All In the Family

Text:   Colossians 3:20-21

Textual introduction:  Paul turns to the relationship of parents and children.  Once again, compared to what was being said in his own day, Paul has some surprises for us.

*******

Introduction:  Have you seen The King’s Speech, the Oscar winning film about the efforts of King George VI to overcome a speech impediment that nearly crippled his efforts to serve as king during the war years.  Of course, George would have never been king if his older brother hadn’t fallen in love with American divorcee Wallis Simpson.  Edward VIII abdicated so he could marry her.   The film portrays Edward, who became the Duke of Windsor, as something of a jerk—a portrayal that some argue was fairly accurate.

Anyway, in a 1957 interview in Look, the Duke, who had no children, said this about America:  “The thing that impresses me most about America is the way parents obey their children.”

I can’t help but wonder what he would say today.  The duke, who died in 1972, might actually be shocked at the changing attitude toward children.  Would he be impressed at the restaurants in Pennsylvania and North Carolina that have banned children under the age of six?  Would he approve of those “senior” communities that have said no to children, even those visiting grandparents?  There is a new attitude toward children that treats them as necessary evils to keep the race going.

Jesus welcomed children and his attitude seems to have been passed on to Paul.  That attitude is implicit in what he says in Colossians.  But let’s begin with a look at the culture in which Paul wrote.

If you think it was tough being a wife in the first-century, you should consider what it was like to be a child.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus wrote of the father’s authority: 

 [Roman law] ‘…gave virtually full power to the father over his son, whether he thought proper to imprison him, to scourge him, to put him in chains, and keep him at work in the fields, or to put him to death, and this even though the son were engaged in public affairs, though he were numbered among the highest magistrates, and though he were celebrated for his zeal for the commonwealth.”

In most cases the father’s control over his child was complete until he emancipated the child or until the father died.  A father could even sell his child into slavery should he wish.

Of course, most fathers did not make that choice but they still tended to be harsh in their discipline. 

Jews, Greeks, and Romans all agreed that the liberal application of the “rod” was the best form of child rearing.  One Jewish writer during the Inter-testamental period said, “He who loves his son will whip him often….Bow down his neck in his youth, and beat his sides while he is young.”  In the non-Jewish world, fathers who were following the advice and example of the best-known educators beat their children as a matter of course.

One Roman writer tells of an occasion when he successfully and truthfully convinced his mother that he was not guilty of an offense for which she planned to punish him.  She announced that since the preparations had already been made, the beating would take place and he could carry it on his account for the  next time he was in trouble.

Such discipline is clearly designed to break the spirit of the child.

Paul took a different view.  As we look at this passage from Colossians we’ll find he believed the relationship of Christian children and Christian parents should be shaped by their relationship to Christ.

Children and parents should reflect their Christian identity in their relationship.

To understand this look at …

I

THE CHILD’S OBLIGATION

Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.

In the exciting days of the early church there must have been many families turning to Christ.  These would have included husband, wife, and children old enough to profess faith and receive baptism.  Commentators differ on whether or not Paul had in mind a Christian family when he wrote, but I think the weight of evidence suggests he does.

Teknon, the word translated “children,” is used often in the New Testament and refers to children in general, not those of any particular age.  It is reasonable to assume that the older the child, the more Paul’s words would have had an impact on them. 

In our age which consults children about what they want to wear, eat, where they want to go to school and where they would like to go on vacation, it’s easy for us to miss something remarkable in this passage Paul writes to children:  He writes to them.  Most of the household codes written in the first century would not have had any portion addressed to the children themselves.  That Paul thought the children (at least the older ones) in the Colossian church were capable of receiving and responding to instruction regarding their behavior and responsibility is a remarkable acknowledgment of their personhood. 

He writes to them as responsible young Christians able to understand that part of their discipleship involved being obedient to their parents. What is important is not that being obedient will please their parent, though it’s assumed it would, what is important is that being obedient will please the Lord. 

If Paul was writing to Christian families, he was assuming that the parents would not require anything which would be contrary to Christian moral principles.  Should a Christian young person find himself or herself in such a difficult situation, other principles apply.

But here Paul is assuming the best.  He is also calling for a respectful obedience to both parents.  He assumes that at least some of the instructions will come from the mother.

In a practical sense, this short-circuits a Christian child trying to play one parent off the other.  It suggests that no Christian young person should attempt to circumvent a negative answer given by one parent by going to the other.

