How Does American Civil Religion Borrow from Christianity?

ACR utilizes biblical imagery and Christian language to leverage familiar religious stories and ideas while separating itself from the specificity of biblical and theological claims. Throughout the history of the United States, Christians have tended to encourage if not initiate such borrowing. I deal with a series of examples in Serpents and Doves that range from the use of theological ideas such as being made in God’s image to the use of biblical passages such as 2 Chronicles 7:14 or Psalm 33:12. I also discuss early uses of the exodus from Egypt to describe the colonies as a new Israel and Great Britain as tyrannical Egypt. These references, sadly, continue to be advanced by some Christian scholars, pastors, and politicians who claim to be Christian.

Because ACR depends on borrowing Christian language while emptying it of its theological convictions, discernment requires asking what any given reference is actually doing. Five questions cut to the heart of how ACR operates. It leverages the authority and resonance of Christian language while redirecting it away from the Triune God and toward the nation.

First, does the reference reflect the conviction that God’s word is authoritative? Christians affirm that Scripture carries divine authority. When biblical language is used in public rhetoric, we should ask whether it calls us to sit under the authority of Christ or borrows biblical language to persuade us to act in ways that subvert Christ’s authority by splitting our loyalties.

Second, does the reference accurately reflect a Christian understanding of the text or concept being introduced? Biblical passages and theological ideas have meaning within the broader story of Scripture. When they are used in political or cultural arguments, we should consider whether they are being interpreted faithfully or being detached from their original theological context.

Third, is the “God” referenced the Triune God or some other generic “higher power”? Public references to “God” generally avoid the specificity of Christian confession. Christians should consider that this ambiguity is intentional. For ACR to work, God must remain undefined and under the control of the nation for religion to function as a unifying civil symbol. The Triune God makes exclusive claims that ACR simply cannot use to its advantage.

Fourth, does the reference orient our attention and love to the Triune God or to the nation and its causes? God’s revelation is intended to direct our devotion and attention to God, but it can be misused and leveraged to reinforce national identity or political goals. Discernment requires asking how references to the Bible and theology direct our loyalty: toward the Triune God or someone or something else.

Fifth, does the reference assume that God’s kingdom advances through national power and political success? Every appeal to Scripture carries assumptions about how change occurs and where hope should be placed. ACR tends to frame the nation and its political achievements as the primary vehicles of moral progress and human flourishing. Christians should ask whether those assumptions align with the biblical vision of God’s kingdom—which advanced through the proclamation of the gospel and the building up of the body of Christ often as Christians suffer for being Christian in a broken world—or whether they quietly place ultimate hope in national success and political power.