S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 4 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 3

he pastor of mylocal churchcaused no smallstir several years

ago when he removed theAmerican flag from its perchjust behind the pulpit.Indeed, he removed it fromthe sanctuary entirely. As youmight imagine, this provokedsome consternation among atleast a few members, who nodoubt wondered if this brashnew pastor, late of graduateschool and ministry inEngland, might have acquiredsome suspect loyalties duringhis years abroad. It was notanti-Americanism or any other lack of patriotismthat animated his decision, however. Reared in asmall town in the verdant rolling hills of theBluegrass State, he is as red-blooded an American asyou will find, possessed of a deep and abiding lovefor his country. He will with gratitude and pridesalute the flag when given occasion to do so. Sowhy remove it from the sanctuary? Most simply, hewanted to brook no confusion that the church offersits worship only to Christ—and not to America.More deeply, he saw the flag’s prominence in thepulpit, even its very presence in the sanctuary, aspotentially obscuring the distinction between the

Kingdom of God and thekingdom of man. He soughtto make sure that there was noconfusion over his primarycalling and our primary iden-tity. As a minister of Christ’schurch, he is charged withpreaching the Word of Godto our congregation, holdingour consciences captive toGod’s revelation as our ulti-mate authority and to God’sname as our ultimate loyalty,no matter our earthly citizen-ship or nationality. The merepresence of an American flagdoes not necessarily defy thisdistinction, of course. But it

may confuse or undermine it.This is not to say that the virtually ubiquitous

American flags in sanctuaries across the UnitedStates necessarily indicate some sort of latter-day“Babylonian captivity of the church”—in this case a“captivity” to jingoistic nationalism. No doubtsome, perhaps even many, congregations keep aflag in their church while also keeping a clearunderstanding of the distinction between thechurch and the world. Nevertheless, the perva-siveness of pulpit flags should give us pause.Especially because they serve as just one visiblemanifestation of a deeper problem: the frequent

T

“One Cheer”for Civil Religion?

by WILL IAM INBODEN

THE CHR IST IAN VOTER ’ S GU IDE

confusion of civil religion with biblicalChristianity.

What is civil religion? According to historian(and Christian) Wilfred McClay, civil religion is“that strain of American piety that bestows many ofthe elements of religious sentiment and faith uponthe political and social institutions of the UnitedStates.” More problematically, civil religion is themisidentification of the nation of the United Stateswith the covenant people of God. It is the casualassumption that America enjoys a special role inredemptive history. It is the confusion of the officeof the political leader with the office of the spiritu-al leader. It is the frequent presumption of divineblessings without submission to divine judgment.It is the sublimation of Christian distinctives to ageneric amalgam that conflates many faiths into acommon national identity. It is as old as Americaitself. And it is not biblical Christianity.

This is the first and by far most vital distinction tokeep in mind. Though civil religion may at timesdraw on biblical resources, though it may on occa-sion employ Christian imagery, though it may appeal

24 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

to many professing Christians, it differs from biblicalChristianity in fundamental ways. Christianity holdsthat the people of God are all those who, irrespectiveof tribe or tongue, have repented of their sins, trust-ed wholly in Christ’s substitutionary death for theirforgiveness, been reconciled to God through hisredeeming grace, and joined in the life of the church.Civil religion instead often holds that God’s peopleare those who dwell in a particular nation-state andfaithfully uphold their civic duties. Christianityholds that man’s chief end is, in the words of theWestminster Confession, to “glorify God and enjoyhim forever.” Civil religion, at its worst, holds thatGod’s chief end is to preserve and bless the nation-state. Christianity is worship of the one true God.Civil religion, at its most pernicious, is idolatry.

