We’ve seen that Christianity is vital to the type of society that everyone seems to want—individual rights, protections in liberty, etc… This vital need is both in acknowledging how Christianity brought these concepts to the West (and then others through “the West”) and how Christianity as guiding structure provided US culture the means for its success (that others strive to move here for).

So, we NEED Christianity…but WE ALSO HAVE SEEN that the “Christendom” concept (“Christian Nationalism”) is ruinous to the faith and also how the faith is expressed, especially in a civic structure. So, what did our first colonists believe?

Were the first colonists trying to establish a “Christendom,” a “Christian nation”…a nation only for Christians where there would be religious faith requirements before holding office or opening a business, as was true in the nations from which these colonists came? Or, were they somehow trying to escape religion altogether, eager to create a nation on some broad concept of “Natural Law” in which formal religions would be either absent, or at worst, only something for the individual, something kept quiet and private? To find these answers, we must examine the first English-speaking colonies to see what lessons they can provide.

We will read The Mayflower Compact and also excerpts from the Sermon of John Winthrop. Both documents are crucial to understanding the colonies of Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay. We will also examine Jamestown and St. Mary's. For St. Mary's we will read excerpts from their revolutionary Maryland Toleration Act of 1649.

In our first Bonus Episode, Dr. Sandy Shugart joins me for an indepth examination of the Enlightenment Project and my contention that the promises of such were really a myth, one that has left society disillusioned and bordering on cynicism due to discovery that they were misled. The humans are not improving, not really changing at all from what our species has been all along, certainly not changing when the only agency of change is human will. But why? Dr. Shugart, one of my most important mentors, currently serving as a Senior Fellow at The Aspen Institute and also Quo Vadis Institute (based in Salzburg, Austria), stopped by to help me understand this tension within our modern secular society.

In the early episodes, particularly 1 and 3, I spoke about the Enlightenment and its impact on how we view the world. Starting at some point in the 1600s and building steam in the 1700s, a new way of thinking and considering life, both individually and corporately in civic structures, was emerging. With the American and French Revolutions, the Enlightenment took full form and was soon being elevated to a high plane, perhaps a mystical plane, and in that growing sense of a new way of thinking, the sense of "promises" from this Enlightenment emerged.

And yet, by the late 20th century, it has been manifestly apparent that those promises never arrived, particularly the myth that the human as species could and would improve. Some "Enlightenment Prophets" seemed to believe that a utopia would be soon achieved, but the horrendous 20th century, a century often held up as the triumph of the Enlightenment, was evidence enough to the failure of this concept.

So, as the 21st century has emerged, disillusionment has set in, particularly among the young (say, 40-under crowd). Since faith or even simply “the transcendent” has been marginalized, many have moved into cynicism, depression, and a general sense that life is not worth living. Of course this is part of my raison d'être for the podcast, and we needed to take a deeper dive in order to see the complexities of this topic.

Episode 7 is a continuation from the last episode in which we were examining the deep impact of the Christian faith on Western society. We started at the broad level of trends and concepts that were noted about the Christians, things that stood out to contemporary non-Christians, so much so, they wrote about these odd behaviors.

We noted in episode 6 the Christian contribution saying 'the human had worth' is the central, most vital concept that this faith added to the world. But how? In this episode, we look at the myriad of new ideas that, while today common or assumed, were introduced with the coming of this new faith.

Why this matters is that as we are seeking safe harbor, we suddenly become aware that we not only shouldn't get rid or exclude Christianity, but that we NEED it. The very things the Progressive is fighting for (voting rights, rights of individuals to for personal expression, economic equity rights, rights for freedom to do whatever with one’s body, etc…) ARE ONLY DUE to the influence and impact of Christianity. Those ideas or concepts are unknown in the ancient world, especially when broadly considered (for everyone, not just the only people of my tribe).

If we lose the foundational faith that gave these ideas to the world, especially if we lean further into the post-modern idea that "there is no truth, especially any truths that govern all." In that world, then if the only thing that is true is whatever I deem to be true, regardless of evidence or logic, then we end up in a "might makes right" world. There, if someone wants to deny these contributions provided by Christianity, then they could and there's no reason or way, other than force, that we can suggest the idea remains true. If, though, we see how Christianity is a "net positive," and then we embrace, maybe even celebrate, its inclusion in our culture and society, then this concepts can remain sustained deep into the 21st century.

After laying out the failures and challenges of "Christianity" (especially being critical of the idea of “Christian Nationalism”) as seen in history through the changes to the faith post-Constantine (the eventual Christendom), one could assume the next step is to admit Christianity is bad for society.

However, upon examination, though, the evidence is abundantly clear that Christianity is a massive net-positive for society. Going further, we can argue that the world is now a “Western world” in that the entire globe, all peoples, races, ethnicities, tribes, etc… all pursue societal values that emerged in the West first.

Issues like “human rights” or that governments should be “of the people” including “voting for most/all citizens” or various concerns about “economic equity” all are concepts that emerged in the West, a break away from the historical norm in all societies. Those “Western concepts” are nearly all things that emerge due to the Christian foundation, ideas about the human as a “special creation” by the Christian/Jewish God.

So, as we look at the tension in our current 21st century culture, where one side seems to be openly post-Christian, if not anti-Christian, and often expresses ideas that would suggest they believe it to be far better for society to be freed from the Christian faith, INSTEAD---it becomes clear that we all NEED Christianity, not only for what it gave as these new ideas that we now all champion, but also to sustain those ideas. This links back to the foundation conversation in episode 1 & 2, that there is a unique foundation upon which our style of society (“of the people” without a dominating force from the top imposing) stands.

