In the 1980 film The Blues Brothers, Elwood and Jake set out to save the Catholic orphanage where they were raised. As the brothers try to get their band back together to pay the orphanage’s $5,000 in back taxes, Elwood and Jake claim to be embarking “on a mission from God.”
Once getting the band back together becomes a holy task, every action the brothers take is justified. After all, as Jake notes, “The Lord works in mysterious ways.”
In one scene, Elwood and Jake are told they won’t be able to convince some of the band members to come back. Jake brushes off the concern saying, “Well, me and the Lord, we got an understanding.” Elwood concurs noting, “We’re on a mission from God.”
The brothers’ conviction that they are on a mission from God makes for good comedy, but the characters brought to life by Dan Ackroyd and John Belushi do more than entertain. As Jessamyn West, author of To See the Dream, notes, “Fiction reveals truths that reality obscures.”
The fictional “mission from God” depicted in The Blues Brothers reveals our all-too-common tendency to construct a god who supports our own agendas. At the level of the state, this god (or gods) forms the basis for civil religion.
Civil religion may seem like something of a contradiction in terms because we generally draw a hard line between the religious and the secular. The trouble is that there really is no hard line. It’s actually pretty fuzzy.
While “the shift to secularity,” as Charles Taylor argues, is characterized by a “society … in which (belief in God) is understood to be one option among others, and frequently not the easiest to embrace,” the shift to secularity does not preclude civil religion. As I note in Serpents and Doves, civil religion constructs or borrows partial theological claims as “a tool of the state to be used for the state’s ends.” The religious commitments of citizens are tolerable so long as they support the authority of the state. They cannot subvert the giving of the state’s legitimacy. Civil religion is troublesome because the state has no vested interest in encouraging citizens to cultivate a stronger allegiance to one’s religious convictions than one has for the state.
We continue to see the fruits of civil religion in videos like “God Made Trump” released earlier this year. The video makes clear that God is opposed to Marxism, the Deep State, fake news and the World Economic Forum. Donald Trump’s efforts and, by extension, a certain political vision are read back onto God. That vision (and the video) reinforces ideas that conflict with Christian theology.
For instance, Eric Trump claims his father saved Christianity as if Christianity was in any danger. Using a number of biblical images, the “God Made Trump” video talks about Trump “attending church on Sunday,” serving as a “shepherd of mankind” refusing to “forsake” them, and standing firm in “faith.” All these phrases gesture toward Christianity, yet they never mention Christ.
In reality, “God made Trump” aligns with American civil religion, not any version of Christianity. While Christians should be bothered that the video presents Trump as a quasi-messianic figure, we shouldn’t be surprised. After all, doesn’t it make sense that a “Christian nation” seeking to be “a people whose God is the Lord” apart from Christ needs a new messiah?
The video is a particularly striking example of America’s civil religion, but it isn’t an anomaly. For a nation that believes it is “on a mission from God,” it only makes sense that our leaders be construed as shepherds (if not messiahs).
Civil religion isn’t going to go away. The “secular” makes sacred claims all the time. The stories the world tells express implicit (if not explicit) theologies that do not align with orthodox Christian convictions.
So, what can Christians do?
First, we need to avoid strong versions of Christian nationalism. By “strong versions,” I mean those that seek to blur the lines between if not fuse Christianity with the state. Such fusion is problematic for a number of reasons. Primary among them is that God distinguished between the church and the state. Merging the church with the state diminishes the church without making the state more durable.
While some might argue that Christian political participation in any form constitutes “Christian nationalism,” such arguments would preclude anyone with a unique perspective on the world from participating in politics. We all have competing theological convictions even if some citizens would not consider such convictions to be “religious.” From the perspective of civil religion, however, those interested in keeping Christians from participating in politics at all or in dissuading Christians from thinking biblically about politics express their loyalty to the religion of the state.
Second, American civil religion is not the answer. The world needs the church. The church is to be a true alternative to the state. It is a community of sojourners and exiles waiting for the return of Christ.
The world needs the church because the church points toward a different way of living in the world. As many mistakes as the church and its members have made, the church is still God’s chosen vehicle to demonstrate God’s manifold wisdom.
To put it differently, we are the only people who know “we are on a mission from God” and know what that mission is. As such, the church seeks to encourage others to shift their allegiance from the world to Christ through faith. We also engage in the process of discipleship so that we are increasingly more capable of living under the authority of Christ.
We build the church for the world’s sake. The world needs the church because it is only through the church that the world is confronted with the power of the gospel.
*This article was previously published on Baptist Global News.
.avif)
