Political Polytheism

POLITICAL
POLYTHEISM
Other books by Gary North
Marxs Religion of Revolution, 1968 [1989]
An I ntroduction to Christian Economics, 1973
Unconditional Surrendq 1981 [1988]
Successful I nvesting in an Age of Envy, 1981
The Dominion Covenant: Genesis, 1982 [1987]
Government By Emergerq, 1983
The Last Train Out, 1983
Backward, Christian Soldiers?, 1984
75 Bible Questions tiur I nstructors Pray lbu Wont Ask, 1984 [1988]
Coined Freedom: Gold in the Age of the Bureaucrats, 1984
Moses and Pharaoh: Dominion Religion Visus Power Religion, 1985
Negatrends, 198.5
The Sinai Strate@: Economics and the Tm Commandments, 1986
Conspiracy: A Biblical View, 1986
Unho~ Spirits: Occultism and New Age Humanism, 1986
Honest Moruy, 1986
Fighting Chance, 1986 [wi th Arthur Robi nson]
Domi ni on and Common Grace, 1987
I nherit the Earth, 1987
The Pirate Economy, 1987
Liberating Planet Earth, 1987
Healer of the Nations, 1987
I s the World Running Down?, 1988
Puritan Economic Experiments, 1988
Trespassing for Dear Lye, 1989
When J ustice I s Aborted, 1989
Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus, 1989
The Hoax of Higher Criticism, 1989
The J udeo-Christian Tradition, 1989
Books edi ted by Gary North
Foundations of Christian Scholarship, 1976
Tmtics of Christian Resistance, 1983
The Theology of Christian Resistance, 1983
Edi tor, J ournal of Christian Reconstruction (1974-1981)
POLITICAL
POLYTHEISM
T h e M y t h o f P l u r a l i s m
Not by mi ght, not by power, but by
my spi ri t, sai th the Lord of hosts.~
Zechari ah 4:6b
Gary North
I nsti tute for Chr i sti an Economi cs
Tyl er, Texas
Copyri ght @ 1989
Gary North
Publ i shed by
The I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs,
P.O. Box 8000, Tyl er, Texas 75711
T@e.setti ng by Thobwn Press,
P 0. Box 2459, Reston, Virginia 22090
Li brary of Congress Catal ogi ng-i n-Publ i cati on Data
North, Gary.
Pol i ti cal pol ythei sm : the myth of pl ural i sm / Gary North.
p. cm.
I ncl udes bi bl i ographi cal references.
I SBN 0-930464-32-X (al k. paper) :$19.95 (est.)
1. Church and state Uni ted States Controversi al l i terature.
2. Rel i gi ous pl ural i sm Uni ted States Controversi al l i terature.
3. Rel i gi ous pl ural i sm Chri sti ani ty Controversi al l i terature.
4. Domi ni on Theol ogy. 5. Soci ol ogy, Chri sti an Uni ted States.
6. Chri sti ani ty and pol i ti cs. 7. Uni ted States Church hi story.
I . Ti tl e.
BR516.N67 1989
261.73dc20
89-27431
CI P
Thi s book i s dedi cated to the
members, l i vi ng and dead, of the
Reformed Presbyteri an Church
of North Ameri ca (Covenantors)
who for 190 years have
smel l ed a rat i n Phi l adel phi a
. /
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i x
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..xi i i
I ntroducti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Par tl : BI BL I CAL COVENANTAL I SM
I ntroducti on, Part l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
I . What I s Covenant Law?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2. Sanctuary and Suffrage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Concl usi on, Part l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
Par t2: HALFWAY COVENANTALI SM
I ntroducti on, Part 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...121
3. Hal fway Covenant Ethi cs.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...127
4. Hal fway Covenant Soci al Cri ti ci sm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...165
5. Hal fway Covenant Hi stori ography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...223
Concl usi on, Part 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...301
Par t3:APOSTATE COVENANTAL I SM
I ntroducti on, Part 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...307
6. The Theol ogi cal Ori gi ns of the U.S. Consti tuti on.. . ...317
7. Renewed Covenantor Broken Covenant?. . . . . . . . . ...373
8. The Strategy of Decepti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
9. From Coup to Revol uti on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443
10. ``We the Peopl e": From Vassal to Suzerai n to Serf . . . ...489
Concl usi on, Part 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...521
Par t4: RESTORI NG THE NATI ONAL COVENANT
I ntroducti on, Part 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .557
11. A New Nati onal Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...561
12. The Restorati on of Bi bl i cal Pl ural i sm . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...575
13. Wi nners and Losers i n Hi story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...605
Concl usi on, Part 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...619
Concl usi on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .625
vi i

vvv POLI TI CAL POLYTHEI SM
Appendi x A The Authori ty of H. Ri chard Ni ebuhr . . . . . . ...667
Appendi x B Rushdoony on the Consti tuti on . . . . . . . . . . . ...675
Appendi x C Masons i n the Ameri can Revol uti on . . . . . . . ...705
Appendi x D Testi mony of the Reformed Presbyteri an
Church of North Ameri ca (1980). . . . . . . . . . . ...711
Appendi x E The Massachusetts Consti tuti on of 1780 . . . . . . . 719
Scri pture I ndex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...723
General I ndex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...727
About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .773
And&rtheq by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books
there is no end; and much study is a weariness of thejesh (Eccl. 12:12).
Thi s book was never i ntended to stand al one. I t grew out of a
seri es of shorter appendi xes that I had added to my book, Tools of
Dominion. 1 For that matter, so di d my two other books, Domi ni on and
Common Grace (1987)2 and 1$ the World Runni ng Down? (1988).
3
Al l thi s
from an economi c commentary on three chapters i n Exodus.
These books shoul d be taken as a uni t. I t woul d not be a bad i dea
to consi der the other books i n the seri es that I cal l The Domi ni on
Covenant: The Dominion Covenant: Genesi s (1982), Moses and Pharaoh
(1985), and The Sinai Strate~ (1986).
4
They al l consti tute my attempt
to offer a speci fi cal l y Chri sti an economi cs, and to a l esser extent, to
offer prel i mi nary outl i nes of a speci fi cal l y Bi bl e-based soci al theory.
The reader shoul d understand that I real l y do my best to l i ve up
to the sl ogan that dri ves me onward: You cant beat somethi ng wi th
nothi ng. I am tryi ng to l ay the bi bl i cal foundati ons of an al ternati ve
soci ety to humani sms present soci al order. No si ngl e book can possi -
bl y accompl i sh such a task. No set of books can. I am tryi ng to set an
exampl e wi th my economi c commentari es: verse-by-verse commen-
tari es that are narrowl y focused on one academi c subject or one so-
ci al topi c. Thi s has never been attempted i n Church hi story, so I
1. Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an
Economi cs, 1989).
2. Dominion and Common Grace: The Biblical Basis of Pro.grem (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute
for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1987).
3. I s the World Runni ng Down? Cri>is in the Chriktian Wwldview (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti -
tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1988).
4. The Dominion Cooenant: Genesi s (2nd ed.; Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an
Economi cs, 1987); Moses and Pharaoh: Dominion Religion vs. Power Religion (Tyl er,
Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1985); and T/ u Sinai Strategy: Economus and
the Ten Commandments (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1986).
i x
x POLI TI CAL POLYTHEI SM
know I wi l l make mi stakes. To show that such commentari es are at
l east possi bl e i s one of my major goal s.
What I s Thi s Book Al l About?
Thi s book must be seen for what i t i s: an attempt to cl ear the
deck of an i ntel l ectual mi stake that stretches back to the earl y
Churchs phi l osophi cal defenders of the fai th. That di sastrous mi s-
take was to regard Stoi c natural l aw theory as the equi val ent of bi bl i -
cal l aw. I do not deal i n detai l wi th the earl y Church fathers i n thi s
book, however. I deal wi th more recent vari ati ons of thi s anci ent er-
ror. Chri sti ans have made a si mi l ar compromi se wi th Newtoni an
natural l aw for sl i ghtl y over three centuri es. I saac Newton rather
than Pl ato or Ari stotl e i s the i ntel l ectual force to be reckoned wi th to-
day, or at l east he has been unti l qui te recentl y. The ri se of quantum
physi cs i n the 1920s and then, i n the 1980s, chaos theory, i n pri nci -
pl e overthrew the Newtoni an synthesi s, but no cl ear al ternati ve, so-
ci al l y or theoreti cal l y, has been put i n i ts pl ace. On thi s poi nt, see 1s
the World Running Down?, menti oned previ ousl y.
Thi s book shoul d not be regarded as presenti ng the case for bi bl i -
cal theocracy, al though I certai nl y bel i eve i n bi bl i cal theocracy. R. J.
Rushdoonys htitute~ of Biblical Law (Crai g Press, 1973) and Greg L.
Bahnsens By This Standard (I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1985)
do that adequatel y. Nor does thi s book try to spel l out the detai l s of
what such a bi bl i cal theocracy mi ght l ook l i ke. Many speci fi cs are
found i n TOOI J of Domi ni on. What I do i n thi s book i s to present the
case, as cl earl y as I can, yet wi th al l the detai l s necessary to prove my
case, that the proposed Chri.rtian al ternati ves to bi bl i cal theocracy
that have been suggested by major twenti eth-century Chri sti an com-
mentators do not stand up to the ri gorous test of Scri pture. These
schemes are fai thful nei ther to the Bi bl e nor to the ethi cal and l egal
standards of modern humani sm. Thus, I cl assi fy them as way sta-
ti ons, ei ther for converts to Chri sti ani ty who are comi ng i nto the
fai th or for neo-evangel i cal l i beral s on thei r way out. These pl ural i st
al ternati ves are hal fway houses for the i ntel l ectual l y wounded. They
are hal fway covenant systems.
Thi s book shows what i n pri nci pl e cannot work for Chri sti ani ty,
ei ther phi l osophi cal l y and soci al l y, and i t shows what di d not work i n
the Ameri can col oni al peri od. Other Chri sti an hi stori ans have bl amed
the excessi ve bi bl i ci sm of our col oni al forefathers for the fai l ures of
the earl y experi ments i n Chri sti an pol i ti cal order (see Chapter 5). I ,
Foreword xi
on the other hand, bl ame thei r l ack of devel opment of the bi bl i cal
knowl edge that they possessed.
There i s a predi ctabl e progressi on i n the deteri orati on of an es-
tabl i shed bi bl i cal cul ture. I t begi ns wi th the abandonment of the
concept of reveal ed bi bl i cal l aw. The i mpl i cati ons of thi s moral and
judi ci al defecti on spread rapi dl y (perhaps even si mul taneousl y) to
bi bl i cal phi l osophy. Then these errors move outward from the i ndi -
vi dual moral wi l l and mi nd to soci al i nsti tuti ons: eccl esi asti cal , fa-
mi l i al , and pol i ti cal . I n short, compromi ses are made i n certai n
areas of thought and l i fe at an earl i er stage that steadi l y work thei r
way i nto al l the other areas. Chri sti ans negoti ate away thei r i nheri t-
ance on a pi ecemeal basi s, generati on by generati on, al ways protest-
i ng that what they are doi ng i s i n fact a consi stent outworki ng of
Chri sti an pri nci pl es.
Thi s book i s not an attempt to refute every modern Chri sti an
thi nker who has compromi sed wi th the humani st enemy. I f i t were, I
woul d face the wri ti ng probl em descri bed by the Apostl e John: And
there are al so many other thi ngs whi ch Jesus di d, the whi ch, i f they
shoul d be wri tten every one, I suppose that even the worl d i tsel f
coul d not contai n the books that shoul d be wri tten. Amen (John
21:25). I refer i n the text and footnotes to many authors, but onl y be-
cause I am targeti ng thei r i deas. Onl y i n the chapters i n Part 2 do I
si ngl e out a few key thi nkers as suffi ci entl y i mportant to warrant a
whol e chapter, and i n Appendi x B.
I begi n wi th a pai r of premi ses: 1) there i s no rel i gi ous neutral i ty;
2) there are no pol i ti cal vacuums. Everythi ng el se fol l ows.
Thou shah break them wi th a rod of i ron; thou shal t dash them i n
pi eces l i ke a potters vessel . Be wi se now therefore, O ye ki ngs: be i n-
structed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD wi th fear, and rejoi ce
wi th trembl i ng. Ki ss the Son, l est he be angry, and ye peri sh from
the way, when hi s wrath i s ki ndl ed but a l i ttl e. Bl essed are al l they
that put thei r trust i n hi m (Ps. 2:9-12).
We cannot hel p but see, then, how far the i nfal l i bl e moral i n-
structi on of thi s psal m i s removed from the pl ural i st pol i ti cal theori es
of our day. By contendi ng that ci vi l pol i cy shoul d not be based upon
or favor any one di sti ncti ve rel i gi on or phi l osophy of l i fe (but rather
bal ance the al l eged ri ghts of al l confl i cti ng vi ewpoi nts), pl ural i sm ul -
ti matel y takes i ts pol i ti cal stand wi th secul ari sm i n refusi ng to ki ss
the Son and serve Jehovah wi th fear. The pl ural i st approach tran-
gresses the fi rst commandment by countenanci ng and deferri ng to
di fferent ul ti mate authori ti es (gods) i n the area of publ i c pol i cy. I n-
stead of excl usi vel y submi tti ng to Jehovahs l aw wi th fear and openl y
fol l owi ng Gods enthroned Son, the pl ural i st attempts the i mpossi bl e
task of honori ng more than one master i n ci vi l l egi sl ati on (Matt.
6:24) a ki nd of pol i ti cal pol ythei sm.
Greg L. Bahnsen (1989)*
*Bahnsen, The Theonomi c Posi ti on, i n Gary Scott Smi th (cd.), God and Politics:
Four Views on the R#ormation of Civil Govemmt (Phi l l i psburg, New Jersey: Presbyter-
i an & Reformed, 1989), p. 30.
PREFACE
Beye not unequal~yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellow-
ship bath righteousness with unrighteousness.> and what communion
bath light with darkness? (I I COT. 6:14).
There i s a perpetual confl i ct throughout hi story: the war between
l i ght and darkness. The story of mans hi story i s the story of thi s con-
fl i ct. The hi stori cal questi on i s: Whi ch si de, i f ei ther, wi l l progres-
si vel y become vi ctori ous i n worl d ci vi l i zati on? For al most ei ghteen
centuri es, Chri sti ans have di sagreed on the answer to thi s cruci al
questi on.
There i s a rel ated questi on: What wi l l be the vi si bl e marks of the
vi ctori ous ci vi l i zati ons tri umph over the l osers ci vi l i zati on? I f Chri s-
ti ani ty y wi ns, how wi l l peopl e know? I f anti -Chri sti ani ty wi ns, how
wi l l peopl e know? One obvi ous answer i s: by the civil legal order gov -
an.ing the nations. 1 Thi s answer i s deepl y resi sted by the vast majori ty
of Chri sti ans today, but i t was a major foundati on of worl d evangel -
i sm i n the Ol d Covenant an evangel i sm program that the I srael i tes
fai l ed to pursue. The ri ghteousness of bi bl i cal l aw was desi gned by
God to put the pagan worl d under convi cti on.
Behol d, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the -LORD my
God commanded me, that ye shoul d do so i n the l and whi ther ye go to pos-
sess i t. Keep therefore and do them; for thi s i s your wi sdom and your
understandi ng i n the si ght of the nati ons, whi ch shal l hear al l these statutes,
and say, Surel y thi s great nati on i s a wi se and understandi ng peopl e. For
what nati on i s there so great, who bath God so ni gh unto them, as the LORD
our God i s i n al l thi ngs that we cal l upon hi m for? And what nati on i s there
so great, that bath statutes and judgments so ri ghteous as al l thi s l aw, whi ch
I set before you thi s day? (Deut. 4:5-8).
1. Gary DeMar, Rul er of the Nations: Biblical Blueprints for Government (Ft. Worth,
Texas: Domi ni on Press, 1987).
. . .
Xl l l
xi v POLI TI CAL POLYTHEI SM
One reason why the I srael i tes fai l ed to pursue a systemati c pro-
gram of worl d evangel i sm i s because Gods program requi red cove-
nantal fai thful ness, mani fested i n publ i c justi ce and personal deal i ngs
rel ati onshi ps governed by Gods l aw and enforced covenantal l y:
fami l y, Church, and State. Thi s program of worl d evangel i sm re-
qui red the I srael i tes to obey Gods ci vi l l aws both at home and
abroad. Thei r fai l ure to obey at home l ed to thei r fai l ure to bri ng the
message of spi ri tual del i verance to the worl d. I nstead, they were
repeatedl y del i vered by God i nto the worl d, as forei gn i nvaders cap-
tured the rei gns of power i nsi de the nati on, or el se captured the peo-
pl e and sent them i nto sl avery abroad.
I t i s my contenti on that the fai l ure of worl dwi de Chri sti an evan-
gel i sm today i s to a l arge degree the resul t of a si mi l ar fai l ure of
Gods peopl e to procl ai m and pursue covenantal ci vi l standards for
thei r own soci eti es. There are at l east seven hundred di fferent pl ans
for converti ng the worl d to Chri st now i n operati on.
2
Not one of
them seems to be worki ng wel l enough to offer much hope that the
whol e worl d wi l l be converted i n ti me to save the soul s of some fi ve
bi l l i on non-Chri sti an peopl e who are al ready al i ve.
What i s the probl em? Here i s one major probl em: i f the whol e
worl d were to convert tomorrow to fai th i n Jesus Chri st, Ameri can
Chri sti ans (where the major centers of evangel i sm are l ocated i n the
twenti eth century) woul d be unabl e to answer the i nevi tabl e ques-
ti on: What shoul d we do, now that we bel i eve i n Jesus Chri st as
Savi or and Lord? Ameri cans have offered no expl i ci tl y bi bl i cal cov-
enantal ci vi l model to the worl d. So, God wi thhol ds Hi s Spi ri t. He
has suffered enough embarrassment on thi s score al ready. He wai ts.
He wai ts for Ameri can Chri sti ans to abandon thei r present mi xed
theol ogy: the theol ogy of rel i gi ous pl ural i sm.
I ntellectual Schizophrenia
I t i s cl ear to most peopl e that i n these fi nal days of the twenti eth
century, anti -Chri sti ani ty i s tri umphant i nsti tuti onal l y and i nterna-
ti onal l y. I n the West and the Far East, humani sm control s the
medi a, the educati onal systems (especi al l y hi gher educati on), ci vi l
2. Davi d B. Barrett and James W. Reapsome, Seven Hundred Plum to Evangelize the
Wwld: The rise of a global evangelization movement (Bi rmi ngham, Al abama: New Hope,
1988). Thi s i s a publ i cati on of the Forei gn Mi ssi ons Board of the Southern Bapti st
Conventi on.
Prejace xv
governments, and the economi es of thi s worl d. I t control s al most
every vi si bl e i nsti tuti on.
3
Wherever humani sms monopol y i ncreases, i t becomes ever-
more vi ci ous. The sl aughter of a few thousand unarmed Chi nese
students by the mi l i tary i n June of 1989 was onl y a comparati vel y
mi l d-mannered mani festati on of Communi sms l ong-term tacti cs of
terrori zi ng ci vi l i an popul ati ons. What was di fferent about thi s mass
executi on was the presence of satel l i te tel evi si on, whi ch made vi si bl e
to hundreds of mi l l i ons of Westerners somethi ng that had been goi ng
on qui etl y and systemati cal l y i n Communi st soci eti es si nce 1917.
What the worl d saw take pl ace i n Ti ananmen square i s humani sm
unchai ned from the restrai nt of Chri sti ani ty.
Neverthel ess, for about ei ghteen centuri es, Chri sti an phi l osophers
and soci al theori sts have tri ed to smooth over the i nherent rel i gi ous
di fferences between covenant-breakers and covenant-keepers. C-hri s-
ti an i ntel l ectual l eaders have repeatedl y adopted the phi l osophi cal
systems of thei r mortal enemi es i n the name of a hi gher synthesi s, a
supposedl y creati ve common ground between l i ght and darkness.
Even those schol ars who recogni ze cl earl y that Chri sti ani ty and human-
i sm are ri val creeds based on radi cal l y di fferent vi ews of God, man,
l aw, and ti me, sti l l cl i ng to the temporari l y conveni ent fi cti on that
there can be a permanent pol i ti cal cease-fi re between the two systems.
Fol l owi ng Rushdoonys l ead, I cal l thi s i ntel l ectual schi zophreni a.
Gary Scott Smi th
We can see thi s operati onal i ntel l ectual schi zophreni a qui te
cl earl y i n the wri ti ngs of Chri sti an hi stori an Gary Scott Smi th, who
cal l s hi msel f a pri nci pl ed pl ural i st. He has poi nted to the earl i er i n-
tel l ectual schi zophreni a of Ameri can col oni al soci al theori sts. Fi rst,
he admi ts that most of the col oni sts were Chri sti ans, and Reformed,
Cal vi ni sti c Chri sti ans at that:
Reformed theol ogy was carri ed to the shores of Ameri ca by Engl i sh
Puri tans i n the 1620s. From the foundi ng of Pl ymouth to the Ameri can
Revol uti on, about 80 percent of the col oni sts were adherents of Reformed
3. Onl y the I sl ami c Mi ddl e East i s exempted. Here, a much ol der enemy of
Chri sti ani ty rul es, and i n much of the Mi ddl e East, humani sm has made major i n-
r oads. The absence of vei l s on Musl i m women i s the most vi si bl e mani festati on of
thi s change. Not even the Ayatol l ah Khomei ni coul d get young I rani an women to
put on vei l s. There are l i mi ts to every tyranny. A change i n womens fashi ons, once
establ i shed, wi l l al ways mark the l i mi ts of any tyranny.
xvi POLI TI CAL POLYTHEI SM
theol ogy who bel onged to vari ous denomi nati ons: Presbyteri an, Congrega-
ti onal i st, Bapti st, Dutch Reformed, German Reformed, and other smal l er
Cal vi ni sti c communi ons.4
Second, he correctl y observes that the new Ameri can nati on, as
i t emerged i n the l ate ei ghteenth century, was bui l t upon an ecl ecti c
foundati on.5 He i denti fi es three cul tural streams i n thi s ecl ecti c
pol i ti cal ri ver: radi cal Whi ggi sm, Enl i ghtenment thought (several
European tradi ti ons), and the Judeo-Chri sti an tradi ti on. (Hi s
summary rests on the i mpl i ed di sti ncti on between radi cal Whi ggi sm
and the Enl i ghtenment a fal se di sti ncti on and the i mpl i ed con-
necti on between the ethi cs of Judai sm and Chri sti ani ty a fal se con-
necti on.
7
)
Thi rd, he observes: Duri ng the Revol uti onary era Chri sti ans
fai l ed to devel op a di sti nctl y bi bl i cal understandi ng of pol i ti cal
thought that di ffered sharpl y wi th Enl i ghtenment rati onal i sm.s I f
he i s speaki ng of Scotti sh Enl i ghtenment thought the ri ght wi ng of
the European Enl i ghtenment whi ch I presume that he i s, then he
i s correct.
Fourth, he acknowl edges the i nherent i ncompati bi l i ty of the two
systems: Chri sti an and Enl i ghtenment worl d vi ews, though resti ng
upon very di fferent presupposi ti ons, combi ned to furni sh pri nci pl es
that gui ded the devel opment of the Ameri can pol i ti cal system. . . .
Ameri can soci ety has conti nued to bl end or amal gamate Judeo-
Chri sti an and Enl i ghtenment pri nci pl es to the present day, and thi s
i deol ogi cal synthesi s sti l l mol ds our pol i ti cal consci ousness and con-
terns.
g
Note hi s phrase, i deol ogi cal synthesi s.
What i s remarkabl e no, what i s utterl y astoni shi ng i s hi s con-
ti nui ng commi tment to the operati onal val i di ty and moral i ntegri ty
of thi s i deol ogi cal synthesi s. We have no choi ce i n the matter, he
4. Gary Scott Smi th, I ntroducti on, Smi th (cd.), God and Politics: Four Views on the
Rgiormation of Civil Government (Phi l l i psburg, New Jersey: Presbyteri an& Reformed,
1989), p. 4.
5. I dem.
6. See Chapter 6, bel ow.
7. That there has never been a Judeo-Chri sti an tradi ti on i s one of those obsti nate
facts of hi story that do not faze Chri sti an soci al commentators, as wel l as humani sti c
commentators. Jews know better. See Arthur Cohen, The Myth of the &ieo-Chriitian
Tradition (New York: Schocken, 1971). See al so Gary North, TiwJ udeo-Chnstian Tradi -
ti on: A Guide for the Perplexed (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1989).
8. Smi th, God and Politics, p. 5.
9. I dem.
Prejace xvi i
bel i eves, si nce there i s no expl i ci tl y bi bl i cal covenant model for ci vi l
gover nment.
Nei ther general pri nci pl es nor speci fi c New Testament l aws teach that
Chri st expects nati ons to be formal l y commi tted to Hi m. The New Testa-
ment does not even i mpl y that God wi l l work i n speci al ways through i ndi -
vi dual nati ons, as He di d through Ol d Testament I srael . I nstead, the gos-
pel s and the epi stl es emphasi ze that Gods pri mary agent i n the worl d i s the
church, whi ch consi sts of i ndi vi dual s drawn from many nati ons. The l i m-
i ted New Testament statements about pol i ti cal l i fe suggest that nati ons wi l l
not be di sti ncti vel y Chri sti an and that they wi l l contai n mi xed popul ati ons
of bel i evers and unbel i evers (see Matt. 13:24-30).10
He i s a master of verbal l egerdemai n. Keep your eye on the pea
under the shel l , he cal l s to hi s i ntended vi cti ms. Nei ther general
pri nci pl es nor speci fi c New Testament l aws teach that Chri st expects
nati ons to be formal l y commi tted to Hi m. He i s assumi ng what he
fi rst needs to prove. I chal l enge hi m to prove that the Ol d Testament
ci vi l requi rements were necessari l y overthrown by the New Testa-
ment. He shoul d not si mpl y ammze that the God who wrote the Ol d
Testament changed Hi s mi nd when He wrote the New Testament.
He needs to prove i t fi rst. He needs to show us why the Ol d Testa-
ment i s l i ttl e more than a di scarded fi rst draft when i t comes to the
sti pul ati ons of the ci vi l covenant, yet sti l l judi ci al l y bi ndi ng on i ndi -
vi dual s, churches, and fami l i es. (Or does he thi nk that besti al i ty
al so not menti oned i n the New Testament i s now judi ci al l y beyond
bi bl i cal l y speci fi ed sancti ons, si nce i t i s onl y Ol d Testament ci vi l l aw
that prohi bi ted i t?)
He says that Go&s pri mary agent i n the worl d i s the church.
Qui te true. Now, what are Gods secondary agenci es? Dead si l ence.
How about the ci vi l government as an expl i ci tl y and uni quel y Chri s-
ti an i nsti tuti on testi fyi ng to the uni que nature of Jesus ki ngdom?
Never! The Bi bl e does not command governments forthri ghtl y to
express commi tment to Chri sti ani ty or to devel op a covenantal rel a-
ti onshi p wi th Chri st.1 Real l y? Thi s seems to be what he ought to
prove, not assert. I n any case, at l east we may l egi ti matel y ask:
Does the Bi bl e expressl y @/zi &t an expl i ci tl y Chri sti an covenantal
rel ati onshi p? The pol i ti cal pl ural i sts wri te as though i t does; i t cl earl y
10. Smi th, The Pri nci pl ed Pl ural i st Response to Nati onal Confessi on, zW.,
p. 214.
11. I bid., p. 215.
. . .
Xvl l l POLI TI CAL POLYTHEI SM
does not. The fact i s, political Pluralists write as though thg would ratbr
live under Communist tyranny than under an explicit~ biblical theocracy. God
may grant them thei r wi sh, and the rest of us, too.
Dr. Smi th has a fi xati on on the word pri ma~. Chri sts authori ty
and ki ngdom i n thi s age, as descri bed i n the New Testament, are
pri mari l y spi ri tual , not physi cal or terri tori al .l z When he says pri -
mari l y, he means exclu.sive~. Here i s the ethi cal and judi ci al dual i sm
of both fundamental i sm and tradi ti onal mysti ci sm: the separati on of
whatever i s spi ri tual from that whi ch i s hi stori cal . And the same i m-
pul se undergi rds Dr. Smi ths posi ti on: antinomianism. He wants the
State to be abl e to avoi d the authori ty of Gods reveal ed l aw and espe-
ci al l y i ts hi stori cal sancti ons. Thi s l eaves the pol i ti ci ans and bureaucrats
wi thout the fear of God or speci fi c gui dance from Hi m i n Hi s l aw.
He says that nati ons wi l l not be di sti ncti vel y Chri sti an and that
they wi l l contai n mi xed popul ati ons of bel i evers and unbel i evers.
I srael al so contai ned mi xed popul ati ons of bel i evers and unbel i evers
strangers wi thi n the gate. The strangers di d not serve as judges,
but they enjoyed ful l ci vi l l i berti es. 13 Why shoul d any New Testa-
ment covenanted nati on be di fferent? Dead si l ence.
Why such conti nued dead si l ence? Dead intellectual position, bi bl i -
cal l y speaki ng.
No Cultural Escalation of the Confrontation
He i mpl i ci tl y assumes, as do al l pl ural i sts, that there i s no hi stor-
i cal progress i n the war between Chri st and anti -Chri st i n the New
Covenant era, no cul tural extensi on over ti me by both si des of thei r
ri val rel i gi ous presupposi ti ons. What pol i ti cal pl ural i sts categori cal l y
deny i n everythi ng they wri te i s the truth of the observati on made by
C. S. Lewi s i n 1946: I f you di p i nto any col l ege, or school , or pari sh,
or fami l y anythi ng you l i ke at a gi ven poi nt i n i ts hi story, you
al ways fi nd that there was a ti me before that poi nt when there was
more el bow room and contrasts werent qui te so sharp; and that
theres goi ng to be a ti me after that poi nt when there i s even l ess
room for i ndeci si on and choi ces are even more momentous. Good i s
al ways getti ng better and bad i s al ways getti ng worse: the possi bi l i -
ti es of even apparent neutral i ty are al ways di mi ni shi ng. The whol e
thi ng i s sorti ng i tsel f out al l the ti me, comi ng to a poi nt, getti ng
12. I bid. , p. 214.
13. Chapter 2, bel ow.
Preface xix
sharper and harder. 14
Pl ural i sts want to defer unti l the fi nal judgment the appearance
of that dangerousl y sharp poi nt of hi story. They want i t to end hi s-
tory. They do not want to face the i nescapabl e hi stori cal deci si on of
al l confrontati onal pol i ti cs: sti ck or be stuck. I t i s Gods l aw or chaos,
l i ght or darkness, God or Satan mani fested progressi vel y as ti me
passes. They do whatever they can to deny thi s. Pl ural i sts spend
thei r l i ves tryi ng to fi l e down that i nescapabl y sharp hi stori cal poi nt.
Thei r fi l es are made of hi gh qual i ty stai nl ess steel , but the poi nt i s
made of di amond.
A Parti ng of the Ways
What we fi nd i n the fi nal decades of the second mi l l enni um after
the bi rth of Jesus Chri st i s a growi ng real i zati on on both si des of the
pol i ti cal cease-fi re l i ne that the tradi ti onal i deol ogi cal synthesi s of
pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i s col l apsi ng. What we are wi tnessi ng i s a sl ow
but sure breakdown of the pol i ti cal cease-fi re between humani sm
and Chri sti ani ty. On each si de, the defenders of the compromi se sys-
tem can no l onger hol d thei r own troops i n l i ne. Gueri l l a ski rmi shes
are breaki ng out conti nual l y. The humani sts are begi nni ng to act
l i ke humani sts, and a ti ny handful of Chri sti ans are begi nni ng to act
l i ke Chri sti ans.
The confrontati on over the l i fe-and-death i ssue of aborti on i s one
obvi ous exampl e of thi s i rrepressi bl e confl i ct. On the aborti oni sts
tabl e, there i s no neutral posi ti on between l i fe and death. Thi s i s why
the i nescapabl y pol i ti cal debate over aborti on i s so frustrati ng for
those who want to steer a mi ddl e course. There i s no mi ddl e course,
There is no neutralijv. The pol i ti ci ans l eft foot i s bei ng hel d to the fi re
by the pro-death forces, and hi s ri ght foot i s bei ng shoved i n the coal s
by the-pro-l i fe forces. He has onl y one choi ce: accept the pol i ti cal
fact of ei ther one burned foot or two. He, l i ke the pol i ti cal pl ural i st,
deepl y resents bei ng forced to make thi s choi ce. He wants no burned
feet: He l ongs for ~he si mpl er, cool er worl d of yesterday, when the
common moral i ty was i mpl i ci tl y Chri sti an and offi ci al l y neutral . He
i s not goi ng to get that worl d; i t i s gone forever. So are at l east 25
mi l l i on dead babi es, al l executed l egal l y i n the Uni ted States.
Another exampl e i s Chri sti an educati on. The humani sts on the
Uni ted States Supreme Court i n 1963 bani shed prayer i n the tax-
14. C. S. Lewi s, That Hideous Strength (New York: Macmi l l an, 1946), p. 283.
xx POLI TI CAL POLYTHEI SM
supported publ i c school s. Thi s ai ded the cause of the more consi st-
ent Chri sti ans, who coul d then pl ausi bl y begi n to cal l for the bani sh-
ment of al l publ i c school s. For those i n the mi ddl e defenders of
publ i c educati on and defenders of government subsi di es to pri vate
educati on the ski es grew dark. Wi th the government subsi dy comes
the i ron fi st. There are no free l unches, not even school l unches.
There is no neutrali~.
I t i s one ofthose hi stori cal i roni es that Gary Scott Smi th shoul d
be a professor at the most famous non-cooperati ng col l ege i n Amer-
i ca, Grove Ci ty Col l ege, whose refusal to take federal money l ed to
i ts resi stance to the i mposi ti on of federal educati onal regul ati ons.
The government then sued the col l ege. The case went al l the way to
the U.S. Supreme Court, whi ch rul ed that unl ess Congress passed a
l aw that speci fi cal l y brought Grove Ci ty Col l ege under i ts regul a-
ti ons, the school was free to resi st such control s. Congress i mmedi -
atel y passed such a l aw over the Presi dents veto, announci ng pub-
l i cl y that even the i ndi rect acceptance of federal funds through l oans
granted to students consti tutes the open door pol i cy to al l govern-
ment regul ati ons over educati on. Neverthel ess, Professor Scott con-
ti nues to defend the l egi ti macy of the ei ghteenth-century i deol ogi cal
synthesi s. So does hi s Grove Ci ty col l eague, hi stori an L. John Van
Ti l . 15 So deepl y entrenched i s the i deol ogy of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm that
most of i ts Chri sti an vi cti ms cannot percei ve what i s happeni ng to
them. The brai nwashi ng by the humani sts of the i ntel l ectual l eaders
of conservati ve Protestanti sm has been remarkabl y successful .
A Warning Shot
Thi s book i s a warni ng shot across the bow of the agi ng battl eshi p,
I deological Synthesis. I t argues that Chri sti an defenders of pol i ti cal
pl ural i sm are now trapped by the necessary and i nescapabl e i mpl i -
cati ons of thei r own compromi se. They have bet thei r futures (and
yours) on the preservati on of the pol i ti cal cease-fi re between Chri sti -
ani ty and anti -Chri sti ani ty. But as Chri sti ans steadi l y retreated from
thi s covenantal confl i ct, 1673 to 1973, turni ng i n thei r weapons (e.g.,
Chri sti an educati on) to a supposedl y neutral pol i ce force, thei r
covenant-breaki ng enemi es have systemati cal l y taken over that po-
l i ce force. Thi s cease-fi re i s begi nni ng to resembl e the cease-fi re of
the fi ri ng squad. I t can end wi th one word: Fi re !
15. He i s the great-nephew of Cornel i us Van Ti l .
Pr~ace xxi
There are al ways fi ri ng squads i n l i fe, i n peace and war. Hel l i t-
sel f i s a ki nd of cosmi c fi ri ng squad. The questi on i s: Who wi l l do the
fi ri ng? More to the poi nt: Whose l aw wi l l govern the ci vi l court that
i ssues the sentence? Wi l l the standard of justi ce be Gods l aw or
mans? G I t i s thi s questi on whi ch the pol i ti cal pl ural i sts dare not ask
i n publ i c. To ask thi s questi on publ i cl y i s to encourage Chri sti ans to
seek excl usi vel y bi bl i cal answers. Pl ural i sts do not want Chri sti ans
to seek excl usi vel y bi bl i cal answers. Bi bl i cal excl usi veness i s a deni al
of the rel i gi on of pl ural i sm.
The Di l emma of Chri sti an Pl ural i sm
The synthesi s of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i s not breaki ng down onl y be-
cause of the i nherent contradi cti ons between the rel i gi on of man and
the rel i gi on of the Bi bl e. I t i s al so breaki ng down because the rel i -
gi on of secul ar humani sm i s i tsel f col l apsi ng, not onl y theoreti cal l y
but i nsti tuti onal l y.
For about ei ghteen centuri es, the foundati on of the Wests i deo-
l ogi cal synthesi s was mens nai ve fai th i n the exi stence of natural
ri ghts and natural l aw pri nci pl es, di scoverabl e by unai ded human
reason, or at l east by ri ght reason. Thi s i ntel l ectual construct was
the i nventi on of l ater Hel l eni sti c phi l osophers who were trapped by
the col l apse of the Greek Poks and i ts rel i gi ous and phi l osophi cal
underpi nni ngs. They saw that the col l apse of the Pol i s and the si mul -
taneous ri se of empi re made necessary a new phi l osophi cal outl ook.
Natural ri ghts theory was thei r suggested sol uti on. 17
Thi s i ntel l ectual construct served Chri sti an apol ogi sts as the
epi stemol ogi ca.1 foundati on of a synthesi s, a common-ground phi l oso-
phy of justi ce. I t was on the basi s of supposedl y shared phi l osophi cal
fi rst pri nci pl es that the di scovery of a shared moral uni verse was
thought to be possi bl e. From Justi n Martyr to Gary Scott Smi th,
Chri sti ans have had fai th i n thi s shared uni verse of di scourse. What
we forget i s that Justi n was i ndeed a martyr, and a martyr under the
r ul e of that most Stoi cl y phi l osophi cal of emper or s, Mar cus
Aurel i us. The hoped for common moral ground wi th Chri sti ani ty di d
not exi st i n the eyes of the Emperors. Thi s fact shoul d have sent
warni ngs to Justi ns successors down through the centuri es. Unfor-
16. Gr eg L. Bahnsen, By This Standard: The Autho+ of Gods Law Today (Tyl er,
Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1985).
17. Shel don S. Wol i n, Politics and Vision: Conti nui ~ and I nnovati on in Westan Political
Thought (Boston: Li ttl e, Brown, 1960), ch. 3.
xxi i POLI TI CAL POLYTHEI SM
tunatel y, pol i ti cal pl ural i sts never take seri ousl y such warni ngs, from
ravenous l i ons to ravenous government bureaucrats wi th the Depart-
ment of Educati on or the Department of Justi ce. They prefer to face
the l i ons than to rethi nk thei r presupposi ti ons regardi ng natural l aw
phi l osophy. When i t comes to pol i ti cal theory, thei r sl ogan i s: Better
the l i ons of the Col osseum than the Li on of Judah.
The Se~-Destruction of Humanism
Charl es Darwi n destroyed natural l aw theory i n bi ol ogi cal
sci ence. Evol uti on through natural sel ecti on repl aced the ol der,
Chri sti ani ty-i nfl uenced humani st vi si on of fi xed l i fe forms movi ng
steadi l y toward a harmoni ous ecosystem. Hi s successors destroyed
natural l aw theory i n soci al sci ence. 18 I n the 1920s, quantum physi cs
destroyed natural l aw theory i n the subatomi c worl d. Thi s i mmedi -
atel y began to undermi ne modern l egal theory. As Harvard Law
School s Dean Roscoe Pound sai d i n 1940, Nothi ng has been so up-
setti ng to pol i ti cal and juri sti c thi nki ng as the growth of the i dea of
conti ngency i n physi cs. I t has taken away the anal ogy from whi ch
phi l osophers had reached the very i dea of l aw. I t has depri ved pol i ti -
cal and juri sti c thought of the pattern to whi ch they had concei ved of
government and l aw as set up. Physi cs had been the rock on whi ch
they had bui l t.l g
The shattered foundati on of natural l aw theory, l i ke Humpty
Dumpty, can never be put together agai n. Natural l aw theory i s
dead. Ri gor morti s has set i n. Li ke Lazarus after several days i n the
tomb, i t sti nketh. Unl i ke Lazarus, i t cannot be resurrected. Hi story
does not move backward. But thi s means that a new theory of cosmi c
order must be found, i f mans soci al and pol i ti cal order i s to be pre-
served. Thi s new di scovery i s needed i mmedi atel y i n order to prevent
soci al col l apse and war, yet i t al so i s hoped by most soci al theori sts
that thi s radi cal i deol ogi cal change wi l l somehow not be revol uti on-
ary or vi ol ent. Onl y one event can meet these two requi rements: a
rapi d, massi ve, i nternati onal revi val of a si ngl e rel i gi on, to whi ch
men wi l l vol untari l y gi ve thei r al l egi ance, ei ther Chri sti ani ty or anti -
18. Most notabl e was Lester Frank Ward, whose Dynamic Sociolo~ (1883) set forth
the pol i ti cal worl dvi ew of modern pol i ti csl humani sm. Al Chri sti an pol i ti cal pl ural i sts
shoul d be requi red to read thi s book.
19. Roscoe Pound, ContemporaT J uristic Theory (Cl aremont, Cal i forni a: Cl are-
mont Col l eges, 1940), p. 34. Ci ted by R. J. Rushdoony, The Uni ted States Consti -
tuti on, J ournal of Christian Reconstruction, XI I (1988), p. 35.
Pn+ace
. . .
Xxl l l
Chri sti ani ty. Wi thout thi s i nternati onal revi val , men and nati ons wi l l
go to war i n the name of thei r respecti ve creeds and non-negoti abl e
judi ci al demands. I n ei ther case, pl ural i sm wi l l at. l ast be gi ven a
publ i c buri al .
Thi s book i s a publ i c autopsy of a dead system. Several opti -
mi sti c physi ci ans are sti l l hoveri ng over the body, tryi ng to breathe
new l i fe i nto the corpse. They wi l l not appreci ate my report on thei r
pati ents condi ti on, for i t poi nts to thei r own monumental fai l ure i n
both di agnosi s and treatment.
I do not bel i eve i n zombi es, but whenever I exami ne the phi l oso-
phy of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm, I wonder i f my prejudi ce can be sup-
ported. I t never sl eeps, i t wal ks, i t crashes i nto thi ngs, yet i ts brai n-
dead. Nothi ng has stopped i t i n ei ghteen hundred years. Unchai ned,
i t has now gone berserk! There are onl y two ways to stop a zombi e
i n the movi es: smash i ts skul l or decapi tate i t.
What Chri sti an pol i ti cal pl ural i sts steadfastl y refuse to di scuss i s
what the new foundati on of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm can possi bl y be, now
that natural ri ghts and natural l aw are i ntel l ectual l y dead concepts,
and very nearl y dead cul tural l y. Fi rst, Chri sti an schol ars bapti zed
Pl ato; then they bapti zed Ari stotl e; then they bapti zed Newton. Wi l l
they al so bapti ze Hei senberg, Sartre, and Camus? I f so, we can then
expect the next publ i c bapti sm: Ni etzsche. What i s the basi s of the
grand i deol ogi cal synthesi s between Chri sti ani ty and anti -Chri sti -
ani ty now that the very foundati ons of that anci ent synthesi s have
col l apsed from the erosi on produced by the aci ds of moderni ty?
They refuse to say, and thei r si l ence testi fi es to the i ntel l ectual bank-
ruptcy of thei r posi ti on.
Concl usi on
I n thi s book, I survey the wri ti ngs of Chri sti an schol ars who have
been unwi l l i ng to face the i mpl i cati ons of the death of natural l aw
theory. I use them as representati ve exampl es. What I argue i s that
they have been i ntel l ectual l y schi zophreni c, a fact reveal ed by thei r
own di agnosi s of the modern rel i gi ous cri si s. They have remai ned
unwi l l i ng to choose between thei r commi tment to the Bi bl e and thei r
commi tment to pol i ti cal pl ural i sm. They refuse to cross over i nto
bi bl i cal covenant theol ogy because of that great, i mmovabl e barri er
that separates the pol i ti cal rel i gi on of man from the ci vi l covenantal -
i sm of the Bi bl e: bi bl i cal l aw. They prefer to dwel l i n the theocracy of
xxi v POLI TI CAL POLYTHEI SM
sel f-procl ai med autonomous man rather than seek the sanctuary of
bi bl i cal l aw.
Li ke the Hebrews who di d not bel i eve that God coul d del i ver
them from the Egypti an army because of the barri er of the Red Sea,
so are Chri sti an defenders of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm today. Worse; they
are l i ke men who, seei ng the waters parted by the power of God, are
sti l l afrai d to cross. The wal l s of water wi l l fal l on us, and we wi l l
peri sh! The waters wi l l i ndeed fal l , but i t wi l l not be Gods covenant
peopl e who drown i n the Red Sea. I t wi l l be onl y the Egypti ans, who
wi l l have al ready decapi tated those Hebrews who sat at the shore-
l i ne, too fearful to march forward.
These thi ngs need to be pondered by Protestants to-day. Wi th
what ri ght may we cal l oursel ves chi l dren of the Reformati on? Much
modern Protestanti sm woul d be nei ther owned nor even recogni sed
by the pi oneer Reformers. The Bondage of the Will fai rl y sets before us
what the y bel i eved about the sal vati on of l ost manki nd. I n the l i ght
of i t, we are forced to ask whether Protestant Chri stendom has not
tragi cal l y sol d i ts bi rthri ght between Luthefs day and our own. Has
not Protestanti sm to-day become more Erasmi an than Lutheran?
Do we not too often try to mi ni mi se and gl oss over doctri nal di ffer-
ences for the sake of i nter-party peace? Are we i nnocent of the doc-
tri nal i ndi fferenti sm wi th whi ch Luther charged Erasmus? Do we
sti l l bel i eve that doctri ne matters? Or do we now, wi th Erasmus, rate
a decepti ve appearance of uni ty as of more i mportance than truth?
Have we not grown used to an Erasmi an brand of teachi ng from our
pul pi ts a message that rests on the same shal l ow synergi sti c con-
cepti ons whi ch Luther refuted, pi cturi ng God and man approachi ng
each other al most on equal terms, each havi ng hi s own contri buti on
to make to mans sal vati on and each dependi ng on the duti ful co-
operati on of the other for the attai nment of that end? as i f God ex-
i sts for mans conveni ence, rather than man for Gods gl ory?
J. I . Packer and O. R. Johnson (1957)*
*Packer and Johnson, Hi stori cal and Theol ogi cal I ntroducti on, Marti n Luther,
Bondage @the Will (London: James Cl arke, 1957), p. 59-60.
I NTRODUCTI ON
(to be r ead)
Forfrom the least of them even unto the greatest of them eveV one i s
gi ven to covetousness; andfiom the @-ofihet even unto the priest eue~ one
dealethfalse@ They have healed also thehurt of thedaughter ofmypeo-
pleslight~, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace. W~e th~
ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at
ail ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among
them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith
the LORD. Thus saith the LORD, Standye in the ways, and see, and ask
for the old paths, where is the good wa~ and walk therein, andye shall
J md rest foryour souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Also I
set watchmen overyou, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But
thg said, We will not hearken (J i-r. 6:13-17).
Men want peace. Peace i s a gi ft from God. Pol i ti cal peace i s al so
a promi se of Satan, who cannot del i ver on thi s promi se, but i t i s be-
l i eved by professi onal l y nai ve Chri sti ans, generati on after genera-
ti on. Mgses warned the I srael i tes agai nst any attempt to gai n peace
apart from fai thful ness to the sti pul ati ons of Gods covenant (Deut.
29:18-28). Any other peace i s a fal se peace. I t cannot l ast. I t does not
l ast, as the bl oody twenti eth century reveal s. 1 But humani sms fal se
peace i s supported pol i ti cal l y by i ts targeted vi cti ms, the Chri sti ans.
The Threat of Gods Negati ve Sancti ons
For a l i ttl e over three centuri es, Protestant Chri sti ans have not
taken Moses warni ng seri ousl y. Throughout the Western worl d,
men have substi tuted other gods and other expl anati ons of the ori gi n
and desti ny of man not anci ent gods of wood and stone, but mod-
ern gods of thei r own i magi nati on. Gods warni ng to Hi s covenanted
1. Gi l El l i ot, Twentieth CentuV Book oj the Dead (New York: Scri bners, 1972).
1
2 POLI TI CAL POLYTHEI SM
soci ety i s neverthel ess the same: take care, Lest there shoul d be
among you man, or woman, or fami l y, or tri be, whose heart turneth
away thi s day from the LORD our God, to go and serve the gods of
these nati ons; l est there shoul d be among you a root that beareth gal l
and wormwood; And i t come to pass, when he heareth the words of
thi s curse, that he bl ess hi msel f i n hi s heart, sayi ng, I shal l have
peace, though I wal k i n the i magi nati on of mi ne heart, to add drunk-
enness to thi rst: The LORD wi l l not spare hi m, but then the anger of
the LORD and hi s jeal ousy shal l smoke agai nst that man, and al l the
curses that are wri tten i n thi s book shal l l i e upon hi m, and the LORD
shal l bl ot out hi s name from under heaven (Deut. 29:18-20).
The threat of Gods negati ve covenantal sancti ons hangs over al l
Chri sti ans who are ci ti zens of any nati on that has ever been formal l y
covenanted to the God of the Bi bl e, but whi ch has been captured
from wi thi n by covenant-breakers. These sancti ons are real . I n or-
der to remove the perceived threat of such sancti ons, one of the most
i mportant doctri nes of the gods of these nati ons today i s the deni al
that a bi bl i cal l y covenanted soci ety i s possi bl e that no such soci ety
has l egi ti matel y exi sted si nce the demi se of Ol d Covenant I srael i n
A. D. 70. Therefore, al l soci eti es that have ever cl ai med to be Chri s-
ti an have necessari l y been fraudul ent: exampl es to be shunned by
Chri sti ans, not i mi tated. The pri ests of the rel i gi on of autonomous
man cannot get al l of Gods peopl e to abandon thei r fai th i n the God
of heaven, but they can and have succeeded i n getti ng them to aban-
don the bel i ef that thi s God makes nati onal col l ecti ve covenants i n
the New Covenant era.
The pri ests and academi c Levi tes of Gods covenant peopl e have
al so adopted thi s same covenant-denyi ng doctri ne i n the name of
bi bl i cal theol ogy.
2
The humani sts cry peace, peace, despi te the bi b-
l i cal fact there i s no possi bi l i ty of permanent covenantal peace be-
tween covenant-breakers and covenant-keepers. The Chri sti ans cry
cease-fi re, cease-fi re, despi te the bi bl i cal fact there i s a real possi bi l -
i ty y for progressi ve earthl y vi ctory on Gods judi ci al terms, however
i mperfect due to si ns effects. The resul t of both vi ews peace,
peace (on autonomous mans terms) and cease-fi re, cease-fi re (on
autonomous mans terms) i s the same: a refusal by Chri sti ans to cal l
for nati onal repentance, a repentance mani fested by taki ng a formal
2. Cf. Mark A. Nel l , Nathan O. Hatch, and George M. Marsden, The Search for
Christian Ameri ca (Westchester, I l l i noi s: Crossway, 1983). See Chapter 5, bel ow.
I ntroduction 3
oath re-confi rmi ng Gods nati onal covenant and i ts requi red ci vi l l aws
and negati ve sancti ons. Chri sti ans refuse to press for soci al peace on
Gods terms. They deny the need for national covenant renewal.
And so we face Gods negati ve hi stori cal sancti ons.
Terms of Surrender
The Bi bl e teaches that there can and wi l l be a progressi ve mani -
festati on of peace i n hi story, s but onl y as a product of covenantal
fai thful ness i n Church government, fami l y government, and ci vi l
government.
4
Gods peopl e today have al most uni versal l y assumed
that peace i n the thi rd covenantal i nsti tuti on ci vi l government i s
possi bl e onl y on the neutral l egal terms set forth by Gods enemi es.
Chri sti ans have surrendered condi ti onal l y to covenant-breakers na-
ti onal l y, on the promi se that Chri sti ans wi l l be l eft i n peace i n the
fi rst two covenantal categori es, fami l y and Church.
5
Covenant-
breakers have i n the past promi sed thi s condi ti onal peace, but now
they are maki ng i t i ncreasi ngl y cl ear that thi s was a l i e, a pol i ti cal l y
necessary decepti on. They want uncondi ti onal surrender i n al l three
areas. Thus, to defend Gods covenantal standards i n the fi rst two
real ms, Chri sti ans must now seek l ong-term vi ctory i n the thi rd:
ci vi l government. But they are then tol d by thei r own spi ri tual
spokesmen that such a quest i s ei ther wrong i n pri nci pl e or at l east
i mpossi bl e to achi eve i n hi story. Political Po@heism: The Myth of Plu-
ralism i s a sustai ned attack on three representati ve vari ati ons of thi s
fami l i ar compromi se.
The theol ogi cal root of our present pol i ti cal cri si s i s thi s: God de-
mands uncondi ti onal surrender of al l Hi s enemi es at the fi nal judg-
ment, and al so the progressi ve, condi ti onal , external surrender of
Satans peopl e to Hi s peopl e i n hi story,G whi l e Satan demands uncon-
di ti onal surrender of hi s enemi es i n hi story, for he cannot gai n thi s i n
eterni ty. There i s a war goi ng on, and i t wi l l not end unti l judgment
3. Roderi ck Campbel l , I smel and the New Covenant (Phi l l i psburg, New Jersey:
Presbyteri an & Reformed, [1954] 1981).
4. Ray R. Sutton, That You May Prosper: Dominion By Covenant (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti -
5. I capi tal i ze Church when I refer to the general i nsti tuti on. I do not when I
refer to a l ocal church.
6. Gary North, Unconditional Surrender: GodJ Program for licto~ (3rd ed.; Tyl er,
day. Each si de i s requi red by i ts respecti ve covenantal head to seek a
vi ctory over the other si de i n every area of l i fe. There is no neutralip.
Chri sti ans, however, for the most part no l onger bel i eve that con-
ti nual confl i ct between mutual l y excl usi ve covenantal standards i s i n
fact i nevi tabl e i n the ci vi l real m, so they have si gned a temporary
cease-fi re whi ch they hope wi l l l ast unti l the fi nal judgment. They
hope and even occasi onal l y pray that thi s wi l l be a permanent cease-
fi re i n hi story. They have vol untari l y surrendered the fundamental
pri nci pl e of the soverei gnty of God, as reveal ed by Hi s covenantal
l aw, as thi s l aw and i ts speci fi ed sancti ons appl y i n the ci vi l sphere.
(I ncredi bl y, thi s i s frequentl y done i n the name of the soverei gnty of
God.
7
These peopl e are masters of decepti on.) Havi ng surrendered
the doctri ne of the soverei gn y of God i n ci vi l government, they are
now i n the process of surrenderi ng i t i n the fi rst two areas, fami l y
and Church, pi ece by pi ece. The ri se of Chri sti an counsel i ng
courses i n our Bi bl e-bel i evi ng semi nari es courses based on pagan
psychol ogy texts and pri nci pl es i s one exampl e, and the practi ce of
regi steri ng churches wi th the government i n order to recei ve tax-
subsi di zed mai l i ng permi ts i s another. Peace, peace~ i n fact means
surrender, Chri sti ans, pi ece by pi ece.
The Abandonment of Casui stry
Political Po@heiwn deal s wi th the process of pi ecemeal i ntel l ectual
surrender. I t wi l l not wi n me academi c fri ends or i nfl uence tenured
peopl e. Books by watchmen never do. I t presents a case-by-case
study of what I regard as representati ve i ntel l ectual compromi ses
wi th humani sm by contemporary Chri sti an schol ars. These i ntel l ec-
tual compromi ses wi thi n the Engl i sh-speaki ng Cal vi ni st communi ty
have been goi ng on for over three centuri es, and wi thi n the rest of
Chri stendom for at l east ei ghteen centuri es. From ti me to ti me i n re-
cent years, i t has l ooked as though thi s systemati c program of i ntel l ec-
tual compromi se was about to cease i n some key Chri sti an commando
uni ts, but each ti me, seni or offi cers have put down thei r battl e fl ags
and have si gned cease-fi re agreements wi th the enemy. Thi s i s di s-
couragi ng for those of us who remai n on the battl efi el d.
7. Cf. Gary Scott Smi th, I ntroducti on, i n Smi th (cd.), God and Politia: Four Views
on tk R#omnation of Civil Government (Pbi l l i psburg, New Jersey: Presbyteri an & Reformed,
1989), pp. 2, 12.
I ntroduction 5
I have taken Cal vi ni st schol ars as the representati ve cases. Why?
For one thi ng, I am more fami l i ar wi th modern Cal vi ni st phi l osophy
and soci al theory. For another, those cl osest to you are al ways the
greatest threat. You have to answer thei r cri ti ci sms and expose thei r
devi ati ons before you get on wi th the war for ci vi l i zati on.
8
Far more
i mportant, however, i s the fact that the other Protestant tradi ti ons
have been general l y l ess devoted to the academi c areas of phi l osophy,
soci al theory, and hi stori cal studi es. Cal vi ni sts bel i eve i n the absol ute
soverei gnty of the Creator God over every aspect of the uni verse,
and they are therefore the onl y bi bl i cal theol ogi cal movement that
can sustai n seri ous schol arshi p, generati on after generati on. What
the Cal vi ni sts have wri tten (and I i ncl ude here Augusti ne)
g
has es-
tabl i shed both the i ntel l ectual standards and the targets. When the
Cal vi ni sts get phi l osophi cal l y squi shy, we can be reasonabl y confi -
dent that thei r i mi tators and cri ti cs i n the other Protestant tradi ti ons
are even more squi shy, and surel y no tougher.
CasuistV, 1673-1973
The probl em faci ng the West today i s that for three centuri es,
1673 to 1973, Protestant Chri sti ans abandoned the i ntel l ectual di sci -
pl i ne of casuist~ appl i ed bi bl i cal moral i ty and thereby abandoned
the cruci al task of devel opi ng an expl i ci tl y and excl usi vel y bi bl i cal
soci al theory. 10 I n the seventeenth century, Engl i sh casui sts had wri t-
ten thei r works i n Engl i sh, ai mi ng thei r message at the general pop-
ul ati on. 11 They provi ded el aborate di scussi ons of the general bi bl i cal
8. Thi s i s why cul ts, revol uti onary organi zati ons, and other hard-core i deol ogi -
cal groups tend to excommuni cate or purge hereti cs and apostates more readi l y than
attack the heathen outsi de the camp. One must consol i date the center before
spi ral i ng outward. The same screeni ng strategy i s used i n Chri sti an academi a to
remove al l those who are not commi tted to the program of epi stemol ogi crd com-
promi se. For i nstance, why are there so few si x-day creati oni sts teachi ng i n the
sci ence departments of pl aces l i ke Wheaton Col l ege and Cal vi n Col l ege, not to men-
ti on i n 90 per cent of the Bi bl e-bel i evi ng semi nar i es?
9. Benjami n Breckenri dge Warfi el d, Cal vi n and -kgu.sti ne (Phi l adel phi a: Presby-
teri an & Reformed, 1956). Thi s i s a col l ecti on of hi s journal arti cl es publ i shed be-
tween 1905 and 1909.
10. Some mi ght date the end of casui stry wi th Samuel Wi l l ards massi ve com-
mentary on the Larger Catechi sm of the Westmi nster Confessi on of Fai th, A Com-
pleat Bor$ of Divinip (1726).
11. Thomas Wood, English (h.wistical Divini~ in the Seventemth CentuV (London:
S. P. C. K., 1952), p. 47.
and moral pri nci pl es of acti on, usi ng parti cul ars as i l l ustrati ons .12
Thei r publ i cl y announced goal wasse~-government underl ap: Unl i ke
the Jesui ts, they were not concerned pri mari l y to provi de an ever
more effi ci ent confessi onal techni que by whi ch judgement mi ght be
passed upon the consci ences of men. Thei r i deal was not to remove
from men the exacti ng duty of probi ng and resol vi ng thei r own
moral di ffi cul ti es, but rather to trai n them i n sel f-rel i ance as the re-
sponsi bl e and consecrated servants of God i n Chri st . 13
I n the l ate seventeenth and earl y ei ghteenth centuri es, ethi cal
dual i sm rai sed i ts Janus-faced head. 14 Chri sti an moral i sts defaul ted
enthusi asti cal l y to the covenant-breaki ng enemy i n the name of phi -
l osophi cal ri gor and a uni versal l y val i d methodol ogy: Newtonian ~atu-
ral l aw. Charl es Darwi n and Thomas Huxl ey destroyed whatever re-
mai ned of that i ntel l ectual pi pedream over a century ago wi th thei r
doctri ne of evol uti on through i mpersonal natural sel ecti on,5 but
most Chri sti ans have spent the l ast hundred-pl us years tryi ng to
devi se ways to accommodate thi s sel f-confi dent (but now rapi dl y
shi fti ng) Darwi ni sm to the orthodox fai th. The resul t, predi ctabl y,
has been an i ncrease of heterodox Chri sti ans. 16
Wi thout bi bl i cal gui dance from Gods covenant peopl e, the
whol e worl d i s now adri ft i n the rapi ds wi th a shattered rudder and a
conked-out engi ne. That growi ng roar we now hear i s omi nous.
Thus, a handful of Cal vi ni st schol ars and acti vi sts are today tryi ng
to make up for l ost ti me and to recover l ost i ntel l ectual terri tory be-
fore the turn of the mi l l enni um. 17 We percei ve that the whol e worl d
i s i n the throes of a massi ve rel i gi ous, soci al , and phi l osophi cal
upheaval , and the domi nant i deol ogi es of the l ast two or three cen-
12. I bid., p. 49.
13. I bid., p. 65.
14. Luther had succumbed to dual i sm a century and a hal f earl i er. See Charl es
Tri nkaus, The Rel i gi ous Foundati ons of Luthers Soci al Vi ews, i n John H.
Mundy (cd.), Es$ays in Medieval L@(New Yor k: Bi bl o & Tannen, 1955), pp. 71-87.
Cf. Gary North, The Economi cs of Luther and Cal vi n, Journal of Christian Recon-
dnsdion, I I (Summer 1975), pp. 76-89.
15, Gary North, The Dominion Cooenant: Genesi s (2nd ed.; Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute
for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1987), Appendi x A: From Cosmi c Purposel essness to Hu-
mani sti c Soverei gnty.
16. The archetype exampl e i s Bernard Ramm, today a semi -Barthi an, but i n
1954 the author of The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan:
Eerdmans), whi ch di d justi ce to nei ther sci ence nor Scri pture.
17. Gar y DeMar and Peter J, Lei thar t, The Redudion of Chri~tianity (Ft. Wor th,
I ntroduction 7
turi es are no l onger abl e to hol d together the fragmenti ng center.
