If you are a Christian, and if you are concerned about the moral condition of the United States and the direction in which it seems to be heading, then you will want to read David Gelernter’s article, “Americanism – and Its Enemies,” which appears in the current online issue of Commentary magazine.

Americanism, Gelernter argues, has not only been influenced by Puritanism but is actually the present-day metamorphosis of the 17th century movement and philosophy that played such a determinative role in the early days of the country. He views Americanism as a good thing – which, when kept within a biblical framework, it most assuredly can be – and is a proponent of what Americanism has done, is doing, and will (hopefully) continue to do.

Those who know me well know that I am not especially political, although I do know what is going on and (usually) have firm convictions about what candidate or party I believe to have better moral character. But I have been quietly concerned for a number of years about the passion many Christians seem to have for their political party, agenda, and/or candidate: Gelernter’s article helped me clarify my concern and articulate what I hope is a coherent and biblical response.

I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but it is (I believe) of such importance as to merit whatever length it takes. You might do well to read it in more than one sitting, although I think it is probably best to get take it in all at once. Hopefully, it will hold your interest long enough to keep you reading to the end.

Gelernter’s Premise and Position



To fully appreciate and understand Gelernter’s contention, read his article: it is wonderfully written and thoughtfully reasoned; my own brief summary cannot do it justice but is necessary for the response I will offer in this post. Again, I strongly encourage you to read the original: Commentary is usually available online only by subscription, but the editors have agreed to make this timely piece available to everyone free of charge.

“By Americanism,” Gelernter explains, “I mean the set of beliefs that are thought to constitute America’s essence and to set it apart; the beliefs that make Americans positive that their nation is superior to all others - morally superior, closer to God.” It is, he says, essentially an unnamed, unofficial, loosely organized religion: “a Judeo-Christian religion, a millenarian religion, biblical religion . . . [Americanism] has been incorporated into all the Judeo-Christian religions of the nation.”

Americanism is the heart of what the country is all about; the heartbeat of Americanism is provided by the word of God: “The Bible is not merely the fertile soil that brought Americanism forth. It is the energy source that makes it live and thrive; that makes believing Americans willing to prescribe freedom, equality, and democracy even for a place like Afghanistan . . .” So vital is the Bible to Americanism that, Gelernter declares, “If you undertake to remove Americanism from its native biblical soil, you had better connect it to some other energy source potent enough to keep its principles alive and blooming.”

There is, of course, no other “energy source” that can infuse the country with the spirit and power it has historically drawn from the Bible.

This reliance upon Scripture and sense of destiny shared by Americans is what Gelernter develops in his article. “From the 17th century through John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Americans kept talking about their country as if it were the biblical Israel and they were the chosen people.” Indeed, some went so far as to christen the United States “God’s New Israel.” (At least one local judge appears to be a fervent adherent of this tradition.)

According to Gelernter, this view of America is not only an outgrowth of Puritanism but is Puritanism itself.


“Puritanism had two main elements: the Calvinist belief in predestination with associated religious doctrines, and what we might call a ‘political’ doctrine. The ‘political’ goal of Puritanism was to reach back to the pure Christianity of the New Testament – and then even farther back. Puritans spoke of themselves as God’s new chosen people, living in God’s new promised land – in short, as God’s new Israel.


“I believe that Puritanism did not drop out of history. It transformed itself into Americanism. This new religion was the end-stage of Puritanism: Puritansim realized among God’s self-proclaimed ‘new’ chosen people . . .


“[M]y thesis is that Puritanism did not merely inspire or influence Americanism; it turned into Americanism. Puritanism and Americanism are not just parallel or related developments; they are two stages of a single phenomenon.”


Gelernter examines the “American creed” that at once describes and supports Americanism. It is not principally “liberty, equality, democracy, individualism, human rights, the rule of law, and private property,” as is argued by some. Instead, he says, it is something else:

“I prefer a different formulation: a conceptual triangle in which one fundamental fact creates two premises that create three conclusions.