Itmust quickly be said, however, that civil religionis not always this problematic, or even this objec-tionable. When the distinction between civil reli-gion and biblical Christianity is kept clear, the formercan at times serve as a helpful and even necessarysource of civic virtue. In other words, civil religion atits best functions as a sort of natural theology affirm-

We’ve all seen the “biblical scorecard” liter-ature that floats about during electionseasons, grading candidates based ontheir voting record. The criteria are usu-ally the same: pro-life, pro-family, pro-morality. Most of us would hopefully

agree that one is safe in concluding that these are indeed biblicalobjectives. The problem comes when a whole series of specificpolicies are deduced, as if they were logically required by com-mitment to those values. In a lot of these scorecards, for example,God has apparently declared himself in favor of a specific tax cut,a particular war, school prayer, and a Constitutional ban on flagburning. A lot of them get more specific even than that. Usually,by the way, they are not very specific about racial discrimination,environmental disaster, or piling up debt for future generations.

On one end are those who think that God doesn’t have anythingto say about politics. Can we imagine that the God who created theworld, upholds it every moment by his providence, has redeemed itat the cost of his own Son’s death, and will one day make it new, doesnot really care what we do to it or in it? On the other end are thosewho think that they can deduce God’s will on every congressionalvote: “If x, then y; if y, then z. Can’t you see that if you don’t adopt z,

you don’t really accept x?” But whenever the church thinks God hastold it more than he actually has, it has always reflected poorly onGod and his cause in the world. Many who take “biblical scorecard”folks’ word for it that Scripture clearly supports conservativeRepublican policies simply reject Scripture. To be sure, they probablyalready had, but now they feel more justified in doing so. They havemissed the point that Scripture was not given as a blueprint for a holygovernment with civil power, but to reveal Christ as the hope of his-tory and the world beyond the stop-gap measures of politics, hospi-tals, jails, and other means of restraining the damage that sin does.

The biblical scorecard approach has been effective on the leftas much as the political right. It is often not differences overwhether God is on their side in every jot and tittle of their ideolo-gy, but a matter of which ideology is so privileged.

Here are a few suggestions for thinking biblically at election time:

1. Clearly distinguish the role of the church as an institution fromthe role of Christians as citizens in the world. Especially in ademocracy, Christians have every reason to be involved,informed and engaged in the pressing questions of our day.However, the church itself is not an American institution, but acolony of Christ’s heavenly kingdom in this present age.

Have You Received Y

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 4 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 5

ing certain truths that God has revealed in creation.These might include that God is above governmentsand ordains their authority, that he has bestowed onman certain rights, freedoms, and responsibilities,that he is the source of all material goods and bless-ings, and that all people and nations are subject to hisjudgment, both here and in the hereafter. It is goodand right for governments and peoples to acknowl-edge a sovereign divine lawgiver, provider, and judge.Civil religion at its best affirms these truths. In doingso, it can help produce good citizens and even a goodsociety. But it cannot save sinners.

Civil Religion in History

Civil religion is nothing new. In some waysit is as old as both church and state. Whatthe eighteenth-century historian Edward

Gibbon famously observed about ancient Romemight well be true in some circles today: “The var-ious modes of worship which prevailed in theRoman world were all considered by the people asequally true; by the philosopher as equally false;and by the magistrate as equally useful.” His wry

observation, which could be said of many othernations and cultures besides ancient Rome, shouldcaution political leaders against manipulating reli-gious faith, and religious leaders against placingtheir faith in the service of the state. WinstonChurchill, for one, took a more humble and morehonest perspective. Asked if he considered himselfto be, like his devout Anglican colleague LordHalifax, a “pillar of the church,” Churchill repliedthat he was not, but rather was a “flying buttress.”While professing support for the presence of thechurch in his country, Churchill recognized that hewas neither a part of the church nor in control of it.

Civil religion is inseparable from history, partic-ularly because it often bases itself on a distinctiveview of the past. Rather than attempt a compre-hensive survey of civil religion throughoutAmerican history, this essay will focus on just twoperiods in our nation’s past, the founding and theearly Cold War years, to illustrate how civil reli-gion originated and to show how this view of thepast informs the present. Indeed, some of today’smost contested political debates often appeal to

Patriotism, for example, is terrific for the public square and aChristian ought not to have trouble expressing it along withnon-Christian neighbors. But it is completely out of place inChristianworship. Further, the church simply does not have theauthorization or usually the competence to address complexpolicy questions about which many of its own members mightwith good reason disagree. This relates to the next point.