What wi l l be the new center? We know what i t had better be: Jesus
Chri st. I t does no permanent good to swi ng back from l eft-wi ng En-
l i ghtenment thought (soci al i sm and soci al revol uti on) 18 to ri ght wi ng
Enl i ghtenment thought (capi tal i sm and soci al evol uti on). 19 (I t wi l l ,
however, i ncrease per capi ta economi c producti vi ty and therefore
per capi ta i ncome.) We do not need a perpetual humani sti c pen-
dul um; we need a progressi ve mani festati on of the ki ngdom of God
i n hi story. 20
Paradigm Sh@
I n the mi dst of soci al and i ntel l ectual revol uti ons come major
paradi gm shi fts. 21 Enti re worl dvi ews change, and they can do so
wi thi n a si ngl e generati on. 22 Judgi ng from the extent of the vi si bl e
turmoi l today, as wel l as the i ntel l ectual turmoi l , the next paradi gm
shi ft ought to be a whopper. We know that whatever phi l osophi es to-
day undergi rd worl d ci vi l i zati on are sl i ppi ng rapi dl y. I n fact, we are
seei ng seri ous attempts by sci enti sts and soci al theori sts to make sl i P-
Pi ng the basi s of the next domi nant worl dvi ew.23 The questi on i s:
What wi l l be next? When the shi ft begi ns i n earnest, Chri sti ans had
better be i n the paradi gm marketpl ace wi th a tabl e ful l of books and
strategi es contai ni ng pri nci pl es for sol uti ons to every major prob-
l em. A few manual s on di rect acti on woul dnt hurt, ei ther.
24
Before thi s task can be accompl i shed, however, Chri sti ans must
jetti son the l ast three centuri es of phi l osophi cal compromi se. Bap-
ti zed humani sm has produced muddl ed thi nki ng and worn-out, di s-
carded humani st sol uti ons to major soci al probl ems. I t i s ti me for a
change. Let us pray that thi s change wi l l be i n ti me.
18. F. A. Hayek, The Countm-Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason
(I ndi anapol i s, I ndi ana: Li berty Press, [1952] 1979); Hayek, The Fatal Conceit
(Chi cago: Uni versi ty of Chi cago Press, 1989).
19. Hayek, The Constitution of Liber~ (Chi cago: Uni versi ty of Chi cago Press,
1960); Hayek, Law, Le@lation and Liber~, 3 vols. (Chi cago: Uni versi ty of Chi cago
Pr ess, 1973-79).
20. Campbel l , I srael and the New Covenant.
21. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scient$c Revolution (2nd ed.; Chi cago: Uni ver-
si ty of Chi cago Press, 1970).
22. See, for exampl e, Paul Hazards book, The European Mind, 1680-1715 (New
York: Meri di an, [1935] 1963).
23. Cf. James Gl ei k, Chaos: Making a New Sci ence (New York: Vi ki ng, 1987).
24. Cf. Gary North, Backward, Chrtstian Soldiers? A Manual for Christian Recon-
struction (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1984).
Cornel i us Van Ti l
The major break wi th thi s l ong-term epi stemol ogi cal comprom-
i se came wi th the wri ti ngs of Cornel i us Van Ti l (see Chapter 3). Yet
even Van Ti l was unwi l l i ng to go the di stance i n thi s race. He dem-
onstrated what i s wrong and has been wrong wi th Chri sti an phi l oso-
phy for al most two mi l l enni a the compromi se wi th Greeces phi -
l osophy of autonomous man but he di d not offer a workabl e
posi ti ve al ternati ve.
Analogical Reasoning
Van Ti l s anal ogi es are marvel ous. He convi nced me that anal ogi es
can be very hel pful i n communi cati ng di ffi cul t concepts. So l et me
use four of them to descri be what he di d, and what he fai l ed to do.
Fi rst, i t i s not suffi ci ent to bl ow up humani sms di kes when you
l i ve i n epi stemol ogi cal Hol l and, for these are the onl y di kes i n pl ace
today. You need a new structure i n pl ace to keep out the North Sea
before the expl osi ves are detonated. Van Ti l , however, went ahead
and l i t the fuses anyway. The best you can say for hi s pl an i s that he
used sl ow-burni ng fuses. Most of the di kes are sti l l i ntact.
Second, Van Ti l showed that the humani st Emperor and hi s sub-
jects have al ways worn cl othes stol en from Chri sti ans, and onl y the
exi stence of these cl othes has kept everyone even tol erabl y warm i n
the freezi ng wi nters. Furthermore, the Emperor i s now requi ri ng
Chri sti ans to produce onl y Emperor-desi gned cl othi ng, a sure si gn
of l oomi ng frostbi te. But Van Ti l then steadfastl y refused to recom-
mend an appropri ate Chri sti an cl othi er for Chri sti ans whose ward-
r obes have been depl eted.
Thi rd, Van Ti l created an ethi cal and epi stemol ogi cal vacuum
by hi s successful extrusi on of the Greeks from Chri sti an phi l osophy,
but then he i nsi sted pri vatel y that nothi ng speci fi c shoul d be al l owed
to rush i n to fi l l i t. Creati ng a physi cal vacuum takes speci al i nstru-
ments and a l ot of energy. So, too, wi th epi stemol ogi cal vacuums. To
create such a vacuum, you must fi rst force out bad i deas wi th good
i deas. When you then wi thdraw the pl unger of good i deas from the
i ntel l ectual fl ask, but wi thout al l owi ng bad i deas to return, you
create a vacuum. Vacuums are, arti fi ci al creati ons; they cannot be
sustai ned, l ong term. They are not very useful outsi de the l abora-
tory, ei ther. Schol ars resent an epi stemol ogi cal vacuum i n the same
way that nature abhors a physi cal one on earth. The val ves cannot
hol d ti ght forever; somethi ng wi l l i nevi tabl y fi l l i t: i f not bi bl i cal l aw,
I ntroduction 9
then somethi ng el se. As I show i n Chapter 4, one of Van Ti l s earl y
students rushed i n to fi l l i t. What he fi l l ed i t wi th was a vari ati on of
the same ol d i mpure mi xture that Van Ti l had expel l ed i n the fi rst
pl ace: one-thi rd Bi bl e, one-thi rd natural l aw phi l osophy, and one-
thi rd verbal gymnasti cs to expl ai n why there real l y i s no underl yi ng
confl i ct between the two except, of course, i n those cases where there
i s. Thi s i s the probl em. Thi s has al ways been the probl em.
Fourth, Van Ti l forgot rul e number-one i n al l warfare: You
cant beat somethi ng wi th nothi ng. Adopti ng mi l i tary metaphors,
we can say that Van Ti l wrote a mul ti -vol ume theory of war. I t took
hi m al l hi s l i fe to wri te i t. He never real l y fi ni shed i t. I t just got
l onger and l onger. Unfortunatel y, he never offered an overal l strat-
egy showi ng how hi s general theory of war coul d be appl i ed to a
strategy of conquest i n hi story. Hi s theory showed onl y that al l past
Chri sti an strategi es have fai l ed because of i mpr oper mi l i tar y
al l i ances and di sastrous treati es. Probl em: knowi ng what fai l ed to
work before i s not the same as knowi ng what strategy wi l l l ead to vi c-
tory i n the future. Van Ti l di d not bel i eve i n the possi bi l i ty y of a vi si -
bl e vi ctory by Chri sti ans i n hi story. He therefore never wrote a
grand strategy or even any tacti cal manual s, whi ch i s what new
recrui ts and newl y commi ssi oned second l i eutenants need.
Now What Should We Do?
Van Ti l steadfastl y refused to tel l anyone what to do wi th hi s phi -
l osophi cal di scoveri es. He di d not encourage hi s di sci pl es, such as
R. J. Rushdoony, who were attempti ng to appl y hi s di scoveri es to
other fi el ds of thought, i ncl udi ng soci al theory. Pri vatel y, he actual l y
di scouraged such attempts; they made hi m nervous. He careful l y
avoi ded venturi ng outsi de of the academi c speci al i zati on of apol o-
geti cs a narrowl y phi l osophi cal defense of the fai th and even
when he di d (e. g., The Psycholo~ of Religion), he conceal ed the fact by
wri ti ng as i f he were deal i ng stri ctl y wi th apol ogeti cs. The resul t of
hi s reti cence has been confusi on: hardl y anyone cl ai ms to be hi s di s-
ci pl e today he actual l y di scouraged di sci pl eszs and those who do
cl ai m to be hi s di sci pl es are scattered al l over the phi l osophi cal and
25. For exampl e, he woul d not assi gn hi s own books i n hi s apol ogeti cs cl asses. I t
was as i f John Cal vi n or Luther had remai ned content to assi gn Summu Theological to
hi s students, hopi ng to cl ear up thei r confusi on wi th rambl i ng, di sjoi nted l ectures.
Let me assure you, Van Ti l speci al i zed i n rambl i ng, di sjoi nted l ectures.
pol i ti cal l andscape. 26
So here I come, tryi ng to ral l y the troops, scattered though they
may be. I thi nk Chri sti ani tys bi ggest battl es are sti l l to be fought i n
the future; what we have seen so far i s si mpl y a seri es of boot
camps for Gods peopl e, a l ong peri od of wanderi ng i n the wi l der-
ness. I thi nk we are at l ast bei ng cal l ed to i nvade Canaan. But I may
be l i ke Joshua and Cal eb when they returned from thei r recon-
nai ssance assi gnment; I may be premature i n my recommendati on.
Judgi ng from the number of stones that I see peopl e i n the camp col -
l ecti ng (Num. 14:10), I am begi nni ng to suspect that my ti mi ng i s off
by a generati on.
What, then, i s the proper tacti c today for cal l i ng Gods peopl e to
begi n maki ng preparati ons for a gi ganti c offensi ve operati on? My
sol uti on: to ri sk bei ng regarded as offensi ve.
Tacti cs i n a Ti me of Reformati on
I n 1492, Col umbus sai l ed the ocean bl ue. I n 1493, he and hi s
crew returned, bri ngi ng tal es of a new worl d. Some of them al so
brought back somethi ng el se: syphi l i s. By 1497, i t had spread
throughout Western Europe. By 1507, i t had reached Chi na. 27 An i n-
vi si bl e army of ti ny creatures began to undermi ne the foundati ons of
European ci vi l i zati on. Physi ci ans soon real i zed how thi s army was
bei ng transmi tted, but bi ol ogi cal educati on al one was not suffi ci ent
to stop i t. I t never i s. Thi s mortal di sease contri buted to a wi de-
spread l oss of confi dence wi thi n the Renai ssance worl d, just as the
buboni c pl ague had undermi ned the sel f-confi dence of the l ate-
medi eval worl d. 28 Then came the Protestant Reformati on.
The Protestant Reformati on was l aunched by a doctor of theol -
ogy i n 1517. He was a uni versi ty man (Marti n Luther). Hi s major
publ i c opponent was al so a doctor of theol ogy (John Eck), but i n thi s
case, the gentl eman was al so i n the pay of Europes l eadi ng fami l y of
26. For exampl e, I am hi s di sci pl e, and so i s economi st and woul d-be phi l osopher
Dougl as Vi ckers. For my opi ni on of Vi ckers work, see my Foreword to I an Hedge,
Ba@&ed I rssation: A Critigw of Christian Kgvwsianism (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for
Chri sti an Economi cs, 1986).
27. Fer nand Br audel , Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Centwy, 3 vol s. (New
York: Harper & Row, [1979] 1981), I , The Structures ojl?wtyday Lije: The Limits ojt/ u
Possible, pp. 81-82.
28. Bar bar a Tuchman, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Centwy (New York:
Knopf, 1978), ch. 5.
I ntroduction 11
i nternati onal bankers (the Fuggers). 29 To Luthers cause came
another academi c man, one al most l i teral l y dragged out of academi a
i nto the pul pi t (John Cal vi n). And organi zi ng the shock troops of
the academi c opposi ti on was a former cl assmate of Cal vi ns at the
Uni versi ty of Pari s (I gnati us of Loyol a).
Era.wnus and Luther
Si tti ng on the si del i nes of thi s hi stori c battl efi el d wi th a pi l e of an-
ci ent manuscri pts on hi s desk was Erasmus of Rotterdam, another
Uni versi ty of Pari s product. w Erasmus knew that Luther was cor-
rect i n many of hi s cri ti ci sms of the Roman Church, but Erasmus re-
garded hi msel f as a man of peace, a man of the Roman Church.
Erasmus di d not want to make a frontal assaul t agai nst the Roman
Churchs concepts of justi fi cati on, the sacraments, and hi erarchy.
Hi s spi ri tual i ty i ncl i ned hi m to agree wi th the more radi cal refor-
mers , wri tes hi stori an Rol and Bai nton. Neverthel ess Erasmus
refused to joi n the radi cal s because of hi s regard for concordia and
consensus. He woul d not have these di srupted by constrai nt from
ei ther si de .31
At fi rst, he avoi ded goi ng i nto pri nt agai nst Luther. After al l , hi s
goal was peace, peace. Luther fi nal l y forced Erasmus out of hi s
academi c compl acency when he publ i cl y defended the doctri ne of
predesti nati on. Erasmus was aghast. Predesti nati on? I n thi s day and
age? And so the two doctors of theol ogy fought i t out: free wi l l vs ~
Gods absol ute soverei gnty.
32
Luthers cl assi c repl y to Erasmus, The
Bondage of the Will (1525), stands as one of the most i mportant
defenses of predesti nati on ever wri tten. He was true to hi s Augusti -
ni an heri tage. (He regarded thi s work and hi s catechi sm for chi l dren
as hi s onl y works worth preservi ng; onl y they were ri ght .) 33
Melanchthon
But then, as al so happened to Augusti nes predesti nari an l egacy
29. Benjami n Nel son, The I dea of Usuy: From Tribal Brothnhood to Univemal Othm-
hood (2nd ed.; Chi cago: Uni versi ty of Chi cago Press, 1969), p. 25.
30. The College de Montaigu.
31. Rol and H. Bai nton, Em-mu of Chrb$endom (New York: Crossroad, 1982), p. 220.
32. Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, edi ted by E, Gor don Rupp and
Phi l i p S. Watson (Phi l adel phi a: Westmi nster Press, 1969).
33. Letter to Capi to (9 Jul y 1537); ci ted by J. I . Packer and O. R. Johnson,
Hi stori cal and Theol ogi cal I ntroducti on, The Bondage of the Will (London: James
Cl arke, 1957), p. 40.
after he di ed, the academi c dog returned to i ts epi stemol ogi cal
vomi t. Augusti ne had battl ed agai nst Pel agi us, for the l atter had
dropped the doctri ne of i nnate human depravi ty. Pel agi us had
adopted free wi l l doctri nes as a di rect resul t. Augusti ne won the i n-
tel l ectual battl e, but hi s hei rs surrendered anyway. So i t was to be
wi th Luthers hei rs. Luthers cl ose associ ate Phi l i p Mel anchthon
never adopted Luthers vi ew of predesti nati on, cal l i ng i t Stoi c fatal -
i sm.w Mel anchthon was a cl assi ci st at heart, and he wanted peace
wi th Greece. Wri tes C. L. Manschreck:
At fi rst Mel anchthon joi ned Luther i n heapi ng i nvecti ves on Ari stotl e
and phi l osophy i n general , for both recogni zed that certai n modes and pri n-
ci pl es of reasoni ng were i njuri ous to the evangel i cal rel i gi ous i nsi ghts, but
Phi l i p soon came to feel that phi l osophy mi ght be a val uabl e auxi l i ary i n the
propagati on of truth. Mel anchthons changed vi ew toward Ari stotl e, espe-
ci al l y after 1525, di d not represent a desi re to gi ve up the frui ts of the Refor-
mati on but a more mature understandi ng of phi l osophy and i ts useful ness
i n educati on and the Chri sti an communi ty. Luther went al ong. %
And so Mel anchthon cal l ed a mi ghty eccl esi asti cal army away from
a di rect frontal assaul t agai nst Greece and Rome not the Roman
Church, but the far more anci ent enemy, cl assi cal Rome. That army
has never returned to the front. Lutheran apol ogeti cs to thi s day i s
basi cal l y the Thomi sti c apol ogeti cs of the Roman Church, whi ch i s
al so true of Protestanti sm i n general . 36
A Study ah I rrelevance
Through al l thi s turmoi l , Erasmus stayed cal m, cool , and col -
l ected. He di d not break wi th Rome. He di d not l eave hi s study ex-
cept to l ecture at a uni versi ty or return a book to the l i brary. He read
hi s Greek manuscri pts, wrote hi s prevari cati ng but cl ever academi c
essays, and kept hi s wi ts about hi m. No fi ery pamphl ets i n the ver-
nacul ar from hi s pen! Al so, no fi ery stakes for hi s sensi ti ve fl esh. He
was, after al l , a cul ti vated man. 37 A ful l y accredi ted man. A tenured
man. A man for mi l d seasons.
34. Cl yde Leonard Manschreck, Melanchthon: The Quiet Reforrrw (New York:
Abi ngdon, 1958), p. 293. See Chapter 22 of Manschrecks book for a detai l ed treat-
ment: The Word, the Hol y Spi ri t, and the Wi l l .
35. I bid., p. 96.
36. Cornel i us Van Ti l , A Survg of Christian Epistan.ology, vol . 2 of I n Defense of Bibli-
cal Christianity (Phi l l i psburg, New Jersey: Presbyteri an & Reformed; den Dul k
Foundati on, 1969), chaps. 6, 7. Thi s seri es i s al so cal l ed I n Dejense of the Faith.
37. Bai nton, Erasmus of Christendom, ch. 10: A Cul ti vated Man.
I ntroduction 13
What was Erasmus posi ti on? He had merel y asserted the ri ght
of men to be uncommi tted, where doctri ne had not been thoroughl y
and formal l y defi ned by the Church .3s That was surel y good
enough to sati sfy the Church! I t kept hi m out of seri ous troubl e. I t
brought hi m external peace. I t al so made hi m i rrel evant to the
ti tani c rel i gi ous struggl es of hi s age. Luthers response descri bes hi m
to a T: Erasmus i s an eel . Onl y Chri st can get hi m.39 The sad fact
i s that most of those i n the pul pi t today take Erasmus as thei r model .
The resul t i s sl i ppery sermons.
The typi cal Chri sti an l i beral arts col l ege i s even worse. There the
eel s have tenure. The i deal Ameri can academi c i s al so model ed on
the career of Erasmus. So i s the Chri sti an academi c, to the extent
that he has a separate exi stence. (Not Bri ti sh academi a, however, by
the grace of God and the exampl e of A. J. P. Tayl or). One i s ex-
pected to conduct onesel f as a cul ti vated man. No pamphl ets, pl ease.
No use of i ncendi ary l anguage. No departi ng from the accepted eti -
quette of professi onal academi c di scourse. Above al l , there must be
no cal l i ng to the attenti on of uncerti fi ed l aymen (who pay al l the bi l l s
wi th thei r donati ons) the unpl easant fact that there has been a sys-
temati c sel l -out of Chri sti an ci vi l i zati on by i ts offi ci al l y accredi ted i n-
tel l ectual and pol i ti cal defenders. Thi s i s Erasmus l egacy, and i t i s
staunchl y defended today by those i nsi de the hal l s of i vy. They much
prefer I n Praise of Fol~ to The Bondage of the Will. Anyone seeki ng
acceptance wi thi n these hal l s of i vy must ei ther conform or be
thrown out, thereafter to spend hi s days wanderi ng i n the wastel ands
of the busi ness worl d or hi gh school teachi ng.
Erasmus was i l l egi ti mate by bi rth, but hi s hei rs are sel f-made men.
Fighting to Win
I prefer Luthers model . Luther was courageous enough not onl y
to break ranks wi th the Church of Rome, but al so wi th the eti quette
of Erasmus. He took hi s cri ti ci sms of the Roman Church to unor-
dai ned peopl e i n thei r own l anguage, both l i ngui sti cal l y and styl i sti -
cal l y, and he thereby broke the Churchs sacramental monopol y. He
was hated for thi s. He changed the face of Europe, and he was hated
for thi s, too. He conducted hi msel f not as a gentl eman and a schol ar,
but as a man of war who understood that eternal soul s were hangi ng
38. E. Gordon Rupp, I ntroducti on: The Erasmus Eni gma, Luther and Erasmus,
p. 2.
,,
39. Ci ted by Rupp, ibid., p. 2.
i n the bal ance, not to menti on Western ci vi l i zati on. He was hated
for thi s, perhaps most of al l . Hi s contemporari es wanted peace.
Thi s gave Luther an enormous advantage. He wanted vi ctory,
and he devel oped hi s tacti cs accordi ngl y. Luther was the pi oneer of
the pugnaci ous pamphl et, as wel l as the vi car of vi tri ol and the rector
of ri di cul e. He adopted Augusti nes rul e: anythi ng that i s ri di cul ous
deser ves to be ri di cul ed.40 Hi s spi ri tual hei rs have conveni entl y for-
gotten about the scatol ogi cal cartoons of the Pope that Luther put i n
hi s pamphl ets. Had he restri cted hi s expressi ons of theol ogi cal oppo-
si ti on to the Roman Church by the accepted rul es of di scourse wi th-
i n the academi c communi ty, there woul d probabl y have been no
Reformati on i n hi s day. He woul d have been burned at the stake.
I nstead, the authori ti es had to content themsel ves wi th burni ng hi s
pamphl ets.
Luthers academi c peers wanted peace. So do most of hi s spi ri -
tual and i nsti tuti onal hei rs today. Wel l , they wont al l be abl e to get i t
. . . at l east not whi l e I m al i ve and have a word processor i n front of
me. And not whi l e AI DS i s spreadi ng, ei ther. C. Everett Koops sol -
uti on to AI DS i s condoms. Thi s wi l l not work. My cri ti cs sol uti on to
me i s publ i c si l ence and pri vate murmuri ng. Thi s wi l l not work,
ei ther. There i s onl y one strategy that can possi bl y shut me up, or at
l east remove me as a seri ous combatant: prove i n pri nt, poi nt by
poi nt and verse by verse, that my theol ogy i s dead wrong and so i s
my anal ysi s of the l ong-term compromi se wi th humani sm; commu-
ni cate thi s i n l anguage that l i terate Chri sti ans can understand; and
then spend as much ti me and money as I spend i n getti ng thi s message
to the as yet undeci ded troops. My predi cti on: not very l i kel y;
Erasmus l ost the pol emi cal battl e though not the academi c eti -
quette battl e because he vi ewed the battl efi el d of the Reformati on
i n terms of the schol ars study. He deci ded to avoi d engagi ng i n pro-
tracted confl i ct. He refused to face the fact that protracted confl i ct i s
al l that the fol l owers of Jesus Chri st have ever been promi sed on
earth, even duri ng the m~enni um. Chri sti ans are tol d to fi nd i nter-
nal peace i n the mi dst of a ragi ng battl e. Thi s i s no doubt di ffi cul t,
but however i t i s to be accompl i shed, surrenderi ng the battal i ons
battl e fl ag i s not the proper way.
Luther won at l east the prel i mi nary phase of the theol ogi cal and
i nsti tuti onal battl e because hi s opponents coul d not match hi s theol -
40. See The Ci~ of God, XVI I I : 40, on those who oppose the si x-day creati on,
I ntroduction 15
ogy, hi s pamphl ets, hi s vi tri ol , and hi s i ncendi ary l anguage. He
humi l i ated hi s opponents i n publ i c and i n pri nt. He ri di cul ed the ri -
di cul ous. I am at best a pal e i mi tati on of Luther. But at l east I know
thi s much: I cannot hope to l ead anyone to vi ctory i n my assi gned
sector of thi s battl e for ci vi l i zati on by i mi tati ng Erasmus reputed
strengths. I have at l east a possi bi l i ty of contri buti ng to the vi ctory of
Chri sts ki ngdom i n hi story by adopti ng what many of hi s hei rs re-
gard as LutheFs embarrassi ng weaknesses.
There i s, however, one i mportant di fference between my styl e
and Luthers. The confrontati on between Erasmus and Luther has
been descri bed as a duel i n whi ch the two parti ci pants got up at the
crack of dawn, one armed wi th a rapi er, the other wi th a bl under-
buss. . . .41 Erasmus wi el ded the rapi er, Luther the bl underbuss. I
do much better wi th a rapi er.
Creati oni sm, Neo-Evangel i cal Styl e
Thi s book i s desi gned to cl ear the deck i deol ogi cal l y. I show what
cannot work bi bl i cal l y and has not worked for over three centuri es,
By attacki ng Chri sti an pol i ti cal pl ural i sm, I am attacki ng a sacred
cow whi ch i s i n fact a l ong-dead mul e. I t i s an i ntel l ectual system
whi ch cannot be successful l y defended by an appeal to the Bi bl e, and
whi ch i s regarded by humani sts as i ntel l ectual l y peri pheral to the
concerns of the non-Chri sti an worl d. Chri sti an pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i s
to modern pol i ti cal theory what thei sti c evol uti on i s to modern bi o-
l ogi cal sci ence: a sel l -out of Chri sti ani ty to the humani sts who run
the academi c worl d. The i rony i s that the humani sts regard the
whol e charade of thei sti c evol uti on as ei ther a crude i ntel l ectual joke
or el se a sel f-servi ng fraud deservi ng of contempt.4Z Chri sti an pol i ti -
cal pl ural i sm i s not much better respected i n the worl d of humani st
schol arshi p. We shoul d not be surpri sed to l earn that the same
undergraduate Chri sti an academi c i nsti tuti ons and publ i shi ng houses
support both forms of thi s i deol ogi cal sel l -out. I cal l thi s the Wheaton-
Westchester-Downers Grove-Grand Rapi ds-Wenham-Toronto com-
pl ex. Wheaton Col l ege i s the model .Aq
41. Rupp, op. cit., p. 2.
42. See, for exampl e, George Gayl ord Si mpson, This View of L$e: The Wmld of an
Evolutionist (New Yor k: Har cour t, Br ace & Wor l d, 1964), ch. 11: Evol uti onar y
Theol ogy: The New Mysti ci sm.
43. I f you can l ocate a copy, I encourage you to read Wi l hel m E. Schmi tts sel f-
publ i shed book, St@s Toward Apostmy at Wheaton College (1966). Schmi tt was a
Wheaton student, cl ass of 1954.
There i s a reason for thei r opposi ti on to both si x-day creati oni sm
and pol i ti cal pl ural i sm: l i beral i sm, both theol ogi cal and pol i ti cal .
These peopl e want the frui ts of Chri sti ani ty wi thout i ts Bi bl e-
reveal ed l i mi ts and responsi bi l i ti es. They procl ai m Gods creati on i n
general , hopi ng thereby 1) to retai n donors support and a stream of
young Chri sti an students to capture; 44 and 2) to avoi d the radi cal
despai r of modern humani st sci ence.
45
By refusi ng to affi rm si x-day
creati oni sm, they hope to accompl i sh at l east three thi ngs: 1) retai n
thei r accredi tati on from humani st accredi ti ng agenci es; 2) retai n the
approval of other neo-evangel i cal academi ci ans, who have l ong si nce
abandoned orthodoxy for Barthi ani sm or l i berati on theol ogy; and 3)
l eave the door open to just about any ki nd of theoreti cal compromi se
wi th the l atest fi ndi ng of modern sci ence , meani ng the sci enti fi c
vi ews of a decade ago that are now worki ng thei r way i nto the text-
books. They want the benefi ts of orthodoxy wi th none of the l i abi l i ti es.
Si mi l arl y, they affi rm somethi ng cal l ed Gods creati on or-
di nances .
%
Someti mes, they cal l thi s a creati on ethi c.47 Thi s
sounds so very bi bl i cal . But they si mul taneousl y deny that Ol d Tes-
tament l aw i n any way provi des the defi ni ti ons, speci fi c content, and
i ntel l ectual l i mi ts of these ordi nances. Thei r goal s here are much the
same as wi th thei r affi rmati on of creati oni sm, but not si x-day cre-
ati oni sm. Fi rst, they can sti l l sound as though they affi rm the Bi bl e,
44. North, Foreword; Hedge, Ba@zed I ntation, pp. xx-xxi i : The Academi c
Seducti on of the I nnocent.
45. Gary North, 1s the World Running Down? Crisis in the Chri&n Wmldview (Tyl er,
Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1988), ch. 2: The Pessi mi sm of the Sci en-
ti sts.n
46. Natural l aw theori es are essenti al l y secul ari zed versi ons of the i dea of crea-
ti on ordi nances. Gordon Spykman, The Pri nci pl ed Pl ural i st Posi ti on, i n God and
Politics, p. 91. I roni cal l y, Spykman rejects natural l aw, yet he al so deni es that Ol d
Testament l aws provi de the requi red content of these defi ni ti onl ess creati on or-
di nances. Thi s l eaves everythi ng conveni entl y open-ended. That i s the heart and
soul of neo-evangel i cal i sm: i ntel l ectual l y and moral l y open-ended. T. M. Moore i s
correct: Ul ti matel y, Spykman exal ts Gods revel ati on i n nature above the Bi bl e. He
i nsi sts that the meani ng of Scri pture can onl y be unl ocked by fi rst understandi ng the
meani ng of Gods word i nherent i n the creati onal norms around us. Moore, The
Chri sti an Ameri ca Response to Pri nci pl ed Pl ural i sm; ibid., p. 110.
47. See A. Troosts response to my cri ti ci sm of hi s anti nomi an cal l to medi eval
gui l d soci al i sm i n the name of the Bi bl e. Troost ti tl ed hi s essay, A Pl ea for a Crea-
ti on Ethi c, I nternational Reformed Bulktin (Oct. 1967). Thi s journal was edi ted at the
ti me by Paul Schr otenboer , who al so has an essay i n God and Politics, pp. 54-60. For
my response to Troost, see North, The Sinai Strate~: Economics and the Tin Command-
ments (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1986), Appendi x C: Soci al
Anti nomi ani sm .
I ntroduction 17
keepi ng suspi ci ous donors and parents perpetual l y confused. Sec-
ond, they can then read the l atest (i . e., decade-ol d) fads of pol i ti cal
l i beral i sm i nto these creati on ordi nances. They get the benefi ts of
Gods doctri ne of creati on wi thout any of the restrai nts of Gods
Bi bl e-reveal ed l aw.
These schol ars are l i ke unmarri ed coupl es who l i ve together
under the protecti on of common l aw marri age precedents. I f these
uni ons can survi ve for fi ve consecuti ve years, they become techni -
cal l y l egal marri ages for purposes of ownershi p and i nheri tance. Un-
ti l then, however, the door remai ns open for l eavi ng and swi tchi ng
partners. Duri ng the fi rst fi ve years, they can reassure themsel ves
and thei r potenti al i n-l aws wi th the conveni ent excuse, Were sti l l
movi ng toward common-l aw status . I n fact, they are forni cators.
Thi s i s modern neo-evangel i cal i sm i n a nutshel l : at best a movement
of theol ogi cal common-l aw marri ages; at worst, a movement of
theol ogi cal forni cators.
Whi te Uni forms and Si nki ng Shi ps
The doctri ne of Chri sti an pol i ti cal pl ural i sm rested from the be-
gi nni ng on the doctri ne of natural ri ghts and natural l aw. That com-
forti ng fai th i s now forever dead, buri ed by the spi ri tual hei rs of the
pagan Greeks who i nvented i t i n the fi rst pl ace. Thi s l oss of fai th i n
natural l aw i s admi tted even by defenders of Chri sti an pol i ti cal pl ur-
al i sm. % Neverthel ess, they stubbornl y refuse to admi t publ i cl y that
wi thout thi s key epi stemol ogi ca14g assumpti on, pol i ti cal pl ural i sm
becomes a vi si bl y dri fti ng shi p wi th a hol e i n i ts si de.
The Leaking Ship
Thi s shi p i s taki ng on water fast. I t i s al ready 2,000 mi l es out to
sea, wi th no radi o on board and very l i ttl e dehydrated food re-
mai ni ng. A huge storm i s on the hori zon. There i s onl y one hope
avai l abl e: a motori zed l i feboat wi th a good set of maps, a compass,
and enough fuel to get a few hundred mi l es. I t even has an emer-
gency sai l . But there i s one catch: i ts name. The former owner of the
shi ppi ng l i ne who sti l l hol ds a second mortgage on the company,
and the present owners are several payments behi nd named i t the
48. Cf. Gordon J. Spykman, The Pri nci pl ed Pl ural i st Posi ti on, God and Politics,
pp. 90-91.
49. Epi stemol ogy: What men can know, and how they can know i t.
Covenant Theocra~. Because of thi s, noshi ps offi cer i swi l l i ng to get
i nto i t; they are al l graduates of the Ermmus Naval I nstitute. Further-
more, they are al l doi ng whatever they can to keep the growi ng
number of al armed passengers from l aunchi ng i t on thei r own. They
keep announci ng the fol l owi ng message over the shi ps i ntercom:
The shi p i s fi ne. No probl em. Dont worry; be happy! Be cal m, be
cool , and be col l ected. Meanwhi l e, the storm cl ouds keep getti ng
cl oser, and the shi p i s l i sti ng to port.
Questi on: Shoul d the passengers rearrange the deck chai rs one
more ti me or head for the l i feboat? I have made my deci si on; what
about you?
There are a l ot of passengers who sti l l take the shi ps offi cers seri -
ousl y. They sti l l have fai th i n what they are bei ng tol d rather than
what they can cl earl y see. After al l , these offi cers are so . . . so oJjl -
cial ! They are al l dressed i n cl ean, whi te uni forms. Coul d they real l y
be wrong? Coul d a man i n a whi te uni form be unrel i abl e? (See
Chapter 4.) They were certi fi ed by the authori ti es back on shore.
Coul d the authori ti es have been wrong? The thought never crosses
the passengers mi nds that the authori ti es back on shore had cut a
deal wi th the shi ps owners: We wi l l certi fy your shi p and your crew
i f you conti nue publ i cl y to support our ri ght to certi ~ everyone. And
we promi se to prohi bi t any uncerti fi ed ri val entrepreneur from start-
i ng a ri val crui se shi p l i ne .
I n the worl d of busi ness thi s i s cal l ed l i censi ng. I n the academi c
worl d, i t i s cal l ed regi onal accredi tati on and cl assroom tenure. What
thi s system of certi fi cati on i nvari abl y produces i n the l ong run i s a
fl eet of hi gh-pri ced l eaki ng shi ps and a new generati on of whi te uni -
formed offi cers who dont know how to navi gate. But they do l ook
i mpressi ve.
The purpose of thi s book i s to show what does not work, and then
to offer an al ternati ve. Li ke an i nformed passenger on that l eaki ng
shi p, I need to al ert my fel l ow passengers to the probl em before I can
expect them to head for the l i feboat. I have confi dence that the l i fe-
boat i s sea-worthy. 50 I al so have confi dence that the shi p i s si nki ng.
The ti me has come for me to cal l , Abandon shi p! The probl em i s,
not many peopl e wi l l bel i eve me i ni ti al l y. My di agnosi s sounds so
50. R. J. Rushdoony, The I nstitutes of Biblical Law (Nutl ey, New Jersey: Crai g
Press, 1973); Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (2nd ed.; Phi l l i psburg,
New Jersey: Presbyteri an & Reformed, 1984).
I ntroduction 19
gri m, and my prescri pti on sounds so unpal atabl e. After al l , the shi p
has done so wel l i n the past, and nobody l i kes to eat dehydrated food.
The Ri sk of Bei ng Premature
The Puri tan Revol uti on of 1638-60 was premature. The peopl e
of Engl and were not ready for a worl d wi thout ki ng or bi shops, and
Cal vi ni st i ntel l ectual and mi l i tary l eaders soon found that they coul d
not control the soci al forces that thei r pamphl ets and thei r caval ry
had unl eashed. The growi ng reacti on agai nst the rul e of the sai nts
duri ng the 1650s, and especi al l y after the restorati on of Charl es I I to
the Engl i sh throne i n 1660, devastated Engl i sh and Scotti sh Cal vi n-
i sm. The y never recovered. Engl i sh and Ameri can col oni al Cal vi n-
i sm became pi eti sti c and anti nomi an wi thi n a generati on. 51 So di d
Hol l ands Cal vi ni sm duri ng thi s same peri od. Few traces of postmi l -
l enni al i sm can be found i n Dutch Cal vi ni sm after 1700. Radi cal En-
l i ghtenment i deas and cl andesti ne pol i ti cal org~i zati ons had been
rel eased as a si de-effect of the Puri tan Revol uti on i n Engl and; they
spread rapi dl y to Hol l and i n the 1690s, and from there to the whol e
of Europe.
52 so di d the Chri sti an-Newtoni an synthesi s and i ts
accompanyi ng Armi ni ani sm and Soci ni ani sm. 53 I t does not pay to
be premature.
I t i s not my i ntenti on to encourage the repeti ti on of that seventeenth-
century mi stake. Producti ve soci al transformati on takes ti me and
l ots of i t. Great rel i gi ous and soci al di sconti nui ti es are i nevi tabl e i n
human hi story, but i n order to produce benefi ci al resul ts, they must
be preceded by and fol l owed by l ong peri ods of pati ent and di sci -
pl i ned thought, i nvestment, and work.
54
I n thi s sense, I am a conser-
vati ve soci al theori st. I see an enormous di sconti nui ty l oomi ng, and
51. The testament of thi s morbi d i ntrospecti ve pi eti sm i s Wi l l i am Gurnal l s two-
vol ume treati se, The Christian I n Com@ete Armour; A Treatise Of the Saints War against the
Devil (London: Banner of Truth, [1655-62] 1964). A study of the Ameri can Puri tans
i s Gary North, From Medi eval Economi cs to I ndeci si ve Pi eti sm i n New Engl and,
1661-1690, J ournal of Christian Reconstruction, VI (Summer 1979), pp. 136-74.
52. The wri ti ngs of hi stori an Margaret C. Jacob are i mportant studi es of how
thi s took pl ace. See the detai l ed annotated bi bl i ography i n Jacobs book, The Radical
Erdighttmnwnt: Pantheists, Freemasons and Republicans (London: George Al l en & Unwi n,
1981), pp. 1-19.
53. Mar gar et C. Jacob, The Cultural Meaning of the Scient@ Revolution (Phi l a-
del phi a: Templ e Uni versi ty Press, 1988).
54. Gar y Nor th, Moses and Pharaoh: Dominion Religion vs. Power Religion (Tyler,
Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1985), ch. 12.
20
POLI TI CAL POLYTHEI SM
I want to encourage Chri sti ans to begi n thei r pati ent l abors. I t i s
easy to tear down a soci ety; i t i s not easy to rehabi l i tate one.
Free Grace and Good Works
The road to the comprehensi ve peace of God begi ns wi th the
transformati on of the covenant-breaki ng heart. Personal regenera-
ti on must precede comprehensi ve soci al reconstmcti on. Thi s has
al ways been the posi ti on of Chri sti an Reconstructi on. The key to
soci al regenerati on i s i ndi vi dual renewal , wrote Rushdoony i n
1973.
55
But we must begi n thi s process of reconstructi on wi th confi -
dent fai th i n the gospel ; we must be confi dent that Gods sal vati on i s
as comprehensi ve as si n i s. 56 Rushdoony i s correct: To l i mi t sal va-
ti on to mans soul and not to hi s body, hi s soci ety, and hi s every
aspect and rel ati onshi p, i s to deny i ts Bi bl i cal meani ng.57
The process of spi ri tual renewal shoul d be the Chri sti ans model
for i nsti tuti onal renewal : a real i zati on of si n and i ts di sastrous conse-
quences, a defi ni ti ve judi ci al break wi th the power of si n, a l i feti me
of progressi ve subdui ng of the si nful tendenci es of the heart, and a
steady maturi ng i n the fai th over ti me. I t i s a matter of fai th and i ts
i nevi tabl e product, good works. Our fai th, Paul wri tes, i s not of good
works but to good works.
For by grace are ye saved through fai th; and that not of yoursel ves: i t i s
the gi ft of God: Not of works, l est any man shoul d boast. For we are hi s
workmanshi p, created i n Chri st Jesus unto good works, whi ch God bath
before ordai ned that we shoul d wal k i n them (Eph. 2:8-10).
I t i s true, no doubt, that cri ti ci sm of the exi sti ng soci al syqtem
wi l l tend to undermi ne i t. But cri ti ci sm i s not the pri mary cause of
the destructi on of any soci al system; Gods hi stori cal sancti ons
agai nst i t i nternal and external = are the cause. To return to the
anal ogy of the shi p: there i s a hol e i n i ts si de and a storm on the
hori zon. We shoul d not qui bbl e over the negati ve effect on the
passengers of a pri vate cal l to abandon shi p; the real questi on i s
whether the
-
shi ps crew wi l l do anythi ng constructi ve i n ti me, ei ther
55. Rushdoony, I nstitutes, p. 122.
56. North, 1s the Wwld Running Down?, Appendi x C: Comprehensi ve Redemp-
ti on: A Theol ogy for Soci al Acti on.
58. The economi st woul d say endogenous and exogenous. Economi sts tal k funny.
I ntrodwtion 21
to repai r the shi p or at l east to get the passengers i nto the l i feboat.
But the shi ps offi cers wi l l bl ame al l thei r troubl es on those who
shout, Abandon shi p ! To do otherwi se woul d be to bl ame the l eak-
i ng shi p and thei r own i ncompetence. Better to bl ame the al armi sts
on board.
What I am proposi ng i s a soci al transformati on that wi l l take
centuri es to devel op. The probl em i s, the storm cl ouds are l oomi ng
now. We may not have much ti me to begi n the process. By we, I
mean Chri sti ans i n general . What we need to do i s get experi ence i n
the l i ttl e thi ngs of soci al l i fe: establ i shi ng pri vate Chri sti an school s;
begi nni ng l ocal soci al wel fare programs, funded by vol untary dona-
ti ons; l aunchi ng l ocal pol i ti cal campai gns; starti ng Bi bl e studi es. We
must prove that the gospel works before we can expect non-Chri sti ans
or pi eti sti c Chri sti ans to trust the Bi bl e for the l arger thi ngs.
The probl em i s, we a mi nori ty, Chri sti an acti vi st we may
fi nd oursel ves under the spotl i ght before we are ready. The i nterna-
ti onal fi nanci al system coul d col l apse overni ght, and the response of
fri ghtened pol i ti ci ans coul d create an i nternati onal economi c col -
l apse to m-atch the fi nanci al col l apse. I n such a scenari o, wi l l
churches be ready to exerci se l eadershi p l ocal l y? I f not, they wi l l get
a l ot of on the job trai ni ng i n the mi ddl e of a massi ve i nternati onal
cri si s. (I f thi s cri si s does turn out to be a debt-created cri si s, i t wi l l be
fi tti ng and proper. The ri se of the Enl i ghtenment was cl osel y con-
nected to the ri se of central banki ng, wi th the Bank of Engl and as the
model . 59 That experi ment i n pri vate i nfl ati on, bureaucrati c expan-
si on, and pol i ti cal control so popul ar wi th economi sts and hi s-
tori ans began i n 1694 and remai ns wi th us today.)
Case Laws and Communion
I f soci ety i n general can begi n to see, case by case, that the case
l aws of the Ol d Testament real l y do bri ng posi ti ve vi si bl e resul ts,
peopl e wi l l be far more ready to repl ace a dyi ng pagan ci vi l i zati on
wi th a comprehensi vel y, covenantal l y Chri sti an ci vi l i zati on. Unfor-
tunatel y, very few Chri sti ans have ever heard of the case l aws of Ex-
odus and Deuteronomy. o Thus, a great educati onal program must
59. P. G. M. Di ckson, The Fi nanci al Revolution i n Engl and: A Study i n tfu Developnumt
of Public Credit, 1668-1756 (London: Macmi l l an, 1967).
60. James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant: An Exposition of Exodus 21-23 (Tyl er,
Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1984); Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The
Case Laws of Exodu (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1989).
begi n. Chri sti ans must regai n fai th i nthe Bi bl e asa Wi de to soci al
transformati on. They must regai n confi dence i n the Hol y Spi ri t as
the agency of soci al change i n New Covenant hi story. They must
al so regai n confi dence i n weekl y communi on, the pl ace where God
meets wi th Hi s peopl e judi ci al l y. Al l of thi s may seem unl i kel y today.
What i s l i kel y, however, i s that the shi p real l y i s si nki ng. We have to
do somethi ng.
Chri sti ans must regai n confi dence that God exerci ses power i n
hi story, and that our Bi bl e has the answers. Our God i s not a l oser,
i n ti me or eterni ty, nor are Hi s representati ves, regenerate Chri s-
ti ans. Tri umphal i sm i s a l egi ti mate bi bl i cal atti tude, but i t must fi rst
be tested i n the trenches of l i fe. Chri sti ans must adopt what I cal l the
toi l et bowl strategy. Unti l we are wi l l i ng to scrub toi l ets, and do i t
better than the competi ti on, we are not fi t to be ci vi l engi neers.1 We
must bui l d hi gh qual i ty, cost-effecti ve tree houses before l aunchi ng
skyscrapers. We must do a l ot of good before we can l egi ti matel y ex-
pect to do very wel l .G2
Concl usi on
Thi s book presents the case agai nst any compromi se wi th pol i ti -
cal pl ural i sm. Wi th respect to Chr i sti an pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i tsel f,
there i s no Bi bl e-based case. From Mi l tons Areopagitica (1644) to
Ri chard John Neuhaus The Naked Public Square (1984), there has
been no case. There has not been a si ngl e, wel l -devel oped, sel f-
consci ousl y bi bl i cal exposi ti on of the case. We have wai ted pati entl y
for wel l over three centuri es. Chri sti an pol i ti cal pl ural i sts sti l l have
yet to produce the equi val ent of Rushdoon~s I nstitutes of Biblical Law.
Yet they wri te as though the dogma of democrati c pl ural i sm had been
etched on the back si de of the ori gi nal tabl ets of the l aw, as though
Moses presi ded over an i nci pi ent Rhode I sl and. They wri te as though
they were si tti ng upon a mountai n of supporti ng l i terature. Thi s
remi nds me of the gambl ers wad: a rol l of thi rty one-dol l ar bi l l s wi th
a fi fty dol l ar bi l l at each end. I t l ooks i mpressi ve when you fi rst see i t,
but watch careful l y when he peel s off that $50.
61. Accordi ng to European schol ar and former U.N. offi ci al Ernst Wi nter, Chri s-
ti an women i n the Sovi et Uni on for many decades have been assi gned thi s unpl ea-
sant but necessary task. They are the toi l et bowl l adi es of Russi a.
62. Col onel V. Doner , The Samari tm Strate~: A New Agenda for Christian Activism
(Brentwood, Tennessee: Wol gemuth & Hyatt, 1988).
I ntroduction
23
The heart of the questi on of pol i ti cs, Leni n sai d, i s the questi on
of Who, Whom? Wri tes Neuhaus: Every system of government,
no matter what i t i s cal l ed, i s a system by whi ch some peopl e rul e
over other peopl e. I n every pol i ti cal system, pol i ti cal l egerdemai n,
whi ch i s to say pol i ti cal success, requi res that peopl e be kept from
recogni zi ng the el ementary fact that i n any soci ety there are the rul -
ers and there are the rul ed .63 The questi on i s: Who rul es, and who
i s rul ed? The questi on of l egi ti mate rul e al so i s: I n whose name, by
whose authori ty, by what standard, wi th what sancti ons, and for
how l ong?
Chri sti an pol i ti cal pl ural i sts have promi sed that they can suppl y
us wi th the answers, i f onl y we remai n pati ent. I am hereby cal l i ng
thei r bl uff. I t i s ti me for Bi bl e-bel i evi ng Chri sti ans to stop comprom-
i si ng wi th the humani sts who are the benefi ci ari es of the system, and
stop l i steni ng to thei r pai d agents i n the Chri sti an col l ege cl assroom.
We need to make a cl ean break i deol ogi cal l y, and then pati entl y
work out the practi cal i mpl i cati ons of thi s break over many, many
year s.
What we have seen for over three centuri es i s a stream of
compromi ses: i n l ate seventeenth-century Engl and, l ate ei ghteenth-
century Ameri ca, and l ate ni neteenth-century Hol l and. Let us end i t
i n l ate twenti eth-century Ameri ca. We are asked generati on after
generati on to sel l our bi rthri ght for a mess of pottage. Each genera-
ti on compl i es. We keep sel l i ng i t cheaper. Let us recl ai m our bi rth-
ri ght from those who have bought i t wi th counterfei t money. Thi s i s
the vi si bl e l egacy of humani sm: counterfei t money from pri vatel y
owned fracti onal reserve banks.4 I t i s ti me for a change theol ogi -
cal l y, pol i ti cal l y, and monetari l y.5
63. Ri chard John Neuhaus, The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democraq in
Arwrica (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Eerdmans, 1984), p. 30.
64. El gi n Grosecl ose, Monq and Man: A Surwy of Monetay Experience (Nor man
Okl ahoma: Uni versi ty of Okl ahoma Press, 1961).
65. Gar y Nor th, Honest Momy The Biblical Blueprint for Monq and Banking (R.
Worth, Texas: Domi ni on Press, 1986).
Part 1
BIBLICAL
COVENANTALISM
1
And when the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Sol omon con-
cerni ng the name of the LORD, she came to prove hi m wi th hard
questi ons. And she came to Jerusal em wi th a very great trai n, wi th
camel s that bare spi ces, and very much gol d, and preci ous stones:
and when she was come to Sol omon, she communed wi th hi m of al l
that was i n her heart. And Sol omon tol d her 41 her questi ons: there
was not any thi ng hi d from the ki ng, whi ch he tol d her not. And
when the queen of Sheba had seen al l Sol omons wi sdom, and the
house that he had bui l t, And the meat of hi s tabl e, and the si tti ng of
hi s servants, and the attendance of hi s mi ni sters, and thei r apparel ,
and hi s cupbearers, and hi s ascent by whi ch he went up unto the
house of the LORD; there was no more spi ri t i n her. And she sai d to
the ki ng, I t was a true report that I heard i n mi ne own l and of thy
acts and of thy wi sdom. Howbei t I bel i eved not the words, unti l I
came, and mi ne eyes had seen i t: and, behol d, the hal f was not tol d
me: thy wi sdom and prosperi ty exceedeth the fame whi ch I heard,
Happy are thy men, happy are these thy servants, whi ch stand con-
ti nual l y before thee, and that hear thy wi sdom. Bl essed be the LORD
thy God, whi ch del i ghted i n thee, to set thee on the throne of I srael :
because the LORD l oved I srael for ever, therefore made he thee ki ng,
to do judgment and justi ce. And she gave the ki ng an hundred and
twenty tal ents of gol d, and of spi ces very great store, and preci ous
stones: there came no more such abundance of spi ces as these whi ch
the queen of Sheba gave to ki ng Sol omon. And the navy al so of
Hi ram, that brought gol d from Ophi r, brought i n from Ophi r great
pl enty of al mug trees, and preci ous stones. And the ki ng made of the
al mug trees pi l l ars for the house of the LORD, and for the ki ngs
house, harps al so and psal teri es for si ngers: there came no such
al mug trees, nor were seen unto thi s day. And ki ng Sol omon gave
unto the queen of Sheba al l her desi re, whatsoever she asked, besi de
that whi ch Sol omon gave her of hi s royal bounty. So she turned and
went to her own country, she and her servants (I Ki ngs 10:1-13).
G
I NTRODUCTI ON, PART 1
But sanctz~ the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to
give an answer to eve~ man that mkethyou a remon of the hope that is in
you with nwekness andfear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas thy
speak evil ofyou, as of evildoers, thzy may be a.rhanwd that falsely accuse
your good conversation in Christ. For it is bette~ tfthe will of God be so,
that ye sufer for well doing, than for evil doing (I Pet. 3:15-17).
When I fi rst wrote Chapter 3 on the Chri sti an phi l osophy of
Cornel i us Van Ti l , I sent a copy to John Frame of Westmi nster
Theol ogi cal Semi nary. He was graci ous enough to eval uate i t. He
compl ai ned about one aspect of my cri ti que, my accusati on that Van
Ti l was an anti nomi an. By any standard defi ni ti on i n the hi story of
the Church, Frame sai d, Vari Ti l was not an anti nomi an. He asked:
Why di d I i nsi st on usi ng a word that has a very di fferent meani ng
for most Chri sti an readers?
Good questi on. I hope I can suppl y a good answer. My vi ew of
l aw bi bl i cal l aw i s now governed by the fi ve-poi nt bi bl i cal cove-
nant. 1 Thi s fi ve-poi nt model defi nes the nature of bi bl i cal l aw as
poi nt three i n a covenant structure. I t i s not enough, bi bl i cal l y
speaki ng, to i nsi st on bel i ef i n bi bl i cal l aw as the sol e cri teri on for es-
tabl i shi ng a Chri sti ans commi tment to, or opposi ti on to, the nom-
i an posi ti on. I t i s necessary that a person affi rm al l fi ve poi nts. As
surel y as Cal vi ni st Van Ti l and Cal vi ni st Frame woul d i nsi st that a
defi ni ti on of Cal vi ni st i ncl ude ~ fi ve poi nts of Cal vi ni sm total
depravi ty, uncondi ti onal el ecti on, l i mi ted atonement (i .e., parti cul ar
redempti on), i rresi sti bl e grace, and the perseverance of the sai nts
so do I demand that anti nomi ani sm be defi ned i n terms of the fi ve
poi nts of the bi bl i cal covenant model . (I woul d al so suggest that the
1. Ray R. Sutton, That You May Pros@: Dominion By Covenant (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti -
27
fi ve poi nts of Cal vi ni sm have a suspi ci ous resembl ance to the fi ve
poi nts of the bi bl i cal covenant model .)
I n Chapter 1, I defi ne antinwniamkn and pro-nomianism i n terms of
the covenants fi ve poi nts. I real i ze that I am departi ng from the ac-
cepted defi ni ti ons offered by the hi stori cal Church. Thi s i s neces-
sary; I am al so departi ng from the Churchs l ong-term rel uctance to
defi ne and appl y the covenant.
G
Once we see what thi s covenant model i s, we can then pursue i ts
proper appl i cati on i n the area of ci vi l government. What i s a ci ti zen
i n a bi bl i cal commonweal th? What i s a stranger? What i s the l egal
authori ty of each? Why was Ol d Testament I srael s system of sanc-
tuary cl osel y connected to i ts system of pol i ti cal excl usi on of
strangers? Onl y when we see what the Ol d Testament model of the
ci ti zen i s can we begi n to di scuss the questi on of the restorati on of
the hol y commonweal th i n New Testament ti mes.
I t i s the unwi l l i ngness of Chri sti an commentators and soci al
theori sts to return to the bi bl i cal record of Ol d Covenant that i s the
heart of the probl em. Because they wi l l not l ook at bi bl i cal l aw as the
model , Chri sti ans are l eft wi thout speci fi cs for organi zi ng soci ety.
Thi s l eaves them i n the di ffi cul t posi ti on of denyi ng the conti nui ng
val i di ty of judi ci al standards set forth i n the Ol d Testament, yet
si mul taneousl y cl ai mi ng that the Bi bl e has answers for al l of l i fe, a
cl ai m whi ch di si nte~ates on contact as soon as someone asks a spe-
ci fi c pol i ti cal or judi ci al questi on regardi ng ci vi l government.
Chri sti an soci al theori sts have recogni zed thei r vul nerabi l i ty i n
thi s regard for many centuri es. Thei r sol uti on i s al ways about the
same: fi nd some prevai l i ng humani st program or worl dvi ew i n con-
temporary soci ety whi ch has been proven to be val i d by someone
who cl ai ms he i s usi ng natural l aw, and then bapti ze i t wi th a few
Bi bl e verses. Thi s i s we, too Chri sti ani ty. Thi s approach does not
change covenant-breaki ng cul ture; i t si nks or swi ms wi th i t. Usual l y
the former.
I n modern ti mes, even thi s natural l aw approach has fai l ed.
Wi th the col l apse of natural l aw theory under the onsl aught of Dar-
wi ni sm, exi stenti al i sm, and modern quantum physi cs, the anti -
nomi an Chri sti an soci al theori st i s l eft utterl y defensel ess. He has
nothi ng speci fi c to say, at l east not wi th any authori ty. He i s just one
more ti mi d voi ce i n a cacophony of recommendati ons. He just
makes thi ngs up as he goes al ong. He rejects proof-texti ng, he re-
jects natural l aw, he rejects the Ol d Testament, and he procl ai ms
I ntroduction, Part 1 29
democrati c pl ural i sm. Democrati c pl ural i sm becomes a conveni ent
excuse for not bei ng abl e to recommend anythi ng i n parti cul ar, si nce
democrati c pl ural i sm i s the ul ti mate pay as you go soci al theory. I t
i s devoi d of moral content; i t i s al l procedure. But i t i s acceptabl e to
humani sts, who much prefer to see Chri sti ans cl i ngi ng ei ther to
some di scarded ten-year-ol d l i beral fad or to some hopel ess program
to make the publ i c school s moral agai n . I t keeps Chri sti ans qui et,
and i t keeps them harml ess.
Thi s book i s a refutati on of we, too Chri sti an soci al thought.
Such thought i nevi tabl y pl ays i nto the hands of covenant-breakers.
Before we proceed, however, we need to know what the bi bl i cal al -
ternati ve i s. The al ternati ve i s the bi bl i cal covenant.
The covenant theol ogy was governed by thi s i nsi ght and by thi s
concepti on. I t was i n the Reformed theol ogy that the covenant theol -
ogy devel oped, and the greatest contri buti on of covenant theol ogy
was i ts covenant soteri ol ogy and eschatol ogy.
I t woul d not be, however, i n the i nterests of theol ogi cal conserva-
ti on or theol ogi cal progress for us to thi nk that the covenant theol ogy
i s i n al l respects defi ni ti ve and that there i s no further need for cor-
recti on, modi fi cati on, and expansi on. Theol ogy must al ways be
undergoi ng reformati on. The human understandi ng i s i mperfect.
However archi tectoni c may be the systemati c constructi ons of any
one generati on or group of generati ons, there al ways remai ns the
need for correcti on and reconstructi on so that the structure may be
brought i nto cl oser approxi mati on to Scri pture and the reproducti on
be a more fai thful transcri pt or refl ecti on of the heavenl y exempl ar.
I t appears to me that the covenant theol ogy, notwi thstandi ng the
fi nesse of anal ysi s wi th whi ch i t was worked out and the grandeur of
i ts arti cul ated systemati zati on, needs recasti ng. We woul d not pre-
sume to cl ai m that we shal l be so successful i n thi s task that the
reconstructi on wi l l di spl ace and supersede the work of the cl assi c
covenant theol ogi ans. But wi th thei r hel p we may be abl e to contri b-
ute a l i ttl e towards a more bi bl i cal l y arti cul ated and formul ated con-
structi on of the covenant concept and of i ts appl i cati on to our fai th,
l ove, and hope.
John Murray (1953)
*Murray, The Covenant of Grace (Phi l l i psburg, New Jersey: Presbyteri an &
Reformed, [1953] 1988), pp. 4-5.
1
WHAT I S COVENANT LAW?
Behold, I haue taughtyou statutes and~udgments, even as the LORD
my God commanded me, thatye should do so in the land whitherye go to
possess it. Keep ther~ore and do them; for this isyour wisdom andyour
understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these stat-
utes, and say, Sure~ this great nati on i s a wi se and understanding peo-
ple. For what nation is there so great, who bath God so nigh unto them,
as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And
what nation is there so great, that bath statutes and~udgments so right-
eous as all this law, which I set before you this day? (Deut. 4:5-8).
These verses teach cl earl y the l aw of God i s a tool of worl dwi de
evangel i sm. The nati ons of the earth wi l l recogni ze the justi ce that i s
provi ded by Gods reveal ed l aw, as wel l as see the external bl essi ngs
that i nevi tabl y come to any soci ety that covenants i tsel f to God, and
subsequentl y adheres to the ethi cal terms of Gods covenant. I t i s
cruci al l y i mportant to mai ntai n that these bl essi ngs wi l l be vi si bl e
(Deut. 28:1-14). The Bi bl e i s i nsi stent: there is an inescapable cause-and-
efect reiationsh+ between national couenantal faithfulness and national pros-
peri@ Adherence to bi bl i cal l aw inevitab~ produces vi si bl e resul ts that
are uni versal l y regarded as benefi ci al . Why do covenant-breakers
recogni ze thi s? Because al l men have the work of Gods l aw wri tten
on thei r hearts (Rem. 2:14-15), so they can and do percei ve the bl ess-
i ngs of God. Thi s, God promi sed, woul d be the vi si bl e si gn of
I srael s wi sdom, vi si bl e to the ends of the earth.
I t i s not remarkabl e that humani sts deny the exi stence of thi s
covenantal and hi stori cal cause-and-effect rel ati onshi p, for such a re-
l ati onshi p poi nts beyond hi story to the exi stence of a soverei gn
Creator and Judge who wi l l hol d them eternal l y responsi bl e on judg-
ment day. They hol d back the truth i n unri ghteousness (Rem. 1:18).
What i s remarkabl e, however, i s that thi s vi ew of reveal ed bi bl i cal
l aw as presentl y appl i cabl e to soci ety i s not wi del y bel i eved by Chri s-
ti ans. They bel i eve that the cause-and-effect rel ati onshi p between
obedi ence to Gods l aw and Hi s posi ti ve bl essi ngs i n hi story i s just
barel y true wi thi n the soci al l y and cul tural l y narrow confi nes of the
l ocal church congregati on and the Chri sti an fami l y. Wi th respect to
the authori ty of Gods l aw i n soci ety, fundamental i st Chri sti ans deny
i t, neo-evangel i cal schol ars deny i t, and even tradi ti onal Reformed
theol ogi ans deny i t, and for a si mi l ar reason: such a vi ew of Gods
l aw makes Chri sti ans personal l y and corporatel y responsi bl e for
obeyi ng God, recei vi ng the promi sed external bl essi ngs, and usi ng
thi s real -worl d capi tal for the ful fi l l ment Gods domi ni on covenant 1
extendi ng hi s ki ngdom (ci vi l i zati on) across the face of the earth.
I n contrast, Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sts l oudl y affi rm bi bl i cal
l aw as a means of both evangel i sm and domi ni on. I ndeed, the aJ%na-
tion of a long-term relationship between covenant-keeping and external blessings
in history, as well as covenant-breaking and external cursings in history, is t~
heart and soul of the Christian Reconstructionist position on social theo~, its
theological identl~ying mark. z Thi s overwhel mi ng confi dence i n the
l ong-term hi stori cal effi cacy of the bi bl i cal covenant i s the reason
why Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sts sel f-consci ousl y cl ai m to be the
most consi stent of al l covenant theol ogi ans i n hi story. I t i s al so why
we are confi dent that our vi ew of the bi bl i cal covenant wi l l eventu-
al l y be tri umphant i n hi story. After al l , God bl esses covenant-keep-
i ng i n hi story, and covenant-bel i evi ng i s surel y an i ntegral aspect of
covenant-keepi ng. No doubt our confi dence makes us i nsufferabl e i n
other theol ogi cal ci rcl es, but such i s al ways the effect of fai th i n Gods
covenant. Pharaoh found Moses i nsufferabl e, and he bani shed
Moses from hi s presence (Ex. 10:28). The Hebrew l eaders had ear-
l i er tri ed to do the same thi ng (Ex. 5:19-21). Bear i n mi nd that Moses
refused to l eave Egypt unti l he took the peopl e wi th hi m. Chri sti an
Reconstructi oni sts have the same atti tude.
Gods Sancti ons and Posi ti ve Feedback i n Hi story
Gods vi si bl e, external covenantal bl essi ngs serve as a means of
confi rmi ng Hi s peopl es confi dence i n the rel i abi l i ty y of Hi s covenant.
1. Gary North, The Domi ni on Covenant: Genesis (2nd ed.; Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for
Chri sti an Economi cs, 1987).
2. There are other marks, of course, but thi s i s i ts uni que mark. No other theo-
l ogi cal movement procl ai ms thi s ethi cal cause-and-effect rel ati onshi p i n soci ety. I n-
deed, al l other Chri sti an posi ti ons expl i ci tl y deny it.
