[Part I] [Part II]
[Part III]
[Part IV]
[Part V]
[Part VI]
[Part VII]
[Part VIII]
[Part IX]
[Part X]
[Part XI]
[Part XII]
[Part XIII]
[Part XIV]
[Addendum]
The fiercest conflict faced by the first apostles was between those who taught that spirituality transcends all fleshly heritage and those who insisted that spirituality remains tied to natural heritage, specifically to that of Israel and Abraham. So intense was this debate that it created division within the ranks of the apostles themselves.
This original tension set the tone for an entire age. In every generation since Paul, Peter and James we’ve had to struggle over the pull to assign spirituality, virtue and righteousness to fleshly ancestry, whether to fleshly Israel, or to gentile nations that have shown taming under the gospel’s influence—or both.
These last 400 years, the Body’s struggle for identity has crystallized over the perception of America as the “premier Christian nation” of this age. Despite New Testament clarity on the spiritual essence of Christian nationhood, the Cyrus anointing has almost universally put us all under an illusion of “America’s Christian identity.”
Today’s average believer can hardly tell between nationality and faith. Loyalty to “God and Country” stands as one in the Body. Two flags (if not more) flank the pastor in most every American pulpit. In this regard, little has changed in Christian understanding since the Holy Roman Empire—even in the “prophetic” church.
The Panorama of Belief in America’s Christian Identity
Belief in America’s Christian identity has a wide spectrum:
· Some believe America is God’s chosen “spiritual counterpart” to ancient Israel by “covenant.” Many in today’s popular evangelical and prophetic movements espouse this.
· Some believe America was set apart to God in the same covenantal class as Israel—i.e., meant to live under Old Testament Law. Many of America’s first Puritan settlers believed this, and it is still believed by those known as “Reconstructionists.”
· Still others believe the (white) American people—together with the entire white European races—are the literal descendants of the 10 lost tribes of Israel, heirs to David’s throne traceable through the British monarchy, and so are the only true heirs to all the promises of God. These are commonly known as “British-Israelists.”
No matter where one sits on this spectrum with its many shades and combinations of the above beliefs, the premise is the same—that spiritual identity can be imputed to non-converted fleshly people. The romantic nostalgia and natural logic accompanying this belief make it extremely appealing. But where, oh where, can the church possibly find New Covenant Scriptural support for this? We’ve already seen that the apostles forbid the idea.
The “Reincarnation” of Old Israel through America?
If we look closely at the above spectrum, we’ll see that almost all belief in America’s Christian identity is finally supported by linking America in some way to God’s Old Covenant with ancient Israel.
Instead of defending Paul and Peter’s standard of holy identity that disallows flesh-based Christian nationality, the church has been “bewitched” like the Galatians, assigning righteousness to gentile peoples by connecting them in some way to Israel’s failed fleshly covenant with God. What the Galatians did to connect themselves to God through affirming Old Covenant lineage, the churches of this age have been trying to do to connect the nations to God ever since.
Mingling Old and New Covenants under the anointing, today’s church has declared America to be “set apart” in spiritual identity virtually equal to herself—one in soul, identity and purpose. Even in the prophetic, where we expect more light, one can hardly tell between God’s call on the church and on America. The destinies of Body and beast are prophesied to be inseparably intertwined. (With the late resurgence of prophetic Messianic Zionism added to this mix, the affirming of American fleshly spiritual heritage has reached an all-time fever pitch!)
- Problems with the Old Israel Model
If Paul is to be believed, then linking anyone to natural Israel is a false basis for alleging a fleshly nation’s Christian identity. How can we forget that it’s precisely because of what Israel could not do as a fleshly nation that the New Covenant was given—a covenant that necessarily changed the basis of identity in God from one of natural (national) ancestry to heavenly spiritual lineage?
What makes the New Covenant so special is that it changes hearts. The blood of Jesus changes hearts by replacing identities, exchanging old names rooted in Adam to new names rooted in Christ alone. Since the New Testament defines identity in Christ entirely in spiritual terms, heart conversion alone gives us the only basis for identifying and defining anything as Christian—including Christian nationhood.
Does the Cyrus anointing on fleshly nations change this?
Not at all! Consider Israel again which was baptized “under the cloud” of the anointing. If Israel’s wilderness record teaches us anything about national anointing, it’s that anointing provides and protects, but anointing does not transform hearts to establish identity in God. If the anointing couldn’t change the heart of Old Covenant Israel to truly belong to Him, how much less can it change the identity of any gentile nation into being “Christian”??
