The American Experiment

by on September 15, 2025 | 62 Comments

I tried not to write anything about the murder of Charlie Kirk. I did not want to add to the noise, but in one of his recent press conference appearances, Spencer Cox, the governor of Utah, used the expression “The American Experiment.” As he did, I realized that a good number of people, most especially young people, may have no idea what that expression signifies. It seemed to me that it is rather important for all Americans, and perhaps especially Christians, to understand that expression. Why is America an experiment, and what do we mean by that phrase?

The Background

In order to understand how and why Americans speak of the “American experiment,” we need to have some sense of why America is different, what our founders did that other nations had not tried before. That is, after all, what an experiment is: a test. Someone asks, “what happens if we do this? Let’s find out.” Let us focus on two rights that the founders claimed to be universal, God-given, natural rights that were not very often recognized by the state before the establishment of the American Republic. The first of those is the right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience. Before the American experiment, it was universally assumed in Europe and the British Isles that there must be a national religion. It was unthinkable for there not to be a national religion. We can understand why such an assumption might seem to be beyond question. After all, before the American experiment, was there no national religion? So long as they had a nation, the Jews had a national religion. The Ottoman Empire had a religion. The Holy Roman Empire had a church. England had a state church. The French had a state church. The Swiss Cantons had a state church. The Dutch had a state church. Even before Christianity, the Romans had a state religion. Having a national religion and/or a state church was a given for a millennium and a half before Christ among the Jews and for about a millennium and a half after Christ. By any measure, that is an impressive precedent.

The Religious Experiment

By the late eighteenth century, after considerable religious strife in the American colonies, after the American Revolution, and after nearly two centuries of continuous religious warfare in Europe (contrary to popular perception, the fighting in Europe did not end completely in 1648), the founders refused to establish a national church.

As they framed their constitution, the American founders adopted, in 1791, amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment says,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is truly experimental. The nation from which the original colonial settlers came, in the early seventeenth century, had an established religion. The American colonies had, to varying degrees, established religions. Massachusetts and Connecticut were Congregational. Virginia established the Church of England in the 1660s. That was true in the Carolinas. “Dissenters in [the New England colonies] were punished harshly with imprisonment or expulsion, and Massachusetts executed four Quakers between 1658 and 1661.”1 The situation in New York was more complicated (as it has always been):

There is some debate over whether there was an established church in the colony of New York, in the sense of an officially designated state church. New York, like the Carolinas, demonstrated the conflict between the unpopular established Church of England and other, more popular religious causes. The colony guaranteed free religious exercise to all Christians but required parishes to select ministers and collect taxes to establish and support churches at the local level. Following the Toleration Act’s adoption in England, New York excluded Catholics from guarantees of the liberty of conscience and adopted the Ministry Act of 1693, which required “the settling of a ministry.” There was debate over whether this act referred only to Anglican ministers, or whether the language was broad enough to allow towns to select other Protestant ministers.2

In Maryland, things were also complicated as Britain sought to impose the Church of England in that state and ultimately prevailed at the turn of the eighteenth century. Pennsylvania was the California of the colonies, with the most religious diversity. That state, along with Delaware, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, never had an established church.

The American Constitution was ratified in May 1790. The Bill of Rights was ratified in December 1791. These dates are important because North Carolina disestablished the church in 1776. New York, according to one source, followed the next year.3 Virginia disestablished the church in 1786, South Carolina in 1790, Georgia in 1798, Maryland in 1810, Connecticut in 1818, and New Hampshire the following year, with Congregationalist Massachusetts lagging behind until 1833. In other words, contrary to the picture painted by those who appeal to the state constitutions to create the impression that America was a pious theocracy until the godless Unitarians overthrew Christianity in the early nineteenth century, there was a fairly steady march beginning from the time of the revolution until the early nineteenth century for those states who had an established church to conform to the federal constitution. Russell Reno explains, “Soon after the nation was founded, elite opinion consolidated around a view that the government should remain at a distance from religion. This consensus had two sources: one focused on the rights of individual conscience and the other on the integrity of the church as an independent institution.”4

The disestablishment of the church did not mean that Christianity was not the de facto national religion. It was. Blasphemy and sabbath laws were the norm. The “blue laws” remained in force for two centuries, until the late 1970s. I remember when most everything was closed on Sundays. In 1802, Thomas Jefferson, writing to the Danbury Baptist Association, spoke of a “wall of separation” between church and state.5 In 1947, Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, spoke of a “wall of separation” between church and state, thus enshrining Jefferson’s language in constitutional jurisprudence.6 In Lawrence v. Texas, the last state sodomy law was struck down by the U. S. Supreme Court in 2003, removing perhaps the last bastion official Christendom in the USA.

In the late eighteenth century and the early nineteenth, Americans were embarking on a journey that no nation had ever undertaken: Could people of different denominations (and even different religions, since, in 1655, the first synagogue was built in the colonies more than a century before the founding of the Republic) live together, without entering into religious blood feuds?7 No one in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century could know how this experiment would turn out.

The experiment is a success. Americans have not been at each other’s throats over religion. This is not the say that there have not been bumps in the road. The United States is facing perhaps its most intense public outbreak of anti-semitism, including attacks on synagogues, in its history. Yet there has been no Thirty Years’ War in the USA, nor an Eighty Years’ War. The strict Massachusetts Congregationalists did not declare holy war on Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Rhode Island, or Maryland. Why not? Because, after the disestablishment of the state churches, Americans were not using and could not use the coercive power of the state to force their religion on other people. Believers were not requiring unbelievers to support their churches through taxation, and unbelievers were not using the levers of state power to prevent believers from living and worshipping according to their consciences.