2. Clearly distinguish divine command from questions of wisdomand prudence. When you think about it, God has not com-manded very many things. He makes few laws, but enforcesthem. Further, the churches of the Reformation insist thatScripture alone can command the conscience. We cannot berequired to believe or do anything that does not have scripturalwarrant. Of course, many brothers and sisters think that theyhave scriptural warrant for every policy position they take, butthey often confuse their own thinking with the Bible. There isnothing wrong with using one’s own mind! God has equippedus with reason and endowed us with a sense of justice, so thateven non-Christians can create a reasonably equitable govern-ment. Christians who agree on the big questions clearlyaddressed in Scripture may and do disagree over policy ques-

tions—in other words, how to implement or apply the civil useof the law. We have to allow each other room to disagree with-out judging them to be somehow unfaithful to Scripture.

3. Try not to read the Bible selectively. God is not a Republican.He’s not a Democrat either. We have to remember that anypolitical ideology is a reflection of questions raised by the secu-lar culture in a given time and place. The “biblical scorecard” isnot actually biblical. There is no official Word from God onwhether we should have a tax cut or what kind of cut it shouldbe. Evenwhenwe thinkwe’re on solid biblical ground, we oftenrealize that somewhere else in Scripture another biblical value isaffirmed as just as important, and we cannot sacrifice it for thisother value over here. We have to allow Scripture to give usbetter questions and a fuller interpretation of reality than wealready have by simply listening to the cultural left or right.

Michael Horton (Ph.D., Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, and the University ofCoventry) is professor of apologetics and theology at Westminster SeminaryCalifornia (Escondido, California).

Your Biblical Scorecard?

by MICHAEL HORTON

the question of just how religious—or irreligious—were America’s founders. How often, after all, doesone hear calls for the United States to return to its“biblical roots,” its “Christian heritage”? Such theo-logical irredentism is correct in at least one respect.Many of the early English settlers did come withthe goal of building a distinctively Christian com-munity. Many others did not, of course; they camefor political liberty or often just to make money.But even the first Massachusetts Puritans did not seethemselves as founding a new nation-state, and cer-tainly not a Christian nation-state. Rather, theyonly sought to establish a new Christian communi-ty, while still retaining their English citizenship.

Out of this context came one of the most famousyet least understood sermons in American history.John Winthrop, the hardy leader of one of the earliestgroups of Puritans, in 1630 preached a message to hiscompanions while they sailed onboard their ship, theArbella, to America. Winthrop described himself andhis people as “a company professing ourselves fellowmembers of Christ.” And while he believed that “theLord will be our God, and delight to dwell among usasHis own people, andwill command a blessing uponus in all ourways,”Winthrop also invoked divine judg-ment on himself and his fellow Christians should theybreak their covenant with God.

[W]e shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyesof all people are upon us, so that if we shalldeal falsely with our God in this work we haveundertaken, and so cause Him to withdrawHis present help from us, we shall be made astory and a by-word through the world.

The “city upon a hill,” self-consciously echoingChrist’s words in Matthew, referred not to a newnation-state but to a new church community. Itwould serve as a gospel model first to their fellowEnglishmen and then to the rest of the world.Note also that Winthrop warned his people that ifthey were unfaithful to God, he would remove hisblessing and cause their errand to fail. The wholeworld would still be watching the “city upon a hill,”but all the world would see would be the city col-lapsing miserably under wrathful divine judgment.Such were the promises and peril that attended thefirst Puritan settlements in Massachusetts. It wasnot civil religion, but a distinctive brand ofChristianity that animated these Puritans.

