If you started a nation...

[theblueprint_Ni]

As a Christian, if you were given the power to build a country from the ground up, how would you govern?

To focus the question further, how would you configure the parameters of religion in your country? Would you allow practitioners of any faith to worship freely and/or establish a place of worship? Or, for the sake of your Christian integrity, would you establish a theocracy under a maxim of something like, "Worship of the true God only"? If so, how would you punish those who refuse to give up their false religion? How might you justify the punishment of such from a Biblical standpoint? Is the American way of government the best possible solution for the proliferation of the Biblical gospel? How would God want you to build a nation if you had the resources and power to do it?

I'm not so much interested in the historical developments of Catholicism/Anglicanism/Americanism , though it can certainly be referenced to make your argument because it obviously reflects the challenges that Christianity faced when it assumed the role of government or a significant portion of it. I am more interested in your own theoretical form of government that you think would be THE BEST POSSIBLE solution for Christianity in power. I know its a heavy topic, but try to keep it cafe style with short, to-the-point propositions.

[Thoughtful Monk]

As a Christian, if you were given the power to build a country from the ground up, how would you govern?

To focus the question further, how would you configure the parameters of religion in your country? Would you allow practitioners of any faith to worship freely and/or establish a place of worship? Or, for the sake of your Christian integrity, would you establish a theocracy under a maxim of something like, "Worship of the true God only"? If so, how would you punish those who refuse to give up their false religion? How might you justify the punishment of such from a Biblical standpoint? Is the American way of government the best possible solution for the proliferation of the Biblical gospel? How would God want you to build a nation if you had the resources and power to do it?

I'm not so much interested in the historical developments of Catholicism/Anglicanism/Americanism , though it can certainly be referenced to make your argument because it obviously reflects the challenges that Christianity faced when it assumed the role of government or a significant portion of it. I am more interested in your own theoretical form of government that you think would be THE BEST POSSIBLE solution for Christianity in power. I know its a heavy topic, but try to keep it cafe style with short, to-the-point propositions.

You have actually asked two different questions with two different answers.

1. to the question "how would you configure the parameters of religion in your country?", I would answer I would follow the model of the USA and have freedom of all religions. I think this is closest to the free will God grants to man including the right to reject Him. Also this allows Christians to have different forms of worship.

2. to the question "the best possible solution for the proliferation of the Biblical gospel" I would pick an hostile to Christianity government like the ancient Roman or Chinese today. I believe there is validatity in the arguement that the worst thing to happen to Christianity was to become legal. Somehow oppression brings out the best in the church. (Not that I want to experience that.)

[Obsidian]

2. to the question "the best possible solution for the proliferation of the Biblical gospel" I would pick an hostile to Christianity government like the ancient Roman or Chinese today. I believe there is validatity in the arguement that the worst thing to happen to Christianity was to become legal. Somehow oppression brings out the best in the church. (Not that I want to experience that.)

That's a common argument, but there's not really any good reason to think the argument is true. Therefore, I disagree.

In answer to the original question, I would definitely make the country more theocratic than the basically atheistic government that we have now in America. But whether I would actually prohibit various pagan religions, I'm not sure. I think you could make a decent argument that since we have the Holy Spirit amongst us now to persuade people via free speech, the harsher theocratic measures of the mosaic law are no longer ideal. Also, I'm not sure whether the mosaic law even flatly prohibited paganism in the country, anyway. It definitely restricted the more blatant, open forms of it such as setting up temples with idols and stuff, but I sort of get the idea that more private practices among people passing through would probably have been allowed. I would need to study that a bit more, though.

Regardless, the level of Christianity in government at the time of America's founding was probably pretty close to ideal.

[Thoughtful Monk]

That's a common argument, but there's not really any good reason to think the argument is true. Therefore, I disagree.

In answer to the original question, I would definitely make the country more theocratic than the basically atheistic government that we have now in America. But whether I would actually prohibit various pagan religions, I'm not sure. I think you could make a decent argument that since we have the Holy Spirit amongst us now to persuade people via free speech, the harsher theocratic measures of the mosaic law are no longer ideal. Also, I'm not sure whether the mosaic law even flatly prohibited paganism in the country, anyway. It definitely restricted the more blatant, open forms of it such as setting up temples with idols and stuff, but I sort of get the idea that more private practices among people passing through would probably have been allowed. I would need to study that a bit more, though.

