In the debate surrounding the issue of America as a Christian nation, those opposing the Christian nation thesis, or those who desire a separation of the influence of Christians over the institutes of the state, have accused the "anti-separationists" (those who oppose the contemporary view of "separation of church and state" and advocate that the Founders established this nation as a Christian nation) of proposing a theocracy.
This term theocracy is indeed thrown around very often, so let us examine what it means, and how its real definition applies to the view of America that our Founding Fathers originally had in mind when they founded this country. Many people, when they think of "theocracy," probably remember the Catholic dominance over the kingdoms of medieval Europe. Others who have more knowledge of Biblical history will probably picture the government that the ancient Hebrews had when Moses led them out of Egypt. They will remember that he gave God's instructions, especially the Ten Commandments, to the Hebrews. Those skeptical of Christianity, and therefore of Christian pastors and leaders, would definitely be skeptical of such a government -- in which the clergy dominate the government of a nation, claiming to get their instructions from God, as political representatives of God on earth. Many people term such governments "theocracies," because they loosely fit into the mold of "a government by God" -- the literal definition of "theocracy."
I am skeptical of the justice of the Catholic dominance of Europe, not because I am skeptical of Christianity, but rather of the truth of the Catholics' claims that they were the mouthpieces of God. May I also point out that many in the so-called "Christian nation crowd" are also skeptical of such a government. We instead assert that this nation was founded upon Biblical presuppositions (that man is inherently selfish, and needs restraint; that law, which exists for the purpose of restraining man's selfish tendencies and preserving justice and order, must therefore come from a super-human source, namely GOD, the Creator).
Our government was founded upon the laws of God. Now, this does not mean that our Constitution is a direct enforcement of the Ten Commandments, but rather that in order for the form of government established by the Constitution to be preserved, the Ten Commandments must be respected and observed by the American populous. Our Founding Truth wrote two posts dealing with this subject concisely but thoroughly; I encourage my readers to peruse these articles.
But since our government is based upon God's laws, and they are recognized as supreme over man's laws, can we not say that America is, in the literal sense of the word, a "theocracy"? Since theocracy is the rule of God, and God's laws are the foundation of our government (remember that the Declaration of Independence appealed to the "laws of nature and of nature's God"), we are a government under God's law. God may not send a prophet, as he did in the Old Testament times, saying, "Thou shalt war on Such-and-such a nation," or "Thou shalt pass such-and-such a law," but we are a theocracy in the New Testament sense. In other words, God does not speak to us primarily in lighting bolts or in divine messengers (although He continues to do so from time to time), but rather, as the New Testament book of Hebrews explains:"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the worlds." (Hebrews 1:1-2)
And who is "His Son"? It is Jesus Christ, who, according to John 1:1&14 is "the Word of God ... [who] became flesh." This means that Jesus is the law of God manifested in human form, in the form not only of a person, but of a human being, because Jesus is the fulfillment of the law. He walked the walk.
The summary of all this is that God does not need to give a long list of do's and don'ts, as He did in Old Testament times; the New Testament makes it clear that the Old Covenant was fulfilled, and that the New Covenant is in place. God freely gives to us of His Spirit when we are born again, so that we no longer have the natural inclination to sin and walk contrary to the law of God, but rather have the inclination to do what pleases Him and accords with His law, and such involves more than going to church and wearing Christian T-shirts -- it involves the development of a holy and virtuous lifestyle motivated by the love and fear of God.
Our Founding Fathers acknowledged their dependence upon this concept in their writings and in their speeches. First of all, they acknowledged the supremacy of God's law over any laws of man, and they recognized the importance of electing genuine Christians to office.