The many glories of colonial New Englandnotwithstanding, the Puritans’ original mission endedin abject failure. Not only did the English Churcheventually stop paying attention to the efforts oftheir brethren to establish a model Christian societyin the new world, but the American Puritans them-

26 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

selves over time lost much of their Christian devo-tion and doctrine, until Puritanism as a distinctivereligious movement had largely disappeared. Theirdescendants still had their new land, however, anddecided to make it a new nation. As the late PerryMiller famously described the Puritan legacy, “havingfailed to rivet the eyes of theworld upon their city ona hill, they were left alone with America.”

In other words, rather than being founded as adistinctively Christian nation-state, the birth of theUnited States came as almost an accidental by-prod-uct of a failed Christian community. This is not at allto say that Christianity was completely absent fromthe American founding itself. In the revolutionaryera, the Founding Fathers drew on three principalsources in conceiving the ideals and institutions ofthe United States: classical Greco-Roman thought,Enlightenment rationalism, and Christianity. Fromthis intellectual ferment came the founding principlesof the new nation, and not coincidentally, the birthof the American civil religion. In turn, it is not toomuch of a stretch to say that the AmericanRevolution would not have happened without thesupport offered by this new civil religion.

Consider the following examples. Most obvious-ly, Thomas Jefferson’s affirmation in the Declarationof Independence that “all men are created equal . . .[and] are endowed by their Creator with certainunalienable rights” reiterates the conviction that ourrights came ultimately from God, not government orman. Less well-known are the resolutions adopted bythe Continental Congress throughout theRevolutionary War, setting aside particular days for“Humiliation, Fasting, and Prayer.” One such resolu-tion, issued in 1777 and distributed throughout thechurches of the land, called on all Americans to “jointhe penitent confession of their manifold sins … andtheir humble and earnest supplication that it mayplease God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mer-cifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance.”Several themes emerge here: awareness of sin,dependence on God’s providence, the urge to stayfaithful, the belief that God had a special relationshipwith America, and even the explicit invocation ofChrist. And the first Congress seems to have prac-ticed what it preached. After convening in 1774, theContinental Congress immediately selected a chap-lain to open its sessions in prayer. The Rev. JacobDuche’, an Anglican priest from Philadelphia, servedas the first Congressional chaplain from 1774 until1777. His term “ended” not because he retired butbecause he defected to the British—the BenedictArnold of civil religion, perhaps. Finally, after declar-ing independence in 1776, Congress solicited ideasfor a national seal. Both Benjamin Franklin andJefferson suggested a depiction of God drowning

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 4 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 7

Pharaoh’s army in theRedSea and rescuing the nationof Israel from slavery in Egypt—showing what theyregarded as the common theme of God’s granting lib-erty tohis chosenpeople,whether theOldTestamentIsraelites or the new world Americans.

These examples are just a few of many that wellillustrate the emerging civil religion. Here it is cru-cial to remember that the American foundersemployed a natural theology rather than a revealedtheology to establish the intellectual foundationsof their new land. Just look again at the languageof the Declaration of Independence: “we holdthese truths to be self-evident.” In short, the Godthat most of the founders believed in epitomizedreason, virtue, order, and liberty—though not nec-essarily perfect holiness, wrath, love, and grace. AsMark Noll has observed, most of the founders(many of whom were not orthodox Christians)found in God what they most admired in humani-ty. It might also be said that they found in religionwhat they most admired in their nation.

Civil Religion in the Modern Era

On February 1, 1953, at the NationalPresbyterian Church in Washington D.C.,the Rev. Edward Elson baptized the newest

member of his congregation. Elson also made his-tory, of a sort. The person baptized was Dwight D.Eisenhower, just inaugurated as president of theUnited States—and the only president to be bap-tized while in office. Besides its spiritual signifi-cance for Eisenhower’s faith, his baptism also repre-sented a new era of public religiosity in Americanlife. From Eisenhower’s unprecedented offering ofhis own prayer before his inaugural address, to hisdecision to haveCabinetmeetings openwith prayer,to the creation of the National Prayer Breakfast, toadopting “In God We Trust” as the United States’motto and printing it on the nation’s paper currency,to adding “one nation, under God” to the pledge ofallegiance, the Eisenhower administration oversawthe reinvigoration, even the reestablishment, ofAmerican civil religion.

