The following are my thoughts, as one who has lived most of his life in a country with hardly any Christian history, but has spent just enough time in the "Christian" West to catch on to a few things.

I notice that the believers in New Testament times didn't live in a Christian country, and neither do we, in Thailand. Yet, I see a lot of emphasis in the West on the value of Christian laws, like shops being closed on Sunday (in U.K.) and tax exempt laws for churches -- as though church members would stop supporting the church if they couldn't get a tax write off. I know that in China, underground churches thrive, though they're illegal. Their members support the church even though they know they could be fined for it, much less get a tax write off!

On the other hand, I wonder at the fact that in American public schools, one can land in the soup for carrying a Bible into a classroom; but at the Bible training centre I used to teach at in Thailand, each year the students were invited to do a Christmas presentation at all the publicly sponsored primary schools in the area. We told them what Jesus' birthday meant, we gave the gospel message, we did puppets, songs, and then gave prizes to children who, at the end of the show, could recite John 3:16. Thailand is a Buddhist country. In any "Christian" country, where anything related to the gospel message is politically incorrect, we would have been put in jail.

I know "Christian" is no longer an apt description of the West, but Christianity is deeply embedded in its history. The better we understand this, the better we'll understand the present.

History of the Church's Influence over Western Society and Culture

Christianity was the de facto religion of the West for the better part of 2000 years.

There's a lot we could probably discuss about just how Christianity came to prominence, whether it was a good thing or not, whose political agenda it fulfilled, how the Greco-Roman way of thinking came to displace the Jewish, and the giant religio-socio-political machine that resulted. However, our intent in this discussion is to go only as deep into the history of the relationship between the Church and the world as to show where we are now, and to understand the dynamics of what has been called the "Post Christian Era". For that, we'll begin our brief historical synopsis with the "religio-socio-political machine" already in place.

The most obvious expression of this is, of course, the Roman Catholic Church. For many centuries, the Holy Roman church ruled with an iron hand to the extant that many Protestant leaders tended to identify the Pope with the Antichrist. Rome did indeed rule with an iron grip. The Grand Inquisition is but one example of how religious authorities dealt with those who didn't conform with the Roman version of Christianity.

We Protestants tend to think of the Reformation as the answer to the heavy-handed ways of the Holy Roman Empire. In many of our minds, that brought a more Biblically based Christianity. However, in many situations, that only meant one version of Christianity was replaced with another. Just like Catholicism, it was forced on the public at large. State churches replaced those ruled by Roman Catholic archbishops. In Protestant controlled areas, it was just as much against the status quo to express ones faith in a Roman Catholic way as it was to be a Protestant in a Catholic ruled area. Groups that tried to think outside the box, such as the Anabaptists, were persecuted just as brutally by both, as were the Jews and other sub groups.

As far as the Jewish community was concerned, as well as the atheists, the free thinkers, the hardened sinners, etc., it was definitely a Christian's world.

Not that all of the above found the "religio-socio-political machine" impossible to live with, in particular, those in the "hardened sinner" category (for those of my readers who are "hardened sinners", I mean no offence). In those days, as in every age, it was easier to live without a conscience than with one. Before the Reformation, all one had to do was buy an indulgence -- provided one had enough money. Even after the reformation one could still find a niche, especially as a Christian was defined as one born in a family that saw it as their patriotic duty to have their children baptised at birth. True, the reformation, to some, was about rediscovering the truth of salvation by faith, but to most, that was a subjective thing, and had nothing to do with the fact that one belonged to the church regardless. The ones who thought it did, the Anabaptists, were persecuted almost out of existence. Their sin? Simply for believing that one isn't truly a Christian unless one has made ones own decision to follow Christ, and be baptised. The church, to them, was made up only of those who had thus come to a conscious faith in Christ. People who were baptised as infants were encouraged to be re-baptised as adults, thus their name (which literally means, "re-baptisers"). There wasn't room for these in Christianised society then, because they just couldn't be made to fit anyone's political agenda. Their time hadn't come yet.

But the hardened sinners found their niche. The free thinkers, who had enough of a conscience to be able to spot hypocrisy, didn't. They stayed away and wrote books like The Communist Manifesto, and Origin of the Species -- Well, maybe we're getting ahead of ourselves, but with the onset of the Renaissance and the philosophy of Humanism, their kind began to find their niche outside the church.