John Quincy Adams, the famed son of John and Abigail Adams, and the sixth President of the United States made it very clear that the Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of a government built upon Christian principles. In a public speech he made to commemorate the 61st anniversary of American Independence (July 4, 1837), he declared:Why is it, Friends and Fellow Citizens, that you are here assembled? ... Is it not, that in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission on earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies, announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?" (1)
John Jay noted the importance of Christians being elected to office, as well that this nation was a "Christian nation," in a letter to John Murray, Jr., on October 12, 1816:Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others ... Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. [emphasis original] (2)
John Adams also wrote concerning the founding of America, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813:The GENERAL PRINCIPLES on which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young men could unite, and these principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were those GENERAL PRINCIPLES? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects [the Roman Catholics, Quakers, Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, and Universalists] were united, and the GENERAL PRINCIPLES of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system. (3)
The Founding Fathers believed that the laws of God were so vital that they believed that Americans should understand and respect them from their youth. Noah Webster was a Founding Father, who served as a soldier during the American Revolution, and who directly influenced the Constitution in some areas by writing letters to the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and discussing issues with them outside of the Convention. His most well-known contribution to America was his authorship of the first American-English dictionary in 1828, which gave English words standardized American meaning and spelling. He was heavily involved in the education of youth, believing that education in American principles was vital to the survival of the new republic. He once wrote:
Our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New testament, or, the Christian religion. (4)Since our nation relies upon God's laws to preserve virtue, and since virtue is what makes republican government possible, the Founding Fathers stressed not only virtue, but the true source of virtue: Christianity. Benjamin Rush, who was a very influential Founder and active educator and social reformer wrote:
The only foundation for ... a Republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. (5)John Adams, during his presidency declared:
[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (6)Alexander Hamilton, in preparing Washington's Farewell Address upon Washington's request, expressed this truth this way:
And George Washington expressed those words similarly in his revised version of the Farewell Address.
In all those dispositions which promote political happiness, religion and morality are essential props. In vain does he claim the praise of patriotism, who labors to subvert or undermine these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest foundations of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public happiness.
Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of moral and religious obligation deserts the oaths which are administered in courts of justice? Nor ought we to flatter ourselves that morality can be separated from religion. Concede as much as may be asked to the effect of refined education in minds of peculiar structure, can we believe, can we in prudence suppose, that national morality can be maintained in exclusion of religious principles? Does it not require the aid of a generally received and divinely authoritative religion?
’T is essentially true that virtue or morality is a main and necessary spring of popular or republican governments. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to all free governments. Who that is a prudent and sincere friend to them, can look with indifference on the ravages which are making in the foundation of the fabric—religion? The uncommon means which of late have been directed to this fatal end, seem to make it in a particular manner the duty of a retiring chief of a nation to warn his country against tasting of the poisonous draught [sic]. (7)
Alexander Hamilton had earlier written quite emphatically:
The politician who loves liberty ... knows that morality overthrown (and morality must fall with religion), the terrors of despotism alone can curb the impetuous passions of man, and confine him within the bounds of social duty. (emphasis original) (8)Our nation is not a theocracy to be governed by men, but is a theocracy in the truest sense, so long as we as a nation govern ourselves by the laws of God.
I will add as an interesting postscript, that while today, many citizens are thinking of adding amendments to the Constitution granting to people the rights to free healthcare and free Internet service, Americans of the 1840s were petitioning Congress to make an official recognition of Jesus Christ as the "ruler of the nation" in the Constitution (these petitions were presented to Congress by U.S. Representative John Quincy Adams). These motions were never actually carried out, and were probably thought unnecessary, since the evidence of our being a Christian nation comes from those who have the most governing authority in this nation: the people and their respective state and local governments.
Also, a petition of citizens of Perry and Muskingum counties, State of Ohio, praying an amendment of the constitution, by which the Sovereign of the universe shall be acknowledged as the God of the nation; also, that the Lord Jesus Christ may be acknowledged as the ruler of the nation. (9)
Mr. [John Quincy] Adams offered to present a petition of inhabitants of western Pennsylvania and Ohio, praying an amendment of the Constitution of the United States, so that it shall contain a clear and explicit acknowledgment of the Sovereign of the universe as the God of this nation; an entire and avowed submission to the Lord Jesus Christ as the ruler of this nation; an unreserved reception of his revealed will contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the law paramount, by which all the affairs of this republic shall be regulated--all conflicting State laws being regarded as perfectly null and void; and entreating Congress to rescind all enactments whereby a violation of God's law is authorized, whether by running the mail-stage on his Sabbath, or otherwise. (10)
Also, a memorial of citizens of Licking county, State of Ohio, praying that the Sovereign of the universe may be acknowledged as the God of this nation, and that the Lord Jesus Christ may be acknowledged as the supreme ruler of the nation. (11)







4 Comments:
Amen!