Regardless, the level of Christianity in government at the time of America's founding was probably pretty close to ideal.

The level of Christianity in the American government at its founding is more reflective of the culture. It was Christian because there was no serious belief system arguing (except for maybe atheism) with it at the time. Look at the fruits of the government: continued slavery, oppressing the native Americans, etc. I find the founding of America as an ideal Christian nation as without good reason as you find in the argument that an oppresive government fosters Christian growth.

[Obsidian]

That's sort of a dumb argument: "Christian governments are imperfect, and therefore non-Christian government is better."

[Thoughtful Monk]

That's sort of a dumb argument: "Christian governments are imperfect, and therefore non-Christian government is better."

Hey, you're the one that cited the beginning of the US as the ideal. Any government run by man will be imperfect. I do not see a Christian government by men as necessarily superior. History is full of Christian governments that failed to be Christian. Having lived through the current attempt by Christians to make America a Christian nation (starting with Reagon and the Moral Majority until today), I am becoming more and more a believer in the separation of church and state. More specifically, keeping the state out of the church. When one absorps the other, that is when the problems begin.

[Obsidian]

History is full of Christian governments that failed to be Christian. Having lived through the current attempt by Christians to make America a Christian nation (starting with Reagon and the Moral Majority until today), I am becoming more and more a believer in the separation of church and state.

Yes, your reasoning is perfect. And since history is also full of Christian individuals who failed to be "Christian," I am becoming more and more a believer in atheism. Right on, man!

Seriously, you should consider the fact that if it weren't for Christian governments, slavery would probably still be rampant throughout the world. Or you might also consider that under non-Christian government, every man is actually a slave...of the State.

[Jin-Roh]

"Christianity in Power" is a bit of a paradox in my kind of thinking, but as long as we're utopian dreaming this is what I would probably do:

First, I would make an official state Christian church. This church would be funded publicly. Citizens would not necessarily be obligated to attend, but this church would be funded via taxes. The official church would have control over all public education, especially high schools and universities. Education then, would be in the hands of the official church, regardless of how secular or sacred the individual schools became. Specific training in Christian education would be for all citizens.

Secondly, any other church or group that wanted to form a denomination or such would only be able to do so with the sanction of the official church. I would oppose a medieval style "Catholicism or nothing" type of government, but I would definitely give the official church the power to disband really, really, bad groups of Christianity. This would prevent cults from springing up (such as Mormonism, JWs etc. Those are the consequences of religious liberty) as well as preventing the under-educated from presuming that they get to become unaccountable pastors just because they have enough people to call them that.

Third, the major liturgical holy days would be state holidays as well. It would actually be illegal to call people into work during Holy Week, for instance. People would have a right to leave work on days like Ash Wednesday. There would probably be few minor holy days as well, such as all saint's day, that would take the place of things like "Columbus day" or "Thanksgiving" in USA. Instead of living in a society where you expect to see a thanksgiving day parade, Palm Sunday would big day of the year when New York shuts down for a huge event.

Everyone would be required to register their religion, even if it is just a nominal recognition as it is in Turkey, and non-Christians would be permitted to live, but would have certain restrictions such as running for certain offices, or entering into the educational environment, or founding places of worship.

Like I said, I don't think this would actually work, but that's probably what I would do.

[RBerman]

The OP is an interesting thought exercise, but it's framed with problematic assumptions. If we're talking about someone with "the power to build a country from the ground up" then we're talking about a dictatorship. The dictator may be a despot or an enlightened philosopher-king, but either way we're talking about a government which does not arise from the consent of the governed. That violates the underlying principle of representative democracy which, while a terrible form of government, is still the best we have. So, given "the power to build a country from the ground up," I would immediately relinquish that power and ask the people to elect representatives to do what they want done. Top-down attempts to impose Christianity on a recalcitrant population will mainly serve to embitter them against Christ. Mainly we need people who already want what God wants, which is why evangelism is the core of the Christian mission on this earth.

[theblueprint_Ni]

"Christianity in Power" is a bit of a paradox in my kind of thinking, but as long as we're utopian dreaming this is what I would probably do:

First, I would make an official state Christian church. This church would be funded publicly. Citizens would not necessarily be obligated to attend, but this church would be funded via taxes. The official church would have control over all public education, especially high schools and universities. Education then, would be in the hands of the official church, regardless of how secular or sacred the individual schools became. Specific training in Christian education would be for all citizens.