Ironically, it was the Anabaptist type of faith in the church, and the Humanistic free thinkers outside, who most influenced the later stages in Church - World relations. Great Britain, and later, America became the breeding ground for the non-state sponsored churches.

First came the Puritans, who were the first to recognise that the Reformation didn't usher in the perfect world. However, their approach was to attempt it politically, which never quite worked in England, apart from a short period under Cromwell. One could argue that that was because they were outnumbered by the "hardened sinners" who had found their niche in the Anglican Church, and knew there was no place for their lifestyle in the Presbyterian and Congregational churches. The high standard of morality practised by the Puritans was just too much for the general public to follow.

Nevertheless the Puritans were the state church that wanted to be. The only difference was, they didn't see the king, or secular government as having jurisdiction over church affairs. This was one step in the direction of the Anabaptist model of the local church, though they still expected the secular government to fill the pews with the general populace.

The crown had other ideas again. As everywhere else, religion was just too powerful a force to be allowed autonomy. So the Puritans chose another path.

Puritanism had its roots in Holland under Spanish rule. There, because the Dutch Reformed churches felt their position insecure, not having state sponsorship and their rulers moreover being Catholic, banded together and made a covenant. The stipulation of their covenant was that this was their land, given to them by God, and they would faithfully occupy it as Protestants.  Because they were the adherents of God's true religion, of course, God was on their side and would defend them as He once defended His erstwhile covenant people, the Jews (note the traces of Replacement theology).

Politically, this was a very good move, as it drew all the people together into a unified force. In terms of the Kingdom of God? That's the question at the heart of this discussion.

The Scottish Presbyterians, who  were trying to fend off the Church of England followed their example, and also found it a politically good move.

The pattern was naturally followed by the Dutch Reformed who migrated to South Africa, who later became known as the Africaamers. It was their covenant that held Apartheid in place for more than a hundred years. It was only when the Reformed Churches of South Africa came together and revoked the covenant that things came to a surprisingly peaceful solution there, and all inclusive elections were held.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Protestant churches of Northern Ireland (descendants of the Scottish covenanters) made a similar covenant, which today, is one of the major, though hidden issues behind the troubles there. They will not accept Roman Catholic rule over their province -- the Ulster Covenant stipulates it -- and "Home rule is Rome rule" (the assumption is, of course, that the Dublin government is under the thumb of the Roman Catholic Church).

In the above two examples of covenant, we can readily see that there is a political advantage, though very one sided. In the case of Northern Ireland, it's the Catholics who feel trapped in a Protestant world, because of the fear on the part of the Protestants that they'll be trapped in a Catholic World.

Is that a legitimate fear? Before we can thoroughly answer that question, we need to clear out some more cobwebs.

Let's move on to the New World, where things appeared to loosen up as far as Christian dominance over political affairs. It was the Covenanters, again, who laid what many see as the foundation of the new nation, with the Mayflower Compact.

Reading the text, any Christian would think, "How appropriate!" A persecuted minority has come to the New World of virgin forests and are beginning a new life, governing themselves with Christian laws in the land God has given them.

But what about the Native Americans?

I'm sorry, this land now belongs to European Protestants.

The early Puritans may not have seen it in quite that light, especially as there seemed to be enough room for everyone, even the detractors (provided they moved away and started a new settlement). But it's quite apparent that the Native Americans saw it that way. It also seems that others, to this day, still hold it as their mandate. We'll get to more of that later.

Let's move from the foundation to the building itself.

Things like the American Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, etc. were the handiwork of the free thinkers and Humanists who had found their niche in the world of philosophy and education. To be sure, they were members of the church as well, but their thinking was molded more by Humanistic thought and Free Masonry than by the Theology of the church. One of their opinions, also held by many in the church, was Deism. That's the idea that God created the world, gave mankind a religion, and then went off somewhere else and left humanity to do it on their own. In the days before Darwin, that was about as good as they could do.

Having said that, I must also add that what they came up with did reflect Godly wisdom. It's just that it took minds that were unshackled by the church's mindset to come up with it. Another thing to keep in mind is that the Humanism of that day was not as incompatible with Biblical thought as is that of our day and age. They were, after all, living in a Christian dominated world. They also recognised godly wisdom that had come through the church. The Puritan concept of "Separation of Church and State" became a national doctrine.

But the general dynamics, not only with the American experience, but also the French revolution, and the affect this had on Great Britain and other nations, made for a general loosening up in the church's dominance over the world.