“The fundamental fact: the Bible is God’s word. Two premises: first, every member of the American community has his own individual dignity, insofar as he deals individually with God; second, the community has a divine mission to all mankind. Three conclusions: every human being everywhere is entitled to freedom, equality, and democracy.”

Gelernter, drawing from the teachings of the Puritans, anchors the two premises and three conclusion in the Bible. If you have even a passing interest in the history of the country and how it became what it is, then you must read the article. He effectively demonstrates and explains the thinking of the Puritans and those who came later that supports Americanism.

American Zionism

There is more – much more – to Americanism than what Gelernter has presented thusfar. Americanism is not just a philosophy or premise: Americanism is a where, a who, and a why:

“To sum up Americanism’s creed as freedom, equality, and democracy for all is to state only half the case. The other half deals with a promised land, a chosen people, and a universal, divinely ordained mission. This part of Americanism is the American version of biblical Zionism: in short, American Zionism.”

Four critical points in American history – “turning points” – illustrate the presence and practice of Americanism during the past 200+ years. The first was at the birth of the United States when the colonies proclaimed their independence from the United Kingdom. The second was the Civil War, the third World War I, and the fourth the cold war which followed World War II.

Gelernter provides numerous examples from history to support his argument. He cites speeches and comments from revolutionary figures, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, and Ronald Reagan to illustrate his points. Most persuasive of all, perhaps, is his depiction of Abraham Lincoln as one who understood and subscribed to Americanism.

“Lincoln’s understanding of [the Civil War], writes Edmund Wilson, ‘grew out of the religious tradition of the New England theology of Puritanism.’ In 1862, Lincoln made ‘a solemn vow before God’ to free the South’s slaves. William Wolf notes that this vow was ‘more in conformance with Old Testament than with New Testament religion,’ was ‘imbedded in Lincoln’s biblical piety,’ and ‘came to him as part of the religious heritage of the nation.’ The ‘climactic expression of his biblical faith, according to Wolf, was the Second Inaugural address, [which] ‘reads like a supplement to the Bible. In it there are fourteen references to God, four direct quotations from Genesis, Psalms, and Matthew, and other allusions to scriptural teaching’ . . . If Americanism is a religion, this is its holiest document after the Bible and the Declaration; and Lincoln is its greatest prophet.”

Anti-Americanism

Having explained what Americanism is, Gelernter then turns his attention to the seemingly ubiquitous hatred of Americanism in general and George W. Bush in particular. It is the perceived sense of mission, moral superiority, and arrogance that foments so much resentment in other parts of the world. He says,


“That Americanism is the successor of Puritanism is crucial to anti-Americanism . . . In the 19th century, European elites became increasing hostile to Christianity – which inevitably entailed hostility to America. In modern times, anti-Americanism is closely associated with anti-Christianism and anti-Semitism.

“Anti-Americans are still fascinated and enraged by Americans’ bizarre tendency to believe in God . . . Londoners [comment] that ‘the United States is one giant fundamentalist Christian nation peopled by raging Bible-thumpers on every street’; that America is ‘running wild with religious extremism that threatens the world far more than bin Laden.’

“And we needn’t go to . . . Britain to find angry denunciations of President Bush and the Americans who support him in religion-mocking terms. The President’s faith, said one prominent American politician in September 2004, is ‘the American version of the same fundamentalist impulse that we see in Saudi Arabia, in Kashmir, and in many religions around the world.’

“The speaker was former Vice President Al Gore.”

At the close of his remarkable essay, Gelernter’s support and defense of Americanism becomes clear. He rebukes Gore before concluding his article:

His comments were offensive and false. Today’s radical Islam is a religion of death, a religion that rejoices in slaughter. The radical Christianity known as Puritanism insisted on choosing life. Americanism does, too.

Puritans took to heart these famous words from the Hebrew Bible: “I have set before you this day life and death, blessing and curse: therefore choose life and live, you and your children” (Deuteronomy 30:19).