It was such a creed that in part promptedEisenhower’s most infamous, yet revealing, commenton religion. On December 22, 1952, Eisenhower,then president-elect, met in New York with his oldcounterpart and friend from World War II days,Marshal Grigori Zhukov of the Soviet army.Describing their discussion at a press conferenceafterwards, Eisenhower delivered fodder for critics ofcivil religion—and of his own intellect—for genera-tions since. After quoting the Declaration ofIndependence’s recognition that “all men are createdequal” and “are endowed by their Creator with certainunalienable rights,” Eisenhower offered this interpre-

tation: “In other words, our form of government hasno sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religiousfaith, and I don’t care what it is. With us of course itis the Judeo-Christian concept but it must be a reli-gion that all men are created equal. So what was theuse of me talking to Zhukov about that? Religion, hehad been taught, was the opiate of the people.”

This quote by Eisenhower illustrates the worstand the best of civil religion. At its worst, doctrineand theological truth-claims are rendered largelyirrelevant. Of particular concern to Christians, theredeeming work of Christ is wholly disregarded,replaced by moralism and a crude, nonredemptivenatural theology. At its best, it unites a societyaround a few basic truths, including the distinctionbetween creature andCreator, the supremacy ofGodover government, and the inherent dignity andequality of all human beings. If Irving Kristol couldmuster “two cheers for capitalism,” in the same spiritwe might say that civil religion merits just one cheer.

A contemporary observer in Eisenhower’s day, theJewish social scientist Will Herberg considered thenature and paradox of the altogether new faith that hesaw emerging in America. Though written in 1955,his description of civil religion in his classic Protestant,Catholic, Jew: An Essay in American Religious Sociology, isno less applicable today. Herberg observed that theAmerican people had become more religious than atany time in the nation’s history. Yet this new level ofreligiosity was accompanied by a “new secularism,”not defined by unbelief but by the diminished author-ity of religion over people’s lives. “The religion whichactually prevails among Americans today has lostmuch of its authentic Christian (or Jewish) content.Even when [Americans] are thinking, feeling, or act-ing religiously, their thinking, feeling, and acting donot bear an unequivocal relation to the faiths theyprofess.” Instead, Herberg argued that whileAmericans at one level affirmed the theological dis-tinctives of their respective faiths, these distinctivesgave way to a more transcendent new faith thattrumped all else: “The American Way of Life.”

Herberg’s “American Way of Life” was moralistic,idealistic yet pragmatic, fiercely democratic, and fer-vently anticommunist. This new faith genuinely val-ued traditional religion and sincerely believed inGod. However, in a profound teleological shift, nolonger was Jesus Christ (for Christians) or even God(for Christians and Jews) the final object of faith, butrather “religion” and “faith” were taken to be ends inthemselves, as objects of devotion, as indispensablefor society’s foundations. No doubt this civil-reli-gious “faith” played an indispensable role in bolster-ing American resolve against the unmitigated evil ofSoviet communism during the Cold War. It alsohelped shape national cohesion and build social cap-

ital for a well-ordered society. Unfortunately it alsofurther blurred the distinction between creation andredemption, between the world and the church,between the city of man and the City of God. Whatmay have been good for the country was at the sametime bad for the church. And in the long term, whatis bad for the church is also bad for the country.

Civil Religion in the Balance

Surveying our present situation, WilfredMcClay describes civil religion’s “inherentlyproblematic relationship to the Christian

faith or any other serious religious tradition. Atbest, it provides a secular grounding for that faith,one that makes political institutions more respon-sive to calls for self-examination and repentance, aswell as exertion and sacrifice for the commongood. At worst, it can provide divine warrant tounscrupulous acts, cheapen religious language, turnclergy into robed flunkies of the state and the cul-ture, and bring the simulacrum of religious awe intoplaces where it doesn’t belong.”

