Who's afraid of a Judeo-Christian America?

We all share a Judeo-Christian heritage, right? Shouldn't we all, then, be interested in seeing our government upholding religious values in our country?

Clifford Goldstein is the editor of Shabbat Shalom, a journal of Jewish-Christian ethics and thought published by the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

If anyone should favor Judeo-Christian values, it's me—a Jewish Christian! Yet when the New Right talks about enforcing the "Judeo-Christian ethic," I worry. What about the millions of Americans who happen to be neither Jewish nor Christian? What about the Jews and Christians (not to mention Jewish Christians) whose concept of what comprises the Judeo-Christian ethic differs from those seeking to enforce it upon the nation?

I worry because the hundreds of Christian denominations in America disagree over everything imaginable. Christians don't agree on how Jesus came, when He came, why He came, what He did when He was here, where He went when He left, what He is doing now, and what He will do next. Christians argue over whether Jesus was God or a man, and over the nature of His being a God-man. They disagree over texts in Daniel, Revelation, James, John, Deuteronomy, Malachi, and every other book of the Bible. They argue over the age of the earth, the day of Christ's resurrection, the state of the dead, the relationship between law and grace, and which day is the Sabbath, or even whether the Sabbath should be kept.

And it's not just Protestants versus Catholics. Baptists argue with Methodists, Episcopalians with Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses with Lutherans, and Pentecostals with Adventists. Also, Catholics argue with Catholics, Baptists with Baptists, charismatics with charismatics—and they all bicker with the Jews, who bicker among themselves! So in this milieu, whose definition of Judeo-Christian will become law? And what will happen to those who disagree?

In January 1986, I attended a Christian World Affairs Conference in Washington, D.C., sponsored by Faith- America. Hundreds of ministers, Christian educators, church leaders, and religious booksellers were there—Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Baptists, born-again Catholics, charismatic Methodists—a wide spectrum of American Christianity. The speakers included presidential aspirant Jack Kemp, Secretary of Education William Bennett, Secretary of the Army John Marsh, and others.

The conference gave participants an overview, from a conservative perspective, of the world's economic, political, and military situation. It dealt with the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars), Sandinistas, the deficit, tax reform, the Soviet Union, terrorism, Ronald Reagan, oil, immigration policy, AIDS, education, abortion, and other issues. I shared the concerns about immorality, pornography, abortion, Communist aggression, and economics—and I appreciated these conservative Christian patriots' worries about the dangers America faces.

Yet I worried about the meeting itself! In the talks I attended, a tone pervaded—an undercurrent of militancy, jingoism, and aggressiveness. Lack of sensitivity, if not hostility, to the concept of separation of church and state prevailed, as well as animosity toward the pluralism of American democracy. I worried about the amens that I heard from the audience when former congressman John Conlan, the host of the meetings, said that the Constitution of the United States doesn't even mention "separation of church and state." (At that point a man sitting next to me whispered, "The words 'separation of church and state' appear in the Russian constitution.")

What is a Judeo-Christian?

One speaker, William Dannemeyer (R-Calif.), talked about the conflict between Christians and secular humanists. He used the word that had been bandied about at the meetings: Judeo-Christian. I wondered exactly what he and the others meant by it, so I went to the microphone and asked.

"Congressman," I said, "I share your concerns for America. But when you say Judeo-Christian, don't you really mean Christian? And when you say Christian, don't you really mean Protestant? And when you say Protestant, don't you really mean Fundamentalist?" "I'll tell you what I mean by it," he replied. "The Ten Commandments." He mentioned "the first three," which he said deal with man's relationship to God, and "the last seven," which deal with man's relationship to others.

I know the Ten Commandments. The first four—"Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. . . . Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. . . . Remember the sabbath"—deal with man's relationship to God. The congressman was missing one.

Which Commandments?

Then it hit me: Dannemeyer was giving the Catholic version! Catechisms in Catholic secondary schools (and some Lutheran catechisms) drop the second commandment, which forbids idol worship, and divide the tenth commandment into two. When I explained the discrepancy, Dannemeyer didn't seem to realize the difference. He said he knew only what he had been taught since childhood.