It is to Puritanism, Gelernter concludes, that America and Americanism owes their existence: “we are [its] heirs; and we ought to thank God that we have inherited [its] humanitarian decency along with [its] radical, God-fearing Americanism.”

A Christian Response and Corrective

Gelernter is a compelling and forceful writer, but also compassionate and empathetic. His points on America’s indebtedness are well-taken, and he calls us back to what has made and kept the country great for more than two centuries. His is a voice to which we should listen carefully and thoughtfully.

Interestingly, many of his arguments and observations were foreshadowed by Bruce Shelley, Senior Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Denver Theological Seminary, in his 1982 book, Church History in Plain Language. Shelley adds breadth, depth, and a more biblical perspective to Gelernter’s article. He opens his chapter on Puritanism, The Rule of the Saints, with an analysis of Puritan pastor John Cotton’s farewell sermon to emigrants embarking to the New World:


“Cotton declared that like the ancient Israelites these immigrants [sic.] were God’s chosen people, headed for the land he had promised and prepared. In this new land they would be able to labor undisturbed for the glory of God.


“There you have a snapshot of Puritanism: the Bible, the covenanted people of God, and their divine mission in the world . . . Puritanism provided for Christians of every generation a model of the Christian life as a decisive commitment to Jesus Christ and how that life of the soul expresses itself in the public arena, in a nation governed by the truths of the Bible.”

Although Puritanism thrived primarily in (ironically) Massachusetts, where the colony’s unique charter did not require legal tolerance of other faiths, the Puritan mindset – Americanism, to use Gelernter’s term – was to be found throughout the colonies. Shelley continues,


“Puritanism . . . began with an individual’s experience of the redeeming grace of God but moved on to stress the elect’s mission in the world, the shaping of society according to biblical principles. In its emphasis upon the interior life of the saint, Puritanism was a taproot of later evangelical Christianity with its born again message. In its stress upon a disciplined ‘nation under God’ and his laws, it contributed significantly to the national character of the American people.”

Martyrs and Hermeneutics

Early in his discussion, however, Shelley makes a very important observation that provides insight into when and how Puritanism in New England may have strayed from its biblical roots. It is an important corrective of Gelernter’s otherwise outstanding discussion. Shelley notes,

“The Puritans, however had more than their Geneva Bibles. They had a sense of destiny, a vision of God’s purpose among men and nations. The idea that the Almighty moves in the affairs of men is traceable, to be sure, to the Bible. But the concept that the pilgrimage of God’s people spanned the centuries and led at last to England was from another book. John Foxe, in his highly popular Book of Martyrs, planted this idea in the minds of Englishmen.

“Like the Geneva Bible, The Book of Martyrs was a product of the English exile during the reign of Bloody Mary. Foxe marshalled account after account of the suffering of faithful Protestants who dared to die – if need be – for the triumph of God’s kingdom. According to Foxe, this trail of martyrs led to the shores of England and to the reign of Mary. The conclusion seemed clear: God had a special place for the English people in his worldwide plan of redemption.

“The influence of The Book of Martyrs proved enormous. Generation after generation of Englishmen saw history, and read their Bibles, through Foxe’s eyes. Aside from the Bible, his book probably did more to shape the mind of Englishmen than any other single volume. Less than half a century after Foxe’s death, Puritans carried his work and his philosophy of history – along with their English Bibles – across the Atlantic, into the American wilderness . . .

“Most of the basic beliefs of the evangelicals could be found in Puritanism: the sinfulness of man, the atoning death of Christ, the unmerited grace of God, the salvation of the true believer. But Puritanism was more concerned with politics. It tried to create the holy commonwealth, the true Bible society, in England and America.

“The evangelicals were not detached from politics, as the Pietists were, but there controlling passion was the conversion of the lost. They were less concerned about the reform of churches and more intent upon the preaching of the gospel to all . . . “

The basis for Americanism is not, as Gelernter asserts, to be found in the Bible but rather in Foxe’s influential The Book of Martyrs. It is by reading the Bible, as Shelley notes, through Foxe’s eyes that Americanism is seen and promoted. Americanism is not automatically wrong because it is not directly derived from the Bible, but it is misleading to suggest that its origins lie in Scripture.