The Free Speech Experiment

The second great experiment has been brought before our eyes in a graphic and awful way by recent events: freedom of speech. Again, like religious liberty, there was no freedom of speech in the old world. It was a crime to criticize the crown. Disfavored speech, whether political or religious, was illegal. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it was a capital crime across Europe to contradict the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. From the moment the Inquisition was instituted in France, the state put to death about three people per year for heresy. When the Spanish Inquisition was instituted, things got even worse.

As they had with religion, so the American founders rejected the old world speech codes. As with the freedom of religion in the American Bill of Rights, the founders recognized the responsibility of the state to preserve the right of Americans to free speech. Neither the federal government nor any state government may enact a law abridging the freedom of an American to criticize the government, make political (or religious) arguments, or generally to express an opinion. There are, of course, limits to the freedom of speech, but those limits are not well understood popularly. In Schenk v. United States (1919), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes did not say that we may not shout “fire” in a crowded theater. If theater is on fire, then someone must say something. What he said is that one may not falsely shout fire in a crowded theater in an attempt to start a panic.8 The court’s decision in Schenk was overturned about 40 years later.

Neal Hardin has outlined for us the sorts of speech that are not protected:

  • Incitement – Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
  • Obscenity – Miller v. California (1973)
  • Defamation and libel – New York Times Company v. Sullivan (1964)
  • Fraud – Illinois ex rel. Madigan v. Telemarketing Associates, Inc. (2003)
  • Fighting words – Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)
  • True threats – Virginia v. Black (2003), Counterman v. Colorado (2023)
  • Speech integral to criminal conduct – Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Company (1949).9

What Charlie Kirk was doing in Utah, however, on Wednesday, September 10, 2025, was, beyond all question, constitutionally protected. He was attempting to engage in civil, peaceful political discourse. He was doing exactly what the founders envisioned in exactly the way the founders imagined and expected.

What the founders would not understand is the claim by some that “words are violence.” Hardin explains,

For example, Lisa Feldman Barrett, a neuroscientist and psychologist writing at The New York Times, argues that the long-term negative physical effects of words that induce stress could be considered violence. “If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech—at least certain types of speech—can be a form of violence.”10

This is an absurd and patently un-American argument, but, ironically, in the American experiment, she has every right to make it, and without fear of violent repercussions. The way to respond to absurd arguments is to refute them with better arguments, and in the case of Barrett’s claim that any words that cause stress are violence, it is easy. When a professor says, “There will be an exam tomorrow,” that causes stress for his students, but in no reasonable world can those words be construed as violence.

Violence is shooting someone with whom one disagrees. It is not fascist to say that God made only two human sexes and that it is biologically impossible to change sexes.11 It is demonstrably fascist to dress in a black bloc and to hit or strike those with whom one disagrees. This very thing happened in San Diego, California, in January 2020, when so-called “Antifa” rioters conspired and descended upon peaceful pro-Trump protestors in the Pacific Beach neighborhood. On Friday, May 3, 2024, two of those conspirators were convicted of conspiracy to riot. Altogether, eight people either pleaded guilty or were convicted. Though they pretentiously call themselves Anti-fascist, they are the embodiment of the nihilism, violence, and attempted intimidation that marked the fascist movements in Italy and Germany before and during World War II.

As I write, people have been arrested and are facing charges in the United Kingdom for posting criticisms of the transgender movement and for other words that, in America, are constitutionally protected. That should not happen in the United States precisely because, unlike the UK, we have a written constitution which, as can be plainly seen, unequivocally protects the very sort of speech that the murderer in Utah sought to suppress and that the British government is presently prosecuting.

In our 249th year, the American Experiment in free speech is still working. Wednesday’s murderous shooter did not change that fact. Things have been a little rocky for free speech in this century, what with campus speech codes and the attempt of a presidential administration to silence opposition, but the Constitution holds. The speech campus codes are crumbling in court.

Legal challenges to speech codes on college campuses have significantly influenced the enforcement and development of these policies. Courts have often scrutinized whether restrictions violate the First Amendment rights to free expression. Recent rulings tend to favor students’ rights when speech codes are overly broad or suppress protected speech.

Several landmark cases have set important legal precedents. Courts have struck down policies that prohibit offensive speech unless it incites violence, emphasizing the importance of viewpoint neutrality. For example, courts have invalidated restrictions targeting specific opinions or certain speech based on content, reinforcing that free speech protections extend to challenging or unpopular ideas.

Yet, courts also recognize the need for campus safety. They have upheld restrictions that aim to prevent harassment and discrimination, provided they are clearly defined and narrowly tailored. This ongoing judicial balancing act continues to shape how colleges craft and enforce speech codes, with recent court rulings reinforcing the primacy of free speech while allowing some safety measures.12

In 2013, the Obama Administration went to extraordinary lengths to punish James Rosen for his reporting. To the best of my knowledge, Sharyl Attkisson’s case against the federal government (for hacking her computer during the Obama Administration) is still wending its way through the courts. The IRS was rebuked for targeting certain political non-profits (again, during the Obama administration).

We are not Europeans. We do not live under the digital speech code imposed by the European Union. Some of us apparently may no longer safely travel to the United Kingdom without being arrested, but that is just fine. We will keep our dollars at home. America is a very large country, and there is much to see. Trust me, the food is much better here. Perhaps if the British and the Europeans come to their senses, we can visit again but whatever they do, the grand American experiment continues.