We will read and examine Pliny's letter to Emperor Trajan. You can also read a copy at this PBS site. We will also study and read excerpts from The Letter to Diognetus. A slightly deeper examination of this can be read at this site.

A key pressure point from Conservative Christians is a seeming call for “Christian Nationalism.” That idea suggests some version of domination and control by Christianity and Christian concepts. I understand that not everyone who is a Conservative politically feels this way, and even some who are Christians who are Conservatives would argue they don't mean "Christian Nationalism." However, as I have explained in the podcast episodes so far, when we look at the general idea typically expressed (at least as how I have heard it or read it), they do mean some level of governing and cultural control, even dominion (hint, hint) over society. So, another way to say what is being asked for is to say they want a version of “Christendom.”

The concept of Christendom emerges in the years after the Roman Empire collapsed in the West. So…we can say “its been done before" and there are lessons for us in the early 21st century. I urge us not to try this again. In a careful examination of what Christendom was, the evidence from history demonstrates that the Christian faith became a warped or devolved version of the faith that Jesus described and was lived out by adherents in the first 300 years after Jesus.

To figure out what happened, we need to do some examination of Roman Empire history, looking at the impact of the Emperors Diocletian and Constantine. It is with Constantine that everything shifts, one of those major moments in world history where a single individual makes a decision upon which the story changes. His decision relative to Christianity will impact both the Empire and the Christian faith itself.

I hope that you are enjoying the podcast so far. Please send any questions to carl@carlcreasman.com if you'd like Matthew and I to answer. We are thinking there might be interest in a Q&A episode, and we'd love to oblige.

Following episode 3, we go deeper into the historical documents about the Christian past, looking at the connection of an earlier moment when “God’s people" were the majority culture but suddenly find themselves as ‘exiles’ and "the minority culture.” Last episode we got to this point after seeing the two groups at the center of the current US churn, and I think it accurate to suggest the “conservative Christians” might be the principal agent stirring the pot.

To me, they/me [remember, I am a Christian, former pastor and current theologian who still attends church and often speaks at churches] will say things like 'feeling an exile in my own land’ or ‘unhappy discovering to be the minority culture, especially after what seemed to be a renewal in the 1980s.’ These primary documents from antiquity provide us a way to understand how we could feel, and that includes whether one is a Christian or not. There are many in the "conservative" side who are not necessarily Christian or even religious.

So this episode will be taking a dive into some of the specifics about what the historical documents show us about God’s people, His demands, and what those who claim His name ought to have done or be known for.

We will specifically look at a writing from a Jewish writer, Isaiah, and then later another named Jeremiah. For the writing from Isaiah, I have modernized it for 21st century Christians which you will hear me read, following Matthew reading the original text. Here is what I said:

Isaiah 5:11-12--you spend your time in frivolity, getting up early in the morning NOT to commune with God, but to look for a drink of alcohol, to waste time on TV, to engage in social media…spending all day wastefully. You have food and drink, often in your worship…you have lovely big parties with hip current music…but you NEVER think about the Lord and the things He is doing, the things and people He cares about.

Isaiah 5:18-19--you drag your sins around in the open, tied to you by lies that you assume no one can see, but yet everyone sees. Your wickedness, both the open wickedness like accepting modern-day slavery in your town or addiction to porn among your male church leaders, and the “you-think-its-hidden” wickedness like a failure to pray, a failure to pursue justice, a failure to care for the widow or the orphan—that wickedness is proclaimed openly on bumper stickers of your car. You mock God acting pious, saying things like “even so come quickly Lord” and “one day we’ll all be in Heaven” or “Hurry Up, Lord and do something.”

Isaiah 5:22-23--you think you are heroes because you claim the excess of gaming, ESPN, fantasy sports, Netflix binge watching, gambling, success as your video games, alcohol…that you can live large, equal to anyone in the community…you can “drink anyone” under the table with your excellence in fantasy sports or gaming or knowledge of the latest TV show…and yet you know nothing of God’s word, His ways. You look the other way when political leaders from “your side” act wickedly because you think “the other side” is evil. It is you, Christian, who is evil for not protecting the innocent.

Episode three further examines the context of what I perceive as a crisis in which USA society is in peril. It is my remise that there are two groups struggling at the center of the national tension, and both have incorrect grasp on history. That tension is one of worldview, and a passion for finding the best path forward for the nation. That is laudable, and yet due to the historical forgetfulness, I believe both are thinking in terms that are misguided.

These two characters the "Conservative Christian" and the "Progressive." Neither are bad or evil or trying intentionally to "do wrong" or "bring harm" to the other or to the society.

We do not fully grasp the uniqueness of the US civic system (we now see “Democracies” everywhere and we think “casual, normal”), and in doing so we devalue the factors that went into the creation. That creation, and the foundation as well as the issues we are facing, are of a spiritual nature, and that comes out in “who” are the principle participants in the struggle, in the causing of the unmooring.

The crisis that we discussed in episode 1 really is only signs or evidence of the deeper issue that we have lost touch with a foundation. Yet due to the historical forgetfulness, many do not realize just how unique the US civic system was. Note, "unique" does not mean our tone or viewpoint is that of triumphalism or trying to suggest the US was ever perfect or singularly special.

The USA version of civic society was set fully on the concept of citizen-only structure. This raised the question or concept of “how could you assume citizens would not just devolved into some self-only concern about living life” and/or “assume they would follow rules on their own, their own self-defined rules.” All other previous societies had a built-in enforcement concept with the powerful central ruler (ie, King, Emperor, nobility, religious leaders). The US was rejecting all of these options for rules.