Christian young people sometimes ask, “How can I know God’s will for my life?”  How can we help them find an answer, what can we say to them? At least part of the answer is implied in this verse.  We can say something like this, “Right now, at this stage of your life, God’s will for you comes, in part, from the mouths of your parents.”

That’s tough when the quest for independence is uppermost in the mind of a young person.  It’s tougher still when we consider the sheer scope Paul gives to this command.  Obedience is to be “in everything.”

It calls for trust.  Trust, as the young person keeps uppermost the idea that his or her parents really have their best interests in mind as they lay down restrictions and limitations. 

It calls for restraint.  Restraint is needed because the young person sometimes does possess a greater maturity than the parent is ready to concede.

It calls for forbearance and forgiveness because sometimes Christian parents, though they might have the best of intentions, will make mistakes in determining what is best for the children they love.

In this passage which is so easy to read and dismiss with a casual “so what else is new” attitude, Paul pays the children a great compliment. He is telling them that as Christians they have the capacity to participate in the process of growing toward freedom and maturity.

II

THE PARENTS’ OBLIGATION

Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.

       

Commentators don’t agree on whether or not Paul was writing to fathers alone or to both parents.  While in some cases pateres can mean “parents,” in the first-century world the father would have been seen as the primary disciplinarian.  Paul may be keeping that in mind.

Even if Paul’s writing is directed to a first-century audience, I think we are appropriate in saying that the principle he lays down applies to both parents.

At the same time at least one commentator suggests that Paul’s words may be specifically directed toward fathers for a reason.  He writes,

[Fathers] “can easily become tyrannical and unreasonable, bullying where they should be blessing, and infuriating when they should be inspiring, sometimes imposing silly restrictions which can only lead to exasperation, or impossible demands which can only make them ‘dishearted’ (NEB).”

The comment reflects the view of another age before we made the sad discovery that sometimes the treatment meted out by mothers can be just as psychologically and spiritually devastating as that of any father.

In an age in which the great majority of those writing on child-rearing gave the father unhindered freedom to deal with his child as he saw fit, Paul calls on Christian fathers to be self-restrained and to possess a vision for the future.

We sometimes scoff at the notion of grown men and women blaming their parents for their neuroses and quirks.  Sometimes that scoffing is merited.  Yet, we can’t deny that Paul is at least suggesting that how we treat our children now can have long-term effects on their emotional and psychological well-being.  What is Paul warning parents against?

He warns against the possibility of “embittering” our children.  What does he have in mind?  J. B. Philips renders the verse, "Fathers, don't over-correct your children, or they will grow up feeling inferior and frustrated."  The New Living Translation renders the verse as “Fathers, don’t aggravate your children.  If you do, they will become discouraged and quit trying.”  The Amplified Bible warns, “Fathers, do not provoke or irritate or fret your children—do not be hard on them or harass them…”  A. T. Robertson says the word translated as “provoke” carries the idea of nagging.             

I would paraphrase the command something like this:  “You parents, by your words and your actions, don’t continually play mind-games with your children, don’t use your disciplining them as an excuse for a power-trip.  If you do, you may mar them by breaking their spirits for the rest of their lives.”

The nineteenth century’s best-known preacher understood this.  Charles Spurgeon said, “A child’s back must be made to bend, but not be broken.  He must be ruled, but not with a rod of iron.  His spirit must be conquered, but not be crushed.”

But, why don’t we want to break their spirits?  Because if we send them out of the home into the world with a broken spirit, striped of their capacity to resist, we sentence them to yield to any and all other psychological bullies they may encounter. 

Commentators have a hard time defining the outcome Paul describes but it’s clear that it has a crippling impact on the child.

How do parents run the risk of embittering or discouraging their children?

1  Through unrealistic expectation.

This is primarily expecting more from a child than that child is able to give at the moment in it development.  I’ve seen parents spank a four-year-old for spilling his milk even though its unfair to expect a child of that age to always have the hand-eye coordination to manage a glass of milk.  It’s especially unfair when you consider that not a few forty-year-olds occasionally spill their milk.

Some behavior goes along with the age. 

2  Through inconsistency.

For something to be okay one day and wrong the next confuses a child, makes him believe the rules can be changed without notice. 

Snap at your daughter for something she’s done everyday of her life frustrates her and affronts her sense of justice.

3  Verbal abuse.

Words and actions are powerful.  They can encourage a child or destroy the child’s self-esteem and sense of personal worth.

Some commentators suggest there may have been a more serious concern in Paul’s mind, a concern that such parents cause their children to turn from the faith.