Notes

  1. “Amdt1.2.2.3 State-Established Religion in the Colonies,” in U.S. Constitution Annotated. Accessed September 12, 2025.
  2. “Amdt1.2.2.3 State-Established Religion in the Colonies,” in U.S. Constitution Annotated. Accessed September 12, 2025.
  3. “Map of Disestablishment in the United States,” Bill of Rights Institute. Accessed September 12, 2025.
  4. Russell R. Reno, Russell “Our Secular Future: The Redefinition of Religious Liberty in American Society,” America 210, no. 6 (December 31, 2014): 13.
  5. James Hutson, “‘A Wall of Separation:’ FBI Helps Restore Jefferson’s Obliterated Draft,” Library of Congress Information Bulletin (June 1998). Accessed September 12, 2025.
    Remarkably, a surprising number of Baptists in America seem unaware of their history and have been staunch advocates of Christian Nationalism, including an established church. Do they imagine that Baptists in this future theocracy will fare better than their forefathers?
  6. Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township (1947), 330 U.S. 1 (1947). Accessed September 12, 2025.
  7. Lawrence Bush, “April 8: The Oldest Congregation in America,” Jewish Currents (April 8, 2013). Accessed September 12, 2025.
  8. See Carlton F. W. Larson, “Shouting ‘Fire’ in a Theater: The Life and Times of Constitutional Law’s Most Enduring Analogy,” William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 24.1 (2015–16). Accessed September 12, 2025.
  9. Neal Hardin, “Speech Is Not Violence and Violence Is Not Speech: Words may hurt, but treating speech as ‘violence’ only leads to less speech and more violence,” December 6, 2023. Accessed September 12, 2025.
  10. Neal Hardin, “Speech Is Not Violence and Violence Is Not Speech: Words may hurt, but treating speech as ‘violence’ only leads to less speech and more violence,” December 6, 2023. Accessed September 12, 2025.
  11. The question of fascism arises because, according to Gov. Cox, in a press conference held on September 12, 2025, the Utah shooter inscribed pro-Antifa slogans on the shell casings of three bullets.
  12. “Examining the Impact of Speech Codes on College Campuses,” Bright Law, April 30, 2025.

©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.

RESOURCES

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

    Post authored by:

  • R. Scott Clark
    Author Image

    R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.

    More by R. Scott Clark ›

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


62 comments

  1. In this video starting from 0:38, Charlie Kirk talked about Catholicism.
    https://youtu.be/jzUBMlqF1tA

    He said that we as protestants and evangelicals under venerate Mary, we don’t venerate Mary enough. Does he know what veneration of Mary means in the Catholic Church? Catholic media interpret his saying as a public call to venerate the Mother of God.

    Near the end of the video, He said he has 3 major theological disagreements with Catholicism: infallibility of the Pope, Mariology, and transubstantiation. It is very concerning that soteriology is not on the list. Is it because he agrees with Catholic soteriology or he thinks that it is not a major issue, or is it simply because of his ignorance?

    Reply ↓

  2. Doing a little research on free speech arrests/convictions in the UK. In February of this year the UK Telegraph reported 300 such arrests.

    In August, however, Chadwick Moore reported 30 a day being arrested.

    This source cautions us to distinguish between arrests and prosecutions and notes that the statistics haven’t been released. Being arrested is a punishment in itself and those number are much higher than prosecutions.

    Reply ↓

  3. Because of the ninth commandment, I do not feel
    comfortable conclusively declaring that this gentleman was a Christian, non-Christian, martyr, racist, non-racist, saint, etc. He may have been some of these things, but I never met the gentleman, I never listened to more than a few minutes of him, and I did not attend a rally.

    Why do people feel compelled to declare conclusively what this gentleman was or was not?

    We can mourn his murder without making careless declarations about the gentleman. May God have mercy on us.

    Reply ↓

    • Brian,

      Kirk did make an unequivocal Christian profession. That aspect of the story is not in doubt is it?

      As to whether we should be discussing these things, wasn’t that the whole point of his work, to discuss civilly?

      Reply ↓

      • Dr. Clark, I don’t know if he made an unequivocal confession of faith. I’ll take your word for it, though, because I trust your judgment and respect your discernment on such things. I hope you are correct. (People of all stripes have posted so much trash that it is difficult to figure out what he believed. There’s been a lot of second-hand information.)

        People can certainly discuss anything they want. My only caution is this:
        a speaker should be careful about saying conclusively that the gentleman was a Christian, non-Christian, racist, non-racist, etc–especially if the speaker never met the man and never regularly consumed his media.

        E.g.: You implied that the “whole point of his work” was “to discuss civilly.” You might very well be right. But based on what I’ve seen, I cannot yet say the same thing. The jury is still out on that count.

        Reply ↓

        • Can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m not sure if my lack of tact and poor timing falls under violating the 9th commandment, but I’m a laymen and there’s a decent chance I’m wrong. I would apologize in that case. To answer your question, I thought it was appropriate because 1) Charlie was a public figure, 2) this discussion board, I thought, was an appropriate place to raise these types of questions, even if they’re uncomfortable, 3) absolute claims were avoided, and 4) there are good questions to be asked for people who are interested in understanding CN, politics, and their place in the church.

          Reply ↓

    • 1. His etymological explanation of ekklesia is completely wrong. Further, his recommendation that we should discover the meaning of biblical words by using Internet search engines is also utterly wrong. The background of the NT use of ekklesia is in the Greek translation of the OT.

      See: The Church: the Christ-Confessing Covenant Community.

      2. I am not surprised that he does not or did not have a grasp of the spirituality of the church. This doctrine is not well known outside of P&R circles (and it seems to have been largely forgotten within those circles).

      He didn’t know how to distinguish between the church as organization and organism (Kuyper). As far as I know, he did not have formal theological education and he was not ordained to the ministry. So, mistakes like these are understandable.

      I’m sure that he did not have to hand Calvin’s distinction between the two spheres of God’s kingdom.

      That said, I don’t think that what he is saying here is tantamount to CN.

      It would probably help the discussion if we defined Christian Nationalism.

      Here is a start:

      Sub-Christian Nationalism (pt 1).

      Reply ↓

  5. From the NY Post:

    WASHINGTON — An FBI investigation launched in the wake of the the 2020 election scrutinized nearly 100 Republican and GOP-aligned groups or people — including Turning Point USA, co-founded by slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk, unclassified bureau files released Tuesday show.

    Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) published files related to the probe — codenamed “Arctic Frost” — during a panel hearing, saying the records revealed “Arctic Frost was much broader than just an electoral matter” and that the investigation “expanded to Republican organizations.”

    “Some examples of the groups the [Christopher] Wray FBI sought to place under political investigation included the Republican National Committee, Republican Attorneys General Association and Trump political groups,” Grassley went on.

    “On that political list was one of Charlie Kirk’s groups, Turning Point USA,” he added.

    “In other words, Arctic Frost wasn’t just a case to politically investigate Trump. It was the vehicle by which partisan FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors could achieve their partisan ends and improperly investigate the entire Republican political apparatus.”

    Arctic Frost kicked off in April 2022 and focused on at least 92 Republican-linked entities like Kirk’s youth activist organization. That November, the case was handed over to special counsel Jack Smith.

    Smith would go on to federally charge President Trump with unlawfully hoarding national security documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate and wrongly seeking to overturn the 2020 election results.

    The investigation pursued lines of inquiry about purportedly false election fraud claims, fake elector schemes, frivolous lawsuits, financial fraud and pressure on state officials to flip vote counts in Trump’s favor.

    “This conspiracy involved subjects from the private sector, in numerous battleground states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Mexico, and Arizona), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the White House,” one of the newly released FBI documents stated.

    The FBI documents also show that the bureau pursued potential crimes related to “J6 $,” an apparent reference to groups that may have backed Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally or participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot that temporarily halted certification of Biden’s electoral victory.

    Turning Point USA was one of those groups, though the exact basis of the inquiry is unclear.

    Kirk, 31, was shot and killed during a TPUSA speaking engagement at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10.

    In the wake of his murder, Republicans like Vice President JD Vance and White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller have vowed a law enforcement crackdown on left-wing groups “promoting violence.”

    Prominent figures swept up in the “Arctic Frost” dragnet included Trump’s PACs and fundraising committees, former personal attorney and ex-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark, among others.

    Clark, who suggested states should look at alleged voting irregularities and consider appointing new electors who could change the 2020 election results, said Tuesday on X that the files proved he was “targeted” for his own “financial records.”

    Clark now serves as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulatory czar.

    The Arctic Frost files said Clark, who was reportedly under consideration to become acting attorney general after Bill Barr’s departure in December 2020, had “falsely representing that the DOJ had ‘identified significant concerns’ relating to the election that may have impacted the outcome of the election.”

    The probe was run in conjunction with the National Archives the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General and the US Postal Service.

    Neither of Smith’s cases made it to trial before Trump’s re-election in November 2024 and were ultimately dismissed.

    Source.

    Reply ↓

  6. I don’t know if Erika Kirk was raised Roman Catholic and still believes along those lines. In her talk to the nation she did encourage people to go to a Bible believing church. In her grief she also mentioned about the goodness of God and stated the Scripture that God works everything for the good of those who love God. Her response to her husband’s death gives evidence to me that she is a child of the living God through faith in Jesus Christ. I pray that God will comfort her and her children with his love and grace.

    Reply ↓

  7. Thank you for your analysis, Scott. Many Reformed thinkers/commentators seem to be deliberately, stiudiously, ignoring the Kirk assassination and it’s implications, which I think are numerous and important. Thoughts on that? (I’m not sure why, but I’m convinced it’s not the right approach, and a crucial missed opportunity.)

    Reply ↓

    • Hi Marian,

      Thanks for the encouragement.

      I can’t speak for others but I hesitated to say anything for two reasons: 1) feelings are running high and in such an environment it’s hard to have a reasonable discussion—perhaps others will speak up when temperatures have cooled? 2) I don’t know Charlie’s work that well. I have watched him from a distance since he first appeared on the scene and I follow politics and have seen him and read/read him over the years but he pitched his message to a younger demo, which I left some time ago.

      I spoke up because I want young people to know what they might not have learned in school. I hope that they don’t give up on America.

      In chapel last Thursday I did speak to the spiritual implications of Charlie’s assassination and we will post that video when it’s available.

      Reply ↓

  8. I found your essay very informative. Your comments about the lack of free speech in Europe is not a surprise. We lived in Europe for years and it is a mistake to assume either Europeans or the UK enjoy the same freedoms as American citizens do. Fundamentally the difference is that in Europe and the UK rights are granted to the citizens by the government. That means the government can remove ‘rights’ at will, such as what happened during Covid. We now see that the UK govenment is using its power to scare citizens into accepting something that is demonstrably false. To prevent discussion they simply intimidate those who might raise undenyable arguments that refute falsehoods. The above letter attempting to defend the UK government’s actions is disturbing in that it shows how willingly the populace goes along with government abuse and accepts the governments cover story.

    In the US the government is granted limited powers by the people. Unfortunately we’ve been on a slow drift towards the European model for the last century. The decline started with Woodrow Wilson. CoVID showed the unfortunate willingness of our citizenry to exchange freedom for a chimera of safety. Furthermore it was alarming how willingly entire organizations such as the medical industury were willing to use intimidation to prevent dialog and block necessary scientific debate. As a scientist I was horrified. Silencing one’s critics is the tactic taken when you know your own arguments lack credibility.

    We have allowed a culture to develop in our country that largely rejects the concepts that there is good and there is evil, there is truth and there is falsehood, there is right and there is wrong. By moving to a relativistic standard, there are no standards. Things which were abhorent a few years ago are now touted as being acceptable, even good. It is my view that the corruption of our society was promoted within our schools. It seems especially prevalent at the University level, perhaps because the daily influence of the parents is removed. That is why so many kids come out of university with a value system incompatible with a free society.