In addition to the influence from Foxe, the hermeneutic employed by the Puritans leaves much to be desired. Hermeneutics is the science of translating and understanding the message of the Bible and, although there are various schools of thought ranging from liberally allegorical to wildly literal, great care must be taken to keep from reading one’s own doctrines, desires, or delusions into the text. Exegesis is drawing mean from the text and is a good thing; eisogesis is reading into the text what is not there and is a bad thing.

The Puritans saw themselves as the new Israel, supplanting God’s chosen people of the Old Testament and stealing His promises to them. Israel’s destiny became the Puritan’s destiny. But this is not at all what the Bible teaches. While a development of this exegetical and theological issue is beyond the scope of this post, suffice it to say, along with Paul, that “God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew . . . a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11.2, 25-26).

This may appear to be “proof-texting” on my part, but it is clear that God is not through with Israel. They have been His chosen people in the past, remain potentially chosen today, and will most definitely be chosen by Him in the future.

But God’s chosen – that is, elect – people today are not Americans or Englishmen or any other nation or ethnic group. God’s chosen people today are those believers in Jesus Christ wherever they may be found, whether in America, Iran, Iraq – even France. It is the Church – composed of actual believers, not merely attenders – and not America that is God’s elect at this time.

Pre-, A-, or Post-Millenial?

Almost in passing, Gelernter says that Americanism is “a millenarian religion.” Millenialism is the belief that Jesus Christ will rule on the earth. Premillenialist maintain that He will do this physically on the earth for 1,000 years as recorded in Rev 20.6 and other passages. Postmillenialist believe that the church will usher in the millenium through her efforts and then Christ will return at the end of the 1,000 years – which are usually viewed as symbolic and not literal years. Amillenialist do not believe in an earthly reign of Christ but that He rules spiritually in the hearts of His people; similar to the Postmillenialist, they also understand the 1,000 years as figurative and not literal language.

The pressing question that Gelernter does not answer or address, however, is what variation of millenialism is it? It is highly unlikely that it would be Premillenial, since most adherents of that position recognize that the church will never succeed in bringing the kingdom to a material fruition. The church will fail in her responsibilities even as Israel failed in her own.

Biblical Priorities

As noted at the beginning of this post, Americanism can be a good thing if kept within certain parameters. The question is, what are those parameters? Certainly Christians have a duty and responsibility to the society and culture in which they live, but where does one draw the line? A few suggestions and recommendations will bring this post to a close.

First, we must keep in mind that our lives on earth exist in a tension. Paul tells us submit to civil authorities (Rom 13.1-2) and to pray for our governmental leaders as well as our spiritual leaders (1 Tim 2.1-2), but he also reminds us not to be like those “who set their minds on earthly things. For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Php 3.19-20). When Pilate asked Jesus if He was truly a king, the Lord replied, “”My kingdom is not of this world” (Jn 18.36).

This world is important, to be sure, and the nation in which we live is a good one and one for which we ought to thank God and pray. But it is perilous for us to place our hopes and trust in this country or any other. We are to store up treasures in heaven and use our time and other resources to make an impact that will last for eternity and serve – not this nation but – the Kingdom of God.

To the extent that the purposes of this country coincide with the purposes of God, we must support the United States; when this country or any other goes beyond or against His purposes, we should not and cannot give ourselves to that mission. The Puritans, following the Bible, were correct in emphasizing personal faith in God; following Foxe, however, they were wrong when they claimed for themselves the promises that belonged to Israel and sought to establish a physical kingdom of God on earth.

As the great theologian “Dirty Harry” said, “A man’s got to know his limitations.” Perhaps, as Christians living in America, we have sought to “be all that we can be” instead of ordering our lives differently so that we might “become all that God means for us to be.”



2 Cor 1:13