What I s Covenant Law? 33
Chri sti ans are requi red to affi rm the exi stence of a normati ve, cove-
nantal rel ati onshi p ofpositivefeedback in history. God i ntends Hi s cove-
nant to work thi s way: But thou shah remember the LORD thy God:
for i t i s he that gi veth thee power to get weal th, that he may establish his
covenant whi ch he sware unto thy fathers, as i t i s thi s day (Deut.
8:18). I n short: more obedi ence, more bl essi ngs; more bl essi ngs,
more confi rmati on; more confi rmati on, greater obedi ence. Thi s i s
covenantal posi ti ve feedback i n hi story. Thi s i s Chri sti ani tys stan-
dard of ethi cal performance, both personal l y and corporatel y.
3
God
bri ngs Hi s sancti ons i n hi story, posi ti ve and negati ve, i n terms of
mens publ i c conformi ty to Hi s reveal ed l aw.
We have read that the power to get weal th i s one of Gods posi ti ve
covenant sancti ons i n hi story.
4
Thi s i s a New Testament teachi ng,
too: Every good gi ft and every perfect gi ft i s from above, and com-
eth down from the Father of l i ghts, wi th whom i s no vari abl eness,
nei ther shadow of turni ng (James 1:17). How i s thi s steadfastness of
God reveal ed i n hi story? By the predi ctabi l i ty of Hi s hi stori cal sanc-
ti ons i n response to mens responses to the unchangi ng pri nci pl es of
Hi s covenant l aw. Conversel y much to the outrage of pol i ti cal l i b-
eral s and most academi c neo-evangel i cal s l ong-run poverty i s one
of Gods negati ve sancti ons i n hi story.
5
Such a vi ew of hi story i s un-
acceptabl e to the Chri sti an worl d general l y, and especi al l y to uni ver-
si ty-trai ned Chri sti an i ntel l ectual s. Why? Because such a vi ew i s ut-
terl y hosti l e to the God-denyi ng worl dvi ew of Darwi ni sm, whi ch
contemporary Chri sti ans have adopted far more than they are aware
of. Darwi ni sm teaches that there i s no supernatural force i n hi story.
Unti l the advent of man, there was no di recti on to hi story, no moral -
i ty, and no purpose. Onl y wi th the appearance of man i n hi story
does cosmi c personal i sm appear. Man proposes, and man di sposes.
Man extends domi ni on i n the name of the human speci es. Man, and
onl y man, bri ngs meani ngful sancti ons i n hi story. Autonomous man
.
3. These sancti ons appl y more cl earl y to corporate bodi es than to i ndi vi dual s,
mther than the other way around, contrary to what pi eti sm teaches. We know that
ri ghteous i ndi vi dual covenant-keepers can suffer cursi ngs i n hi story, as the Book of
Job teaches. What the Bi bl e teaches i s that i n the aggregate (corporatel y), and i n the long
run, Gods covenant sancti ons are rel i abl e and predi ctabl e.
4. Gary North, Free Market Capi tal i sm, i n Robert G. Cl ouse (cd.), Walth and
Poverty: Four Christian Views on Economics (Downers Grove, I l l i noi s: I nterVarsi ty
Press, 1984), pp. 27-65.
5. Gary North, Unholy Spirits: Occultism and New Age Humanism (Ft. Worth, Texas:
Domi ni on Press, 1986), ch. 8: Magi c, Envy, and Forei gn Ai d.
i s the soverei gn judge i n hi story, not God. Thi s man-centered theol -
ogy i s the heart of Darwi ni sm, not i ts techni cal di scussi ons about
geneti c or envi ronmental changes.G
Thi s vi ew of hi story i s basi c to al l of modern schol arshi p, and the
vast majori ty of those teachi ng soci al theory and soci al ethi cs i n
Chri sti an col l eges have adopted the basi c anti -covenantal perspec-
ti ve of thi s worl dvi ew, at l east wi th respect to New Testament era
hi story. The asserti on that nati ons remai n poor because they are
breaki ng the external terms of Gods covenant outrages the modern
Chri sti an i ntel l ectual . I t was not random that i n i ts hatchet job on
the Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sts, Chri sti ani ty Today ran a cl ever pen
drawi ng cari cature of me cl ose by my statement: The so-cal l ed
underdevel oped soci eti es are underdevel oped because they are so-
ci al i st, demoni st, and cursed.7 I sai d i t, I have defended i t i ntel l ec-
tual l y,8 and author Rodney Cl app ci ted i t because he apparentl y re-
garded i t as the most offensi ve statement that he coul d l ocate i n hi s
rather cursory exami nati on of my wri ti ngs. He recogni zed that the
neo-evangel i cal audi ence of Christianity Today woul d take great
offense at such a statement.9
What I am argui ng i s si mpl e: those peopl e who trul y bel i eve that
Gods mul ti -i nsti tuti onal covenant i s bi ndi ng must of necessi ty al so
bel i eve that i t i s hi.rtorical~ andjudicially bi ndi ng wi th respect to al l three
covenant (oath-bound) 10 i nsti tuti ons: fami l y, Church, and State.
Conversel y, i f peopl e do not bel i eve that Gods covenant i s hi stori -
cal l y and judi ci al l y bi ndi ng wi th respect to nati ons and l ocal ci vi l gov-
ernments, then they have deni ed the rel evance of Deuteronomy 4:5-6.
They i mpl i ci tl y bel i eve that the bi bl i cal doctri ne of Gods nati onal
covenant i s some ki nd of New Testament theol ogi cal l i mi ti ng con-
6. North, Dominion Covenant: Genesis, Append= A: From Cosmi c Purposel ess-
ness to Humani sti c Soverei gnty.
7. Rodney Cl app, Democracy as Heresy; Christianity Today (Feb. 20, 1987),
p. 23.
.
8. North, Unho~ Spirits, ch. 8. Thi s al so appeared i n the ori gi nal versi on of thi s
book, None Dare Call I t Witchcraft (New Rochel l e, New York: Arl i ngton House,
1976).
9. Keynesi an Wi l l i am Di ehl took offense at thi s cause-and-effect expl anati on of
culture-wide poverty, ci ti ng i n response Jesus deni al of thi s rel ati onshi p i n the case on
am individual bl i nd man (John 9:1-3): A Gui ded-Market Response, i n Cl ouse (cd.),
Wealth and Pover@, pp. 71-72. Art Gi sh was al so upset: ibid., p. 78.
10. Gar y Nor th, The Sinai Strategy: Economia and the Tm Commandments (Tyl er,
Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1986), ch. 3: Oaths, Covenants, and
Contracts .
What I s Couenant Law? 35
cept , a ki nd of theoreti cal backdrop to hi story that no l onger has any
poi nt of contact wi th the real m of hi stori cal cause and effect. Such a
vi ew of Gods covenant I cal l antinomian: a deni al of the I awk effects
i n hi story. I t refl ects what I cal l hal fway covenant thi nki ng.
T%o-nomi ani smn Defi ned ,
What do I mean by the term anti nomi an? To answer thi s, I
need to offer a descri pti on of pro-nomi ani sm, meani ng a defense of
what Gods l aw i s and what i t accompl i shes, especi al l y i n hi story. I
begi n wi th a survey of Ray Suttons di scovery of the fi ve-poi nt bi bl i -
cal covenant model . 11 Sutton argues that the bi bl i cal covenant model
has fi ve parts:
Transcendence (soverei gnty), yet i mmanence (presence)
FI i erarchyl authori tyl representati on
Ethi csAaw/domi ni on
Oath/judgment/sancti ons (bl essi ngs, cursi ngs)
Successi on/conti nui ty/i nheri tance
Whi l e thi s termi nol ogy i s sl i ghtl y di fferent from that whi ch he
adopted i n hi s book, i t i s an accurate representati on.2 Thi s model
has become an i ntegrati ng framework for the enti re Dominion Cove-
nant economi c commentary.
I use thi s model to devel op the pro-nomi ani sm of Chri sti an
Reconstructi on. I t i s the basi s of my defi ni ti on of anti -nomi ani sm. I
use the bi bl i cal covenant model as the source of defi ni ti on because I
have l ong mai ntai ned that l anguage as wel l as everythi ng el se must
be governed by the Bi bl e. As I wrote i n 1973, Neutral i ty does not
exi st. Everythi ng must be i nterpreted i n terms of what God has re-
veal ed. The humani sti c goal of neutral l anguage (and therefore neu-
tral l aw) was overturned at the Tower of Babel . Our dejnitions must
be i n terms of biblical revelation.ls
As a representati ve exampl e of the structure of the bi bl i cal cove-
nant, I have sel ected I sai ah 45. From i t we can get some sense of
how the covenant works i n hi story. We can al so di scuss the
covenants rel ati on to bi bl i cal l aw.
11. Ray R, Sutton, That You May Prosper: Dominion By Covenant (Tyl er, Texas:
I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1987).
12. A correspondent to Sutton sent i n the new versi on because i t can be used to
create an acronym: THEOS.
13. Gar y Nor th, I n Defense of Bi bl i cal Bri bery: i n R. J. Rushdoony, The I nsti-
tutes of Biblical Law (Nutky, New Jersey: Crai g Press, 1973), p. 843.
1. Transcendence/ I mmanence
We must begi n where the Bi bl e does: the creati on of al l thi ngs by
God (Gen. 1:1). We must mai ntai n an absol ute di sti ncti on between
the Creator and the creature. God i s the absol utel y soverei gn Master
of al l that comes to pass i n hi story. Nothi ng takes pl ace outsi de Hi s
soverei gn decree. I form the l i ght, and create darkness: I make
peace, and create evi l : I the LORD do al l these thi ngs (I sa. 45:7).14 I
have made the earth, and created man upon i t: I , even my hands,
have stretched out the heavens, and al l thei r host have I com-
manded (I sa. 45:12). For thus sai th the LORD that created the heav-
ens; God hi msel f that formed the earth and made i t; he bath estab-
l i shed i t, he created i t not i n vai n, he formed i t to be i nhabi ted: I am
the Lord; and there i s none el se (I sa. 45:18).
I sai ah uses the fami l i ar (but extremel y unpopul ar) bi bl i cal i mag-
ery of the potter and hi s cl ay: Woe unto hi m that stri veth wi th hi s
Maker! Let the potsherd [stri ve] wi th the potsherds of the earth.
Shal l the cl ay say to hi m that fashi oned i t, What makest thou? Or
thy work, He bath no hands? Woe unto hi m that sai th unto hi s
father, What begettest thou? Or to the woman, What hast thou
brought forth? (I sa. 45:9-10). 15 These words became the basi s of
Paul s argument regardi ng the absol ute soverei gnty of God i n choos-
i ng to save one person and not another. I t i s the cl assi c argument i n
the Bi bl e for the doctri ne of election. Paul says of Pharaoh: For the
scri pture sai th unto Pharaoh, Even for thi s same purpose have I rai sed
thee up, that I mi ght shew my power i n thee, and that my name mi ght
be decl ared throughout al l the earth (Rem. 9:17). Thi s expl ai ns the
words i n Exodus: And he hardened Pharaohs heart, that he heark-
ened not unto them; as the LORD had sai d (Ex. 7:13). But thi s
means that God keeps some men from respondi ng posi ti vel y to the
uni versal offer of sal vati on. Thi s keeps them from obeyi ng Hi s word.
The bel i ever i n free wi l l (a degree of human autonomy outsi de of
Gods eternal decree) then asks: How can any si nner therefore be
personal l y responsi bl e for hi s si n? Paul wel l understood thi s l i ne of
reasoni ng, to whi ch he repl i ed:
14. Thi s does not mean that God i s the author of si n. Thi s verse speaks covenant-
al l y: God bri ngs evi l ti mes to those who defy Hi m.
15. I have used brackets to i ndi cate the i tal i ci zed i nserted word of the Ki ng James
transl ators. Normal l y, I do not do thi s, preferri ng i nstead not to di srupt the fl ow of
bi bl i cal l anguage. But my arguments here are suffi ci entl y controversi al that I do not
want cri ti cs sayi ng that I rel i ed on the transl ators to make my poi nts.
Ther efor e bath he mer cy on whom he wi l l have mer cy, and whom he
wi l l he hardeneth. Thou wi l t say then unto me, Why cl oth he yet fi nd faul t?
For who bath resi sted hi s wi l l ? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repl i est
agai nst God? Shal l the thi ng formed say to hi m that formed i t, why hast thou
made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the cl ay, of the same l ump to
make one vessel unto honor, and another unto di shonor? (Rem. 9:19-21),
Paul appeal ed di rectl y to the bi bl i cal doctri ne of creati on the
i magery of the potter and the cl ay i n order to cut short every ver-
si on of the free wi l l (mans autonomy) argument. There i s no area of
chance or conti ngency i n hi story. None. I t i s unl awful even to appeal
to thi s l i ne of reasoni ng, Paul sai d: Who art thou that thou repl i est
agai nst God? The doctri ne of the moral and l egal responsi bi l i ty of
man before God must al ways be understood i n terms of the absol ute
decree of God; i t must never be defended i n terms of the i dea that
man has a zone of uncontrol l ed deci si on-maki ng at hi s di sposal .
Mans responsi bi l i ty must be understood therefore i n terms of the
bi bl i cal doctri ne of creati on. God decrees, yet men are responsi bl e.
The bi bl i cal doctri ne of creati on teaches the soverei gnty of God
i n el ecti ng some peopl e to sal vati on. Thi s i s why so few Chri sti ans
accept the bi bl i cal doctri ne of the si x-day creati on, and why they are
ready to compromi se wi th thi s or that versi on of evol uti on. They
want to affi rm the parti al soverei gnty (parti al autonomy) of man.
They do so i n terms of the pagan i dea of chance: a real m of deci si on-
maki ng, of cause and effect, outsi de of Gods absol ute provi denti al
control and absol ute predesti nati on. They refuse to accept the words
of Paul i n Ephesi ans: Accordi ng as he bath chosen us i n hi m before
the foundati on of the worl d, that we shoul d be hol y and wi thout
bl ame before hi m i n l ove: Havi ng predesti nated us unto the adop-
ti on of chi l dren by Jesus Chri st to hi msel f, accordi ng to the good
pl easure of hi s wi l l (Eph. 1:4-5).
The bi bl i cal doctri ne of creati on l eads di rectl y and i nescapabl y to
the bi bl i cal doctri ne of the absol ute provi dence of God. God creates
and sustai ns al l thi ngs i n hi story. Speaki ng of Chri st, Paul wri tes:
For by hi m were al l thi ngs created, that are i n heaven, and that are
on earth, vi si bl e and i nvi si bl e, whether they be thrones, or domi n-
i ons, or pri nci pal i ti es, or powers: al l thi ngs were created by hi m,
and for hi m: And he i s before al l thi ngs, and by hi m al l thi ngs con-
si st (Col . 1:16-17). Nothi ng l i es outsi de the soverei gn provi dence of
God. There i s no area of conti ngency. There i s no area of neutral i ty.
There i s no area that i s outsi de the eternal decree of God or the l aw
of God. Thi s i s the bi bl i cal doctri ne of creati on. Humani sts hate i t,
and so do the vast majori ty of Chri sti ans today.
God as Creator bri ngs al l thi ngs to pass. When He says, I t shal l
come to pass, i t comes to pass. Decl ari ng the end from the begi n-
ni ng, and from anci ent ti mes the thi ngs that are not yet done, say-
i ng, My counsel shal l stand, and I wi l l do al l my pl easure (I sa.
46:10). God does not si mpl y know the future that He predi cts; He
causes the future to take pl ace. There i s no el ement of chance any-
where i n the uni verse.
Consi der the greatest cri me i n hi story: the betrayal and cruci fi x-
i on of Jesus Chri st. The act of betrayal by Judas was predetermi ned
by God; neverthel ess, Judas was sti l l hel d ful l y responsi bl e for thi s
act. And trul y the Son of man goeth, as i t was determi ned: but woe
unto that man by whom he i s betrayed! (Luke 22:22). And what of
those who unl awful l y, defi antl y condemned Jesus Chri st to death?
They were al l predesti ned by God to do i t.
The ki ngs of the earth stood up, and the rul ers were gathered together
agai nst the Lord, and agai nst hi s Chri st. For of a truth agai nst thy hol y
chi l d Jesus, whom thou hast anoi nted, both Herod, and Ponti us Pi l ate,
wi th the Genti l es, and the peopl e of I srael , were gathered together. For
to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determi ned before to be done
(Acts 4:26-28).
So, the Bi bl e teaches mans personal responsi bi l i ty and Gods ab-
sol ute predesti nati on. I f God was wi l l i ng to predesti nate the greatest
cri me i n hi story, hol di ng the cri mi nal s ful l y responsi bl e, then surel y
He i s wi l l i ng to bri ng to pass al l the other rel ati vel y mi nor cri mes i n
hi story, al so hol di ng each cri mi nal responsi bl e. Gods l aw touches
everythi ng, and each man i s ful l y responsi bl e for hi s thoughts and
acti ons; he must obey the whol e of Gods l aw.
God di d not create the worl d and then depart, l eavi ng i t to run
by i tsel f unti l the fi nal judgment (textbook Dei sms god). He i s pres-
ent everywhere, but speci al l y present wi th Hi s peopl e. He del i vers
them. But He al so gi ves Hi s l aw to them. He runs everythi ng, yet
men are made i n Hi s i mage, and they have the abi l i ty to understand
the external worl d. They are responsi bl e to God because God i s
total l y soverei gn. He has l ai d down the l aw, both moral and physi -
cal . Hi s Word governs al l thi ngs. No appeal to the l ogi c of autono-
mous man (free wi l l ) can change thi s.
2. Hierarchy/ Authori@/ Representation
Look unto me, and be ye saved, al l the ends of the earth: for I
am God, and there i s none el se. I have sworn by mysel f, the word i s
gone out of my mouth i n ri ghteousness, and shal l not return, That
unto me every knee shal l bow, every tongue shal l swear (I sa. 45:22-
23). I n these verses we fi nd four poi nts of the covenant: soverei gnty
(poi nt one), oath (poi nt four), ri ghteousness (poi nt three), and hi er-
archy. Every knee shal l bow. There i s hi erarchy i n thi s worl d.
But knees shal l al so bow to I srael , i f I srael remai ns fai thful to
God. Thus sai th the LORD, The l abour of Egypt, and merchandi se
of Ethi opi a and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shal l come over unto
thee, and they shal l be thi ne: they shal l come after thee; i n chai ns
they shal l come over, and they shal l fal l down unto thee, they shal l
make suppl i cati on unto thee, sayi ng, Surel y God i s i n thee; and there
i s none el se, there i s no God ~no other God: New Ki ng James Ver-
si on] (I sa. 45:14). I srael represents God i n hi story, and the nati ons
wi l l , @_ I srael remains couenantal~ faith~l, become I srael s bondsemants.
Thi s means that men who di sobey Gods l aw are requi red to do
what they are tol d by those offi cers who decl are Gods l aw as Hi s
l awful covenantal representati ves. These representati ves speak i n
Gods name through couenantal in~titutions. There i s i nescapabl e cor-
porate responsi bi l i ty i n hi story. Nati ons wi l l obey God and Hi s rep-
resentati ves, sai d I sai ah, even i f thei r ci ti zens must be brought to
judgment i n chai ns.
I n I srael , ci vi l l aw was enforced hi erarchi cal l y: a bottom-up ap-
peal s court system (Ex. 18). Thi s i s al so true of church courts (Matt.
18:15-18). Thus, offi cers speak representative@: Gods r epr esentati ves
before men, and mens representati ves before God. Thi s doctri ne of
representati on i s the basi s of manki nds corporate domi ni on over nature
(Gen. 1:26-28). Men are under God and Gods l aw corporatel y; they
are to exerci se domi ni on corporatel y by bri ngi ng the whol e earth
under Gods l aw. Thus, bi bl i cal l aw i s a tool of domi ni on.
Hi erarchi cal representati on i s al so the basi s of covenantal gov-
ernments corporate responsi bi l i ty before God: Church, State, and
fami l y. Col l ecti ve uni ts are gi ven l aws to enforce; God hol ds them
responsi bl e to Hi m through representati ves. Sodom and Gomorrah
were destroyed; Egypt and Babyl on were destroyed. I srael and
Judah were scattered. Cl assi cal Greece and Rome fel l . There i s both
personal and corporate responsi bi l i ty before God.
3. Ethics/ Law/ Dominion
Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and l et the ski es pour
down ri ghteousness: l et the earth open, and l et them bri ng forth sal -
vati on, and l et ri ghteousness spri ng up together; I the LORD have
created i t (I sa. 45:8). The whol e cosmos i s descri bed here as bei ng
fi l l ed wi th ri ghteousness. Ri ghteousness i s the basi s of mans domi n-
i on over the earth.
But ri ghteousness must be defi ned. Thi s i s what Gods l aw does.
I t establ i shes boundaries to our l awful acti ons. The tree of the knowl -
edge of good and evi l was hedged i n by Gods l aw. Adam and Eve
were not to eat from i t, or as Eve properl y i nterpreted, even touch i t
(Gen. 3:3).
These ethi cal boundari es are not excl usi vel y personal ; they are
al so corporate. There are bi bl i cal l aws gi ven by God that are to gov-
ern the acti ons of fami l i es, churches, and ci vi l governments. Auton-
omous man woul d l i ke to thi nk that Gods l aw has nothi ng to do wi th
hi s i nsti tuti ons, especi al l y ci vi l government, but autonomous man i s
i n rebel l i on. Gods l aw i s not restrai ned by autonomous mans
preferred boundari es. I t i s not man who l awful l y decl ares: Fear ye
not me? sai th the LORD: wi l l ye not trembl e at my presence, whi ch
have pl aced the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree,
that i t cannot pass i t: and though the waves thereof toss themsel ves,
yet can they not prevai l ; though they roar, yet can they not pass over
i t? But thi s peopl e bath a revol ti ng and a rebel l i ous heart; they are
revol ted and gone. Nei ther say they i n thei r heart, Let us now fear
the LORD our God, that gi veth rai n, both the former and the l atter,
i n hi s season: he reserveth unto us the appoi nted weeks of the har-
vest (Jer. 5:22-24).
Noti ce the devel opment of Gods argument, whi ch i s i n fact a cou-
enant lawsuit brought agai nst Judah by Hi s prophet, Jeremi ah. God
sets boundari es to the sea, the seasons, and the harvest. The i mpl i -
cati on i s that He al so sets legal and moral boundaries around peopl e,
both as i ndi vi dual s and nati onal l y. Men are to fear thi s God who sets
cosmi c boundari es. How i s thi s requi red fear to be acknowl edged?
The prophets answered thi s questi on over and over, generati on after
generati on: by obeying Gods law.
4, Oath/ J udgment/ Sanctions
1 have sworn by mysel f, the word i s gone out of my mouth i n
ri ghteousness, and shal l not return, That unto me every knee shal l
bow, every tongue shal l swear (I sa. 45: 23). Hi s Word i s suffi ci ent.
He wi l l not go back on Hi s Word. He has sworn by Hi s own name.
God has therefore taken a covenantal oath that i n the future, every
human knee shal l bow, and every human tongue shal l swear. There
i s no escape from Gods authori ty; and therefore al l mouths shal l
swear they shal l acknowl edge Hi s soverei gnty, ei ther on earth or i n
the afterl i fe. Even i n the l ake of fi re, they must eternal l y swear that
God i s who He says He i s.
Gods l aw i s our standard, both i ndi vi dual l y and corporatel y.
There are covenantal i nsti tuti ons that are bound by the reveal ed l aw
of God: Church, State, and fami l y. These are the three covenantal
i nsti tuti ons that God has establ i shed to decl are and enforce Hi s l aw.
Al l i nsti tuti ons must obey, but these are those that are excl usi vel y
governed by formal oaths before God.
What i s an oath? I t i s the cal l i ng down on ones head the negati ve
sancti ons of God. I f a person or covenanted i nsti tuti on di sobeys the
l aw of God, then God comes i n wrath to puni sh the rebel s. He comes
i n hi story. Thi s was the warni ng of the Ol d Testament prophets. On
the other hand, i f men repent and obey, God i s merci ful and wi l l
bl ess them. Wour i ni qui ti es have turned away these thi ngs: Jeremi ah
warned Judah regardi ng the rai n and the harvest, and your si ns have
wi thhol den good thi ngs from you (Jer. 5:25). The prophets came i n
the name of God as covenantal representati ves, cal l i ng i ndi vi dual s,
as wel l as representati ve ki ngs and pri ests, to repent, to turn back to
Gods l aw and thereby avoi d Gods negati ve sancti ons i n hi story.
The passage above al l others i n the Bi bl e that descri bes the hi s-
tori cal sancti ons of God i s Deuteronomy 28. Verses 1-14 descri be the
bl essi ngs (posi ti ve sancti ons), and verses 15-68 descri be the cursi ngs
(negati ve sancti ons). Understand, these are historical sancti ons. They
are not appropri ate sancti ons for the fi nal judgment. I n thi s sense,
they ar e representative sanctions of eterni tys sancti ons, what Paul cal l ed
the earnest or down payment of God i n hi story on what must i n-
evi tabl y come i n eterni ty (Eph. 1:14).
5. Succession/ Continui~/ I nheritance
I n the LORD shal l al l the seed of I srael be justi fi ed, and shal l
gl ory (I sa. 45: 25). Because God i s the Creator, Hi s peopl e wi l l i n-
heri t the earth: The earth i s the LORDS, and the ful ness thereofl the
worl d, and they that dwel l therei n (Ps. 24:1). (Thi s i s poi nt one of
the covenant.) Psal m 25:12-13 provi des the covenantal promi se:
What man i s he that feareth the LORD? Hi m shal l he teach i n the way
that he shal l choose (v. 12).
Hi s soul shal l dwel l at ease; and hi s seed shal l i nheri t the earth (v. 13).
God i s to be feared (poi nt one). God teaches man (subordi na-
ti on: poi nt two) the requi red way (poi nt three). The mans soul shal l
dwel l i n ease (poi nt four), and hi s hei rs shal l i nheri t (poi nt fi ve).
These two bri ef verses set forth Gods covenant model , and i n these
verses we can see the outl i ne of Gods pl an of hi story for covenant-
keepers. Thi s i s so si mpl e that a chi l d can grasp i t. Unfortunatel y, as
we shal l see, very few theol ogi ans have.
My poi nt i s that these verses refer to hi story. The fear of God i s
hi stori cal . Gods i nstructi on to man i s hi stori cal . The l aw appl i es i n
hi story. The man i s spi ri tual l y bl essed i n hi story: hi s soul i s at ease.
Hi s hei rs shal l i nheri t.
Some commentators mi ght agree regardi ng the hi stori cal refer-
ence of poi nts one through three, but object to my vi ew of poi nt four.
Perhaps the focus of the verse i s excl usi vel y i nternal . After al l , the
covenant-keepers soul i s what i s spoken of. Perhaps the bl essi ngs are
not vi si bl e i n hi story. My response i s to ask a questi on: Why shoul d
poi nt four spi ri tual ease be confi ned to onl y the i nner person? I f
the i nheri tance i s hi stori cal , then the spi ri ts ease must refer to con-
tentment regardi ng the past, present, and future. Onl y i f the i nheri t-
ance wi l l be post-hi stori cal coul d the ease of the soul be l egi ti matel y
confi ned to the i nternal real m. The covenant-keeper i s at ease i n hi s-
tory because he i s confi dent about the future success of those who
share hi s fai th. I t i s hi s seed that wi l l i nheri t.
I f the i nheri tance of the whol e earth i s merel y symbol i c of the i n-
heri tance of Gods resurrected peopl e, then why refer to the i nheri t-
ance del i vered to a mans seed? I n eterni ty, thi s i nheri tance wi l l be
hi s, too. I n short, the pri mary focus of the passage i s on hi sto~, not
eterni ty. Fear God now. Learn from God now. Obey Gods l aw now.
Experi ence spi ri tual contentment now. Why? Because your spi ri tual
hei rs wi l l i nheri t i n the jhre: i n ti me and on earth.
Yet there are theol ogi ans, especi al l y Cal vi ni sts i n the Conti nen-
tal (Dutch) tradi ti on and al l Lutherans, who i nsi st that thi s prom-
i sed i nheri tance i s stri ctl y l i mi ted to the post-fi nal judgment worl d of
eterni ty. The fi rst poi nt the fear of God i s hi stori cal , but personal
rather than corporate. The second bei ng taught by God i s hi stor-
i cal , but personal rather than corporate. The thi rd obeyi ng the l aw
of God appl i es i n hi story, but i s excl usi ve y personal , fami l i al , and
eccl esi asti cal never ci vi l . The fourth spi ri tual ease i s hi stori cal
but excl usi vel y i nternal . Why these restri cti ons on the fi rst four
poi nts? Because the fi fth i nheri ti ng the earth i s seen as excl u-
si vel y post-hi stori cal .
Summa~
The defi ni ti on of pro-nomi ani sm must begi n and end wi th the
bi bl i cal concept of the covenant. Al l fi ve poi nts of the bi bl i cal cove-
nant must be i ncl uded i n any val i d defi ni ti on of bi bl i cal l aw. We
shoul d not expect to be abl e to defi ne bi bl i cal l aw wi thout fi rst con-
si deri ng the Bi bl es pri mary revel ati on of Gods l aw: the structure of
the vari ous covenants God has made wi th men.
Thus, I defi ne pro-nomi ani sm i n terms of Gods covenant model :
The bel i ef that God, the soverei gn, predesti nati ng Creator, has del e-
gated to manki nd the responsi bi l i ty of obeyi ng Hi s Bi bl e-reveal ed l aw-or-
der, Ol d and New Testaments, and promi ses to bl ess or curse men i n hi s-
tory, both i ndi vi dual l y and corporatel y, i n terms of thi s l aw-order. Thi s l aw-
order and i ts hi stori cal l y appl i ed sancti ons are the basi s of the progressi ve
sancti fi cati on of covenant-keepi ng i ndi vi dual s and covenantal i nsti tuti ons
fami l y, Church, and State over ti me, and they are al so the basi s of the
progressi ve di si nheri tance of covenant-breakers.
Thi s l eads us to the questi on of the bi bl i cal defi ni ti on of anti -
nomi ani sm, the anti thesi s of thi s defi ni ti on.
Anti nomi ani sm Defi ned
We have seen that the bi bl i cal defi ni ti on of Gods l aw i s governed
by the structure of Gods covenant. Thus, the bi bl i cal defi ni ti on of
anti nomi ani sm must al so be governed by the structure of Gods cov-
enant. I f bei ng an anti nomi an means that you are agai nst the l aw,
then i t must al so mean that i t i s Go&s l aw that you are agai nst, and
Gods l aw i s al ways covenantal .
To understand what anti nomi ani sm i s, we can do no better than
to consi der the fi rst revel ati on i n the Bi bl e of the ori gi nal anti -
nomi an: Satan. Satan came to Eve wi th a proposi ti on: eat of the for-
bi dden frui t, and you wi l l become as God (Gen. 3:5). Run an ex-
peri ment, and see i f thi s i snt the case, he tempted Eve. See whose
word i s authori tati ve, mi ne or Gods . He offer ed her a covenantal
argument, a perverse i mi tati on of the bi bl i cal covenant:
1. God i s not soverei gn.
2. You need not obey Hi m.
3. Hi s l aw i s not authori tati ve.
4. The promi sed negati ve sancti on wi l l not come.
5. [i mpl i ed:] You wi l l keep the i nheri tance.
I choose to anal yze the bi bl i cal defi ni ti on of anti nomi ani sm i n
terms of Satans temptati on of Eve. Thi s l i ne of satani c reasoni ng i s
the heart of al l anti nomi ani sm.
1. Transcena%nce/ I mmanence
Who i s God? Satan was aski ng Eve to deci de. Who l ays down the
l aw? Whose word i s authori tati ve?
Obvi ousl y, the Creator i s God. Then who i s the true creator,
man or God? Thi s i s what Satan was aski ng manki nd, Gods chrono-
l ogi cal and judi ci al representative. I f man answered anythi ng but God
i s the Creator, and Hi s Word al one i s authori tati ve, then Satan
woul d i nheri t the earth. Man woul d di e unl ess, of course, God shoul d
l ater send Hi s Son, the second Adam, to i nheri t i t, but Satan chose
ei ther to i gnore thi s possi bi l i ty or to act agai nst what he knew woul d
happen i n the future.
The fi rst step i n becomi ng an anti nomi ani sm i s to deny the abso-
l ute soverei gnty of God. I t usual l y begi ns wi th a deni al , i mpl i ci t or
expl i ci t, that God created the worl d. Thi s usual l y begi ns wi th a soft-
eni ng of the doctri ne of the si x, l i teral , 24-hour-day creati on. Thi s i s
how the seeds of Darwi ni sm were sown: denyi ng the l i teral character
of Gods chronol ogy i n Genesi s 1.16
The next step i s to deny the obvi ous i mpl i cati on of the doctri ne of
creati on: si nce God created the worl d, He al so control s the worl d. I n
other words, men deny the absol ute soverei gn y of God and the
provi dence of God. They deny the doctri ne of predesti nati on. 17
Why i s a deni al of predesti nati on i nherentl y anti nomi an? Be-
cause i t means that events i n hi story come to pass outsi de of Gods
decree. They are therefore random events i n terms of Hi s decree,
what phi l osophers cal l conti ngent events. An el ement of conti ngency i s
thereby brought i nto the uni verse. I f A takes pl ace, B may not take
16. North, Dominion Covmant: Gemsis, Appendi x C: Cosmol ogi es i n Confl i ct:
Creati on vs. Evol uti on.
17. Lorai ne Boettner, The Rt$ormed Doctrine of Predestination (Phi l adel phi a: Presby-
teri an & Reformed, [1932] 1965).
pl ace. I t mayor may not. I t depends. On what? On somethi ng other
than what God has decreed.
Thi s means that there must be gaps in historical causation. These
gaps are i nherentl y conti ngent wi th respect to the decree of God. A
provi denti al cause i s separated from i ts eternal l y decreed effect. God
therefore does not bri ng al l thi ngs to pass; man bri ngs some thi ngs to
pass. The more el ement of conti ngency there i s i n hi story, the
greater mans autonomy from Gods provi denti al control of the uni -
verse. That modern sci ence has steadi l y adopted chance events as
the basi s of modern quantum physi cs i s not i tsel f a random hi stori cal
event. 18 Thi s concl usi on of quantum physi cs i s the product of a hu-
mani sti c worl dvi ew that deni es any decree of God and Hi s creati on
of the uni verse. That chaos has become the hot new topi c of mod-
ern physi cal sci ence i s al so not random. g The ethi cal rebel l i on of hu-
mani st man i s i ncreasi ng.
I f God does not con~r ol everythi ng that comes to pass, then His
Word is not authoritative over eue~thing that comes to pass. Thi s was the
l ogi c of Satans temptati on: to bel i eve that a speci fi c cause (eati ng the
forbi dden frui t) woul d not ineuitab~ l ead to a speci fi c event (death).
Somehow, Satan was argui ng, there i s conti ngency i n thi s worl d.
Thi s i s al so the argument of al l those who woul d use the concept of
conti ngency to defend the i dea of the free (semi -autonomous) wi l l of
man. Thi s i s why we are moral l y requi red to abandon any trace of
the free wi l l argument. Neverthel ess, most Chri sti ans today hol d to
some versi on of the free wi l l argument. Hence, most Christians today
are in principle antinomians.
2. Hierarchy/ Authonp/ Representation
Satan went to Eve fi rst. He was i mpl yi ng that she, not her hus-
band, was soverei gn. God had spoken to her husband regardi ng the
for bi dden fmi t. Presumabl y, he had tol d her, as Gods representa-
ti ve. Obey me, not your husband, Satan sai d. And by di sobeyi ng
her husband, she di sobeyed God. She i gnored the hi erarchy of au-
thori ty over her. She i gnored her representati ve before God: Adam.
She acted autonomousl y.
Who must man obey, God or hi s own autonomous mi nd? Thi s
was Satans i mpl i ci t questi on. He asked Eve to di sobey God, al l i n
18. Gar y North, I s the Wmld Runni ng Down? Crisis in the Christian Worldview (Tyl er,
19. James Gl ei k, Chaos: The Making of a New Sci ence (New York: Vi ki ng, 1987).
the name of a cosmi c experi ment. What woul d happen i f she di s-
obeyed? Good thi ngs, he promi sed.
Trust me, Satan sai d. %&e my word for i t. I n other words, I
l ay down the true l aw. Man thi nks that he i s di sobeyi ng God on hi s
own account, i n hi s own authori ty, but i n fact, man must serve onl y
one master. Ethi cal l y, he subordi nates hi msel f to Satan when he refuses
to obey God. He comes under the hi erarchi cal rul e of another mas-
ter. Man may thi nk he i s acti ng autonomousl y, but he i n fact i s si m-
pl y shi fti ng masters. God or Baal ? Thi s was El i jahs questi on (I Ki .
18:21). God or mammon? Thi s was Jesus questi on (Matt. 6:24).
But nei ther God nor Satan normal l y appears to an i ndi vi dual .
Each sends human representati ves. Men represent God i n posi ti ons of
corporate responsi bi l i ty. God has establ i shed three monopol i sti c i nsti -
tuti ons: Church, State, and fami l y. The head of each can serve God or
Satan, and those under hi m are sancti fi ed (set apart) i nsti tuti onal l y.
Sol di ers l i ve or di e i n terms of deci si ons made by thei r superi ors.
Nati ons ri se and fal l i n terms of the deci si ons of thei r nati onal l ead-
ers. An i ndi vi dual s success or fai l ure i n hi story cannot be di scussed
wi thout reference to the i nsti tuti onal hi erarchi es above and bel ow
hi m, and thei r success or fai l ure. Thus, to deny that Gods l aw ap-
pl i es to your covenantal superi or i s another way of sayi ng that i t
real l y does not appl y to you. I was just fol l owi ng orders! says the
subordi nate who has si nned. I n other words, I was under someone
el ses authori ty someone other than God.
Uri ah the Hi tti te was a ri ghteous man. He di ed because he was
so ri ghteous. Unri ghteous Ki ng Davi d tol d unri ghteous General
Joab to be sure that Uri ah di ed i n battl e, and Joab carri ed out the
order (11 Sam. 12). I n short, covenantal hierarchy i s i mportant.
Davi d l ater deci ded to number the peopl e. Thi s was agai nst Gods
l aw. Joab warned hi m about thi s, but Davi d i nsi sted, so Joab carri ed
out the order. Gods prophet then came to Davi d and announced one
of three judgments: seven years of fami ne, three months of Davi ds
fl eei ng before hi s enemi es, or a three-day pesti l ence. Take your pi ck,
the prophet sai d. Davi d was too proud to accept the mi l d but person-
al l y humi l i ati ng second sancti on, so he gave God the choi ce. God
sent the worst one, nati onal l y speaki ng: a pl ague that ki l l ed 70,000
peopl e (11 Sam. 24), (Anyone who teaches that God does not send
si ckness to Hi s peopl e has a real probl em i n expl ai ni ng thi s passage. )
I n short, covenantal representation i s i mportant.
There are theol ogi ans today who say that Gods l aw appl i es onl y
to i ndi vi dual s, that nati ons are not under Gods l aw. They deny the
very possi bi l i ty of a nati onal covenant i n New Testament ti mes.
Such a covenant was onl y for anci ent I srael . Nati onal l eaders are not
representati ves of thei r subordi nates before God, theol ogi ans i nsi st,
and nati onal l eaders are surel y not Gods representati ves before thei r
subordi nates. Gods l aw has nothi ng to do wi th pol i ti cs, they i nsi st.
There i s no hi erarchy of appeal based on Gods l aw. There is no na-
tional covenant: thi s i s a basi c phi l osophy of al l modern secul ar pol i ti -
cal theory, and few Chri sti an schol ars di sagree. And those few who
are wi l l i ng to affi rm the l egi ti macy of a nati onal covenant gag on the
i dea of a future i nternati onal covenant. I nternati onal covenants are
unthi nkabl e for them. Not so for I sai ah (19:18-25).20
3. Ethics/ Law/ Dominion
Forget about the l aw agai nst eati ng thi s frui t: Satan tol d Eve.
Go ahead and eat.
Do what thou wi l t shal l be the whol e of the l aw, announced the
sel f-procl ai med earl y twenti eth-century magi ci an, Al ei ster Crowl ey,
who al so cal l ed hi msel f the Beast and 666.21 The ethi cal posi ti ons are
the same. The resul ts are al so the same.
Were under grace, not l aw. Thi s i s the fundamental i st Chri s-
ti ans versi on of the same ethi cal posi ti on. So i s, No creed but
Chri st, no l aw but l ove! They do not mean what Paul meant: that
Chri sti ans are no l onger under the threat of the negati ve eternal sanc-
ti ons of the l aw. They mean rather that Gods l aw no l onger appl i es
i n any of the fi ve aspects of the covenant, eternal l y or hi stori cal l y.
Chr i sti an soci al thi nker s, especi al l y neo-evangel i cal s i n the
Wheaton Col l ege-I nterVarsi ty Press- Christiani~ Today orbi t, prefer
to muddy the ethi cal waters by usi ng fanci er l anguage than the fun-
damental i sts use. Exampl es:
The fact that our Scri ptures can be used to support or condemn any eco-
nomi c phi l osophy suggests that the Bi bl e i s not i ntended to l ay out an eco-
nomi c pl an whi ch wi l l appl y for al l ti mes and pl aces. I f we are to exami ne
20. Gary North, Heal er of the AJ ations: Biblical Blueprsntsfor I nternational Relations (Ft.
21. Al ei ster Crowl ey, Magick in TheoT and Practice (New York: Castl e, n.d.), p.
193. A short bi ography of Crowl ey i s Dani el P. Manni x, The Beast (New York:
Bal l anti ne, 1959).
economi c structures i n the l i ght of Chri sti an teachi ngs, we wi l l have to do i t
i n another way. 22
Si nce koi noni a i ncl udes the parti ci pati on of everyone i nvol ved, there i s no
bl uepri nt for what thi s woul d l ook l i ke on a gl obal scal e. . . . We are tal k-
i ng about a process, not fi nal answers. 23
There i s i n Scri pture no bl uepri nt of the i deal state or the i deal economy.
We cannot turn to chapters of the Bi bl e and fi nd i n them a model to copy or
a pl an for bui l di ng the i deal bi bl i cal state and nati onal economy.
24
Bl uepri nt i s the code word for bi bl i cal l aw for those who do not
want to obey bi bl i cal l aw. Second, Gods pri nci pl es i s the code
phrase for fundamental i sts who are nervous about appeari ng total l y
anti nomi an, but who are equal l y nervous about breaki ng openl y
wi th the teachi ngs and l anguage of di spensati onal i sm, i .e., were
under grace, not l aw. Fi nal l y, Gods moral l aw i s the code phrase
for the evangel i cal and Reformed man who does not want to be
branded an anti nomi an, but who al so does not want to be bound by
the case l aws of the Ol d Testament. I n al l these cases, the speaker re-
jects the i dea of the conti nui ng authori ty of the case l aws.
I t al l boi l s down to thi s: Satans rhetori cal questi on, Hath God
sai d? (Gen. 3:1). The proper response i s, Yes, God bath sai d! He
i s the soverei gn Creator. He has l ai d down the l aw.
4. Oath/ J udgment/ Sanctions
There are two ki nds of sancti ons: bl essi ngs and cursi ngs. God
tol d Adam that i n the very day he ate of the tree, he woul d surel y di e.
(Dyi ng, you shal l di e: the fami l i ar bi bl i cal pl eonasm. ) 25 Thi s
means a negati ve sancti on i n hi.stoy. Satan tol d Eve that she woul d
not surel y di e. I nstead, she woul d know good and evi l , as God does:
a posi ti ve sancti on. Whi ch woul d i t be? To di e or not to di e, that i s
the questi on.
Satan was a l i ar, but not so great a l i ar as to deny the i dea of pre-
di ctabl e sancti ons i n hi story. He si mpl y deni ed Gods negati ve sanc-
22. Wi l l i am Di ehl , The Gui ded-Market System, i n Robert G. Cl ouse (cd.),
Wealth and Poverp, op. cit., p. 87.
, 23. Ar t Gi sh, Decentral i st Economi cs, ibid., p. 154.
24. John Gl adwi n, Central i st Economi cs , ibid., p. 183.
25. Gar y North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodw (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute
for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1989), ch. 7: Vi cti ms Ri ghts vs. the Messi ani c State.
ti on and promi sed Eve a posi ti ve one. Woul d that modern Chri sti an
theol ogi ans were as honest as Satan! I nstead, they deny the very ex-
i stence of predi ctabl e covenantal sancti ons i n New Testament ti mes.
They wri te such thi ngs as: And meanwhi l e i t [the common grace or-
der] must run i ts course wi thi n the uncertai nti es of the mutual l y con-
di ti oni ng pri nci pl es of common grace and common curse, prosperi ty
and adversi ty bei ng experi enced i n a manner l argel y unpredi ctabl e
because of the i nscrutabl e soverei gnty of the di vi ne wi l l that di s-
penses them i n mysteri ous ways .26 Thi s muddl ed prose matches an
equal l y muddl ed concept of ethi cs and hi story. I n Engl i sh, thi s state-
ment means si mpl y that there is no ethical cause-and-efect relationshifi in
post-o-uc#ixion histoy.
Bi bl i cal case l aws are sti l l moral l y and judi ci al l y bi ndi ng today.
Thi s i s the thesi s of Tools of Dominion. Kl i nes theol ogy expl i ci tl y
deni es thi s. Second, Kl i nes argument al so means the deni al of Gods
sancti ons bl essi ng and cursi ng i n New Testament hi story. I t i s
the deni al of any l ong-term cause-and-effect rel ati onshi p between
covenantal fai thful ness and external bl essi ngs posi ti ve feedback
between covenant-keepi ng and uisible bl essi ngs. I t i s al so the deni al
of any l ong-term cause-and-effect rel ati onshi p between covenantal
unfai thful ness and external cursi ngs. Thus, when I refer to anti -
nomi ani sm, I have i n mi nd the hosti l e atti tude regardi ng ethi cal
cause and effect i n soci ety social anti nomi ani sm
27
but al so a
deeper and more fundamental hosti l i ty: a deni al , i mpl i ci t or ex-
pl i ci t, of the rel i abi l i ty of the covenantal promi ses (sancti ons) of God
i n hi story.
5. Succession/ Continuip/ ~nheritance
I f you di e, you do not i nheri t. I f you di e wi thout chi l dren, some-
one el se i nheri ts. Who woul d i nheri t i n hi story i f Eve l i stened to the
serpent and di d what he recommended?
I f Satan was successful , he woul d i nheri t i n hi story. Adam and
Eve woul d di e, as he wel l knew. He was a l i ar. He knew who i s sov-
erei gn, whose Word i s l aw, and who wi l l bri ng negati ve sancti ons i n
hi story: God. Satan knew that he mi ght i nheri t as a subordi nate
26. Meredi th G. Kl i ne, Comments on an Ol d-New Error: Westmi nster Theological
Journal , XLI (Fal l 1978), p. 184.
27. North, The Sinai Strategy, Appendi x C: Soci al Anti nomi ani sm.
steward i f Adam and Eve di sobeyed God, or at the very l east, thi s
woul d keep Adam and hi s hei rs from i nheri ti ng. He woul d thwart
Gods pl an. Thi s prospect was enough to pl ease Satan.
But Satans hopes were shattered by the second Adam, Jesus
Chri st, who bore the l aws negati ve sancti ons so that Gods adopted
chi l dren (John 1:12) mi ght i nheri t the earth and gai n eternal l i fe as
wel l . Rather than seei ng Satan i nheri t the earth through hi s earthl y
representati ves, God has created an i nheri tance system governi ng hi $-
toy: posi ti ve feedback for covenant-keepers and negati ve feedback
for covenant-breakers. Noti ce that the questi on of the i nheri tance
was cl earl y hi stori cal : Satan never had any possi bi l i ty y of i nheri ti ng
heaven.
Anti nomi ans deny the exi stence of thi s i nheri tance system i n hi s-
tory. Thi s anti nomi an vi ewpoi nt regardi ng the systemati c l ong-term
outworki ng of Gods vi si bl e covenantal judgments i n the Chri sti an
era l eads di rectl y to what F. N. Lee has termed pessimillennialism, re-
ferri ng to both premi l l enni al i sm and ami l l enni al i sm. Covenant-
keepi ng peopl e wi l l not progressi vel y i nheri t the earth before Chri st
comes agai n physi cal l y, we are tol d. I n contrast, Chri sti an Recon-
structi oni sts affi rm Gods vi si bl e sancti ons i n hi story. I f there i s pre-
di ctabl e l ong-term posi ti ve feedback (external bl essi ngs) i n hi story
for covenant-keepi ng, whi ch Deuteronomy 28:1-14 i nsi sts that there
i s, and i f there i s l ong-term negati ve feedback (external cursi ngs) i n
hi story for covenant-breaki ng, whi ch Deuteronomy 28:15-68 i nsi sts
that there i s, then those who obey God must i neoi tab~ extend thei r
external domi ni on over ti me, whi l e those who di sobey God must i n-
evi tab~ have external domi ni on removed from them.
Gods sancti ons i n hi stor y sti l l exi st. Thi s was John Cal vi ns
vi ew,zs but modern Cal vi ni sts have abandoned i t. Gods covenantal
l aw-order inevitab$ l eads to the external cultural triumph of Gods cove-
nantal l y fai thful peopl e. Thi s, of course, i s postmi l l enni al i sm. 29 Thi s
combi nati on of covenant sancti ons i n hi story and postmi l l enni al
28. John Cal vi n, The Covenant Enforced: Sermons on Deuteronomy 27 and 28, edi ted by
James B. Jordan (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1989).
29. Whi l e Cal vi n di d not see thi s as cl earl y as modern Reconstructi oni sts do,
ther e wer e sti l l el ements of postmi l l enni al i sm i n hi s theol ogy. On thi s poi nt, see
Gr eg L. Bahnsen, The Prima Facie Acceptance of Postmi l l enni al i sm? Journal of
Christian Reconstruction, I I I (Wi nter 1976-77), pp. 69-76. I argue that there were both
ami l l enni al and postmi l l enni al arguments i n C al vi ns wri ti ngs: The Economi c
Thought of Luther and Cal vi n, ibid., I I (Summer 1975), pp. 102-6.
eschatol ogy i s what di sti ngui shes the Chri sti an Reconstructi oni st
worl dvi ew from al l others today. 30
Those who deny postmi l l enni al i sm usual l y al so deny the New
Testament real i ty of Gods l aw-governed hi stori cal sancti ons. To thi s
extent, premi l l enni al i sts and ami l l enni al i sts have general l y been so-
ci al anti nomi ans. They have erred i n the devel opment of thei r vi ew
of Gods l aw and i ts sancti ons i n hi story. They have al l owed thei r
eschatol ogi es of hi stori cal defeat to shape thei r doctri ne of l aw, i .e.,
maki ng i t i mpotent i n i ts hi stori cal effects. Thi s tri umph of pessi mi s-
ti c eschatol ogi cal vi ews over bi bl i cal ethi cs i s one of the most devas-
tati ng theol ogi cal probl ems that the modern Church faces.
Thus, anti nomi ani sm i s defi ned as that vi ew of l i fe whi ch rejects
one or more of the fi ve poi nts of the bi bl i cal covenant as they appl y
to Gods reveal ed l aw i n hi story. They deny that God, the soverei gn,
predesti nati ng Creator, has del egated to manki nd the responsi bi l i ty
of obeyi ng Hi s Bi bl e-reveal ed l aw-order, Ol d and New Testaments,
and promi ses to bl ess or curse men i n hi story, both i ndi vi dual l y and
corporatel y, i n terms of thi s l aw-order. Thi s l aw-order and i ts hi stori -
cal l y appl i ed sancti ons are the basi s of the progressi ve sancti fi cati on
of covenant-keepi ng i ndi vi dual s and covenantal i nsti tuti ons fam-
i l y, Church, and State over ti me, and they are al so the basi s of the
Defi ni ti ons and Paradi gms
Some readers may not accept my defi ni ti on of antinomian, but
every reader shoul d at l east understand how and why I am usi ng the
term. The bi bl i cal defi ni ti on of Gods l aw must i ncl ude al l fi ve of the
poi nts of the bi bl i cal covenant model . Deny any one of these fi ve
doctri nes, and you have thereby adopted an anti nomi an theol ogy.
Deny them, and you necessari l y must al so deny the conti nui ng au-
thori ty of Deuteronomy 28 i n the New Testament era. Yet an i m-
pl i ci t and even expl i ci t deni al of these doctri nes (and the rel evance of
Deuteronomy 28) has been a basi c tacti c of the vast majori ty of
Chri sti an theol ogi ans for over a mi l l enni um. 31 Thus, they have at-
tempted to defi ne away the case l aws and hi stori cal sancti ons. What
I am sayi ng i s that i t i s theol ogi cal l y i nval i d to attempt to defi ne
30. Postmi l l enni al Pur i tans gener al l y shar ed thi s vi ew, whi ch i s why Reconstruc-
ti oni sts regard themsel ves as neo-Puri tans.
31. The major excepti ons were the Puri tans: J ournal of Christian Reconstruction, V
(Wi nter 1978-79): Symposi um on Puri tani sm and Law.
away the conti nui ng authori ty of Deuteronomy 28. I therefore see
the i nescapabl e theol ogi cal necessi ty of restori ng the bi bl i cal defi ni -
ti on of bi bl i cal l aw and therefore anti -l aw.
I ful l y real i ze that my defi ni ti on of antinomian i s not the accepted
usage. Thi s common usage exi sts pri mari l y because theol ogi cal anti -
nomi ans who have rejected one or more of the covenant model s fi ve
poi nts have previ ousl y defi ned the word so that i t conforms to thei r
pessi mi sti c hi stori cal outl ook: the l ong-term cul tural i mpotence of
Gods redeemed peopl e i n hi story. They argue that anti nomi ani sm i s
merel y the deni al of ones Personal responsi bi l i ty to obey Gods moral
l aw (undefi ned). 32 Thi s del i beratel y restri cted defi ni ti on i mpl i ci tl y
surrenders hi story to the devi l . What I am sayi ng i s thi s: anyone who
deni es that there are cause-and-effect rel ati onshi ps in histoy between
the appl i cati on of bi bl i cal case l aws and the success or fai l ure of so-
ci al i nsti tuti ons has al so i nevi tabl y and i n Pri nci pl e adopted the i dea
that the devi l control s and wi l l conti nue to control thi s worl d. Why?
Because the devi l s representatives are sai d to be abl e to mai ntai n con-
trol over the soci al i nsti tuti ons of thi s worl d throughout hi story
(poi nt two of the covenant: representati on). I t does no good for a
person to answer that he i s not an anti nomi an just because he
respects Gods l aw i n hi s personal l i fe, fami l y l i fe, and church l i fe.
He i s sti l l sayi ng that Gods l aw i s hi stori cal l y i mpotent i n soci al
affai rs, that covenant-keepi ng or covenant-breaki ng offers rewards
or curses onl y to i ndi vi dual s and onl y after the fi nal judgment.
Yes, I am offeri ng a more comprehensi ve defi ni ti on of anti -
nomi an.~ My major goal i n l i fe i s to l ay addi ti onal foundati ons for a
theol ogi cal paradi ~ shi ft that has al ready begun. I am qui te sel f-
consci ous about thi s task. Readers deserve to know thi s. One i nesca-
pabl e aspect of a new movement or new way of vi ewi ng the worl d i s
the creati on of new terms (e.g., theonomy), and the redefi ni ng of
ol d terms. Ei nstei n, for exampl e, redefi ned several of the terms used
by Newton. 33 Cl earl y, thi s i s what the Barthi ans di d wi th the
32. I t refers to the doctri ne that the moral l aw i s not bi ndi ng upon Chri sti ans as
a way of l i fe. Al exander M. Renwi ck, Anti nomi ani sm, i n Bakers Dictioruuy of
Theology, edi ted by Everett F. Harri son, Geoffrey W. Bromi l ey, and Carl F. H.
Henry (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Baker, 1960), p. 48.
33. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scie+c Revolutions (2nd ed.; Uni versi ty of
Chi cago Press, 1970), pp. 101-2,149. Kuhn wri tes: Si nce new paradi gms are born of
ol d ones, they ordi nari l y i ncorporate much of the vocabul ary and apparatus, both
conceptual and mani pul ati ve, that the tradi ti onal paradi gm had previ ousl y em-
pl oyed. But they sel dom empl oy these borrowed el ements i n qui te the tradi ti onal
way. I bid., p. 149.
vocabul ary of Tri ni tari an orthodoxy, or as Van Ti l remarked, they
di d i t under cover of an orthodox-soundi ng theol ogy.s4 (Rush-
doony has correctl y i denti fi ed Barth as an i mpl i ci t pol ythei st .)s5 I t i s
not wrong to redefi ne terms; i t is wrong to defi ne words or use them
i n any way other than the Bi bl e defi nes and uses them.
Those who pi oneer a new worl dvi ew must break the near -
monopol y strangl ehol d over useful terms that exi sti ng i ntel l ectual
gui l ds have gai ned for themsel ves. An objecti on to my defi ni ti on of
the word anti nomi an si mpl y because i t does not conform preci sel y
to past usage i s al so to a l arge extent al so an objecti on to the al terna-
ti ve worl dvi ew that I am proposi ng. 36 Thi s i mpl i ci t theol ogi cal
hosti l i ty i s masked by an expl i ci t appeal to supposedl y neutral gram-
mar. But Van Ti l has taught us wel l : nothi ng i s neutral. Every bi t of
supposedl y i mpersonal and neutral i nvesti gati on, even i n the-fi el d of
sci ence, i s the product of an atti tude of spi ri tual hosti l i ty to the
Chri st through whom al one there i s truth i n any di mensi on.sT Thi s
surel y i ncl udes l anguage. As I wrote i n 1973, Neutral i ty does not
exi st. Everythi ng must be i nterpreted i n terms of what God has re-
veal ed. The humani sti c goal of neutral l anguage (and therefore neu-
tral l aw) was overturned at the Tower of Babel . Our dejnitions must
be i n terms of biblical revelation.3
s
I am doi ng my best to hel p establ i sh effecti ve theol ogi cal termi -
nol ogy for future use by those who have adopted a theonomi c worl d-
vi ew. We Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sts need not be l i mi ted i n our
cri ti cal anal ysi s by the i nheri ted vocabul ary of our theol ogi cal op-
ponents. Besi des, the wi nners i n hi story get to wri te the di cti onari es
as wel l as the textbooks. More to the poi nt, di cti onari es al ways re-
34. Van Ti l , The New Modernism (Phi l adel phi a, Pennsyl vani a: Presbyteri an &
Reformed, 1947), p. 27. He l ater wrote: I t i s at thi s poi nt that the questi on of tradi -
ti onal phr aseol ogy has its si gni fi cance. The si mpl e bel i ever i s al l too often gi ven
new wi ne i n ol d bottl es. I t i s our sol emn duty to poi nt out thi s fact to hi m. The mat-
ter i s of basi c i mportance and of the utmost urgency. Van Ti l , C/znMa@ and
Barthianism (Phi l adel phi a, Pennsyl vani a: Presbyteri an & Reformed, 1962), p. 2.
35. Rushdoony, I nstitutes of Biblical Law, p. 20.
36. By a new worl dvi ew, I mean a new packagi ng of theol ogi cal doctri nes that
have al ways been accepted by representati ve segments of the orthodox Church. But
by adopti ng the fi ve-poi nt bi bl i cal covenant model to present these doctri nes, I have
been forced to reject exi sti ng theol ogi cal systems whi ch unsystemati cal l y and unsel f-
consci ousl y reject thi s model by substi tuti ng other i nterpretati ons of one or more of
the fi ve poi nts.
37. Van Ti l , The Care for Cal vi ni sm (Nudey, New Jersey: Crai g Press, 1964), p.
145.
38. North, I n Defense of Bi bl i cal Bri bery: i n Rushdoony, Zrzditute~, p. 843.
fl eet common usage after the paradi gm shi ft. We are prepari ng for
thi s shi ft wel l i n advance.
Theonomy as Utopi an
Cal vi ni st Ken Myers, a defender of Chri sti an pol i ti cal pl ural i sm,
has taken a forthri ght stand agai nst utopi ani sm, as i n utopi an blue-
prints for sociep. He stands for esquar e for r eal i sm. (Or i s i t
Realpolitik ?) He adopts a l i ne of reasoni ng used by anti nomi ans
everywhere. He contrasts the i dea of perfect standards wi th the r eal -
i t y of thi s si n-fi l l ed worl d, He does not do thi s i n order to spur men
on to greater perfecti on. He does not cal l on them to i nvoke thi s vi -
si on of a perfect bl uepri nt as a means of reconstructi ng soci ety. On
the contrary, he says that the very perfecti on of the bl uepri nt may
condemn i t as a tool of domi ni on i n hi story. I t i s never enough for us
to concoct noti ons of perfect government .
39
But what i f God Hi msel f has concocted such noti ons?
I t i s God that gi rdeth me wi th strength, and maketh my way perfect (Ps.
18:32).
The l aw of the LORD i s perfect, converti ng the soul : the testi mony of the
LORD i s sure, maki ng wi se the si mpl e (Ps. 19:7).
Mark the perfect man, and behol d the upri ght: for the end of that man
i s peace (Ps. 37:37).
I wi l l behave mysel f wi sel y i n a perfect way. O when wi l t thou come un-
to me? I wi l l wal k wi thi n my house wi th a perfect heart (Ps. 101:2).
Mi ne eyes shal l be upon the fai thful of the l and, that they may dwel l
wi th me: he that wal keth i n a perfect way, he shal l serve me (Ps. 101:6).
But whoso l ooketh i nto the perfect l aw of l i berty, and conti nueth
therei n, he bei ng not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, thi s man
shal l be bl essed i n hi s deed (James 1:25).
Thi s l i ne of reasoni ng does not i mpress Mr. Myers greatl y. What
he seems to have i n mi nd i s a speci fi c ki nd of utopi ani sm: Chri sti an
Reconstructi on. Perhaps not. He maybe thi nki ng of somethi ng that
just sounds a l ot l i ke Chri sti an Reconstructi on. But note careful l y
39. Myers, Bi bl i csl Obedi ence and Pol i ti cal Thought, Bible, Politics and
Democraq, p. 28.
14%at I s Covenant Law? 55
the thrust of hi s argument: that wi thout assurance that the program
of Chri sti an Reconstructi on (or whatever) i s possi bl e i n the future, i t
can become sel f-defeati ng to attempt a si gni fi cant break wi th the
status quo. I f you thi nk I regard the fol l owi ng paragraph as a practi cal
reason for l i nki ng theonomy wi th postmi l l enni al i sm, you are correct:
The other vari ety of utopi ani sm we must avoi d mi ght be cal l ed the l ure
of the thi rd way. By thi s I mean to chal l enge not the moti ves but the con-
cl usi ons of al l those who set out determi ned not to embrace any exi sti ng sol -
uti on but to i nvent an enti rel y di sti nct bi bl i cal opti on. Such an exerci se
may be useful for academi c purposes, and i t i s possi bl e that i t may some-
ti mes be frui tful to devel op a vanguard wi th an enti rel y new vi si on. Fur-
ther, i t may be the case that al l exi sti ng parti es or programs are so tai nted
wi th evi l that they must be rejected. But someti mes we must take si des wi th
the l esser of two evi l s, especi al l y i f we have reason to bel i eve that our
tenaci ousl y hol di ng out for the tertiwn quid wi l l ensur e that the gr eater of two
evi l s wi l l carry the day and do much greater damage. Pol i ti cal real i sm re-
qui res the recogni ti on that human si n may rul e out any hope that our i deal
program can ever be enacted or may ensure that i f i t i s enacted, i t wi l l have
no chance of achi evi ng the desi red ends. I f the best i s i mpossi bl e to achi eve,
we shoul d know how we can promote the better. w
I n short, theonomy i s utopi an unl ess postmi l l enni al i sm i s true.