    The solution is both simple and complex. On the simple side we need to remove those that corrupt our youth from contact with our youth. The complexity is how to do this within a free society. The only answer I can see is more people like Charlie Kirk exposing youth to another point of view, one which leads to life rather than the death cult of the left. The reaction of the left to Kirk’s killing is both telling and chilling.

    Reply ↓

  9. Great post. One of the many tragedies surrounding this assassination is that it is an attack on our the American system. It’s essential to preserve it, otherwise we will devolve into further violence with fewer liberties. The American experiment is an unqualified success that I am grateful for. Despite the many challenges we face, we (21st century Americans) are the most privileged people to ever walk the face of the earth.

    Reply ↓

  10. The assertion that pluralism is “working” because “Americans have not been at each other’s throats over religion” feels like it belongs in a satire piece in the wake of a man being publicly shot in the throat for his Christian religion. What happened is the first martyr of US soil and the collapse of the myth of neutrality. Nor does pluralism belong to this nation’s founding but is a novelty of advancing secularism as this post itself notes (sabbath and sodomy laws were not based on what seems good in the eyes of rebel sinners by virtue of their autonomous reason, but the word of God, nor could any law of any kind actually be justified on anything but a Christian foundation). Furthermore, pluralism is contrary to the Reformed confession (BC 36, WCF 23) and the word of God (Psalm 2, 1 Timothy 2:1-2). I do not suggest that church and state should be unified, or that the magistrate should attempt to compel Christian faith with the sword, both of which would be ungodly, or that it is necessary for him to establish any particular church, but still he must prohibit the sins of idolatry, blasphemy and heresy (none of which are to be celebrated in any respect, including the toleration thereof) for no other reason than because it is his duty as the minister of God’s law, which is the identical basis upon which sodomy and murder ought to be illegal. Nor does any man have a right to commit these sins and despise his creator, and if any would say he does I request to know from where did he receive such a right? Everything I have said is nothing but the second and third use of the law.

    All that being said, it is a somber moment. Aside from the regrettable loss of Charlie’s life, there is no question those who wanted him dead want us all dead. We ought to pray hard in this unstable time not only for Charlie Kirk’s family and the Church, but for his murderer and all who celebrated.

    Reply ↓

    • Scott,

      I wrote this piece for you.

      I understand that you are very upset. So am I. What the murderer did to Charlie was a crime against the laws of God and man and he will be punished for it by man and by God.

      The historical facts are, however, that religious and political pluralism has worked. Americans of all religions live and work together peacefully daily and have since the founding of the American republic.

      Charlie is not the first person killed in this country for his Christian faith and he won’t be the last. The Apostle Peter wrote,

      Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And “If the righteous is scarcely saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?” Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good (1 Pet 4:12–19; ESV).

      Christians have always been hated by pagans and by Satan. We will never be entirely free of persecution until Jesus comes. It’s part of the deal. Jesus said, “Remember the word that I said to you: A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours” (John 15:20; ESV).

      The historical fact is that Massachusetts did not go to war against Pennsylvania for it’s religious pluralism and that’s a benefit of the American system. The states were not all the same. Most had an established religion but, as I show here, not all did and they did not go to war over it. That’s not true in Europe.

      The Americans revised the Reformed confessions. Most confessional American Presbytrians and Reformed churches no longer confess that it is the vocation of the magistrate to enforce religious orthodoxy. The Americans made those changes in the 18th century and the Dutch Reformed made them through the course of the 19th and 20th centuries.

      See:

      Any attempt to prohibit idolatry is theocracy. Who is to decide what constitutes idolatry and on what basis? Is the Buddha statue outside our neighborhood Chinese restaurant idolatry? Must the magistrate suppress that? As a Reformed confessing Christian I think that statues purporting to be Jesus are idolatrous (Heidelberg 96-98)) as is the Roman mass (Heidelberg 80) but I don’t want the state raiding Roman Catholic churches to remove those idols and suppressing the mass. Charlie Kirk loved Mormons (who are are significant influence in Republican politics) but I consider the LDS a cult with a history of un-American violence. Yet I do not ask the state to suppress Mormonism or even Islam (even though I regard Islam as a significant threat to the American experiment since it is inherently theocratic). Many American homes have, according to our confession, idols in them. I am not prepared however, to ask the magistrate to raid them and remove them. Were I the Cromwell of America I would remove all the organs, pianos, and bands from churches but you might be glad that I don’t have that authority or power.

      As to the blasphemy laws, again, someone, on some basis has to decide what is and isn’t blasphemy and which gods or God should be protected. Should it be illegal to insult the prophet? There are many in Detroit and Dearborn, MI who think that it should be. The blue laws worked so long as there was a vague Christian consensus but which was affected by immigration patterns from still mostly Christian Europe and then the closure of the American border from 1924-64. America has changed demographically and religiously since 1964. Orthodox Christians are not the dominant group any more. The truth is that deciding what is blasphemy and who should be protected (e.g., the Hindu deities? Would that mean that I could no longer rail against them from the pulpit?) is a morass.

      I agree that sodomy should be illegal but the case for that should be made from nature and not from holy Scripture. I’ve tried to do that. See the LGBTQ resources on the HB resource page.

      We agree about the underlying reality: it is spiritual. This young man had a bad start. Mormonism is a false religion of works and Gnosticism. From there, like a lot of young people, he went down the internet rabbit hole and found community in some dark places (the trans and furry movements). We have seen before where those places lead. We had an episode very close to home where a young man from a good Christian home and a very solid congregation went down the rabbit hole and emerged an anti-semite and he murdered a woman in a synagogue.

      May God have mercy on us.