What could be worse for Christian parents than to know that their children have abandoned the faith because they abused the stewardship God gave them as parents?

Some Observations and Suggestions for Dusty Nesters

It might seem this sermon is directed to those who still have children at home.  It is, but what does it say to those Empty Nesters.  What about those with Dusty Nests—those who are watching their children raise children. 

1.  We should strive to remember that in a Christian family both children and parents, of all ages, are called to mutual respect. 

In sick families, respect is a rare commodity.  Families which are being transformed by Jesus Christ are made up of people who show respect for each other.  If you are the parent of a grown child who seems to be making a mistake with his or her children, what can you do?  Some would say nothing.  But I don’t think we have that option.  If we have a history of demonstrating respect toward that child, we will be better able to speak a word of counsel.  We won’t be assured a hearing but the odds will be better.

2.  We may be able to help our grown children understand that in a Christian family both parents and children—regardless of their age—should understand that their relationship is dynamic and growing.

It’s one thing for a mother to pick her child’s clothes when that child is in the first grade, it is quite another for that mother to be picking those clothes when the child is a senior in high school.

Parenting involves moving our children toward the day when they are ready to make decisions on their own.  We may offer counsel and advice, but the time will come when we must see that they have the right to chart the course of their own lives.

If that child has been raised in an atmosphere of constant belittlement and disparagement, what Paul calls provoking children, their self-confidence will be so frail that they will never feel comfortable making the most basic decisions of life.  They may surrender the choice to another, they may postpone making the decisions, or they may make the decision hastily because they fear being exposed as incompetent.

Have you seen the Subaru commercial with the father and daughter?  The  is shown leaning into a car giving telling the driver to stay off highways because she isn’t ready yet, to not use the cell phone when driving, to watch her speed.  The camera flashes to the driver, a tiny little blonde girl who’s no more than five or six. 

Exasperated, she says, “Daddy!”  The father says, “just be careful” and hands over the keys to the teenager who is actually sitting behind the wheel—the child he still saw as is little girl. 

As Christian parents we understand that God, our children, and ourselves have been partners for years working the day when our children face the world on their own. 

How good it would be for our children to be able to face that day with the knowledge that they have honored their parents with obedience.  How good it would be for the parents to be able to face that day with the knowledge that they have sent their children into the adult world encouraged not discouraged, with feelings of confidence not feelings of inferiority.

Above all, how good for them to know the Christ we taught them about is with them.

A WORD TO THE WIVES…AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES

Text:  Colossians 3:18-19

Text Introduction:   Paul is still concerned to show how the virtue-clad Christians Colossae are to conduct themselves in their human relationships, to show how men and women transformed by Jesus Christ are to conduct themselves in an unsympathetic culture. 

These verses  resemble what is called “a household code,” documents  popular in Roman and Greek literature in the first century.  These codes provided instructions for how people were expected to live in a harmonious family.  While what Paul writes is similar to these codes, there are some important differences since his version reflects the Christian world-view. 

*************

Sermon Introduction:   During the latter half of the nineteenth century, Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902) was one of the most powerful voices in America on behalf of women’s rights, especially woman’s suffrage. 

Born in 1815, she grew up in a nominal Christian home in western New York.  When she was fifteen, Elizabeth heard evangelist Charles Finney and became concerned about her spiritual condition.  When she told her father, a judge, about her concerns he was shocked.  For a family member to undergo a “camp meeting” conversion would be a disgrace.  So Elizabeth’s father and brother-in-law spirited her away to Niagara Falls.  There, they reasoned with her, sowed doubt about her feelings, and cajoled her out of her conviction.  Their deprogramming was so successful, she became an agnostic for the remainder of her life.[1]  In time, the skeptic would become an opponent. 

A graduate of Emma Willard’s Female Seminary in Troy, New York, Elizabeth Cady began promoting the causes of abolition and women’s rights during the 1830s.  She continued doing so to varying degrees throughout her life, even after her marriage to Henry Stanton in 1840.

She helped to organize the nation’s first women’s rights convention in 1848 at Seneca Falls, preparing its “Declaration of Sentiments.”   In the years before and after the convention, she spent much of her energy writing editorials, letters, and articles while she remained at home caring for her children.   Her children grown, she began to take a more public role in promoting the cause of women’s suffrage.

She lectured across the Midwest, edited a journal, and eventually helped edit History of Woman’s Suffrage.  She died in 1902.^[2]

You know about her work on behalf of women’s suffrage, but you may not know that during the 1880s, Stanton began a project that culminated in The Woman’s Bible, published in 1895.  In the volume, Stanton and her editorial team of women clergy, scholars, and pundits, presented what they believed to be the Bible’s position on women. 