Thi s observati on l eads me to Mr. Barri ngtons l ament.
Bar r i ngtons Lament
H. B. Barri ngton, a supporter of a Consti tuti onal amendment to
name Jesus Chri st as the soverei gn Lord of the Uni ted States, has
protested agai nst the Tyl er Reconstructi oni st fusi on of theonomy
and postmi l l enni al i sm. He cal l s i t frustrati ng and a constant i rri -
tant . What he means i s that i t i s frustrati ng and i rri tati ng to those,
l i ke hi msel f, who have a sl i ghtl y di fferent agenda for Church reform
and nati onal reform, and who have a more tradi ti onal consti tuency.
The questi on i s: Why shoul d someone who does not share our theo-
l ogi cal agenda compl ai n i f our eschatol ogy i nterferes wi th hi s agenda,
especi al l y si nce he i s usi ng our materi al s and arguments to promote
hi s agenda? Why not just rest content wi th the fact that each si de can
pursue i ts separate though cl osel y rel ated agendas, cooperati ng on
an ad hoc basi s whenever possi bl e? Chri sti ans al ready do thi s i n the
battl e agai nst aborti on. Why not al so i n the battl e to i mpose a na-
40. I dem,
ti onal covenant, whi ch I favor as much as Mr. Barri ngton does? But
he i s not content. He i nsi sts, regardi ng postmi l l enni al i sm, that Thi s
doctri ne i s unnecessary for theonomi c thi nki ng, and yet i t i s
tenaci ousl y hel d by the theonomi sts whom I know as though thei r
posi ti on woul d col l apse i f they di d not strongl y espouse thi s eschato-
l ogi cal posi ti on.41
For some very l ogi cal theonomi sts, thi s l i nk i s not l ogi cal l y neces-
sary and therefore not theol ogi cal l y necessary; Greg Bahnsen i s one
exampl e. He, too, fi nds that any asserti on of an i nescapabl e cove-
nantal l i nk between bi bl i cal l aw and postmi l l enni al eschatol ogy an
i rri tant. 42 But for those of us who have adopted the fi ve-poi nt cove-
nant model presented by Sutton whi ch Dr. Bahnsen goes out of hi s
way to repudi ates the l i nk i s fundamental , for we procl ai m the
conti nui ng val i di ty of the Deuteronomi c sancti ons i n New Covenant
hi story. Those who are fai thful wi l l be bl essed; eventual l y (i .e., i n-
evi tabl y) they gai n i nsti tuti onal power, even i f thi s takes many gen-
erati ons. Those who are rebel l i ous wi l l eventual l y l ose power. Bl ess-
i ng and cursi ng i n hi story: thi s two-fol d aspect of poi nt four of the
covenant forces us to become postmi l l enni al i sts.
Why shoul d men bel i eve that there can be eschatol ogi cal neutral -
i ty? There i~ no neutrality. I keep wri ti ng thi s i tal i ci zed sentence
throughout thi s book. Some peopl e wi l l get ti red of i t, but i t needs
constant repeti ti on. Chri sti ans keep sayi ng that they agree wi th thi s
pri nci pl e, yet when they get to one or another i ssue, they abandon i t.
Whenever they do, Chri sti ani ty l oses ground. For us Tyl er Recon-
structi oni sts to adopt eschatol ogi cal neutral i ty woul d be the equi va-
l ent of our adopti ng neutral i ty on the questi on of predesti nati on vs.
free wi l l , or Gods l aw vs. natural l aw. We are selling a covenantal
package deal. I t comes as a uni t; you can toss out any part that you do
not l i ke, but you must pay for the whol e package.
41. H. B. Barri ngton, The Nati onal Confessi onal Response to Theonomy, i n
God and Politics, p. 70.
42. Bahnsen, The Theonomi c Major Response, ibid,, p. 247.
43. He refers to i t as the arti fi ci al i mposi ti on of an i magi ned bl anket outl i ne
(wi th i mpreci se, pre-establ i shed categori es). I bid., p. 247n. I suspect that Dr. Bahn-
sen i s reacti ng agai nst thi s fi ve-poi nt outl i ne because an earl y versi on of i t was fi rst
promoted i n Cal vi ni st ci rcl es by Dr. Meredi th Kl i ne, whose approach to hermeneu-
ti cs, not to menti on bi bl i caJ l aw, i s not on Dr. Bahnsens l i st of recommended
strategi es. Hi s i nsti ncti ve reacti on i s that i f Kl i ne promotes i t, i t, has to be wrong.
(Wi th r espect to Kl i nes handl i ng of questi ons of bi bl i cal l aw, I have the same i n-
cl i nati on, but I do make occasi onal excepti ons.)
G
The probl em whi ch Mr. Barri ngton faces i s the same probl em
faci ng many other Chri sti ans who are begi nni ng to agree wi th what
we Reconstructi oni sts are sayi ng wi th respect to bi bl i cal l aw i n soci -
ety, but who do not l i ke thi s or that aspect of theonomy. There are
al so those who l ove what we are sayi ng about eschatol ogy, but who
are very upset about al l thi s l egal i sti c busi ness about Ol d Testament
l aw. Peopl e want to onl y buy part of our theol ogi cal package, and
they are offended or at l east greatl y di sturbed by one or another fea-
ture that they regard as excess baggage. Each group pl eads: Drop
the part whi ch offends us, and al l wi l l be wel l wi th the program.
They mean, Al l wi l l be wel l wi th our program. Mr. Barri ngton l i t-
eral l y says that thi s i s the tacti cal probl em he faces i n recrui ti ng to
theonomy peopl e who remai n commi tted to other eschatol ogi cal
vi ews (ami l l enni al i sm, I am wi l l i ng to bet).
44
But what i f I dr opped
predesti nati on to sati sfy the chari smati c buyers? Mr. Barri ngton
woul d regard thi s as a di sastrous sel l -out, as i ndeed i t woul d be. I f I
refuse to capi tul ate to the theol ogi cal suggesti ons of Armi ni ans,
whose number i s l egi on, I am al so unl i kel y to capi tul ate for the sake
of al l those ami l l enni al i st Cal vi ni sts who are presentl y commi tted to
amendi ng the Consti tuti on to i ncl ude a Chri sti an statement of fai th,
whose number i s consi derabl y l ess than l egi on.
So, i n order to al i enate everyone equal l y, I now respond: No,
gentl emen, i t i s your responsi bi l i ty before God to teach what the
Bi bl e teaches, and the Bi bl e teaches covenantal postmi l l enni al i sm. I t
i s not our responsi bi l i ty to change our confessi on i n order to meet the
si l ent standards of i nsti tuti onal l y conveni ent neutral i t y; i t i s your re-
sponsi bi l i ty to change your vari ous confessi ons .
You know al l about Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sts: a hi ghl y confi -
dent bunch. Bei ng postmi l l enni al i sts, we expect everyone el se to
adopt our vi ew; even more than thi s, we predi ct that as ti me passes,
just about al l Chri sti ans wi l l ! 45 We bel i eve i n conti nui ty. We bel i eve
44. I bid., p. 71.
45. The hi stori c Chri sti an creeds ei ther do not di scuss eschatol ogy, or el se estab-
l i sh eschatol ogi cal tol er ance wi thi n the Chur ch. The hi stor i c creeds are wrong on
thi s poi nt. They have not been based on the bi bl i cal doctri ne of the covenant. They
do not take seri ousl y the covenant sancti ons i n hi story. Whi l e we fi ve-poi nt covenan-
tal i sts can mai ntai n peaceful rel ati ons wi th those fel l ow churchmen who do not share
our eschatol ogy, we are confi dent that over ti me, bi bl i cal preachi ng wi l l change
mens mi nds on eschatol ogy. I f nothi ng el se, when Chr i sti ani ty i s tr i umphant over
al l the earth, Chri sti ans wi l l then hasten to rewri te the creeds to refl ect thi s fact. My
vi ew i s si mpl e: creeds can be changed as surel y as consti tuti ons can be. We need na-
ti onal covenants; we al so need an i nternati onal covenant. North, Heal er of tlu Naiwns.
We need revi sed creeds, too. Over ti me, creeds shoul d be made more preci se. They
are not outsi de of hi story,
,
that those who hol d our theol ogy wi l l i nheri t the earth. The cl oser
they are to us, the l arger thei r share wi l l be. So we tel l everyone:
YI hke whatever you want of our package, and put i t to God-honori ng
uses. But the pri ce of dri nki ng at our wel l i s l i steni ng fi rst to a fi ve-
poi nt sermon. Li ke the benefi ci ari es of the l ocal rescue mi ssi on, you
need to si t through the sermon before you get your free meal . So si t
down and be qui et for a few mi nutes, whi l e I get you a ni ce, cool
dri nk. Or el se go di g your own wel l .
A nati onal oath i s not enough. Gods covenant i s a package deal .
I t i s not suffi ci ent to restructure onl y one part of the U.S. Consti tu-
ti on and l eave the rest of i t i n i ts present form. I t i s not enough to
make Jesus Chri st i ts Lord wi thout maki ng the Bi bl e the fi nal stan-
dard of al l court appeal s. God i s not i mpressed wi th a formal com-
mi tment to Hi m wi thout publ i c obedi ence to Hi s reveal ed ci vi l l aw
and the enforcement of Hi s requi red ci vi l sancti ons.
Thi s book i s a l engthy refutati on of those covenant theol ogi ans
and schol ars who have fai l ed to preach al l fi ve poi nts. Thi s hal fway
house covenant theol ogy i s guaranteed to fai l . I t i s al so not enough
to preach obedi ence wi thout al so preachi ng vi ctory. The sancti ons of
God i nheri tance and di si nheri tance are part of Hi s covenant.
Thi s i s what Jeremi ah ful l y understood and what the modern
Church has not understood. Thi s i s what Jerusal em al so forgot.
Lamenti ng over the destructi on of Jerusal em, Jeremi ah sai d: Her
uncl eanness i s i n her ski rts; She di d not consi der her desti ny; there-
fore her col l apse was awesome; she had no comforter (Lam. l :9b;
New Ki ng James). (The Ameri can Standard Versi on reads: she di d
not consi der her future .) I n short, Jerusal em forgot about Gods
covenant sancti ons. She forgot about biblical eschatology. So do most
theol ogi ans and churches today. They thi nk they are defendi ng bi bl i -
cal esehatol ogy; they are not. Thi s wi l l change over ti me; a mark of
eschatol ogi cal and ethi cal progress over ti me wi l l be thi s shi ft i n
eschatol ogy toward an acceptance of Gods covenant sancti ons i n
hi story. Those who are fai thful to Gods external l aws wi l l prosper
external l y i n the l ong run; those who are di sobedi ent wi l l not. The
extensi on of ci vi c ri ghteousness over ti me i s i nevi tabl e. Unti l that
fi nal day of rebel l i on, even unbel i evers wi l l be suffi ci entl y pragmati c
to obey Gods ci vi l l aws. 46
46. Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace: The Biblical Basis of Pro~ess (Tyl er,
What I X Covenant Law? 59
The Uni ted States i s sti l l under the dual sancti ons of God, just as
Jerusal em was. Thi s i s an appl i cati on of part four of the fi ve-poi nt
covenant model whi ch Tyl er Reconstructi oni sm preaches. 47 The
l aw of God and the cul tural vi ctory of Gods peopl e i n hi story are
l i nked. I f Cal vi ni sti c ami l l enni al i sts refuse to go al ong wi th Gods
fi ve-poi nt covenant model , we i n Tyl er are not responsi bl e. We
preach the whol e covenant, not just one or two parts of i t.
I t i s as mi staken to preach the covenantal obedi ence of Gods
peopl e wi thout any eschatol ogi cal necessi ty of thei r cul tural vi ctory
i n hi story (Bahnsen) as i t i s to preach the i nevi tabi l i ty of cul tural de-
feat of Gods peopl e i n hi story despi te thei r covenantal fai thful ness
(ami l l enni al i sm). These two posi ti ons are l i nked by thei r rejecti on of
the doctri ne of Gods dual sancti ons i n hi story. That Dr. Bahnsen
and Mr. Barri ngton commi serate together regardi ng the i rri tant of
Tyl ers l i nki ng together of ethi cs and eschatol ogy through the doc-
tri ne of Gods dual sancti ons shoul d therefore not be surpri si ng to
anyone. The concept of the i nevi tabi l i ty y of Gods dual sancti ons i n
cul tural hi story was rejected by Van Ti l , too, and al so by Meredi th
Kl i ne, as wel l as by di spensati onal i sm, Dutch Cal vi ni sm, Lutheran-
i sm, and the whol e of modern evangel i cal i sm. The fact that very few
theol ogi ans today are wi l l i ng to break wi th what has been the deepl y
rooted bel i ef of the mai nstream of Protestant Chri sti ani ty for over
three centuri es i s to be taken for granted. Paradi gm shi fts al ways
start outsi de the mai nstream.
Concl usi on
I have offered a comprehensi ve vi ew of what the pro-nomi an posi -
ti on teaches that bi bl i cal l aw i s. We see bi bl i cal l aw as an i ntegrated,
unbreakabl e whol e, an expl i ci tl y covenantal system of bi bl i cal l y reveal ed
l aw. Anti nomi ani sm i s a deni al of thi s i ntegrated system, yet i n
47. For reasons of one sort or other, a few of the pi oneeri ng Reconstructi oni st
authors refuse to go al ong wi th the fi ve-poi nt covenant model , but the power of a
thoroughl y bi bl i cal model wi l l eventual l y overcome opposi ti on from younger schol -
ars who do not have personal or i ntel l ectual stakes i n the si x l oci of Protestant scho-
l asti ci sm. Covenant theol ogy has faced a shri nki ng market for over three centuri es,
i n part because of i ts commi tment to a structure i mposed on i t by the l ogi cal catego-
r i es of Pr otestant schol asti ci sm. Thi s shr i nki ng pr ocess i s unl i kel y to be r ever sed
soon i f covenant theol ogi ans per si st i n str uctur i ng thei r theol ogi cal di scussi ons i n
terms of these earl i er l oci whi ch, whi l e not i ndi vi dual l y unbi bl i cal , are not deri ved as
a uni t from any bi bl i cal text, unl i ke the fi ve-poi nt covenant model , whi ch i s found
throughout the Bi bl e.
many cases, i t offers as an al ternati ve a perverse mi rror i mage of thi s
system. Satan had to use the bi bl i cal covenant model i n order to
refute i t. He thereby honored the ol d pol i ti cal pri nci pl e: You cant
beat somethi ng wi th nothi ng.
The ol der defi ni ti ons of anti nomi an were devi sed by those who,
i f my versi on of Gods l aw i s correct, were themsel ves anti nomi ans.
They di d not adhere to al l fi ve poi nts of the bi bl i cal covenant model .
They may or may not have deni ed al l fi ve poi nts, but they refused to
affi rm al l fi ve poi nts, and then deri ved thei r defi ni ti on of l aw and
anti -l aw i n terms of al l fi ve poi nts.
So, for the sake of cl ari ty, l et me repeat my compact defi ni ti on of
pro-nomi ani sm:
The bel i ef that God, the soverei gn, predesti nati ng Creator, has del e-
gated to manki nd the responsi bi l i ty of obeyi ng Hi s Bi bl e-reveal ed l aw-order,
Ol d and New Testaments, and promi ses to bl ess or curse men i n hi story,
both i ndi vi dual l y and corporatel y, i n terms of thi s l aw-order. Thi s l aw-
order and i ts hi stori cal l y appl i ed sancti ons are the basi s of the progressi ve
sancti fi cati on of covenant-keepi ng i ndi vi dual s and covenantal i nsti tuti ons
fami l y, Church, and State over ti me, and they are al so the basi s of the
Deny thi s, and you are an anti nomi an. Thi s i s the fundamental
probl em wi th the apol ogeti c system devel oped by Cornel i us Van Ti l
(1895-1987), as we shal l see i n Chapter 3.
No one coul d become a ci ti zen at Athens i f he was a ci ti zen i n
another ci ty; for i t was a rel i gi ous i mpossi bi l i ty to be at the same
ti me a member of two ci ti es, as i t al so was to be a member of two
fami l i es. One coul d not have two rel i gi ons at the same ti me.
The parti ci pati on i n the worshi p carri ed wi th i t the possessi on of
ri ghts. As the ci ti zen mi ght assi st i n the sacri fi ce whi ch preceded the
assembl y, he coul d al so vote at the assembl y. As he coul d perform
the sacri fi ces i n the name of the ci ty, he mi ght be a prytane and an
archon. Havi ng the rel i gi on of the ci ty, he mi ght cl ai m ri ghts under
i ts l aws, and perform al l the ceremoni es of l egal procedure.
The stranger, on the contrary, havi ng no part i n the rel i gi on, had
none i n the l aw. I f he entered the sacred encl osure whi ch the pri ests
had traced for the assembl y, he was puni shed wi th death. The l aws
of the ci ty di d not exi st for hi m. I f he had commi tted a cri me, he was
treated as a sl ave, and puni shed wi thout process of l aw, the ci ty
owi ng hi m no l egal protecti on. When men arri ved at that stage that
they fel t the need of havi ng l aws for the stranger, i t was necessary to
establ i sh an excepti onal tri bunal . . . .
Nei ther at Rome nor at Athens coul d a forei gner be a propri etor.
He coul d not marry; or, i f he marri ed, hi s marri age was not recog-
ni zed, and hi s chi l dren were reputed i l l egi ti mate. He coul d not make
a contract wi th a ci ti zen; at any rate, the l aw di d not recogni ze such
a contract as val i d. At fi rst he coul d take no part i n commerce. The
Roman l aw forbade hi m to i nheri t from a ci ti zen, and even forbade
a ci ti zen to i nheri t from hi m. They pushed thi s pri nci pl e so far, that
i f a forei gner obtai ned the ri ghts of a ci ti zen wi thout hi s son, born
before thi s event, obtai ni ng the same favor, the son became a for-
ei gner i n regard to hi s father, and coul d not i nheri t from hi m. The
di sti ncti on between ci ti zen and forei gner was stronger than the natu-
ral ti e between father and son.
Fustel de Coul anges (1864)*
* Fustel , The Ancient City: A Study on the Religion, Laws, and I nstitutions of Greece and
Rome (Garden Ci ty, New York: Doubl eday Anchor [1864] 1955), pp. 196-97.
2
SANCTUARY AND SUFFRAGE
Onelawshall betohim thatis homeborn, andunto thestranger that
siyourneth amongyou(Ex. 12:49).
Thou shalt neither vex a strange~ nor oppress him: forye were
strangers in the land of E~pt (Ex. 22:1).
The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee vay high;
and thou shalt come down veV low. He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt
not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail. Moreouer
all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake
thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of
the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he
commanded thee (Deut. 28:43-45).
Three si mpl e passages. There i s nothi ng compl i cated about
them. They are easi l y understood, but they are no l onger bel i eved.
And because the modern Church 1 pays no attenti on to them, Chri s-
ti ans are i n pol i ti cal bondage today a bondage whi ch i s escal ati ng
al l over the worl d. That they do not general l y percei ve themsel ves to
be i n bondage, l et al one recogni ze the nature of thei r chai ns, i s the
most i mportant aspect of thi s bondage. Thei r pol i ti cal oppressors
have bl i nded them to thei r true condi ti on. They l i ve i n a worl d i n
whi ch i t i s ei ther i l l egal or pol i ti cal l y i mpossi bl e to procl ai m offi ci al l y
i n the ci vi l l aw or the covenant document of the nati on that the God
of the Bi bl e al one i s the soverei gn Lord of ci vi l government, and that
Hi s l aws must be enforced.
Thi s i s not the fi rst ti me that Gods peopl e have been i n thi s posi -
ti on. We have seen al l thi s before.
1. I capi tal i ze Church when I refer to the general i nsti tuti on. I do not when I
refer to a l ocal congregati on.
63
And i n the thi rty and ei ghth year of Asa ki ng of Judah began Ahab the
son of Omri to rei gn over I srael : and Ahab the son of Omri rei gned over
I sr ael i n Samari a twenty and two years. And Ahab the son of Omri di d evi l
i n the si ght of the LORD above al l that were before hi m. And i t came to pass,
as i f i t had been a l i ght thi ng for hi m to wal k i n the si ns of Jer oboam the son
of Nebat, that he took to wi fe Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal ki ng of the
Zi doni ans, and went and served Baal , and worshi ped hi m. And he reared
up an al tar for Baal i n the house of BaaI , whi ch he had bui l t i n Samari a.
And Ahab made a grove; and Ahab di d more to provoke the LORD God of
I srael to anger than al l the ki ngs of I srael that were before hm (I Ki . 16:29-33).
Someone had to cal l thi s to the attenti on of the peopl e of I srael .
The prophet El i jah was the man appoi nted by God to thi s unen-
vi abl e task. For thi s, he was dri ven out of the l and. And then the
drought came for 42 months. After the drought, the ki ng and the
peopl e were ready at l east to hear hi s chal l enge.
What wi l l i t take today to catch the attenti on of Chri sti ans?
El i jahs Chal l enge and the Chri sti ans Response
Chri sti ans today woul d be qui te l i teral l y embarrassed by El i jahs
di rect chal l enge to the assembl ed representati ve: of I srael : And El i -
jah came unto al l the peopl e, and sai d, How l ong hal t ye between
two opi ni ons? i f the LORD be God, fol l ow hi m: but i f Baal , then fol -
l ow hi m. And the peopl e answered hi m not a word (1 Ki . 18:21).
Today, they woul d answer hi m a word. They woul d answer hi m
a di ssertati on. I t i s the di ssertati on whi ch they have been taught
from thei r youth i n publ i c school s, Bapti st school s, Cathol i c school s
(i n the Uni ted States, anyway), and maybe even home school s. Thi s
fami l i ar message has been procl ai med by the pul pi ts of the l and. I t
woul d go somethi ng l i ke thi s:
Look here, si r, we know you mean wel l . We appreci ate your en-
thusi asm and l i fe-l ong dedi cati on to evangel i sm. You no doubt have
Gods i nterests at heart, as you understand them. But you have set
an ei ther/or choi ce before us. You apparentl y do not recogni ze the
compl exi ty of the pol i ti cal si tuati on we face today. Whi l e we no
doubt al l bel i eve i n God i n our personal l i ves, just as you do, we are
neverthel ess not l egal l y i n a posi ti on to enforce our personal vi ews on
others. I ndeed, i t woul d be wrong even i f we coul d do so. The
essence of freedom i s the systemati c sel f-restrai nt whi ch we, as wel l as
al l others i n the communi ty, demonstrate i n not l etti ng our personal
rel i gi ous vi ews affect us when we serve as jurors, voters, and judges.
SanctuaV and SuJ rage 65
So, we wi l l not choose today between Baal or God, si nce we have l eft
that matter to the i ndi vi dual consci ence. I n ci vi l affai rs, we are com-
pl etel y neutral between Baal and God. Al so Mol och.
A modern-day El i jah mi ght answer: Then whose l aw i s enforced
i n the ci vi l courts of thi s l and, Bads or Gods? The predi ctabl e an-
swer from the assembl ed representati ves i s: Nei ther. That i s to say:
Not Gods. But the God of the Bi bl e i s not content wi th thi s answer,
for i t al ways means: Mans.
Were El i jah to persi st i n thi s conti nual pol i ti cal agi tati on, and i f
i t l ooked as though he was getti ng a fol l owi ng, the major news medi a
woul d run a 42-week expos6 on hi s 42-month stay i n the home of the
wi dow of Zarephath. Her nei ghbors woul d be i ntervi ewed i n depth,
and the wi dow woul d be offered $250,000 by Penthouse magazi ne for
an excl usi ve i ntervi ew, assumi ng her story was sensati onal . Those i n
charge of the nati onal medi a and they surel y are not Chri sti ans
woul d correctl y percei ve that i f he and hi s fol l owers were to become
pol i ti cal l y successful , then thei r own days of power woul d be num-
bered, not just for pol i ti cal reasons, but because of the rel i gi ous trans-
formati on that woul d make such a pol i ti cal transformati on possi bl e.
I n our day, Chri sti ans are afrai d to hear such a message. I t
fri ghtens them. I t poi nts to a vast i ncrease of personal and i nsti tu-
ti onal responsi bi l i ty for them responsi bi l i ty i n fi el ds they have pre-
vi ousl y chosen to i gnore. They do not want any added responsi bi l i ty y.
They much prefer thei r chai ns. (And maybe even an occasi onal
browsi ng through Penthouse to read the l atest pol i ti cal expos&, of
course. )
A Message of Liberation
I n the next few pages, I am goi ng to di scuss the judi ci al and
pol i ti cal i mpl i cati ons of these verses deal i ng wi th strangers and the
l aw of God. I n the fol l owi ng subsecti on, Sanctuary for Strangers, I
wi l l i ntroduce some very si mpl e bi bl i cal i deas i deas that have been
suppressed, forgotten, or at l east systemati cal l y negl ected for at l east
two centuri es. These i deas are no l onger preached from the pul pi ts
of the worl d. They are not di scussed i n publ i c school textbooks. I f
the pri nci pl es they reveal were wi del y honored, the worl d woul d be
transformed. Radi cal l y transformed.
When you are fi ni shed wi th the subsecti on, I want you to si t
there and say to yoursel f, Do I real l y bel i eve thi s? I f you say ei ther
yes or maybe, I want you to ask yoursel f another questi on: %Vhy
has no one ever tol d me about thi s before? I have an answer: a con-
spi racy. Not si mpl y a conspi racy of si l ence, whi ch today unquesti on-
abl y exi sts, but a sel f-consci ous, deepl y rel i gi ous, hi ghl y i ntel l ectual ,
wel l -organi zed pol i ti cal conspi racy whi ch gai ned a major vi ctory
over Chri sti an ci vi l i zati on al most exactl y two centuri es ago. Thi s
conspi racy had previ ousl y been worki ng for about a century to
achi eve thi s major vi ctory. We do not cal l i t a conspi racy because i t
won. A successful conspi racy i s l i ke successful treason, as descri bed
by John Barri ngton i n 1613:
Treason cl oth never prosper: whats the reason?
Why i f i t prosper, none dare cal l i t treason.
Political Po&theism is an attempt to overcome thi s contemporary
conspi racy of si l ence. I t i s aI so a prel i mi nary step i n overcomi ng the
pol i ti cal resul ts of the three-centuri es-ol d ori gi nal conspi racy. My
hope i s that the spi ri tual and pol i ti cal hei rs of thi s conspi racy wi l l
take l i ttl e noti ce of thi s fat book unti l i t i s way too l ate for them to do
much about i t. Thi s i s one reason why I made i t so fat. I hope those
outsi de the Reconstructi oni sts paradi gm shi ft wi l l deci de not to read
i t unti l after the shi ft.
Ti me i s rapi dl y runni ng out, for one si de or the other.
I want to make i t cl ear from the begi nni ng that thi s i s a pol i ti cal l y
nonparti san book. I t i s a pol i ti cal l y Panparti san book. Al l the pol i ti -
cal parti es on earth shoul d procl ai m the crown ri ghts of Ki ng Jesus.
Every pol i ti cal pl atform shoul d be governed by Gods reveal ed l aw.
Jesus Chri st i s the Lord of pol i ti cs, for He i s Lord of the uni verse.
There i s no Ki ngs X anywhere i n the uni verse from the absol ute
authori ty of the Ki ng of Ki ngs. Whi ther shal l I go from thy spi ri t?
or whi ther shal l I fl ee from thy presence? I f I ascend up i nto heaven,
thou art there: i f I make my bed i n hel l , behol d, thou art there (Ps.
139: 7-8). Thi s pretty wel l covers al l the potenti al l oophol es.
Sanctuary for Strangers
The anci ent worl d was i n spi ri tual darkness and bondage. There
was onl y one excepti on, one l i ght on earth: the nati on of I srael . I n
I srael , there was ci vi l l i berty. Why? Because the I srael i tes were
under Gods l i berati ng covenant.
2
They were al so under the terms
2. Gar y Nor th, Libertiing Plar@ Earth: An I ntrodsution to Biblical Blue@ints (Ft. Wor th,
SanctuaT and Su&rage 67
and sancti ons of Gods covenant l aw. I n Psal m 119, the l ongest pas-
sage i n the Bi bl e, the psal m prai si ng Gods l aw, we read:
Turn away mi ne eyes from behol di ng vani ty; and qui cken thou me i n
thy way. Stabl i sh thy word unto thy servant, who i s devoted to thy fear.
Turn away my reproach whi ch I fear: for thy judgments are good. Behol d, I
have l onged after thy precepts: qui cken me i n thy ri ghteousness. Let thy
merci es come al so unto me, O LORD, even thy sal vati on, accordi ng to thy
word. So shal l I have wherewi th to answer hi m that reproacheth me: for I
trust i n thy word. And take not the word of truth utterl y out of my mouth;
for I have hoped i n thy judgments. So shal l I keep thy l aw conti nual l y for
ever and ever. And I wi l l wal k at l i berty: for I seek thy precepts. I wi l l speak
of thy testi moni es al so before ki ngs, and wi l l not be ashamed (Ps. 119:37-46).
That next-to-the l ast verse i s cruci al : And I wi l l wal k at l i berty:
for I seek thy precepts. The psal mi st understood the fundamental
bi bl i cal l egal pri nci pl e: selj-gouernrnent under Go$s revealed law is the
starting point for liberp. Because he was formal l y under Gods reveal ed
l aw, and because he had memori zed i t and was progressi vel y bri ng-
i ng hi s acti ons i nto conformi ty wi th i t, day by day, he coul d say i n
confi dence, I wi l l speak of thy testi moni es al so before ki ngs, and
wi l l not be ashamed.
Outsi de of I srael and i nsi de, whenever evi l rul ed the l and through
fal se pri ests and ci vi l tyrants there were onl y varyi ng degrees of
spi r i tual dar kness and pol i ti cal oppr essi on. These al ways go
together: spi ri tual darkness and pol i ti cal oppressi on. Psal m 82
descri bes the pl i ght of those under the rei gn of such darkness:
God standeth i n the congregati on of the mi ghty; he judgeth among the
gods. How l ong wi l l ye judge unjustl y, and accept the persons of the
wi cked? Sel ah. Defend the poor and fatherl ess: do justi ce to the affl i cted
and needy. Del i ver the poor and needy: ri d them out of the hand of the
wi cked. They know not, nei ther wi l l they understand; they wal k on i n dark-
ness: al l the foundati ons of the earth are out of course (Ps. 82:1-5).
God the Judge stood i n the mi dst of the congregati on. He judged
among the gods, meani ng among human judges.
3
Verse 6 remi nds
the peopl e: I have sai d, Ye are gods; and al l of you are chi l dren of
the most Hi gh. Thi s i s meant i n the same sense as gods i n Exodus
3. Thi s i nterpretati on of gods i s standard among Bi bl e commentators. For a
dozen exampl es, see Gary DeMar and Peter Lei thart, Th Reduction of ChrirtianiQ
(Ft. Worth: Texas: Domi ni on Press, 1988), pp. 80-81.
22:28: Thou shal t not revi l e the gods, nor curse the rul er of thy peo-
pl e. These gods were ci vi l rul ers, and they were renderi ng un-
ri ghteous judgment. The psal mi st i s speaki ng of Gods renderi ng of
ri ghteous ci vi l judgment agai nst these evi l human judges,
Where does God stand as Judge? I n the sanctuary. Ul ti matel y,
thi s i s the sanctuary of Hi s throne-room i n heaven. What i s the
meani ng of sanctuary? I t i s the wt-a$art Pl ace. I n earl y I srael , thi s was
the Tabernacl e, and l ater on, the Templ e. The word sanctz#i cati on
comes from the same root word: to be set apart by God for Hi s pur-
poses. I t i s the same root word from whi ch we get sai nt the set-
apart person. The sanctuary i s therefore the set-apart pl ace where
God renders Hi s perfect justi ce to the rul ers of the l and. They had
better judge themsel ves as they judge others: i n terms of Gods re-
veal ed covenant l aw.
I srael: Sanctuary for the World
I srael was the l and whi ch God had set apart for Hi s gl ory. He
rul ed Hi s covenant peopl e through ci vi l and eccl esi asti cal judges
who were requi red to render publ i c judgment i n terms of Hi s l aw.
Thi s i s what Psal m 119 i s al l about: rendenng Gods~udgment, begi nni ng
wi th sel f-judgment.
Peopl e outsi de the l and of I srael who sought ci vi l justi ce and l i b-
erty had a way to gai n i t: to go to I srael and l i ve as resi dent al i ens
under Gods l aw. God tol d the I srael i tes at the ti me of the Exodus
that they woul d be requi red to treat al l resi dents the same. There
was to be onl y one ci vi l l aw for al l resi dents. One l aw shal l be to hi m
that i s homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you
(Ex. 12:49). The gates of I srael were al ways open to those who woul d
agree to l i ve under Gods ci vi l l aw. A stranger who was wi l l i ng to
subject hi msel f to the external , ci vi l l aws of God was enti tl ed to al l
the external covenantal bl essi ngs thereof.
4
I srael served as the Church in the ancient world. The New Testament
speaks of I srael as the Church. Thi s i s he [Moses], that was i n the
church i n the wi l derness wi th the angel whi ch spake to hi m i n the
mount Si na, and wi th our fathers: who recei ved the l i vel y oracl es to
gi ve unto us (Acts 7:38). Because of thi s, I srael had an open-door pol-
icy. As surel y as the Churchs doors are open today to al l those l i vi ng
i n spi ri tual darkness, so were I srael s gates open. As surel y as the
4. Cf. Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace: The Biblical Basis of Progress (Tyl er,
Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1987), pp. 94-95.
SanctuaT and Su@age 69
spi ri tual l y l ost today can seek Gods truth i n the Church, so coul d
pagans i n the anci ent worl d seek Gods ci vi l justi ce i n I srael .
But there i s an i mportant though negl ected i mpl i cati on of thi s
anal ogy: as surel y as the non-member i s not al l owed to vote i n a
church el ecti on, or serve as an el der i n a church, so was the stranger
i n the gates forbi dden to serve as a ci vi l judge i n I srael . Why? Because
those who were notformally and voluntarily under the eternal couenant sanctions
of God not ~ust the external sanctions were not allowed to exercise temporal
civil~udgment. s You had to become a church member i n I srael i n or-
der to become a ci vi l judge.G I f you were not vol untari l y under Gods
eternal sancti ons, you were not al l owed to i mpose Gods negati ve civil
sancti ons.
Sancti ons: here i s that sanct root agai n. What are sancti ons?
They are bl essi ngs or curses on those who ei ther obey or di sobey the
l aw.7 Those who obey Gods l aw are set apart from those who do not
obey. They are set apart by means of Gods bl essi ngs. Those who
di sobey are al so set apart from those who obey; i n thi s case, by
means of the curses.
Covenant sancti ons are appl i ed l awful l y by three (and onl y
three) i nsti tuti ons: State, Church, and fami l y. The key to under-
standi ng a covenant i s the presence of an oath. One must swear
allegiance to a covenant. Onl y these three organi zati ons are author-
i zed by God to requi re such oaths. When a man swears al l egi ance
publ i cl y to the ci vi l government, he i s al l owed to become a ci ti zen.
When a man swears al l egi ance to a parti cul ar church, he i s al l owed
to become a member. When a man swears al l egi ance to a woman,
and she swears al l egi ance to hi m, he i s al l owed to become her hus-
5. That the I srael i tes di d understand the eternal nature of the covenants sanc-
ti ons i s made cl ear i n Dani el 12:1-3: And at that ti me shal l Mi chael stand up, the
great pri nce whi ch standeth for the chi l dren of thy peopl e: and there shal l be a ti me
of troubl e, such as never was si nce there was a nati on even to that same ti me: and at
that ti me thy peopl e shal l be del i vered, every one that shal l be found wri tten i n the
book. And many of them that sl eep i n the dust of the earth shal l awake, some to
everl asti ng l i fe, and some to shame and everl asti ng contempt. And they that be wi se
shal l shi ne as the bri ghtness of the fi rmament; and-they that turn many to ri ghteous-
ness as the stars for ever and ever.
6. Why di dnt a man have to become a member of the congregati on i n order to
get marri ed and thereby become the judge of a househol d? Because the command
gi ven by God to manki nd regardi ng subdui ng of the earth consti tuted a uni versal
fami l i sti c covenant, i rrespecti ve of formal theol ogi cal confessi on (Gen. 1:26-28;
2:23-24).
tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1987), ch. 4.
70
band, and she hi s wi fe. I n al l cases, a person takes a VOW. A vow i s a
self-valedictory oath. I t says that i f he di sobeys the promi ses i n the
oath, God may l awful l y bri ng Hi s negati ve sancti ons agai nst hi m.
Civil J &ges: Bound by Two Covenants
A stranger wi thi n the gates was not al l owed to become a ci vi l
judge unti l He swore formal , publ i c al l egi ance to God. He had to be
ci rcumci sed and become a member of the eccl esi asti cal congrega-
ti on. Thi s demonstrated that he acknowl edged that he was under
Gods eternal covenant.8 He had two separate sets of@iges over him: eccle-
siastical and civil. There was therefore a l egal process of natu-
ral i zati on i n I srael : ci rcumci si on. Actual l y, we can better under-
stand thi s as a procedure for de-natural i zati on; the natural man re-
cei ves not the thi ngs of the Spi ri t (I Cor. 2:14). He woul d come for-
mal l y under Gods eternal sancti ons (whi ch a resi dent al i en was not,
formal l y); he coul d now become a ci vi l judge and exerci se temporal
ci vi l judgments under God. He was vol untari l y, formal l y, and offi -
ci al l y under Gods eternal maledictoy oath; he coul d therefore l awful l y
bri ng others under the negati ve temporal sancti ons of Gods ci vi l l aw
i f he became a ci vi l judge. The offi ce of ci vi l judge was now l egal l y
open to hi m.
Today, every Chri sti an understands thi s pri nci pl e i n reference to
church membershi p: no formal subordination under God% eternal authority,
so no temporal authority within the congregation. But har dl y anyone under -
stands thi s same pri nci pl e wi th respect to Gods ci vi l government.
I srael coul d serve as a sanctuary for the pagan strangers of the
anci ent worl d preci sel y because no stranger coul d enforce ci vi l sanc-
ti ons i nsi de I srael . Had strangers wi thi n the gates been al l owed to
exerci se ci vi l judgment, thei r covenantal commi tment to thei r for-
ei gn gods woul d eventual l y have col ored thei r offi ci al judgments.
There is no religious or~udicial neutrality. The offi ce of ci vi l judge woul d
then have become a much-val ued pri ze, a means of subversion for for-
ei gn gods and forei gn nati ons. I srael woul d have been judi ci al l y
open to forei gn conquest from wi thi n. Every stranger wi thi n the
gates woul d have been regarded as a potenti al spy or enemy agent.
He woul d have been a potenti al threat to the hol y commonweal th.
Thi s i s obvi ousl y not the proper judi ci al or psychol ogi cal basi s for
8. The rul es vari ed i n terms of whi ch gods the stranger had been under, meani ng
whi ch nati ons: Deuteronomy 23:2-8.
SanctuaV and Suffrage 71
open borders and sanctuary status i nternati onal l y. 1% maintain its
open borders, I srael had to close its political borders.
There can be no covenant wi thout boundari es. These boundaries
are ]udicial. g Gods Church covenant pl aces a judi ci al boundary
around the communi on tabl e. Access to i t i s l i mi ted to those who
have been bapti zed. 10 Gods fami l y covenant pl aces a judi ci al bound-
ary around the home. To vi ol ate thi s boundary sexual l y i s to commi t
adul tery and thereby break the covenant. 11 Gods ci vi l covenant
pl aces judi ci al boundari es around the voti ng booth, the jury room,
and the ci vi l magi strates offi ce. To vi ol ate these boundari es i s to
commi t revol uti on or treason agai nst God. To i nvade these bound-
ari es physi cal l y i s to di sobey the bi bl i cal covenant. 12 To deny the ex-
i stence of these boundari es i s to deny the bi bl i cal covenant.
Had strangers i n anci ent I srael been gi ven access to the offi ce of
ci vi l magi strate, they woul d eventual l y have governed openl y i n
terms of the l aws of thei r househol d gods. I srael coul d not possi bl y
have remai ned a ci vi l sanctuary. There woul d have been endl ess
pol i ti cal battl es and even ci vi l wars wars between ri val gods. I n the
anci ent worl d, wars were understood as wars between gods or be-
tween ri val al l i ances of gods, as Homers I liad makes cl ear, and as
the Bi bl e does, too. 13
9. I bid., ch. 3.
10. I bid., Appendi x 9.
11. Ray R. Sutton, Second Chance: Biblical Blueprints for Divorce and Remarriage (Ft.
Worth: Domi ni on Press, 1987).
12. Whi l e i t i s l egal for offi cers of one offi ce to i nvade the geographi cal boundary
of another i n order to enforce a l aw agai nst an i ndi vi dual , i t i s unl awful for the judi -
ci al boundary i tsel f to be broken unl ess those i nsi de have broken a covenant. For ex-
ampl e, a pol i ce offi cer can l awful l y break down the door of a house i f he has reason
to bel i eve that a husband i nsi de i s strangl i ng hi s wi fe, but thi s i s sti l l a protecti on of
the home. The husband has br oken the covenant judi ci al l y by str angl i ng hi s wi fe.
The pol i ceman i s acti ng i n hi s capaci ty as the l egal agent of the wi fe, who as the vi c-
ti m i s the covenantal representati ve of the fami l y covenant. The husband has dated
.
hi msel f outsi de the covenant, and therefore outsi de i ts protecti on.
.
13. They fought from heaven; the stars i n thei r courses fought agai nst Si sers
(Judges 5:20). The stars here were cl earl y angel s, not physi cal stars. The Bi bl e
does not promote astrol ogy. A si mi l ar use of stars i s found i n the Book of Revel a-
ti on: And I behel d when he had opened the si xth seal , and, 10, there was a great
ear thquake; and the sun became bl ack as sackcl oth of hai r , and the moon became
as bl ood; And the stars of heaven fel l unto the earth, even as a fi g tree casteth her
unti mel y fi gs, when she is shaken of a mi ghty wi nd (Rev. 6:12-13). These fal l en
star s ar e angel s. Obvi ousl y, the fl ami ng star s i n the heavens do not l i ter al l y come
cr ashi ng down on ear th. I am a bi bl i cal l i teral i st, but l ets agr ee to be sane about
I i teral i sm.
We come therefore to a fundamental and i nescapabl e concl usi on:
without the supremacy of Godi civil and ecclesiastical law within I srael, there
could have been no international sanctuay in the ancient world.
The questi on we need to answer bi bl i cal l y and I stress the word
bib~ical~ i s thi s: I s thi s sti l l the case today? I f not, why not?
Civil Rights us. Political Rights
Gods l aw has establ i shed the foundati onal pri nci pl e of al l ci vi l
ri ghts: one ci vi l l aw code for all residents. Not just one l aw for al l citizen~
one l aw for al l residents. Thi s i s what di sti ngui shed anci ent I srael
from al l other pagan soci eti es. Pagan soci eti es di d not gi ve non-ci ti zens
ful l l egal access to thei r ci vi l courts. Strangers therefore had no ci vi l
ri ghts. Thi s was as true i n Greece and Rome as el sewhere. 14
I n I srael , everyone had equal access to the ci vi l courts, for every-
one was under the same ci vi l l aw. Thi s was the basi s of the psal mi sts
confi dence: I wi l l speak of thy testi moni es al so before ki ngs, and
wi l l not be ashamed (Ps. 119:46). But the concomi tant to thi s ex-
traordi nary ci vi l l i berty was political discrimination: the resi dent al i en
coul d not vote or serve as a ci vi l judge. The mai ntenance of ci vi l l i b-
erty was not possi bl e i n a worl d i n whi ch resi dent al i ens coul d exer-
ci se ci ti zenshi p apart from taki ng Gods covenant oaths, ci vi l and ec-
cl esi asti cal , especi al l y eccl esi asti cal . I t was a mans publ i c affi rma-
ti on of Gods eternal sancti ons that establ i shed hi s l egi ti mate access
to bear the sword.
Every soci ety understands that ci ti zenshi p requi res an oath.
Every soci ety screens access to the voti ng booth and pol i ti cal offi ce
on the basi s of an oath. The questi on i s: To whom i s the oath made?
To God or to some other authori ty? The humani st says that the oath
must be taken to the State or the Peopl e or the Consti tuti on al l
man-made dei ti es. The Bi bl e says that the oath must be taken to
God, and that thi s oath must cal l down on the oath-taker eternal as
wel l as temporal sancti ons.
Onl y the Church of Jesus Chri st has the God-gi ven authori ty to-
day to announce the appl i cati on of Gods eternal sancti ons i n the
New Covenant era (Matt. 18:18). Therei n l i es the rub for humani sm
and al l other ri val rel i gi ons. Therei n al so l i es the rub for every
Chri sti an who seeks to defend the doctri ne of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm.
14. Numa Deni s Fustel de Coul anges, The Ancient Cip: A Study on the Religion,
Laws, and Zmtitutiom of Greece and Ronu (Garden Ci ty, New York: Doubl eday Anchor,
[1864] 1955), Bk. 3, Ch. 12.
SanctuaT and Sl@age 73
I mmigration Barriers
Today, not a si ngl e sanctuary nati on remai ns on earth. They al l
have restri cti ve i mmi grati on barri ers. Thi s i s a recent devel opment, a
pol i ti cal product of Worl d War I and the decade fol l owi ng (1914-24).
Pri or to 1914, there were no passports i n the modern sense. Physi cal l y
heal thy peopl e coul d cross nati onal borders permanentl y wi thout
si gni fi cant l egal i nterference. The l l th edi ti on of the Encyclopedia
Britannica, publ i shed i n 1911, begi ns i ts bri ef secti on on Passport as
fol l ows: PASSPORT, or safe conduct i n ti me of war, a document
granted by a bel l i gerent power to protect persons and property from
the operati on of hosti l i ti es. The i dea of a passport was the protecti on
of i ndi vi dual s of one nati on from bureaucrats of another. I n i ts more
fami l i ar sense a passport i s a document authori zi ng a person to pass
out of or i nto a country, or a I i cence or safe-conduct to the person
speci fi ed therei n and authenti cati ng hi s ri ght to ai d and protecti on.
Al though most forei gn countri es may now be entered wi thout pass-
ports, the Engl i sh forei gn offi ce recommends travel ers to furni sh
themsel ves wi th them, as affordi ng a ready means of i denti fi cati on i n
case of need. Most peopl e today can barel y i magi ne such a worl d.
Today, passports are uni versal l y requi red as a means of control over
travel ers from abroad. They are used to track the movements of
travel ers, forei gn and domesti c. (They are now computeri zed i n the
Uni ted States.) Passports exi st for the sake of the bureaucrats, not
ci ti zens. We need to ask oursel ves: What happened to the Ol d Testa-
ment concept of sanctuary, whi ch Western nati ons, especi al l y Eng-
l and, Hol l and, the Uni ted States, and Swi tzerl and, i s scrupul ousl y
honored before Worl d War I ?
What happened was that mass democracy had a head-on col l i -
si on wi th cheap mass transportati on. The al most desti tute and the
homel ess of the worl d can now afford to seek sanctuary i n a geo-
graphi cal l y di stant l and of pl enty. And so the gates were cl osed by
l egi sl ati on, nati on by nati on. 16 Ci ti zenshi p today i s by bi rth i n some
nati ons; i f you are a resi dent al i en, your chi l dren wi l l automati cal l y y
become ci ti zens. Thus, to keep from getti ng pol i ti cal l y swamped
by the chi l dren of strangers, these nati ons have cl osed thei r gates. I n
other nati ons, ci ti zenshi p comes wi th property ownershi p. So, the
15. Al l were ori gi nal l y Cal vi ni st nati ons, i t shoul d be recal l ed.
16. I n the Uni ted States, the 1924 i mmi grati on l aw was the major event. See Roy
L. Gari s, Zmni ~rati on Restriction (New York: Macmi l l an, 1928).
ri ch can buy thei r way i n, but the poor are tol d to l eave. The sel ec-
ti ve barri ers remai n.
I mmi grati on was not a pol i ti cal probl em for anci ent I srael . I t
was not physi cal bi rth that enti tl ed a person to ci ti zenshi p. I t was
rather the physi cal mark of a covenant oath, circumcision: the out-
ward si gn of the new birth. 17
Thus, we reach a most i mportant concl usi on: I srael was a sanc-
tuaV because I srael was God?s theocracy. Ther e ar e no r emai ni ng nati onal
sanctuari es today because ci ti zenshi p and rul ershi p are based now
on mass democracy. The State 18 i s offi ci al l y a covenant i nsti tuti on
establ i shed by man rather than God. I t deri ves i ts authori ty sol el y
from the soverei gn Peopl e. Thi s i s why i n some Communi st di ctator-
shi ps and other di ctatorshi ps, i t i s agai nst the l aw to refuse to vote on
el ecti on day. The Peopl e must speak, even i n one-party di ctator-
shi ps. The publ i c approval of the Peopl e i s the source of the regi mes
l egi ti macy.
Thi s cruci al shi ft i n the covenantal basi s of ci ti zenshi p i s what the
conspi racy of si l ence i s al l about. Thi s i s what the pol i ti cal con-
spi racy two centuri es ago was al l about. The conspi rators have sub-
sti tuted new oaths, and Chri sti an ci ti zens have nai vel y agreed to
thi s, thereby seal i ng the doom of nati onal sanctuari es i n the twenti -
eth century. 19
Do you now understand the Ol d Covenant concept of sanctuary?
Do you basi cal l y approve of the concept? Do you see why i t was that
wi thout a bi bl i cal theocracy based on publ i c oaths to God there
coul d have been no Ol d Covenant bi bl i cal sanctuary? What was the
nature of thi s theocracy? Pol i ti cal recogni ti on of the pri nci pl e of pub-
l i c covenant oaths that cal l down covenant sancti ons external (tem-
poral , ci vi l ) and eternal under Gods covenant l aw.
Do you thi nk there i s anythi ng i n the New Testament that has
si gni fi cantl y al tered thi s judi ci al pri nci pl e? I f so, how? Thi nk about
i t. And then read on.
17. The reason why women di d not normal l y exerci se ci vi l offi ce i n anci ent I srael
was that they were not ci rcumci sed. They coul d serve as judges onl y through thei r
husbands, or because of thei r l ate husbands i n the case of wi dows. Wi dows, as heads
of househol ds, coul d take i ndependent vows (Deut. 30:9). Because femal es are bap-
ti zed, thi s judi ci al restri cti on no l onger appl i es i n the New Covenant era.
18. I capi tal i ze State when I refer to ci vi l government i n general . I do not do so
when I refer to the regi onal pol i ti cal juri sdi cti on known as a state.
19. See Part 3, bel ow.
SanctuaV and Sufrage 75
The Stranger as Oppressor
The stranger that i s wi thi n thee shal l get up above thee very hi gh; and
thou shal t come down very l ow. He shal l l end to thee, and thou shal t not
l end to hi m: he shal l be the head, and thou shal t be the tai l . Moreover al l
these curses shal l come upon thee, and shal l pursue thee, and overtake thee,
ti l l thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voi ce of the
LORD thy God, to keep hi s commandments and hi s statutes whi ch he com-
manded thee (Deut. 28:43-45).
The stranger was al l owed to worshi p forei gn gods i n the pri vacy
of hi s househol d i n Ol d Covenant I srael . The State di d not i nvade
hi s home, al though he coul d not prosel yti ze publ i cl y for hi s god or
gods. 20 These househol d i dol s were fhkse gods. They represented
demons who were sources of spi ri tual bondage and therefore poten-
ti al oppressi on. Thi s i s why the stranger had no pol i ti cal ri ghts at al l ,
meani ng ri ghts associ ated wi th the exerci se of the franchi se voti ng
because voti ng i s i nescapabl y an aspect of ci vi l rul ershi p or judge-
shi p. The voter bri ngs sancti ons agai nst the rul ers. To grant the
stranger pol i ti cal ri ghts apart from hi s publ i c rejecti on of hi s forei gn
gods was i nevi tabl y to grant those gods a degree of ci vi l authori ty i n
the l and. There is no neutrali~. The stranger woul d seek to i mpose
di fferent l aws because he worshi ped a di fferent god.
Thi s pol i ti cal pri nci pl e i s so obvi ous that onl y Chri sti ans who
have been educated by strangers or the strangers certi fi ed task-
masters wi thi n the camp of the fai thful wi l l have troubl e understand-
i ng i t. Unfortunatel y, thi s means mi l l i ons of them.
The Politics of Po@heism
Chri sti ans today are i n bondage. They do not readi l y understand
thi s fundamental theol ogi cal pri nci pl e: many gods, many moralities,
many laws. Thi s i s the pol i ti cal pri nci pl e of pol ythei sm. I t i s al so the
fundamental pri nci pl e sel dom or never stated publ i cl y of pol i ti -
20. Thi s was no great restri cti on on hi s rel i gi ous l i berty. Gods i n the anci ent
worl d were al most al ways fami l y gods or gods of a parti cul ar ci ty. They mi ght al so
be gods of a regi on. They were not uni versal gods. Thi s i s why the gods of Canaan
were a seri ous threat to the I srael i tes; these gods were gods associ ated wi th the l and.
On the non-uni versal nature of pagan gods, consi der the mi l i tary resul ts of the bad
theol ogy gi ven to Ben-hadad: And there came a man of God, and spake unto the
ki ng of I srael , and sai d, Thus sai th the LORD, Because the Syri ans have sai d, The
LORD i s God of the hi l l s, but he i s not God of the val l eys, therefore wi l l I del i ver al l
thk great mul ti tude i nto thi ne hand, and ye shal l know that I am the LORD (I Ki . 20:28),
cal pl ural i sm. Chri sti ans do not understand thi s pri nci pl e because
they have been taught by strangers the publ i c school system, tel e-
vi si on, and the medi a i n general and al so by the strangers certi fi ed
academi c agents wi thi n the househol d of fai th. 21
The stranger wi thi n the gates was al ways a threat to I srael dur-
i ng ti mes of apostasy. When the nati on of I srael forgot God, the si gn
of thi s covenantal rebel l i on was the peopl es abandonment of Gods
reveal ed l aw. Thi s opened the door ei ther to conquest by forei gn na-
ti ons or conquest from wi thi n. Bi bl i cal l aw was I srael s tool of do-
mi ni on; the enforcement of Gods l aw by Church, State, and fami l y
was the publ i c mani festati on of the soci etys covenantal fai thful ness
to God. 22 Whenever the n-ati on abandoned Gods l aw, Hi s negati ve
sancti ons of defeat and sl avery threatened the whol e soci ety. There i s
one God, and onl y one God, and He demanded unquesti oned l oyal ty
from Hi s peopl e. No other god coul d l awful l y be publ i cl y wor-
shi pped i n I srael .
I n contrast to thi s bi bl i cal worl dvi ew stood anci ent pol ythei sm,
most notabl y (for the hi story of the West) the pol ythei sm of Greece
and Rome. The foundati on of cl assi cal pol i ti cal order was the bel i ef
that there can be pol i ti cal covenants among cl ans and al l i ances be-
tween ci ti es on the basi s of shared gods and shared sacri fi ces. Onl y
by i nventi ng gods that coul d be honored ri tual l y by several cl ans
each wi th i ts own fami l y dei ti es coul d the cl assi cal Ci ty-State be-
come a real i ty. Shared sacri fi ci al ri tes created a common pol i ti cal or-
der. The pantheon of the ci tys gods was the publ i c mani festati on of
the rel i gi on of the ci ty.
These agreed-upon gods were pol i ti cal . They were not the real
gods of the cl assi cal worl d. The real gods of the cl assi cal worl d were
demons. The Greeks l i ved i n terror of these supernatural enti ti es. 23
G
21. See Chapter 5, bel ow.
22. Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Care Laws of Exodus (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute
23. Jane Harri son, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (3rd ed.; New York:
Meri di an, [1922] 1955), ch. 1. Her vi ew i s very di fferent from the vi ew expressed by
Farnel l , the author of a monumental l i teral l y l ate ni neteenth-century study of
anci ent Greek rel i gi on and statuary: . . . whi l e Greek mythol ogy was passi onate
and pi cturesque, Greek rel i gi on was, on the whol e, sober and sane . Lewi s Ri chard
Farnel l , The Cults of the Greek Ci ~ States, 5 vol s. (New Rochel l e, New Yor k: Car atas
Brothers, [1895] 1977), I , p. i x. See al so the book by the di sci pl e of Harri son: John
Cuthbert Lawson, Modern Greek Folklore and Ancient Greek ReliGon: A Study in Sur vi val s
(New Hyde Park, New York: Uni versi ty Books, [1910] 1964). See al so E. R. Dodds,
I %e Greeks and the I rrati onal (Berkel ey: Uni versi ty of Cal i forni a Press, 1951).
Sanctua~ and Su@-age 77
Gods of the underworl d were someti mes el evated to Ol ympi an
status, but they retai ned many of thei r underworl d features. The
snake, for exampl e, was l i nked wi th the guardi an geni us (spi ri t) of
the ci ty of Athens, a vehi cl e of the wrath of the goddess Athena. 24
.Jane Harri son i s correct: Whatever may have be~n the vi ew of the
unthi nki ng publ i c, the educated man, as wel l as the barbarous Per-
si an, knew that i n past days the Greeks themsel ves had worshi ped
nature-powers.2
5
The Ol ympi an gods were essenti al l y i nventi ons;
they served both i ntel l ectual and pol i ti cal purposes.
Two centuri es before the bi rth of Chri st, the Dea Roma cul t i n
Smyrna had el evated the peopl e of Rome and the ci ty to di vi ne
status. The Roman Empi re l ater el evated the geni us of the Em-
peror to the status of di vi ni ty. I n the Emperor was the personi fi ca-
ti on of the di vi ne State. 26 Rushdoony has summari zed the i mpl i ca-
ti ons for the Church of thi s devel opment:
The confl i ct of Chri sti ani ty wi th Rome was thus pol i ti cal from the
Roman perspecti ve, al though rel i gi ous from the Chri sti an perspecti ve. The
Chri sti ans were never asked to worshi p Romes pagan gods; they were
merel y asked to recogni ze the rel i gi ous pri macy of the state. . . . The i ssue,
then, was thi s: shoul d the empero~s l aw, state l aw, govern both the state
and the church, or were both state and church, emperor and bi shop al i ke,
under Gods l aw? Who represented true and ul ti mate order, God or Rome,
eterni ty or ti me? The Roman answer was Rome and ti me, and hence
Chri sti ani ty consti tuted a treasonabl e fai th and a menace to pol i ti cal order.
The Roman answer to the probl em of man was pol i ti cal , not rel i gi ous. Thi s
meant, first, that mans bmic problem was not sin but lack of political order. Thi s
Rome sought to suppl y, rel i gi ousl y and earnestl y. Second, Rome answered
the probl em of the one and the many i n favor of oneness, the uni ty of al l
thi ngs i n terms of the state, Rome. Hence, over-organi zati on, undue si m-
pl i fi cati on, and central i zati on i ncreasi ngl y characteri zed Rome. 27
Thi s was pol i ti cal rel i gi on, i nvented for the sake of pol i ti cs and
the @ol i s. Thi s was pol i ti cal pol ythei sm, a supernatural pl ural i ty of
24. Harri son, Prolegomena, p. 305.
25. Harri son, i n Epilogomena to the Study of Greek Religion and Themis: A Stuqy of tb
Soci al Ori gi ns of Greek Religion (2nd ed.; New Hyde Park, New York: Uni versi ty
Books, [1927] 1962), p. 446.
26. Cyrus Bai l ey, Phases i n the Religion of Ancient Rome (Berkel ey: Uni versi ty of
Cal i forni a Press, 1932), p. 52; ci ted by R. J. Rushdoony, The One and the Many:
Studies in the Philosophy of Order and Ultimacy (Fai rfax, Vi rgi ni a: Thoburn Pr ess, [1971]
1978), p. 93.
27. Rushdoony, One and Many, p. 94.
bei ngs uni fi ed onl y by pol i ti cs. Rome opened i ts pantheon of gods to
the l ocal dei ti es of al l i ts conquered terri tory. The Empi re i tsel f was
the sol e source of uni ty, not the l ocal gods. Pol i ti cs woul d henceforth
suppl y the needed uni ty of man.
The response of cl assi cal pol i ti cal phi l osophers, l i ke most other
ci ti zens, was to i nvoke one of two rel i gi ons, both of whi ch are i nesca-
pabl e for humani sm: the power rel i gi on and the escape rel i gi on. 28
Shel don Wol i n has descri bed thi s dual devel opment:
Confronted wi th power, one i mpul se of pol i ti cal phi l osophy was to fl ee and
seek refuge i n a gol den age l ocated somewhere i n the prepol i ti cal past. I n
numerous wri ters we fi nd thi s i dea, but the si gni fi cant poi nt i s that they pi c-
tured manki nd i n a soci ety that had been purged of al l pol i ti cal marks:
nei ther l aw, coerci on, property nor confl i ct had exi sted i n the state of pol i ti -
cal i nnocence. Another and far stronger i mpul se, but one that was equal l y
apol i ti cal , was to suffuse power wi th rel i gi ous symbol s and i magery. Not the
natural i sm of a Pol ybi us but a supernatural i sti c vi ew of power was domi -
nant throughout much of the Hel l eni sti c peri od and agai n i n the centuri es
fol l owi ng the establ i shment of the Augustan Pri nci pate. Thi s was a certai n
si gn that men had come to l ook towards the pol i ti cal regi me for somethi ng
over and above thei r materi al and i ntel l ectual needs, somethi ng aki n to sal -
vati on. I f men coul d not fl ee from power to the gol den age or to the uni ver-
sal ci ty of reason, they woul d i nterpret i t di fferentl y, treati ng i t as the savi ng
force that sustai ned the pol i ti cal worl d. As far back as Hel l eni sti c ti mes, the
theori es of ki ngshi p had reveal ed a trend i n whi ch the rul er stood as the
symbol of the fears and yearni ngs of the pol i ti cal l y di si nheri ted. I n the wri t-
i ngs of the peri od, the other el ements of a pol i ti cal theory receded to the
background and the rul er stood al one and remote. The fate of the body pol -
i ti c was resi gned to the moral character and foresi ght of i ts governi ng head.
He was the sol e i nstrument of the di vi ne l ogos, of that savi ng force whi ch, by
hi s medi ati on, coul d regenerate soci ety and i ts members; he al one coul d ri d
the worl d of confl i cts and make i t a repl i ca of the di vi ne homonoia; he must,
therefore, be worshi ped by the names of Savi or, God Mani fest, Benefac-
tor, and Creator. zg
I n short, the Hel l eni sti c worl d had al ready begun i ts journey
down the road back to Egypt. The bri ef hi atus of the Greek @ol i s had
ended. The pol ythei sm of the Greek fami l y and the cl ans had be-
28. Gar y Nor th, Moses and Pharaoh: Dominion Religion us, Powv Religion (Tyl er,
29. Shel don S. Wol i n, Politics and Vision: Continui~ and I nnovation i n Western Political
Thought (Boston: Li ttl e, Brown, 1960), p. 92.
SanctuaT and Su&age 79
come the pol i ti cal pol ythei sm of the Pol i s. That experi ment, too, had
suffered the fate of pol i ti cal rel i gi on: i ntermi ttent tyrants. 30 Thi s
l ocal pol ythei sm coul d not be sustai ned. When each polis was con-
quered, one by one, by Al exander the Great, the Pharaoh returned
once agai n to hi s throne. The Roman Emperor was, theol ogi cal l y
speaki ng, l i ke Al exander: the Pharaoh rei ncarnate.
