community, then, is not merely an expression of a psychological craving to live in a known environment. It is an epistemological need for systems of interpretation that will allow us to understand the world and choose a way of life.”[16] Tamir advocates for the same loyalty and devotion as Hazony, but she uses nationalism as a means to universal human ends: peace, justice, and equality: “We should spend less time waging a war against the human tendency to gather in groups, and the inevitable outcomes of this tendency – stereotyping, in-group favoritism, and ethnocentrism – and more on joining forces to combat social inequality and injustice.”[17] While nationalism has been used in the past to enforce racism and injustice, Tamir envisions a hopeful future in nationalism through proper values and principles directing each national project. The author recognizes justice and peace as values every nation and people see as right. It must be stated that Tamir’s idea of such values do not align with Christianity.

            Stephen Wolfe, author of The Case for Christian Nationalism, states that nationalism “refers to a totality of national action, consisting of civil laws and social customs (e.g., culture), conducted by a nation as a nation.”[18] Wolfe’s form of nationalism requires a high awareness of one’s identity with the nation and appreciation for it: “My principal interest is a reinvigoration of a collective will that asserts and stands up for itself.”[19] A shared ideology is not a necessary feature of nationalism. Wolfe contends, “Despite the -ism of nationalism, it is not itself an ideology. It certainly can carry an ideology, but nationalism itself is simply the nation acting for its national good.”[20] For Wolfe, a perfect type of nationalism is one which acts in itself for itself. It requires a well-communicated intent behind laws and customs which all citizens are agreed upon. Wolfe’s conclusion cannot be understood without remembering the contrasting nature of nationalism to imperialism, which seeks to enforce one’s values and way of life on another. This dichotomy between nationalism and imperialism is foundational to arguments made by Douglas Wilson: “I am a Christian, and I do love my nation. Now what? I am a Christian, and I am not a globalist. I am a Christian, and I am not a tribalist. I am a Christian, and I have to live somewhere. What shall we call that?”[21] Wilson shares the same desire for multiple nationalisms around the world as Hazony calls for, but he disagrees with the claim that there is not one central truth which all nations must hold to. For Wilson and Wolfe, that central truth which every nation must accept is the Christian gospel.

Christian Nationalism

Wolfe sees Christianity as the missing piece for nationalism to thrive. He writes, “The Christian nation is a species of nation, meaning that the ‘Christian’ qualification does not destroy, eliminate, or preclude the features of the nation described.”[22] The author further states, “The Christian nation, therefore, is the nation perfected, for Christianity makes possible the national ordering of all things to the complete good, thereby fulfilling the ends of the nation.”[23] For Christian nationalism to be achieved, per Wolfe, the nation must be explicit and vocal in the place Jesus Christ has as head of the nation: “An implicit Christian nation is an unfaithful nation, one that lacks the will to explicitly place itself under God, to conceive of itself as a Christian nation, and to will for its Christian good. Thus, the complete Christian nation comes into being synergistically – by the grace of God and the will of man.”[24] Wolfe’s desire is for the nation’s implicit memory to be markedly Christian in its understanding. At the same time, Wolfe does not see the Christian nation as the fulfillment of Scripture: “It is not the New Jerusalem on earth. It is a nation Christianized, and, like the family, it has not immanentized eternal life but has ordered itself to eternal life.”[25] As Andrew Torba and Andrew Isker, authors of Christian Nationalism, make clear, “We do not idolize or worship our nation. We merely seek to preserve and protect our home and the interests of our neighbors and families.”[26] Christian nationalism is best understood as nationalism Christianized or nationalism flavored by Christianity. Torba, Isker, and Wolfe recognize other versions of nationalism that adhere to other religions or ideologies. Wolfe believes Christianity, being the true religion, is the proper fuel for nationalism to thrive.