In the Introduction, Stanton sums up their conclusions.  She says

The Bible teaches that woman brought sin and death into the world, that she precipitated the fall of the race, that she was arraigned before the judgment seat of Heaven, tried, condemned and sentenced.  Marriage for her was to be a condition of bondage, maternity a period of suffering and anguish, and in silence and subjection, she was to play the role of a dependent on man’s bounty for all her material wants, and for all the information she might desire on the vital questions of the hour, she was commanded to ask her husband at home.  Here is the Bible position of women briefly summed up.^[3]

I bought a copy of The Woman’s Bible in a used bookstore.  As I thumbed through it, I discovered the previous owner had used, as a bookmark, a little leaflet, much like a religious tract.  However, “a non-religious tract” might be a better description.   Entitled Why Women Need Freedom From Religion, it begins with the declaration:  “Organized religion always has been and remains the greatest enemy of women’s rights.”^[4]  M. L. Gaylor, the tract’s author, goes on to conclude, “… the Bible is the handbook for the subjugation of women.”^[5]  While echoing Stanton’s basic conclusions about the Bible, Gaylor goes beyond Stanton by denouncing Jesus Himself for his treatment of women.   

Stanton and Gaylor are part of a long line of writers who misunderstood and needlessly maligned Paul.  They have painted the biblical writer who did more to improve the status of women than any person apart from Christ as a woman-hating sexist.

But if I were to spend my time this morning trying to defend Paul, I would be irresponsible.  Instead, I would rather open up this passage in its larger context to help you see what Paul was saying to the Colossians and is saying to us.

When we discover what’s being said here, we will see that husbands and wives, dressed in the virtues of a Christ-transformed life, have the potential for a marriage marked by beauty and grace.

With that in mind, let’s look at

I

A WORD TO THE WIVES

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

I can think of no other word that can so quickly generate debate among Christian men and women than this one: Submit.  And, frankly, there’s not a little controversy generated among women themselves about its meaning.

Some women look at it and say, “If I submit to my husband in everything, I can’t be held responsible for any failures our family may have—financial, social, or spiritual.”  Other women, with a greater sense of self-worth and desire to participate in the decision-making processes of their family, say, “I love so much of what Paul says elsewhere, I’m so disappointed in what he says here.”  Some women, who hold the Scriptures in a lower regard, say, “Paul was simply parroting the view of his day—what he has to say is wrong for us.”  And, a few women, using a radical form of biblical interpretation, say, “Paul is perpetuating the violence of a male-dominated view of how women are to be treated.”

Would it surprise you it I told you I have heard or read every one of these opinions?  Would I surprise you if I told you I believed none of those views really represent an accurate understanding of what Paul is saying? 

But what if Paul had written something less objectionable to 21^st century tastes?  Suppose Paul had written something like this:

Wives,

you’re free, free, free;

you no longer have to live under your husband’s control.

For it is a wise saying,

worthy of all acceptance,

‘A woman needs a man,

like a fish needs a

chariot.’

Had Paul so written we might see notes like this in textbooks on Ancient Rome.

During the reign of Nero, a Jewish radical named Paul of Tarsus, a follower of a short-lived religion loosely associated with one Jesus of Nazareth, began to encourage women to break free from the domination of their husbands. As a result of Paul’s irresponsible teachings many poor women were beaten, divorced, or even executed by outraged husbands.  These reprisals had the full approval of the Roman government which believed it had a vested interest in the preservation of order in the family.

While I believe the results would have been catastrophic had Paul been too radical in what he said to wives (or slaves, for that matter), I don’t want to leave the impression that Paul was simply being a pragmatist when he said “wives submit to your husbands.”  To take that position would raise questions about the integrity of Paul and the lasting value of what he wrote.  At the same time, I don’t want you to miss the revolutionary element in what Paul says.

We need to understand what he wrote, why he wrote it, and how it translates into our very, very different age.

There are few verses which so demand an understanding of their historical and cultural background than these. 

In the New Testament world, particularly among the Greeks and Romans, the family was seen as the very foundation of a stable society.  To promote this, the Romans gave complete authority over wives, children, and slaves to the male head of the household, who was known as the paterfamilias, “the family’s father.”  His authority was so complete that in some cases he could extract his married daughter from her home should he choose.