The cul mi nati on of cl assi cal pol i ti cs came wi th the Emperor
Gai us Cal i gul a (37-41), l ess than a decade after the cruci fi xi on of
Jesus. He had probabl y been the i nsti gator of the assassi nati on of hi s
predecessor Ti beri us by the prefect of the praetori an guards. After
ei ght months i n offi ce, he became very i l l ; upon recoveri ng, he re-
veal ed traces of madness. He procl ai med hi msel f a l i teral god and
demanded ri tual sacri fi ce, the fi rst Emperor to do so, though not the
l ast. He bestowed both the pri esthood and a consul shi p on hi s horse,
presumabl y to show hi s contempt for representati ve i nsti tuti ons. He
rai sed taxes and executed weal thy peopl e who resi sted, confi scati ng
thei r property. He announced that he wi shed that the whol e Roman
popul ace had one head, so that he coul d cut i t off wi th one stroke. 31
Yet he al so tri ed to promote popul ar el ecti ons, wi thout success. 32 He
coul d not be removed from offi ce pol i ti cal l y. He too, of course, coul d
be assassi nated. He began the I mperi al tradi ti on of havi ng al l vi si -
tors searched for weapons when they came i nto hi s presence. 33 But
how coul d he protect hi msel f agai nst hi s own guardi ans? He
coul dnt; the praetori ans assassi nated hi m i n A. D. 41.
I mmedi atel y after hi s assassi nati on, the consul s decl ared an end
to the emperorshi p; the now-soverei gn praetori an guard ended thi s
fi nal experi ment i n pol i ti cal l i berty 48 hours l ater. 34 Thi s was the l ast
gasp of meani ngful pol i ti cal representati on i n pagan Romes hi story.
Cal i gul as symbol of the horse among the di gni tari es had been ap-
propri ate; pol i ti cal representati ves i n Rome were by then cl earl y fi t
onl y for saddl es and bri dl es. Romes open pantheon had produced
30. A. Andrewes, The Greek ~rants (New York: Harper Torchbooks, [1956] 1963).
31. Gai us Caesar , -&yclopaedia Britannica, 32 vol s. (l l th ed.; New York: Bri tan-
ni ca, 1920), XI , p. 391.
32. A. H. M Jones, Studies in Roman Government and Law (New York: Barnes &
Nobl e, 1968), p. 49.
33. Charl es Norri s Cochrane, ChTistzani@ and Classical Cul ture: A Stud~ i n Thought
and Action from Augustus to Augustine (New York: Oxford Uni versi ty Press, [1944]
1957), p. 132.
34. Edward Gi bbon, The Histoy of the Decline and Fall rf the Roman Empire (1776),
Mi l man edi ti on, 5 vol s. (Phi l adel phi a: Porter & Coates, n.d.), I , p. 123.
cl osed pol i ti cs. Rome had i n fact exti ngui shed pol i ti cs. I t therefore
exti ngui shed the rel i gi on of the cl assi cal worl d. Pol i ti cal power
rather than pol i ti cal parti ci pati on had become the central pol i ti cal
fact .35 Cl assi cal pol i ti cal phi l osophy col l apsed i n the face of Romes
uni versal i st sol uti on to the probl em of the pl ural i sti c pantheon of
gods. 36 They had mul ti pl i ed so rapi dI y that not one of them retai ned
suffi ci ent authori ty or respect to provi de l egi ti macy to the new i nter-
nati onal fl ol i s. I n that cacophony of bl i nd, si l ent gods (Dan. 5:23),
man offi ci al l y i nheri ted di vi ni ty not men: one man. And the
praetori an guards thereby became pol i ti cal l y soverei gn.
Rome was then i nvaded by the gods of the East. There are no re-
l i gi ous vacuums. 37 There is no neutrali&. The cacophony of the pan-
theon was fol l owed by the cacophony of the competi ng cul ts of the
Empi re. The noi se of the ri tual s bel ow easi l y drowned out the si l ence
from the pantheon above. By the thi rd century, every aspect of
Roman l i fe had begun to break down. Pol i ti cal anarchy, drugs, fam-
i ne, peasant revol ts, and i nfl ati on shook the very foundati ons of the
soci ety. Of 26 rei gni ng Emperors, 25 di ed vi ol entl y. t8 But the cruci al
chaos was rel i gi ous:
The resul ts were not l ess di sastrous i n the real m of spi ri tual and i ntel l ec-
tual l i fe. Al l efforts to mai ntai n a cordon sanitaire about I tal y fi nal l y col l apsed;
Ori ental i sm i n i ts grosser forms broke i n wave after wave upon the capi tal ,
and there now began i n earnest the process of di l uti on whereby occi dental
val ues were to be overwhel med. Meanwhi l e, the voi ce of Greek and Lati n
l i terature, whi ch had been heard wi thout i nterrupti on for centuri es, was al -
most sti l l ed; and the very si l ence testi fi es wi th el oquence to the wretched-
ness of the ti me. Such mi serabl e records as survi ve poi nt to an i ntensi fi ca-
ti on of anxi ety as the empi re pl unged i nto more and more hopel ess con-
fusi on; and men began to anti ci pate the actual end of the worl d. 39
They were correct; i t was the end of the worl d the cl assi cal worl d.
Constanti ne made the Empi re offi ci al l y Chri sti an i n the fi rst quarter
35. Wol i n, Politics and Vtsion, p. 91.
36. I bid., p. 92.
37. Quantum physi cs teaches that ther e ar e r eal l y no vacuums. Even when al l
the matter of a system i s removed, not al l the energy i s removed. Thi s energy of the
non-empty vacuum i s cal l ed zero-poi nt energy. Thi s makes no sense, but nei ther
does i nterpl anetary gravi tati on attracti on at a di stance wi thout any i nterveni ng
physi cal connecti on.
38. Cochrane, Christian@ and Cl assi cal Cul ture, p. 153.
39. I bid., p. 154.
Sanctuay and Su~rage 81
of the fourth century. The chaos ended. The pol ythei sm ended. One
l ast bri ef attempt to re-establ i sh the ol d order was made by Jul i an
the Apostate i n 361-63, who attempted to substi tute the rel i gi on of
the sun god for the rel i gi on of God the Son, but he fai l ed.4J
Thi s gri m pol i ti cal tradi ti on was basi c to the l egacy of the
cl assi cal worl d to the West. 41 From the col l apse of pagan Rome unti l
the Renai ssance, thi s pol i ti cal -theol ogi cal aspect of the cl assi cal
l egacy was repudi ated by the Chri sti an West. Thi s i s not to say that
Chri sti ani ty rejected pre-I mperi al cl assi cal pol i ti cal philosophy. The
seemi ng l ogi cal autonomy of cl assi cal pol i ti cal phi l osophy was both
capti vati ng and mi sl eadi ng; i t l ed earl y Chri sti an thi nkers to con-
cl ude that the Pol i s had not been the ri tual -based associ ati on that i t
had been. The uni versal i st of Stoi c natural ri ghts phi l osophy
whi ch had been a desperate counter-move by nonpol i ti cal Hel l en-
i sti c schol ars i n the face of the di si ntegrati on of the Pol i s4z al so
seemed to have found l egi ti mate expressi on i n the uni versal Church.
Thus, Chri sti ans adopted some features of cl assi cal thought, espe-
ci al l y the natural ri ghts theori es of the l ater Stoi cs. But Chri sti an
thi nkers re-worked thi s tradi ti on. Pi ety and i mpi ety had been topi cs
for cl assi cal pol i ti cal phi l osophers, but heresy had not been .43 The
ri se of Chri sti ani ty had radi cal l y al tered thi s non-creedal aspect of
cl assi cal pol i ti cal phi l osophy. What men bel i eve about God became
an i mportant aspect of ci ti zenshi p.
Modern Po@heism
Wi th the sel f-consci ous revi val of cl assi cal thought duri ng the
Renai ssance came a revi val of cl assi cal pol i ti cal theory, though of
course modi fi ed by the cul tural defeat of pagan i dol atry duri ng the
Mi ddl e Ages. Supernatural el ements of cl assi cal thought were
removed. Machi avel l i (1469-1527) i s the fami l i ar exampl e, especi al l y
i n The Discourses. M Machi avel l i reacted agai nst the concepti on of pol -
i ti cs as an aspect of a hol y commonweal th founded on an oath whi ch
i mpl i ci tl y or expl i ci tl y cal l s down Gods eternal sancti ons on the ci vi l
government. Pol i ti cs, he taught, has nothi ng to do wi th eternal sanc-
40. I bid., ch. 7.
41. Fustel de Coul anges, Ancient Ci@
42. Wol i n, Politics and Vision, pp. 77-82.
43. Warren W i ni arski , Ni ccol o Machi avel l i , m Hutory of Political Philosophy,
edi ted by Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey (Chi cago: Rand McNal l y, 1963), p. 258.
44. Herbert Butterfi el d, The Statecraft of Machiavelli (London: Bel l , 1955), pp.
39-40, 49-58.
ti ons. Accordi ng to Machi avel l i , thi s combi nati on of uni versal , ab-
sol uti zed moral demands wi th thei r fi nal sancti on i n the next worl d,
i nstead of maki ng man as good as possi bl e by havi ng the goal at the
hi ghest, have resul ted i n the utmost di sorder and rui n.As The hu-
mani st i mpul se i s cl ear:
Machi avel l i l owered the mark. He thus enabl ed man more easi l y to reach
i t. By l i berati ng man from consi derati ons of otherworl dl y perfecti on, he
gave hi m expanded esti mati ons of hi s own power as wel l as enl arged expec-
tati ons for hi s own estate. No l onger havi ng to l ook up so hi gh, man ac-
qui red a new di gni ty i n hi s own eyes: he became not onl y l ord of hi msel f
and hi s own desti ny i n the moral and pol i ti cal sphere, but was now free to
become l ord of nature i tsel f. . . . As transcendent goal s for human l i fe are
abandoned (on the ground that they make men i ndi fferent to the earth),
human l i fe as such i s di vi ni zed, made i nto somethi ng transcendent. . . . M
Machi avel l i s cl assi cal pol i ti cal l egacy i s sti l l honored today.
Modern men are too sophi sti cated to erect a ci vi c pantheon of l ocal
or regi onal gods. Men today have l ost fai th i n the i dol atrous pol y-
thei sm of the anci ent worl d. They have substi tuted i nstead a new
pol ythei sm, the po~theism of original~ autonomous individual men. The
fami l y of man i s the presupposi ti on of thi s new pol ythei sm every
man hi s own autonomous god. Seventeenth- and ei ghteenth-century
pol i ti cal theory asserted that these gods came together at some ti me
i n the mythi cal past hypotheti cal hi story
47
i n order to transfer
some of thei r soverei gn y to a common ci vi l government. Thi s trans-
fer, i n fact, created ci vi l government. Such a vi ew of ci vi l govern-
ment i s pol ythei sm stri pped of i ts supernatural el ement, but pol ythei sm
nonethel ess. Thi s i s the contract (compact) theory of the State, 48 a
vi ew sti l l popul ar at the ti me of the Ameri can Consti tuti onal conven-
ti on, whi ch was regarded by i ts defenders as at l east anal ogous to the
compact theory of the State.
Rushdoony has stated the probl em of modern pol i ti cs as wel l as
anyone has: Modern pol i ti cal orders are pol ythei sti c i mperi al
states, but the churches are not much better. To hol d, as the
churches do, Roman Cathol i c, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran, Cal vi n-
45. Wi ni arski , Machi avel l i , op. cit., p. 259.
46. I bid., p. 273.
47, Rober t A. Ni sbet, Social Change and Histoy: Aspects of tb Watem Theov of Devel-
opment (New York: Oxford Uni versi ty press, 1969), ch- 4.
48. Ernest Barker (cd.), Soci al Contrast: Essays by Locke, Hume, and Rousseau (New
York: Oxford Uni versi ty Press, 1962).
i st, and al l others vi rtual l y, that the l aw was good for I srael , but that
Chri sti ans and the church are under grace and wi thout l aw, or under
some hi gher, newer l aw, i s i mpl i ci t pol ythei sm.4g
Ci vi l War i n the Fami l y of Man
Jesus announced the destructi on of the theol ogi cal foundati on of
mans confi dence i n the bl ood-based fami l y of man, and i n doi ng so,
He al so destroyed the theoreti cal foundati on of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm.
He sai d: Whosoever therefore shal l confess me before men, hi m wi l l
I confess al so before my Father whi ch i s i n heaven. But whosoever
shal l deny me before men, hi m wi l l I al so deny before my Father
whi ch i s i n heaven. Thi nk not that I am come to send peace on
earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a
man at vari ance agai nst hi s father, and the daughter agai nst her
mother, and the daughter i n l aw agai nst her mother i n l aw. And a
mans foes shal l be they of hi s own househol d (Matt. 10:32-36). I f
the bl oodl i ne fami l y i tsel f has been broken by Chri sts gospel , what
l egi ti mate hope can men have i n the pol i ti cal uni fi cati on of the fam-
i l y of man on any basi s other than the compl ete tri umph of the gos-
pel i n hi story or i ts utter defeat? For as l ong as there are churches
sti l l meeti ng, there cannot be a rebui l t Tower of Babel . Therefore,
those who wi sh to worshi p at the Tower wi l l seek to destroy the
churches.
Paul announced to the Atheni ans regardi ng God as Creator:
And bath made of one bl ood al l nati ons of men for to dwel l on al l the
face of the earth, and bath determi ned the ti mes before appoi nted,
and the bounds of thei r habi tati on (Acts 17:27). There i s i ndeed a
common humani ty, but thi s humani ty i s fal l en from physi cal bi rth,
man i s i n rebel l i on agai nst God. Thi s common exi stence i s not suffi -
ci ent to bri ng pol i ti cal uni ty, for at the Tower of Babel , mans l i p
hi s common God-denyi ng, man-affi rmi ng confessi on was forever
shattered. But sti l l we fi nd that God-denyi ng, man-affi rmi ng men
seek to reconstruct that Tower and restore the l ost uni ty of the soci -
et y of Satan. w Reconstruction is therefore an inescapable concept. Ther e i s
ei ther Chri sti an Reconstructi on or Tower Reconstructi on. God i n-
49. R. J. Rushdoony, The I nm!itutes of Biblical Law (Nutl ey, New Jersey: Crai g
Press, 1973), p. 18.
50. R. J. Rushdoony, The Soci ety of Satan (1964); repri nted in Biblical Econom-
izer Today, I I (Ott.-Nov 1979).
structs each person: Choose thi s day whi ch of these two i nterna-
ti onal publ i c works projects you wi sh to get devote your l i fe to .51
One of the areas of confl i ct between the ki ngdom of Chri st and
the ki ngdom of Satan i s pol i ti cs. Humani sm makes thi s arena the
most promi nent one, not Chri sti ani ty. Sal vati on by pol i ti cs i s a hu-
mani st myth. As the ki ngdom of humani sm has extended over the
face of the earth, pol i ti cal confl i cts have escal ated. The twenti eth
century has been the age of mass warfare and the age of pol i ti cs. 52
These two facts are not randoml y connected.
Chri sti an pol i ti cal theory asks thi s questi on: Who i s authori zed to
speak for God in civil government? Al so: On what judi ci al basi s i s thi s
spokesman so authori zed? Someone must speak the Word of God i n
judgment i n ci vi l government, just as i n church government and
fami l y government. I f Gods judgmental Word i s not spoken, then
mans judgmental word wi l l be. The questi on i s: Can there be a per-
manent pol i ti cal arrangement i n hi story i n whi ch Gods Word and
mans word are spoken together?
Thi s i s the fundamental questi on answered by pol i ti cal pl ural -
i sm. I t answersyes. How can Chri sti ans l egi ti matel y al so answeryes?
Probl ems Wi th Pol i ti cal Pl ural i sm
There are many probl ems wi th the modern phi l osophy of pol i ti -
cal pl ural i sm. Permi t me to l i st fi ve of them.
1. Pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i s founded on a l i e, namel y, that al l pol i ti cal i ssues
are not at bottom rel i gi ous. Pol i ti cal pl ural i sts refuse to admi t that tempor-
ary rel i gi ous and cul tural cease-fi res are not permanent peace treati es. At
best, pl ural i sm masks the escal ati ng hi stori cal confl i cts onl y for a season.
2. Pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i s ul ti matel y based on pol ythei sm: many moralities,
many gods, many gods. I t i gnores the fact that every god offers a covenant to
men, and each i nsi sts that men submi t to i ts terms. The terms vary, god to
god.
3. Under pol i ti cal pl ural i sm, we eventual l y get ci vi l wars anyway. One
si de sees i ts covenant as the covenant of l i fe, and i ts ri val s covenant as a
covenant wi th death.
51. Gary North, Healer of the Nations: Btblical Blueprints for I ntemsational Relations (Ft.
52. Cf. Robert Ni sbet, The Present Age: Prog?ess and Anarchy i n Modem America (New
York: Harper & Row, 1988).
SanctuaV and Sufrage 85
4. The i deol ogy of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm l eads strai ght to government-
fi nanced educati on based on a pol i ti cal l y announced set of common ci vi c
vi rtues , a set of vi rtues whi ch i s now and al ways has been a sel f-consci ous
program to destroy Chri sti an educati on. 53
5. Publ i c neutral educati on soon l eads to i ncreasi ng pressure for
academi c accredi tati on pri mary, secondary, col l eges, and uni versi ti es
by humani sts, l eadi ng di rectl y to the destructi on of systemati cal l y Chri sti an
formal educati on.
Pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i s the rei gni ng pol i ti cal myth of our era. I t
rests squarel y on the doctri ne of the sovereignty of autonomous man, an
ei ghteenth-century anal ogue of the di vi ne ri ght of ki ngs. 54 The
di vi ne-ri ghts doctri ne cl ai ms that there i s no judi ci al appeal i n hi s-
tory beyond the desi gnated soverei gn agent: bi shop, ki ng, or peopl e.
Men can fi nd peace onl y by submi tti ng to thi s di vi ne agent or by
revol ti ng agai nst i t and repl aci ng i t wi th a new authori ty.
Key questi ons i nevi tabl y ari se: Who speaks for thi s soverei gn
agent i n hi story? Who enforces hi s wi l l ? What i f the soverei gn agent
i s i tsel f di vi ded? How i s hi s wi l l then di scovered? I n short, what i s
modern pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i f not an attempt to reconstruct the Tower
of Babel ? How can men fi nd peace i n hi story i f there i s perpetual war
wi thi n the Tower?
Chri sti ans have al most uni versal l y adopted the phi l osophy of
pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i n our day. Li ke al l pl ural i sts, they have refused to
face these questi ons courageousl y. They pretend that they can defer
answeri ng them i ndefi ni tel y. They seek peace, and when they do not
fi nd i t, they announce i t anyway.
Peace, Peace
Li ke the humani st schol ar Erasmus of Rotterdam, pol i ti cal
pl ural i sts seek peace and qui et from rel i gi ousl y i rreconci l abl e con-
fl i cts i n i ntel l ectual and i nsti tuti onal l i fe. They presume that i f rea-
sonabl e men wi l l si mpl y l eave dogmati c rel i gi on out of the di s-
cussi on, they can come to a workabl e agreement. The humani sts of
the fi fteenth and si xteenth centuri es cal l ed on ci vi l i zati ons warri ng
combatants to cal m down, have a l i ttl e non-communi on wi ne, and
53. R. J. Rushdoony, The Messianic Character of Anwrican Education (Nutl ey, New
Jersey: Crai g Press, 1963).
54. Edmund S. Morgan, I nventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovere@y m Eng-
land and Azwrica (New Yor k: Nor ton, 1988).
read an anci ent manuscri pt or two, preferabl y untransl ated. Thei r
spi ri tual hei rs today bel i eve that the phi l osophi cal wars of ci vi l i za-
ti on are not much di fferent i n pri nci pl e from the personal confl i cts of
the col l eges facul ty l ounge.
These peopl e conveni entl y forget that access to the facul ty
l ounge has been systemati cal l y screened for many decades i n order
to remove or i sol ate al l those who mi ght cause epi stemol ogi cal
di ssenti on. Those trapped i n the unaccredi ted or untenured outer
darkness are not consi dered to be part of the accepted uni verse of
academi c di scourse. And so, i n thi s sense, the facul ty l ounge real l y i s
the ci vi l order wri t smal l : no one worri es too much about the pl i ght
of those who fai l ed to gai n authori zed access. I n pl ural i sm, there i s
al ways some group beyond the pal e. There i s al ways someone
l ocked out of the voti ng booth because of what he bel i eves or where
he l i ves.
I rreconcilable Coniict
The pl ural i st i s unwi l l i ng to admi t publ i cl y one of the fundamen-
tal pri nci pl es of the Bi bl e: there i s an i rreconci l abl e confl i ct i n hi story
and i n al l of mans i nsti tuti ons between God and Satan, covenant-
keepers and covenant-breakers, spi ri tual l i ght and spi ri tual dark-
ness. Paul made thi s pri nci pl e cl ear when speaki ng of the vol untary
covenantal i nsti tuti ons of Church and fami l y.
Be ye not unequal l y yoked together wi th unbel i evers: for what fel l ow-
shi p bath ri ghteousness wi th unri ghteousness? and what communi on bath
l i ght wi th darkness? And what concord bath Chri st wi th Bel i al ? or what
part bath he that bel i eveth wi th an i nfi del ? And what agreement bath the
templ e of God wi th i dol s? for ye are the templ e of the l i vi ng God; as God
bath sai d, I wi l l dwel l i n them, and wal k i n them; and I wi l l be thei r God,
and they shal l be my peopl e. Wherefore come out from among them, and
be ye separate, sai th the Lord, and touch not the uncl ean thi ng; and I wi l l
recei ve you, And wi l l be a Father unto you, and ye shal l be my sons and
daughters, sai th the Lord Al mi ghty (I I Cor. 6:14-18).
Thi s same pri nci pl e appl i es to the ci vi l covenant. Chri sti ans are
not to be unequal l y yoked wi th non-Chri sti ans. There i s onl y one
way to achi eve thi s goal : withdrawal from politics. Th~ questi on i s:
Who shoul d wi thdraw, covenant-keepers or covenant-breakers?
Pi eti sts answer that covenant-keepers shoul d wi thdraw; bi bl i cal
theocrats i nsi st that covenant-breakers shoul d wi thdraw. One si de or
Sanctua~ and Sugj%age 87
the other must eventual l y excl ude i ts ri val . (Pol i ti cal pl ural i sts argue
that both groups can make a permanent pol i ti cal covenant.) The l ong-
term goal of Chri sti ans i n pol i ti cs shoul d be to gai n excl usi ve control
over the franchi se. Those who refuse to submi t publ i cl y to the eter-
nal sancti ons of God by submi tti ng to Hi s Churchs publ i c marks of
the covenant bapti sm and hol y communi on must be deni ed ci ti -
zenshi p, just as they were i n anci ent I srael . The way to achi eve thi s
pol i ti cal goal i s through successful mass evangel i sm fol l owed by con-
sti tuti onal revi si on.
The Questi on of Pol i ti cal Parti ci pati on
Thi s pol i ti cal questi on for Chri sti ans i s: How much pol i ti cal par-
ti ci pati on, and why? One common l i ne of reasoni ng i s that Chri s-
ti ans are to be sal t and l i ght i n soci ety. Thi s posi ti on general l y i n-
vol ves a cal l to l i mi ted parti ci pati on. Not much can be done to heal
the si tuati on, but i f we can do somethi ng posi ti ve, we shoul d. Thi s i s
the outl ook of pol i ti cs as a rescue mi ssi on.
Another approach i s to appeal to the metaphor of the l eaven.
Another parabl e spake he unto them; The ki ngdom of heaven i s l i ke
unto l eaven, whi ch a woman took, and hi d i n three measures of
meal , ti l l the whol e was l eavened (Matt. 13:33). I f based on the
pri nci pl e of l eaven, then the appropri ate Chri sti an approach to pol i -
ti cs woul d be to adopt the strategy of steady replacement of evi l wi th
good. 55 Paul made i t cl ear: there can be no permanent covenantal
reconci l i ati on between the Chri sti an and the non-Chri sti an. One or
the other must forsake hi s covenant vows. 56 Thi s has to appl y to the
ci vi l covenant, for i t i s one of Gods three desi gnated covenantal i n-
sti tuti ons. The l eaven of ri ghteousness fi l l s the pol i ti cal arena and
thereby repl aces the l eaven of unri ghteousness. Repl acement i s the
goal , not l ong-term co-operati on. Thi s i s why modern Chri sti an so-
ci al theori sts are unl i kel y to adopt the metaphor of l eaven. I t i s the
one I use, however.
55. I t i s preposterous to argue, as di spensati onal i sts do, that l eaven i n the Bi bl e i s
al ways associ ated wi th evi l . What about the Ol d Covenant peace offeri ng? Besi des
the cakes, he shal l offer for hi s offeri ng l eavened bread wi th the sacri fi ce of thanks-
gi vi ng of hi s peace offeri ngs (Lev. 7:13), What about the Ol d Covenant fi rstfrui ts
offeri ng at Pentecost (yes, Pentecost)? Ye shal l bri ng out of your habi tati ons two
wave l oaves of two tenth deal s: they shal l be of fi ne fl our; they shal l be baken wi th
l eaven: thev are the fi rstfrui ts unto the LORD (Lev. 23:17).
,,
56. There can be a cease-fi re, as i n the case of the bel i evi ng spouse who r emai ns
wi th the unbel i evi ng spouse. But remember: Chri sti ans are not vol untari l y to enter
i nto such per manent covenants wi th non-Chr i sti ans; i t onl y i s supposed to exi st
when one spouse i s converted to Chri st after the marri age.
The Three Views
Actual l y, there are three common vi ews today regardi ng Chri s-
ti ans and pol i ti cal parti ci pati on: wi thdrawal , preservati on, and re-
pl acement (separati on, accommodati on, and transformati on). Pre-
mi l l enni al theol ogy, especi al l y di spensati onal i sm, tended i n practi ce
toward the fi rst vi ew unti l the l ate 1970s. I ts proponents were con-
tent to suffer the ol der, mi l der forms of persecuti on and ri di cul e by
Ameri can pol i ti cal pl ural i sm. Ami I l enni al i sm and academi c (hi s-
tori c) premi l l enni al i sm have both favored the second vi ew: sal t and
l i ght i n an age of permanent darkness. I ts proponents have been sel f-
consci ousl y favorabl e to pl ural i sm, even when the pol i ti cal system i s
authori tari an. They see no al ternati ve except anarchy or outri ght
tyranny. Theocrati c postmi l l enni al i sm favors the thi rd vi ew. I ts pro-
ponents are ready to use pol i ti cal pl ural i sm unti l the day that Chri s-
ti ans have suffi ci ent votes and vol untary support from the voti ng
publ i c to change the pol i ti cal rul es. Thi s i s how the conspi rators stol e
the republ i c from col oni al Ameri can Chri sti ans; the stol en goods can
be repossessed i n exactl y the same way.
The questi on remai ns: Why shoul d Chri sti ans get i nvol ved i n
pol i ti cs? For many years i n Ameri can hi story, especi al l y after the
repeal of the ei ghteenth amendment (Prohi bi ti on), whi ch had pro-
hi bi ted the l egal sal e of al cohol i c beverages, i n 1933,57 fundamen-
tal i st Chri sti ans coul d not thi nk of a good reason. They mi ght vote
occasi onal l y, but the y i nsi sted that pol i ti cs i s a di rty busi ness , and
that i t i s a waste of ti me to seek pol i ti cal sol uti ons to the probl ems
of thi s worl d. They di d not vote as a sel f-consci ous pol i ti cal i nter-
est group, as they had i n 1918, when the ei ghteenth amendment was
passed.
Dtyleat by D#ault
The probl em wi th thi s atti tude i s that i t l eaves the pol i ti cal arena
under the domi nati on of those who do bel i eve that pol i ti cal acti on i s
the way to sol ve the major probl ems of thi s worl d. Chri sti ans for dec-
ades di d not understand that successful pol i ti cs must be as much
negati ve as posi ti ve: getti ng the State out of the affai rs of men. (Few
of them understand thi s today.) They di d not devote themsel ves to
the study of pol i ti cs i n general or to the bi bl i cal l aws governi ng ci vi l
57. John Kobl er, Ardent Sfiints: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition (New York: Putnams,
1973).
SanctuaV and Su@age 89
justi ce. (Few of them do today.) They di d not l earn that the~udicial
goal of the civil government is overwhelming~ negative: prohi bi ti ng moral l y
evi l publ i c acts rather than coerci ng i ndi vi dual s or organi zati ons i nto
doi ng acts of posi ti ve good. Thus, they were out of offi ce when those
who bel i eve i n pol i ti cal sal vati on sal vati on by l aw came i nto
power and reshaped the Ameri can republ i c. They coul d not hal t or
even sl ow down the engi ne of secul ar humani sm. Chri sti ans have
become thi rd-cl ass ci ti zens preci sel y because they have for too l ong
bel i eved that pol i ti cs i s a questi onabl e acti vi ty for Chri sti ans.
We are sti l l resi dents i n the worl d, of course, l i vi ng i n the mi dst
of covenant-breakers. We cannot escape hi story. But Chri sti ans are
i nevi tabl y at war throughout hi story wi th a ri val ki ngdom whi ch
seeks to overcome us, as representati ves of Gods ki ngdom. Chri st
has al ready defi ni ti vel y overcome thi s ri val ki ngdom. These thi ngs I
have spoken unto you, that i n me ye mi ght have peace. I n the worl d
ye shal l have tri bul ati on: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the
worl d (John 16: 33). We shal l progressi vel y overcome i t, too, as the
representati ves of Jesus Chri st i n hi story. 58 Onl y then wi l l ,hi story
end: Then cometh the end, when he shal l have del i vered up the
ki ngdom to God, even the Father; when he shal l have put down al l
rul e and al l authori ty and power. For he must rei gn, ti l l he bath put
al l enemi es under hi s feet. The l ast enemy that shal l be destroyed i s
death (I Cor. 15:24-26).
I f we represent God i n hi story, how can we represent Jesus
Chri st i n any capaci ty other than as defi ni ti ve conquerors who are
progressi vel y worki ng out the i mpl i cati ons of thi s conquest i n hi s-
tory? To do l ess, we i nescapabl y deny representati onal l y Hi s defi ni -
ti ve vi ctory over si n at Cal vary, and Hi s el evati on to the ri ght hand
of God at the ascensi on. Thi s i s what the earl y Church bel i eved. 59 I t
shoul d be the modern Churchs vi si on, too.
Gods Law and Gods Ki ngdom
The vi si bl e mani festati on of Gods ki ngdom i n hi story i nvol ves
the progressi ve extensi on of Hi s l aw and gospel over al l the earth,
century by century. What anci ent I srael was supposed to reveal for
forei gners to see wi thi n i ts nati onal boundari es, New Covenant ci vi -
58. Roderi ck Campbel l , I srael and the New Covenant (Phi l l i psburg, New Jersey:
Presbyteri an & Reformed, [1954] 1981).
59. Davi d M. Hay, Gloiy at th Right Hand: Psalm 110 i n Ear~Christiani~ (Nash-
vi l l e, Tennessee: Abi ngdon, 1973).
l i zati on i n al l i ts di versi ty i s requi red to mani fest across al l nati onal
boundari es: the enforcement of Go#s13ible-revealed law, begi nni ng wi th
sel f-government, through the empoweri ng of the Hol y Spi ri t. Our
procl amati on must be: Al l Nati ons Under God.~ The fol l owi ng i s
progressi vel y to become every covenanted nati ons vi si bl e testi mony
to the worl d:
Behol d, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my
Thi s passage was the judi ci al foundati on of Chri sts di scussi on of the
ci ty on a hi l l :
Ye are the sal t of the earth: but i f the sal t have l ost hi s savour, wherewi th
shal l i t be sal ted? i t i s thenceforth good for nothi ng, but to be cast out, and
to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the l i ght of the worl d. A ci ty that i s
set on an hi l l cannot be hi d. Nei ther do men l i ght a candl e, and put i t under
a bushel , but on a candl esti ck; and i t gi veth l i ght unto al l that are i n the
house. Let your l i ght so shi ne before men, that they may see your good
works, and gl ori fy your Father whi ch i s i n heaven. Thi nk not that I am
come to destroy the l aw, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to
ful fi l . For ver i l y I say unto you, Ti l l heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
ti ttl e shal l i n no wi se pass from the l aw, ti l l al l be ful fi l l ed. Whosoever there-
fore shal l break one of these l east commandments, and shal l teach men so,
he shal l be cal l ed the l east i n the ki ngdom of heaven: but whosoever shal l do
and teach them, the same shal l be cal l ed great i n the ki ngdom of heaven
(Matt. 5:13-17).
The i ssue Jesus rai ses here i s the l aw of God. Moses and Jesus
are agreed: the testi mony of the gospel in action i s i nevi tabl y ti ed to the
public, visible enforcement of the Bible-revealed law of God, begi nni ng wi th
sel f-government, but not stoppi ng there. Thi s, however, l eads to an
unpopul ar concl usi on: the inescapable warjfare of rival law-orders. Rush-
60. Gar y DeMar, Ruler of the Nations: Biblical Blueprints for Government (Ft. Worth,
SanctuaV and Suffrage 91
doony has spel l ed thi s out: . . . l aw i s a form of warfare. By l aw,
certai n acts are abol i shed, and the persons commi tti ng those acts
ei ther executed or brought i nto conformi ty to l aw.Gl And i f a gi ven
pol i ti cal order i s judi ci al l y schi zophreni c, as al l forms of pol i ti cal
pl ural i sm must be, then ci vi l war or nati onal defeat i s i nevi tabl e: I f
a doctri ne of authori ty embodi es contradi cti ons wi thi n i tsel f, then i t
i s eventual l y bound to fal l apart as the di verse strai ns war agai nst
one another. Thi s has been a conti nui ng part of the vari ous cri ses of
Western ci vi l i zati on. Because the Bi bl i cal doctri ne of authori ty has
been compromi sed by Greco-Roman humani sm, the tensi ons of au-
thori ty have been sharp and bi tter.GZ
Dktente
The modern humani st rejects al l thi s. So does the modern pol i ti -
cal pl ural i st. So does the modern anti nomi an evangel i cal or funda-
mental i st. Al l three are agreed: we are to seek pol i ti cal peace wi thi n
the total fami l y of man. We must therefore al l ow equal ti me for
Satan i n soci ety.
There i s a growi ng probl em wi th thi s pl atform: step by step, the
ci vi l authori ti es al l ow l ess and l ess ti me for Jesus. The transforma-
ti on of the Ameri can publ i c school system i s the obvi ous exampl e.
The Darwi ni sts control i t by l aw. Thi s i s the i nevi tabl e resul t of the
theol ogy of d~tente, the quest for permanent peace apart from the un-
condi ti onal surrender of al l men to God. 63 The sel f-consci ous party
to the ddente agreement wi l l use the extra ti me to consol i date hi s posi -
ti on at the expense of the nai ve party who mi sunderstands the nature
of the treaty: a temporary cease-fi re. Thi s expl ai ns Western forei gn
pol i cys conti nual defeats at the hands of the Sovi et Uni on, and i t
al so expl ai ns the ni neteenth-century and twenti eth-century pol i ti cal
tri umph of secul ar humani sm i n the West. ~
The prophet Ezeki el deal t pl ai nl y wi th those of hi s day who pro-
moted the pol i cy of diterzte. I t stands as a warni ng throughout hi story
to al l those especi al l y pri ests wi thi n the househol d of fai th who
woul d weaken the resi stance of Chri sti ans to the l ure of pol i ti cal
pl ural i sm. Pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i s the pol i cy of the broken wal l .
61. Rushdoony, I nstitutes of Bibltcal Law, p. 191; see al so pp. 92-95.
62. I bid., p. 213.
63. Gar y Nor th, Unconditional Surrendm: Gods Program for VictoV (3rd ed.; Tyl er,
64. North, Healer of the Nations.
Because, even because they have seduced my peopl e, sayi ng, Peace;
and there was no peace; and one bui l t up a wal l , and, 10, others daubed i t
wi th untempered mortar: Say unto them whi ch daub i t wi th untempered
mortar, that i t shal l fal l : there shal l be an overfl owi ng shower; and ye, O
great hai l stones, shal l fal l ; and a stormy wi nd shal l rend i t. Lo, when the
wal l i s fal l en, shal l i t not be sai d unto you, Where i s the daubi ng wherewi th
ye have daubed i t? Therefore thus sai th the Lord GOD; I wi l l even rend i t
wi th a stormy wi nd i n my fury; and there shal l be an overfl owi ng shower i n
mi ne anger, and great hai l stones i n my fury to consume i t. So wi l l I break
down the wal l that ye have daubed wi th untempered mortar, and bri ng i t down
to the ground, so that the foundati on thereof shal l be di scovered, and i t
shal l fal l , and ye shal l be consumed i n the mi dst thereofi and ye shal l know
that I am the LORD. Thus wi l l I accompl i sh my wrath upon the wal l , and
upon them that have daubed i t wi th untempered mortar, and wi l l say unto
you, The wal l i s no more, nei ther they that daubed i t; To wi t, the prophets
of I srael whi ch prophesy concerni ng Jerusal em, and whi ch see vi si ons of
peace for her, and there i s no peace, sai th the Lord GOD (Ezek. 13:10-16).
Pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i s a myth, the offi ci al phi l osophy of a perpet-
ual cease-fi re. Li ke ddente wi th the Nazi s or the Communi sts, i t i s a
myth useful onl y to some, a gi ganti c publ i c rel ati ons pl oy of an
i mpl acabl e enemy, who uses a ti me of peace to consol i date hi s posi -
ti on for the next assaul t. Chri sti ans are nai ve. They bel i eve that they
shoul d al ways thi nk the best of peopl e, gi vi ng thei r covenant-breaki ng
opponents the benefi t of the doubt. They shoul d be ready rather to
doubt the benefi ts.
What Defi nes What the Sti pul ati ons of a Covenant Are?
Somethi ng must defi ne the rel i gi on of the covenant i n every cov-
enantal i nsti tuti on. Each covenantal i nsti tuti on needs answers: Who
i s God, who represents God, what are Gods l aws, what are Hi s
sancti ons, and who wi l l i nheri t ? There i s no escape from thi s set of
fi ve questi ons. Chri sti ans have refused to deal wi th these questi ons
for over two centuri es, as testi fi ed to by the ci vi l covenants under
whi ch they l i ve contentedl y. They refuse to go to the Bi bl e i n search
of the answers.
The Bi bl e i s the onl y sel f-authenti cati ng vi si bl e Word today. I t
tel l s us what the l aws of God are that govern each covenant. Al l men
are therefore to seek thei r answers i n the Bi bl e. Thi s moral requi re-
ment i s al so a l egal requi rement: God wi l l hol d al l men and al l soci -
eti es responsi bl e on judgment day, and i n hi story, for searchi ng Hi s
SanctuaV and Su@age 93
Word for the answers to these questi ons. Ei ther we go to Gods Word
i n search of the answers or to mans word. The two words are
mutual l y i rreconci l abl e. There is no neutrality.
The pol i ti cal pl ural i st necessari l y refuses to acknowl edge that the
Bi bl e i s authori tati ve i n ci vi l government. Were he to affi rm such a
thi ng, he woul d automati cal l y abandon pol i ti cal pl ural i sm. Hi s offi ci al
reason for not goi ng to the Bi bl e i s that he fears a tyranni cal mi xture
of Church and State. (I am i ncl udi ng Chri sti an defenders of pol i ti cal
pl ural i sm here.) He thi nks of Ol d Covenant I srael as i nherentl y tyran-
ni cal . Then what of Egypt and Babyl on? What of Greece and Rome?
Were they basti ons of ci vi c freedom? And i f they were, why di d they
conti nual l y and systemati cal l y oppress Gods covenant peopl e? 65
There wi l l al ways be a Church, i n ti me and eterni ty.GG There wi l l
al so be ci vi l governments i n hi story. There i s no escape from the
questi ons of the proper judicial rel ati onshi ps between Church and
State. The si x key questi ons are: 1) Who i s the soverei gn agent (or
agents) who announces each covenant? 2) Who i s authori zed to de-
fend each covenant? 3) Whose covenant standards wi l l govern each
covenant? 4) By what sancti ons? 5) For how l ong? 6) What i s the
proper rel ati on between these two covenantal i nsti tuti ons the ques-
ti on of bi bl i cal l y appropri ate mutual sancti ons? Ameri can Chri sti an-
i ty has deferred offeri ng a cl ear answer to these si x questi ons for over
two and a hal f centuri es.
The Tithe
Consi der an exampl e that was never cal l ed i nto questi on i n the
West fi ve centuri es ago, and rarel y cal l ed i nto questi on two centuri es
ago: State-enforced ti thi ng. Does the State have the God-authori zed
authori ty (note: authonty and author are l i nked) to compel al l resi dents
of a communi ty to pay money to support a speci fi c church, meani ng,
i nevi tabl y, a pol i ti cal l y approved church? Today, few Chri sti ans
woul d regard such State power as moral l y or l egal l y val i d. (I surel y
woul d not. ) Why not?
There are many reasons that coul d be offered: too much power
for the State, too cl ose an associ ati on between speci fi c churches and
65. Ethel ber t Stauffer, Chmt and the Caesars (Phi l adel phi a: Westmi nster Press,
1955).
66. One r eason why onl y the Chur ch can i n hi stor y l awful l y announce Gods
eternal sancti ons i s because she al one survi ves i ntact as a covenant agency through-
out eterni ty. She speaks for eterni ty today because she al one wi l l survi ve i n eterni ty.
the State, the bureaucrati zati on of the churches, freedom of con-
sci ence, etc. But then another probl em rai ses i ts head: What about
State-author i zed per sonal i ncome tax deducti ons for gi fts to
churches? The economi cs of the two exampl es seem to be the same:
the al l ocati on of personal funds for State-approved rel i gi ous pur-
poses. I n the fi rst case, the State compels the transfer; i n the second
case, the State i n some economi c sense subwdi ze$ the transfer by
refrai ni ng from taxi ng the money so transferred. The transfer i s en-
couraged by means of ei ther a negati ve sancti on (taxati on) or a
posi ti ve sancti on (tax-deducti bi l i ty).
Are the cases economical~ the same? Yes. The i ndi vi dual has l ess
money after the transfer, and the State does not col l ect thi s money for
i ts treasury. Are they~udi ci al ~ the same? Thi s i s a questi on whi ch very
few Chri sti ans are prepared to answer by means of a wel l -devel oped
pol i ti cal theory.
I f we do not di sti ngui sh between the ri val concepts of the State as
an agent of positive compulsory good and the State as an agent of positive
uoluntary good, we will fi nd i t di ffi cul t to di sti ngui sh the two cases
pol i ti cal l y. I f the State can l awful l y, moral l y compel a speci fi c ri ght-
eous acti on, then the State becomes i n most peopl es eyes the domi -
nant agent of soci al reform i n soci ety.7 No other agency has the per-
manent power of physi cal compul si on. (A parent exerci ses some
mi ni mal physi cal sancti ons over mi nors, but thi s power ends at some
l egal poi nt i n the chi l ds l i fe.) The State can force peopl e to do what
i t wants.
I f the State i s l i mi ted to prohi bi ti ng evi l acts (whi ch woul d al so
i ncl ude publ i c heal th measures agai nst non-human organi c i n-
vaders), then the most i t can do to promote a parti cul ar soci al good
i s to restrain itse~ by refusi ng to confi scate an i ndi vi dual s assets. I t
does not tel l the i ndi vi dual what to do wi th hi s money. I t onl y agrees
to take l ess of the persons assets i f he does certai n State-approved
thi ngs wi th the money. I n other words, rather than bei ng a restrai nt
on the i ndi vi dual , as i s the case wi th State-enforced compul sory ti th-
i ng, tax deducti ons on chari tabl e gi fts are i n fact a political~ imposed
67. I n fact, the Church i s the domi nant agency of soci al reform, for i t presents
the heavenl y model of the eternal covenant between God and man. I t al one provi des
the sacrament of the Lords Supper, whi ch i s Gods common meal wi th redeemed
manki nd. But thi s fact of the Churchs predomi nant posi ti on must be accepted on
fai th. I t i s much more di ffi cul t to prove thi s by an appeal to hi stori cal records, once
the vi ew of the State as the posi ti ve reform agent becomes wi despread i n a soci ety,
and the bureaucrats start col l ecti ng money and i ssui ng orders.
restraint on the State.cB
Not so wi th compul sory ti thi ng. Compul sory ti thi ng i s a deci si on
by one segment of the el ectorate to hand a l arge sti ck to the State
whi ch i s then used by the tax col l ector to beat some other ci ti zen over
the back unti l he turns over hi s money. A tax deducti on i s a sti ck i n
the hands of the el ectorate to beat the tax col l ector over the back un-
ti l he l eaves chari tabl e peopl e al one. He i s not al l owed to tax what
they have gi ven away. There i s a dt@erence@dicial~, even i f there i s no
di fference economi cal l y. We get very di fferent answers to the ques-
ti on: Who wi el ds the sti ck, and whose back gets whacked? The
di fference between the two paths whi ch the money takes i s al so
cruci al . On one path, the tax col l ector col l ects the funds and
di sburses them; on the other, the ci ti zen does.
Yet there i s sti l l a naggi ng probl em. I f the ci ti zen i s al l owed to
gi ve money away before the l ocusts i n the tax offi ce sweep down to
col l ect the produce of the fi el d, i s he al l owed to gi ve i t to anyone,
for any purpose? May he gi ve i t to rel ati ves, tax-free? To a profi t-
seeki ng busi ness that he owns? I thi nk most peopl e non-anarchi sts,
anyway see that thi s woul d be wrong, for i t woul d di scri mi nate
among taxpayers. Those who refuse to gi ve away money woul d have
to pay i t to the State. Yet we want to encourage chari ty. How can we
do thi s? Onl y through pol i ti cal pressure: i nstructi ng a majori ty of
l egi sl ators to al l ow tax exempti ons for speci fi c purposes.
Another questi on: Who deci des what consti tutes a church for tax
purposes? I t has to be an agency of the State. bg
We are now back to the questi on of pol i ti cs.
I ndirect Control
Humani st cri ti cs of the Church today are attempti ng to force the
reci pi ents of tax money to do al l sorts of humani st-requi red acti vi -
ti es. The case of Grove Ci ty Col l ege, a Presbyteri an col l ege i n West-
ern Pennsyl vani a, i s i nstructi ve. I t refused for many years to accept
federal tax money, si nce i t refuses to submi t to a whol e l i st of fed-
eral regul ati ons governi ng many aspects of educati on. To thwart the
68. Thi s i s not to say that the State cannot use thi s l i mi tati on to achi eve i ts goal s.
I f i t offers a benefi t, i t can i mpose a cost. Thi s i s the great threat of tui ti on vouchers
or tax credi ts for tui ti on to pri vate school s. Thei r coerci on i s l ess di rect. The bureau-
crats must be more ci rcumspect, however l ess di rect.
69. Harol d O. J. Brown, The Chri sti an Ameri ca Posi ti on, i n Gary Scott Smi th
(cd.), God and Politics: Four VGWS on the Rejonnation of Civil Government (Phi l l i psburg,
New Jersey: Presbyteri an & Reformed, 1989), p. 146.
school s escape from the regul ati ons, the federal government sued.
The col l ege does accept money from students who have recei ved
money from banks that are parti ci pati ng i n a federal l oan-guarantee
program for student l oans. I ndi rectl y, the school benefi ts from the
deci si on of the federal government to subsi di ze col l ege educati on;
hence, sai d the bureaucrats, i t had to submi t. The school protested,
and the Supreme Court uphel d the school . The Court sai d that Con-
gress woul d have to enact speci fi c l egi sl ati on sayi ng that al l such
moni es consti tute a back door to federal i ntrusi on. I n 1988, Con-
gress overwhel mi ngl y passed such a l aw, over the Presi dents veto, i n
the name of ci vi l ri ghts. Today, any organi zati on whi ch recei ves any
sort of money, di rect or i ndi rect, as a resul t of federal l egi sl ati on
comes under al l of the ci vi l ri ghts l egi sl ati ve control s, and these con-
trol s are comprehensi ve. He who pays the pi per eventual l y cal l s the
tune. Or more to the poi nt, the pi pers authori zed representati ve
does, even i f many i ndi vi dual pi pers (taxpayers and voters) do not
want to pay for i t.
So much for free federal money or bank l oans that resul t from
a federal program! But even thi s does not sati sfy the control l ers.
They want to control those i nsti tuti ons that recei ve funds even more
i ndi rectl y: tax-deducti bl e funds. I nsti tuti ons recei vi ng such funds
are prohi bi ted from engagi ng i n al l sorts of practi ces. Take another
exampl e of hi gher educati on. Bob Jones Uni versi ty i n South
Carol i na prohi bi ts i nter-raci al dati ng, a pol i cy that most (probabl y
al l ) of the parents of the students approve of. The school can more
easi l y take the heat from protesti ng students than parents can, so
the parents prefer to del egate thi s authori ty. The federal govern-
ment removed the school s tax exempti on i n 1985. The Supreme
Court uphel d thi s deci si on. The precedent i s set. There i s no l i mi t i n
pri nci pl e as to how far thi s back-door i nterventi on can go. I t i s a
pol i ti cal questi on.
We are agai n back to the questi on of pol i ti cs.
The Embarrassi ng Questi on of Theocracy
I n al l these cases, the State has to determi ne what i s or i s not l aw-
ful . What i s a l awful chari ty? What i s a l awful l ocal church? What
can the desi gnated reci pi ents l awful l y do wi th the funds recei ved as a
resul t of a federal subsi dy, di rect or i ndi rect, compul sory or vol un-
tary? There is no neutrali@ Some groups and some acti vi ti es wi l l
Sanctuar y and Su&-age 97
al ways be prohi bi ted from recei vi ng the subsi dy. The questi on then
i s: By what standard shouid the State decide?
These i ssues are now becomi ng cl earer to the humani sts who
hate the Church, as wel l as to a much smal l er number of Chri sti ans,
but the recommended Chri sti an sol uti ons are not at al l cl ear.
Radi cal humani sts woul d gl adl y repeal al l l aws that grant ei ther tax-
exempti on or tax-deducti on privileges for donors to churches and
Chri sti an school s. There are even a few humani st-i nfl uenced Chri s-
ti ans who woul d agree. But most Chri sti ans see where such an argu-
ment easi l y l eads: to the control of the churches by the State. The
power to tax i s the power to destroy, announced Supreme Court
Chi ef Justi ce John Marshal l i n 181970 the case revol ved around the
taxi ng of a federal l y chartered bank by a state government and few
Chri sti ans woul d di sagree.
T~ But how can the consi stent Chri sti an
defend the l awful soverei gnty of a parti cul ar church agai nst State
control wi thout al so rai si ng the embarrassi ng questi on of theocracy?
Who i s to say what consti tutes a church? By what standard?
I f the Chri sti an says that anyone can setup a tax-i mmune or tax-
exempt i nsti tuti on desi gnated as a church, whatever the theol ogy of
the church happens to be, he has thereby admi tted that other rel i -
gi ous fai ths are judi ci al l y equal to Chri sti ani ty. Such a l ati tudi nari an
vi ew regardi ng the establ i shi ng of churches al l ows many strangers
i n the gates to establ i sh ri val i nsti tuti ons that compete on an equal
basi s wi th the true and onl y covenant Church. Thi s cl earl y vi ol ates
Ol d Testament l aw. Everyone recogni zes thi s, so Chri sti ans today
have publ i cl y abandoned thi s aspect of Ol d Testament l aw.
But where does thi s pri nci pl e of equal i ty end? What about sut-
tee, the Hi ndu practi ce of forci ng wi dows onto the funeral pyres of
thei r husbands? What about pol ygamy, the Mormon practi ce whi ch
has never been condemned theol ogi cal l y by the Church of Jesus
Chri st of Latter Day Sai nts, but onl y suppressed provi si onal l y for
the present? What about some nati ve Ameri cans (I ndi ans) prac-
ti ce of usi ng hal l uci nogeni c drugs i n thei r worshi p servi ces? What of
orthodox Judai sms practi ce of enforci ng l aws agai nst work on Satur-
day? (I n the state of I srael , radi cal Orthodox Jews someti mes bl ock
70. McCulloch v. MaVland.
71. Chri sti ans need to argue that churches are l egal l y and i nherentl y tax-i mmune.
Churches cannot l egal l y be taxed, for they are Gods l awful soverei gns that admi ni s-
ter and enforce Gods eternal oath. But thi s i s a di fferent i ssue from the questi on of
i ncome tax-deducti bi l i ty for those gi vi ng assets to a church.
the hi ghways on Saturdays. I t i s i l l egal on Saturdays to serve a meal
i n a restaurant unti l the sun goes down. ) Some fai ths wi l l al ways be
excl uded from any soci ety. There wi l l al ways be certai n practi ces
and bel i efs that are consi dered too perverse for any soci ety to al l ow
i n publ i c. There is no neutrali~.
Sti l l , i f many chur ches ar e al l owed to pr each thei r ri val
messages, then thi s rai ses an unavoi dabl e general questi on: What is
the basis of social cohesion? I t al so rai ses a speci fi c questi on: What
shoul d be the basi s of ci vi l l aw?
Natural Law
Tradi ti onal l y, the answer of Protestants si nce the Protestant Ref-
ormati on has been an appeal to uni versal pri nci pl es of natural l aw.
The Roman Cathol i c Church al so accepted thi s pri nci pl e of l aw,
whi ch the Church fathers had reworked from Stoi c natural ri ghts
theory. But there are several probl ems wi th thi s natural -l aw ap-
proach. The fi rst probl em i s the rel i gi ous basi s of modern natural
l aw theory: humanism. Hi stori an Paul Hazard di scusses thi s i n hi s
chapter on natural l aw: Natural l aw was the offspri ng of a phi l oso-
phy whi ch rejected the supernatural , the di vi ne, and substi tuted, for
the acts and purposes of a personal God, an i mmanent form of
natur e.y2 How can Chri sti ans safel y rel y on a l egal theory that i s
ei ther athei sti c or panthei sti c?
Second, Darwi ni sm bl ew natural l aw theory to Ki ngdom Never
Come. Darwi ns uni verse i s a uni verse wi thout purpose, where
everythi ng evol ves i n terms ofjwesent~ soverei gn but evol vi ng envi ron-
mental constrai nts. The i ron l aw of nature changes. I t i s al tered by
random responses to envi ronmental constrai nts. Vari eti es then ari se
we know not why, sai d Thomas Huxl ey, Darwi ns popul ari zer. 73
Darwi ni sm persuaded men that the worl d i s under the control of
conti nual l y evol vi ng forces i n a purposel ess envi ronment. These
l aws can be di scovered by sci enti sts, thereby enabl i ng man (mean-
i ng the sci enti sts and techni ci ans) to take control of hi s envi ronment.
Soci al i sts then persuaded men that there are al so evol vi ng l aws of so-
ci ety, that these l aws can be di scovered by hi ghl y trai ned experts,
and these experts can then show pol i ti ci ans how to achi eve thei r so-
72. Paul Hazard, The European Mind, 1680-1715 (New York: Meri di an, [1935]
1963), pp. 269-70.
73. Thomas Huxl ey, The Ori gi n of Speci es (1860), i n Huxl ey, Essays, edi ted by
Frederi ck Barry (New York: Macmi l l an 1929), p. 91.
SanctuaV and Sl@rage 99
ci al goal s sci enti fi cal l y. 74
There i s therefore no natural l aw, except the l aws of i mpersonal
competi ti on (the i deol ogy of l ong-defunct Soci al Darwi ni sm) or the
ever-evol vi ng soci al l aws whi ch onl y man, meani ng sci enti fi c man,
as the uni verses onl y cosmi c soverei gn, can di scover and put to use
for personal and col l ecti ve purposes (the i deol ogy of central pl an-
ni ng). But there i s no moral l aw, no uni versal , permanent natural
pri nci pl es of moral i ty. There i s no cosmi c soverei gn, other than col -
l ecti ve man, to appeal to. Thi s i ntel l ectual l y powerful combi nati on
of Darwi ni sm and central pl anni ng expl ai ns why the fai th of the
twenti eth century has been i n the power of the State to sol ve the fun-
damental probl ems of thi s l i fe.
The Right of Appeal
To what hi gher l aw can the Chri sti an ci ti zen appeal i n the face
of wi despread i njusti ce, i njusti ce that has been fostered and pro-
tected by the State? To what l awful authori ty, other than mere
power, can Chri sti ans appeal ? I s Chri sti ani ty just another speci al -
i nterest group, cl awi ng for pol i ti cal power? Or, even i f Chri sti ans
are acti ng as Gods spokesmen, must Chri sti ans al ways conduct
themsel ves pol i ti cal l y as i f Chri sti ani ty were just another speci al -
i nterest group? Do Chri sti ans conduct evangel i sm thi s way? Do they
bel i eve that the gospel i s just another competi ng worl dvi ew am?ng
many? That Jesus i s just another Messi ah competi ng among many?
That the God of the Bi bl e i s just another di vi ni ty competi ng agai nst
many?
I n short, i n order to be a Chri sti an, must a person accept as mor-
al l y and judi ci al l y permanent a worl d i n whi ch there wi l l al ways be
many gods, many l aws, many spokesmen, and many warri ng na-
ti ons? Or can a Chri sti an rest assured that someday, i n hi story and
on earth, the Spi ri t-i nduced spread of the gospel wi l l at l ast si l ence
the many ri val voi ces, and that peopl e wi l l procl ai m al l egi ance pub-
l i cl y to the God of the Bi bl e? We know thi s wi l l be true i n the post-
resurrecti on worl d. Can we not hope to see thi s worl d steadi l y begi n
to mani fest i ts pri nci pl es i n hi story?
74. The fi rst and most promi nent Ameri can schol ar who mai ntai ned thi s vi ew
was the soci ol ogi st, Lester Frank Ward, whose two-vol ume work, Dynami c Sociology
(1883), was the fi rst study to arti cul ate the vi ew. By 1900, i t was the domi nant vi ew
among progressi ve soci al sci enti sts. See Gary North, The Dominion Covenant: Genesis
(2nd cd.; Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1987), pp. 297-318.
I f the answer i s no, then what power on earth wi l l al l ow Chri s-
ti ans to mai ntai n the status quo i n a worl d that i s goi ng downhi l l re-
l i gi ousl y as a resul t of humani sms pol ythei sm? Thi s i s what a worl d
of many competi ng l aws real l y i s: pol ythei sm. Whenever I srael
al l owed pol ythei sm to fl ouri sh, she came under judgment: the nati ons
of the gods I srael worshi ped conquered the l and for a generati on or
more. Why do we thi nk we are i mmune to si mi l ar judgments?
I n fact, hasnt thi s conquest al ready taken pl ace domesti cal l y i n
Ameri cas publ i c school s, i n the communi cati ons fi el d, i n the enter-
tai nment i ndustry, i n the aborti oni sts offi ce, i n corporate fi nance, i n
sci ence and technol ogy, and i n pol i ti cs?
We are agai n back to the questi on of pol i ti cs.
Pl ural i sms Si l ent, Empty Templ e
I t i s ti me to faceup to the real -worl d i mpl i cati ons of the theol ogy
of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm. Mi chael Novak, the Roman Cathol i c schol ar,
has become one of the major i ntel l ectual defenders of the pl ural i st
i deol ogy today. Unti l pl ural i sms Chri sti an defenders come to gri ps
wi th Novaks descri pti on of the theol ogy whi ch undergi rds pl ural -
i sm, they wi l l be l i ke bl i nd men l eadi ng others i nto the di tch. Novak
wri tes: I n a genui nel y pl ural i sti c soci ety, there i s no one sacred
canopy. By intention there i s not. At i ts spi ri tual core, there i s an
empty shri ne. That shri ne i s l eft empty i n the knowl edge that no one
word, i mage, or symbol i s worthy of what al l seek there. I ts empti -
ness, therefore, represents the transcendence whi ch i s approached
by free consci ences from a vi rtual l y i nfi ni te number of di recti ons.
. . . Bel i ever and unbel i ever, sel fl ess and sel fi sh, fri ghtened and
bol d, nai ve and jaded, al l parti ci pate i n an order whose center i s not
soci al l y i mposed.75
Questi ons: What hol ds the soci ety together when the centri fugal
forces of pol i ti cal i deol ogy begi n to shatter thi s ever-si l ent voi ce of
pl ural i sm? What voi ce of reason or moral i ty can ever speak out from
the empty shri ne? And why shoul d anyone pay any attenti on to i t i f
i t ever does? Can i t i mpose sancti ons i n hi story?
Lutheran schol ar Ri chard John Neuhaus says that he i s di s-
turbed by the i mpl i cati ons of Novaks empty shri ne, for i t comes too
cl ose to the naked publ i c square whi ch Neuhaus rejects. But what
75. Mi chael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism (New Yor k: Touchstone,
[1982] 1983), p. 53.
5anctua~ and Sufrage 101
does Neuhaus offer i n i ts pl ace? Democrati c persuasi on. Demo-
crati c persuasi on, not empti ness, i s the al ternati ve to coerci on .76
What ki nd of answer i s thi s? Certai nl y not an answer based on pol i t-
i cal theory, l et al one Remans 13:1-7. Pol i ti cal persuasi on i s al ways
and i nescapabl e y fi ersua.si on to coerce others by means of ciuil l aw. I t means
persuasi on to change any exi sti ng coerci ve sancti ons. How can
democrati c persuasi on be proposed as an al ternati ve to coerci on?
Democrati c persuasi on i s a means to coerci on. Dont democrati c ma-
jori ti es coerce those who l ose the pol i ti cal battl es? Arent the i ns
ready and wi l l i ng to see the outs suffer the consequences of defeat
at the pol l s? Thi s i s not to say that there are not al l sorts of restrai nts
on majori ti es, i nsti tuti onal and consti tuti onal . But ul ti matel y, al l
governments say yes to l aws that say no to someone.
All Law I s Theocratic
Once a pl ural i st admi ts thi s, he i s l ed, ki cki ng and screami ng,
i nto the open arms of the theocrats theocrats who procl ai m one god
or another. Today, we l i ve i n a humani st theocracy where man, the
col l ecti ve i s worshi ped as god. On the other hand, i f we, the re-
generate, covenanted peopl e ever get a suffi ci ent number of votes,
we coul d l egal l y amend the Consti tuti on. Unl ess you accept the vi ew
of those who argue that there must be absol ute unani mi ty of al l
speci al -i nterest groups before ci vi l government can l awful l y take any
acti on some versi on of Cal houns utopi an (and pro-sl avery) theory
of the concurrent majori t y
77
you must accept the concl usi on that
democratic persuasion is on~ an intermedia~ step to coercion.
Coerci on i s al so a way to i ncrease democrati c persuasi on: the
federal ci vi l ri ghts l egi sl ati on of the earl y 1960s i s an exampl e.
Whi te southerners l i teral l y changed thei r mi nds regardi ng raci al
segregati on because of these l aws, and they di d so by the end of the
decade. (Does any hi stori an want to defend the hypothesi s that the
Ci vi l Ri ghts l aw of 1964 was passed by the U.S. Congress because
the whi te-voter-domi nated Ameri can South had already changed i ts
col l ecti ve mi nd?) Al l ci vi l government i s i nherentl y coerci ve, for i t
possesses a l awful , God-granted monopol y to bear the sword. Civil
76. Ri chard J ohn Neuhaus, The Naked Public Square: Religion and Danocra~ in
America (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Eerdmans, 1984), p. 121.