Secondly, any other church or group that wanted to form a denomination or such would only be able to do so with the sanction of the official church. I would oppose a medieval style "Catholicism or nothing" type of government, but I would definitely give the official church the power to disband really, really, bad groups of Christianity. This would prevent cults from springing up (such as Mormonism, JWs etc. Those are the consequences of religious liberty) as well as preventing the under-educated from presuming that they get to become unaccountable pastors just because they have enough people to call them that.

Third, the major liturgical holy days would be state holidays as well. It would actually be illegal to call people into work during Holy Week, for instance. People would have a right to leave work on days like Ash Wednesday. There would probably be few minor holy days as well, such as all saint's day, that would take the place of things like "Columbus day" or "Thanksgiving" in USA. Instead of living in a society where you expect to see a thanksgiving day parade, Palm Sunday would big day of the year when New York shuts down for a huge event.

Everyone would be required to register their religion, even if it is just a nominal recognition as it is in Turkey, and non-Christians would be permitted to live, but would have certain restrictions such as running for certain offices, or entering into the educational environment, or founding places of worship.

Like I said, I don't think this would actually work, but that's probably what I would do.

Thanks, Jin, this response is most in line with the spirit behind the question I raised. And I agree that it is paradoxical. Christianity in power, especially if it is YOU personally, where the responsibility can't be deferred and the decisions of the government can no longer be criticized from a distance, is difficult to balance when both your statesmanship and religious convictions are in conflict. Could you, when power of this kind has been granted to you, stand for a false house of worship to be established in your sovereign territory? Would God be pleased that demons are being worshiped on your land, or is it truly the best compromise to show that Christian principle is tolerant and patient with those who disagree with them?

RBerman,

You make some good points. Though I must question the democratic model for a number of reasons, so I doubt that it is really the best form of gov't we have. It's perhaps the best in our epoch of time, but maybe not in the broader scope of all human history. Also, I don't think that the consent of the governed is a positive prerequisite for good government. I can only see that God's ideal form of gov't is monarchy. Not Plato's philosopher-king type, but strict Christian theocracy. This is the ideal anyway, at least when Christ returns. Democracy, as we continue to see it, has led to lewdness and moral lawlessness because the masses vote for the good of themselves rather than the integrity of the country. Unless, of course, you have a country of Spirit-led citizens, in which case ANY form of gov't would work to near perfection. Assuming the population is as it is now, I don't perceive democracy prevailing spiritually for very long.

I don't think that a dictatorship is necessarily a bad thing. I think that we, as overly free and morally unaccountable Americans(most of us), naturally view anything anti-republic as negative. The problem, I think, is that every example we have of dictatorship is characterized by abuse and self-aggrandizement. Moreover, they assume power through political intrigue and scandal. That's the difference between a king and a dictator. So I guess that if you were given the power to build a country by means other than royal succession than you would be considered a "dictator". But let's assume that you didn't seek the position per se, but that you were sovereignly given the power to do as you wish. Would you still let it all go? It's easy to say that you would simply relinquish the power to the population in reference, but what if you knew that they were no better than a mass of children given over to candy?

It does seem that the NT was written from the perspective of working from within an already established system to evangelize without giving much concern to changing the gov't itself. Yet power has been given over to Christianity before, and if you were given the power to make a difference for Christ by use of the law, how would you legislate? If you say, "I will give it away", it sounds sounds noble, but is it responsible? If your wisdom was grounded in Biblical truth (with the assistance of godly advisors and such), yet your desire was to give it over to an overall uneducated herd of sheep who's ability to make sound decisions for the country is largely based on personal gain and ignorance, will that be most honoring to God in the long run? If the determining factor between outward blasphemy and law rested on your decision to rule or to relinquish rule, would you still abdicate your position? These questions could be laced with my own biased or I might just be playing the devils advocate, I myself am not even entirely sure.

[Jin-Roh]

Thanks, Jin, this response is most in line with the spirit behind the question I raised. And I agree that it is paradoxical. Christianity in power, especially if it is YOU personally, where the responsibility can't be deferred and the decisions of the government can no longer be criticized from a distance, is difficult to balance when both your statesmanship and religious convictions are in conflict.