With this authority came responsibility.  The paterfamilias was expected to keep his family in line.  Failure to do so reflected badly on him.

During the first century some Roman women began to seek greater freedoms than they had known before.  Males in the Roman aristocracy were shocked at this development.

At the same time, when a number of women converted to the cult of Isis or to Judaism in the first century, a scandal erupted.  In time, the government responded with severe reprisals.   As a consequence, new religions in the Roman world were under suspicion because they were believed to lead women astray.

In response, some of these religions published their own household codes to show they were not subversive.  Most of the codes simply repeated the accepted cultural standards.

Into this already tense situation came Christianity with its promise of equality for all regardless of age, race, or gender.  It’s been suggested that when Christian women heard the remarkable things Paul was saying about them, they were tempted to be indiscreet in expressing that new freedom—especially before non-Christian relatives and neighbors.

So, when Paul calls Christian wives to submission he may, in part, be trying to forestall criticism and suspicion.  

An observer hearing the bare bones of what Paul had written the Colossians might have reported that the “Christians” did not appear to be subversive.

At the same time it’s important that Paul does not define what it means to be submissive.   If Paul was unwilling to do so, preachers, teachers, in-laws, and neighbors probably ought to be less eager to define what a submissive wife will look like. 

Yet, given what Paul has said just a few verses before, I think we can see something of what Paul has in mind for the demeanor of the submissive wife.

COL 3:12 Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. [13] Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. [14] And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

The expression of submission will be marked by these virtues. 

With that in mind let’s consider…

II

A WORD TO HUSBANDS

Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.

If Paul’s one word to the wives is “submit,” his one word to husbands is “love.”  If we are looking for the remarkable and revolutionary in this passage, it is here.

Romantic love was seldom the motivation for marriage.   It wasn’t uncommon for men to develop deep affection for their wives but it came only after years of marriage.   Often it did not come at all.

But Paul’s word for “love” is not the word for passion or even for close friendship.  He speaks of agape, the love that always seeks the best for the other.  It is an unselfish, caring love.  As Paul reminded husbands in his Ephesian letter, it is the love modeled best by the sacrificial actions of Christ on behalf of his church.

Just how remarkable Paul’s word to the husbands is can be seen in the fact that most of the household codes simply say the husband is to govern his wife.  Paul doesn’t say this;  he says husbands are to love.  In fact, the closest he comes to using such language is in First Timothy 3:4-12 where he says deacons are to “manage” their families, but even there the management seems more associated with the deacon’s control over his children, not his control over his wife.  

Despite what some contemporary writers seem to imply, while Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands, he nowhere tells husbands to subdue their wives. 

A few years ago, Campus Crusade adopted a new statement on the family for their organization.  It included the following paragraph:

"In a marriage… the love between husband and wife will show itself in listening to each other's viewpoints, valuing each other's gifts, wisdom, and desires, honoring one another in public and in private, and always seeking to bring benefit, not harm, to

one another."[6]

When asked the reason for that statement, Crusade founder Bill Bright answered:  "We felt we needed ... to explain that men are not to be dictators."

In commanding husbands to love their wives Paul was taking them beyond the ordinary standards of that society.

Often husbands had little or no respect for their wives.  The common wisdom suggested that women were morally, intellectually, and socially inferior to men.

Jewish women were treated better than other women in most of the ancient cultures.  Still a common morning prayer offered by many Jewish men said "Thank God I was not born a woman."

V. F.  Calverton in Sex and Civilization writes about the Greek culture:  "In...a civilization that has become known for its intellectual genius and progressive tendency, the position of women was a tragic spectacle...  She was regarded as a form of property with rights no more exalted than that of a slave."

Charles Carlston points out that women were considered "basically uneducable and empty headed.”  On ancient writer, upon meeting a particularly brilliant woman, complimented her by saying she thought like a man.   Robert Briffault said, “The Greek woman was the most degraded and abject to be found in any civilized country of the western world."

In the Roman world men often postponed marriage until they were about thirty.  Often they married very young women, sometimes no older than fourteen or fifteen.  These wives were often the object of scorn simply because they had not had the opportunity to know as much as their husbands about the world at large.

In a culture in which wives may have had fewer educational opportunities it might have been easy for husbands to treat their wives as inferiors or to denigrate their lack of sophistication.

Now, Paul says husbands, clothed in the same virtues worn by their wives, are to love those wives with a love which, by its very nature, values and affirms them.

In Ephesians Paul focuses on the sacrificial element in agape;  here, he focuses on the demeanor husbands should have toward their wives ("do not be harsh with them").  

