A Critique of Christian America and the Kingdom of God by Richard T. Hughes

A progressive South Carolia blogger has has admonished Christians to read and take heed of Richard T. Hughes book, Christian America and the Kingdom of God.

All right. Hughes runs with three theses, which I will analyze in turn:

His first thesis is that Christian America and the kingdom of God are polar opposites. You should know two biases Hughes has in his book. First, “Christian America” is synonymous with conservative Christianity. It is conservatives that are his clear target. You will not have a hard time keeping that in mind, however, because there are no Christians progressive enough to suit him, which leads to his second bias--a utopia, aleit a Christian one, is possible on Earth.

Do not be fooled into thinking Hughes’ book is a theological one or that it is even a separation of church and state book. It is neither. It is an argument that progessive politics needs to be injected into Christian theology. Because if it is not progressive, it is not “real” Christianity.

So we have our first major flaw with Hughes’ ideas--Christianity--religion in general, really--transcends politics. That Bible does not offer a guidebook for creating a government.

The belief otherwise leads to the next problem with Hughes‘ ideas. He is eaten up with the progressive idea utopia is possible on Earth. There is no way Christians can perfectly follow the teachings of Christ and create any thing resembling paradise on Earth period, much less a progressive one, which is the only utopia hughes would accept as being Christian anyway.

The kingdom of God cannot be established on Earth by sinful man. So I will concede he is right flawed Christians are opposites. Where we part ways is I do not believe that meas those who profess to be Christians are not simply because they are not establishing the kingdom of God to perfection but if certain political leanings were changed to match progressive politics, we could.

Hughes’s second thesis is that Christian America often embraces beliefs that are un-Christian. It is with this thesis Hughes academic tunnel vision really begins to show. He is a professor of Christian history, not theology. Hughes recites a long list of evils--slavery, Manifest Destiny, segregation, and dropping the atomic bombs, et al--as evidence America is not Christian. But he fails to bring in the concept of man’s flawed, sinful nature.

Possessing a sinful nature does not mean one is not a Christian. Committing a sinful act does not mean one is not a Christian. Theseare flaws that do not negate one’s statusas the follower of Christ.

Hughes is making the mistake--it goes along with his notion utopia is possible--that one has to uphold Christian principles perfectly in order to be a Christian. This is akin to saying one cannot be a baseball player unless one has thrown a perfect game, hit for the cycle, and made no fielding errors. No one would hold such requirements for one to be considered a baseball player. No one should be held to a level of perfection before being considered a Christian.

Christ did not do that. He recognized and was forgiving of the sins of others, even as he was being executed by them. He had expectations his followers were going to fail morally, but never denied them because they did. So why should Hughes, or anyone else, claim failure to live up to Christian ideals is grounds to claim said people are not Christians?

Bottom line is that he cannot. Again, we come back to the point one cannot deny people are Christians because they have not created a utopia.

Hughes final thesis is that Christians ought to craft public policy with their profession of faith in mind. Here Hughes extols the virtues of Christ while lamenting Christians do not necessarily follow them. He has a point there. On a personal level, at any rate. He takes it too far when he implies the entire nation must follow those standards than the individual Christian.

For example, he claims the United States thrives on violence rather than peace. In his mind, the United States should be pacifist. He further says the United States extols vengeance rather than forgiveness. He is referring to foreign policy. Presumably, Al Qaeda should be forgiven for killing nearly 3,000 people in the World trade Center, not be rendered powerless through war. He also caught my eye with the claim the United States glorifies wealth while ignoring the poor. This is a indictment of capitalism and a blind acceptance that government has Christian obligations to create a perpetual welfare state.

Hughes considers the former “flawed” interpretations of Christianity (violence, vengeance, and capitalism) as the result of looking at Christian vales through a politically conservative eye. What he does not acknowledge is that his counter interpretation (pacifism, forgiveness, and welfare state expansion) is Christian values seen though progressive eyes. Hughes is being a blatant hypocrite.

In summary, I think Hughes makes two big mistakes. One, he believes failure to live up to Christian standards negates one’s right to be called a Christian. By failures to live up to Christian standards, Hughes means supporting a war in Iraq, opposing universal healthcare, and voting Republican in general. Maybe voting Democrat, too. Hughes cuts no one any slack. Nor does he establish any Scriptural basis for thinking this way.

Two, Hughes applies these christian principles to public and foreign policy. Christ taught us how to conduct ourselves individually in a world in which we are not going to be able to do that anywhere near perfectly. Yes, that does mean individual Christians ought to use Christ’s principles to guide their political decisions. We ought to be a nation of Christians being as Christlike as they can.

However, you can often only be as good as the world will allow you to be, but there is not net a christian way of paving over potholes. Sometimes, Christians have to go to war. Sometimes, it is debatable what is the best course of action to take in helping the poor. Hughes does not acknowledge the rules are not so hard and fast when it comes to being a Christian nation. Because he does not, he is exactly what he is railing against.