The civil religion of the Eisenhower era is essen-tially the version still with us today. Blandly patri-otic, optimistic, therapeutic, more spiritual thanconfessional, it reinforces much of the pervasive“religiosity” in America that is as resilient as it isamorphous. As Herberg observed, “religion” and

28 W W W. M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N . O R G

“faith” are often seen as ends in themselves, anddoctrine is regarded as unnecessary and divisiverather than as essential to determining truth.Moreover, this civil religion too often reassures usof the favor we enjoy from God while eschewingany call to repentance from our sin. Hence IrvingKristol’s acerbic insight that “when Americans sin,we quickly forgive ourselves.”

Do these confusions mean that AmericanChristians shouldn’t be patriotic? Not in the least.Indeed, an honest assessment of the considerableabundance of common grace goods that the UnitedStates enjoys might appropriately inspire a robustlove of our country. Not for nothing did Lincoln,recognizing the uniqueness of the American exper-iment, famously describe Americans as an “almostchosen people.” Yet any biblical Christian will rec-ognize that there is, quite literally, a world of differ-ence between being “almost chosen” and being“chosen.” The former may make good citizens onearth; only the latter will be citizens of heaven.

It is right for all Americans—Christian and non-Christian—to recognize the supremacy of Godover the governing institutions that he ordains, thedivine source of our rights and freedoms, and thatall of us will be held to account for our actions. Inthis sense, being a “good American” may sometimesnot conflict with being a “good Christian.” But

Every four years, I get nervous as election day approach-es. Inevitably, well-meaning ministers publiclyannounce their endorsement of a presidential candi-date and call on all “professing Christians” to elect (orre-elect) the nominee. Church leaders on both rightand left confidently answer the same question (“What

Would Jesus Do?”) with different answers (“re-elect Bush!”, “voteKerry!”). Yet both camps are guilty of the same mistake — confu-sion over the “two cities,” collapsing of the “two kingdoms,” and aconflating of the eternal (gospel) with the temporal (state).

While competing political interests have invoked divine bless-ing on their policy agendas for millennia (Lincoln noted thisirony in his second inaugural address), I will address the unshake-able belief of many American evangelicals that God is aRepublican and that Jesus would vote for GOP candidates. Thismyth prompts a correlative question: “can a Christian be aDemocrat?” (a question which strikes many of us as odd as, say,

“can a Christian be a Yankee’s fan?”) As a Reformed, confession-al evangelical and a Democrat I often get this question.

A few initial observations about the question’s presuppositions:first, it’s a sad irony that today’s politically conservative evangeli-cals commit similar errors (pitching a conservative politicalgospel) as did the mainline churches (promoting a liberal socialgospel) in the 1960s. Both confused the distinct roles of the twocities, and the believer’s dual citizenship in both. Second, equat-ing a political party’s platform with God’s purposes will inevitablycheapen the gospel, inviting an inexorable slide toward civil reli-gion and, ultimately, cultural Christianity. Third, purporting toherald Trinitarian policy preferences is a tad presumptuous. Dopolitically conservative evangelicals really believe they knowwhat position Jesus would take on policy issues like welfarereform, global warming or Third World debt relief?

Now to the question: while Scripture calls us to be exemplary cit-izens within society, it neither mandates nor precludes membership

Can a Christian B

S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 4 | M O D E R N R E F O R M AT I O N 2 9

sometimes the two are wholly incommensurate.What must be guarded against is making our penul-timate loyalty—to country—into our ultimate loy-alty. Love of God and loyalty to his kingdom mustalways be ultimate; anything else is idolatry.