I think this a great thought experiment and I'm glad that you started the thread. I think everyone who is reading this should check out Jacques Maritian's "man and state" if you want to know what an explictly theocratic Christian democracy looks like.

Could you, when power of this kind has been granted to you, stand for a false house of worship to be established in your sovereign territory? Would God be pleased that demons are being worshiped on your land, or is it truly the best compromise to show that Christian principle is tolerant and patient with those who disagree with them?

There are a couple of things that I consider here. First, there's the OT law. Did they tolerate other religions in their own territory? Quite obviously no. It wasn't that way in during the Holy Roman Empire either. Now, we say that such a gov't is evil now, but we have to consider the consequences of religious liberty. German has banned sciento logy. Which means those wicked, evil, stalking, con-artists have not foot hold there. We in the United States do not have legal precedent that would ever allow us to do that.

I have to also remember that psalm 110 talks about God reigning in the midst of his enemies. So because of that, I think it is worth accepting that there might be some "demon-worship" within my Sacred Christian republic. Also, I remember that "doubt" can sometimes lead to a stronger affirmation of one's own convictions.

I think, again, that it would simply be an issue of consent and boundaries set by the official church. Members of such a church could worship and such, but would be restricted from positions of power and education. They would certainly never be allowed to found their own educational institutions beyond the primary school level.

[RBerman]

You make some good points. Though I must question the democratic model for a number of reasons, so I doubt that it is really the best form of gov't we have. It's perhaps the best in our epoch of time, but maybe not in the broader scope of all human history. Also, I don't think that the consent of the governed is a positive prerequisite for good government. I can only see that God's ideal form of gov't is monarchy. Not Plato's philosopher-king type, but strict Christian theocracy. This is the ideal anyway, at least when Christ returns. Democracy, as we continue to see it, has led to lewdness and moral lawlessness because the masses vote for the good of themselves rather than the integrity of the country. Unless, of course, you have a country of Spirit-led citizens, in which case ANY form of gov't would work to near perfection. Assuming the population is as it is now, I don't perceive democracy prevailing spiritually for very long.

I don't think that a dictatorship is necessarily a bad thing. I think that we, as overly free and morally unaccountable Americans(most of us), naturally view anything anti-republic as negative. The problem, I think, is that every example we have of dictatorship is characterized by abuse and self-aggrandizement. Moreover, they assume power through political intrigue and scandal. That's the difference between a king and a dictator. So I guess that if you were given the power to build a country by means other than royal succession than you would be considered a "dictator". But let's assume that you didn't seek the position per se, but that you were sovereignly given the power to do as you wish. Would you still let it all go? It's easy to say that you would simply relinquish the power to the population in reference, but what if you knew that they were no better than a mass of children given over to candy?

It does seem that the NT was written from the perspective of working from within an already established system to evangelize without giving much concern to changing the gov't itself. Yet power has been given over to Christianity before, and if you were given the power to make a difference for Christ by use of the law, how would you legislate? If you say, "I will give it away", it sounds sounds noble, but is it responsible? If your wisdom was grounded in Biblical truth (with the assistance of godly advisors and such), yet your desire was to give it over to an overall uneducated herd of sheep who's ability to make sound decisions for the country is largely based on personal gain and ignorance, will that be most honoring to God in the long run? If the determining factor between outward blasphemy and law rested on your decision to rule or to relinquish rule, would you still abdicate your position? These questions could be laced with my own biased or I might just be playing the devils advocate, I myself am not even entirely sure.

I appreciate the failings of democracy, which we see regularly in the USA. I don't know that God's ideal government for our current world is monarchy; see 1 Samuel 8 for God's thoughts on the topic. God's ideal government, as you say, involves Christ being the undisputed monarch of the earth, but that kingdom has not yet arrived in its fullness. I answered your question with respect to our current fallen world, not the sinless one Christ is bringing.

But yes, knowing my own fallibility and sinfulness, I really would (or at least hope I would) surrender my dictatorship precisely because my awareness of Biblical truth teaches me that I must, and that viewing the people as "an overall uneducated herd of sheep" is the first step toward despotism. Nobody sets out to be evil per se, but that's where you end up when you elevate yourself to be the philosopher-king.