It was in this new environment that the seeds of the Anabaptist movement finally began to flower. John Wesley was influenced by Moravian Brethren, who were, in turn, founded by remnants of the Anabaptists. Through his revival preaching and leadership John Wesley not only started the Methodist movement, but also had a profound influence on later movements, like the Baptists, the Plymouth Brethren, and finally the Pentecostals. The faith, rediscovered by Martin Luther was no longer seen as such a subjective thing, but now understood to be based on ones decision to respond to the Holy Spirit's call. Moreover, saving faith is more obvious, both because of one's public response and because of the visibly transformed life afterwards. It is now more apparent who is a Christian. The Anabaptist understanding that the church in the local setting is made up of these and no other, became the basic premise of all of these latter movements.

This was the recipe for rapid growth. Here were churches that didn't depend on sanction by the state for their survival. Not even a national covenant was necessary. A church could thus be started in a totally hostile environment. In fact, such churches were even more resilient and faster growing than those in friendly environments. They thrived on being in the minority. Imperial colonialism was no longer necessary to reach the world with the Gospel.

Moreover, the new American republic provided a working model of how a national government could coexist with such a church.

Churches of this sort naturally sprouted up, not only in Great Britain, but also in the New World and beyond until they began to outnumber the older version. In world evangelism, such churches still enjoy the cutting edge. Today, we call these "Evangelical churches" (though today many Anglican and Presbyterian churches are Evangelical in their outlook, while many Methodists, and even some Baptists have become "high churchy") 

The Post Christian Era

One would think that now, we had just the right formula with which to make a smooth transition into the "Post Christian Era".

However, Great Britain still has her royal "defender of the faith", Scotland still has her covenant, United States still has her Mayflower Compact, and so on, making all of these "Christian countries" in some minds. Evangelical or not, it makes for a more comfortable position for the church in society. How well you and I know how weak human nature is in the face of too much comfort.

Many North American Evangelicals embrace the Mayflower Compact as their mandate to keep America Christian, as though their spiritual health and well-being depended on the state's support and co-operation. In Northern Ireland, the Methodists also signed their own versions of the Ulster Covenant. The Baptists also stand solidly behind it, as do many Pentecostals. British royalty now sees itself as defender of all the faiths (according to Prince Charles, this includes the Hindus and the Moslems as well!). Pentecostals complain as loudly as anyone when they see shops open on Sunday.

So, back to the question: is this a good thing?

Maybe "good" isn't the right word. Of course, it's "good", but the "good" is often the worst enemy of the "best". Let's look at it in terms of the problems and the confusion it has caused -- three in particular.

In terms of humility, being the "favorite son" hasn't been conducive to bringing out the nature of Christ. It simply cannot be said that we, as Christians, have a humble attitude towards the world at large. Though this point may seem superfluous to what we have to discuss under the other two points below, it deserves mention as the most important. If we, as the Church truly humbled ourselves and became as Christ, the humble servant, before the rest of the world, it's the rest of this article, from beginning to end, that would become superfluous. It's because we so enjoy what's left of our "favourite son" status in society, and act like spoiled brats as we see it slip away from us, that we end up sending the wrong message to the world we were called to reach.

The Slingshot effect --The post-Christian age in which we now find ourselves presents its own set of dynamics that are easily misunderstood.

All the while all of the above was happening, the free thinking population was steadily growing in size and maturity. Karl Marx, Darwin, Freud etc. wrote their books expounding their various theories, others expanded on them,  and the rest of the world took it all in. Paradigms shifted gradually, but for a while, all seemed to bode well for Christian dominance over society and culture. Homosexuals remained carefully concealed in their closets, entertainers watched their language, and abortions were done only in back alleys using coat hangers.

However, the "hardened sinners" were finding it increasingly difficult to find their niche in the church, as the growing Evangelical movement was making it clear, "If you're not in, you're out!"

So, they began making their own niche outside. To be sure, there always was a niche for them outside, but now, it was fast becoming a respectable niche. Also on their side was the invention of motion picture, and later, television, which they made maximum use of in promoting their niche until it grew from being a subculture to being the dominant culture.

It's into this newly expanded culture that the Gay community have been gradually stepping out of their closets and actors and comedians are emboldened to spice up their language a little, though perhaps not just a little. Neither did the Gay community step politely into public in gentlemanly and lady-like fashion. Very loudly, the unchurched are proclaiming, it is the "Post Christian Era".