What does pikraino, the word translated “harsh” mean?  It is used four times in the New Testament.   The other three times it is used in the Book of Revelation, each time referring to something which was sour (e.g. a sour stomach).

Perhaps Paul was telling the Colossian husbands to stop being such sour pusses when they dealt with their wives.  Maybe he meant, "Stop treating your wives in a way that will give them ulcers." 

In any case, we need to remember that the opposite of sour is sweet.  Husbands should be sweet-natured in dealing with their wives. 

Whatever the meaning, it’s clear Paul’s word to the husbands was remarkable.

SOME FINAL OBSERVATIONS

Before I conclude, I want to offer some final observations.

1.     While studying this passage I’ve come to admire Paul for what he didn’t say as much as for what he did say.  Paul doesn’t try to micromanage anyone’s marriage.  Each couple has the opportunity to work out the details of these commands in their own way.

2.    I’m convinced this passage is not meant to be read in isolation from the rest of what the New Testament has to say about the equality of believers and the nature of marriage.  Paul does not define what it means to submit in this passage, however, in the Ephesians 5:33 he offers “respect” as a synonym for the word submit found in verse 22.  
          I’m not sure all Paul had in mind, but he certainly didn’t have in mind placing wives in the servile position some have accused him of doing.   In fact, as Craig Keener has written, “Paul’s view of women’s subordination even in this social situation could not be much weaker than it is.”

3.    In the final analysis, there are no simple formulas for a successful marriage.  The Bible doesn’t even offer the ABCs of a happy marriage.  What the Bible does ask is our trust.  We must be on guard against those among either the liberals or the conservatives who would misrepresent what the Bible does say about marriage.  If we let ourselves be talked out of trusting the Bible, our marriages will suffer.

4.    Whatever the finer points of these commands, I think they must contain a call to mutual respect.  In the first century some men believed women were, as a whole, morally dysfunctional;  today some women make the same blanket statement about men.  Paul allows neither position.  The Biblical attitude toward both men and women warns against degrading humor or prejudicial name-calling.

5.    Controversy will probably continue to swirl around these statements.  When we understand Paul’s goals we can better resolve the controversy.  John Stott helps us see that the command to "submit" and the command to "love" set marriage partners on the same pathway:  "What does it mean to 'submit'?  It is to give oneself up to somebody.  What does it mean to 'love'?  It is to give oneself up for somebody, as Christ 'gave himself up' for the church."

CONCLUSION

Few would doubt that marriages are in trouble today.  Divorce is rampant.  Abuse is so common that it is a national shame.

Paul’s key to building a strong marriage focused not on who was in charge but on whether or not both husband and wife really lived like they had been transformed by Jesus Christ.

---

[1] Elizabeth Griffith, In Her Own Right:  The Life of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 1984, pp. 20-21.

[2]  B. J. MacHaffie, “Stanton, Elizabeth Cady (1815-1902),” Dictionary of Christianity in America, ed. Daniel G. Reid, Downers Grove:  InterVarsity Press, 1990, p. 1129.

[3]  Elizabeth Cady Stanton, “Introduction,” The Woman’s Bible, Boston:  Northeastern University Press, 1993, p. 7.

[4]  E. L. Gaylor, Why Women Need Freedom From Religion, Madison:  Freedom From Religion Foundation, 1993, p.1.

[5]  Ibid, p. 3.

[6]  Campus Crusade had adopted a statement from the newly revised Baptist Faith and Message but felt the Southern Baptist document which asked wives to “graciously submit to their husbands” had not properly addressed the husband’s responsibilities.

American Christianity: A Story of Faithfulness

This essay is a brief reflection on the claims that America is a Christian nation.    There is much more to say than what is said here.  This picture is painted with very broad strokes.

The Pilgrims came to this land seeking the freedom to practice their religion, a religion which they hoped would be purified of all the corruption found in the English church.  In time, it became clear that it would be necessary to break the political ties with the homeland.  So, with the evident blessing of God, these good Christians, on July 4, 1776, declared themselves to be an independent nation.  After a long struggle they defeated the British and became a free, independent “Christian” nation.

Only the rising secularism of the 1950s and 1960s changed that.  As prayer and Bible reading were removed from the schools, the nation lost sight of its Christian roots.  The United States became a secular nation.  It had forgotten its great mission in the world, the mission to be a “city set on a hill” drawing the world to Christianity.