[theblueprint_Ni]

I appreciate the failings of democracy, which we see regularly in the USA. I don't know that God's ideal government for our current world is monarchy; see 1 Samuel 8 for God's thoughts on the topic. God's ideal government, as you say, involves Christ being the undisputed monarch of the earth, but that kingdom has not yet arrived in its fullness. I answered your question with respect to our current fallen world, not the sinless one Christ is bringing.

But yes, knowing my own fallibility and sinfulness, I really would (or at least hope I would) surrender my dictatorship precisely because my awareness of Biblical truth teaches me that I must, and that viewing the people as "an overall uneducated herd of sheep" is the first step toward despotism. Nobody sets out to be evil per se, but that's where you end up when you elevate yourself to be the philosopher-king.

True, it's hard to say what exactly God's ideal form of gov't is in the place of His absence, but I don't think 1 Samuel helps very much to clear up this issue. It is enlightening and I'm not arguing against it, but God's position on what form of gov't the people should have been inclined toward (God being their king) can more accurately be understood against the backdrop of the Mosaic law like Jin mentioned, a strict theocracy which required no king, though provisions for one were included (Deut. 17:14-20).

It is unfortunate but true that the masses are an uneducated herd of sheep. The "sheep" portion of this statement shouldn't be too much of a problem, but maybe its the "uneducated' or ignorant part that you don't like. And I understand that and maybe it's the lack of tone that we are often forced to self-apply to others posts that may, in this case, come across as if it was meant to be demeaning. It is not always the fault of the individual that environmental factors prevent them from being more educated. Maybe they have many pressures that leave them little time to study, or maybe they never even learned to read. In either case the masses do need someone to lead them, and hopefully by someone more qualified than themselves and not just a clever sophist that a natural democracy like Socrates' Athens would have generated.

I think that what bends a mind toward despotism isn't so much that the people are "an overall uneducated herd of sheep" (if it is more palatable, lets say, "poor, hungry souls in need of a shepherd") but rather, that because of that, they are less than human.

Your humility is admirable, and in your reading of Scripture it might be well with your conscience to relinquish that power to something more suitable because of your exceptional sensitivity to sin that might sway your ability to make sound decisions for the people. Yet the examples we have in Scripture do not quite mimic this attitude. Neither Joseph nor Daniel gave their authority over and they might as well have been considered the king of Egypt and Babylon respectively but they remained as humble servants.

So I'm not sure if Biblical truth teaches that you must submit your position as "dictator" if you were sovereignly appointed as such, though I don't much like the term dictator because of the connotations. But if that's your position than that's your position. And if that's your position then there's not much more to say on your part about this exercise. But again, I must say that it's much easier and maybe even less responsible to give the power over to a people largely non-Christian and to let the chips fall where they may in regards to the laws that they legislate so that when they(the laws) begin to manifest ungodliness you can watch and criticize at a safe distance and more easily shift the cause for bold and brazen sin onto the sin-darkened minds of the masses that has allowed such things to take place.

It's possible that we're stringing two different chords here and we're just missing each other. So if you were to start a country from scratch with relatively unlimited resources and simply hand it over to the people which inhabit your territory, then there's nothing more to be said. Hence, let's assume that you wouldn't hand it over (presuming that you don't have a god complex), how would you best govern and deal with people from other religions and cultures?

[theblueprint_Ni]

I think this a great thought experiment and I'm glad that you started the thread. I think everyone who is reading this should check out Jacques Maritian's "man and state" if you want to know what an explictly theocratic Christian democracy looks like.



There are a couple of things that I consider here. First, there's the OT law. Did they tolerate other religions in their own territory? Quite obviously no. It wasn't that way in during the Holy Roman Empire either. Now, we say that such a gov't is evil now, but we have to consider the consequences of religious liberty. German has banned sciento logy. Which means those wicked, evil, stalking, con-artists have not foot hold there. We in the United States do not have legal precedent that would ever allow us to do that.

I have to also remember that psalm 110 talks about God reigning in the midst of his enemies. So because of that, I think it is worth accepting that there might be some "demon-worship" within my Sacred Christian republic. Also, I remember that "doubt" can sometimes lead to a stronger affirmation of one's own convictions.

I think, again, that it would simply be an issue of consent and boundaries set by the official church. Members of such a church could worship and such, but would be restricted from positions of power and education. They would certainly never be allowed to found their own educational institutions beyond the primary school level.