            The chief aim of the Christian nation is “to establish and maintain the best possible outward conditions for people to acquire spiritual good.”[27] Wolfe dictates, “An earthly kingdom is a Christian kingdom when it orders the people to the kingdom of heaven.”[28] This ordering of life to eternal purposes is key to understanding why Christian nationalists claim that America was founded as a Christian nation. Wolfe writes, “It is evident enough that for most of United States history Americans thought of themselves as a Christian people.”[29] Wolfe believes that the present American form of government and governing documents can still support Christian nationalism.[30] Wilson agrees: “Not only has this Christian nationalism thing been done before, it has been done in America before. If we succeed, this will not be Christian America. If we succeed, this will be Christian America 2.0. This will be Christian America again. This will be America as the prodigal son, tired of the pig food, coming home to his father.”[31] For Wilson, America’s founding was an intentional pursuit of Christianized goals. By returning to the Christian origin of America, the concept of Christian nationalism would be fulfilled in an American distinction.

Semantic Memory: Understanding Christianity in America Around Her Founding

            It is difficult to refute the importance of the Christian religion and Christian Scriptures to the early days of colonial settlement and the eventual birth of an American nation. Mark David Hall asserts, “There is no evidence to support the popular claim that many or most of the founders rejected orthodox Christianity or were deists.”[32] John Wilsey has highlighted how American identity in the eighteenth century was colored through the Puritan theology of the previous generation and the applied teachings of Calvinism: “For Calvin and the Puritans, man is neither ultimately bound by any law, nor any human authority, but is free because of the work of Christ. This idea, coupled with the dissemination of Reformation theology, would be significant for the colonization of New England.”[33] From this background, it should be expected that the language and worldview of early Americans was colored through biblical ideas. Driesbach comments, “The founders’ frequent use of the Bible is no surprise because they lived in an overwhelmingly Protestant culture and in a biblically literate society. The extant record suggests that the founders and their contemporaries knew the Bible better than any other literary work.”[34] Christian teaching cannot be untangled from America’s past.

            At the same time, however, notable figures and movements shine a light on how the picture of Christian belief and practice was not as unified as expected given the supremacy of Protestant culture. It is well documented that some founders denied the supernaturalism present within Scripture, with some choosing to share views in public while others hid such opinions to save political face.[35] Beyond the founders, the impact of the First Great Awakening highlights how older visions of Christianity in the New World struggled to come to terms with a spiritual renewal. Robert Caldwell states, “Though they were descendants of the deeply pietistic English Puritan tradition, many Congregationalist ministers had come to the conclusion that [colony] churches had lost their spiritual edge by 1700.” It would then appear that the preaching of George Whitefield would be welcomed, but this was not always the case. Caldwell highlights, “While it was clear that the awakening was a blessing to multitudes of colonial Christians, it is also clear that it did not promote unity among churches where revivals were powerfully felt.”[36] Congregations in the colonies could be separated into those who supported the revivals, named New Lights, while others disavowed them, earning the name Old Calvinists.[37] For some, the emotionalism associated with the revivals of the First Awakening was not in line with proper religious practice. Harry Stout comments, “Before Whitefield, everybody knew the difference between preaching and acting. With Whitefield’s preaching, the distinction blurred between church and theater.”[38] In the years prior to the American revolution, Christians were debating whether the Holy Spirit was present in the spiritual renewal among the colonies. Division amongst churches in the years prior to the American Revolution does not align with Wolfe’s picture of a united desire to glorify Christ in nationhood.

            Understanding the theological debates around the First Awakening helps refute the idea that Americans at the time had an intentional Christian purpose for establishing the new nation. One of the most important figures to emerge in this theological debate, and one figure forever important to American theology, is Jonathan Edwards. While supporting Whitefield’s work in the colonies, Edwards was not afraid to address questions raised by Old Calvinists. Caldwell writes, “His theological profundity led him to experiment with new answers to old questions, answers that ultimately laid the foundation for a new trajectory in American revival theology known as the New Divinity tradition.”[39] Stout summarizes, “While Whitefield popularized the delivery of the gospel, Edwards revolutionized the language of faith and its relation to reason and emotions.”[40] One important source for Edwards outside of Scripture was philosopher John Locke, a key figure for the Enlightenment. As Stout makes clear, Edwards was not afraid to borrow from Locke to give old theological ideas new language. The author notes, “Drawing on a vocabulary grounded in aesthetics and Locke, rather than medieval logic, Edwards described the new sense of the heart, not as a set of theological propositions dutifully memorized and endorsed, but as a new perception of beauty.”[41] Edwards’ theology allowed him to filter emerging ideas of his time through the theological concepts he had inherited from the Puritans.