That’s an admittedly simplistic version of the story.  And, of course, you know that this version of our nation’s origins has been questioned in recent years.  According to the new “revisionist” view of our early history, the Founding Fathers (and Founding Mothers, like Betsy Ross) were deists.  They believed God probably existed and had probably created the world but he was not actively involved in the day to day activities of humans.  Their goal in creating a new nation was not simply freedom of religion but freedom from religion. 

Which version of our nation’s birth is correct?  In a sense, both and neither.  There are elements of truth in both versions. 

The Pilgrims did come to establish a society based on biblical principles, as they understood them;  they went on this “errand” into the wilderness, as one of their leaders called it, in order to prove the merits of living according to God’s revealed truth.  Of course, many of them hoped their exile from England would be temporary.  Their goal was to make the people back home envious, to convince them that they should adopt such a political system.  Then, they could go back home.

Eventually they realized they would not be going back home, that they were home.  Still, they tried to maintain faithfulness to Christian principles but it was hard. 

To begin with, they were not alone.  Others had arrived in the new world before them and others came after them.  Many of these people had no religious motivation.  In fact, a sizable number of the new settlers didn’t even bring their baptismal certificates because they just assumed there would be no churches in the new world.  We easily forget that by the time of the American Revolution only one in five colonists were part of any church.  Only a few years later, there were reports of people in the Carolinas who had never seen a Bible or heard of Jesus Christ. 

The Puritan experiment failed for another reason, one closer to home.  Their own children failed to embrace their faith.  Before someone could join one of the Puritan churches he or she had to make what we would call a profession of faith.  Only those who belonged to a church had voting rights--an effort to keep the right people in places of power.  As the early generations grew older, it became clear that many of their baptized children were remaining unregenerate.  Reluctantly, these were allowed to join the churches so they could help run the colony.  Then these unregenerate men and women began to have children of their own.  After considerable debate, the New England ministers decided it would be allowable to baptize these children even though their parents had never made their own professions of faith.  So, as the eighteenth century dawned, less than one-hundred years after the Pilgrims landed, much of the church in New England was made up of unregenerate men and women.

Does this mean the revisionist view is correct?  No.  Those who helped found our nation may not have been believers with a personal relationship with God through Christ, but they were influenced by the Christian world-view.  Thomas Jefferson was an avid reader of the New Testament.  He even published a version of the gospels which is occasionally republished under the title “The Jefferson Bible.”  This little book contained the ethical teachings of Jesus, with no mention of the miracles or Jesus’ claims to be the Son of God.  Jefferson believed Jesus was a great moral teacher but denied the fundamental notion that Jesus was God incarnate. 

Others among the founders held similar beliefs.  They were not orthodox in any sense of the word but they had a great respect for the moral teachings of Jesus.

Still, there were those who seem to have been genuine Christians.  Fiery orator Patrick Henry and John Carroll, signer of the Declaration, both appear to have been believers.  John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was a devout Christian.  Doubtless there were others among the many commanders and local leaders whose names are lost to all but the most meticulous historians.  These people made an impact on their families, their communities, and the nation. 

Of course, there were those among our nation’s founders who did not have a personal commitment to Christ, but they still valued the influence Christianity had on the culture.  Consider this.  If you could see the title search for the land on which our house is built here in Worthington you’d find it was once part of a land grant—some of you may live on land that was also part of that grant.  This grant, given in 1796, gave a large portion of what is now central Ohio to veterans of the Revolution and to the Moravian Brethren to help them in their efforts in “propagating the Gospel to the heathen.”  John Adams, who signed the original grant, and Thomas Jefferson, who also supported the idea, believed the nation would be best served if the Native American population were to adopt Christianity.

Despite this, many Americans at the beginning of the nineteenth century had abandoned Christianity.  French skepticism was the order of the day.  In the Kentucky wilderness, towns were founded where no one ever intended a church to be built. 

A few years into the nineteenth century, Adams signed a treaty with Libya which said, among other things, “…the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion....” 

Confusing, isn’t it?  Sometimes observers at the time seem to have been confused.  Alixis de Tocqueville (1805-1859), a young visitor from France, toured the U. S. in the 1830s and wrote about what he saw here.   Listen to what he had to say about the relation of our nation and Christianity:  “There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America….”

Of course, de Tocqueville said something else interesting about the nation which was of interest to so many in Europe who were waiting to see what would happen to the democratic experiment.  He said, “While the law permits the Americans to do what they please, religion prevents them from conceiving, and forbids them to commit, what is rash and unjust.”