      Reply ↓

      • Good morning, Dr. Clark. This seems like a prime thread to ask you about a couple statements made by Steve Deace over the years that I struggle with as I listen to both of you. They are: “The only thing you can legislate is morality. The only question is whose morality?” and “Every government in history has been a theocracy. The only question is who’s the ‘theo’?” Very interested in how you would respond to those statements. I’ve wished for years that your paths would cross someday and there would be some form of formal debate to clear some of these things up for American Christianity, even before the rise of contemporary Christian Nationalism, whose mantle he doesn’t officially claim, but he’s certainly adjacent. Thank you.

        Reply ↓

        • Jordan,

          This is an argument frequently made by Christian Nationalists and Theocrats. A while back I address it in this series. The argument is that all legislation is inherently moral because everyone has ultimate (religious) commitments and they transfer (and here’s the rub) those ultimate commitments to temporal legislation. This is the mistake of the argument. Yes, everyone has ultimate commitments but, the American premise is that it is possible for people with competing ultimate commitments to agree on temporal (this-worldly) legislation.

          And it was for a long time. Things began to change in the FDR administration when the government began to grow exponentially, which pattern carried on under Johnson, Nixon, etc. Federal, state, and local governments have become much more involved in our lives over the last century. This intrusion has brought us into conflict. E.g., permitting abortion on demand and then, to add insult to injury, they made us pay for it. Further, this all happened at the same time as and perhaps because the Christian consensus behind our politics broke down in the post-WWII era. It was breaking down before but it became more evident.

          All this is complicated by the fact that a lot of Christians (and some pagans) don’t know how to distinguish nature (this world) and grace (the next world). They (both left and right) want the government to bring to reality in this world the final state (eschaton). Both sides ask too much of government. That project always leads to totalitarianism.

          The more the government crowds out the private sphere the more coercion there is because government is necessarily and inherently coercive. That’s the only want government works. Even their persuasion (“stop smoking!”) is coercive insofar as every message carries the implicit threat “or else.”

          It is a confusion of nature and grace and between the two spheres of the kingdom. Government is only naturally interested or should be in purely temporal, secular matters. We should only ask it to attend to these matters (e.g., paving a street). Paul assumes that the pagan magistrate can legislate and execute justice by the light of nature (Rom 13). The right and left-wing theocrats aren’t satisfied with that but unless they want civil war (and they may want it) they must be satisfied with a government that attends to road paving, arresting thieves and murderers and executing justice upon them.

          Reply ↓

  11. Thank you for this history lesson Dr. Clark. My daughter is a criminal justice professor in my state and some of her students told her of the assassination. My daughter wasn’t familiar with Charlie Kirk though there is a Turning Point chapter on her campus. I have shared with her this article and Albert Mohler’s analysis on the crime from this morning. I’m try to help her to think through these issues without being too intense as you know dads can be who love and want their children to be educated and aware of such issues as you have raised in this article. I am reformed in my convictions and not an advocate for Christian Nationalism. I believe as Christians we are to be witnesses for Christ in whatever vocation God has placed us. May the Lord continue to bless you in your service to him.

    Reply ↓

  13. Free speech is indeed a good thing and, and as a British person, let me employ it to challenge some of what you have written…

    The case you mention where someone is being prosecuted for expressing anti-trans views: The relevant tweet contained a call to violence. Now this was couched in humorous terms and the police are being frustratingly petty, but that case, along with one other you may or may not be referring to have incitement as the core of the charge. If you were really not allowed to express anti-trans views then millions would have a criminal record and JK Rowling would be imprisoned in the Tower of London by now. (That’s not to say things are ideal).

    As for the food remark: Britain has more Michelin starred restaurants per head of population than the U.S., for what it’s worth.

    Anyway, I appreciate learning a little more about the constitutional history of America but caution against trusting all the headlines and X posts when it comes to UK free speech rights.

    Reply ↓

    • Rob,

      I read Linehan’s tweets. They would not be regarded, in America, as “fighting words” or a genuine call to violence. They wouldn’t have been so regarded in the UK, in the 90s either.

      The authorities arrested Linehan to make a point, to intimidate, and to instill fear.

      They’ve succeeded and that’s tragic.

      When I was living in the UK and later traveling back-and-forth between the US and the UK, I experienced more freedom of speech there than I did in the USA, which was in the early days of political correctness. It did not exist in the UK then.

      I’ve watched the gradual slide of the UK into political correctness and now repressive political punishment of this favored speech with growing apprehension.

      I am grateful for a written constitution.

      Linehan is not the only victim of this repression. Others have been are being arrested in the UK for disfavored speech, for thought crimes. Those are not mere headlines.

      I saw the crowd that came out in support of Tommy Robinson. They did not come out because of a mirage.

      Reply ↓

      • The support for Tommy Robinson (aka Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) was not mainly to do with free speech but tied to recent rancour over asylum seekers and immigration more generally. Any middle-aged or older British person knows what type of character Robinson is. The kind of nationalist movement of which he is a current figure-head has been an undercurrent in UK politics since the 70s, at least.

        I agree that U.S. constitutional rights provide protection but note that free speech is part of British rights law, not a mere custom or some kind of tolerated behavior. But, as in the U.S., these rights are subject to qualification and these qualifications in turn have to be interpereted and applied, firstly by the police and then the courts.

        The arrest of Lineham was criticised by politicians from both the left and right (not equally though) and regarded by many as an example of overreach in need of correction.

        Reply ↓

        • Rob,

          I’m not defending Tommy Robinson, I do recall media reports that he was silenced, e.g., this account in an LDS-related newspaper (the Mormon version of the Christian Science Monitor).

          I’m also aware that Giorgia Meloni’s political opponents tried to have her jailed to silence her as did Trump’s political opponents.

          I’m not a fan of some forms of nationalism (I’ve discussed that in the series on Christian Nationalism) but I think politics needs to be done through argument and not the abuse of the coercive power of the state.