            Beginning with Edwards, American theology began to prioritize liberty as an essential concept, just as liberty emerged as an essential part of nationhood through the cultural events of the time. Mark Noll writes, “During the decades surrounding the American War for Independence, the American religious landscape was transformed every bit as much as the political landscape. Most obviously, Americans set aside over a millennium of establishmentarian history to organize their churches on the basis of liberty.”[42] The foundation of liberty Noll recognizes is the rise of Methodist and Baptist congregations from among the revivals of the Second Great Awakening, taking place shortly after America’s founding. Caldwell states that such congregations “adapted quickly to the new American setting” after the new nation was born in ways that Congregationalists and Presbyterians could not.[43] Where the First Awakening had central messages and leaders before the Revolution, the Second Awakening after the Revolution was scattered amongst many denominations, individuals, and theologies. Prioritizing liberty in religious experience and ideas, just as the political culture of the time demanded liberty from tyranny, makes sense of this shift in focus. A shift in priority had occurred between the two Awakenings where liberty became increasingly important to religious practice.

Christian Nationalism’s Limited History

            Wolfe’s work on Christian Nationalism is meant to be trailblazing. The majority of the book is spent connecting the natural desire of place and preference in culture with the wholeness Christianity provides. However, the author’s argument for Christian nationalism in America aims to discredit any influence outside of classical Protestantism within the colonies. Wolfe writes, “One popular narrative is that the American founding was anti-establishment and secularist and reflects the influence of ‘Enlightenment philosophy.’ How can we get Christian nationalism out of that? But that narrative is false.”[44] To build this case, Wolfe equates the desires of the Founders to be the exact desires of the Puritans who lived in the land generations prior. Wolfe counts the arrival of the first Puritans to American soil as the true origin of the new nation. On religious liberty, Wolfe states, “We see that the founders assumed distinctively Protestant principles – the same principles as their Puritan forefathers. Religious liberty in the founding era was not opposed to the classical Protestant tradition but a principled development of it.”[45] The author must reject the influence of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson upon religious liberty to uphold the idea of Protestantism’s monopoly. Wolfe’s argument for America’s Christian past is dependent on Protestant ideas having such supremacy that no other influence could make a difference.

            John Fea has argued that despite a clear intent to establish Christian communities in the earliest settlements, the Puritans did not see their aims come to fruition. Considering Jamestown, Fea writes, “The most cursory look at the literature promoting the colony to England shows that the real appeal of Jamestown was economic opportunity and the very real possibility of striking it rich.”[46] Speaking of the colonies in Massachusetts Bay, Fea notes, “All indications suggest that church membership gradually declined throughout New England society. They were lukewarm adherents to the Puritan way who tended to practice their Christianity on their own terms and in their own manner.”[47] Fea confirms the spiritual reality of the colonies prior to George Whitefield’s arrival in agreement with Caldwell’s analysis. Rather than a robust picture of the Protestant theology of government on display in New England, a cultural appreciation for Scripture coupled with personal liberty appears on the soil – a soil ready for spiritual revival.

Christian Laws and/or Christian People?

            If Christian nationalism is merely concerned with having laws that favor Christianity over other religions, then America at her founding was a Christian nation. However, Wolfe’s vision requires a high visibility and ownership of Christian ideals by citizens to constitute a Christian nation. A Christian nation, per Wolfe, is a Christian people acting for the good of the nation with an explicitly Christian intent. This is why Wolfe dates the true beginning of the nation with the Puritan colonies rather than with the Declaration of Independence. For Wolfe’s idea of Christian nationalism in America to be true, the various colonies would need to have stepped onto the new land with a desire to become a distinct Christian people. The question must then be asked: Can it be assumed that the Puritans saw themselves as a distinct nation at first arrival? Fea argues, “There was no sense of intercolonial unity. Each colony was more connected to London than to other colonies. This was particularly the case in terms of the religious makeup of the colonies and the ways in which the people of each colony understood themselves as ‘Christian.’”[48] Fea charges those who date America’s founding to the arrival of English settlers as reading history backwards.[49] Indeed, such an argument betrays Wolfe’s own definition of nationalism that requires shared knowledge and intent. Believing that the unmet ideals of the Puritan immigrants, whose unanimity is open to debate, carried on to the Founding Fathers unchanged and uninfluenced by other ideas outside of theology is rooted in a false implicit memory.

