Hawley Gets an "F" in History and Theology

 Hawley is "Disturbingly Wrong"

Appalling and inexcusable.  

A United States Senator should know better.  And if he, or she, doesn't know their history before assuming office, they need to get a crash course in it, so that they don't embarrass themselves by making statements and assumptions such as those made by Missouri Senator Josh Hawley in a recent speech, reported by the Kansas City Star.  

In the theology courses I had in graduate school, it was a requirement to corroborate doctrinal claims with an accurate reference to scripture, interpreted in context and itself corroborated by at least one other Biblical reference.  Hawley's statements are neither historically accurate nor consistent with any Biblical theology or doctrine.  If he's as up on the law, as an attorney, as he demonstrated in this speech that he is on history and theology, then he's not a very good lawyer, either. 

He's a politician who has an awful lot of contempt for the intelligence of those to whom he is speaking.  He must not think they're very bright or knowledgeable.  And I guess most of those in his audience probably aren't, which is why he seemed to get away with it.  

Answer the Question

What specific aspect of American democracy, and more specifically, of the establishment of the American republic, is a direct result of Christian theology?  And where, in the Bible, is that aspect or principle found?  Answer that question factually, without speculation or opinion, pointing to specific evidence, and the argument is convincing.  But what the Senator from Missouri is doing here is making a lot of common assertions without supporting evidence from either the Constitution or the Bible.  

There's not much doubt that the Christian practice and influence of the time period did play a role in the development of the Constitution.  But there's no doubt at all that the European Enlightenment, which was at its peak when Americans declared their independence, was a much larger, greater influence than Christianity.  Much of the Christian church had been watered down and weakened by centuries of control and conflict, and with the exception of a few Protestant branches that existed in America apart from the ecclesiastical authority of the state, the church was a state controlled institution.  

The whole idea that a nation could rule itself under a representative democracy did not come from either Christian tradition or the Bible.  The Christian church is an oligarchy of influential leaders, known as "elders," and as Christianity spread, the more influential a particular church or its Bishop happened to be, the more influence and voice they had in the way the church was governed.  And no, the small, dissenting groups that developed, like the Montanists and Donatists and others who avoided the connectional heirarchy were not Democratic either.  They were all modelled after their predecessors, the Jewish synagogues and the Temple leadership, which were also autocratic oligarchies.  

Ironically, one of the aspects of constitutional democracy that Christians, more specifically conservative, Evangelical Christians, did help bring about is one that Hawley didn't mention, and which would have more or less undermined his claim about Christian influence over the formation of American Democracy, and that is religious liberty and the complete separation of church and state.  It was the Baptists, in Connecticut and Virginia, specifically, who helped convince Jefferson and Madison to avoid establishing a state church, and let Christianity and all other religious adherents go their own ways without interfering in their business.  

Madison's observation was that a state-established, and funded, church led to a lazy, corrupt clergy who were more interested in the perks of the job, and whose influence was used for their own benefit rather than for a religious cause. He had observed that the established church in Virginia, the Church of England, had persecuted Baptists by using their influence to get laws passed which shut down their churches and arrested their pastors for "illegal preaching."  Madison did regularly attend church, according to the historical record, and his observations were first-hand. 

Jefferson, similarly persuaded by Baptists in New England who had been persecuted by the more numerous Puritans who were the earlier inhabitants of Massachusetts Bay, also concluded that a state church was not necessary, and observed that "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god.  It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."  It was Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut from which the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" originated.  So there's that. 

Corroborate with Scripture References

Neither the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence quotes from the Bible directly.  If the founders were as bent on establishing a "Christian nation" as Hawley insists, they wouldn't have left out the core, foundational principles of the faith, and plenty of supporting quotations from their source.  If they had intended to use Christian theology as a basis for the government, whatever they cited from the Bible would have been taken out of context, because Jesus never intended to establish another temporal state, along the lines of theocratic Israel in the Old Testament, to achieve his mission and purpose.  But if a nation founded on Christian principles had been the aim of the founders, in the way that white, Christian nationalists now claim, they would have cited every passage of scripture that supported their goals.  

The fact that they didn't cite any scripture references supports the contention that they were not opposed to Americans practicing whatever religious belief they chose, but they weren't considering enforcing any religious belief, including Christianity, by law. Why would they?  Some of them weren't Christians, in fact, some of them had a hostile perspective of the institutional, state church they observed in their time.  Their philosophical background, many of them heavily influenced by the Enlightenment, led them to see church and Christian faith as more traditional, ceremonial ritual than an intimate, personal, transformational faith.  So, there is no scripture reference corroborating any part of the United States Constitution.  

Where is a "Christian Nation" Found in the Bible? 

Hawley misses the point on the Christian doctrine and theological side as well.  There's no Christian teaching or instruction for using a political state as a means of evangelism.  During the time of Jesus' ministry, the Jewish people of Palestine were looking for the return of someone like David, who would bring military might in some miraculous way against the Roman oppressors and overthrow Roman rule, re-establishing the glory days of David's kingdom of Israel.  Jesus went to great lengths to show people that what he was doing was establishing a spiritual kingdom, one which would welcome all people into its membership. 

Jesus pointed to two things.  One, that his kingdom would be greater than that of David, which drew charges of blasphemy from those expecting politics, but which alluded to the spiritual, rather than temporal nature, of the church he was establishing.  Two, that his kingdom was "not of this world", indicating that what he was talking about when he used the term "kingdom" was a figurative reference to the whole of Christendom, the universal church of the ages, in multiple local expressions.  The image of Jesus on the throne post-resurrection is a spiritual one, not a physical place.  

Hawley may attend or belong to a church that knows and interprets all of this, I don't know.  But the gospel perspective doesn't fit with his political agenda.  Maybe he isn't up on his church's eschatology.  But in attempting to score political points, he's identified himself with a racist group of right wing extremists.  Yes, this same guy who was seen fleeing for his life, yes fleeing, during the January 6th Trump Insurrection, not long after his infamous fist pump as he was headed toward the capitol, is a white, Christian nationalist.  

Jesus Did Indeed Emphasize some Core Values

There are several previous posts here which point to the contrast between the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament, and the goals and aims of white Christian nationalism.  True Christianity and Christian nationalism are not the same, and white Christian nationalists do not emphasize the things that Christ taught and which form the foundation of the Christian church.  This isn't the first aberrant movement using the language and faith of Christians to achieve ends which are not consistent with a Christian mission and purpose.  It likely won't be the last.  But it still needs to be called out for what it is.  

As God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness and patience.  Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other; just as the Lord as forgiven you, so you must also forgive.  Above all clothe yourselves with Love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.  And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body.  And be thankful.  Colossians 3:12-15, NRSV

Compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, patience, forgiveness and love.  That's quite a list.  It may well be that some of the founding fathers had those virtues in mind when they were writing the constitution, but I don't think that's what Senator Hawley was thinking when he made his remarks.  

I challenge anyone to find these values anywhere in white Christian nationalism.