“The idol is the measure of the worshiper.”

James Russell Lowell

With the preoccupation of the news cycle with Michael Jackson apparently large number of Americans continue to live vicariously through people who become embodiments for their individual and collective existence. A person, such as Jackson, becomes abstracted and reified by the image making media with the result that people find large measures of their identity in the identity of the celebrity idol.

This would be bad enough if celebrity and hero were synonymous. They are not. The celebrity, unlike the hero who was known for his character, is known for being known. The celebrity has a skill but is launched into celebrity status for his signature personality or identifying habit. With Michael Jackson the identifying habit was his overall bizarreness. We love the celebrity — and this is the scary part when it comes to Michael Jackson — because in loving the celebrity we are loving ourselves because the celebrity is just us said loudly. Don’t fool yourself. This Jackson funeral isn’t so much an outpouring of love for Jackson as much as it is an outpouring of love for ourselves. In mourning the deceased Michael Jackson people are affirming how much they love themselves.

And what is it that people love about themselves that was embodied by Jackson? Could it be superficiality as exemplified by the lyrics of Jackson’s songs? Could it be the ability to remake ourselves in any image that was exemplified by Jackson’s surgical morphing? Could it be the ability to live beyond norms that was exemplified in Jackson’s life?

The whole funeral then becomes an exercise of self-congratulation. Michael Jackson was worthy of all this maudlin attention because we are worthy of all this maudlin attention. In the end the funeral is all about cultural narcissism.

Next as we look at this funeral what we see is the American Pravda media pushing and much of America apparently swallowing is an abstracted and reified idol, who, in a normal culture, would be considered anything but a hero. Indeed, I have been wondering with the Michael Jackson death marathon if this is more about the media elite pushing a distorted lifestyle then it is about pushing Michael Jackson and his music.

Consider that Michael Jackson in many respects is the perfect poster child for Cultural Marxism. He was not white. He was sexually dysfunctional. He had a non-traditional family. He was not Christian in any historic sense. Are not these descriptors the very thing for which the culturally Marxist elite are angling? So, Michael dies and suddenly cultural Marxism has the opportunity to glorify those very things that the cultural Marxist elites are trying to main stream. With the exalting of the twisted the overthrow of the normal is achieved.

I hope I won’t be misunderstood with this piece. This isn’t about whether or not someone liked or didn’t like Michael Jackson’s music. This is not about not having sympathy for a man obviously hurt and damaged by those things that marched through his life. This is about the meaning surrounding Jackson’s death as defined by the circus surrounding it.

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity.”

President John Adams

“[T]he teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and social life that it would be literally….impossible for us to figure to ourselves what that life would be if these teaching were removed.”

President Teddy Roosevelt

“America was born a Christian nation – America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture.”

President Woodrow Wilson

“American life is builded, and can alone survive, upon . . . [the] fundamental philosophy announced by the Savior nineteen centuries ago.”

President Herbert Hoover

“This is a Christian Nation.”

President Harry Truman

“Let us remember that as a Christian nation . . . we have a charge and a destiny.”

President Richard Nixon

“Whatever we once were, we’re no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers.”

“One of the greatest strengths of the United States’ is that it does not consider itself ‘a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”

President Barack Hussein Obama

In the last post I worked on teasing out what is required in order for a nation to be considered “Christian.” In summary I said that what must be considered in answering that question are both the Dejure considerations and the Defacto considerations. I argued that the founding Dejure covenanting document of these united States (the Constitution) was quite weak in establishing America as a Christian nation.

However, I also argued that in a Defacto sense the evidence is overwhelming that we operated for decades and decades as a Christian nation as can be seen in the countless official documents and pronouncements that have come from America’s civil institutions and from her elected officials.

In this post I want to look at the question as to whether or not we are currently a “Christian nation.” I want to ask if President Obama was correct to say we are no longer a Christian nation.

Before we do that though, I want to briefly make the case that every nation is a nation that belongs to some god and as such is organized as a theocracy. Nations are constructed culturally and as cultures are theologies incarnated it is inevitable that a nation will belong to the God behind the incarnated theology, even when the god of the culture isn’t explicitly named. Even in a so called “secular” nation, that disavows any god is operating on the basis that the god of the culture is the people autonomously considered. They disavow all gods as the god of their nation because they are the god of the nation.

Now as we turn to whether or not we are currently a Christian nation we should pay attention briefly to our Presidents opinion.

1.) Note that Obama subtly concedes that we were at one time a Christian nation when he says, “Whatever we once were…”

2.) When Obama invokes the idea that we are a people who are bound by ideals and a set of values he begs the questions of our religious orientation since it is religion that produces ideals and sets of values. Obviously we are a people who are bound by ideals and a set of values but then all peoples, along with other factors, are bound by ideals and sets of values. The question that has to be asked is what theology or religion is serving as the fount out of which our ideals and values bubble up.

3.) According to our President we are a people of many gods and no gods. This is a admission that we are a people and a Nation who are polytheistic in our cultural orientation.

The problem with this is that no culture can cohesively function that is genuinely polytheistic. This is due to the fact that in a genuinely polytheistic culture there would be unremitting conflict since the various demands of the competing gods would forever put the followers of those gods at each others throats. In a truly polytheistic culture, there would be continuous culture wars.

As such wherever polytheistic cultures exist they can only function if there is some entity that is in charge of the competing gods setting limits as to how far the claims of the competing gods can be taken. For example, when the will of Allah teaches that women must cover themselves in public comes into conflict with the will of the feminist god who says that women can be topless in the public square some god has to step in to adjudicate the public square conflict between the gods.

This god of the gods in polytheistic cultures becomes the state. The state becomes the policeman of the gods. The state determines how far the gods can and can’t go in the public square. The state tells the adherents of the various gods how seriously they are allowed to take the commands and will of their respective gods.

The ironic consequence of this is that polytheism creates a monotheistic culture. Because polytheism has so many gods, some god must be badged to police the gods. The state then is the monotheistic entity that creates the common bonds that creates a common culture and all gods are welcome as long as all gods are willing to serve the god of the state.

Having said all that I would agree with President Obama that we are a polytheistic nation. The evidence that gives this reality is how the defacto arrangement in this country has gone from implicitly Christian to implicitly humanism. One only has to look at the recent decisions regarding homosexual marriage. Whereas once upon a time the Supreme Court could make rulings about the unacceptability of polygamous marriages saying,

“Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries.”

And in another case, the Court similarly explained:

“The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is . . . . contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world.

now the courts are making rulings about the acceptability of homosexual marriage saying,

“We are firmly convinced that the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification.”

“Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring that government avoids them.”

“This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all.”

Say what you will about these decisions, and a multitude of other examples could be produced, some of which are in the opening quotes of this post, but obviously some kind of worldview shift has moved these united States from organizing themselves as a Christian nation to organizing themselves as a polytheistic nation.

Now certainly Christianity continues to contend, along with all the other competitors, for pride of place in our polytheistic nation but what is important to note is that the state is increasingly becoming that entity that polices the gods in the public square and so is in all essence the god of the gods.

All of this is to say that when Independence Day of 2009 roles around we must admit that if we remain a Christian nation it is only marginally so and that there continues an attempt, through the pursuit of multiculturalism, to polytheize us.

We are now in a flux stage where the Defacto sense of who we are as a nation is rapidly shifting and the result of this pursuit of polytheism will be that the eventuality that the one entity that will give us the capacity to function as a cohesive culture is the state taking on the prerogatives of god.