“I WISH I WAS AN OSCAR MEYER WIENER”

(why the founders did not intend for this to be a Christian nation & why the Evangelical Church’s reflection is no longer one that looks like Jesus)

My wife used to say that “if wishes were horses beggars would ride.” Which is actually from a Scottish proverb that appeared in 1628. My wife also used to say that “you can get use to anything, even hanging, if you do it long enough,” which has been attributed to “Irish wit or folklore but appeared in L. M. Montgomery’s 1908 novel, “Anne of Green Gables.”

Old sayings are great, aren’t they? There is something folksy about them and maybe they remind us of times that we wish we could go back to. Maybe like wanting to believe that the founders of this country were intent on making this a Christian nation.

Wish there was a folksy saying that might be appropriate to say here, but nothing comes to mind, but how about this: If wishes were Christian nations, Christians would have nothing to complain about or do?

If we could go back and see for ourselves, though, what things were really like back when our Constitution was being drafted, what would we find? That the early Founders based this country on the Christian faith and they wanted it to remain true to their strongly held Christian beliefs and vision for it?

According to a book I read a number of years ago, “American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America,” by Colin Woodard, he identifies 9 clearly defined culturally distinct regional cultures embedded in this country prior to and leading up to the Revolutionary war. The different regions and why they vote the way they do today has more to do with the establishment of these regions and the beliefs of those who settled them that one might imagine (I highly recommend this book).

Four years after we gained our independence, and the U.S. Constitution was being drafted, “the primary doctrinal beliefs in this newly formed country were those of Protestant Christians, but there were also significant influences from the Enlightenment, including Deism and Theistic Rationalism. The major denominations of the era, though, included Episcopalians (formerly Anglican), Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists, Dutch Reformed, Quakers and some Roman Catholics.”

“However, it was the Quakers (Religious Society of Friends), that had a unique and influential presence, particularly in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Unlike many other denominations that sought to preserve established social hierarchies, Quakers held several radical doctrinal beliefs that fundamentally shaped American ideals of religious liberty and equality.”

Originally, with the early Puritans, “Their primary goal wasn't just to be "Christian," but to be the right kind of Christian. And the early Calvinist settlers were often just as hostile to other Christian denominations as they were to non-Christians.” However, “By the time of the American Revolution and the drafting of the Constitution (over 150 years after the Mayflower), the "Christian-only" vision had largely faded in favor of Religious Liberty.”

Furthermore, “While many of the Founders were influenced by Calvinist ideas regarding human nature—specifically the depravity of man, they moved away from the idea of a state-mandated religion, and instead focused on a system of "checks and balances. This perspective, “the depravity of man,” which assumes humans are inherently selfish and inclined toward abusing power, prompted the creation of a government designed to restrain such tendencies.

Interestingly, though, Quakers were able to exercise the greatest influence for religious freedom, which was later embedded in the 1st Amendment. This was, in large part, due to “Their long history of persecution in both England and the colonies, and made them fierce defenders of the separation of church and state in order to protect the "Inward Light" of all citizens.”

Surprisingly, perhaps, but Quakers influences included, “Article VI: Oaths vs. Affirmations”, they applied pressure to end slavery beginning in 1790, and finally viewed the constitution as “A Living Document.” Resulting in the belief that governance is a “constantly evolving system guided by conscience,” which has allowed for the Constitution to be amended and not remain static.

Unlike our Nation’s Constitution, though, over the course of our nation’s history “All fifty US states have included God, or a divine entity, at least once, but generally only in the preamble, according to a 2017 Pew Research Center Study. Yet, even in these instances only phrases like "Almighty God," "Supreme Ruler of the Universe," or "Creator" are used to express gratitude for freedom, seek blessings, or acknowledge a higher power,” rather than stating a specific state religion, like Christianity.”

____________________________________________________________________________________

AI WEIGHS IN

Gemini, Google’s AI, when asked “If the early founders wanted this Country to be a Christian nation why didn’t they name Jesus, and/or God for that matter, in our “Constitution” as well as the “Bill of Rights?

Gemini’s response was:

“The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights deliberately omitted mention of Jesus or a specific Christian God, establishing a secular federal government rather than a theocracy. Founders created a system with no religious tests for office (Article VI) and a First Amendment that prohibits establishing a state religion, ensuring freedom for all faiths. With the Key points regarding this subject including:

1.) Deliberate Omission: The Constitution does not contain the word "God," "Christianity," or "Jesus". The Declaration of Independence refers to a "Creator" and "Nature's God," which some interpret as deistic rather than specifically Christian.