If Gibbon identified the cynicism of the RomanEmpire toward revealed religion, it fell to Augustineto identify the fragility of the Roman Empire in wor-shiping itself. As his biographer Peter Brown notes,“committed to the fragile world [the Romans] hadcreated, they were forced to idealize it; they had todeny any evil in its past, and the certainty of deathin its future. Even the most ancient of their histori-ans, Sallust, had lied in praising the ancient days ofRome. This was inevitable, ‘for,’ as Augustine said,poignantly, ‘he had no other city to praise.’” �

William Inboden (Ph.D, Yale University) has worked in thelegislative and executive branches of the federal government.He is currently finishing a book on religion and American for-eign policy.

In this article, Dr. Inboden has cited WilfredMcClay, “The Soul of a Nation,” The Public Interest,Spring 2002; and Edward Gibbon, The Decline andFall of the Roman Empire, 3 vols. (New York: TheModern Library, 1995), vol. 1, p. 22. The quotationfrom John Winthrop is taken from “A Model of

in, or support for, either political party. After all, America is not atheocracy but a constitutional republic, and neither political party“speaks for God.” The public policies they promote may be sound,even just, but that doesn’t make them “Christian.” Because neitherparty has a corner on the truth, it’s as unwise for Republicans to seekGod’s stamp of approval for their pet issues (e.g., abortion, gay mar-riage, school prayer) as it is for Democrats to do so for theirs (e.g.,civil rights, social welfare, economic justice).

That is not to say our faith doesn’t inform our public policyprescriptions. It can and should. But it is not advisable to con-struct a “political Apostle’s Creed” of core issues. Before labelinga policy as “Christian,” evangelicals must remember that manypolitical debates are not ultimately about ends, but rather the bestmeans to achieve those shared ends. Reasonable Christians willhonestly disagree over which policies are the most prudent andsensible. Even if it were possible to identify an issue in which the-oretically all Christians should agree, Scripture will rarely, if ever,

answer the question as to which policy prescription temporalauthorities should pursue.

Thus, Christians can be Democrats for the same reason they canbe Republicans. Christ commanded us to “render under Caesar,”which includes our thoughtful participation in the public square.Both political parties promote policies which Christians can affirm,and it’s our civic and biblical duty to work out our political involve-mentwith fear and trembling. ThoughLincoln’s theologywas hard-ly orthodox, it was biblical on this point: let us all prayfully consid-er whether our positions are on God’s side, rather than the reverse.

Neil MacBride (J.D., University of Virginia School of Law), currently serves asMinority Staff Director and Chief Counsel to the Senate Judiciary CommitteeCrime Subcommittee. He previously served as an Assistant United StatesAttorney and campaign aide to several presidential and congressional campaigns.

Be a Yankee’s Fan?

by NE IL H . MACBR IDE

Christian Charity,” in Mark Noll and Roger Lundin,eds., Voices from the Heart: Four Centuries of American Piety(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), pp. 4–6. Dr.Inboden’s quotation from Perry Miller is from“Errand into the Wilderness,” in Jon Butler andHarry Stout, eds., Religion in American History (NewYork: Oxford University Press), p. 41. His citationof the 1977 Continental Congress resolution isquoted in James Hutson, Religion and the Founding ofthe American Republic (Washington DC: Library ofCongress, 1998), p. 54. The observation fromMark Noll is taken from The History of Christianity inthe United States and Canada (Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans, 1992), p. 136. The anecdote of EdwardElson’s baptism of President Eisenhower is takenfrom Wide Was His Parish (Wheaton, IL: TyndaleHouse, 1986), pp. 115–118. Eisenhower’s com-ment on religion is found in Patrick Henry, “‘And IDon’t Care What It Is’: The Tradition-History of aCivil Religion Proof-Text,” Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Religion, vol. XLIX, no. 1, pp. 35–49.The quotations from Will Herberg are fromHerberg’s Protestant, Catholic, Jew: An Essay in AmericanReligious Sociology (New York: Doubleday andCompany, 1955), pp. 3, 77–84. Finally, the obser-vations of Augustine were taken from Peter Brown’sAugustine of Hippo: A Biography (Berkeley, CA:University of California Press, 2000), p. 307.