So we have to ask, do you agree with Sydney Mead, the American church historian, who described America as “the nation with the soul of a church” or agree with the journalist who said American society has been “post-Christian” for at least three-hundred years? 

Those who believe the nation was founded on the fundamental teachings of Christianity and those who believe the nation was founded on secular principles, are responding to the mixed signals sent by our nation’s founders.

But such ambiguity didn’t cripple the church or keep it from doing its work. 

About the time Thomas Jefferson was sending the Corp of Discovery led by Lewis and Clark to explore the Louisiana Purchase, hundreds of pastors and other church leaders were beginning to receive the answer to prayers they had been offering for years.  They had been praying for a spiritual awakening and early in the new century the revival began.  Called “the Second Great Awakening,” this revival exploded in the west in the Camp Meetings Revivals in Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, and other states;   it was seen in the East on campuses and churches in major cities.  A newspaper tried to report the number of conversions per week but soon wasn’t able to keep up with all the reports coming in. 

This revival saw the birth of the American missions’ movement.  Adonirum Judson, the first American Baptist missionary, committed himself to missions during this revival.  This revival transformed churches, institutions, and saw the beginning of the growth which would eventually make the Baptist denomination the largest Protestant denomination in the nation.

Despite the impact of the Second Awakening, by the mid 1800s, American churches were spiritually stagnant.  Dr. J. Edwin Orr lists three causes for this situation.

--The demoralizing impact of the Mexican-American war in which mere teenagers from a local military academy were butchered as they attempted to defend Mexico City.

--The humiliating aftermath of so many sincere believers acting on William Miller’s predictions that Christ would return in 1843.  Although the majority of American Christians did not fall under Miller’s spell, most Bible-believing Christians were treated with scorn and ridicule.

--The moral impact of the institution of slavery on the culture.  The United States, in 1850, was the only Western nation which still endorsed and practiced slavery.  Britain, influenced by Evangelicals like William Wilberforce and John Newton, had abolished slavery nearly a half-century before.  That so many Christians tried to defend slavery only further eroded the spiritual life of the Christian community.

Then, in 1858, a group of laymen in New York City began a prayer meeting.  Only a handful of people attended the first day but before long thousands were involved.  Soon, churches across the nation were revived.  Converts were in the thousands and the impact of the revival continued even after the beginning of the Civil War.  Evangelists sometimes came to the front lines to preach and invite men to faith.  Many responded.  The impact of the so-called Prayer Meeting revival is difficult to overestimate.

Almost a century later the nation was caught up in the Great Depression.  The Depression provides the backdrop of another myth about American Christianity, the notion that the Depression resulted in a spiritual revival.  Frankly, there doesn’t seem to be any real evidence to support that claim.  In fact, many churches suffered during the Depression from lack of funds and loss of members.  During the Depression, 20 to 25% of churches in Texas had to close their doors for a while because of finances.

Only a few years later, following WWII, America did begin to experience another spiritual renewal.  This was when Billy Graham burst on the scene.

Consider this.  Sometimes people talk at great length about the decline of church attendance among American Christians.  This is usually based on the notion that the majority of Americans were faithful to the church until 1960 or so.  The truth is, church attendance in America has remained the same for nearly two and a half centuries.  Most studies suggest that somewhere around 40% of Americans attend church on any given Sunday.  Although some might feel that figure is too optimistic, no one suggests a figure less than 20%.  If the higher figure is accurate, church attendance has almost doubled during the nation’s history;   if the lower figure is accurate, church attendance has not been much impacted by the vagaries of our culture. 

What I believe is more important than statistics regarding church attendance is the declining impact of the individual Christian on the culture. 

While I hesitate to say ours has ever been a “Christian” nation, I do believe there was a time when individual believers made a greater difference on the world around them.  Part of American history illustrates that when the church is spiritually healthy, the members of that church make an impact on society beyond their numbers.

If the church is spiritually healthy, it doesn’t matter if Christians are in the minority.  As happened in first-century, a small band of Christians can turn the world upside down.

There has always been sin in American society.  We know that slavery existed for almost a quarter of our nation’s history and for many years Jim Crow laws kept former slaves from enjoying the benefits of citizenship.  But did you know that proportionally there were as many abortions each year in America as there have been each year since the Row v. Wade decision. 

But in every American generations there were churches which proclaimed a life-changing gospel and there were men and women whose lives were transformed by that gospel.  When the church has forgotten to preach that gospel or thought that gospel was no longer relevant or thought its best hope rested in seizing political control, society has suffered.