What we are seeing is the slingshot effect. This is their reaction to hundreds of years of living by someone else's rules.

I'm very much afraid we, in the Christian world have mistaken it for persecution for the sake of Christ. Though it is to a point, what they are fighting isn't the true Jesus of Nazareth, but the "system" that they have broken free from. They're simply beating it back into a corner for fear it will return to power and control their lives again. Judging by our attitude, that's exactly what would happen if they, even for a moment, let down their guard.

However I'm convinced that if they were to encounter the same Jesus who dined with the sinners of His day, their reactions would be different. We only complicate matters by our outlook, our lack of humility, acting the part of the spoiled child deprived of his number one place, and by confusing our mandate.

Confusion of mandates

The problem with basing our position on a covenant is, we've got our mandate all mixed up. Instead of reaching the world for Christ, we thought our mandate was to make the world a safe place for our own kind

To be sure, we pay lip service to the Great Commission, but our activities seem more focused on political change, keeping the wrong people out of political office, preventing the wrong types from teaching our children etc. (I fully appreciate the difficult choices this involves. I'm a father myself).

It is good for Christian to have a say in national affairs and to support the passage of godly laws; but doing it in a way that polarises Christians with those of a particular political persuasion, works against the mandate of reaching them for Christ. If homosexuals see Christians as their enemy, how will we win them? If being a born again believer in Northern Ireland means being a Unionist, how will we reach the Republicans? Remember, Jesus was known as the friend of sinners. That doesn't mean He became a sinner. He remained holy and sinless (His bottom line was, "Go and sin no more"), but his priority was to reach the sinners, even at the risk of being mistaken for one, which He was on occasion.

The priority of winning the world is quite clear in the Bible. The Scriptures do not give a very high priority to making the world safe and unoffensive for the Christian community, nor does it guarantee our success. In fact, the opposite is all but guaranteed. Jesus said, in this world you will have persecution. He said you will be thrown out of places and dragged into courts of law for His sake.

But isn't the church persecuted already as being politically incorrect? What about Christian schools forced to hire gay teachers? What about the fact that Islam and Hindu religion can be discussed in school but not Christianity?

True, there is persecution. Some of it is due to the offence of the cross, but some is also a response to two millennia of Christian dominance of culture and society, and to our present attitude towards them.

I'm convinced, however, that were we to exhibit true Christ-like character and humility, there would actually be less persecution from the "hardened sinner" category. True, Jesus was persecuted, but by whom? Perhaps he could have received some flak from a few raucous publicans that we weren't told about, but in the context which we noted above, Jesus was talking about persecution from the religious sector -- the ones who criticised Him for dining with sinners!

The fact is, when we treat anyone with respect, they respond to us likewise. In some cases we may have to prove ourselves by passing some of their tests, but they will recognise God's love when it shines without hindrance.

I used to work in a Bangkok based company with an office full of womanising ex-patriates. One colleague I was assigned to work with uttered some profanity, and immediately said, "Sorry for sounding un-Christian."

I said, "Are you a Christain?"

The answer was something to the effect that he wasn't.

I asked him, "Then why should I expect you to act like one?"

Once he knew that my friendship wasn't based on his conduct, we were off to a good start. He still hasn't turned on 100% for the gospel, but we still correspond by email occasionally.

In conclusion, the way I perceive it is, we have a choice. That is, whether or not we will take seriously the mandate Jesus gave the Church, even if it's at the expense of what we've mistaken all along for our mandate.

The first step is obviously to humble ourselves in repentance before God, and to become open and transparent before man, and allow Jesus to be Himself in us.

Another step could be to follow the example of Reformed Church of South Africa. The nation was falling headlong into a crisis, possibly a blood bath, when the churches came together and revoked their covenant that had kept Apartheid in place. That brought a change in the spiritual climate, civil war was averted, and elections were held.

In this example, the consequences of not doing what they did are obvious. The society they once tried to control would have risen up and devoured them while the very thing they clung to for security would have become their undoing. But they were wise. Could this be a warning for the rest of us?

In the end, it all depends on how serious we are about obeying God, and choosing to follow His mandate, even  if it means cutting off our umbilical chord and entering a "brave new world". It could be a key to our survival.

Much of the information on Covenants was taken from Harry Smith's pamphlet, The Ulster Covenant Revisited