My point exactly! These well-meaning people want America to follow the Ten Commandments. But whose version? They want God back in school. But whose God? And what about those Americans who have other gods before Jehovah, or whose gods are wood and stone? Some people keep their Sabbath on Saturday; others on Sunday. Some don't keep it at all. Some believe that the Ten Commandments were abolished at the cross. Christians can't even agree on something as fundamental as the Ten Commandments, yet they want to make them the law of the land! If the New Right brings Judeo-Christian morality back to America, whose interpretation will be enforced? And what will happen to dissenters from the officially approved version of the Judeo-Christian ethic when it is translated into legislation modeled upon the Ten Commandments?

Violent religion

Throughout the past 2,000 years, millions have suffered abuse, jail, torture, even death, because their religious convictions differed from an officially sanctioned version of Christianity. But because the First Amendment forbids Congress to pass any law "respecting an establishment of religion," this nation has been spared much of the violence and turmoil that has rocked most of the rest of the world. Many assert that with the safeguards we have in this country, religious persecution could never occur. But now, charging that the Establishment Clause is hostile to religion, the New Right seeks to eliminate the best assurance we have that religious persecution will not spill across our "amber waves of grain."

In 1784 James Madison wrote a "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" in opposition to a bill that would have levied a general tax for the support of Virginia's teachers of religion. His words bear repeating today: "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?"

How will Protestant parents feel when Susie comes home from public school fingering rosary beads? Or how will Catholics feel when little Johnny talks about Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni? Or how will Catholics and Mormons feel when Protestant text books in public schools declare rosary beads and Joseph Smith of the devil? Establish a civil religion in America—any kind, under any name—and those who disagree with its tenets will be ostracized, alienated, and persecuted.

After questioning Mr. Dannemeyer, I sensed a little of what could come to those who don't conform to the New Right's Judeo-Christian America. Now the audience realized that I was not one of them. I was a discordant note in their battle hymn for a new republic. It was as if I were a self-confessed child molester or the perfidious Norm Lear himself.

Later I talked with a Christian friend whom I hadn't seen in years. She was excited about the New Right's plans for America. I explained my concerns for religious freedom. I warned about the danger should one group's definition of Judeo-Christian morality become law, and the difficulties it could cause for the Christians who don't agree.

"No problem, Cliff," she said, hoping to assuage my fears. "First, we Christians will take control of the government— and then we can fight it out among ourselves."

I worry.


Ministry reserves the right to approve, disapprove, and delete comments at our discretion and will not be able to respond to inquiries about these comments. Please ensure that your words are respectful, courteous, and relevant.

comments powered by Disqus
Clifford Goldstein is the editor of Shabbat Shalom, a journal of Jewish-Christian ethics and thought published by the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

July 1986

Download PDF
Ministry Cover

More Articles In This Issue

Discovering the gospel in the Old Testament codes

Many Christians feel a tension between the Old and New Testaments. Should Christians consider the Old Testament as authoritative?

Can a pastor have friends?

Pastors need friends as much as anyone else, but isn't it dangerous to find them among the congregation? The answer depends partly on the height of your pedastal.

Anabaptists: the Reformers' reformers

Why did those who were essentially fellow believers with the Anabaptists want to end their movement-and their lives? Just what did the Anabaptists believe?

Married to the youth pastor?7

The rapport with kids that before their marriage attracted the author to her husband-to-be afterward posed problems. Just how do you handle this stress-and the other stresses-of being the wife of a youth pastor?

Exercise and the mind

Regular exercise is associated with decreased anxiety and depression, a reduction in Type A behavior, improved self-esteem, and an improvement in mood with an increase of vigor and a decrease of fatigue.

View All Issue Contents

Digital delivery

If you're a print subscriber, we'll complement your print copy of Ministry with an electronic version.

Sign up
Advertisement - SermonView - Medium Rect (300x250)

Recent issues

See All
Advertisement - SermonView - WideSkyscraper (160x600)