Recently I was sitting at a table in the food court of our local shopping mall. As I looked over the court and watched the mall’s denizens, I wondered what America’s Founders would have thought of it all.
Of course, when you put the question that way, you think first of what they would think of the republic they had created in political terms, but probably their initial reaction would have been amazement at a lot of the technology that we the living take for granted: neon lights, plastic tables and chairs, and of course those odd little palm-sized rectangles that everyone seems to be talking into or looking at intently.
But, yes, they would sooner or later be surprised, too, at the variegated humanity — I’m going to avoid the word “diversity” — in the mall. And, if you explained that it reflected that nation as a whole, with around 350 million people, from sea to shining sea plus Alaska and Hawaii, they would be more than surprised. No longer, that is, 13 colonies along the Atlantic seaboard, the inhabitants of which — not counting slaves and Indians, of course — were mostly of more or less immediate English extraction. They’d be surprised at all the different ethnicities, and perhaps ashamed at the way they had shortchanged the blacks, but I think that they were wise enough to have humility. And, after all, the nation they had created had become not only the most powerful country on the globe but also the greatest country in the history of the world, a great force for freedom and good, and it is still being governed by the Constitution that they wrote, which is recognized as, to quote Gladstone, “the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.” A lot for them to be proud of!
A few other points: Looking around the mall, it would be clear that the country in 2024 approximates Hamilton’s vision of a commercial republic more than Jefferson’s of a land of yeoman farmers. And America’s and Americans’ wealth would astonish the Founders. The size of government — especially the federal government and its administrative state — would frighten them, but I don’t think they would conclude that we had failed to be a self-governing and freedom-loving people.
And they would no doubt be appalled at the immodesty of female attire. But I’m not sure they would do more than shrug at tattoos. Somehow I think they would be more accepting of that than are people like me who came of age only 50 years ago rather than over 250.
***
But — and this is really the point of this blogpost — I then started thinking about what God would have thought about the mall scene I saw.
Of course, God would not be surprised at the technology and He would be happy that in America there is neither Jew nor Greek. He would be neither impressed with nor depressed by American power and wealth. His two big concerns are that we love Him and love each other. How are we doing on those?
Well, historically speaking, this is not a bad society in how we treat each other. The poor, for example, are indeed still with us, but they are not starving to death in the streets. We are not only all materially well off, but have a great deal of freedom, especially freedom to believe and worship as we like. But there is a lot of room for improvement in how we exercise those freedoms — that is, for starters, in how we actually choose to believe and worship. As for the other half of the Ten Commandments, the rules for secular living, it’s a mixed bag. We might be proud that murder is not acceptable — oh, but what about abortion? Theft is not acceptable, but coveting is widespread. Plenty of adultery, and even more fornication of all kinds. Not a lot of lying under oath, but in other ways there is a plenty of corruption and dishonesty in our elites and on down.
And are we loving Him? We were a Christian nation, and we are still a nation with many Christians — maybe more than any other, certainly more than any other leading country. But it’s hard to imagine that God looks on us without disappointment.
The problem, in a word, is too few Christians. Serious Christians will at least try to love God — and of course only Christians will accept Christ and love the Trinitarian God of Christianity — and one has to think that serious believers are more likely to behave rightly toward their fellow humans, too: They will be less likely to do those things they should not be doing (abortions and all those other external and internal sins adverted to above), and more likely to do those things they should be doing (like charitable acts and thoughts).
***
What can we Christians (Americans) do about it? How do we encourage people to believe, and at least not discourage them from believing? After all, by many accounts and according to plenty of polls, something is happening — or failing to happen — in our fair land that results in less belief. I saw nothing at the mall to contradict this.
It might be useful to think of five basic arenas where this encouragement or discouragement might happen: (1) with the government at some level — federal, state, or local; (2) in academia and with intellectuals; (3) in the popular culture broadly, particularly the media; (4) in intermediate institutions — also called mediating institutions or, in Edmund Burke’s phrase, “little platoons” — such as churches most obviously but also with corporations, for example, or sports or clubs; and (5) at the individual level, starting with parents, family, and close friends but continuing on to interpersonal dealings with co-workers and neighbors and, finally, even complete strangers. Speaking of family, here’s an important footnote: The thesis of Mary Eberstadt’s “Secularization Revisited: There’s Hope for Faith” (National Review, December 15, 2022) is that the decline of the family causes the decline in religion, rather than vice versa. Thus, and this is more than a footnote: Long-term evangelism must address America’s climbing out-of-wedlock birthrates.
Now, what is to be done — collectively and individually — at each level? For some, the best that can be hoped for is successful defense, while for others it is realistic to consider positive measures. Indeed, it may be that, in addition to the failure to evangelize, part of the problem is also increased effectiveness by various institutions in opposing and undoing evangelization. Satan never sleeps.
***
The first arena listed is the government, so let’s start there: It should do no harm, and at present this is battle enough. This is a fight to be fought in the courts (that is, to ensure that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause is interpreted properly to protect churches and religious practice, and that the Establishment Clause is interpreted properly to allow an un-naked public square) and in the political branches (that is, to persuade the legislative branch not to pass laws hostile to churches and religious practice, and to persuade the executive branch not to enforce the laws with any such hostility). A sub-arena of special importance here is K-12 public schools (prayer and, at least, moments of silence should not be banned, nor should religious themes be banned from student work — for example, from a student’s artwork — nor should the role of religion in history and civics be ignored). There’s an important footnote here as well: At least one takeaway from expert Lyman Stone’s research is that parents (in category 5) need to be wary of exposing children to only the secular (in categories 1-4 above, and especially in K-12 education).
As for academia, intellectuals, and the popular culture: Well, good luck. I mean, it’s undeniably important that there be more a Christian presence there, but this will be long, hard, uphill battle. Our colleges and universities are downright hostile to Christian faith, and so are many intellectuals and much popular culture — Hollywood, most television, broad swathes of the music industry and publishing, social media, you name it. It may be that it is more realistic to nurture separate Christian enclaves (Christian schools, Christian music, Christian television channels, and so forth) than to persuade Harvard or Madonna/rappers or CNN to do much more than curb their worst anti-Christian excesses.
***
Individuals are critically important, and Christians should evangelize as they always have, as role models at least and as missionaries in an increasingly heathen society. We must walk the walk, but also talk the talk: As Charles Murray has noted, the problem now is that too many are afraid to preach what they practice — presumably because it is too “judgmental,” too politically incorrect, to do so. So we Christians should pray at restaurants, mention God on social media, say God bless you and have a blessed day, and put a fish or church decal on our cars.
Finally, it seems to me that perhaps the little platoons are a neglected force. Avowedly Christian organizations — churches and, say, InterVarsity — know what to do, by and large. Relatedly, there are religious clubs at any educational level, and likewise Bible study groups and the like at work.
Are there other little platoons, though, besides such avowedly Christian organizations? No doubt, but note here the bowling alone problem: The number of little platoons of any kind is on the decline. What’s left is a mixed bag, but be creative and flexible: Little League? The Republican Party? Rotary? Unions? The American Bar Association? There’s encouraging that they can do, and there’s at least not discouraging that they can do. A moment of silence, at least, at the homeowners’ association meeting? Prayers by a coach or a player?
Conservatives often complain about the Left’s efforts to inject politics into everything, and there may be legitimate objections to injecting religion into everything. But, on. the other hand, faith should not be banned from the public square either.