            Further, associating the Christian nation of America with that of the Puritan ideal creates a picture which fails to address clear faults present in practice. The Puritan response to Roger Williams creates a flash point for Wolfe and Fea. Wolfe decries Williams as “sectarian and seditious” against the Puritan government.[50] Fea notes, “Roger Williams criticized the government of Massachusetts Bay for taking Indian land without paying for it. Since they understood themselves to be the New Israel, Puritans believed that it was their God-ordained right to usurp this Indian land.”[51] Wilsey explains, “The Puritans who colonized New England in the seventeenth century brought from England a keen sense of national election based upon covenant theology as expressed in the Old Testament.”[52] This sense of entitlement to the land is sinful exceptionalism on display by the Puritans. The new supporters of Christian nationalism no longer support this brand of exceptionalism present in the Puritan colonies. Per Wilson, “A Christian nation should never be mistaken as being the same thing as a chosen nation. There is no exceptionalism in it.”[53] When given the opportunity to correct the error of the Puritans, however, Wilson claims that historians today have made this exceptionalism up: “the ‘American exceptionalism’ of the neocons is actually the idolatrous construct.”[54] False implicit memory of the past neglects to correctly learn and adapt from prior mistakes, as seen in Wilson neglecting to place blame on the proper group, according to biblical teaching.

One can respect the Puritan immigrants while critiquing them. A false implicit memory hinders one’s ability to criticize those held as heroes. Episodes with such individuals and facts learned about them combine to create a picture of one who is always faithful and right no matter what. Information contrary to this implicit memory is seen as an attack upon them, an attack which must be incorrect or misunderstood. Regarding Christian nationalism, supporters point to beholding the history of Christianity within America without an honest assessment of the theology being asserted. Even as Wolfe and Wilson denounce the idea of exceptionalism within a Christian nationalist project, the authors refuse to address such exceptionalism present in America’s supposed Christian founding. There is no refuting the importance of Christianity to America’s founding and past, yet Christian people ought to be able to view such history, learn from prior mistakes, and seek to repent of sins which are easily fallen into within American culture. The character and decisions of the first settlers in light of Scripture is well within bounds for critique. Supporters of Christian nationalism would do well to admit these faults and protect against their repetition in a new Christian nationalist project.

Episodic Memory: A More-Likely Past

            Scripture was highly read and respected in the late eighteenth century, yet this familiarity should not insinuate rebirth in Christ without further research on an individual level. Even skeptics such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine, Driesbach notes, “added biblical notions to their arsenal of ideas and arguments.”[55] Paine would describe the Bible in The Age of Reason, written 18 years after the American founding, as “a book of lies, wickedness, and blasphemy.”[56] At the same time, Paine had used biblical language and ideas previously in 1776 to help solidify support for the revolution in Common Sense. Driesbach writes, “Paine appealed to Scripture so frequently because he knew the Bible-reading proclivities of his audience.”[57] Those with deistic beliefs sought common ground with fellow Americans by appealing to Scripture. Even Thomas Jefferson, whom Fea notes, “was skeptical about doctrines such as the Trinity, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the divine inspiration of the Bible,” won the presidential election of 1800 through the support of Baptists and Methodists in the spirit of the Second Great Awakening.[58] Mark David Hall explains that Jefferson “definitely rejected orthodox Christianity, but went to great lengths to keep his religious views far from public.”[59] How could men who sought to be faithful to Scripture partner with skeptics to form a nation if Christian principles were important to them? Most likely, an appeal to Providence and a focus on the utility of the Bible to address the tyranny of the day created a common enemy to overcome.

