"Getting back to our 'Christian Roots'"

As a North American (and I hear this in Britain as well), I have frequently heard churches calling for their congregations, and their nations to come back to their 'Christian Roots'. As an historian, I cringe inside. This is why: I believe there is a very strong case to be made for the fact that none of these countries (Canada, America or Britain) was founded on Christian principles.

Canada
To start with my own home. Canada, even if you only consider its inception as a "country" from the point at which it was colonized by European settlers, was never founded on any principles of Christianity. It was founded on the principles of "taking as much cod from the ocean, furs from the animals, trees from the forests, and minerals from the ground" as possible (economic self-interest). It was founded on the principle of "we're trying to make peace after the 30 years' war, and France would rather have a couple of small islands than take the colonies of northern North America, so they will become British colonies". It was founded on the principle of "we're lots of little, very spread out British colonies, with no hope of economic survival without a transportation hub, so could we please just get along long enough to build a railroad almost 10,000 km long?" Canada has been settled by people from many faiths, including most of the world's Christian denominations. But that does not make Canada a Christian country. Our legal framework was taken almost primarily from the British framework, but that doesn't make it a Christian legal framework. And our parliamentary democracy, whilst not being specifically muslim, hindi, sikh or taoist (to name just a few of the alternatives) is not Christian. It is, and has always been secular.

America
America was colonised by many groups over the years - including anabaptists fleeing religious persecution from within Europe. However, by the time the War of Independence came along the issues were, once again, much more economic and political than religious. Americans were frustrated by the control the British parliament exercised over the taxation of goods sent to America. They were also frustrated by the lack of control they were able to exercise over their own political decisions. Several generations of "pull-themselves-up-by-their-bootstraps" immigrants had worked exceedingly hard to turn what was previous Native American land into a clean, wide-open spaces version of the Europe they had left behind. These new Americans lived to survive at first, but eventually dreamed dreams of independence and financial success. Being under the hand of a powerful overlord did nothing for their ability to succeed. The American Declaration of Independence begins with the following preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I think it is valuable to note that this language is very similar to that used during the French Revolution, just a few years previously. This is Enlightenment Era Revolution speak, and is not firmly based on that of any religion.

Britain
Even if we go back to the forefather of both of these not-so-Christian countries, I would argue that while Britain has had an official state church for more than a thousand years, its founding (whether you choose the Norman conquests, the Danish conquests, the Saxon conquests or any of the other waves of conquest the British Isles were subject to over its history), I would argue, was always one of economics and politics rather than religion. Britain was an island. At a time (anytime before the 20th century, really) where international success relied heavily on easy shipping routes and good maritime skills, Britain was an important point to control. And although the church tried at times during the Middle Ages to bring its power to bear over the actions of British Kings, it was never really successful, and under King Henry VIII, the power of the church over political affairs was effectively crushed by taking away church lands (and therefore revenues), as well as removing the Church of England from the power of the Pope (who the church had previously been able to run to in matters of political disagreement with the King).

So if we really wanted to get back to our North American and British roots, we would get back to making decisions based on economic self-interest and political expediancy. As it stands, I would much rather move forward to make disciples than swoon about in grief over the loss of a nation or culture that never truly existed.

The Tapestry

I've been musing lately on the concept of denominations, and movements, etc., especially in relation to the whole 'emergent' conversation. I've spent the last two months being encouraged and built-up and strengthened by the discussion on Resonate as well as the Taize service at our local anglo-catholic parish church (Anglo-Catholic = bells-and-smells Anglican).

It makes me realize that there is still value in places I do not necessarily expect to find value in. And it makes me realize that we, as the Body of Christ, are being woven by Christ into a beautiful tapestry, proclaiming His love to the world around us. That tapestry will only tell the story of Christ's love effectively, however, if it is woven of many multi-coloured threads. Like the beautiful tapestries in the art gallery, some of these colours will be used and reused in various places - in fact, if you look carefully, they will be the dominant colour - but will be so normal and ordinary that we won't notice them. Without these threads, the whole tapestry would fall apart, but they are nothing special in and of themselves. Then there are other threads which stand out from the rest - crimson reds, vibrant blues, even a bit of gold thread here and there. These colours aren't as common - they don't cover great huge sections of the tapestry, for the dyes they are made from are too costly to use very much of them - but they add something to the tapestry, to the image of Christ's love, that is not otherwise there.

I want to see Christ's love displayed for all the world to see, but first, I suspect, we will have to come to see the value in one another's 'colours' ourselves.

Here's an example. I read recently a list of the top ten Christian worship songs (?!?). The list contained primarily songs English in origin (as opposed to American, or Australian), that came almost exclusively from musicians from one or two major charismatic churches. After enjoying the Taize service this week, I spent half an hour at the piano at the back of the church. I tried playing some of these 'top ten' choruses, but none of them seemed to 'fit' the place. This is a place that is teeming with symbolism - a place where the sermons are in the stained glass windows, the statues, the icons, the colours of the altar cloths and robs and the liturgy, as much or more than the homily itself. When I began to focus on this, the music started flowing out of my fingers - a plainsong chant/three-chord-chorus in one. When I sang it to an older (65-year-old) parishioner who isn't overly keen on music she didn't sing when she was in school, she immediately understood the symbolism, and felt comfortable with the words and music. What is more, the words were a challenge to my heart - a challenge that so often is lost when we sing songs that are too comfortable and too familiar too many times.

What would happen if we were able to experience the taste of Christ's love that so many other denominations and cultures have to offer us? What would that do to our concept of what it means to be a Christ-one?

I worry that whatever the denominational heading, if we regard ourselves as a given "brand" of Christian, without regard for the teaching or symbolism or focus or experience of our fellow Christians around the world, what we will present to the world will not be the lusciously rich-coloured tapestry described above, but rather a fuzzy water-colour painting done by a three-year-old -- have you seen these recently? I've got one on my shelf, and although made with love, they contain shapeless blobs of unrecognizable colours ... that essentially resemble sludge-brown. Although I am pleased with the attempts of my three-year-old, my seven-year-old will now produce recognizable images, and by the time the girls are fully grown, if properly trained, they will be capable of producing real art.