77. John C. Cal houn, A Disquisition on Government (New York: Li beral Arts Press,
[1845] 1953), pp. 27-51. Thi s was fi rst publ i shed posthumousl y i n 1853. He di ed i n
1850.
government is an institution of legalized violence. Thi s i s why theonomi sts
bel i eve that i t must be restrai ned by Gods l aw and enforce Gods
l aw. There can be no escape from the concl usi on that democratic @--
suasion is not an alternative to coercion; it is simp~ one competing system of
coercion among many.
Thi s i s the di l emma of democrati c pl ural i sm. I t pretends not to
be coerci ve whenever i t chal l enges bi bl i cal theocracy. I t pretends to
have at i ts center a si l ent templ e, when i n fact the sel f-procl ai med
god of autonomous man si ts on the thr one, wi th hi s author i zed
agents shouti ng orders. I t i s ti me for democrati c pl ural i sts to stop
pretendi ng. The templ e has never been si l ent; the publ i c square has
never been naked. The humani st emper or has a whol e war dr obe of
humani st fashi ons. He onl y pretends to be theol ogi cal l y naked, the
better to confuse the Chr i sti ans. (And how wel l thi s pr etense has
worked!) I t i s ti me for Chri sti ans to shout the truth: The Emperor
has cl othes! Hi s whol e wardrobe i s stol en. Thi s i s Gods worl d, not
Satans. Chri sti ans are the l awful hei rs, not non-Chri sti ans. 78
The Silence of God
The so-cal l ed transcendent i s requi red by Novaks pl ural i st
man to si t si l ent i n i ts empty box. I f the transcendent were to speak
cl earl y i n a voi ce other than autonomous mans, thi s woul d put an
end to pl ural i sm. Thus, when i t comes to the transcendent, Novak
i nsi sts, si l ence i s gol den gol den, as i n gol den cal f. Let the Chri s-
ti an defenders of pl ural i sm deal openl y wi th Novaks chal l enge: The
wastel and at the heart of democrati c capi tal i sm i s l i ke a fi el d of bat-
tl e, on whi ch i ndi vi dual s wander al on~, i n some confusi on, ami d
many casual ti es. Nonethel ess, l i ke the dark ni ght of the soul i n the
i nner journey of the mysti cs, thi s desert has an i ndi spensabl e pur-
pose. I t i s mai ntai ned out of respect for the di versi ty of human con-
sci ences, percepti ons, and i ntenti ons. I t i s swept cl ean out of
reverence for the sphere of the transcendent, to whi ch the i ndi vi dual
has access through the sel f, beyond the medi ati ons of soci al i nsti tu-
ti ons. The domai n of the transcendent, of course, i s medi ated by l i t-
erature, rel i gi on, fami l y, and fel l ows. But i t i s fi nal l y centered i n the
si l ence i n each person.79 That i s to say, the transcendent had better
keep i ts bi g mouth shut. Autonomous man i s now on the scene. The
78. Gar y Nor th, I nherit the Earth: Biblical Blueprints for Economi cs (Ft. Wor th,
79. Novak, Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, pp. 54-55.
SanctuaV and Su..age 103
transcendent had better hunker down and pl ay i ts man-appoi nted
rol e: servi ng as a trans-hi stori cal Kanti an pol i ti cal l i mi ti ng concept
a concept whi ch the determi ni st phi l osopher needs i n order to pre-
tend that he i s not real l y determi ned.
Novak at l east i s honest, gi ven the fact of the enormous decep-
ti on of the myth of neutral i ty, whi ch al l pl ural i sts must accept as
true. He does not sugar coat pl ural i sms bi tter theol ogi cal pi l l : t/ ze~er-
manerzt silence of God. He has del i vered a ti me-rel eased poi son pi l l for
Chri sti ans to swal l ow that woul d have pl eased Pharaoh i n the mi dst
of hi s confrontati on wi th Moses. Novak i nsi sts that at the center of
the pl ural i st soci ety i s an empty shri ne moral l y, judi ci al l y, and
theol ogi cal l y. He al so admi ts that the present rel i gi ous order i s i n-
suffi ci ent to sustai n i ndefi ni tel y the present pl ural i st soci al order.
Such an order cal l s forth not onl y a new theol ogy but a new type of
rel i gi on .nSI J NO w, ar e Chri sti an defenders of pl ural i sm wi l l i ng to
serve up thi s bi tter pi l l wi thout a sugar coati ng? Not yet. But i nstead
of warni ng Chri sti ans agai nst thi s bi tter poi son pi l l , they spend thei r
ti me manufacturi ng the sugar coati ng.
Gods Law I s Soci etys Covenantal Center
I n the center of I srael , cul tural l y speaki ng, was the dwel l i ng
pl ace of Gods gl ory cl oud. God was i n the mi dst of thi s cl oud. The
cl oud resi ded i n the Tabernacl e (Ex. 40:34) and l ater i n the Templ e
(I Ki . 8:1). I nsi de the Templ e was the hol y of hol i es, where once a
year the hi gh pri est representati vel y entered to offer a bl ood sacri fi ce
for the nati on. Thi s was the meeti ng pl ace between God and Hi s cove-
nant peopl e. I nsi de the hol y of hol i es was the Ark of the Covenant.
I nsi de the Ark of the Covenant were the two tabl ets of Gods covenant
l aw, the Ten Commandments, the treaty of the Great Ki ng. 81 I t does
not requi re a geni us-l evel I Q to deduce the meani ng of thi s spati al ar-
rangement. I t pl aced Gods covenant l aw at the representati ve center
of soci et y. Thi s i s how God mani fested Hi msel f to manki nd. Today,
He mani fests Hi msel f vi si bl y through the Bi bl e and the sacraments .82
We theonomi sts are surel y at l east as forthri ght as Novak i s. We
say that at the center of Chri sti an soci ety i s the i nvi si bl e gl ory cl oud
80. I bid., p. 69.
81. Meredi th G. Kl i ne, Trea@ of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy
(Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Eerdmans, 1963).
82. That a pot of manna was pl aced before the Ark of the Covenant (Ex. 16:31-33)
testi fi es to the cl ose connecti on between l aw and the sacrament of the ri tual meal .
of God, and i n the mi dst of thi s cl oud i s God. The vi si bl e mani festap
ti on of Gods covenantal authori ty i s the Bi bl e, whi ch contai ns Hi s
l aw. The rel i gi ous center of I srael was the pl ace where the tabl ets of
the l aw were stored: i nsi de the Ark of the Covenant, whi ch was i nsi de
the hol y of hol i es. The reveal ed l aw of God i s supposed to be i n the
judi ci al center of every soci ety today.ss Thi s i s why the theonomi sts
of Tyl er have cal l ed for a comprehensi ve restructuri ng of modern
pol i ti cal i nsti tuti ons i n terms of the bi bl i cal covenants model or, i f
you prefer, the bi bl i cal covenants bl uepri nt.4
Chri sti ans are today bei ng tol d that they must change ei ther the
prevai l i ng rel i gi on (Novaks vi ew) or the prevai l i ng ci vi l order
(Chri sti an Reconstructi ons vi ew). The Chri sti an defenders of pl u-
ral i sm cl ai m that democracy i s a bi bl i cal l y l egi ti mate mi ddl e way
moral l y (Neuhaus vi ew). Who i s correct?
Mouing Socie~ Of Center
What we now need i s the same sort of honesty from those Chri s-
ti an defenders of pl ural i sm who are not Novakl ans . They must
deal forthri ghtl y wi th the hard theol ogi cal questi ons of pol i ti cal sov-
erei gnty, representati on, ethi cs, l egal sancti ons, and the ri ght of con-
sti tuti onal amendment, and they must do so by means of an appeal
to the Bi bl e rather than St. Thomas Aqui nas85 or St. Thomas More
(who enthusi asti cal l y had Protestants burned at the stake)8 or St.
Thomas Jefferson. I t i s thei r task to expl ai n how the pl ural i st worl d-
vi ew i s not a departure from hi stori c Chri sti an theol ogy, and al so not
an hi stori cal aberrati on whi ch i s unl i kel y to survi ve. After al l , pol i ti -
cal pl ural i sm was fi rst devel oped i n the l ate seventeenth century i n
the mi dst of a century-l ong sci enti fi c revol uti on that had transferred
83. Gr eg L. Bahnsen, By This Standard: The Authori~ of Gods Law Today (Tyl er,
84. Sutton, That lbu May Prospo, ch. 12.
85. Aqui nas (1225-1274) was far cl oser to a theocr ati c posi ti on than hi s modern-
day defenders are. He wrote: I n order, therefore, that men may know wi thout any
doubt what he ought to do and what he ought to avoi d, i t was necessary for man to
be di rected i n hi s proper acts by a l aw gi ven by God, for i t i s certai n that such l aw
cannot err. Ci ted by Charl es N. R. McCoy, St. Thomas Aqui nas, i n Hi stoy of
Political Philosophy, p. 221. Concl udes McCoy: I n St. Thomas doctri ne, the di vi ne
l aw, by provi di ng the ul ti mate safeguard agai nst mere conformi ty and conventi onal -
i ty, makes possi bl e the ul ti mate veri fi cati on of the meani ng of consti tuti onal l i berty.
I bid., p. 222.
86. J. H. Merl e dAubi gne, The Reformation in England, 2 vol s. (London: Banner
of Truth, [1853] 1962), I , pp. 465-467; I I , 72-74.
Sanctua~ and Sufrage 105
soverei gnty to mathemati cal l y governed natural l aws known by the
nearl y autonomous human i ntel l ect, 87 yet one i n whi ch most of the
sci enti sts were offi ci al l y Chri sti an and at l east personal l y thei sti c
(e.g., Newton); 88a worl d of mi l i tari l y stal emated Chri sti an nati ons
and pri nci pal i ti es that coul d no l onger compel uni versal obedi ence to
one church, yet a worl d whi ch rested squarel y on concepts of di vi ne
soverei gnty to underpi n ci vi l rul ershi p; 89 a worl d of State-establ i shed
churches; a worl d of expensi ve i nternati onal travel (l ow i mmi gra-
ti on) whi ch kept most of those professi ng a ri val rel i gi on safel y at
home; and a worl d i n whi ch onl y a handful of schol ars and l i terary
fi gures were athei sts. 90 That worl d had broken wi th medi eval theo-
crati c uni versal i st, but not wi th nati onal theocrati c parti cul ari sm.
Monarchs, whose excl usi ve di vi ne ri ght under God was no l onger
acknowl edged by the end of the century, sti l l sat on God-ordai ned
thrones. 91 Parl i aments sti l l were fi l l ed wi th sel f-desi gnated Chri sti an
representati ves who regarded themsel ves as Gods anoi nted agents to
thwart abusi ve democrati c mobs as wel l as abusi ve autocrati c mon-
archs. Thi s i s surel y not our worl d today. What presentl y sustai ns
and l egi ti mi zes the worl dvi ew of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm, now that i ts
ori gi nal thei sti c and economi c underpi nni ngs have been smashed by
the secul ar humani sm and i nternati onal capi tal i sm of our era?
87. Edwi n Ar thur Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Moo2rn Physical Science
(Garden Ci ty, New York: Doubl eday Anchor, [1925] 1954); Al exander Koyr6, From
the Closed Wwld to the I n@ute Universe (Bal ti more, Maryl and: Johns Hopki ns Uni ver-
si ty Press, 1957).
88. Stanl ey Jaki , Sci ence and Creation: From eternal @es to an oscillating uni ver se
(Edi nburgh: Scotti sh Academi c Press, 1974), ch. 12: The Creators Handi work.
89. The Treaty of Westphal i a (1648) ended the Thi rty Years War by speci fyi ng
that the rel i gi on of the l ocal pri nces i n the Germani c states of the Hol y Roman
Empi re woul d be the rel i gi on of thei r subjects. C. V. Wedgwood summari zes the
outcome of the war wi th these di scomforti ng words: The Peace has been descri bed
as marki ng an epoch i n European hi story, and i t i s commonl y taken to do so. I t i s
supposed to di vi de the peri od of rel i gi ous wars from that of nati onal wars, the i deo-
l ogi cal wars from the wars of mere aggressi on. But the demarcati on i s as arbi trary as
such di vi si ons commonly ar e. . [T]he l ast of the wars of rel i gi on merged i nsen-
si bl y i nto the pseudo-nati onal wars of the future. C. V. Wed~ood, The ThirQ Years
War (Garden Ci ty, New York: Doubl eday Anchor, 1961), p. 505.
90. Stoi cs and Epi cureans, mostl y. I am thi nki ng of such fi gures as Justus Li p-
si us, Gui l l aume du Vai r, and Montai gne, as wel l as the Cambri dge Pl atoni sts. Cf.
A. Ll oyd Moote, The Seventeenth Centuy: Europe i n Ferment (Lexi ngton, Massachu-
setts: Heath, 1970), p. 84.
91. Even the phi l osophy of the di vi ne ri ght of ki ngs was deveI oped as a r eacti on
to si xteenth-century Protestant and Cathol i c revol ts agai nst pri nces and monarchs
who were members of the ri val church. I n other words, thi s doctri ne was the product
of the pol i ti cal vul nerabi l i ty of monarchs, not thei r strength. I bid., pp. 36-43.
Merel y the shared fai th i n autonomous man? Then what happens i f
autonomous col l ecti ve man repeats the pol i ti cal central i zati on of the
Tower of Babel , and soci ety di si ntegrates i n the cacophony of war-
ri ng confessi ons? Where do we fi nd authori zati on of Babel i c pol i ti cs
i n the Bi bl e? Nowhere. Where do we fi nd i ts authori zati on i n the hi s-
tory of pol i ti cal theory? Nowhere. I n anci ent non-Chri sti an pol i ti cal
theory, the onl y al ternati ves to Babel i c pol i ti cs were theori es of the
di vi ne peopl e i .e., di scri mi nati on agai nst resi dent al i ens wi thout
l egal access to the ci tys ri tes (cl osed pol i ti cs) or el se the di vi ne
State and i ts representati ve, the di vi ne Emperor.
gz
Thi s i s not the
pol i ti cal order that Neuhaus wants, but what el se can he expect? He
has tri ed to demonstrate that Chri sti ani ty i s compati bl e wi th pol i ti -
cal pl ural i sm, but he does not turn to the Bi bl e for support. Chri s-
ti an pl ural i sts must do better than thi s.
The End of the Road
I t i s my contenti on that they cannot do better; they are vi si bl y
out of coherent arguments. They content themsel ves by repeati ng
ol d ones, al l of whi ch rest squarel y on two fal se presupposi ti ons: 1)
the myth of i ntel l ectual and moral neutral i ty and 2) the exi stence of
natural l aw, recogni zabl e by and authori tati ve for fal l en man. I t
assumes, i n short, the l ogi cal character of the ethi cal . Man i s saved
by knowl edge, or at the very l east, the road to sal vati on i s made vi si -
bl e (to at l east some men) through l ogi c. Ri ght reason can di scover
natural l aw. (But who determi nes whi ch methodol ogy i s ri ght, and
whi ch l ogi cal presentati on wi thi n that methodol ogy i s ri ght?)
By means of these two fal se assumpti ons, pl ural i sts concl ude that
i t i s i l l egi ti mate i n the New Covenant era to presume that ci vi l gov-
ernment i s a covenantal i nsti tuti on, that i s, bound by bi bl i cal l aw to
enforce bi bl i cal l aw. As the fai th of Chri sti ans wanes i n these fal se
presupposi ti ons, the gl ari ng i nconsi stenci es of the pl ural i sts wi l l be-
come i ncreasi ngl y apparent to Bi bl e-bel i evi ng Chri sti ans. They wi l l
then begi n to see the escal ati ng di screpanci es al l around them, di s-
crepanci es between the doctri ne of natural l aw and the growi ng per-
versi on of covenant-breakers. For exampl e, the si l ent scream of over
50 mi l l i on aborted babi es per year, worl d-wi de,93 has begun to
drown out the fami l i ar choruses of Chri sti an pl ural i sm. Where i s
92. See above, The Stranger as Oppressor, pp. 75-83.
93. world Population and Fertilip Planning T~hniques: The Next 20 Yzars (Washi ng-
ton, D. C.: Offi ce of Technol ogy Assessment, 1982), p. 63.
Sanctuay and Su$rage 107
pl ural i sms neutral i ty i nsi de the operati ng room of the l ocal aborti on-
i st ? Where i s the bi ndi ng moral power of natural l aw? Where are the
predi ctabl e negati ve sancti ons of the pol i ti cal l y pl ural i st State?
The myth of neutral i ty today fl i es a patheti cal l y tattered fl ag.
More and more Chri sti ans are growi ng ti red of sal uti ng i t. Even
more wi l l grow ti red of defendi ng i t as the i rreconci l abl e i ssues mul ti -
pl y. Christian@ and pluralism are incompatible, and there is ue~ little time re-
maining for this incompatibili~ to be hidden. Once i t i s no l onger hi dden,
Chri sti ans wi l l be asked to make the same choi ce El i jah i nsi sted that
I srael make: choose thi s day whom you wi l l serve, God or Baal . For
three centuri es from Ri chard Baxters A Christian Directoy (1673) to
Rushdoonys I nstitutes of Biblical Law (1973) Bi bl e-bel i evi ng Protes-
tant soci al phi l osophers, l i ke the I srael i tes, answered not a word.
Thei r excuse? Pl ural i sm bi ds us be si l ent. Baal al ways was a pol y-
thei sti c god; he sti l l i s: many laws, many moralities, many gods. But ti me
i s runni ng out. Gods sancti ons i n hi story are approachi ng. Choose
this day whom you wi l l serve.
The Hal fway Covenant
The New Engl and Puri tans bel i eved i n Gods i nsti tuti onal cove-
nants: eccl esi asti cal , fami l y, and ci vi l . But they made a strategi c
theol ogi cal error i n the earl y years of the Massachusetts Bay Col ony,
one from whi ch thei r hol y commonweal th experi ment never recov-
ered. The y added an extra-bi bl i cal requi rement for entry i nto ful l
church membershi p: the recounti ng of a personal conversi on experi -
ence. Thi s rul e was added someti me i n the peri od 1633-36.
94
No
l onger woul d the fami l i ar Reformed pai r of requi rements professi on
of orthodox fai th and an outwardl y moral l i fe be suffi ci ent for en-
trance i nto ful l church membershi p. The second generati on of New
Engl and Puri tans di d not experi ence the emoti ons of the exodus
from Engl and, so the majori ty of them fai l ed to own the covenant ,
as the l anguage of the day put i t. They di d not become communi cant
members, or they di d so onl y after beari ng chi l dren.
Thi s created a major theol ogi cal probl em: What was to be done wi th
thei r chi l dren? Shoul d these chi l dren be bapti zed or not? Thei r parents
had been bapti zed, but were not communi cant members. So, i n what
way di d the thi rd generati on have a covenant cl ai m on the ri te of bapti sm?
94. Edmund S. Morgan, Visible Saints: T/ w HistoV of a Puritan I dea (New York:
New York Uni versi ty Press, 1963), pp. 99-105.
The Original Grandfather Clause
To answer thi s, the Puri tans of New Engl and devi sed a compl ex
theol ogy known as the hal fway covenant. They had to depart from
the ol d norm: that onl y the chi l dren of ful l church members coul d be
bapti zed. The churches bapti zed the grandchi l dren of that fi rst gener-
ati on, but they refused to serve them communi on. Wri tes hi stori an
Edmund Morgan: Gi ven both i nfant bapti sm and the restri cti on of
church membershi p to vi si bl e sai nts, i t was i mpossi bl e for the Puri -
tans ei ther to evade the questi ons just posed or to answer them wi th-
out an el aborate casui stry that bred di ssati sfacti on and di sagree-
ment. The hi story of New Engl and churches duri ng the seventeenth
and ei ghteenth centuri es was i n l arge measure a hi story of these di s-
sati sfacti ons and di sagreements .
95
The Congregati onal system
never recovered from thi s confusi on of status. I t was repl aced i n the
fi rst four decades of the ei ghteenth century by revi val i sm and sectar-
i ani sm. The pol i ti cal and theol ogi cal foundati ons of the hol y com-
monweal ths of New Engl and col l apsed under the resul ti ng soci al
strai n when the thi rd generati on came to maturi ty. %
Thus, one seemi ngl y mi nor theol ogi cal error earl y i n New Eng-
l and Puri tan hi story the requi rement of an extra-bi bl i cal experi -
ence of conversi on l ed step by step to the destructi on of the Puri tan
experi ment i n covenantal order. Thi s error was not the onl y cause of
the fai l ure of that experi ment, but i t was a major one. I t was a theo-
l ogi cal fai l ure, and the New Engl and Puri tans, Cal vi ni sts to the bi t-
ter end, took theol ogy very seri ousl y.
I have adopted the term ha@ay covenant i n thi s book for a reason:
to show how seemi ngl y mi nor errors i n an otherwi se consi stent Cal -
vi ni st theol ogi cal system can and have l ed to a seri ous breakdown of
Cal vi ni st theol ogy. Because of the ethi cal nature of these di sastrous
and fundamental errors the deni al of four of the fi ve poi nts of the
bi bl i cal covenant they stri ke at the heart of al l forms of Bi bl e-
bel i evi ng Chri sti ani ty. These errors are wi del y shared, but Cal vi n-
i sts, bei ng more theol ogi cal l y i ncl i ned, and possessi ng a more detai l -
ed and ri gorous theol ogi cal system, have had the greatest di ffi cul ty
i n deal i ng wi th these di screpanci es. These di screpanci es stri ke at the
heart of covenant theol ogy, and Cal vi ni sts are sel f-consci ousl y the
95. I bid. , pp. 128-29,
96. Ri chard Bushman, From Puritun To Ymkee: Character and the Social Order in Con-
necticut, 1690-1765 (New York: Norton, [1967] 1970), Part 4.
Sanctuay and Su@-age 109
devel opers and defenders of covenant theol ogy. These di screpanci es
therefore appear far more radi cal i n Cal vi ni st theol ogy than i n other
systems. They have had catastrophi c repercussi ons far beyond the
narrow debates of professi onal theol ogi ans.
Concl usi on
Thi s book begi ns wi th the assumpti on that Gods Ol d Testament
l aw i s sti l l val i d i i New Testament t~mes, unl ess a parti cul ar l aw has
been annul l ed speci fi cal l y or by cl ear i mpl i cati on by the New Testa-
ment. I do not want to defend thi s thesi s here. I t has been defended
by others el sewher e.97 I have expl ai ned at consi derabl e l ength (and
expense!) how Ol d Testament l aws appl y to the fi el d of economi cs. ga
Thi s chal l enge to the humani st soci al order has been del ayed for
three centuri es. Chri sti an casui stry the appl i cati on of Gods fi xed
l aws to the changi ng real m of hi story as a separate di sci pl i ne went
i nto ecl i pse i n the fi nal quarter of the seventeenth century, and onl y
re-emerged three cenuri es l ater. As recentl y as 1948, Kenneth Ki rk
coul d wri te: But i n general i t may be sai d that the l ack of a conti nu-
ous and authori tati ve tradi ti on, the pressure of other i nterests, the
growth of phi l osophi cal i ndi vi dual i sm, wi th the consequent decl i ne
of the sense of l oyal ty . . . al l combi ned to steri l i se the Reformed
casui stry. From the begi nni ng of the ei ghteenth century you may
l ook i n vai n for anythi ng approachi ng a systemati c grasp of the par-
ti cul ar probl ems of moral i ty. I t i s for the hi stori an of modern Chri sti -
ani ty to say how far thi s fact has been the cause of that i mpotence of
the Churches whi ch i s so often depl ored.gg I n 1948, there was no
change on the vi si bl e hori zon. Now there i s.
What I want the reader to understand i s that he cannot l egi ti -
matel y avoi d the rel i gi ous probl ems associ ated wi th pol i ti cs. Whose
97. R. J. Rushdoony, The I nstitutes of Biblical Law (Nutl ey, New Jersey: Crai g
Press, 1973); Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christtan Ethicx (2nd ed.; Phi l l i psburg,
New Jersey: Presbyteri an & Reformed, 1984); Greg L. Bahnsen, By Thi~ Standard:
The Authori~ of Cods Law Today (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs,
1985).
98. North, Dominion Covenant: Genesi s; North, Moses and Pharaoh: Dominion Religion
w, Power Religion (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1985); North, The
Sinai Strategy: Economics and the Ten Commandnwnts (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for Chri s-
ti an Economi cs, 1986); North, Tools of Dominion.
99. Kenneth E. Ki rk, Consci ence and I ts Problems: An I ntroduction to CasuistV (new
ed.; London: Longmans, Green, 1948), pp. 206-7.
voi ce shoul d be heard i n hi story, Gods or Satans? Who i s autono-
mous, God or man? Al l the other competi tors to the throne of
heaven are fal se gods.
What about cl ai mants to the thrones of hi storys pol i ti cal ki ng-
doms? Who are Gods ambassadors? What authori ty do they recei ve
from Gods assi gnment? They must consi der the fi ve aspects of Gods
covenant:
Transcendence/presence
Hi erarchy/authori ty/representati on
Ethi cs/l aw/domi ni on
Oath/sancti ons
Successi onl conti nui tyl i nheri tance
Whose soverei gnty shoul d Chri sti ans preach, whose hi erarchi es
Church, State, and fami l y - shoul d be domi nant i n hi story, whose
l aw shoul d they affi rm, whose sancti ons shoul d they recommend that
the State enforce, and who wi l l i nheri t the earth? l W
I f they refuse to affi rm the covenant of God, they wi l l i nevi tabl y
affi rm some other covenant. There is no neutrality. When Chri sti ans
present the gospel to someone, they may say: Remember, no deci -
si on for Chri st i s sti l l a deci si on. I t i s a deci si on agai nst Jesus Chri st.
Thi s statement i s true, but i t i s al so true i n every area of l i fe, i ncl ud-
i ng pol i ti cs. No bi bl i cal covenant means another go~s covenant, i n
Church, State, and fami l y. There is no neutral i ty.
Chapters 3-5 of thi s book are negati ve. So i s Appendi x B. 101
They refute the i dea that there can be neutral i ty i n hi story, especi al l y
judi ci al neutral i ty. What we fi nd, unfortunatel y, i s that the most
promi nent Chri sti an spokesmen (Cal vi ni sts al l ) who have publ i cl y
affi rmed that there i s no neutral i ty, and who have publ i cl y deni ed
the myth of neutral i ty, al so steadfastl y have refused to affi rm the re-
veal ed l aw of God as bi ndi ng i n ci vi l and consti tuti onal affai rs. But
no affi rmati on i s i n fact a denial. Once agai n, there is no neutrali~,
especi al l y i n regard to the deni al of neutral i ty. Thus, these spokes-
men have l ed Chri sti ans i nto the troubl ed worl d of judi ci al and
therefore pol i ti cal schizophrenia: the deni al of natural l aw, the deni al
of the myth of neutral i ty, and yet the deni al al so of bi bl i cal l aw.
Schi zophreni c peopl e cannot functi on properl y. They have spl i t per-
100. Sutton, That You May Prospm.
101. Appendi x A i s al so negati ve, but not wi th respect to the questi on of the covenant.
Sanctua~ and Suffrage 111
tonal i ti es. These personal i ti es work at cross purposes. So do pol i ti cal
schi zophreni cs. 02
Thi s book i s fai rl y l engthy. I know of no way to overcome about
1,900 years of error i n, say, 185 l arge-pri nt pages. So, I have concen-
trated on reachi ng the best and the bri ghtest i n order to refute the
most representati ve, most i ntel l i gentl y argued defenders of hal fway
covenant rel i gi on. I have devoted a l ot of space to summari zi ng thei r
arguments, so that no one can say i n response, You quoted them
out of context, Thi s means I had to gi ve the reader a l ot of context.
The Choices Before Us
There are three choi ces pol i ti cal l y: l i fe under Gods ci vi l cove-
nant, l i fe under a ri val soverei gns ci vi l covenant, and l i fe i n a tempor-
ary ci vi l order i n whi ch there are ri val ci vi l covenant pri nci pl es com-
peti ng for al l egi ance, where the outcome of the competi ti on i s sti l l an
open questi on i n the mi nds of most pol i ti cal parti ci pants. Thi s l ast
system i s general l y cal l ed political Pluralism. I ts defenders thi nk thi s
system can be made permanent. They are i ncorrect. There are too
many peopl e around l i ke I am who eventual l y toppl e the system.
Pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i s a hal fway house system that l asts onl y as l ong
as no group or major coal i ti on can take over pol i ti cal l y and an-
nounce a speci fi c new ci vi l covenant. I t i s a stand-off, a temporary
stal emate, a temporary cease-fi re. I t i s defended today as i f i t were a
permanent condi ti on, as i f pl ural i sm were a permanent pol i ti cal phi -
l osophy. I t i s not. I t i s the pol i ti cal phi l osophy of the temporary
cease-fi re.
Today, the West l i ves offi ci al l y under the ci vi l covenant of pol i ti -
cal pl ural i sm, but the bal ance of pol i ti cal power i n thi s century has
shi fted to a humani st theocracy. The humani st theocrats hi de what
has happened i n the l anguage of moral and judi ci al neutral i ty. Thi s
has been a very successful camoufl age operati on. Unti l the aborti on
questi on bl ew a hol e i n the rhetori c of the myth of neutral i ty, the vast
majori ty of Chri sti ans bel i eved i n pol i ti cal pl ural i sm as a phi l osophy.
That majori ty i s sti l l vast, but l ess so than before. But vast, three-
quarters vast, or even l ess, i t i s cl i ngi ng to a phi l osophi cal l y and
moral l y dead system. I ts defenders have yet to present a systemati c
defense of i ts cl ai ms to uni versal i ty. They have not been abl e to dem-
onstrate how pl ural i sm i s compati bl e wi th the Bi bl e, the wri ti ngs of
102. See especi al l y Chapter 4, bel ow, pp. 198-206, on C. Everett Koop.
Mohammed, or the wri ti ngs of Marx, Engel s, and Leni n. I n short,
they have not been abl e to show how pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i s compati -
bl e wi th the three major worl dvi ews that are struggl i ng for worl d
domi nati on today.
There i s an ol d pol i ti cal rul e: you cant beat somethi ng wi th
nothi ng. Thi s i s what the defenders of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm refuse to
acknowl edge. Those who are Chri sti ans who defend pol i ti cal pl ural -
i sm have understood thi s pri nci pl e l east of al l . Thi s book shoul d re-
mi nd them of what they have never done wel l , what they have done
poorl y, and what they can never do: show how the Bi bl e can be rec-
onci l ed wi th pl ural i sm, the pol i ti cal phi l osophy of pol ythei sm: many
gods, many moralities, many laws.
There goes many a shi p to sea, wi th many hundred soul s i n one
shi p, whose weal and woe i s common, and i s a true pi cture of a com-
monweal th, or a human combi nati on or soci ety. I t bath fal l en out
someti mes, that both papi sts and protestants, Jews and Turks, may
be embarked i n one shi p; upon whi ch supposal I affi rm, that al l the
l i berty of consci ence, that ever I pl eaded for, turns upon these two
hi nges that none of the papi sts, protestants, Jews, or Turks, be
forced to come to the shi ps prayers or worshi p, nor compel l ed from
thei r own parti cul ar prayers or worshi p, i f they practi ce any. I fur-
ther add, that I never deni ed, that notwi thstandi ng thi s l i berty, the
commander of thi s shi p ought to command the shi ps course, yea,
and al so command that justi ce, peace and sobri ety, be kept and
practi ced, both among the seamen and al l the passengers. I f any of
the seamen refuse to perform thei r servi ces, or passengers to pay
thei r frei ght; i f any refuse to hel p, i n person or purse, towards the
common charges or defence; i f any refuse to obey the common l aws
and orders of the shi p, concerni ng thei r common peace of preserva-
ti on; i f any shal l muti ny and ri se up agai nst thei r commanders and
offi cers; i f any shoul d preach or wri te that there ought to be no com-
manders or offi cers, because al l are equal i n Chri st, therefore no
masters nor offi cers, no l aws nor orders, nor correcti ons nor puni sh-
ments; I say, I never deni ed, but i n such cases, whatever i s pre-
tended, the commander or commanders may judge, resi st, compel
and puni sh such transgressors, accordi ng to thei r deserts and meri ts.
Roger Wi l l i ams (1654)*
*Letters of Roger Williams, 1632-1682, Narragansett Cl ub Publications, 1st ser., vol .
I I I , pp. 3-4. Ci ted i n Ari sen Phel ps Stokes, Church and State i n the United States (New
York: Harper & Row, [1950] 1964), p. 15.
CONCLUSI ON, PART 1
Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods (Ex.
23:32).
Thi s commandment was gi ven to the I srael i tes regardi ng thei r
future conquest of the l and of Canaan. They were to extermi nate the
Canaani tes because of the threat that Canaans l ocal , l and-based
i dol s of Canaan woul d pose to them. The gods of the l and i n the an-
ci ent worl d were al ways the most threateni ng to the conquerors,
whi ch i s why conquerors ei ther extermi nated thei r enemi es or made
sl aves of them, sendi ng them back to the home ci ty. There coul d be
no peace treaty wi thout shared gods.
The I srael i tes di d not at fi rst knowi ngl y make nati onal covenants
wi th the gods of Canaan, but over ti me, they adopted the ethi cal and
ri tual practi ces of these gods. Step by step, they broke Gods cove-
nants: i n fami l y, Church, and fi nal l y State. From ti me to ti me, God
del i vered them i nto the hands of i nvaders who woul d rei gn i n the
l and. Fi nal l y, He al l owed i nvaders to enter the l and, capture the
peopl e, and send them i nto forei gn bondage. But He had promi sed
them that they woul d not remai n i n bondage there permanentl y, for
He had made Hi s covenant wi th them: And yet for al l that, when
they be i n the l and of thei r enemi es, I wi l l not cast them away,
nei ther wi l l I abhor them, to destroy them utterl y, and to break my
covenant wi th them: for I am the LORD thei r God (Lev. 26:44). He
was God over Babyl on, too.
The probl em i n the New Testament era i s cul tural l y di fferent.
Chri sti ans understand that to worshi p another god i s to break cove-
nant wi th Chri st. So, Satan has i nvented a remarkabl y successful
strategy: to persuade Chri s~i ans that the God of the Bi bl e i s the same
god as the one who i s di scovered by the l i ght of autonomous reason.
I f thi s god of manki nds common reason can be foi sted off on Chri s-
ti ans as the God of the Bi bl e, then they can be persuaded to establ i sh
115
a covenant wi th the peopl e of thi s god, especi al l y a ci vi l covenant.
Thi s form of covenant-maki ng has been goi ng on i n ci vi l govern-
ment ever si nce Roger Wi l l i ams establ i shed the provi nce of Rhode
I sl and i n 1636.
Phi l osophi cal l y, thi s transfer of covenantal al l egi ance had been
goi ng on si nce the earl y Churchs apol ogi sts adopted Greek catego-
ri es of reasoni ng. A truth that coul d be proven by Greek l ogi c was
assumed to be a truth for the God of the Bi bl e. After al l , Chri sti ans
reasoned, there cannot be two ki nds of truth. There i s onl y one
truth. The probl em was, they di d not understand that a system of
l ogi c that begi ns wi th the presupposi ti on of the adequacy of the
fal l en mi nd of man i s not goi ng to l ead to the same concl usi ons as a
system of l ogi c that begi ns wi th the presupposi ti on of the sel f-
contai ned, Tri ni tari an, Creator God of the Bi bl e. The concl usi ons
may i ni ti al l y appear to be the same, but they are di fferent. Chri s-
ti ans do not understand thi s pri nci pl e today, ei ther. The exi stence of
the neutral publ i c school system fi l l ed wi th the sons and daughters of
Chri sti ans i s a vi si bl e testi mony to thi s fact of sel f-i mposed bl i ndness.
I f Chri sti ans can be seduced i nto bel i evi ng that the common rea-
son of man l eads to the same system of moral l aw that the revel ati on
of the Bi bl e presents, then the fi rst step toward a forbi dden covenant
has been taken. I f the moral l aw-order i s the same, then why not the
ci vi l l aw-order? And i f the ci vi l l aw-order i s the same i n each system,
then why not establ i sh a consti tuti onal order i n whi ch there i s uni -
versal suffrage based on physi cal bi rth or on non-creedal cri teri a for
adopti on, i .e., natural i zati on?
The day that such an order becomes the ci vi l l aw of the l and,
Chri sti ans have entered i nto a ci vi l covenant wi th those who worshi p
di fferent gods. Pol i ti cal struggl es to control the i nsti tuti ons of ci vi l
government wi l l then begi n i n earnest. A ci vi l war breaks out, but
Chri sti ans are the l ast ones to recogni ze i t. They refuse to see i t. To
admi t that there i s no common l aw-order based on common reason
i s to admi t that Chri sti ans have entered i nto a prohi bi ted ci vi l cove-
nant. Chri sti ans have been l ured i nto such prohi bi ted covenants al l
over the worl d. To admi t that thi s has taken pl ace woul d be to admi t
thei r si n, not thei r mere i gnorance, and so they do not admi t i t.
They deny i t wi th every fi ber of thei r bei ng. They denounce Ol d
Testament l aw i n favor of the common l aws of common reason, even
i n a worl d i n whi ch thei r enemi es have l ong si nce abandoned fai th i n
common human reason. They cal l Ol d Testament l aw tyranni cal ,
Conclusion, Part 1 117
and they prai se Greece and Rome. They decl are thei r conti nued
commi tment to pol i ti cal neutral i ty on rel i gi ous questi ons. They do
not seek to persuade others to put thei r trust i n Jesus Chri st as a fi rst
step i n establ i shi ng expl i ci tl y Tri ni tari an ci vi l covenants. They ac-
cept a program of evangel i sm that deni es the Great Commi ssi on:
And Jesus came and spake unto them, sayi ng, Al l power i s gi ven unto
me i n heaven and i n ear th. Go ye ther efor e, and teach al l nati ons, bapti zi ng
them i n the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Hol y Ghost:
Teachi ng them to observe al l thi ngs whatsoever I have commanded you:
and, 10, I am wi th you al way, even unto the end of the worl d. Amen (Matt.
28:18-20).
Thi s process of perpetual cease-fi re has been goi ng on at the na-
ti onal l evel i n the Uni ted States for exactl y two centuri es. (See Part
3.) The enemi es of the fai th have systemati cal l y used thi s cease-fi re
to consol i date thei r gai ns i n the corri dors of power.
The Ameri can Ci vi l War began l ong before Li ncol n sent i n shi ps
to rel i eve Fort Sumter. I t began i n Rhode I sl and i n 1636 wi th the
worl ds fi rst hal fway ci vi l covenant.
Part 2
HALFWAY
COVENANTALISM
For the preachi ng of the cross i s to them that peri sh fool i shness;
but unto us whi ch are saved i t i s the power of God. For i t i s wri tten, I
wi l l destroy the wi sdom of the wi se, and wi l l bri ng to nothi ng the
understandi ng of the prudent. Where i s the wi se? where i s the
scri be? where i s the di sputer of thi s worl d? bath not God made fool -
i sh the wi sdom of thi s worl d? For after that i n the wi sdom of God the
worl d by wi sdom knew not God, i t pl eased God by the fool i shness of
preachi ng to save them that bel i eve. For the Jews requi re a si gn, and
the Greeks seek after wi sdom: But we preach Chri st cruci fi ed, unto
the Jews a stumbl i ngbl ock, and unto the Greeks fool i shness; But
unto them whi ch are cal l ed, both Jews and Greeks, Chri st the power
of God, and the wi sdom of God. Because the fool i shness of God i s
wi ser than men; and the weakness of God i s stronger than men.
For ye see your cal l i ng, brethren, how that not many wi se men
after the fl esh, not many mi ght y, not many nobl e, are cal l ed: But
God bath chosen the fool i sh thi ngs of the worl d to confound the wi se;
and God bath chosen the weak thi ngs of the worl d to confound the
thi ngs whi ch are mi ghty; And base thi ngs of the worl d, and thi ngs
whi ch are despi sed, bath God chosen, yea, and thi ngs whi ch are not,
to bri ng to nought thi ngs that are: That no fl esh shoul d gl ory i n hi s
presence. But of hi m are ye i n Chri st Jesus, who of God i s made
unto us wi sdom, and ri ghteousness, and sancti fi cati on, and redemp-
ti on: That, accordi ng as i t i s wri tten, He that gl ori eth, l et hi m gl ory
i n the Lord. And I , brethren, when I came to you, came not wi th ex-
cel l ency of speech or of wi sdom, decl ari ng unto you the testi mony of
God. For I determi ned not to know any thi ng among you, save Jesus
Chri st, and hi m cruci fi ed. And I was wi th you i n weakness, and i n
fear, and i n much trembl i ng. And my speech and my preachi ng was
not wi th enti ci ng words of mans wi sdom, but i n demonstrati on of
the Spi ri t and of power: That your fai th shoul d not stand i n the wi s-
dom of men, but i n the power of God (I Cor. 1:18-2:5).
I f any ofyou lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men
liberal~, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask
in faith, nothing wauering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea
driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall
receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his
ways (J ames 1:5-8).
Hal fway covenant thi nki ng begi ns wi th a pri nci pl e of hermeneu-
ti cs, i .e., bi bl i cal i nterpretati on. I t di vi des Ol d Covenant I srael from
al l New Covenant nati ons. Thi s i s the heart of al l Chri sti an pol i ti cal
pl ural i sm: to make a defi ni ti ve break from anci ent I srael , for the
pl ural i sts must persuade thei r l i steners that there are no sancti ons i n
hi story for di sobeyi ng Gods nati onal covenantal l aws. Thei r strat-
egy i s to make a ri gorous judi ci al separati on between anci ent I srael
and modern nati onal covenants. Thei r tacti c i s to make Ol d Cove-
nant I srael utterl y uni que i n covenant hi story, meani ng ~udicial~
uni que. Thei r rhetori c i s desi gned to obscure the judi ci al connec-
ti on especi al l y hi stori cal sanctions by means of endl ess qual i fi ca-
ti ons and excepti ons. Wri tes Kenneth Myers:
I srael had an obl i gati on to be a covenantal l y ri ghteous nati on, to meet
standards that God di d not establ i sh for, say, Egypt. I srael was a hol y na-
ti on as no nati on before or si nce coul d cl ai m to be. I ts nati onal i denti ty was
a mechani sm of Gods redempti ve work i n a uni que way. I n every aspect of
i ts nati onal l i fe as ordered by God, I srael was anti ci pati ng the character of
the peopl e of God upon the consummati on of redempti ve hi story. . . . To
regard ei ther the l aw (as do my postmi l l enni al i st fri ends and some of my
premi l l enni al i st fi -i ends) or the prophets (as do many of my premi l l enni al i st
and ami l l enni al i st fri ends) as speaki ng uni vocal l y to the Uni ted States begs
too many questi ons, to say the l east. There are certai nl y many pri nci pl es
for the devel opment of pol i ti cal thi nki ng wi thi n the Ol d Testament. But any
appl i cati on of a text that i gnores i ts ori gi nal context i n redempti ve hi story,
121
especi al l y the rel ati onshi p of the covenant to the ori gi nal reci pi ents of the
text, must be regarded as of dubi ous val ue.
There i s no a pri ori reason to bel i eve that any gi ven aspects of the l aw of
I srael are normati ve for the U.S. ci vi l code. . . . Unl ess we have estab-
l i shed that the l aw i s normati ve for our age, we must not assume i t to be.
Si mi l arl y, we must not take the decl amati ons of the prophets out of thei r es-
chatol ogi cal context and regard them as ti mel ess wi sdom. The ci tati on of
2 Chroni cl es 7:141 as an embl em of Ameri can moral renewal i s unwar-
ranted, i f wel l -i ntenti oned. . . .
Unfortunatel y, many of these doctri nes are
obscured i n the attempt to redupl i cate I srael s nati onal pol i ty or to anti ci -
pate the eschatol ogi cal ki ngdom i n ways we are not meant to. Unti l Chri st
returns, the church i s Gods new hol y nati on, and God has postponed hi s
judgment. Our thi nki ng about pol i ti cal obedi ence must keep thi s i n vi ew.
2
God has postponed Hi s judgment, we are reassured. I ndeed He
has Hi s jinal judgment. Thi s i s so obvi ous a fact that we need to
search for the reason why Myers even menti ons i t. The reason i s
rhetori cal : he wants to defl ect the readers attenti on from the funda-
mental covenantal questi on of the historical sancti ons brought by God
agai nst New Covenant era nati ons. But, to reassure us regardi ng hi s
orthodoxy, he announces: I am not di smi ssi ng the Ol d Testament; I
am merel y tryi ng to respect i ts i ntenti ons.3 I f thi s sounds to you l i ke
the ol d l i beral refrai n, I am not di smi ssi ng the doctri ne of the bodi l y
resurrecti on of Chri st; I am merel y tryi ng to respect i ts i ntenti ons,
then you detect what I detect, and I suspect that the reasons for each
statement are anal ogous: to escape the couenantal implications in histo~ of
Gods Word.
I woul d be l ess harsh wi th these peopl e i f they ever got down to
brass tacks. I keep l ooki ng for thei r commentari es on the proper ap-
pl i cati on of the Ol d Testament. They do not wri te any. I wai t
pati entl y for thei r practi cal essays i n appl i ed Ol d Testament bi bl i cal
theol ogy; they never appear. What I get i s a l ot of rhetori c about the
many l urki ng dangers dangers of eschatol ogi cal justi ce,4 of con-
1. H Chr oni cl es 7:14: I f my peopl e, whi ch are cal l ed by my name, shal l humbl e
themsel ves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from thei r wi cked ways; then wi l l
I hear from heaven, and wi l l forgi ve thei r si n, and wi l l heal thei r l and.
2. Kenneth A. Myers, Bi bl i cal Obedi ence and Pol i ti cal Thought: Some Refl ec-
ti ons on Theol ogi cal Method, i n Ri chard John Neuhaus (cd.), The Bible, Politics and
Democra~ (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Eerdmans, 1987), pp. 24-25.
3. I bid., p. 25.
4. I bid., p. 26.
cocti ng noti ons of perfect government,s of transnati onal i sm,G and
of i gnori ng essenti al Chri sti an truths .7 What I want i s a l i st of con-
crete, Bi bl e-supported pol i ci es that are moral l y mandated today.
What I want i s casuistty. What I want i s gui dance based on what the
Bi bl e tel l s al l manki nd to do i n hi story, on threat of puni shments i n
hi story. What I get i s verbi age:
To adapt the pri nci pl es of l ove and publ i c justi ce to ci rcumstances today
we must understand how they were i mpl emented i n the Mosai c ci vi l l egi sl a-
ti on. Todays ci vi l magi strates are not exempted from Gods l aw i n i ts per-
manent form, but are sti l l under the comprehensi ve l ove commandment as
i t appl i es to publ i c justi ce. They are onl y exempt from the speci fi c Mosai c
statutes that were adaptati ons to I srael s uni que and temporary posi ti on as
the Ol d Testament peopl e of God after He consti tuted them a theocr acy,8
Mr. Schrotenboer i s an amateur i n the verbi age game, however
hard he tri es. He has never been abl e to advance to professi onal
status. Neverthel ess, he has fai thful l y promoted the professi onal s.
Consi der thi s statement by A. Troost, a professor at the Free Uni -
versi ty of Amsterdam, whi ch Mr. Schrotenboer publ i shed whi l e he
was edi tor of the I nternational Reformed Bulletin. I n repl y to my
cri ti ci sms of hi s vague cal l for a return to somethi ng resembl i ng
medi eval gui l d soci al i sm i n the name of Chri st,
g
Professor Troost
wrote a cl assi c cl ari fi cati on of Chri sti an soci al ethi cs apart from
Ol d Testament l aw. He began hi s cl ari fi cati on wi th thi s statement: I
hope that thi s further el uci dati on cl ears me suffi ci entl y of the charge
of anti nomi ani sm and vague pi eti sm. Judge for yoursel fi
As for so-cal l ed soci al ethi cs, l et me expl ai n i t i n the fol l owi ng way: The
questi on of what justi ce i s i n the concrete case and of what l ove to my nei gh-
5. I bid., p. 28.
6. I dem.
7. I bid., p. 29.
8. Paul G. Schrotenboer, The Pri nci pl ed Pl ural i st Response to Theonomy, i n
Gary Scott Smi th (cd.), God and Politics: FOUT Views on the R#ormation of Civil Govern-
nunt (Phi l l i psburg, New Jersey: Presbyteri an & Reformed, 1989), p. 60. Thi s book
i s a compi l ati on of papers gi ven at Geneva Col l ege i n Beaver Fal l s, Pennsyl vani a i n
1987: Consul tati on on the Bi bl i cal Rol e of Ci vi l Government.
9. Gary North, Soci al Anti nomi ani sm, I nternational ReJ ormedBulletm (Oct. 1967),
pp. 46-52. I t was al so publ i shed i n the Netherl ands i n the Gewfomneerd Gezenblad (Ott.
28, 1967), much to the consternati on of Dr. Schrotenboer, who wrote to me regard-
i ng hi s di sapproval . Dr. Troost had not expected to have anyone bl ow the whi stl e i n
publ i c back home.
bor means, cannot any l onger be vi ewed as a metaphysi cal gi ven as al l
forms of i deal i sti c ethi cs suggest. However, the content of justi ce and l ove
i n the concrete case hi c et nunc i s not found l i teral l y i n the Bi bl e as a reci pe
for al l ti me. But here the bi bl i cal -a[p]ri ori of fai th i n the di vi ne creati on or-
der must ji uncti on i n the phi l osophi cal and soci al i nvesti gati on. I n so far as
thi s has i n broad l i nes and outl i ne form l ed to prel i mi nary resul ts i n the phi -
l osophy of the cosmonomi c i dea, thi s phi l osophy has shown that i n the con-
crete gi vi ng of form to justi ce and l ove cul tural -hi stori cal basi c possi bi l i ti es
and the regul ati ng functi on of fai th al ways pl ay rol es i n a normati ve way. 10
Try readi ng thi s to your spouse as you both si t i n bed thi s eve-
ni ng. I t i s a non-prescri pti on cure for i nsomni a.
Gee, Grandma, sai d Li ttl e Red Ri di ng Hood, what bi g words
you have. The better to keep the Bi bl e-thumpers at arms l ength,
my dear, whi l e cashi ng thei r checks for an enti re career.
A Denial of J udicial Spec@cs
Chri sti an pl ural i st James Ski l l en promi ses, but he never del i vers:
I
Thi s response does not, of course, answer the questi on of what does
consti tute a God-honori ng, l i mi ted, and l egi ti mate pol i ti cal order to-
day. That we must work out i n accord wi th the hermeneuti cal and
hi stori cal suggesti ons outl i ned above.l l I want bi bl i cal judi ci al spe-
ci fi cs; he wants the pl ural i sti c status quo. Speci fi c recommendati ons
based on a hermeneuti c consi stent wi th the Bi bl e and John Locke
are what we never, ever get from Chri sti an pol i ti cal pl ural i sts. But
sti l l they keep maki ng promi ses of comprehensi ve gui del i nes to
come: The Scri ptures reveal Gods pl an for reorderi ng soci al rel a-
ti onshi ps and i nsti tuti ons. Despi te si ns i ntrusi on i n the worl d, Gods
creati on ordi nances remai n i n force . 12 Thi s sounds good, but after
350 years of such unful fi l l ed promi ses, I grow skepti cal .
Thei r probl em runs deeper than a mere absence of a hermeneu-
ti c. I f they real l y bel i eved that speci fi c bi bl i cal answers exi sted, they
woul d then have to accept the real i ty of explicit~ Christian alternatives to
the status quo of the present pluralistic world order. Thi s woul d be a deni al
of thei r theol ogy of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm. They woul d have to become
Tri ni tari an soci al thi nkers rather than pol ythei sti c soci al thi nkers. So
10. A. Troost, A Pl ea for a Creati on Ethi c, I nternational Rejormed Bulletin (Oct.
1967), p. 54.
11. James W. Ski l l en, The Pri nci pl ed Pl ural i st Response to Chri sti an Ameri ca,
God and Politics, p. 164.
12. Gary Scott Smi th, The Pri nci pl ed Pl ural i sm Response to Nati onal Confes-
si on, ibid., p. 215.
we are regal ed wi th verbal gymnasti cs affi rmi ng the i ntegri ty of the
Bi bl e on one hand, and taki ng i t back whenever a speci fi c pol i cy
questi on ari ses. For exampl e:
Ther e i s much mor e to bi bl i cal r evel ati on, of cour se, than mer e com-
mands and statutes for human bei ngs to obey. I am not suggesti ng that the
Bi bl e i s pri mari I y or onl y a r ul e book for l i vi ng. The Bi bl e r eveal s God and
the meani ng of hi s covenants wi th hi s creatures, showi ng the purpose of
creati on, exposi ng human si nful ness, and procl ai mi ng the judgment and
redempti on of al l thi ngs i n Jesus Chri st. The Bi bl e i s an al l -encompassi ng
testi mony to the meani ng and desti ny of the worl d. 13
I am not suggesti ng that the Bi bl e i s pri mari l y or onl y a rul e book for
l i vi ng. Marvel ous! And what Bi bl e-bel i evi ng Chri sti an, pray tel l ,
woul d argue wi th hi m? But what has thi s got to do wi th the pri ce of
tea i n Chi na, or more to the poi nt, wi th the l egi ti macy or l ack thereof
of pri ce control s on the pri ce of tea i n Chi na? Absol utel y nothi ng: As
wi l l become cl ear i n what fol l ows, my acceptance of bi bl i cal authori ty
and my i nterpretati on of bi bl i cal texts does not l ead to an absol uti zi ng
of certai n Ol d Testament experi ences, l aws, and customs as the
model for a contemporary state.14 There i s a good reason for thi s: he
rejects bi bl i cal l aw, and he al so rejects any model for a contemporary
state. As wi th al l pol i ti cal pl ural i sts, he pl ays i t by ear, and both the
mel ody and the rhythm are what he remembers from graduate school ,
as rei nforced by The New Republic and the New lbrk Times.
Agai n, a recurri ng theme i s the absence of Gods sancti ons i n hi s-
tory: A Chri sti an vi ew of justi ce, a Chri sti an vi ew of modern pol i -
ti cs, I bel i eve, shoul d be bui l t on thi s understandi ng of Gods graci ous
pati ence duri ng thi s age. 15 Thi s l eads hi m to pol i ti cal pl ural i sm, the
pol i ti cs of (we hope and pray, si l entl y, of course, i n our pri vate
prayer cl osets) equal timeforJ esu.s. I t woul d not be C/zri sti an justi ce for
Chri sti ans to enjoy some pol i ti cal pri vi l ege deni ed to others.l G
Thi s ki nd of enthusi asti c rhetori c for the i ntegri ty of the Bi bl e but
wi thout any commi tment to i ts judi ci al speci fi cs or attached ci vi l
sancti ons i s anal ogous to enthusi asti c rhetori c for the i ntegri ty of
marri age by bachel ors who subscri be onl y to Playboy. I t sounds good,
but I am more than a l i ttl e suspi ci ous regardi ng both the i ntent of
the rhetori c and i ts probabl e outcome.
13. Ski l l en, The Bi bl e, Pol i ti cs, and Democracy: What Does Bi bl i cal Obedi ence
Entai l for Ameri can Pol i ti cal Thought? i n Btble, Politics and Democra~, p. 56.
14. I bid., p. 57.
15. I bid., p. 58.
16. I dem.
Professor Roscoe Pound and other modern juri sts have cri ti ci zed
the natural -l aw basi s of soverei gnty on the same ground as the cri ti cs
of the pre-Chri sti an era: namel y, that i t does not furni sh a speci fi c
consensus of ethi cal judgment. I t boi l s down, says Pound, to what
the i ndi vi dual consci ence di ctates; and consci ences di ffer. An ei gh-
teenth-century juri st l ayi ng down natural l aw and Benthams man
who cl ai med to be one of the el ect are i n the same posi ti on. Each i s
gi vi ng us hi s personal vi ews and i s assumi ng that those vi ews must
be bi ndi ng upon everyone el se. The poi nt i s wel l taken as regards
ei ghteenth and much of ni neteenth-century thought, under whi ch
there i s no l onger a common ethos, For l ack of i t, as Pound poi nts
out, juri sts have fal l en back on i nterest as the basi s of l aw, and have
concei ved the probl em of juri sprudence as the eval uati on or har-
moni zati on of i nterests as i ndeed, on the practi cal pl ane, i t l argel y
(though never whol l y) i s. But the probl em i s i nsol ubl e wi thout cri -
teri a. The eval uati on of anythi ng i s i mpossi bl e wi thout a standard.
The assumpti on that out of the cl ash of group i nterests as such an
harmoni ous synthesi s can-be devi sed or di scovered i s si mpl y a return
to natural l aw by the back wi ndow because the key of the door has
been l ost. As Woodrow Wi l son sai d i n 1918, i nterest does not bi nd
men together: i nterest separates men . . . There i s onl y one thi ng
that can bi nd peopl e together, and that i s common devoti on to ri ght .
The emphasi s i s on the word common. Onl y where there exi sts a
fundamental agreement, not perhaps of expl i ci t bel i ef, but of out-
l ook, feel i ng, and val ue, i s true tol erati on possi bl e. I t was thi s that
both Burke and Acton had i n mi nd; i t was to thi s that Cathol i c schol -
ars referred as they sti l l do when they made the secul ar state subject
to natural l aw; i t was thi s that made pol i ti cal freedom possi bl e.
Destroy that foundati on and everythi ng el se fal l s to pi eces.
Wi l l i am Ayl ott Orton (1945)*
*Orton, The Liberal Tradition (New Haven, Connecti cut: Yal e Uni versi ty Press,
1945), pp. 95-96.
3
HALFWAY COVENANT ETHI CS
Here let me say a word on behalf of the needfor constructi ve cri ti -
cal anal ysi s of Van Til. Van Til, like any human th.inke~ infallible.
Those who love and honor him can pay him no higher service than to help
him see his own weaknesses and thereby to increase the @ectiueness of his
future eforts. WemustthereJ ore begreat~saddened bythefact thatthere
has been almost noqualip critical workdoneon Van Til?swntingsfrom
sources sympathetic to his position. . . . They simply laud Van Tilk
positions and castigate his opponents without any serious wrestling with
the issues Van Til raises. Such writers mean to do him tribute, yet meek
acquiescence is hard~ an adequate response, certain~ no compliment, to
a thinker who means to challenge us at the most profound and spiritual
level,
J ohn Frame (1976)
Doubt concerni ng the rel evance of the Bi bl e to soci al affai rs i s
uni versal i n todays Chri sti an worl d. Chri sti ans have l acked the i n-
tel l ectual sel f-confi dence that Cornel i us Van Ti l s2 presupposi ti onal
apol ogeti c approach has offered them.
3
But Van Ti l s apol ogeti c
method has a cruci al fl aw i n i t: i t i s i nherentl y anti nomi an. By thi s I
mean that Van Ti l di d not bel i eve i n the covenantal concept of l aw,
as I have summari zed thi s concept i n Chapter 1. He di d not go to the
bi bl i cal covenant model , or even to i ts consti tuent i ndi vi dual parts,
i n order to bui l d hi s apol ogeti c system. Worse: i n three of the fi ve
1. John Frame, The Probl em of Theol ogi cal Paradox, in Gar y Nor th (cd.),
Foundations of Chr i sti an Scholarship: Essays in the Van Til Perspective (Val l eci to, C al i for-
ni a: Ross House Books, 1976), pp. 297n-298n.
2. 1895-1987.
3. For i ntroducti ons to Van Ti l s thought, see Frame, ibid.; Ri char d Pr att, EuepJ
Thought Captive: A Study Manual for the Dejeme of Christian Troth (Phi l l i psburg, New
Jersey: Presbyteri an & Reformed, 1979); R. J. Rushdoony, By What Standard? An
Ana@i s of the Philosophy of Cornelius Km Til (Tyl er, Texas: Thoburn Press, [1959] 1983).
127
poi nts, he ei ther deni ed the truth of the parti cul ar bi bl i cal requi re-
ment or el se compl etel y i gnored i t.
Van Ti l on Speci al Creati on
Van Ti l unquesti onabl y defended poi nt one: the absol ute sover-
ei gnty of God. I n fact, thi s i s the heart of hi s methodol ogy: a cl ear
defense of the doctri ne of speci al creati on. He i nsi sted on a radi cal
di sti ncti on between Creator and creature. He al so i nsi sted on the
total provi dence of God the Tri ni ty. He defended the bi bl i cal concept
of cosmi c personal i sm, a Tri ni tari an doctri ne.
4
Van Ti l was a sel f-
consci ous creati oni st. More than any other phi l osophi cal system i n
mans hi story, hi s i s anti -evol uti onary.
5
He was adamant: The doc-
tri nes of creati on and provi dence i mpl y that God ori gi nates and ar-
ranges al l the facts of the uni verse accordi ng to a l ogi c that i s above
man. Mans systems must therefore be consci ousl y anal ogi cal to the
system of God.G Even more emphati cal l y: I t i s i n terms of God who
i s sel f-exi stent and sel f-contai ned and i n terms of the doctri nes of
creati on and provi dence, taken wi thout qual i fi cati on, that man
knows the goal , the standards and the moti vati ng pri nci pl e of l i fe.z
The i dea of creati on makes a di sti ncti on between God and man.
Anyone hol di ng to the i dea of creati on (we speak of temporal and
not of l ogi cal creati on) must al so hol d to the i dea of a God who ex-
i sted apart from the worl d and had meani ng for hi msel f apart from
the worl d. And thi s poi nt goes counter to the fi rst pri nci pl e of Greek
specul ati on spoken of, that al l thi ngs are at bottom one. I f thei sm i s
ri ght, al l thi ngs are at bottom two, and not one. . . . For thi s reason
we have sought to poi nt out that the i dea of creati on i s an i ntegral
part of the Chri sti an thei sti c system of thought. We accept i t because
4. Gary North, The Dominion Covenant: Genesis (2nd ed.; Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for
Chri sti an Economi cs, 1987), ch. 1.
5. Hi s creati oni sm was the heart of hi s cri ti ci sm of neo-orthodoxy: I n rejecti ng
the doctri ne of temporal creati on, Barth and Bruner have, i n real i ty, rejected the or-
thodox doctri ne of the i mmanence of God . . . For, as noted, wi th the rejecti on of
temporal creati on goes the rejecti on of the ontol ogi cal Tri ni ty. Accordi ngl y the tran-
scendence doctri ne of one who rei ects causal cr eati on cannot be that of a God who i s
.
real l y free. I t must al ways be the transcendence of a God who i s necessari l y rel ated
to the uni verse. I n other words, wi th the rejecti on of causal creati on goes the accep-
tance of the correl ati vi ty of God and the uni verse . Van Ti l , The New Modernism
(Phi l adel phi a: Presbyteri an & Reformed, 1947), pp. 6-7.
6. Van Ti l , Essays on Chtidian Education (Nutl ey, New Jersey: Presbyteri an &
Reformed, 1977), p. 78.
7. I bid., p. 79.
Hal~ay Covenant Ethics 129
i t i s i n the Bi bl e and we bel i eve that whi ch i s i n the Bi bl e to be the
onl y defensi bl e phi l osophi cal posi ti on.8 He begi ns hi s book on epi s-
temol ogy what he cal l s revelational epistemolo~ wi th an affi rmati on
of Gods temporal creati on of the uni verse.