Hello HH. Welcome to my blog!
Thanks for your comment. I hope you consider coming again, and posting your thoughts on this blog's content.
Have a blessed day.
Good post. As to the Adams-sponsored amendment, in a way it is a shame that this did not go through, just like the anti-slavery sentiments and rights of free women sentiments did not "go through" when writing the Declaration or Constitution. But truly our governing documents are not meant to be tools to bring about legalized social change. Don't people realize that this is the beauty of republicanism? That in order to be free, we must allow others to be free as well? This is why the Founders encouraged religion and morality so much, I believe-- these social changes are to be wrought in society itself, with the Church as the salt and light that brings us closer and closer to justice under God. This is why the emancipation of slaves could be constitutionally justified, and why women were given rights in America that were unheard of in Europe and the Middle East. And also why the Founders allowed the free exercise of religion in this country.
Over these many years, where the Founders' vision has now been clouded, the State is replacing the job of the Church. The people don't seem terribly bothered by this, because they are being brainwashed into believing that the State will control them gently and kindly and gove them every lust they desire, while the Church and "those prudish Christians" will "crimp their style." This is tragic, because it is so wrong! And yet so easily remedied with a little bit of education and insight. But the State is hindering the education and insight, now, too.
The State in encroaching on our liberties, to be sure, but then again, so is the Church-- because the Church was supposed to be the bastion of protection for our liberties, and has been derelict in duty for well over a century. Take, for example, the modern issue of Marriage Amendment. Any person in their right mind would be against such a thing! Why? Because government has no place confiscating such authority that belongs to the Church! Such an amendment goes far beyond the scope of republican government. Yet we see our societies are falling apart and the State feels the need to intervene (yea, even desires the need to control). This is all because the Church has been derelict in duty and because the people no longer have any sense of corporate responsibility and morality, especially as pertains to the society at large, nor to their communities. Yet, so many "Christians" are supportive of this Marriage Amendment. They are either completely stupid, not understanding the true intent of the State, and/or wicked because they will not recognize or speak up that this moral authority is a job for the Church. These Christians are selling our rights to the State, just as they did with the education system under John Dewey.
Anyway, this is the long way of saying that it is so easy to legislate behavior, and the State will gladly take control of us while the Church seems to be very happy to do nothing (except watch Christian TV and listen to K-Love).
The Church is just as much a part of this problem as the State, because the Church has absolved her responsibility to be light and salt in our nation.
All too true, Mrs. Mecomber; all too true.
Yeah, it is in some way a shame that Adams' sponsored bill didn't go through, just like his motions for abolishing slavery didn't go through when he was in Congress; but like I said, Congress may have thought such a resolution unnecessary (just see the declarations they made in 1854, or the Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States in 1892).
I whole-heartedly agree with you that the "federal marriage amendment" was a huge error on the part of the Church, and a sign of the tragedy. Writing this post, and pasting the quotes, has inspired me to plan to write another post on this train of thought: that not even a movement of Constitutionalism, voting for a Constitutionalist President, etc., can save America unless it is accompanied by a huge Great Awakening in the Christian Church. How often we quote Washington and Hamilton and say that "religion and morality are indispensable supports to our free government" and yet how little we apply those principles to ourselves. Instead of insuring the "religion and morality" of ourselves and our own children, we sponsor the government to force morality and religion on the populous in general, thinking that it is the job of the government more than the job of the citizens to insure national morality.
I could go on like this for a while, but before I wind up writing the future post here, I will just leave with that thought. ;)
Thanks for taking the time to write such a long comment, and to share your insight. It is deeply appreciated.
Post a Comment