          As to immigration, the Biden administration classed millions of economic, illegal immigrants as “refugees” to justify importing millions of low-wage workers and 300,000 children, many of whom have been sold into slavery. Reasonable people can oppose that sort of thing and should.

          Free speech is a part of British law when there is a government that believes in it. I’m reasonably confident that the Thatcher and Major governments would not be doing what the current government is doing to political opponents. I’ve seen the videos of English cops showing up and people’s houses to arrest them for disfavored speech.

          I explained in the essay above the limits on the government’s right to punish speech. Those limits are written down and as Justice Coney-Barrett recently reminded us, our written Constitution trumps all other law. That’s why appellants make constitutional arguments even as far as the SCOTUS.

          Yes, the arrest of Linehan was criticized but he’s still being prosecuted isn’t he? We had planned to travel to the UK but we won’t doing it. I have no interest in seeing the inside of an English jail or courtroom. I imagine that other Americans will be adjusting their plans accordingly too.

          Reply ↓

          • There is a recognition that something is currently amiss with the actions of the police not seeming to exercise proper discretion and common sense in a number of cases, so I understand the concern about visiting (though many American Christian leaders both continue to visit and live in the UK).

            But as for Linehan, I don’t think it’s been decided yet whether any prosecution will take place, and I make the point again that JK Rowling (and some other public facing figures such as Sonia Sodha and Kathleen Stock) are not arrested and imprisoned for their views on trans issues despite regularly expressing them via X. In fact, the UK is one western country where the trans-affirming lobby has been pushed back somewhat, precisely because of bold speech by Rowling and others and the pursuit of legal processes. The current government did not oppose the recent ruling in favor of defining gender according to biology.

          • Rob,

            It seems probable that the cops are executing the policy of the government. That is what has happened in the States. Under the 2nd Obama administration, as I illustrated above, federal authorities violated civil liberties of reporters and disfavored political groups. Now comes a report from a U S Senate committee that the Biden Administration turned it up to 11 by using the FBI to investigate (including obtaining search warrants, searching phones and other devices) 92 political opponents.

            I saw a video in which a man filmed an English cop who came to his door to warn him about some political incorrectness. The cop made it clear that he didn’t want to be there and the citizen made it clear he didn’t want the cop there. There was no arrest but it was plain from the encounter that the cop was follow an order even though there was no crime. The point of the order was to silence dissent.

            The fact that Linehan was arrested for a thought/speech crime is punishment. The process is the punishment. This is why people/entities settle rather than fight civil lawsuits, because the lawyers have made the process so expensive no one can afford to defend themselves any longer.

            I have wondered why they haven’t arrested Rowling. I’m confident that were she less famous, less wealthy, less influential, they would do. They don’t have the nerve to cross that Rubicon.

    • Yes! Charlie Kirk is a martyr of the American Civil Religion, but he is not a martyr of Christianity. In fact, when he started TPUSA, all he had was secular opinions. It wasn’t until the rise of MAGA and the collective co-opting of the church by the far right that he “turned to God” and started his “ministry”.
      He’s basically no different than Trump in this regard: he used people’s faith as a weapon, a means to an political end.

      Reply ↓

      • Aaron,

        AP,

        No church has declared Charlie a martyr for the faith. It’s not a term that should be thrown around lightly. There is evidence that the children murdered in Roseburg, OR in 2015 were martyred for their faith. They were asked whether they were Christians and then murdered in cold blood when they answered in the affirmative.

        Charlie became an outspoken Christian. To be best of my knowledge he was a regular attender to a Calvary Chapel congregation in the Phoenix metro. It seems unwise and unbiblical to judge his profession of faith at the time of his death. It may be that he was immature in the faith when he began his project. He was 18 years old. I remember some controversy about a conservative political conference with dancing girls or some such several years ago but he seems to have matured, made a profession of faith, married and had children.

        People grow. Maybe it was all for show or politics but I don’t know that to be a fact, do you?

        As to weaponizing the faith, I don’t see how sitting on college campuses and debating people is weaponizing the faith. I understand that TPUSA is a political entity but I don’t see how any American can object to a Christian appealing to other Christians to become politically active and/or to vote. TPUSA seems to be fairly inclusive.

        As far as I can tell, he was a fairly mainstream political conservative as was Rush Limbaugh. The MAGA movement has been a challenge to all traditional (e.g., Burkean) conservatives. As an old guy who has been watching American politics since 1968 (the first election I remember; I had a fistfight with a supporter of George Wallace!) and a student American politics since c. 1979, it seems to me that the 2nd Trump admin has done as much or more to advance actual conservative policy goals than any Republican president since the turn of the 20th century.

        Reply ↓

        • He was also a somewhat regular attendee to Roman Catholic masses here in the valley. Some people here in the valley have stated publicly that he was on his way to the Catholic church (those who have said this are also Catholic, so that’s at least one of the biases). He has also been filmed/photographed wearing a Yamaka and praying at the Western Wall. He was also very open about his strict observance of the Jewish Sabbath. This is all much later in life, not when he was 18. Not sure where he stood. Pressed for an immediate, emotional answer, I would say he was a follower. Pressed for a water-tight defense that he was a follower, I’d have to look into things further.

          Reply ↓

          • Charlie Kirk’s message aligns with American civil religion because it equates national destiny with divine mission, uses Christianity as a cultural-political tool, and centers on saving America rather than proclaiming Christ crucified and risen. Christianity, by contrast, proclaims salvation in Christ alone and calls believers to hope in His eternal kingdom, not in the preservation of any earthly nation.

          • AP,

            “Aligns with” is slippery.

            If you are a regular reader of this space, you know that I am not a fan of “civil religion.”

            Can you provide some concrete evidence for your claims?

          • Jacob, Dr. Clark is correct that Kirk was attending Dream City Church in metro Phoenix.