An Appeal to Providence

            Driesbach explains, “Many Americans believed [Providence] meant that there is a superintending divine authority who oversees and, perhaps, directs the steps of humankind and the affairs of the material world to accomplish divine ends.”[60] The sinful exceptionalism which enabled the theft of native American lands had marinated for some time. Fea notes, “The long-standing Puritan view that the people of America were the chosen people of God – a new Israel – was used to show that God must be on the side of the patriots.”[61] Emerging ideas from what would become known as the Enlightenment, and a revival in Christianity among the colonies, empowered the response to British tyranny with biblical arguments and language of God’s favor. By claiming the influence of Enlightenment ideals in the founding generation to be real, it is not necessary to assert that such Christians viewed themselves as pushing an enlightened agenda. As Catherine Brekus states, “The Enlightenment was a diverse movement, and there was no single relationship between enlightened thought and Christianity.”[62] Brekus notes the common evangelical experience in the late eighteenth century near the American founding:

They deliberately tried to set themselves apart from the new, modern world that was beginning to emerge, a world that valued freedom, choice, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet even though evangelicals were theologically conservative, they could not ignore the intellectual challenges to their faith, and as they tried to adapt to a changing world they unconsciously absorbed many Enlightenment ideas as their own.[63]

While some Americans could be considered pushing such an agenda, evangelical Christians of the time, inspired by the First Awakening, could partner with skeptics to ensure religious liberty in the new nation. Religious liberty was a common priority expressed in enlightened thought and Christianity at the time. Hall writes, “One of the most important founding-era arguments in favor of religious liberty was based on the theological principle that humans have a duty to worship God as their conscience dictates.”[64] In short, the patriots believed God was deciding that America was to be a new nation, and liberty, especially in religious practice, was of chief priority for her citizens. Attempting to untangle the Christian and enlightened influences from one another behind this worldview would be futile. The theological result of Edwards’ pursuit had come to fruition.

            Some would dissent from the providential view. Fea has highlighted how Congregational pastors loyal to England argued against the new nation from Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2, while supporters of the revolution would justify rebellion from the same texts with the help of enlightened ideas.[65] Driesbach writes, “Among the ranks of patriots, orthodox Christians and religious skeptics alike generally agreed that Providence had favored the American states.”[66] The argument could be made, however, that what the patriots were describing was not the providential favor of God, but a reflection of their own personal desires through implicit memory: experiencing injustice and tyranny from Britain coupled with a reading of Scripture colored with the emerging enlightened principles of the time.[67] Where the Bible was cited on both sides of the debate on American nationhood, the will and intentions of the one referencing Scripture has a powerful force in directing the message. Implicit memory is an unavoidable facet of being a human, and this could account for the patriots’ assertion of Providence.

The Bible’s Utility

            Thinking of themselves as God’s new chosen people, the earliest Americans used the Bible to describe and model the project of the new nation. Driesbach writes, “The book of Deuteronomy describes specific structures, institutions, and processes of governance useful in establishing a new political society. In short, Americans saw in this text principles, models, and precedents useful to them in the creation of their own polities.”[68] Citing Driesbach’s own research, Wilson claims that America’s Christian founding is evident from this reliance on Scripture for political discourse: “The Apostle Paul was quoted at the same level as were Montesquieu and Blackstone, and Deuteronomy was quoted twice as much as John Locke was.”[69] Wilson creates a false dichotomy between the Enlightenment and Scripture as a source, for Locke himself was encouraging the study of Scripture by children.[70] Is it possible that Wilson is writing the present dichotomy between Christianity and secularism into the history of Christianity and the Enlightenment from his implicit memory? Wilson’s point, however, only furthers the case that America’s founders used multiple resources, including the Bible, as a utility text for ordering the nation. Fea explains, “Though the founders cited the Bible more than any other source during the 1770s, when one compares the combined number of citations to Enlightenment, Whig, and classical authors during this decade, the number exceeds that of the Bible. The same could be said for the 1780s.”[71] An idea of what a nation could be empowered the founders to draw from multiple sources for support in making this vision a reality.