9
Another key feature of Van Ti l s system was hi s deni al of any
neutral common-ground reasoni ng between the covenant-keeper
and the covenant-breaker. The onl y common ground between them,
he i nsi sted, i s thei r shared i mage of God. 10 Thi s was the basi s of hi s
deni al of al l forms of natural l aw theory, the uni que feature of hi s
apol ogeti c system. I t wi l l not do to i gnore the di fference between
Chri sti ans and non-Chri sti ans and speak of reason i n general . Such a
thi ng does not exi st i n practi ce.l l Hi s radi cal , uncompromi si ng re-
jecti on of al l forms of natural l aw phi l osophy separated hi m from al l
previ ous Chri sti an apol ogi sts. He was aware of thi s, and was sys-
temati c i n hi s cri ti ci sms of al l other Chri sti an apol ogi sts for thei r
compromi ses wi th natural l aw, common-ground i ntel l ectual strategi es.
The i mage of God i n man was i mportant for another aspect of
hi s system of epi stemol ogy: the l i nk between human mi nds, and
between Gods mi nd and mans. Epi stemol ogy asks: What can man
know, and on what basi s does he know i t? Van Ti l taught that man
i s supposed to thi nk hi s thoughts after God as a creature made i n
Gods i mage. Thi s i s cl earl y a system of hierarchical reasoning. Man i s
the subordi nate. Human reason i s not a si mpl e l i near extensi on
of di vi ne reasoni ng. The human acti vi ty or i nterpretati on al ways
runs al ongsi de of and i s subordi nate to the mai n pl an and purpose
of God. 12 God i s the pri mary thi nker; man i s secondary. God thi nks
creati vel y; man thi nks re-creati vel y. The natural man wants to
be creati vel y constructi ve i nstead of recepti vel y reconstructi ve. 13
To thi s extent, Van Ti l was fai thful to poi nt two of the covenant:
hi er ar chy.
8. Van TM, A Surog of Chriktian Epistemology, vol. 11 of I n D~ense of Biblical Chridi-
ani~ (den Dul k Foundati on, 1969), pp. 18-19. Di stri buted by Presbyteri an & Re-
formed Pub. Co., Phi l l i psburg, New Jersey.
9. I bid., p. 1.
10. Van Ti l , The D&nse of the Faith (rev. ed.; Phi l adel phi a: Presbyteri an & Re-
formed, 1963), ch. 8: Common Grace and Schol asti ci sm.
11. Van Ti l , An I ntroduction to Systematic Theology, vol. V of I n Dejense of Biblical
Chtistiani~ (Phi l l i psburg, New Jersey: Presbyteri an & Reformed, [1961] 1978), p. 25.
12. I bid., p. 28.
13. I bid., p. 16.
Van Ti l as an Anti nomi an
Why do I thi nk that Van Ti l was an anti nomi an? Because apart
from poi nt one, and apart from hi s concept of anal ogi cal reasoni ng,
he deni ed the bi bl i cal covenant model . The detai l s of thi s model had
not been devel oped by Sutton whi l e Van Ti l was sti l l i ntel l ectual l y
acti ve, but Van Ti l actual l y deni ed the bi bl i cal content of thi s model ,
secti on by secti on. Whi l e he affi rmed poi nt two hi erarchy i n
terms of individual reasoni ng, he di d not di scuss the questi on of cor-
porate reasoni ng, i .e., the di vi si on of i ntel l ectual l abor covenantal l y.
Furthermore, he tol d men to thi nk reconstructi vel y, but he never
spoke of thi s reconstructi ve thi nki ng as l eadi ng to the reconstructi on
of soci al i nsti tuti ons. He never di scussed the obvi ous: that wherever
sel f-procl ai med autonomous man has attempted to bui l d human cul -
ture on the basi s of hi s assumpti on that he i s creati vel y constructi ve,
he has bui l t i nsti tuti ons that cl earl y need to be reconstructed. Van
Ti l sel f-consci ousl y refused to affi rm the l egi ti macy of Rushdoonys
attempt to extend Van Ti l s reconstructi ve apol ogeti c methodol ogy
i nto the fi el d of soci al phi l osophy. More than thi s: he never publ i cl y
di scussed how any other such attempt at Chri sti an soci al reconstruc-
ti on mi ght be begun.
Van Ti l al so i gnored al l questi ons regardi ng judi ci al representation
speci fi cal l y, the judi ci al -covenantal basi s of al l i nsti tuti onal hi erar-
chi es, especi al l y ci vi l governments. I n short, Van Til had no doctrine OJ
the national covenant. Yet thi s i s a cruci al aspect of mans obedi ence to
God as a covenant-keeper. God has not abol i shed the covenantal
foundati on of ci vi l government i n the New Testament era (Rem.
12:17-13: 7). So, the bi bl i cal l y l egi ti mate questi on i s never covenant
or no covenant wi th respect to ci vi l government. I t i s al ways a ques-
ti on of whose covenant.
Points Three Through Five
When i t came to poi nts three through fi ve of the covenant, he
was ei ther si l ent (the content of Gods l aw: poi nt three), or hosti l e
(hi stori cal sancti ons and hi stori cal i nheri tance: poi nts four and fi ve).
Van Ti l s ami l l enni al vi ew of Gods promi sed external , cul tural , cov-
enantal bl essi ngs (Deut. 28:1-14), as wi th premi l l enni al i ms vi ew,
was excl usi vel y attached to a trans-hi stori cal , di sconti nuous event:
Chri sts second comi ng. Thi s ethical futurism i s the heart and soul of
hi s systems anti nomi ani sm. I t i s al so the heart and soul of the anti -
nomi ani sm that today affl i cts the whol e Chri sti an Church. I t i s the
Hal@ay Covenant Ethics 131
theol ogy of pi e i n the sky by and by. I t i s the necessary theol ogi cal
foundati on of the vari ous Chri sti an versi ons of the escapi st rel i gi on. 14
I ts wi despread i nfl uence i n our day has both paral l el ed and ai ded the
growi ng i nfl uence of Marxi st l i berati on theol ogy, whi ch correctl y
l abel s such a vi ew of hi story as escapi st and i rrel evant to the materi al
and soci al needs of peopl e i n ti me and on earth. 15 The Church must
abandon such a vi ew of the supposed i mpotence of Gods covenantal
judgments i n hi story; i f i t refuses, pl anet earth wi l l not be l i berated. 16
Van Ti l never referred i n hi s wri ti ngs to God-reveal ed Ol d Testa-
ment bi bl i cal l aw as the onl y systemati cal l y Chri sti an al ternati ve to
autonomous mans natural l aw. He qui te properl y cal l ed on Chri s-
ti ans to abandon every trace of natural l aw phi l osophy, and then
refused to suggest an al ternati ve. But i t was not enough for Van Ti l
to offer us a techni cal apol ogeti c approach; he was obl i gated to offer
a bi bl i cal ethi cal al ternati ve. He steadfastl y refused to comment on
the speci fi cs of real -worl d ethi cal matters. Hi s si l ence was i nappro-
pri ate, gi ven the magni tude of hi s presupposi ti onal apol ~geti c meth-
odol ogys successful demol i ti on of natural l aw theory.
Van Ti .1 chal l enged the autonomy of man i n every area of thought
but one: l aw. He sel f-consci ousl y and systemati cal l y destroyed the
epi stemol ogi cal foundati on of natural l aw theory: the concept of
neutral human reason. He was a bi bl i cal presupposi ti onal i st as no
other Chri sti an phi l osopher i n hi story had ever been before hi m. He
ful l y understood thi s, and he operated professi onal l y i n terms of
thi s. 17 He deni ed that at any poi nt can men see anythi ng neutral l y.
There i s no neutral i ty anywhere i n the uni verse, he i nsi sted. You
ei ther bel i eve God or you dont. You are ei ther a covenant-keeper or
you arent.
14. Gar y North, Moses and Pharaoh: Domi ni on Religton vs. Power Religion (Tyl er,
15. See Jos.5 Mi randa, Communi sm and the Bible (Maryknol l , New York: Orbi s,
1982), p. 15.
16. Gar y Nor th, Liberating Planet Earth: An I ntroduction to Biblical Blueprints (Ft.
17. A professor at Covenant Theol ogi cal Semi nary has humorousl y summari zed
the hi story of apol ogeti cs at Westmi nster Theol ogi cal Semi nary as fol l ows: Van Ti l
taught that everyone el se was wrong. Frame teaches that everyone i s to some degree
correct and to some degree wrong. Poythress teaches that everyone i s correct, from a
certai n perspecti ve. Frame woul d no doubt regard thi s comment as accurate to
some degree, but i n other respects i naccurate. Poythress, however, wi l l see the truth
of i t from a certai n perspecti ve.
Blowing Upthe Cultural Dike
He was a Dutchman. He shoul d have understood what he was
doi ng. He was l i ke a demol i ti ons expert who pl aces expl osi ves at the
base of a di ke and tri ggers an expl osi on. Thi s i s what he di d at the
base of the i ncomparabl y l eaky di ke of natural l aw theory. But Van
Ti l never publ i cl y asked hi msel f thi s cruci al questi on: After the di ke
of natural l aw i s shattered, what wi l l take i ts pl ace? Even more to
the poi nt, Shoul d I bui l d a back-up di ke before I bl ow up the exi st-
i ng one? Van Ti l never offered any answers to these cruci al ques-
ti ons. He had no recommendati ons regardi ng Church or ci vi l l egal
standards. He apparentl y bel i eved that i t was not hi s job to provi de
such answers, as i f natural l aw phi l osophy had not stood for al most
two mi l l enni a as vi rtual l y the sol e foundati on of Chri sti an pol i ti cal
theory. Al l he ever wanted to do academi cal l y was bl ow up theol ogi -
cal l y i nconsi stent l eaky di kes. He bui l t no restrai ni ng wal l . The onl y
rel i abl e materi al s avai l abl e for bui l di ng such a wal l are the bi bl i cal
case l aws, found mostl y i n the Ol d Testament, and Van Ti l refused
to use them. But the pagan sea of ethi cal ni hi l i sm al ways threatens to
rush i n wi th ful l force to carry away the l ast traces of Chri sti an ci vi l i -
zati on. (Thi s was al so my cri ti ci sm of Free Uni versi ty of Amsterdam
professor A. Troost back i n 1967.)
1s
Van Ti l taught that there i s a radi cal di sti ncti on between cove-
nant-keepi ng mans concept of cul ture and covenant-breaki ng mans
concept. He i nsi sted that there must be a speci fi cal l y Chri sti an goal ,
standard, and moti vati on for cul ture. The goal i s the gl ory of God.
The standard i s the way of Chri st. The moti vati on i s the di scovery of
Gods grace i n cul ture. 19 But he offered no expl i ci tl y bi bl i cal defi ni -
ti on of thi s standard, whi ch woul d al so make i t i mpossi bl e for cove-
nant-keepers to assess when they have found Gods grace i n cul ture.
As I shal l argue throughout thi s essay, Van Ti l s anti nomi ani sm (no
expl i ci tl y bi bl i cal standard for cul ture) was the fraternzd twi n brother
of hi s pessi mi sm regardi ng Chri sti ani tys earthl y i nfl uence i n the
future (ami l l enni al i sm).
I thi nk hi s theol ogi cal supporters i nsti ncti vel y recogni ze the ri sk
i n such a demol i ti on operati on, yet they are al so hosti l e to bi bl i cal
l aw, so he has never recrui ted many di sci pl es. They know that he i s
18. Gary North, The Sinai Stra&gy: Economi cs and the Ten Commandnwnts (Tyl er, Texas:
I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1986), Appendi x C: Soci al Anti nomi ani sm.
19. Van Ti l , Essays on Christian Education, pp. 35-38.
Ha&iway Covenant Ethics 133
aski ng them to make an i ntel l ectual and cultural frontal assaul t
agai nst the entrenched enemi es of God, but wi thout a posi ti ve al ter-
nati ve. They recogni ze thatyou cannot beat something with nothing. Even
the most enthusi asti c Davi ds of the worl d recogni ze the i mportance
of a sack ful l of stones when deal i ng wi th the worl ds Gol i aths. By re-
movi ng our judi ci al tool of domi ni on, Gods r eveal ed l aw, Van Ti l
set out to do battl e wi th Gods enemi es wi thout adequate offensi ve
ar maments. Thi s becomes especi al l y appar ent when the student of
Van Ti l begi ns to face the probl ems of sockd ethi cs.
Rushdoony di d use bi bl i cal l aw i n the constructi on of hi s prel i mi -
nary judi ci al restrai ni ng wal l , so he had no fear of usi ng Van Ti l s
apol ogeti c system to attack natural l aw. Thi s i s why the Chri sti an
Reconstructi oni sts have i nher i ted the bul k of Van Ti l s l egacy.20 We
al one ar e wi l l i ng to bl ow up eve~ dam based i n any way on natur al
l aw, no matter wher e we fi nd one, because we al one have a r el i abl e
r etai ni ng wal l i n reserve: bi bl i cal l aw. Neverthel ess, we are tal ki ng
here onl y of theory; we do not want to create a prematurel y revol u-
ti onary si tuati on. We must wai t pati entl y for the general publ i c to
begi n to accept, i n theor y and i n pr acti ce, the judi ci al l y bi ndi ng
natur e of the Ol d Testament case l aws befor e we attempt to tear
down judi ci al i nsti tuti ons that sti l l rel y on natural l aw or publ i c vi r-
tue. (I have i n mi nd the U.S. Consti tuti on. )
Van Ti l was al ways very nervous about Rushdoonys use of hi s
apol ogeti c system, whi ch i s why he sel dom referred to Rushdoony i n
pri nt or i n the cl assroom,
21 but si nce Van Ti l refused to desi gnate hi s
20. Cf. Frame, Theol ogi cal Paradox: op. cd., p. 298n.
21. After I had compl eted thi s essay, Gary DeMar provi ded me wi th a photocopy
of a May 11, 1972 l etter from Van Ti l to C. Gregg Si nger. Van Ti l commented on the
proposed book I was edi ti ng at the ti me, for whi ch Si nger suppl i ed the chapter on
hi storv: Foundations of Chrikttan Scholarship. I knew at the ti me that Van Ti l was not
happy about the proj~ct, and I suspected ~he reason. Hi s l etter confi rms my suspi ci ons
si xteen years l ater. He wrote: Then too I am frankl y a l i ttl e concerned about the
pol i ti cal vi ews of Mr. Rushdoony and Mr. North and parti cul arl y i f I am correctl y
i nformed about some of the vi ews Gary North has wi th respect to the appl i cati on of
Ol d Testament pri nci pl es to our day. My onl y poi nt i s that I woul d hope and expect
that they woul d not cl ai m that such vi ews are i nherent i n the pri nci pl es I hol d, Pro-
bl em: When vou abandon both Roman Cathol i c natur al l aw theorv and Gordon
,
Cl arks apol ogeti c noti on of the pri nci pl e of non-contradi cti on as the poi nt of contact
,
between saved and l ost, yet you al so reject evol uti oni sm, process phi l osophy, and
exi stenti al i sm i n al l forms, you need to ask yoursel f: What i s the vi ew of l aw i nher-
ent i n my phi l osophy? Van Ti l apparentl y never asked hi msel f thi s cruci al questi on;
he certai nl y never answered i t publ i cl y. Thi s i s why hi s system i s anti nomi an, and i n
need of reconstructi on.
i ntel l ectual hei r he stood al one, by choi ce, al l of hi s l i fe, battl i ng
bravel y but seemi ngl y wi th l i ttl e thought about who woul d succeed
hi m he coul d hardl y speci fy those who woul d not be al l owed to i n-
heri t. Li ke Queen El i zabeth I , he never publ i cl y named a successor.zz
Thi s was consi stent wi th hi s basi c operati ng presupposi ti on: Every-
one el se i s wrong. (Rushdoony subsequentl y has suffered from thi s
same di l emma over i nher i tance. ) .
The Key Contr adi cti on
No one has sai d thi s i n pri nt, but i t i s ti me to say i t: Van Ti l s
ori gi nal system has a gl ari ng contradi cti on i n i t, one whi ch doomed
i t from the begi nni ng. Al l hi s l i fe, he procl ai med the sol e and excl u-
si ve val i di ty of presuppositional apologetics. What di d he mean by the
term? He meant that there are two (and onl y two) ways of vi ewi ng
the worl d: as a covenant-keeper or as a covenant-breaker. At the
heart of hi s apol ogeti c method was the fundamental concept of the
bi bl i cal covenant. 23 He spoke of man as a covenant personal i ty.24
He i nsi sted that The rati onal creature of God must natural l y l i ve by
authori ty i n al l the acti vi ti es of hi s personal i ty. Al l these acti vi ti es are
i nher entl y covenantal acti vi ti es ei ther of obedi ence or di sobedi -
ence.* 25 But Van Ti l never ex@ai ned in detail what the biblical covenant is.
(I suspect that thi s was because he deferred to the wri ti ngs on the
covenant of hi s teacher Geerhardus Vos, whose i nfl uence over hi m
was great, 26 and hi s col l eague at Westmi nster, the Presbyteri an eth-
i ci st John Murray. 27) From ti me to ti me, and i n many, many pl aces
just try to l ocate some key phrase he di d descri be i n pi ecemeal
fashi on certai n of the covenants features. The covenant i s a l egal bond
22. I suspect that he woul d have preferred Greg Bahnsen, but Bahnsen uphel d
the dreaded doctri ne of theonomy, even goi ng so far as to name i t. To have had
Bahnsen as hi s successor woul d have produced the same bothersome resul t: students
mi ght concl ude that theonomy and presupposi ti onal i sm are i nherentl y l i nked, the
i dea Van Ti l was at pai ns to deny pri vatel y and i gnore publ i cl y.
23. Thus Scri pture may be sai d to be the wri tten expressi on of Gods covenant
wi th man. Van Ti l , Nature and Scri pture,
n
i n The I nfallible Word: A Symposium, by
the facul ty of Westmi nster Theol ogi cal Semi nary (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Eerd-
mans, 1947), p. 256.
24. I bid., p. 265.
25. I dem.
26. Wi l l i am Whi te, Jr., Van Til: D@indsr of the Faith (Nashvi l l e, Tennessee:
Thomas Nel son, 1979), ch. 6.
27. John Murray, Pri nci pl es of Condurt (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Eerdmans,
1957).
Ha~way Covenant Ethics 135
between man and God, one whi ch Adam broke, and whi ch he fur-
thermore broke as manki nds judi ci al representati ve. Adam disobeyed
God. He broke Gods law, whi ch i s how one breaks a covenant. I n
short, at the heart of Van Ti l s epi stemol ogy i s ethics. Ethi cs i s funda-
mental , he repeated throughout hi s career, not i ntel l i gence. He used
to say i n the cl assroom that Chri sti ans do not get a new set of brai ns
when they get converted. Obedi ence to God i s fundamental , not
preci se thi nki ng. I n one of hi s marvel ous anal ogi es, he sai d that i t
does not matter how much you sharpen a buzz saw i f i t i s set at the
wrong angl e: i f i t i s crooked, i t wi l l not cut strai ght. The angl e ob-
vi ousl y has to refer to Gods covenant l aw, but he never di scussed
any detai l s.
Despi te the central i ty i n hi s thi nki ng of the bi bl i cal covenant ,
28
Van Ti l refused to di scuss covenant l aw. He refused to di scuss whi ch
l aws are sti l l part of Gods covenant l aw-order. He al ways di scussed
epistemolo~ What can man know, and how can he know i t? i n
terms of ethics: What does man do, and why does he do i t?
Now i f anythi ng i s obvi ous from Scri pture i t i s that man i s not regarded
as properl y a judge of Gods revel ati on to hi m. Man i s sai d or assumed from
the fi rst page to the l ast to be a creature of God. Gods consci ousness i s
therefore taken to be natural l y ori gi nal as mans i s natural l y deri vati ve.
Mans natural atti tude i n al l sel f-consci ous acti vi ti es was therefore meant to
be that of obedi ence. I t i s to thi s deeper depth, deeper than the si nners con-
sci ousness can ever reach by i tsel f, that Scri pture appeal s when i t says:
Come l et us reason together. I t appeal s to covenant-breakers and argues
wi th them about the unreasonabl eness of covenant-breaki ng. 29
Neverthel ess, despi te hi s heavy rel i ance on the concept of cove-
nantal obedi ence as the basi s of mans correct knowl edge about the
uni verse, Van Ti l steadfastl y refused to di scuss bi bl i cal l aw. He
attacked natural l aw but put nothi ng i n i ts pl ace. He devoted hi s l i fe
28. Al ong wi th other doctri nes: the soverei gnty (provi dence) of God, ti e
Creator-creature di sti ncti on, the i mage of God i n man as the sol e poi nt of contact
between covenant-keepers and covenant-breakers, rati onal i sm vs. i rrati onal i sm,
uni ty vs. di versi ty, change vs. stabi fi ty, conti nui ty vs. di sconti nui ty y, uni vocaf vs.
equi vocal reasoni ng, bi bl i cal anal ogi cal reasoni ng, and the i mpossi bi l i ty of a
uni quel y central doctri ne i n theol ogy. On Van Ti l s deni al of any si ngl e central
doctri ne, see Frame, Theol ogi cal Paradox, op. ti t, p. 305. I thi nk the Tri ni ty, crea-
ti on, the fal l of man, redempti on, and Gods provi dence are the fundamental doc-
tri nes of hi s overal l theol ogy, whi l e the covenant i s the heart of hi s epi stemol ogy, i .e.,
hi s di scussi on of what and how men can know anythi ng correctl y.
29. Van Ti l , Nature and Scri pture, I nfallible Word, p. 273.
to di scussi ng why al l other Chri sti an apol ogi sts had i n effect set
thei r buzz saws at the wrong angl e, but he refused to di scuss the
God-reveal ed strai ght edge agai nst whi ch we measure devi ati ons
from perfecti on: covenant law.
The true heart of hi s apol ogeti c system i s covenantal ethi cs, but
the system i s cl oaked i n the l anguage of l ogi c and epi stemol ogy. The
heart of hi s system i s the covenant, but hi s l anguage i s mi sl eadi ngl y
phi l osophi cal . Thi s mi sl eadi ng l anguage i s refl ected i n hi s famous
phrase, epistemological se~-consci ousness. By thi s phrase, he meant a
persons abi l i ty (and wi l l i ngness) to see what he i s i n rel ati on to God,
and then thi nk i n terms of i t. Yet he al ways knew that thought i s ti ed
to acti on, that i t i s not just what man thi nks but al so how he acts. We
al ways know God covenantal l y and on~ covenantal l y. There i s no
other God to know but the God of the covenant. The heart and soul
of Van Ti l s presupposi ti onal methodol ogy i s therefore not epi stemo-
l ogi cal sel f-consci ous but rather ethical self-consciousness. Yet I do not
recal l ever seei ng thi s phrase i n hi s wri ti ngs.
Ethi cs and Eschatol ogy
Part of thi s sel f-i mposed confusi on i n Van Ti l s apol ogeti cs i s the
faul t of hi s ami l l enni al eschatol ogy: i t l eads to a debi l i tati ng pessi -
mi sm concerni ng the earthl y future of the ki ngdom of God. 30 He fol -
l owed what he thought had been the eschatol ogy of Geerhardus Vos:
Dr. Vos makes pl ai n that there i s a two-fol d aspect to Jesus teachi ng
of the ki ngdom. Ri ghteousness and conversi on have to do wi th the
present aspect of the ki ngdom, and bl essedness pri mari l y wi th the
future aspect of the ki ngdom.31 (I n fact, Vos may have been a mi l d
postmi l l enni al i st, but si nce he was Dutch, no one coul d qui te bel i eve
i t.)sz I n other words, Van Ti l and other Dutch-background ami l l en-
30. Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace: The Biblical Basis of Progress (Tyi er,
Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1987), ch. 4: Van Ti l s Versi on of Com-
mon Grace.
31. Van Ti l , Christian Theistic Ethics, vol . 3 of I n D#ense of Btblical C,hristiani~ (Phi l -
l i psburg, New Jersey: Presbyteri an & Reformed, [1958] 1980), p. 121.
32. Hi s i nterpretati on of Matthew 24 was qui te si mi l ar to that of J. Marcel l us
Ki k, An Eschatology of Victoy (Nutl ey, New Jersey: Presbyteri an & Reformed, 1971),
Secti on I I . He saw the i mmedi atel y after of verse 29 as referri ng to the fal l of Jeru-
sal em i n A. D. 70. Vos, Eschatol ogy of the New Testament , I nternational &undard
Bible En@opedia, 5 vol s. (Grand Rapi ds, Eerdmans, 1929), I I , pp. 982-83. He saw a
future conversi on of the Jews wi th some ki nd of gospel i ncrease (Rem. 11): ibid., p.
983. See especi al l y the subsecti on, Events Precedi ng the Parousi a.
Ha~way Couenant Ethics 137
ni al i sts argue that Chri sti ans are personal l y responsi bl e for bei ng
covenantal l y fai thful i n thi s worl d, but Gods granti ng of covenantal ,
col l ecti ve, external , and vi si bl e bl essi ngs i n response to thi s fai thful -
ness comes mai nl y after death. They argue that because God refuses
to grant Hi s covenant peopl e the external bl essi ngs necessary for the
constructi on of a uni quel y Chri sti an ci vi l i zati on, Chri sti ans wi l l
never be abl e by the Spi ri t to subdue Hi s enemi es i n hi story. There i s
supposedl y a sharp di sconti nui ty i n the New Testament era between
Gods covenantal promi ses and thei r temporal ful fi l l ment, between
fai thful performance and vi si bl e reward.
Van Ti l sai d that the ful l mani festati on of Gods covenant bl ess-
i ngs wi l l come onl y at Chri sts fi nal comi ng, whi ch he cal l s a cata-
strophi c event. 33 He utterl y rejected postmi l l enni al i sms opti mi sm
concerni ng the temporal future: On the other hand there i s a
danger that we shoul d thi nk that si nce Chri st has set before us the
absol utel y comprehensi ve ethi cal i deal of perfecti on for the whol e
uni verse, we can actual l y accompl i sh that i deal wi thout or pri or to
hi s catastrophi c return.3
4
He kept tal ki ng about Chri sti ans actual
and compl ete bl essedness, remi ndi ng us that they cannot be per-
fectl y bl essed ti l l bodi es are free from the l ast evi l consequence of si n,
that i s, death. They cannot be ful l y bl essed ti l l al l of nature be recast
wi th gl ory respl endent. I n short, they cannot be ful l y bl essed ti l l the
regenerati on of al l thi ngs.
35
Thi s i s al l true enough: thefullness does not come unti l the end of
hi story. But the cruci al observati on here i s Van Ti l s systemati c
negl ect of the concept ofprogressi ue sanctz$ication, ei ther personal or i n-
sti tuti onal . He spoke of vi si bl e bl essi ngs for covenantal fai thful ness
onl y wi th respect to jinal sancti fi cati on not i n hi story, but beyond
hi story at Gods fi nal judgment. We sel dom fi nd cases where Van Ti l
cheats or fudges i ntel l ectual l y, but here i s one case where he di d, and
di d so on a systemati c, conti nui ng basi s. He del i beratel y confused
the ethi cal i ssue by referri ng to the bl essi ngs and the ethi cal vi ctory
of Chri sti ans onl y wi th respect to the fi nal , post-hi stori cal , post-
second comi ng era. He di sgui sed thi s systemati c refusal to deal wi th
progressi ve sancti fi cati on i n hi story by contrasti ng the admi ttedl y
i ncompl ete present wi th the ful l ness of the post-resurrecti on future.
He therefore was forced to deny expl i ci tl y that Gods covenant i s
33. Van Ti l , Ethics, p, 122.
34. I bid., Pp. 122-23.
35. I bid., p. 121.
vi si bl y rel ated to Hi s i mposi ti on of progressi ve sancti ons i n hi story.
I n thi s sense, Van Ti l s worl dvi ew was apocal ypti c rather than
propheti c. I t l ooked forward onl y to the end of the worl d, not al so to
the hi stori cal transformati on of the worl d by the gospel . Thi s
apocal ypti c outl ook undermi ned hi s apol ogeti c emphasi s on ethi cs as
bei ng more fundamental than l ogi c. Covenantal l y fai thful ethi cal be-
havi or, i n hi s system, does not and cannot l ead to the transformati on
of the worl d. Covenantal l y di sobedi ent behavi or can and wi l l mai n-
tai n control of worl d ci vi l i zati on.
What I am sayi ng here i s very si mpl e: Van Til, like all non-theonomic
amillennialists, 36 had a radical~ anti-histoncal concept of covenantal ethics, and
this led Van Til, like all non-theonomic amillenniali.rts, into antinomianism.
I n the Ol d Testament era, Van Ti l argued, there was con-
si derabl e conti nui ty between covenantal fai thful ness and external
bl essi ngs, but thi s i s no l onger the case i n the New Testament era.
He mai ntai ned that Chri sti ans cannot have l egi ti mate hope i n the
earthl y success of the gospel pri or to the second comi ng of Chri st i n
fi nal judgment. I nstead, he argued, Chri sti ans must content them-
sel ves wi th l ooki ng forward to a post-hi stori c absol ute futur e.37 The
ami l l enni al i st does not bel i eve i n a vi si bl e progressi ve mani festati on
of Gods ki ngdom (Chri sti an ci vi l i zati on), except wi thi n a com-
parati ve handful of smal l (and probabl y shri nki ng) congregati ons
and wi thi n Chri sti an fami l i es. Negati vel y we may affi rm that our
hope for the future cannot be found chi efl y i n the possi bi l i ty that as
ti me goes on men wi l l be more readi l y convi nced of the reasonabl e-
ness of our program. I n fact we may expect the contrary of thi s.n38
Wi th respect to a vi si on of the future, the ami l l enni al i st i s basi cal l y a
premi l l enni al i st wi thout earthl y hope.
The best statement I have seen that reveal s Van Ti l s eschatol ogy
of pagani sms i nevi tabl e hi stori cal conti nui ty (the hi stori cal vi ctory
of covenant-breakers) and Chri sti ani tys i nevi tabl e hi stori cal di scon-
ti nui ty (the sudden, post-hi stori cal vi ctory of covenant-keepers) i s
found i n hi s col l ecti on of essays on Chri sti an educati on. You coul d
not ask for an eschatol ogi cal statement any cl earer than thi s:
We mai ntai n, i n the fi rst pl ace, that the frui ts of our l abors wi l l not appear
i n thei r ful l si gni fi cance ti l l after thi s l i fe. And what i s more, we mai ntai n
36. I wi l l di scuss l ater why there can be, i n theory, theonomi c ami l l enni al i sts and
pr emi l l enni al i st.
37. Van Ti l , Ethics, p. 104.
38. Van Ti l , Essays on Christian Edwation, op. cit., p. 164.
that those frui ts wi l l suddenl y appear i n thei r ful ness and beauty at the ti me
of the judgment day. I t someti mes happens that the spri ng i s col d and wet
and that i n addi ti on to al l thi s a hai l storm sets back the crops. Yet to the
great surpri se of al l the fal l wi l l bri ng an abundance of fi -ui ts. Now thi s i s
true i n a much greater degree i n the real m of spi ri tual thi ngs. I n thi s worl d
there i s opposi ti on from wi thout and opposi ti on from wi thi n whi l e we bui l d
our program. Hai l storms descend upon us and cut al l thi ngs l evel wi th the
ground. There i s very l i ttl e i n the way of frui tage that can be seen. Yet we
know that when al l the opposi ti on of si n wi l l be removed and the sunshi ne
of the Son of Ri ghteousness wi l l shi ne upon i t al l the ti me, then there wi l l be
such frui tage as has never been seen i n thi s worl d. 39
Van Ti l offered the Church thi s cosmi c weather report: We i n-
terrupt our regul ar programmi ng wi th thi s emergency weather
bul l eti n. Thi s afternoon, Chri sti ans can expect wet, col d weather,
fol l owed by hai l stones thi s eveni ng. Tomorrow we wi l l have more of
the same, onl y worse. Sunny weather i s predi cted for next week, i m-
medi atel y fol l owi ng the end of the worl d. Detai l s at el even .
Let us understand the nature of ami l l enni al i sm. I nsofar as
eschatol ogy refers to human hi story, amillennialism is postmillennialism
for covenant-breakers. Covenant-breakers take domi ni on progressi vel y
i n hi story. (Di spensati onal premi l l enni al i sm i s al so postmi l l en-
ni al i sm for covenant-breakers, i nsofar as eschatol ogy refers to the
Chri sti ans who l i ve and l abor pri or to Jesus physi cal second comi ng,
the so-cal l ed Church Age. Al l thei r good works wi l l be swal l owed up
duri ng the great tri bul ati on peri od, ei ther i mmedi atel y before Jesus
returns the post-tri bul ati on posi ti on or i n the seven-year peri od
whi ch fol l ows the secret Rapture: pre-tri bul ati oni sm.) Postmillen-
nialism is an inescapable concept. I t i s never a questi on of cul tural
tri umph vs. no cul tural tri umph pri or to Jesus second comi ng; i t i s a
questi on of which kingdom~ cul tural tri umph.
Ethi cal Neutral i ty i n Hi story?
Van Ti l , as wi th premi l l enni al i sts and ami l l enni al i sts general l y,
argued that there i s no rel i abl e, predi ctabl e, stati sti cal l y rel evant
ethi cal cause-and-effect rel ati onshi p between covenanta.1 fai thful ness
and external , vi si bl e covenantal bl essi ngs, or between covenantal
unfai thful ness and external , vi si bl e covenantal cursi ngs. Van Ti l ac-
39. I bid., p. 163.
tual l y stated that i t may even be sai d that i t seems as though i t i s as
often true that those who are ri ghteous are not as prosperous as those
who are not ri ghteous .~ Thi s i s the standard i mpl i ci t theme i n
pessi mi l l enni al i sm general l y: Chri sti ans are hi stori cal l osers, and
i snt i t grand to be a Chri sti an? But thi s outl ook regardi ng hi stori cal
cause and effect i mpl i es ethical neutrality: random vi si bl e effects from
ri val ethi cal systems. But Van Ti l knew there can be no ethi cal neu-
tral i ty. Hi s whol e career was devoted to denyi ng such neutral i ty i n
the fi el d of phi l osophy. Thi s, i n fact, was hi s great i ntel l ectual contri -
buti on to the Church. Therefore, i f we accept Van Ti l s apol ogeti c
system, we know that any supposed ethi cal neutral i ty wi th respect to
ethi cal cause and effect i n hi story must be a myth. He mai ntai ned
that the neutral i ty doctri ne i s al ways a cover for an anti -Chri sti an
worl dvi ew. But then so is neutrality regarding ethical cause and eject in his-
toy. Jesus promi sed: Veri l y I say unto you, There i s no man that
bath l eft house, or brethren, or si sters, or father, or mother, or wi fe,
or chi l dren, or l ands, for my sake, and the gospel s, But he shal l re-
cei ve an hundredfol d now i n thi s ti me, houses, and brethren, and
si sters, and mothers, and chi l dren, and l ands, wi th persecuti ons;
and i n the worl d to come eternal l i fe (Mark 10:29-30).41 There i s
a positive relationship in history between covenantal fai thful ness and
external , vi si bl e bl essi ngs, al though persecuti ons accompany the
bl essi ngs.
Thi s posi ti ve rel ati onshi p i s sel f-consci ousl y deni ed by tradi ti onal
premi l l enni al i sm and ami .l l enni al i sm.AZ What ami l l enni al i sm and pre-
mi l l enni al i sm i mpl i ci tl y and often expl i ci tl y assert i s a negative relation-
ship between covenantal fai thful ness and external , vi si bl e bl essi ngs,
and a Posi ti ve relationship between unfai thful ness and external , vi si bl e
bl essi ngs. I n other words, the ri ghteous wi l l supposedl y become pro-
41. Obvi ousl y, di sci pl es wi l l not recei ve a hundred sets of bi ol ogi cal mothers, or a
hundred ti mes as many bi ol ogi cal chi l dren. What Jesus was promi si ng us i s thi s: as
the gospel spreads, di si nheri ted di sci pl es wi l l fi nd that new converts wi l l wel come
them i nto thei r homes, and the economi c assets of hundreds of fami l i es wi l l be made
avai l abl e to them for the spread of the gospel . They wi l l become members of many
fami l i es covenantal l y as the tr i umphant Chur ch gr ows i n number s.
42. By tradi ti onal , I mean the vi ews preached for the l ast century from the pul -
pi ts of the l argest and most i nfl uenti al churches, the vi ewpoi nts expressed i n the
best-sel l i ng Chri sti an books, and the vi ewpoi nts expressed i n theol ogi cal semi nari es
and Chr i sti an col l ege cl assr ooms.
HalJ way Covenant Ethics 141
gressi vel y weaker and l ess i nfl uenti al cul tural l y over ti me, whi l e the
unri ghteous wi l l supposedl y become progressi vel y stronger and
more cul tural l y i nfl uenti al . Thi s was Van Ti l s expl i ci t argument i n
Common Grace (1954). God supposedl y says to Hi s eternal enemi es, I
hate you so much, and My hatred of you i s i ncreasi ng so rapi dl y,
that I wi l l l et you beat the stuffi ng out of My peopl e, whom I l ove
wi th i ncreasi ng fervor as they i ncrease i n ri ghteous sel f-knowl edge .
The ways of God are strange . . . i f you are an ami l l enni al i st or a
pr emi l l en n i a l i s t. 43
The Doctri ne of Ethi cal Unevenness
Van Ti l spent hi s career preachi ng agai nst natural l aw phi l oso-
phy, yet he steadfastl y refused to recommend the adopti on of bi bl i cal
l aw as the Chri sti an al ternati ve to natural l aw. He adopted a doc-
tri ne of ethi cal cause and effect whi ch, temporal~ speaki ng, i s i nher-
entl y pagan. Thi s i s strong l anguage, but Van Ti l s own arguments
bear thi s out. I n attacki ng modern apostate ethi cal theory, he wrote:
I n the fi rst pl ace, i t i s sai d that the i dea of ethi cs havi ng anythi ng to
do wi th external s has been done away wi th i n the New Testament.
We are no l onger consi dered moral l y i mpure when we are physi cal l y
i mpure. Then, too, i t i s not a part of the New Testament teachi ng,
as i t was of the Ol d Testament teachi ng, that redempti on has any-
thi ng to do wi th the external worl d.~ Yet he hi msel f adopted a si mi -
l ar vi ew of ethi cal cause and effect i n hi story a vi ew whi ch i n fact
deni ed moral cause and effect i n hi story. Thi s i s hi s doctri ne of the hi s-
tori cal unevenness of ethi cal causes and external effects:
. . . accordi ng to al l non-Chri sti an ethi cs there i s no relation at all between
moral andj)hysical evil. There i s thought to be a physi cal evi l that i s i ndepend-
ent of man whi ch befal l s man i rrespecti ve of hi s moral l i fe. There i s a sense
i n whi ch thi s i s true. We too bel i eve that those on whom the tower of Si l oam
fel l were no greater si nners than others. But on the other hand we do be-
l i eve that the fal l of man has brought physi cal evi l i n the worl d. And be-
cause we bel i eve thi s we can al so bel i eve that a good mor al man, who
suffers physi cal evi l , i s not therefore necessari l y at a fi nal di sadvantage i n
compari son wi th hi m who, though he suffers no physi cal evi l , i s moral l y
corrupt. I n other words, we have, as Chri sti ans, a l onger range, the range
43. North, Domi ni on and Common Grace, p. 82.
ofeverl asti ng l i fe, from whi ch we canvi ew theunevenness i n the present
worl d. Non-Chri sti ans, on the other hand, have onl y the range of the pres-
ent worl d and the present l i fe of man to use as a standard. From thi s poi nt
of vi ew i t i s i mpossi bl e to vi ew thi ngs otherwi se than as absol utel y uneven.
Accordi ngl y, al l non-Chri sti ans must, i n accordance wi th thei r assump-
ti ons, mai ntai n that the ethi cal l i fe i s necessari l y i ndi vi dual i sti c. 45
Van Ti l opposed such pi eti sti c i ndi vi dual i sm. He sai d that we
Chri sti ans must get i nvol ved soci al l y and pol i ti cal l y. I n thi s he was a
true hei r of Abraham Kuyper, the Pri me Mi ni ster of the Nether-
l ands at the turn of the twenti eth century, who was al so a major
theol ogi an, the founder of a uni versi ty, and the founder of several
newspapers. ti Van Ti l warned agai nst the temptati on succumbed to
by the premi l l enni al fundamental i sm of hi s day to spend a great
deal of thei r ti me i n passi ve wai ti ng i nstead of i n acti ve servi ce.
Another danger that l urks at a ti me of apostasy i s that the few fai th-
ful ones gi ve up the comprehensi ve i deal of the ki ngdom and l i mi t
themsel ves to the savi ng of i ndi vi dual SOUI S.47 I n short, he warned
agai nst ethi cal i ndi vi dual i sm. He understood that such i ndi vi dual -
i sm i s a deni al of covenant theol ogy.
Neverthel ess, i n vi ew of hi s di scussi on of uneven ethi cal cause
and effect i n hi story, he vi ewed the external resul ts of ri ghteousness
as random. He di d not use such an obvi ousl y apostate term, but thi s
i s preci sel y what hi s doctri ne of unevenness means. Yet he knew
better. There i s never randomness i n hi story. There i s al ways for-
ward movement. Covenant-keepers and covenant-breakers work
out i n hi story the i mpl i cati ons of thei r respecti ve rel i gi ous fai ths. No,
Van Ti l di d not trul y bel i eve i n ethi cal randomness; i t was much
worse than thi s. Van Ti l bel i eved wi th al l hi s heart that Satan and hi s
followers will be triumphant i n histoy. He therefore bel i eved wi th al l hi s
heart that eui l triumphs visib~ i n histo~, and righteousness loses. He
taught throughout hi s career that the principles of evil produce uisible
power and uictoy, wher eas the Pri nci pl es of righteous living under God pTo-
duce historical defeat. Thus, Van Ti l s uni que l apse i nto the myth of
neutral i ty hi s doctri ne of ethi cal unevenness i n hi story proved to
be as much a myth as ever. Hi story i s not neutral ; one si de or the
other wi ns; one ethi cal system or the other produces vi ctory; and
45. I bid. , pp., 67-68.
46. Fr ank Vanden Ber g, Abraham Kuyper: A Biography (St. Cather i ne, Ontar i o:
Pai dei a Press, [1960] 1978).
Hal@ay Covenant Ethics 143
Van Ti l si ded wi th those who procl ai m that Satans system works
(wi ns) i n hi story. He made thi s pl ai n:
But when al l the r epr obate ar e epi stemol ogi cal l y sel f-consci ous, the crack of
doom has come. The ful l y sel f-consci ous reprobate wi l l do al l he can i n
every di mensi on to destroy the peopl e of God. So whi l e we seek wi th al l our
power to hasten the process of di fferenti ati on i n every di mensi on we are yet
thankful , on the other hand, for the day of grace, the day of undevel oped
di fferenti ati on. Such tol erance as we recei ve on the part of the worl d i s due
to thi s fact that we l i ve i n the earl i er, rather than i n the l ater, stage of hi s-
tory. And such i nfl uence on the publ i c si tuati on as we can effect, whether i n
soci ety or i n state, presupposes thi s undi fferenti ated stage of devel opment. 4s
Noti ce especi al l y hi s words, we are yet thankful , on the other hand,
for the day of gracej the day of undevel oped di fferenti ati on. Thi s i s
nothi ng short of a ghastl y reworki ng of the i dea of Gods grace. He
knew i t, too, whi ch i s why he puts the words the day of grme i n quota-
ti on marks. He knew that i t i s the opposi te of grace that Chri sti ans
are not ful l y sel f-consci ous epi stemol ogi cal l y, and more to the poi nt,
ethi cal ~. But hi s ami l l enni al i sm had a strangl ehol d on hi s theory of
ethi cs. He vi ewed todays earl i er so-cal l ed day of grace as a day i n
whi ch covenant-breakers are al so not ful l y sel f-consci ous, and thi s,
i n the ami l l enni al i sts uni verse of progressi ve Church i mpotence and
progressi ve humani st power, i s a good thi ng for covenant-keepers i n
an external , cul tural sense. I n short, as ti me goes on, covenant-
breakers retai n control Satans doctri ne of squatters ri ghts4
g
and steadi l y consol i date thei r hol d over worl d ci vi l i zati on as they be-
come more consi stent wi th thei r rel i gi on, whi l e covenant-keepers fai l
to gai n or l ose control over ci vi l i zati on because they become more
consi stent wi th thei r rel i gi on. This is the ethical outlook of both premillen-
nialism and amillennialism. Ethi cs i s ti ed to eschatol ogy. I f your
eschatol ogy i s i ncorrect, your ethi cs wi l l be i ncorrect i f your worl d-
vi ew i s i nternal l y consi stent. To teach that the progress of the gospel
i n hi story i s not progressi ve, i .e., that the gospel does not l ead to
worl dwi de domi ni on by covenant-keepers, i s to teach that ethical
cause and e&ect in history is perverse, testi fyi ng not to a God who keeps
Hi s promi ses i n histo~ but rather to a god who breaks them.
48. Van Ti l , Common Grace (1947), i n Common Grace and the Gospel (Nutl ey, New
Jersey: Presbyteri an & Reformed, 1972), p. 85.
49. Gary North, I nhent the Earth: Biblical Bh&prints for Economics @t. Worth,
Texas: Domi ni on Press, 1987), p. 61.
Those i n the ami l l enni al and premi l l enni al camps who are upset
that we theonomi c postmi l l enni al i sts di smi ss thei r eschatol ogi cal
vi ews as i f they were not worth consi deri ng have fai l ed to recogni ze
that our uncompromi si ng hosti l i ty to ri val eschatol ogi cal vi ews i s
based on our commi tment to bi bl i cal ethi cs. Our eschatol ogy i s
deepl y i nfl uenced by our vi ew of bi bl i cal l aw and i ts effects i n hi s-
tory. I t i s not thi s or that ri val i nterpretati on of thi s or that propheti c
Bi bl e passage that i s the pri mary focus of our concern. I t i s rather
the overal l vi ew hel d by our eschatol ogi cal opponents regardi ng the
culture-losing efects of biblical law in histo~ whi ch draws our fi re. Thei r
vi ew of hi story i s not neutral ; i t i s not random; and i t surel y i s not
even . I t i s perverse: a bel i ef that God wi l l not bl ess covenant-keepi ng
i n hi story, and wi l l not curse covenant-breaki ng.
The Supposed Perversi~ of HistoV
Wi th respect to ethi cal cause and effect i n hi story, Van Ti l s sys-
tem appears to defend a radi cal di sconti nui ty between ethi cs and do-
mi ni on i n hi story. Hi story, he i nsi sts, i s ethi cal l y uneven. But thi s
seemi ng di sconti nui ty i s an i l l usi on. There i s conti nui ty i n Van Ti l s
vi ew of hi story: the vi si bl e tri umph of evi l forces. There i s ethi cal
cause and effect i n Van Ti l s ami l l enni al scheme: evi l tri umphs
vi si bl y i n hi story, whi l e ri ghteousness vi si bl y l oses.
Van Ti l adopted thi s radi cal l y anti -covenantal vi ew of ethi cal
cause and effect i n hi story because such a vi ew was more consi stent
wi th hi s ami l l enni al theol ogy. Why do I say that hi s vi ew was anti -
covenantal ? Because the sanctions of Ol d Testament l aw are, contrary
to Van Ti l , sti l l i n operati on i n the New Testament era, and sti l l
even in the long run wi th respect to the consequences of ethi cal be-
havi or. Covenant theol ogy, to be consi stent, must affi rm the l ong-
term conti nui ty i n hi story between obedi ence to God and Gods ex-
ternal rewards. I t must take seri ousl y the Book of Job, whi ch teaches
that hard ti mes and external defeat can affl i ct the ri ghteous man
temporari l y, but sel dom for a l i feti me (unl ess hi s soci ety has come
under Gods vi si bl e, covenantal puni shment). So the LORD bl essed
the l atter end of Job more than hi s begi nni ng . . . (Job 42 :12a).
Hi story i s covenantal . Yet Van Ti l actual l y begi ns wi th the Book of
Job to defend hi s case for judi ci al unevenness i n hi story!
We have al ready adverted to Job when fi rst di scussi ng thi s questi on of
the futur e. To a l ar ge extent the di ffi cul ty that Job had was that he was not
abl e to see thi ngs at l ong range. He knew that ri ghteousness, hol i ness and
Hayway Covenant Ethics 145
bl essedness bel ong together, On thi s poi nt he was ri ght, but the di ffi cul ty
was that he coul d not see that they coul d be temporari l y separated from
each other. I n order for Job to see the absol ute i deal at al l , he had to see i t i n
a form that came very cl ose to hi m. Then, when hi s bl essedness was taken
away from hi m, he onl y sl owl y began to see that there was a future i n whi ch
matters woul d be recti fi ed. SO
Where di d Job go wrong? !He was not abl e to see thi ngs at l ong
range. He di d not see that covenant-keepi ng and external cove-
nantal bl essi ngs coul d be temporari l y separated from each other.
Thi s i s admi tted by al l orthodox Chri sti ans; i t i s i ndeed a basi c
teachi ng of the Book of Job. (The books pri mary message i s the ab-
sol ute soverei gnty of God: poi nt one of the bi bl i cal covenant model . )
So, what i s Van Ti l s real poi nt? Though Van Ti l wri tes temporar-
i l y, he real l y means temporal~. When Van Ti l sai d temporari l y sepa-
rated, he real l y meant separated throughout pre-second-coming histoy, as
we have seen. He sai d that when i t comes to the cause-and-effect re-
l ati onshi p between ri ghteousness and vi si bl e bl essedness, the one
may be far ahead of the other.51 By far ahead, he means inside histwy,
and hi s i mpl i ci t meani ng of far behi nd i s b~ond histoy (after the fi nal
judgment). He si mpl y i gnored James 5:11 on Jobs earthl y career.
Van Ti l refused to use words that woul d have reveal ed more
pl ai nl y what he real l y bel i eved about covenantal hi story. As to why
he refused, I can onl y specul ate. I suspect that the mai n reason was
that he di d not want hi s readers to thi nk that runni ng through hi s en-
ti re ethi cal system, and therefore hi s enti re phi l osophi cal system,
was hi s eschatol ogy, even though i t real l y di d. He al ways i nsi sted
that covenant-keepi ng and covenant-breaki ng ul ti matel y govern
phi l osophy, but what he coul d not bri ng hi msel f to admi t was that
they al so govern hi story. Ami l l enni al i sm reverses the cause-and-
effect rel ati onshi p descri bed i n Deuteronomy 28. Van Ti l al ways
avoi ded menti oni ng hi s eschatol ogi cal preference for ami l l enni al i sm.
He sel dom menti oned the dread word eschatol ogy, and never, ever
used words l i ke postmi l l enni al i sm or ami l l enni al i sm. I t was as i f
he bel i eved that he coul d be eschatol ogi cal l y neutral when wri ti ng
about phi l osophy and ethi cs. Thi s was a strange tacti c for a man who
deni ed neutral i ty i n any area of thought and l i fe. The fact i s, hi s
mi nd-set was establ i shed by hi s Dutch ami l l enni al heri tage, and he
50. Van Ti l , Ethics, pp. 120-21.
51. I bi d., p. 122.
di d not thi nk outsi de of these Dutch categori es. 52
Van Ti l di d not convert many fol l owers to hi s apol ogeti c system
duri ng hi s l i feti me. There was not much vi si bl e posi ti ve feedback i n
hi s i ntel l ectual mi ni stry. He coul d not have expected much, ei ther,
gi ven hi s vi ew of the future. Hi s own eschatol ogi cal pessi mi sm may
have been responsi bl e for thi s l ack of converts. Hi s work i s bei ng ex-
tended to a broader Chri sti an audi ence pri mari l y through hi s most
vocal fol l owers, the dreaded Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sts, who do
not agree wi th ei ther hi s ami l l enni al i sm or hi s soci al anti nomi ani sm.
The ol d pol i ti cal sl ogan hol ds true: You cant beat somethi ng wi th
nothi ng. You cannot defeat humani sms natural l aw theory wi th a
hal fway covenant theol ogy of judi ci al unevenness i n hi story.
Even Sancti ons: Tool s of Evangel i sm
I n order to make al l thi s so cl ear that nobody can mi ss what I am
sayi ng, l et me say thi s: I am argui ng for the conti nui ng evangel i cal
si gni fi cance of Gods vi si bl e covenantal sancti ons i n hi story. 53 I am
argui ng that the evangelical testimony of historical sancti ons that was
avai l abl e to the nati ons round about anci ent I srael i s sti l l i n opera-
ti on (Deut. 28). I am argui ng that the exi stence of these covenantal
sancti ons i n hi story sti l l serves to persuade i ndi vi dual s of the i nher-
ent i ntegri ty of Gods l aw, just as they di d i n Moses day: Behol d, I
have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God
commanded me, that ye shoul d do so i n the l and whi ther ye go to
possess i t. Keep therefore and do them; for thi s i s your wi sdom and
your understandi ng i n the si ght of the nati ons, whi ch shal l hear al l
these statutes, and say, Surel y thi s great nati on i s a wi se and under-
standi ng peopl e. For what nati on i s there so great, who bath God so
ni gh unto them, as the LORD our God i s i n al l thi ngs that we cal l
upon hi m for? And what nati on i s there so great, that bath statutes
and judgments so ri ghteous as al l thi s l aw, whi ch I set before you thi s
day? (Deut. 4:5-8). I am argui ng that ami l l enni al i sm i n general and
Van Ti l s ami l l enni al i sm i n parti cul ar has deni ed the New Testa-
ment conti nuati on of thi s evangel i cal testi mony.
52. Because pr emi l l enni al i sm has an i denti cal vi ew of Gods sancti ons i n hi stor y
pri or to Chri sts second comi ng, and because modern Cal vi ni sti c postmi l l enni al i sm
was devel oped by Rushdoony, who was Van Ti l s i ntel l ectual di sci pl e, no one ever chal -
l enged Van Ti l by cal l i ng attenti on to the extent to whi ch hi s eschatol ogy governed hi s
whol e system. By the ti me I fi gured out what he had done, he was too ol d to i nteract.
53. Ray R. Sutton, That You May Prosper, ch. 4.
Hal&ay Covenant Ethics 147
To deny thi s conti nui ng testi mony, non-theonomi c ami l l enni al -
i sts i nescapabl y remove a major tool of domi ni on i n hi story: the tes-
ti mony of evi dence favori ng the i nternati onal spread of the gospel .
They are forced to argue that thi s strong apol ogeti c evi dence of God
and Hi s covenant was avai l abl e i n the Ol d Testament era, but God
has abandoned thi s tool of evangel i sm i n the New Testament era.
The non-theonomi c ami l l enni al i ~t i mpl i ci tl y assumes that for some
unstated reason, God has abandoned the strong wi tness that out-
ward covenantal success bri ngs to the case for the gospel i n hi story.
Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sts assert that thi s covenantal tool of
evangel i sm i s sti l l operati ng, and that i t sti l l i mpresses l ost si nners.
We affi rm the long-term %venness of Gods covenant sancti ons bl ess-
i ngs and cursi ngs i n hi story. We affi rm that ethi cal cause and effect
i s suffi ci entl y even over ti me so that l ost si nners can recogni ze the
dMerence between the histotial results of covenant-keepi ng and covenant-
breaki ng, and that l ost si nners wi l l be i mpressed by the ri ghteousness
of the terms of the covenant. They wi l l see that Gods sancti ons of
bl essi ngs and cursi ngs do operate i n hi story. They may wel l prefer to
deny the evenness of Gods covenant sancti ons i n hi story. After al l ,
Van Ti l di d and Meredi th G. Kl i ne does. To do thi s, however, they
wi l l i ncreasi ngl y seek to repress mental l y thi s vi si bl e testi mony of
God, to hol d back the truth i n unri ghteousness (Rem. 1:18).54 Never-
thel ess, they wi l l i nevi tabl y be confronted wi th the real i ty of Gods
sancti ons i n hi story. They cannot escape i t. Thi s testi mony i s no l ess
real and no l ess effecti ve i n the New Testament era than i t was i n the
Ol d Testament era. I n fact, i t i s more effecti ve, because the Hol y
Spi ri t has come, and the gospel i s now a worl dwi de phenomenon.
Meredi th G. Kl i ne vs. Gods Hi stori cal Sancti ons
I f you preach that adherence to bi bl i cal l aw produces posi ti ve
feedback, both personal l y and cul tural l y, and al so that di sobeyi ng i t
produces negati ve feedback, both personal l y and cul tural l y, then
you are preachi ng the i nevi tabl e expansi on of Chri sti an ci vi l i zati on
and the i nevi tabl e defeat of satani c ci vi l i zati on. You are preaching the
progressive J ulJ llment of the dominion covenant. I n short, you are preach-
i ng postmi l l enni al Chri sti an Reconstructi on. Onl y i f you deny that
there i s any l ong-term sustai nabl e rel ati onshi p between external cov-
54. On the acti ve suppressi on of the truth, see John Murray, The Epistle to the
Remans (Grand Rapi ds: Eerdmans, 1959), pp. 36-37.
enant-keepi ng and external success i n hi story a deni al made ex-
pl i ci t by Meredi th G. Kl i ne can you escape from the domi ni cal i m-
pl i cati ons of bi bl i cal l aw.
Kl i ne says that any connecti on between bl essi ngs and covenant-
keepi ng i s, humanl y speaki ng, random. And meanwhi l e i t [the
common grace order] must run i ts course wi thi n the uncertai nti es of
the mutual l y condi ti oni ng pri nci pl es of common grace and common
curse, prosperi ty and adversi ty bei ng experi enced i n a manner
l argel y unpredi ctabl e because of the i nscrutabl e soverei gnty of the
di vi ne wi l l that di spenses them i n mysteri ous ways.55 Largel y
unpredi ctabl e? Dr. Kl i ne has obvi ousl y never consi dered just why i t
i s that l i fe i nsurance premi ums and heal th i nsurance premi ums are
cheaper i n Chri sti ani ty-i nfl uenced soci eti es than i n pagan soci eti es.
Apparentl y, the bl essi ngs of l ong l i fe that are promi sed i n the Bi bl e
are suffi ci entl y non-random and predi ctabl e that stati sti ci ans who
advi se i nsurance compani es can detect stati sti cal l y rel evant di ffer-
ences between soci eti es.
What Kl i ne i s argui ng i s that the testi mony of Gods l aw and cov-
enant sancti ons i n hi story was scrapped by God after the fal l of Jeru-
sal em i n A.D. 70. The vi si bl e sancti ons of God do not operate i n the
era of the Church. Ethi cal cause and effect i n cul ture i s random. I n
thi s sense, Kl i ne i s a fai thful di sci pl e of Van Ti l . He hol ds the same
eschatol ogy. He hol ds the same vi ew of common grace. But l i ke Van
Ti l s vi ewpoi nt, Kl i nes i s al so not enti rel y forthri ght. Kl i ne argues
for the unpredi ctabl e nature of ethi cal cause and effect i n New Testa-
ment hi story; Van Ti l argues for unevenness. But i n fact both of
them are real l y defenders of ethi cal Perver+ i n hi sto~, not random-
ness. They vi ew the Church as i f i t were a progressi vel y besi eged
outpost of fai th i n a worl d of hosti l e I ndi ans. Not onl y that, but the
I ndi ans have stol en most of the repeati ng ri fl es from the Chri sti ans.
Worse; they have even stol en the producti on techni ques, and now
manufacture top qual i ty ri fl es and ammuni ti on. Meanwhi l e, the
Chri sti ans are hol ed up i n thei r ti ny fortresses, prayi ng for the mi -
racul ous arri val of Col . Jesus and Hi s angel i c troops.
I do not deny that there wi l l be a rebel l i on at the l ast day, and
that i t wi l l resembl e thi s descri pti on (Rev. 20:9-10). But there wi l l be
thi s cruci al di fference: the rebel s wi l l be rebel l i ng agai nst a vi si bl y
55. Meredi th G. Kl i ne, Comments on an Ol d-New Error, Westminsta Theological
Journal , XLI (Fal l 1978), p. 184.
Chri sti an ci vi l i zati on, not a humani st one. They wi l l be rebel l i ng
agai nst a superi or degree of testi mony regardi ng the effecti veness
and rel i abi l i ty of Gods covenantal sancti ons i n hi story. Most i mpor-
tant, they wi l l not be al l owed to i nfl i ct vi si bl e defeat on the Church
before Chri st forever si l ences them i n fi nal judgment.
I t i s theoreti cal l y possi bl e for a consi stent Chri sti an Reconstruc-
ti oni st to argue that there wi l l steadi l y be a rel i gi ous fal l i ng away i n
hi story that wi l l be comparabl e to I srael s fal l i ng away i n the days of
Jesus. But i t woul d not be possi bl e for a Chri sti an Reconstructi oni st
to argue that thi s fal l i ng away wi l l be accompani ed by the steady re-
pl acement of Chri sti an-run i nsti tuti ons by pagans. Thi s woul d be a
deni al of Gods covenant sancti ons i n hi story. Thi s i s why most
Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sts are postmi l l enni al i st. They do n~t be-
l i eve that Gods covenant sancti ons can or wi l l fai l i n hi story, and
they al so do not bel i eve that i t i s possi bl e i n the l ong run for a mi nor-
i ty of Chri sti ans to run the soci al order on a bi bl i cal basi s i n a worl d
that has abandoned fai th i n the savi ng work of Jesus Chri st.
Why do most Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sts bel i eve that there wi l l
not be thi s fal l i ng away unti l the very end of the mi l l enni al era, just
before the second comi ng of Chri st? Because most Christian Reconstruc-
tionists have a ve~ high uiew of the historical effecti veness of the work of the
Ho@ Spirit. Premi l l enni al i st argue that Jesus must be present bodi l y
i n order to usher i n Hi s earthl y ki ngdom (Chri sti an ci vi l i zati on). So,
for that matter, do ami l l enni al i sts; they just say that because He wi l l
not return bodi l y to set up Hi s earthl y ki ngdom unti l He returns at
the fi nal judgment, there wi l l never be a pre-fi nal judgment earthl y
ki ngdom (Chri sti an ci vi l i zati on).
I n contrast to these cul tural l y pessi mi sti c vi ews, most Chri sti an
Reconstructi oni sts bel i eve that todays presence of the Hol y Spi ri t i s
suffi ci ent to empower Chri sti ans to establ i sh, as Chri sts eccl esi asti -
cal body and al so as Hi s personal representati ves and am-
bassadors, a sel f-consci ousl y Chri sti an ci vi l i zati on. We must never
forget that Jesus departedfrom this world bodi~ in order that the Ho~ Spirit
might come. He spoke of thi s as an advantage to the Church. Never-
thel ess I tel l you the truth; I t i s expedi ent for you that I go away: for
i f I go not away, the Comforter wi l l not come unto you; but i f I
depart, I wi l l send hi m unto you (John 16:7). Understand what thi s
means. Because J esus Chnst is not bodi~ present in this world of si n, the
Church is far better of. Because He i s not present, the Church has far
greater power. Jesus coul d not have sai d i t any pl ai ner than thi s:
.
Veri l y, veri l y, I say unto you, He that bel i eveth on me, the works
that I do shal l he do al so; and greater works than these shal l he do;
because I go unto my Father (John 14:12). Chri sti an Reconstruc-
ti oni sts accept Chri sts words at face val ue just not face to face
val ue. He does not have to tel l us thi s face to face for us to bel i eve
Hi m. I t i s suffi ci ent that we read i t i n Hi s wri tten Word.
Why, then, are ami l l enni al i sts and premi l l enni al i st so adamant
that the gospel wi l l fai l to transform worl d ci vi l i zati on as ti me prog-
resses? Why do they bel i eve that Jesus Chri st needs to be bodi l y
present i n thi s si nful worl d i n order for i t to be conformed progres-
si vel y to the i mage of the Son of God? I t i s surel y not necessary for
Jesus to be present bodi l y for i ndi vi dual Chri sti ans to be trans-
formed i n thi s way (i .e., progressi ve Personal sancti fi cati on). I t i s al so
not necessary for Jesus to be present bodi l y for Chri sti an fami l i es to
be transformed i n thi s way (i .e., progressi ve familial sancti fi cati on).