2.) Secular State Focus: The Founders, influenced by Enlightenment thinkers, sought to avoid the religious conflicts that plagued Europe, choosing to separate church and state.

3.) Treaty of Tripoli (1797, Article 11): This document, ratified by the Senate and signed by John Adams, explicitly stated that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, in order reassure Tripoli that this Country was not a Christian Theocracy."

4.) Diverse Views: While many founders were Christians, others were deists (e.g., Jefferson, Franklin), leading to a document that allowed religious freedom for all, rather than privilege for one. On religion, users generally agree that the US constitution was built upon Locke's ideas rather than being specifically Christian, with some debate over the influence of Judeo-Christian values.”

____________________________________________________________________________________

Given the fact that in America today, “there are over 200 distinct Christian denominations in the U.S., with non-denominational/independent churches forming one of the largest and fastest-growing groups, boasting over 35,000 to 44,000+ congregations.” The total number of Christian congregations (including all types) in the U.S. is estimated to be roughly “300,000–350,000.”

So, which one of these 200 denominations should our Nation be based on in order to be the best most accurate representation of the Christian faith? Especially the denomination that the Founders of our Country specifically had in mind? Or maybe we should consider modeling this nation on one of the 35k to 44k independent congregations as our model.

The reality is, though, that there is one specific evangelical Christian leaning group in this Country that does appear to hold significant sway over, not only our president, but also those in our government who hold high positions of power as well as elected representatives in both the House and the Senate.

AI

So, “What Christian doctrinal perspective/ideology is most embedded with our present national leadership as well as many of our elected House and Senate leaders today?

Gemini’s response:

‘

“Based on analysis of current political and religious trends in early 2026, Christian Nationalism is the doctrinal, political, and cultural ideology that has most profoundly embedded itself within the President and many House and Senate leaders, particularly within the Republican Party.

This ideology, often viewed more as a political movement than a formal theological denomination, holds that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and that its laws and institutions should actively reflect a specific, conservative strain of Christian doctrine.”

And Gemini continued by citing these key aspects of this embedded theology:

“Dominionism/Christian Nationalism Alignment: A significant portion of conservative, white evangelical leadership—a key constituency for the current administration—has adopted views rooted in Dominionism, believing that Christians are divinely ordained to take control of society’s key institutions, including the government, education, and family.

Support for the President: As of early 2026, 56% of Republicans (and a majority of those holding favorable views of the President) identify as either Christian nationalist adherents or sympathizers. This includes the belief that the President is divinely appointed and that his will aligns with God's will.

Legislative and Executive Action: This ideology drives legislative efforts to merge Christian rhetoric with national identity, with supporters often advocating for a "biblical worldview" in policy. A "Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias" was established by the President, illustrating the focus on shielding this viewpoint from legal challenges (February 6, 2025, Executive Order 14202).

Theocratic Tendencies: Research shows a rise in the belief that America should be a nation under biblical law, with a notable push for this ideology within state and federal GOP politics, especially in the South.

While Christian nationalism is the overarching framework for this political-religious intersection, it often overlaps with other conservative evangelical doctrines like Dominionism, which focuses on controlling public policy rather than focusing solely on personal piety.”

________________________________________________________________________

“Dominionism, or Reconstrutionism,” is a Christian movement that I first became aware of in the mid-late 1980’s. Throughout the years, though, it fell off my radar and I had come to believe it had run its course, as many extreme Christian movements tend to do. Yet, now I realize, not only did it not fade away, but it has been a thriving, driving framework for much of the Evangelical Christian political movement that began in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.

__________________________________________

AI

“What is Dominionism and when did it become a movement in America?”

Gemini’s response:

“Dominionism in Christianity is a 20th-century theological movement advocating that Christians should control societal institutions, based on a "dominion mandate" from Genesis 1:28 (“God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground”).

Originating from Rousas, John Rushdoony’s 1960s Christian, it seeks to replace secular law with Biblical law. It has evolved into "hard" theocratic forms and "soft" cultural influence approaches like the Seven Mountain Mandate, with these “Key Historical Developments:”

1.) 1960s–70s Origins: Rousas John Rushdoony, a Presbyterian minister, developed Christian Reconstructionism, arguing for theonomy (rule by God’s law/Mosaic Law) and the application of Old Testament law to modern society.

2.) The Seven Mountain Mandate: Emerging in the 1970s through Bill Bright and Loren Cunningham, this strategy aims to dominate seven pillars of society: family, religion, education, government, media, arts/entertainment, and business.