            From a theological standpoint, was this use of the Bible proper? In the religious liberty which resulted in the nation, the language used of God in founding documents and the omission of Jesus Christ explicitly point to a distinction from ordering one’s nation to the glory of God. Wolfe must argue that an absence of explicit Christian terms in founding documents “diverges from American principles” and was a mistake on the Founders’ part.[72] Yet this omission of Christian terms does not have to be seen as a mistake, but rather as an intentional choice by the Founders to allow for religious liberty to those outside of Christianity. Hall writes, “America’s founders embraced a robust understanding of religious liberty – one that included creating exemptions to protect religious citizens from general, neutrally applicable laws.”[73] Given the influence of enlightened thought and the primacy of liberty, the Founders embraced the Christian idea of not binding the conscience of another to an extreme. Each state had the liberty to establish state religions which the federal government could not. One example of this intention in practice is seen in George Washington’s letter to a Jewish congregation in Newport, Rhode Island in 1790. In this letter, Washington quotes Micah 4:4 and assures the recipients, “May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants.”[74] Wilson, contrary to Washington, denies the possibility of a Judeo-Christian civil religion. He writes, “They [Christianity and Judaism] do not harmonize at the most basic level.”[75] Agreeing with Wilson on this point, then, one must conclude that upholding Christianity against false belief was not the utmost priority for Washington as President. Rather, Washington must have had a higher priority than enforcing Christian doctrine. Galatians 3:7 teaches that only those with faith in Christ are the children of Abraham; President Washington’s theology was incorrect in the letter. Rather than protecting the Christian identity of the nation for the collective good, the first President welcomes groups into American life who would deny Christ as Lord. Hall concludes, “America’s founders were profoundly influenced by Christianity, but they did not design a constitutional order only for fellow believers.”[76] A priority for religious liberty does not equate with the exclusive salvation through Jesus which Christianity teaches. The modern demands of Christian nationalism do not align with the concept of religious liberty present at America’s founding.

            Having any priority higher than glorifying God in Christ betrays the logic Wolfe puts forth in his view of Christian nationalism. `The author writes, “Having a Christian self-conception, the nation is aware of itself as a Christian nation, and from this awareness flows the ordering of social and civil powers for the nation’s earthly and heavenly good in Christ.”[77] For America to have been founded in some form of Christian nationalism, the collective identity in Christ would at least appeal to unbelievers to come to Christ, if not require allegiance to Christ for citizenship or identity with the nation. Rather, the Founders intended religious liberty to be extended to those who would even deny Christ. A likely reason for this reality flows from the Bible being used alongside other sources to fulfill the vision of a nation described chiefly through liberty.

Conclusion

            Christian nationalism does not aim to create heaven on earth. As is evidenced in most forms of nationalistic uprising, a vision of the future for the nation is contrasted with the negative realities of the present state. A different future for America than the current trajectory is the most compelling support behind Christian nationalism today. A claim for the Christian founding and identity of America at her founding holds a key portion of the Christian nationalist message. However, this paper has sought to display how an improper implicit memory of America, containing errors and omissions of the past, leads those who desire to see America Christianized today without a complete picture of the nation’s history. A faulty view of the past can lead to improper ideals for the future. Supporters of Christian nationalism would do well to view American history with a desire to improve upon the beliefs and practices evident in the late eighteenth century. The Founders presented a wonderful concept for nationhood that can prove to bring freedom and liberty for more if Christian principles are at the heart of governing practice. An honest assessment of America’s past has not yet come to fruition with supporters of Christian nationalism, but doing so may win more support from outside of the current camps. Christian nationalism does present a better way forward than the present, secular trajectory of the nation, but arguments in support of Christian nationalism can be refined further with an honest view of America’s past and the complex picture of influence that led to an independent nation. The implicit memory of America behind Christian nationalism presents an incomplete picture of the past, neglects the effects of sinful exceptionalism in American history, and fuels unrepentance from exceptionalism within American life. While current proponents of Christian nationalism denounce sinful exceptionalism, the same voices neglect to address and learn from errors present at the arrival of Puritan immigrants that led to further exceptionalism in America’s future as years went on.

[1] Douglas Wilson, Mere Christendom (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2023), 88.

[2] Mark David Hall, Did America Have a Christian Founding? Separating Modern Myth from Historical Truth (Nashville, TN: Nelson Books, 2019), xviii.

[3] Daniel L. Driesbach, Reading the Bible with the Founding Fathers (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2017), 5.

[4] John Fea, Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? A Historical Introduction, rev. ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2016), 3.

[5] John D. Wilsey, One Nation Under God? An Evangelical Critique of Christian America (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 1-2.

[6] Matthew A. Lapine, The Logic of the Body: Retrieving Theological Psychology (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), 305.

[7] Ibid., 305.

[8] Lapine, 306.

[9] Ibid., 318.