Reviewing Historical Reality
Much has been written to defend the idea of America’s Christian nationality and to return the country to its Christian roots. Acknowledging the Lord’s anointing, I have already agreed that God’s hand was on the founding of the United States and that the positive influence of true believers on the culture was great.
But despite the early participation of many Christians and the turns of some events attributable only to the “hand of Providence,” it takes but superficial historical review to tell that America was established on beast principles common to all nations—neither fulfilling the true model of Old Israel as a holy priesthood nor demonstrating the heart distinctives that alone define a people as truly Christian.
Let’s look again at the Old Israel model. Even if we allowed that God could start a Christian nation today on the same order as He started Israel, we would quickly find that America never fulfilled that model in its origins. Despite the best intentions of early New England colonists, the nation finally founded as the Unites States fails the Israel model in two major ways:
- America’s Covenantal Law: Where Is It?
First, Israel was given its own Law directly from God, entirely free of any other nation’s law system. This did not happen in America. America was established under royal British law and decree, a legal system directly descended from Roman Civil Law (hardly a Christian legal foundation). The founders themselves admittedly looked to Rome’s past for direction in establishing the new American legal system.
True, as noted above, the first Puritans tried to establish Mosaic Law as their legal system. But this was short-lived, bore the fruit of the flesh in every way, and in any case, they remained under charter from the King of England for their settlement—ultimately accountable to the secular law of the British lion.
Similar is true of the Pilgrims. Although their landing site in Plymouth took them outside the jurisdiction of their original charter from the King, the legal system they formed themselves under the Mayflower Compact and later the Book of Laws was derived from a mixture of Old Testament and English Common Law, not from any revelation of God.
In all cases, no settlement in America began with an independent revelation and law from God as did Israel. In fact most of the original 13 colonies were founded purely as economic ventures under various European laws with no spiritual sense of mandate. When the colonies finally united between 1774 and 1787 to debate and form the federal law that resulted in the Constitution of the United States, the Scriptures themselves figured little in it, never mind a new inspired national covenantal revelation from God.
- Money, the Root of All Nations
The second way America’s founding fails the Old Israel model regards Israel’s original economy. Israel was wholly severed economically from all other nations, receiving her provision directly and solely from the Lord. From the time of Israel’s departure from Egypt, she was entirely economically self-sufficient in the Lord. This carried right through to her entrance into the Promised Land. In short, Israel was never fiscally tied or indebted to any other people for her beginning.
But for America this is not true in the least. From the founding of Plymouth itself—the most spiritually motivated of all colonies—every settlement in America was economically tied and/or indebted to British and other European banking and commercial interests for its provision and survival. No economic policy rooted solely and independently either in scripture or by spiritual revelation was ever established.
When the people at last declared independence and ran out of money to fight their cause, there was no prayer to the Lord Jesus for supernatural supply. They turned to France. And by the time of the federal Constitution, the entire country was indebted to the hilt to the banks and treasuries of at least three European nations (including the one from which they believed themselves to have gained their political freedom!)—which debt was necessarily written into the Constitution.
What Would a Truly “Christian Nation” Look Like?
Alright. So the United States fails the Israel model. From that standpoint then, it can’t be argued to be a “Christian nation” on any order of covenantal calling as Israel had.
But what if we remove any link with Israel from the picture? Suppose we still assume the possibility of a fleshly-identifiable Christian nation yet exists in this age—having nothing to do with Israel? And supposing America truly was such a nation? What then would we expect to find at the establishment of this truly Christian nation? Must we still not expect to find—
· a nation whose founders plainly state together that their purpose for existence is to fulfil the Exodus Commission as restated in 1 Peter—to be a holy and royal worshipping priesthood of the Lord Jesus Christ, to proclaim His Name to all other peoples of the earth and to accomplish His will (at least as much as Muslim nations proclaim their purpose to be to exalt Allah)?
· a nation whose legal and banking system is derived from the teachings of the Lord Jesus, the King of Kings and His apostles (at least as much as the Muslim nations derive their legal and banking system from the Quran)?
· a nation whose citizenship requirement is at least a clear profession of faith in Christ as Redeemer (as much as Muslim nations require profession of faith in Mohammed)??
Yet it is again plain: we do not find any of this at the founding of the United States. (How many churches do we find built on all these premises, never mind nations??) So then, whether supposedly covenantally connected to and modeled after Israel or not, the United States did not, does not and cannot fulfil the requirements for a supposable fleshly Christian nation.
[ Continued in Part V ]
Chris Anderson
New Meadow Neck, Rhode Island
First Love Ministry
- a ministry of Anglemar Fellowship
http://www.firstloveministry.org9/03
BACK TO TOP
Webmaster littleflock@netzero.net
Page updated November 23, 2025