            I have verified privately that while Charlie Kirk was married to a practicing Roman Catholic, and did go through the procedures to have his marriage recognized in the Roman Catholic Church, including a promise to have his children raised in the Roman Catholic Church, he was not a member of any Roman Catholic parish.

            To the contrary, he had significant problems with Pope Francis on economic and some political issues, though that wouldn’t be unusual for Roman Catholic conservatives. More relevantly, he had problems with the institution of the papacy, not just the specific pope he was criticizing.

            Obviously I don’t support marrying Roman Catholics, but working with Roman Catholics in the civil sphere is something most conservative Christians support doing, including most Reformed people since the days of Kuyper, including men like Francis Schaeffer and D. James Kennedy.

          • I’d say to just watch any of his videos to get the sense of his American civil religion cosplayed as Christianity. His Christian Nationalism sympathies is easy to spot as well. Not that he’s guilty by association, but it should be noted that Doug Wilson really took a liking to him and had lunch with him in recent months. Mark Driscoll also had a texting relationship as a mentor to Charlie according to Mark’s recent YouTube video. These things are not hard to find. Plain as day if you have eyes to see.

          • This seems like guilt by association. My pastor and friend Chris Gordon, is deeply opposed to CN and has interviewed both Wilson and Wolfe. He might text with them for all I know. Kirk is well known for talking to everyone.

            He might have been a CN but this isn’t evidence for that claim.

          • Most of that is boiler plate stuff. The only substantial claim, as I have already said, is that he was committed to the seven mountains theology.

            The question is whether that claim can be substantiated from what he himself said or wrote.

          • Scott, if it quacks like a duck and flies like a duck…

            He had stated before that he considers himself a Christian and a nationalist when asked if he was a Christian nationalist. But he doesn’t like the label. It is undeniable that despite not applying the label to himself, the guy was in fact a Christian nationalist.

          • AP,

            We have established

            1) What a duck is for the purposes of this discussion;

            2) Whether the claims made in the media are accurate.

            You can’t assume the premise (beg the question). You have to give evidence from Kirk that he really is what you say he is. Lots of false claims are being made about him (e.g., that he’s a racist).

            I’m not defending Kirk. I’m defending the 9th commandment. I know too well what it is to be misrepresented.

            The charge that he embraced Seven Mountains theology is concerning but Christian Nationalism is a little different (though there is some overlap with Seven Mountains).

            I’m looking for primary source evidence, handled fairly, to substantiate claims. That seems reasonable. If these things are true of him they should be easy to prove.

          • AP,

            I’ve seen both of these. On the first, Kirk is repeating a talking point that I addressed in the article above. The “separation” claim is more difficult than both sides think. It is part of constitutional jurisprudence but it isn’t found in the constitution itself.

            The video clip proves little. It would have better for you to have allowed Kirk to explain himself rather than to see someone take a soundbite and then tell us what he went on to say. Kirk says that he’s not a Christian Nationalist.

            I’ve you’ve read my response to CN, you’ll see that I describe myself as a Christian and a Nationalist (of a sort). I would not want someone to take those two words and then announce to the world that I hold something that I don’t.

            We owe it to everyone to tell the truth about them. Finding hostile pieces online isn’t quite that.

      • Yes. People on reformed social media sites have held him up as a paragon of virtue. Friends from church have done the same. He espoused Christian Nationalist sentiment for political gain. Made millions off the backs of his followers. Red flags.

        Reply ↓

  15. Thank you! A needed reminder of our roots as a Christian nation rule by a constitution which allows the freedom for all to choose their theology.

    Reply ↓

    • David,

      One area where I dissent from some of what Charlie used to say on campus is his claim about the Christian faith of the American founders.

      The story is more complicated than he used to indicate or than is often suggested in popular accounts consumed by politically and culturally conservative Christians. Those who argue that the founders were entirely Deist are wrong but so are they who say that all but one of the founders were were Christians.

      E.g., George Washington was intentionally vague about his religion and fundamentalists have persisted in interpreting him as if he were one of them. That is simply not a good accounting of what he actually said.

      Certainly, the vast majority of those who came to the New World in the early 17th century were devout, orthodox Christians. By the time we get to the late 18th century, however, most of the American elites who founded the new republic were not orthodox Christians.

      Nor is it the case that all of the American people were necessarily orthodox Christians by the late 18th century, Though the first Great Awakening is assumed by many to have produced an enormous change for the good in the New World, the truth is, contrary to expectation, that church, attendance and membership actually declined. See the discussion of the evidence in Recovering the Reformed Confession. There is a link to the book above, in the resources.

      The elites were borrowing Christian ideas and sources and assuming certain Christian notions to be sure. They were like teenagers who stole their parents’ car and burned up the gas that was already in the tank. Among the people there was certainly more orthodox Christianity than among the elites.

      So, there are senses in which we may speak of Christian America, but that expression has to be more carefully qualified than is usually done.

      See:

      Reply ↓

  16. We just returned from a 17 day self guided tour of England and Scotland, primarily focusing on visiting English reformation sites. I can tell you there is a groundswell of conservative push back against PM Starmer and the Labour Party in the UK. Over the weekend, there was a huge march in London supporting free speech and immigration controls, with reports of upwards of a million people(BBC tried to downplay). The shift seems real. We had a great visit, met some wonderful Christians and organizations, and came away with some positive aspects of the English way of living. Particularly enjoyed not seeing billboards everywhere and a downplay of materialism in general. Also not having pharmaceutical ads on the TV was welcome. Keep praying for our fellow Christian Brits and Scotts.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply to David W Cooke Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments are welcome but must observe the moral law. Comments that are profane, deny the gospel, advance positions contrary to the Reformed confession, or that irritate the management are subject to deletion. Anonymous comments, posted without permission, are forbidden. Please use a working email address so we can contact you, if necessary, about content or corrections.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.