[10] James M. Hamilton Jr., Typology: Understanding the Bible’s Promise-Shaped Patterns (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022), 4.

[11] Hamilton, 27.

[12] Yoram Hazony, The Virtue of Nationalism (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2018), 5.

[13] Ibid., 9.

[14] Ibid., 10.

[15] Hazony, 230.

[16] Yael Tamir, Why Nationalism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2019), 45.

[17] Ibid., 51.

[18] Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2023), 164.

[19] Ibid., 135.

[20] Ibid., 165.

[21] Douglas Wilson, Mere Christendom (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2023), 84.

[22] Wolfe, 173.

[23] Ibid., 174.

[24] Ibid., 177.

[25] Ibid., 180.

[26] Andrew Torba and Andrew Isker, Christian Nationalism: A Biblical Guide for Taking Dominion and Discipling Nations (Coppell, TX: Gab, 2022), 22.

[27] Wolfe, 182.

[28] Ibid., 195.

[29] Ibid., 398.

[30] Ibid., 399.

[31] Wilson, 88.

[32] Hall, xxii.

[33] Wilsey, 97.

[34] Driesbach, 2.

[35] Thomas Jefferson notoriously created an edited biography of Jesus which overlooked the supernaturalism inherent in Scripture. Driesbach writes, “He described himself as a real Christian, although he was certainly aware that his beliefs were unconventional and idiosyncratic.” (Driesbach, 62). Thomas Paine openly stated that the Bible was not the Word of God and full of falsehood in The Age of Reason. Benjamin Franklin also denied the supernaturalism of Scripture. Regardless, these men used the Bible due to its social capital. Driesbach writes, “These skeptical founders perceived a utilitarian value in Jesus’ ethical teachings as an instrument for social control, even though they rejected Jesus Christ as God’s Son and denied that the Bible was God’s Word.” (Driesbach, 55).

[36] Robert W. Caldwell III, Theologies of the American Revivalists: From Whitefield to Finney (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017), 18-19.

[37] Ibid., 75.

[38] Harry S. Stout, “What Made the Great Awakening Great?” in Turning Points in the History of American Evangelicalism, eds. Heath W. Carter and Laura Rominger Porter (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017), 4.

[39] Caldwell, 57.

[40] Stout, 8.

[41] Ibid., 13.

[42] Mark A. Noll, The Old Religion in a New World (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), 70.

[43] Caldwell, 101.

[44] Wolfe, 398.

[45] Wolfe, 411.

[46] Fea, 82.

[47] Ibid., 88.

[48] Fea, 80.

[49] Ibid.

[50] Wolfe, 402.

[51] Fea, 90.

[52] John D. Wilsey, American Exceptionalism and Civil Religion: Reassessing the History of an Idea (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015), 101.

[53] Wilson, 85.

[54] Ibid.

[55] Driesbach, 7.

[56] Thomas Paine, “The Age of Reason.” in Thomas Paine: Collected Writings, ed. Eric Foner (New York, NY: Library of America, 1995), 747.

[57] Driesbach, 73.

[58] Fea, 6.

[59] Hall, 6.

[60] Driesbach, 86-87.

[61] Fea, 121.

[62] Catherine A. Brekus, “The Evangelical Encounter with the Enlightenment,” in Turning Points in the History of American Evangelicalism, eds. Heath W. Carter and Laura Rominger Porter (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017), 23.

[63] Ibid., 31.

[64] Hall, 129.

[65] Fea, 115-119.

[66] Driesbach, 88.

[67] Driesbach recognizes the direct link between Protestant resistance theology with the Enlightenment in John Adams’ Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America. Adams cites two works of resistance theology: The Short Treatise of Politic Power by John Ponet and Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos by alias Junius Brutus, and adds that John Locke and Algeron Sidney, Enlightenment figures, are building upon these works of resistance theology. (Driesbach, 127-128).

[68] Driesbach, 66.

[69] Wilson, 88.

[70] Driesbach, 38.

[71] Fea, 106-107.

[72] Wolfe, 429.

[73] Hall, 144.

[74] “George Washington’s Letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport,” TouroSynagogue.org, https://tourosynagogue.org/history/george-washington-letter/washington-seixas-letters/.

[75] Wilson, 90.

[76] Ibid., 145.

[77] Wolfe, 215.