3.) Expansion & Influence: The movement expanded beyond its Calvinist roots to include Charismatic and Pentecostal traditions, such as the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), which argues that modern-day apostles and prophets should take dominion.

4.) Political Shift (2000s–Present): The ideology has gained traction in political circles, often blending with Christian nationalism, advocating for the alignment of U.S. politics with a strict interpretation of Christian doctrine and includes these usages and examples and sub-movements:

1.) Christian Reconstructionism: Promotes strict adherence to Old Testament Law as the basis for civil governance.

2.) Seven Mountain Mandate (7MM): A strategy focused on placing Christians in leadership positions across seven cultural "mountains" or sectors.

3.) New Apostolic Reformation (NAR): A movement emphasizing modern, apostolic leadership focused on societal takeover.”

“Throughout history there have been Christian movements that have sought to, in effect, establish Theocratic type governmental rule: Anabaptist Kingdom of Münster (1530s), Calvin’s Geneva (16th Century), Puritan New England (17th Century), Roman Catholic Integralism (Various Periods).”

______________________________________________________________________________

TODAY VS. THE PAST

The differences, though, from these Christian movements, according to the “Christian Century,” is that Dominionism differs because it prioritizes end-times political domination over the traditional focus on evangelism and pastoral care. Unlike the non-violent approach of Jesus in the Gospels, Dominionism, such as the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) and Seven Mountain Mandate, often engages in "spiritual warfare" and seeks political power to impose their interpretation of biblical law (Mosaic Law) aiming to control key sectors like government, education, and media.

Seriously, though, the fact that a group of Christians can’t agree on almost anything when put in a room together, why in the world would we think that the early church founders were so naïve and maybe even ignorant enough to think it could be done back then, much less that it could be done today?

On the contrary, the early founders, thankfully, seemed to have been far less naïve, and much more insightful when it came to building moral Judeo-Christian beliefs and principals into the Constitution so that the Spirit of our shared faith would be framed in such a way that all citizens of this nation would be regarded with equal value, privileges and rights through an elected representative form of government.

A form of government that would ensure that all citizens, regardless of age, race, education, wealth, religion or political party would all receive equal and fair treatment under the law. And in order to, hopefully, ensure that these elected officials remained true to the Founder’s intent, all Federally elected representatives must swear an oath of allegiance to uphold our written Constitution, and perhaps the spirit of it as well, so that they will faithfully serve all our nations citizens, regardless. In other words, to faithfully serve (and not be served) in ways that reflect what it means and looks like to love all neighbor-citizen- constituencies equally.

However, all things considered, if evangelical Christians are intent on believing that the founding fathers meant for this to be a Christian nation and, therefore, it is our Christian faith-duty to ensure the return of this nation to their original intent, it is worth reminding all Christians what Paul instructed the church in Corinth for the way communities of believers should function in their regard and care for each other.

In 1 Corinthians 2:22-26 he writes, “…it is much truer that the parts of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those parts of the body which we consider less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor, and our less presentable parts become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable parts have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that part which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same care for one another. And if one part of the body suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if a part is honored, all the parts rejoice with it.

If I am understanding what Paul is saying here, but put in the context of the spirit of our government being “A Living Document, an evolving system guided by conscience,” then why is this no part of restoring our country to the Founder’s original intent for it being a Christian centric nation. Or for that matter for our own churches even being held to account for this not being faithfully carried out. On the contrary, our weaker members who are in need of long-term attention and care are often a nuisance and a feared drain on the economic well-being of not only our churches, but especially our nation.

Weaker members of our society have generally been identified with those minority members as well as non-members whose skin color is not the same as that of, say, a majority ruling class culture. Yet, in Acts 6, when minority Greek widows weren’t being cared for (especially in the daily distribution of food) in the same way the majority Hebraic widows were, the Apostles immediately, not only cared for their immediate food needs, but extended authority to a body of minority members to ensure that these widows continued care would be maintained. And one of these minority Greek men who was selected, was Stephen, who soon after became the first Christian martyr when he was stoned to death in the presence of Saul (before his conversion).

And it was this same Apostle Paul (formally Saul), who wrote the instructions above in 1 Corinthian 12:22-26 after his conversion. The truth is, as Christians, too many of us have no idea what it means to follow Jesus’ example for serving and not being served, much less to model what Paul tells us in Philippians 2:3-8 “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!

This cost was not too high for Jesus, nor for his disciples, and not even Stephen, but it is obvious, that for the majority of us who say we are immovable in our faith in Jesus, we continue to insist that the world around us must be changed in order to conform to the image of Jesus when we continue to refuse to allow ourselves to be changed to look and be more like him, ourselves?