(A column of opinion by Gary Reid, Publisher Emeritus)

Christianity key to America’s exceptionalism

America’s past exceptionalism was based on more than economic freedom that created previously unknown prosperity for the common man.

Founding documents, establishing basic freedoms for all citizens, are based on Christian beliefs derived from a Creator.

The founders of this land were imbued with wisdom based on Christian teaching.

The rights that were written in founding documents were something new in the world at that time.

The American founders believed that people have “inalienable” rights regardless of whether they are able to put them into practice. This is why they called these rights “natural.” They are part of what it means to be a person. They could be denied and violated, but only under carefully limited circumstances (such as prison for law-breakers) could they rightfully be taken away under American law. Governments were legitimate to the extent that they protected rights. Those that arbitrarily took them away possessed no moral authority, the American Bill of Rights Institute states.

Local minister, Daniel Mayfield introduced me to an author, Francis Schaeffer, a Presbyterian preacher who spent much of his adult life in Switzerland where he and his wife, Edith, also an author, operated a retreat for individuals deeply interested in matters of faith.

In his book, “A Christian Manifesto,” Schaeffer says some things that indicate the freedoms we take for granted in America are threatened by an ever-expanding government that has gradually chipped away at the Christian precepts that built the United States.

Schaeffer made an address to the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., in 1982 entitled “A Christian Manifesto,” (the same as his book) in which he said: “Christians, in the last 80 years or so, have only been seeing things as bits and pieces which have gradually begun to trouble them and others, instead of understanding that they are the natural outcome of a change (away) from a Christian World View to a Humanistic one; things such as over-permissiveness, pornography, the problem of the public schools, the breakdown of the family, abortion, infanticide (the killing of newborn babies), increased emphasis upon the euthanasia of the old and many, many other things.

“All of these things and many more are only the results. We may be troubled with the individual thing, but in reality we are missing the whole thing if we do not see each of these things and many more as only symptoms of the deeper problem. And that is the change in our society, a change in our country, a change in the Western world from a Judeo-Christian consensus to a Humanistic one. That is, instead of the final reality that exists being the infinite creator God; instead of that which is the basis of all reality being such a creator God, now largely, all else is seen as only material or energy which has existed forever in some form, shaped into its present complex form only by pure chance.

“I want to say to you, those of you who are Christians or even if you are not a Christian and you are troubled about the direction that our society is going, that we must not concentrate merely on the bits and pieces. But we must understand that all of these dilemmas come on the basis of moving from the Judeo-Christian world view – that the final reality is an infinite creator God – over into this other (idea) which is that the final reality is only energy or material in some mixture or form which has existed forever and which has taken its present shape by pure chance.

“The word Humanism should be carefully defined. We should not just use it as a flag, or what younger people might call a “buzz” word. We must understand what we are talking about when we use the word Humanism. Humanism means that the man is the measure of all things. If this other final reality of material or energy shaped by pure chance is the final reality, it gives no meaning to life. It gives no value system. It gives no basis for law, and therefore, in this case, man must be the measure of all things. So, Humanism properly defined, in contrast, let us say, to the humanities or humanitarianism, (which is something entirely different and which Christians should be in favor of) being the measure of all things, comes naturally, mathematically, inevitably, certainly. If indeed the final reality is silent about these values, then man must generate them from himself.

“So, Humanism is the absolute certain result, if we choose this other final reality and say that is what it is. You must realize that when we speak of man being the measure of all things under the Humanist label, the first thing is that man has only knowledge from himself. That he, being finite, limited, very faulty in his observation of many things, yet nevertheless, has no possible source of knowledge except what man, beginning from himself, can find out from his own observation. Specifically, in this view, there is no place for any knowledge from God.

“But it is not only that man must start from himself in the area of knowledge and learning, but any value system must come arbitrarily from man himself by arbitrary

[See View, Page 5] choice. More frightening still, in our country, at our own moment of history, is the fact that any basis of law then becomes arbitrary – merely certain people making decisions as to what is for the good of society at the given moment.”

While Schaeffer is now deceased, his observations seem more stark today than 40 years ago.

He undoubtedly would have been pleased with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision overturning the 1973 ruling that swept away 50 years of lawful killing of the unborn.

The decision overturned a non-existing “constitutional right” for abortion right up to the minute of birth (not to mention a hugely profitable industry for practitioners).

(The elite Left is already working hard to bring about changes to the Supreme Court that will return power to the humanist point of view.)

Later in his address, Schaeffer pointed out: “We must understand something very thoroughly. If society – if the state –gives the rights, it can take them away – they’re not inalienable. If the states give the rights, they can change them and manipulate them. But this was not the view of the founding fathers of this country. They believed, although not all of them were individual Christians, that there was a Creator and that this Creator gave the inalienable rights – this upon which our country was founded and which has given us the freedoms which we still have – even the freedoms which are being used now to destroy the freedoms.”

(Remember Benjamin Franklin’s reported reply to a woman who asked him what kind of government had been created by the Continental Congress, “A republic, if you can keep it.”) Later, Schaeffer added: “A fairly recent poll (sometime before 1982) of the 150 some countries that now constitute the world shows that only 25 of these countries have any freedoms at all. What we have, and take so poorly for granted, is unique. It was brought forth by a specific world view and that specifi c world view was the Judeo-Christian world view especially as it was refined in the Reformation, putting the authority indeed at a central point – not in the Church and the state and the Word of God, but rather the Word of God alone. All the benefits which we know… (and) which we have taken … so much for granted, are unique. They have been grounded on the certain world view that there was a Creator there to give inalienable rights. And this other view over here, which has become increasingly dominant, of the material-energy final world view (shaped by pure chance) never would have, could not, has, no basis of values, in order to give such a balance of freedom…” Schaeffer was urging a revival of the Christian faith as the final solution to a world that had gone largely humanistic.

Schaeffer opposed the political efforts to establish separation of church from government, commenting: “This is new and this is novel. It has no relationship to the meaning of the First Amendment. The First Amendment was that the state would never interfere with religion.”

This was his final comment: “Christ must be the final Lord … not Caesar and not society.”

Schaeffer died in 1984 but his words seem even more relevant now than they did during his lifetime.