Who might fall under the umbrella of the official church? What doctrines must one confess, and what if they refuse to confess it? I can foresee some serious conflict between the NT attitude in discipline and the states obligation to uphold social order that is, in this case, inextricably linked to NT doctrine that will prove difficult, though maybe not impossible, to reconcile. What say you?

[RBerman]

True, it's hard to say what exactly God's ideal form of gov't is in the place of His absence, but I don't think 1 Samuel helps very much to clear up this issue. It is enlightening and I'm not arguing against it, but God's position on what form of gov't the people should have been inclined toward (God being their king) can more accurately be understood against the backdrop of the Mosaic law like Jin mentioned, a strict theocracy which required no king, though provisions for one were included (Deut. 17:14-20).

This is true. It seems to me, however, that the pitfalls which Samuel mentions in 1 Samuel 8 are evergreen; pretty much any dictator is going to trend that way. Even Solomon did, and he was the wisest man who ever lived. And even if one dictator does OK, how does he secure an orderly transfer of power to a similarly enlightened individual? It doesn't seem like a form of government with legs.

It is unfortunate but true that the masses are an uneducated herd of sheep. The "sheep" portion of this statement shouldn't be too much of a problem, but maybe its the "uneducated' or ignorant part that you don't like. And I understand that and maybe it's the lack of tone that we are often forced to self-apply to others posts that may, in this case, come across as if it was meant to be demeaning. It is not always the fault of the individual that environmental factors prevent them from being more educated. Maybe they have many pressures that leave them little time to study, or maybe they never even learned to read. In either case the masses do need someone to lead them, and hopefully by someone more qualified than themselves and not just a clever sophist that a natural democracy like Socrates' Athens would have generated.

I side with William F. Buckley's observation that he'd rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard University.

Your humility is admirable, and in your reading of Scripture it might be well with your conscience to relinquish that power to something more suitable because of your exceptional sensitivity to sin that might sway your ability to make sound decisions for the people. Yet the examples we have in Scripture do not quite mimic this attitude. Neither Joseph nor Daniel gave their authority over and they might as well have been considered the king of Egypt and Babylon respectively but they remained as humble servants. So I'm not sure if Biblical truth teaches that you must submit your position as "dictator" if you were sovereignly appointed as such, though I don't much like the term dictator because of the connotations. But if that's your position than that's your position. And if that's your position then there's not much more to say on your part about this exercise. But again, I must say that it's much easier and maybe even less responsible to give the power over to a people largely non-Christian and to let the chips fall where they may in regards to the laws that they legislate so that when they(the laws) begin to manifest ungodliness you can watch and criticize at a safe distance and more easily shift the cause for bold and brazen sin onto the sin-darkened minds of the masses that has allowed such things to take place.

Well, neither Daniel nor Joseph was in the situation you described. They implemented imperial policy; they didn't generate it, though they may have advised the emperor. Nebuchadnezzar is shown in the book of Daniel as having several pro-Yahweh epiphanies, but it's a matter of historical record that he never imposed the Hebrew religion on Babylon.

As far as "letting the chips fall where they may," as I said in my first post, I would anticipate that forcibly imposing Christian theocracy on a non-Christian population would chiefly serve to embitter them toward Christ. God has chosen to let the minds of sinners work out their natural results (Romans 1), and if forced to prioritize evangelism vs cultural transformation, as I believe your thought exercise does, I'd rather evangelize and trust God to change men's hearts so that they stop kicking against the goads, rather than focus on external adherence of men to a law that they hate.

It's possible that we're stringing two different chords here and we're just missing each other. So if you were to start a country from scratch with relatively unlimited resources and simply hand it over to the people which inhabit your territory, then there's nothing more to be said. Hence, let's assume that you wouldn't hand it over (presuming that you don't have a god complex), how would you best govern and deal with people from other religions and cultures?

These are good questions, but as I survey the history of the church, I can't find anywhere that got it right. Not Calvin's Geneva or Cotton Mather's Massachusetts or Gregory's Europe or Robespierre's France or Cromwell's England or Knox's Scotland or Charles' Spain or Constantine's Rome or Jefferson's America or any modern nation. The best I can see is that in a few places, when a nearly uniform Christian population congregated, for a couple of generations they were sometimes able to experience a Christian society. But it never lasted long. It would not appear God intends such a place to exist on this earth. The longing for such a place is natural, and God has a plan for his people in that regard:

Hebrews 11:13-16

All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.