I t i s not necessary for Jesus to be present bodi l y for the Chri sti an
Church to be transformed i n thi s way (i .e., progressi ve ecclesiastical
sancti fi cati on). So, why i s i t necessary that Jesus be bodi l y present i n
order for worl d ci vi l i zati on to be transformed i n thi s way (i . e., pro-
gressi ve cul tural sancti fi cati on)? Why i s the Hol y Spi ri ts presence
suffi ci ent to produce the fi rst three forms of progressi ve sancti fi ca-
ti on, but not the fourth?
Empoweri ng by the Spi ri t
Greg Bahnsen has argued repeatedl y that what di sti ngui shes bi b-
l i cal l aw i n the New Testament era from the Ol d Covenant era i s the
vastl y greater empoweri ng of Chri sti ans by the Hol y Spi ri t to obey
the l aw. 56 I agree enti rel y wi th thi s argument. The Spi ri ts empower-
i ng i s a fundamental di sti ncti on between the two covenantal peri ods.
I t i s al so i nteresti ng to note that the onl y broad-based acceptance of
the theonomi c posi ti on today i s taki ng pl ace i n chari smati c ci rcl es
ci rcl es i n whi ch the posi ti ve power of the Hol y Spi ri t i s stressed. But
thi s greater empoweri ng by the Spi ri t must be made mani fest i n hi s-
tory i f i t i s to be di sti ngui shed from the repeated fai l ure of bel i evers
i n the Ol d Covenant era to stay i n the posi ti ve feedback mode:
bl essi ngs . . . greater fai th . . . greater bl essi ngs, etc. I t i s thi s
56. Gr eg L. Bahnsen, By This Standard: The Authori& of Gods Law Today (Tyl er,
Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1985), pp. 159-62, 185-86. Cf. Bahnsen,
Theonomy i n Christian Ethics (2ncl ed.; Phi l l i psburg, New Jersey: Presbyteri an &
Reformed, 1984), ch. 4.
Ha@ay Covenant Ethics 151
posi ti ve feedback aspect of bi bl i cal l aw i n New Testament ti mes whi ch
l i nks theonomy wi th postmi l l enni al i sm (though not necessari l y post-
mi l l enni al i sm wi th theonomy). 57 The Chri sti an Reconstructi oni st
affi rms that thi s testi mony of Gods transcendence over thi s worl d,
yet al so Hi s presence i n thi s worl d, becomes cl earer over ti me.
Bahnsen has argued forceful l y that any di scussi on of the expan-
si on of Gods ki ngdom must i ncl ude a di scussi on of the vi si bl e mani -
festati ons of Gods ki ngdom i n hi story. To spe~ of the ki ngdom of
God wi thout bei ng abl e to poi nt to i ts expansi on of i nfl uence outsi de
the narrow confi nes of the i nsti tuti onal Church i s mi sl eadi ng. 58 Thi s
argument al so i s correct.
But what of a paral l el argument? I f we were to argue that the
greater empoweri ng of the Hol y Spi ri t i n the New Testament era i s
onl y a ki nd of theoreti cal backdrop to hi story, and therefore bi bl i cal
l aw wi l l not be wi del y preached and obeyed i n thi s pre-fi nal -judgment
age (whi ch i s the ami l l enni al i st argument), then we woul d real l y be
abandoni ng the whol e i dea of the Hol y Spi ri ts empoweri ng of Chri s-
ti ans and Chri sti an soci ety i n hi story. I t woul d be an argument anal -
ogous to the ki ngdom arguments of the ami l l enni al i st: Yes, God has
a ki ngdom, and Chri sti ans are part of i t, and i t i s a vi ctori ous ki ng-
dom; neverthel ess, there are no progressi vel y vi si bl e si gns of the
ki ng or Hi s ki ngdom, and Chri sti ans wi l l be i ncreasi ngl y defeated i n
hi story. Si mi l arl y, Yes, the Spi ri t empowers Chri sti ans to obey bi b-
l i cal l aw; however, they wi l l not adopt or obey bi bl i cal l aw i n
hi story.
Wi l l the progressi ve mani festati on of the frui ts of obeyi ng bi bl i -
cal l aw al so be stri ctl y i nternal ? I f so, then what has happened to the
posi ti ve feedback aspect of covenant l aw? What has happened to em-
poweri ng by the Hol y Spi ri t?
I prefer to argue that the greater empoweri ng by the Hol y Spi ri t
for Gods peopl e to obey and enforce bi bl i cal l aw i s what i nval i dates
the i mpl i ci t ami l l enni al i st posi ti on regardi ng the i neffecti veness of
bi bl i cal l aw i n New Testament ti mes. I f Chri sti ans obey i t, then the
posi ti ve feedback process of external, visible Christian culture is i nevi ta-
bl e; i t i s part of the theonomi c aspect of the creati on: from vi ctory
unto vi ctory. I f some segments of the Church refuse to obey i t, then
57. On Jonathan Edwards pi eti sti c, anti nomi an postmi l l enni al i sm, see North,
Dominion and Common Graze, pp. 174-75.
58. Greg Bahnsen, Thi s Worl d and the Ki ngdom of God, Chri sti an Reconstmc-
tion, VI I I (Sept./Ott. 1986).
those segments wi l l eventual l y l ose i nfl uence, money, and power.
Thei r pl ace wi l l be taken by those Chri sti an churches that obey
Gods l aws, and that wi l l therefore experi ence the covenants exter-
nal bl essi ngs. These churches wi l l spread the gospel more effecti vel y
as a resul t. Thi s i s the posi ti ve feedback aspect of bi bl i cal l aw.
Agai n, l et me stress that I am not sayi ng that the external success
of Gods ci vi l i zati on automati cal l y or necessari l y converts si nners i n-
ward~ to fai th i n the savi ng work of Jesus Chri st. Men are not saved
by l aw or by the hi stori cal sancti ons of the l aw. What I am sayi ng i s
that the defi ant si nner i n the mi l l enni al future wi l l reject the gospel
i n the face of even more vi si bl e testi mony to the hi stori cal benefi ts of
savi ng fai th. He wi l l suffer even greater quanti ti es of eternal coal on
hi s resurrected head (Rem. 12: 20).
Kl i ne attacked both of Bahnsens recommended doctri nes bi b-
l i cal l aw and postmi l l enni al i sm i n hi s cri ti que of TJ zeonomy.59 Kl i ne
rejects the i dea of a New Testament covenantal l aw-order, and he
al so rejects postmi l l enni al i sm. Kl i ne and hi s fel l ow ami l l enni al i sts are
consi stent i n thei r rejecti on of both bi bl i cal l aw and postmi l l enni al i sm.
Postmi l l enni al i sts shoul d be equal l y consi stent i n l i nki ng the two
posi ti ons. We must argue covenantal l y, and thi s necessari l y i nvol ves
the questi on of the posi ti ve feedback of external covenantal bl essi ngs
and the Churchs empoweri ng by the Hol y Spi ri t. I f we accept the
possi bi l i ty of a defense of Gods l aw that rejects the hi stori c
i nevi tabi l i ty of the l ong-term cultural expansi on of Chri sti an domi n-
i on through the covenants posi ti ve feedback, then we face a major
probl em, the one Bahnsens theory of the empoweri ng by the Spi ri t
has rai sed: how to explain the dz~erence between the New Testament Church
and Old Testament I srael. I f the Chri sti an Church fai l s to bui l d the vi si -
bl e ki ngdom (Chri sti an ci vi l i zati on) by means of bi bl i cal l aw and the
power of the gospel , despi te the resurrecti on of Chri st and the pres-
ence of the Hol y Spi ri t, then what ki nd of rel i gi on are we preachi ng?
Why i s the Church a si gni fi cant i mprovement cul tural l y and soci al l y
over Ol d Testament I srael ?
What does such a theol ogy say about the gospel ? What ki nd of
power does the gospel offer men for the overcomi ng of the effects of
si n i n hi story? I s Satans one-ti me success i n tempti ng Adam never
goi ng to be overcome i n hi story? Wi l l Satan attempt to comfort hi m-
sel f throughout eterni ty wi th the thought that by defeati ng Adam, he
59. Kl i ne, op. ci t.
Hal&ay Covenant Ethics 153
made i t i mpossi bl e for manki nd to work out the domi ni on covenant
i n hi story, even i n the face of the death and resurrecti on of Chri st? I f
we argue thi s way the fai l ure of a Spi ri t-empowered bi bl i cal l aw-
order to produce the vi si bl e ki ngdom then we must fi nd an answer
to thi s questi on: Why i s si n tri umphant i n hi story, i n the face of the
gospel ?
Then there i s the i mpol i te but i nevi tabl e questi on: Why is J esus a
loser in histoV?
And, just for the record, l et me ask another questi on: When i n
hi story wi l l we see the ful fi l l ment of the promi se of I sai ah 32, when
churl s wi l l no l onger be cal l ed l i beral , generous peopl e wi l l no l onger
be cal l ed churl s, and (presumabl y) the hi stori c defeat of the Church
wi l l no l onger be cal l ed the vi ctory of Gods ki ngdom?
Preaching External DeJ eat
Ami l l enni al i sts, by preachi ng eschatol ogi cal i mpotence cul tural l y,
thereby i mmerse themsel ves i n qui cksand the qui cksand of soci al
anti nomi ani sm. Some sands are qui cker than others. Eventual l y, they
swal l ow up anyone so fool i sh as to try to wal k through them. Soci al
anti nomi ani sm l eads i nto the pi ts of cul tural i mpotence and retreat.
No one wants to ri sk everythi ng he owns, i ncl udi ng hi s l i fe, i n a bat-
tl e that hi s commander says wi l l not be won. Onl y a few di ehard
soul s wi l l attempt i t. You can bui l d a ghetto wi th such a theol ogy;
you cannot bui l d a ci vi l i zati on.
Ami l .l enni al Cal vi ni sts wi l l conti nue to be pl agued by Dooyeweerd-
i ans, neo-Dooyeweerdi ans, mysti cs, l i berati on theol ogi ans, natural -
l aw compromi sers, and anti nomi ans of al l sorts unti l they fi nal l y aban-
don thei r ami l l enni al eschatol ogy. Furthermore, bi bl i cal l aw must al so
be preached. I t must be seen as the tool of cul tural reconstructi on. I t
must be seen as operati ng today, i n New Testament ti mes. I t must be
seen that there i s a necessary rel ati onshi p between covenantal fai th-
ful ness and obedi ence to Gods reveal ed l aw that wi thout obedi ence
there i s no fai thful ness, no matter how emoti onal bel i evers may be-
come, or how sweet the gospel tastes (for a whi l e). Furthermore,
there are external bl essi ngs that fol l ow covenantal obedi ence to
Gods l aw-order.
Chri sti an Cul tural Ghettoes
The Dutch-Ameri can communi ty has l ong cri ti ci zed Ameri can
fundamental i sts for bei ng too i ndi vi dual i sti c, and for i gnori ng the
domi ni on covenant, what they cal l prefer to cal l the cul tural man-
date. w But they have never been successful i n thi s appeal , preci sel y
because they share Ameri can fundamental i sms hosti l i ty to bi bl i cal
l aw, as wel l as premi l l enni al i sms pessi mi sm toward the Churchs
future thi s si de of Chri sts second comi ng. Dutch ami l l enni al i sts and
Ameri can fundamental i sts deny a covenantal vi ew of ethi cs a l ong-
run, hi stori cal l y mani fested evenness between obedi ence to Gods
l aw and external bl essi ngs (Deut. 28:1-14). Thus, the fai l ure of the
Reformed Dutch-Ameri cans to persuade Ameri can fundamental i sts
to abandon the l atter groups i ndi vi dual i sti c ethi cs i s cl osel y rel ated
to ami l l enni al i sms necessary doctri ne of ethi cal unevenness: the
supposed cul tural di sconti nui ty i n New Testament ti mes between
external obedi ence and vi si bl e reward. To the extent that the ami l -
l enni al i st adopts thi s near-pagan doctri ne of temporal unevenness
(ethi cal futuri sm), to that extent he becomes i mpotent to chal l enge
both humani sms i ndi vi dual i sti c ethi cs and fundamental i sms i ndi -
vi dual i sti c ethi cs.
But no one can l i ve wi thout some sort of soci al and cul tural con-
ti nui ty. Soci al anti nomi ani sm unquesti onabl y produces i ndi vi d-
ual i sm, for i t deni es the appl i cabi l i ty of Gods covenant promi ses to
New Testament soci ety; therefore, some other doctri ne or outl ook
must offset i ndi vi dual i sm i n order to mai ntai n cul tural cohesi on.
Hi stori cal l y, there have been many ri val s to the conti nui ty of cove-
nantal i sm, wi th i ts powerful doctri ne of progressi ve cul tural sancti fi -
cati on: for exampl e, pol i ti cal power, raci al puri ty, l i ngui sti c affi ni ty,
nati onal custom, membershi p i n a vanguard of some sort, or mem-
bershi p i n a secret soci ety. The descendants of mi d-ni neteenth cen-
tury Dutch i mmi grants adopted a nati onal -l i ngui sti c al ternati ve i n
order to establ i sh cul tural conti nui ty (evenness). Thi s has l ed to the
creati on of Dutch encl aves i n both Canada and the Uni ted States,
meani ng the creati on of ghettoes, very often rural ghettoes. Thi s i s a
fai l i ng that thei r better theol ogi ans have warned agai nst, but wi th-
out success.1 (Ameri can fundamental i sts unti l qui te recentl y have
l i ved i n si mi l ar cul tural ghettoes, al though the marks of thei r ghet-
60. Henry R. Van Ti l , The Calvinistic Concept of Culture (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi -
gan: Eerdmans, 1959). Henry was Cornel i us nephew.
61. R. B. Kui per wrote i n 1959: By thi s ti me i t has become tri te to say that we
must come out of our i sol ati on. . . . Far too often, l et i t be sai d agai n, we hi de our
l i ght under a bushel i nstead of pl aci ng i t hi gh on a candl esti ck. . . . We must ac-
quai nt our sel ves with the Ameri can eccl esi asti cal scene. Kui per, To Be or Not to Be
l?~onned? Whither the Christian Reform-d Church? (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Eerd-
mans, 1959), p. 186.
toes have not been pri mari l y l i ngui sti c, unl ess speaki ng i n tongues i s
consi dered l i ngui sti c. Thi s ghetto mental i ty i s begi nni ng to change,
much to the shock and consternati on of Dave Hunt and hi s di spen-
sati onal fol l owers. )G2
Theonomi c Pessi mi l l enni al i sm
I t i s undoubtedl y possi bl e to argue i n favor of bi bl i cal l aw (theon-
omy) and sti l l hol d to ami .l l enni al i sm or premi l l enni al i sm. The pessi -
mi l l enni al i st deni es that there wi l l be a huge harvest of soul s i n the
future; thi s i n fact i s the meani ng of pessi mi l l enni al i sm. On what
basi s coul d a Chri sti an Reconstructi oni st argue thi s way? Fi rst, a
Cal vi ni st Chri sti an Reconstructi oni st coul d argue that God wi l l not
di rect Hi s Spi ri t to compel the conversi on of l arge numbers of peo-
pl e. God coul d compel thi s, but He chooses not to. Second, an Ar-
mi ni an argues that peopl e wi l l al ways be abl e to reject the offer of
Gods savi ng grace, i .e., he deni es the soverei gnty of God i n el ecti ng
si nners to sal vati on. He therefore deni es the doctri nes of i rresi sti bl e
grace and effectual cal l i ng. A pessi mi l l enni al Chri sti an Reconstruc-
ti oni st, Cal vi ni st or Armi ni an,3 affi rms that men wi l l reject the gos-
pel despi te the vi si bl e sancti ons of God i n hi story. The Cal vi ni st says
that thi s rejecti on was predesti ned by God, and He has reveal ed thi s
gri m future to us; the Armi ni an says that i t was not predesti ned, but i t
was foreknown by God, and He has reveal ed thi s gri m future to us.
What no Chri sti an Reconstructi oni st shoul d ever argue i s thi s:
that hi stori cal sancti ons al one wi l l bri ng worl dwi de sal vati on. Men
are not saved by l aw or by judi ci al sancti ons; they are not saved by
the testi mony of l aw and the l aws vi si bl e sancti ons. They are saved
onl y by the work of the Hol y Spi ri t. But what every Chri sti an
Reconstructi oni st must affi rm i s thi s: for men to reject Gods
message of eternal sal vati on, they wi l l have to reject progressiue~ clear
and progressiue~ impressive testimony regardi ng the authori ty of God,
Gods reveal ed l aw, and the sancti ons of God i n histo~. Rebel s wi l l
have to reject al l fi ve poi nts of the covenant. We dare not argue that
the revel ati on of God decreases i n i ntensi ty and cl ari ty over hi story.
I t i s possi bl e for a person to be a Chri sti an Reconstructi oni st and
sti l l remai n a non-postmi l l enni al i st, but to do so, he must systemat-
62. Gary DeMar and Peter Lei thart, The Reduction of Christianity: A Biblical
Response to Daue Hunt (Ft. Worth, Texas: Domi ni on Press, 1988).
63. There are Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sts who are Armi ni ans, but they do not
wri te for the general publ i c. The l eadershi p of the movement has been Cal vi ni st.
i cal l y affi rm that the vast majori ty of manki nd wi l l reject the progres-
si vel y vi si bl e si gns of external success that God grants to covenant-
keepers. He must al so affi rm that most men wi l l choose to accept the
progressi vel y vi si bl e fai l ure and l oomi ng destructi on that God bri ngs
i n hi story to covenant-breakers. We know that al l those who hate
God l ove death (Prov. 8:36). Therefore, a consi stent Chri sti an
Reconstructi oni st can hol d to a non-vi ctori ous eschatol o~. But he
must argue that the reason for thi s fai l ure of the gospel message i n
hi story i s the resul t of mens rejecti on of an ever-cl earer, ever-more
condemni ng vi si bl e testi mony to the real i ty and rel i abi l i ty of Gods
l aw and its sanctions i n hi story. w
Anyone who i s a ful l -scal e theonomi st must affi rm both the con-
ti nui ng moral val i di ty of Ol d Testament l aw and the conti nui ng
sancti ons of God i n hi story. Bi bl i cal l aw does not come to man apart
from hi stori cal sancti ons: bl essi ngs and cursi ngs. Deuteronomy 28 i s
sti l l bi ndi ng i n hi story. Thus, visible, external covenantal vi ctory for
those who obey Gods l aw i s i nevi tabl e. Neverthel ess, thi s does not
prove that a worl dwi de conversi on to savi ng fai th i s i nevi tabl e.
Therefore, the consi stent theonomi c pessi mi l l enni al i st has to adopt a
vi ew of theocracy whi ch i s i nherentl y el i ti st spi ri tual l y. He i s argui ng
that the spi ri tual l y l ost wi l l vol untari l y al l ow bi bl i cal l aw to be en-
forced cul tural l y, perhaps for the sake of recei vi ng the external bl ess-
i ngs and avoi di ng the external cursi ngs, even though they wi l l not
real l y possess eternal l y savi ng fai th i n the Son of God.
Thi s i s a theol ogi cal l y questi onabl e vi ew. I have argued i n
Chapter 6 of Dominion and Common Grace that a soci etys external
adherence to Gods l aw requi res savi ng fai th for most members of
that soci ety. Even for the sake of external benefi ts, covenant-
breakers cannot i ndefi ni tel y adhere to Gods external covenant stan-
dards. They cannot tol erate the testi mony of Gods soverei gnty i n
thei r mi dst. They must eventual l y rebel . They do rebel at the l ast
day (Rev. 20:9-10). Thus, theonomi c postmi l l enni al i sts argue that
l ong-term cul tural fai thful ness to Gods covenant l aw can onl y be
sustai ned by the conti nui ng work of Gods Hol y Spi ri t i n the hearts
of men. Large numbers of peopl e wi l l have to be brought to eternal l y
savi ng fai th i n order to sustai n a worl dwi de hol y commonweal th. I t
64. Thi s i s i n fact what I bel i eve the rebel s of the l ast day wi l l do: rebel agai nst
near-perfect testi mony of Gods grace i n hi story: Gary North, Dominion and Common
Grace, pp. 189-90. I do not bel i eve that these rebel s wi l l consti tute a majori ty of man-
ki nd.
Ha&oay Covenant Ethics 157
is this process of w idespread regeneration that alone can sustain international
theocracy. Anythi ng el se i nevi tabl y must i nvol ve top-down el i ti st sup-
pressi on by the State, and thi s i s what we theonomi c postmi l l enni al -
i st reject, both i n pri nci pl e and as a short-run tacti c. We are cal l i ng
for a bottom-up transformati on of soci ety. We are cal l i ng, i n short,
for democratic theocracy the soci al , cul tural , and (l ast of al l ) pol i ti cal
product of a majori ty of eternal l y saved peopl e.5
The reason why theonomi sts are conti nual l y accused of wanti ng
to set up a di ctatorshi p by the sai nts i s because our cri ti cs reason i n
terms of premi l l enni al i sm or ami l l enni al i sm. They si mpl y refuse to
take seri ousl y our defense of postmi l l enni al i sm. They cannot i m-
agi ne a future soci ety i n whi ch a majori ty of peopl e wi l l vol untari l y
agree to be governed i n every area of l i fe i n terms of the comprehen-
si ve covenants of God. They cannot i magi ne such a move of the
Hol y Spi ri t. So, when they read that we want to see the whol e worl d
run i n terms of Gods l aw, they i nevi tabl y thi nk, i nternati onal el i ti st
tyranny. Over and over, we affi rm our fai th i n the conversi on of the
worl ds masses to fai th i n Chri st, but our cri ti cs refuse to l i sten. They
are judi ci al l y deaf: heari ng they hear not, nei ther do they under-
stand (Matt. 13:13 b).
So, when peopl e ask me, Can a person be a Chri sti an Recon-
structi oni st wi thout bei ng a postmi l l enni al i st? I answer yes. But to
be a consistent theonomi c pessi mi l l enni al i st, he has to adopt a vi ew of
the future that most peopl e fi nd even more di ffi cul t to accept than
mi ne: a worl d i n whi ch the vast majori ty of peopl e are covenant-
breakers, a worl d i n whi ch the l aws hi stori cal sancti ons are sti l l
bei ng appl i ed by God, and i n whi ch a dwi ndl i ng el i te of sai nts rul e
over a growi ng though weakened army of God-haters. Thi s sounds
l i ke a top-down theocracy to me. I do not thi nk such a theocracy can
survi ve the test of ti me. Anti -el i ti sm i s another reason why the vast
majori ty of Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sts are al so postmi l l enni al .
They reject the vi si on and the l i kel i hood of a top-down theocracy. I t
i s concei vabl e over the short run, but i t i s not concei vabl e over the
l ong run. We postmi l l enni al Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sts are con-
cerned about the l ong run. Postmi l l enni al i sm requi res vol untari sm:
wi despread predesti ned conversi ons.
65. Gary North, Edi tors I ntroducti on, i n George Grant, The Changi ng of the
Guard: Biblical Blue@nts for Political Action (Ft. Worth: Domi ni on Press, 1987), pp.
. . .
xvm-xxi i .
Pol i ti cal Pl ural i sm and Chri sti an Pessi mi sm
What characteri zes anti nomi an thi nki ng i s the acceptance of
three i deas: fi rst, that Gods Ol d Testament case l aws do not appl y i n
New Testament ti mes; second, that Chri sti ans must therefore seek
common-ground defi ni ti ons wi th non-Chri sti ans i n the fi el ds of ci vi l
l aw and pol i ti cs; thi rd, that there i s therefore no such thi ng i n hi s-
tory, even as an i deal for hi story, as a Chri sti an ci vi l i zati on, for such
a ci vi l i zati on woul d obvi ousl y have to be structured i n terms of ex-
pl i ci tl y bi bl i cal standards i n every area of l i fe, especi al l y ci vi l l aw.
Anti nomi ani sm therefore l eads di rectl y to the concept of pol i ti cal
pl ural i sm.
Pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i s part of an overal l phi l osophy of l i fe. I t i s not
si mpl y some neutral pol i ti cal sol uti on to a seri es of techni cal pol i ti cal
probl ems. I deas have consequences, and these consequences are fre-
quentl y not percei ved by those who wi l l suffer them. I have sai d that
anti nomi ani sm, bi bl i cal l y defi ned, l eads to pol i ti cal pl ural i sm.
Pol i ti cal pl ural i sm has consequences. I t l eads di rectl y to pol ythei sm:
muny moral law-orders; therefore, many gods. Pol ythei sm (al l gods are
equal ) l eads to rel ati vi sm (al l moral codes are equal ); rel ati vi sm
l eads to humani sm (man makes hi s own l aws); and humani sm l eads
to stati sm (the State best represents manki nd as the pi nnacl e of
power). As Rushdoony remarks, %ecause an absol ute l aw i s deni ed,
i t means that the onl y uni versal l aw possi bl e i s an imperialistic law, a
l aw i mposed by force and havi ng no val i di ty other than the coerci ve
i mposi ti on . m We are bei ng dragged by the theol ogy of pl ural i sm
back to the Tower of Babel .
I t shoul d be understandabl e why Protestant Chri sti ans i n thi s
century have suffered from a massi ve i nferi ori ty compl ex. They have
not bel i eved that God has gi ven them the tool s of domi ni on, Gods
reveal ed l aw. They do not bel i eve that i n histoy they are al ready i n
pri nci pl e, and wi l l become, more than conquerors (Rem 8:37).
The ti tl e of Dougl as Franks hi story of earl y twenti eth century Amer-
i can Chri sti ani ty i s appropri ate: Less Than Conquerors. Eschatol ogy
matters. Doubt concerni ng the future i nevi tabl y paral yzes system-
ati c efforts to achi eve soci al transformati on. GE Wi despread doubt i s
66. Rushdoony, I n@utes, p. 17.
67. Dougl as W. Frank, Less Than Conquerors: How Evangelical Entered the Twtieth
Centwy (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Eerdmans, 1986).
68. Gary North, I s the World Running Down? Crisis in the Christian Worldview (Tyl er,
what has l ed to the accel erati ng retreat of Western humani sm i n the
face of i nternati onal Communi sm,
cg
whi ch has a posi ti ve eschatol -
ogy. 70 The begi nni ng of Chri sti an reconstructi on must be the recovery
of confi dence i n the future, based on what Gods l aw offers regenerate
manki nd: the tool s of domi ni on.
Ethi cal futuri sm must be based on the bi bl i cal concept of three-
fol d sancti fi cati on: defi ni ti ve (Chri sts resurrecti on), progressi ve (hi s-
tory), and fi nal (fi nal judgment). To deny that the process of pro-
gressi ve sancti fi cati on appl i es hi stori cal l y to i nsti tuti ons as wel l as to
i ndi vi dual Chri sti ans i s to remove or at l east cri ppl e the i mpul se to
domi ni on. Thi s i s why we must affi rm postmi l l enni al i sm: not onl y
because i t i s l ogi cal l y correct, or more consi stent than other eschato-
l ogi cal system;, or l ess compromi si ng i n i ts handl i ng of the Bi bl es
propheti c texts, but al so because postmillennialism is alone consistent
with the Bibles view of ethical cause and efect in history. I t preaches Gods
covenantal sancti ons as the basi s of l ong-term domi ni on.
Ethi cs shoul d be our pri mary moti vati on rather than eschatol -
ogy. Obeyi ng God shoul d be more i mportant moti vati onal l y than
col l ecti ng temporal rewards. God i s soverei gn, not man. Thi s i s why
I bel i eve so strongl y that ones eschatologv grows out of his view of ethical
cause and eflect in histoy. I n the fi ve-poi nt bi bl i cal covenant model ,
eschatol ogy (successi on) i s l ast; i t i s preceded by sancti ons and eth-
i
c
s 71 My fai th i n th
e
accuracy of thi s covenant model i s the reason
why I choose to fi ght a si mul taneous fi ve-front theol ogi cal war, not
fi ve wars, one book at a ti me. Neverthel ess, the exi stence of these re-
wards and puni shments i n hi story must be affi rmed, for the sake of
theol ogy proper (the soverei gnty of God), i nsti tuti onal justi ce (the
hi erarchi cal authori ty of l aw enforcement), ethi cs (the moral i ntegri ty
of Gods l aw), sancti ons (testi moni es of Gods vi si bl e covenantal
sancti ons), and eschatol ogy (posi ti ve feedback for gospel vi ctory).
We must affi rm hi stori cal sancti ons i n order to affi rm the covenant.
We must affi rm whole covenant theolo+y.
To deny the l ong-term hi stori cal rel ati onshi p between covenant-
keepi ng and external bl essi ngs i s to adopt Satans preferred ethi cal
system not ethi cal neutral i ty (unevenness) but rather ethicat
perversi~: the tri umph i n hi story of covenant-breakers, who wi l l
69. Jean Fran$oi s Revel , How Dsnmraci ss Pmih (Garden Ci ty, New York:
Doubl eday, 1984).
70. F. N. Lee, Conwsmi $t .Eschatolo~ (Nutl ey, New Jersey: Crai g Press, 1974).
71. Sutton, That You May Prospsr, chaps. 3-5.
mai ntai n thei r exi sti ng control of thi s worl ds i nsti tuti ons by defaul t.
Thi s means that Satan wi l l not be effecti vel y chal l enged, worl dwi de
and i n every area of authori ty, i n hi s doctri ne of squatters ri ghts .
Jesus won back the ri ghts to the whol e worl d (Matt. 28:18-20), and
transferred the ki ngdom to the Church (Matt. 21:43), yet the sup-
posed hi stori cal i mpotence of Hi s Church wi l l never al l ow Hi s peo-
pl e to recl ai m ti tl e i n Hi s name covenantal l y, meani ng rejmwntati w~
(poi nt two of the bi bl i cal covenant).
I n a worl d i n whi ch peopl e are born judi ci al l y as covenant-
breakers, Chri sti ani ty necessari l y l oses i nsti tuti onal l y and cul tural l y
by defaul t i f there i s no posi ti ve feedback for covenant-keepi ng and
no negati ve feedback for covenant-breaki ng. Deny Go#~ cownant san.c-
tion.s in histoy, andyou thereby proclaim the inevitable institutional and cultural
&feat of Chrastiani~ in histoy.7z
Concl usi on
No better case study exi sts of thi s deni al of Gods covenant sanc-
ti ons than the ami l l enni al theol ogy of Cornel i us Van Ti l . Hi s ami l -
l enni al i sm undermi ned hi s ethi cal system, and thi s i nevi tabl y cal l ed
i nto questi on hi s l i fes work: the destructi on of hal fway covenant phi -
l osophy. He expected hi s fol l owers to enter the hi stori cal battl e
needl essl y i l l -equi pped: to fi ght as Gods earthl y representati ves
agai nst Satans earthl y representati ves, but wi thout Gods covenant
sancti ons i n hi story. He cal l ed them to fi ght somethi ng (Satans exi st-
i ng cul tural stronghol ds) wi th nothi ng (a worl dvi ew that deni es
Gods covenant sancti ons i n hi story). That very few peopl e have
heeded Van Ti l s cal l to joi n hi m i n hi s i ntel l ectual battl e shoul d not
be surpri si ng; they i mpl i ci tl y recogni ze that thi s battl e i s far more
than merel y i ntel l ectual . I t i s at bottom ethi cal , and therefore i t i n-
vol ves a personal confrontati on i n every area of l i fe. To enter such a
battl e wi thout fai th i n Gods covenant sancti ons i n hi story i s the
theol ogi cal equi val ent of joi ni ng a squad of Japanese kami kaze pi l ots
72. Whi l e i t i s true that God mi ght convert the whol e worl d to Chri sti ani ty, wi th-
out a uni quel y Chri sti an l aw-order, and wi thout covenant sancti ons, there woul d be
no fundamental change i n the nature of worl d cul ture. The worl ds i nsti tuti ons
woul d be operated just as they are now: by standards that are not bi bl i cal . Thi s i s
why the ol der postmi l l enni al i sm of Pri nceton Theol ogi cal Semi nary, l i ke the post-
mi l l enni al i sm of Jonathan Edwar ds, was uncompel l i ng i ntel l ectual l y and theol ogi -
cal l y. I t was not ti ed to bi bl i cal l aw. I t was ethi cal l y neutral , meani ng anti nomi an. I t
was pi eti sti c rather than covenantal .
i n earl y 1945. No matter how enthusi asti cal l y y you shout Banzai !
you know where thi ngs are headed.
Van Ti l affi rmed forthri ghtl y onl y the fi rst of the covenants fi ve
poi nts: the transcendence of God. He keyed hi s phi l osophy to thi s
cruci al doctri ne: the Creator-creature di sti ncti on. Thi s i s why he
revol uti oni zed Chri sti an apol ogeti cs. But he adopted a fal se doctri ne
of temporal successi on: the progressi ve tri umph of Satans represen-
tati ves i n hi story. Thus, he had the second poi nt of the covenant i n-
correct: representati onl hi erarchy. Whi l e he bel i eved i n a hi erar-
chi cal approach to epi stemol ogy mans thi nki ng Gods thoughts
after Hi m he ferventl y bel i eved that Satans representati ves can
successful l y run the worl d throughout hi story, i .e. , successful l y
mai ntai n pol i ti cal and cul tural power. But how can they do thi s,
si nce they deny Gods reveal ed l aw (poi nt three), thereby pl aci ng
themsel ves under Gods negati ve sancti ons i n hi story (poi nt four)?
Van Ti l di d not bel i eve i n Gods covenant sancti ons i n hi story, and
therefore he coul d not affi rm the power and hi stori cal authori ty of
bi bl i cal l aw, a l aw-order that cannot be separated from Gods hi stori -
cal sancti ons.
Thus, Van Ti l l ai d the i ntel l ectual foundati ons for the acceptance
of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm: the doctri ne that God i s represented pol i ti cal l y
throughout hi story by those who refuse to affi rm Hi s absol ute sover-
ei gnty, Hi s comprehensi ve (mul ti -i nsti tuti onal ) theocrati c rul e, Hi s
reveal ed l aw, Hi s sancti ons i n hi story, and the progressi ve tri umph
of Hi s ki ngdom i n hi story. Thi s means that he refused to abandon
ethi cal pl ural i sm i n the fi el d of soci al ethi cs. Neverthel ess, such a
vi ew of pol i ti cal and ethi cal pl ural i sm i s i nextri cabl y ti ed to the doc-
tri ne of natural l aw or evol uti onary l aw, i .e., ti ed to the autonomy of
man. Yet he deni ed thi s doctri ne throughout hi s career. Van Ti l was
a cl assi c vi cti m of i ntel l ectual schi zophreni a, a schi zophreni a pro-
duced by hi s ami l l enni al i sm. He got poi nt fi ve of the covenant
wrong, and poi nts two through four toppl ed, too.
He al ways sai d that there i s no neutral i ty i n thought or l i fe, yet
he constructed hi s apol ogeti c system as though there coul d be escha-
tol ogi cal neutral i ty. Hi s denomi nati on affi rms that there must be es-
chatol ogi cal neutral i ty organi zati onal l y. But i n Van Ti l s case, thi s
cl oak of eschatol ogi cal neutral i ty was a cover for a radi cal pessi mi sm
regardi ng the earthl y future of the gospel , the Church, and Chri sti an
cul ture. And so we must say wi th respect to thi s cl oak of eschatol ogi -
cal neutral i ty, The emperor wears stol en cl othes !
What saved Van Ti l s system from sel f-destructi on was hi s un-
waveri ng commi tment to poi nt one of the bi bl i cal covenant: the on-
tol ogi cal Tri ni ty, meani ng the transcendent yet i mmanent God. 73
What saved i t was hi s cl ear-cut defense of creati oni sm: the Creator-
creature di sti ncti on. As part of hi s vi ew of creati on he defended the
absol ute provi dence of God. He was strong on poi nt one of the cove-
nant, and because of thi s, hi s apol ogeti c method can l egi ti mate y be
sai d to have l aunched the Chri sti an Reconstructi on movement. But
thi s i s true onl y wi th regard to hi s defense of poi nt one. Hi s vi ews re-
gardi ng the other four poi nts, i f accepted, woul d undermi ne the
Reconstructi oni st posi ti on. Professor Meredi th G. Kl i ne has seen
thi s more cl earl y than most of our cri ti cs.
What saved Van Ti l s system coul d not save the system of hi s for-
mer student, Franci s Schaeffer. Schaeffer bel i eved i n but di d not em-
phasi ze i n hi s wri ti ngs ei ther predesti nati on or speci al creati on. He
was a cl oset Cal vi ni st i n hi s publ i shed wri ti ngs. Hi s system was
therefore even more the vi cti m of hal fway covenant phi l osophy. He
system was even more vul nerabl e to the myth of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm.
Hi s sheep ar e today even more scattered, as we shal l see i n Chapter 4.
73. Sutton, That lbu May Prosper, ch. 1.
From the ti me of the Puri tans unti l about the mi ddl e of the ni ne-
teenth centur y, Amer i can evangehcal i sm was domi nated by a Cal -
vi ni sti c vi si on of a Chri sti an cul ture. Ol d Testament I srael , a nati on
commi tted to Gods l aw, was the model for pol i ti cal i nsti tuti ons.
Hence the Chri sti an i deal was to i ntroduce Gods ki ngdom a New
I sr ael not onl y i n the l i ves of the r egener ate el ect, but al so by
means of ci vi l l aws that woul d both restrai n evi l and comprehen-
si vel y transform cul ture accordi ng to Gods wi l l . . . . The contrast
[i n twenti eth-century evangel i ca.hsm] between the present New Tes-
tament age of the Spi ri t and the previ ous Ol d Testament age of l aw
di d i nvol ve a shi ft toward a more pri vate vi ew of Chri sti ani ty. The
Hol y Spi ri t worked i n the hearts of i ndi vi dual s and was known pri -
mari l y through personal experi ence. Soci al acti on, sti l l an i mportant
concern, was more i n the provi nce of pri vate agenci es. The ki ngdom
was no l onger vi ewed as a ki ngdom of l aws; hence ci vi l l aw woul d
not hel p i ts advance. The transi ti on from postmi l l enni al to premi l -
l enni al vi ews was the most expl i ci t expressi on of thi s change. Pol i ti cs
became much l ess i mpor tant.
Geor ge M. Mar sden (1980)
* Marsden, Fundamentalism and Ameri can Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth- CentuV
Evangelicalism, 1870-1925 (New York: Oxford Uni versi ty Press, 1980), pp. 86, 88.
4
HALFWAY COVENANT SOCI AL CRI TI CI SM
But the great item of uny$nished intellectual business confronting the
Protestant denominations was and is the problem of religious Jreedom.
And here the situation is almost as desperate as i ncreasi ng~ it becomes
clear that the problem cannot be solved simply by maligning the character
of those who question the American practice.
I s it not passing strange that American Protestantism has neuer de-
ueloped any sound theoretical~u+ ication of or theological orientation for
its most distinctive practice? Today we should probab~ have to agree
with the writer of 1876 who said that we seem to haue made no advance
whatever in harmonizing (on a theoretical leuel) the relations of religious
sects among themselves, or i n dejining their common relation to the Civil
power
Sidney E. Mead (1953)1
Nowhere i n the wri ti ngs of contemporary evangel i cal soci al
thi nkers does the conti nui ng real i ty of Professor Meads comments
appear more cl earl y than i n the l ater works of Franci s Schaeffer,
especi al l y A Christian Mantfesto (1981). Hi s i ntel l ectual career repre-
sents a 40-year wanderi ng i n the wi l derness, l i ke the generati on of
Moses that had escaped from the bondage of Egypt, but whi ch woul d
not cross over i nto the Promi sed Land. They di d not bel i eve i n the
compl ete rel i abi l i ty of the l aws announced by Moses, and nei ther
di d Rev. Schaeffer. But as ti me went on, he grew l ess and l ess wi l l i ng
to put up wi th the l aws of Pharaoh. He rejected the judi ci al l eaven of
1. Si dney E. Mead, Ameri can Protestanti sm Duri ng the Revol uti onary Epoch,
Church HistoT, XXI I (1953); repri nted i n ReliGon in Ameriian Histoy: I nterpretive Essays,
edi ted by John M. Mul der and John F. Wi l son (Engl ewood Cl i ffs, New Jersey:
Prenti ce-Hal l , 1978), p. 175; ci ti ng J. L. Di man, Rel i gi on i n Ameri ca, 1776 -1876,
North American Review, CXXI I (Jan. 1876), p. 42.
165
166
Egypt, but he
had to put up
coul d not stomach the judi ci al l eaven of Moses. He
wi th manna.
A Cl oset Presbyteri an Cal vi ni st
Franci s Schaeffer (1912-1984) was a Cal vi ni st. He was not a Puri -
tan Cal vi ni st, but he was a Presbyteri an Cal vi ni st wi thi n the tradi -
ti on of the ol d (pre-1929) Pri nceton Semi nary.* He was al so a premi l -
l enni al i st, al though not a di spensati onal i st, whi ch pl aced hi m cl oser
to the camp of post-Ci vi l War Ameri can fundamental i sm
3
than to
tradi ti onal Ameri can Cal vi ni sm, whi ch i n the ni neteenth century
was more commonl y postmi l l enni a1
4
and i n the twenti eth century
has general l y been ami l l enni al .
5
He was a pastor i n Carl McI nti res
Bi bl e Presbyteri an Church for two decades, whi ch was expl i ci tl y a
premi l l enni al church.
As a semi nary student, he spent two years at J. Gresham MaehensG
Westmi nster Theol ogi cal Semi nary i n Phi l adel phi a, where he studi ed
apol ogeti cs under Cornel i us Van Ti l . He began hi s mi ni steri al ca-
reer shortl y after he joi ned fundamental i st-premi l l enni al i st-Cal vi ni st
Carl McI nti re
7
i n the 1937 spl i t of the one-year-ol d Orthodox Pres-
byteri an Church.
a
He appears i n the photograph of the departi ng
Bi bl e Pr esbyter i an Chur ch l eader s i n A Brief HistoU of the Bible Presby-
2. Pri ncetons facul ty had been mostl y postmi l l enni al unti l the 1920s, and those
who were not postmi l were ami l l enni al i sts. Al so, the anti -al cohol (absti nence) posi -
ti on of Ameri can fundamental i sm, embraced by the young Schaeffer, was not prom-
i nent i n the ol d Pri nceton tradi ti on. But Schaefer% commi tment to bi bl i csd i nfal l i -
bi l i ty and to an i ntel l i gent, wel l -i nformed evangel i sm was surel y Pri ncetoni an.
3. Ti mothy P. Weber, Living in the Shadow of the Second Coming: American Pmmi&r-
nialism, 1875-1925 (New York: Oxford Uni versi ty Press, 1979).
4. I n the North, the postmi l l enni al i sm of the Hodges and Pri nceton Semi nary
domi nated; i n the South, the postmi l l enni al i sm of Dabney and Thornwel l : James B.
Jordan, A Survey of Southern Presbyteri an Mi l l enni al Vi ews Before 1930~ J ournal
of Christian Reconstruction, I I I (Wi nter 1976-77), pp. 106-21.
5. Thi s was the i nfl uence of Dutch Cal vi ni sm after the demi se of orthodoxy at
Pri nceton after 1929. See Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace: The Biblical Basis
of Progress (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1987), Appendi x.
6. Pronounced GRESSum MAYchen.
7. Pr onounced PERsonal conTROL.
8. George P. Hutchi nson, The History Behind the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evan-
gelical Synod (Cherry Hi l l , New Jersey: Mack Publ i shi ng, 1974), p. 229n. The OPC
was at that ti me cal l ed the Presbyteri an Church of Ameri ca, but i t was taken to ci vi l
court and sti ccessful l y sued by the mai nl i ne Presbyteri an Church i n the U.S.A. for
i nfri ngement on that churchs name. The new church was forced by the courts to
change i ts name i n 1939. Charl es G. Denni son (cd.), Orthodox Presbyterian Church 50,
1936-1986 (Phi l adel phi a: Orthodox Presbyteri an Church, 1986), p. 7.
Ha~way Covenant Social Criticism 167
terian Church and I ts Agencies.g The pri mary theol ogi cal i ssues di vi di ng
the OPC from McI nti res Bi bl e Presbyteri an Church were eschatol -
ogy and temperance , meani ng total abstenti on from al cohol . The
Bi bl e Presbyteri ans i n 1938 adopted an anti -al cohol pl atform, a tra-
di ti onal fundamental i st posi ti on. 10 I n 1937, at i ts fi rst meeti ng, the
newl y assembl ed group vowed to amend the Westmi nster standards
i n any parti cul ar i n whi ch the premi l l enni al teachi ng of the Scri p-
tures may be hel d to be obscured.11 Thi s was done i n 1938, when
they rewrote the Westmi nster Confessi ons secti on on eschatol ogy. 12
Schaeffer served i n 1948 as Moderator of the General Synod of
McI nti res Bi bl e Presbyteri an Church i n 1948, the year after hi s fi rst
vi si t to Europe. 13 He l ater joi ned the exodus from McI nti res church
to forma new Col umbus Synod i n 1956, whi ch merged i n 1965 wi th
the Reformed Presbyteri an Church, General Synod, to form the
Reformed Presbyteri an Church, Evangel i cal Synod. 14 Seventeen
years l ater, thi s smal l denomi nati on merged wi th the Presbyteri an
Church i n Ameri ca, the evangel i cal denomi nati on that had sepa-
rated from the l i beral Southern Presbyteri an Church. He was sti l l
al i ve when thi s merger took pl ace, and he ended hi s l i fe as a Presby-
teri an pastor i n an offi ci al l y Cal vi ni sti c denomi nati on.
I n short, Rev. Schaeffer remai ned a Cal vi ni st and premi l l enni al -
i st, al though the sharp edges of hi s earl i er fundamental i sm faded
from hi s theol ogy over ti me. As earl y as 1942 , wri tes one Church
hi stori an, Franci s Schaeffer l ai d emphasi s on the Churchs strong
and defi ni te doctri nal basi s i n contrast to the doctri nal weakness and
vagueness of moderni st and fundamental i st al i ke. 15 Yet the fact of
9. No copyri ght, no pl ace of publ i cati on, no publ i sher, and no date of publ i ca-
ti on, but whi ch I recei ved from the Bi bl e Presbyteri an Church; the l atest date I can
fi nd i n i ts text i s 1968. The photograph appears on page 63.
10. Hutchi nson, Brief HistoV, pp. 63-64.
11. I bid., p. 248.
12. I btd., p. 249.
13. I bid., p. 60.
14. Rev. McI nti res refl ecti ons on thi s spl i t are typi cal : I n 1954, there arose a
group i n the Bi bl e Presbyteri an Church under the l eadershi p of the Rev. Franci s
Schaeffer, ,Dr. Robert Rayburn, and the Rev. Tom Cross, who fel t that the church
coul d get a great deal farther i f i t woul d take a softer approach i n deal i ng wi th the
apostasy. They al so were di stressed over the fact that the church was not as ti ghtl y
organi zed and under central control as they wi shed. Cad McI nti re, The Death of a
Church (Col l i ngswood, New Jersey: Chrkti an Beacon Press, 1967), p. 166. The second
statement i s especi al l y remarkabl e, gi ven the fact of Rev. McI nti res l egendary con-
trol over hi s ever-shri nki ng denomi nati on, whi ch conti nues to thi s day (Jul y 1989).
15. Hutchi nson, Brief Histoy, p. 263.
hi s Cal vi ni st Presbyteri an background may come as a shock to many
of hi s Armi ni an evangel i cal fol l owers, who are even l ess doctri nal l y
ri gorous than the fundamental i sts of 1942. Very few of Franci s
Schaeffers fol l owers have known what he real l y bel i eved theol ogi -
cal l y, or what hi s oath of mi ni steri al offi ce affi rms (The Westmi nster
Confessi on of Fai th and i ts Larger and Shorter Catechi sms). For ex-
ampl e, Rev. Schaeffer took a publ i c oath as a Presbyteri an mi ni ster
that he bel i eved the fol l owi ng doctri nes regardi ng personal sal vati on:
Man, by hi s fal l i nto a state of si n, bath whol l y l ost al l abi l i ty of wi l l to
any spi ri tual good accompanyi ng sal vati on: so as, a natural man, bei ng
al together averse from that good, and dead i n si n, i s not abl e, by hi s own
strength, to convert hi msel f, or to prepare hi msel f thereunto. 16
Al l those whom God bath predesti nated unto l i fe, and those onl y, He i s
pl eased, i n Hi s appoi nted and accepted ti me, effectual l y to cal l , by Hi s
Word and Spi ri t, out of that state of si n and death, i n whi ch they are by
nature to grace and sal vati on, by Jesus Chri st; . . .
Thi s effectual cal l i s of Gods free and speci al grace al one, not from any
thi ng at al l foreseen i n man, who i s al together passi ve therei n, unti l , bei ng
qui ckened and renewed by the Hol y Spi ri t, he i s thereby enabl ed to answer
thi s cal l , and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed i n i t. 17
There i s l i ttl e doubt that the vast majori ty of those who have pur-
chased hi s books are unaware that he bel i eved these cl assi c Cal vi ni st
doctri nes, nor do they share such bel i efs. Thi s i s part of the probl em
i n deal i ng wi th Rev. Schaeffer and hi s i ntel l ectual l egacy: he system-
ati cal l y hi d so many of hi s opi ni ons from hi s readers.
Why The Si l ence?
I cannot recal l a si ngl e i nstance i n hi s (mi sl eadi ngl y ti tl ed) Con-z-
plete Works i n whi ch he menti ons, l et al one defends, hi s own fi ve-
poi nt Cal vi ni sm 18 or hi s eccl esi asti cal connecti ons. Hi s readers are
gi ven no i ndi cati on that hi s i ntel l ectual background was deepl y
rooted i n the Cal vi ni sti c doctri ne of predesti nati on. 19 Hi s cl ose asso-
16. W~tminster Confession of Faith, I X: I I I .
17. I bid., X:1, I I .
18. The fi ve poi nts of Cal vi ni sm are summari zed by an acrosti c, TULI P: total
depravi ty, uncondi ti onal el ecti on, l i mi ted atonement (i .e., parti cul ar redempti on),
i rresi sti bl e grace, and the perseverance of the sai nts.
19. The cl assi c statement of thi s posi ti on i n Schaeffers generati on was Lorai ne
Boettners The R#onned Doctrine of Predestination (1932), kept i n pri nt by Presbyteri an
& Reformed. Boettner i s sti l l al i ve as I wri te thi s.
Hal&way Covenant Social Criticism 169
ci ati on wi th Rev. Carl McI nti re was conceal ed enti rel y i n hi s wi fes
two (or possi bl y three) ZO bi ographi es, whi ch were expressl y wri tten
for a broadl y Armi ni an (free wi l l ) evangel i cal audi ence. Few peo-
pl e know that McI nti res I ndependent Board for Forei gn Presbyter-
i an Mi ssi ons sent Rev. Schaeffer to Swi tzerl and i n 1947. I know of
nothi ng i n pri nt whi ch cl earl y and wi thout Mrs. Schaeffers pre-1950
fog di scusses hi s l i fe, church connecti ons, theol ogy, and i ntel l ectual
devel opment. When asked i n 1968, Where di d your husband get al l
thi s? Mrs. Schaeffer offered a l ong, rambl i ng di squi si ti on about hi s
di scussi ons wi th exi stenti al i sts, l ogi cal posi ti vi sts, Hi ndus, Buddhi sts,
l i beral Protestants, l i beral Roman Cathol i cs, Reformed Jews and
athei sti c Jews, Musl i ms, members of occul t cul ts, and peopl e of a
wi de vari ety of rel i gi ons and phi l osophi es, as wel l as athei sts of a va-
ri ety of types. Thi s went on for two pages. zl What she and he both
refused to menti on throughout thei r mutual career were the sources
of hi s theol ogy rather than hi s i ntel l ectual targets. Readi ng Mrs.
Schaeffers books gi ves the reader the i mpressi on that Franci s Schaeffer
the phi l osopher-cri ti c appeared mysteri ousl y one afternoon after a
wal k i n the Swi ss Al ps. That thi s remarkabl e transformati on ap-
peared after a l ong struggl e wi th (and rejecti on of) Cornel i us Van
Ti l s ri gorousl y presupposi ti onal apol ogeti cs and Carl McI nti res ri g-
orousl y personal eccl esi asti cs i s nowhere di scussed.
Why the Criticism?
My essay on Rev. Schaeffer i s mostl y cri ti cal . I bel i eve that he
gave away far too much ground to the humani sts and l i beral s who
were the targets of hi s cri ti ques. I bel i eve that hi s apol ogeti c ap-
proach, l i ke Cornel i us Van Ti l s, was deepl y compromi sed by anti -
nomi ani sm and by eschatol ogi cal pessi mi sm. To prove my case, I
have had to take a cri ti cal stand agai nst hi m. Thi s i s a one-si ded,
speci al i zed essay, not a wel l -rounded assessment of hi s personal mi n-
i stry overal l . I bel i eve that on the whol e, he (l i ke Van Ti l ) fought the
good evangel i cal fi ght, gi ven hi s sel f-i mposed theol ogi cal handi caps,
hi s l ack of advanced formal academi c trai ni ng beyond semi nary, and
hi s geographi cal i sol ati on i n Swi tzerl and. (To some extent, al l three
were advantages: they kept hi m out of the i ntel l ectual ] y debi l i tati ng
cl utches of the academi c compromi sers who control the humani ti es
20. Her book, Lfibri, i s a parti al bi ography.
21. Edi th Schaeffer, L!4bri (London: Norfol k), pp. 226-27.
cl assrooms of the modern Chri sti an l i beral arts col l eges. )zz He i n-
fl i cted seri ous wounds on humani sts wi thi n the modern evangel i cal
Church, whi ch i s why they are so vi ndi cti ve, now that he i s gone. 23
Furthermore, hi s counsel and books brought many i ntel l i gent young
peopl e to savi ng fai th i n Jesus Chri st i n a turbul ent peri od of West-
ern hi story. Fi nal l y, he di d el evate the terms of evangel i cal i ntel l ec-
tual di scourse from 1968 unti l hi s death. My di sagreement wi th Rev.
Schaeffer centers on the fact that he di d not go far enough down the
con frontati onal road. He waffl ed on key i ssues. He operated a
hal fway house i ntel l ectual mi ni stry, wi thal l the l i abi l i ti es associ ated
wi th any i deol ogi cal l y mi ddl e-of-the-road operati on. He di d, how-
ever, sel l over two mi l l i on books. None of hi s publ i shed cri ti cs can
match that performance, i ncl udi ng me.
I am compari ng hi m to what he coul d have been, had he remai ned
more fai thful to the ol der Puri tan standards of the Westmi nster Con-
fessi on of Fai th that he affi rmed at hi s ordi nati on. I am compari ng
hi m to what he mi ght have been had he taken the Ol d Testament
case l aws more seri ousl y and the earthl y future of Chri sti ani ty more
seri ousl y. I am compari ng hi m to what he shoul d have been had he
thoroughl y abandoned the myth of neutral i ty that he publ i cl y
attacked, and had he real l y adopted the presupposi ti onal apol ogeti c
approach that he someti mes cl ai med that he accepted. Most of al l , I
am compari ng hi m to what we needed hi m to be, had he turned
away from the pol i ti cal pl ural i sm that he adhered to. Pl ural i sms
moral foundati on i s rel ati vi sm, whi ch he forthri ghtl y warned agai nst
a warni ng whi ch has outraged hi s neo-evangel i cal academi c
cri ti cs. But compared to Hal Li ndsey, he was a breath of fresh ai r.
Compar ed to Rober t Schul l er, he was a theol ogi cal l i fe-support sys-
tem. Compared to Tony Campol o, he was the Apostl e Paul .
From Apol ogeti cs to Soci al Theory
I n the earl y 1970s, Van Ti l i ssued a mi meographed col l ecti on of
l etters that he had wri tten to Schaeffer personal l y from 1967 on. Thi s
devastati ng, 54-page, si ngl e-spaced cri ti que of Schaeffers hal fway
house phi l osophi cal defense of Chri sti ani ty was ti tl ed si mpl y, The
Apologetic Methodology of Francis A. Schaefer. I t exposed the extent to
22. See my Foreword to I an Hedge, Baptized I nJ ation: A Critique of Chrzsti an
Kcynesianism (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1986).
23. I have i n mi nd the col l ecti on of academi c essays, Rejections on Fr anci s Scha@ii,
publ i shed i n 1986, whi ch I ci te extensi vel y bel ow.
Hal@ay Covenant Social Criticism 171
whi ch Schaeffer was commi tted to tradi ti onal natural l aw apol oget-
i cs, meani ng the i dea of i ntel l ectual neutral i ty, whi ch ul ti matel y
means ethi cal neutral i ty. Van Ti l argued that Schaeffer di d not begi n
wi th the Bi bl e as the sel f-attesti ng Word of God, wi th the Tri ni ty, the
pr ovi dence of God, and the cr eati on as the necessar y pr esuppose-
ti ons for al l human thought. I n short, he di d not start wi th Van Ti l s
versi on of presupposi ti onal i sm, a ri gorous and uncompromi si ng pre-
supposi ti onal i sm that teaches that there is on~ one point of contact be-
tween the covenant-breaker and the covenant-keeper: the image of God in man. 24
Mans l ogi c i s fal l en; thus, there i s therefore no l ogi cal l y neutral
common ground. Whatever l ogi c the covenant-breaker possesses i s
based on stol en presupposi ti ons
25
l ogi c that he abandons as soon
as he sees cl earl y that i t poi nts to the God of the Bi bl e. I nstead, he al -
ways worshi ps the creature rather than the Creator (Rem. 1:18-22).
Schaeffer di d not bel i eve i n thi s form of phi l osophi cal presupposi -
ti onal i sm, al though he frequentl y used the term presupposi ti onal
to descri be hi s own apol ogeti c approach. He sought fi rst to establ i sh
an i ndependent and pri or concept of truth neutral common ground
whi ch can serve as a poi nt of contact between the saved and the
l ost. Schaeffer adopted the anal ogy of a man who l i ves under a roof.
The roof i s hi s system of anti -bi bl i cal presupposi ti ons. I t shi el ds hi m
from the real worl d, the worl d God has made. Thus, Schaeffer con-
cl uded, when we deal wi th thi s man, we must l et i n certai n truths
from outsi de the roof. We must remove the shel ter a pi ece at a ti me.
What i s our fi rst step, l ogi cal l y speaki ng? To avoi d an i ni ti al appeal
to the Bi bl e. The truth that we let in)rst is not a dogmatic statement of the
truth of the Scriptures, but the truth of the external world and the truth of what
man himself is. Thi s i s what shows hi m hi s need. The Scri ptures then
show hi m the real nature of hi s I ostness and the answer to i t. This, 1
am convinced, is the true order for our apologetics in the second half of the t wen -
24. Thi s i s admi tted by Forrest Bai rds survey arti cl e on the background of
Schaeffers thought: Schaeffer by and l arge accepted thi s presupposi ti onal i sm of
Van Ti l . But as Kenneth Harper has poi nted out, Schaeffer was not a thor ough-
goi ng presupposi ti onal i st. . . . Bai rd, Schaeffers I ntel l ectual Roots, i n Ronal d
W. Ruegsegger (cd.), Rejlections on Francis Schaefer (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Zon-
dervan Academi e, 1986), p. 57. He ci tes Kenneth C. Harper, Franci s Schaeffer: An
Eval uati on, Bibliotheca Sacra, vol . 133 (1976), p. 138.
25. Van Ti l cal l ed thi s theft %orrowi ng~ but thi s i s not str ong enough l anguage.
Cf. Van Ti l , The Casefor Calvinism (Nutl ey, New Jersey: Crai g Press, 1964), p. 106;
Essays on Christian Education (Nutl ey, New Jersey: Presbyteri an& Reformed, 1977),
p. 63.
tieth centwyfor people living under the line of despair.ze
To thi s, Van Ti l repl i ed: But, I ask, do we have to l et i n thi s truth?
Cl earl y not. Man al ready knows the external worl d and i ts manni sh-
ness . God doesnt have to tel l hi m and we dont have to tel l hi m what
God has, from the begi nni ng, tol d hi m. God needs onl y to refer to
what he al ready knows; surel y thi s i s al so al l we as bel i evers i n God
need to do, as we seek to wi n men to an acceptance of Chri sti ani ty.zT
What Van Ti l was concerned about was not that Schaeffer had
borrowed Van Ti l s termi nol ogy of presupposi ti onal i sm wi thout credi t;
rather, he was concerned that Schaeffer had not ful l y understood or
ful l y accepted the expl i ci t bi bl i cal foundati on of presupposi ti onal i sm:
th denial of neutral common-ground natural logic. Van Ti l s ri gorous cri ti que
exposed Schaeffers apol ogeti cs as onl y hal fway presupposi ti onal .
To put thi s i n the termi nol ogy of covenant theol ogy, Schaeffer
was not suffi ci entl y preci se on the doctri ne of Gods transcendence,
meani ng Hi s absol ute soverei gnty. He was therefore not sol i d on the
doctri ne of hi erarchy: mans abi l i ty to thi nk Gods thoughts after hi m
on~ as a total l y dependent, non-autonomous creature. Schaeffer
waffl ed: 1) on affi rmi ng the absol ute soverei gnty of God; and 2) on
denyi ng every degree of autonomy i n man. On the fi nal three poi nts
l aw, sancti ons, and conti nui ty he was no worse than Van Ti l i n
theory, but he was far more vocal , maki ng hi m a much greater l i abi l -
i ty. I n summary, Schaeffer affi rmed publ i cl y none of the fi ve poi nts
of bi bl i cal covenantal i sm, al though offi ci al l y he di d so when he
affi rmed the Westmi nster Confessi on of Fai th and i ts catechi sms. I n
thi s, he was l i ke the l ast three centuri es of Presbyteri ans, who have
affi rmed these confessi onal standards whi l e i gnori ng thei r Puri tan
theocrati c roots.
Why the Silence?
Rev. Schaeffer never repl i ed publ i cl y to Van Ti l , but these cri ti -
ci sms rankl ed hi m. 2s As hi s di sci pl e-bi ographer remarks: Later one
26. The God Who I s There, i n The Complete Wmkx of Francis A. Scha@er: A Chrtstian
Worldview, 5 vols. (Westchester, I l l i noi s: Crossway Books, 1982), I , pp. 140-41. Em-
phasi s i n ori gi nal .
27. Cornel i us Van Ti l , The Apologetic Methodology of Francis A. Schaeffi (mi meo-
graphed, no date), p. 27.
28. Van Ti l s publ i shed versi on does not i ndi cate that Schaeffer ever responded
pri vatel y to these l etters, nor does Schaeffers bi ographer. I n fact, the bi ographer
makes i t appear as though Van Ti l rai sed these objecti ons onl y after hi s reti rement.
On the contrary, he was sti l l teachi ng at the ti me these essays were wri tten.
Ha~way Couenant Social Criticism 173
theol ogi cal professor [note: he does not say the professor who had
taught Schaeffer apol ogeti cs four decades earl i er], who for years
often publ i cl y cri ti ci zed Schaeffers way of hel pi ng peopl e become
Chri sti ans, reti red and then wrote a l ong cri ti cal treatment of
Schaeffers vi ew of Chri sti an fai th and evangel i sm. Rev. Schaeffer
responded pri vatel y to some wi thi n LAbri : I woul d hate to thi nk
that I mi ght spend my reti rement doi ng somethi ng l i ke that!
29
Cl earl y, Schaeffer took these cri ti ci sms personal l y, never under-
standi ng that Van Ti l wrote stri ctl y from a professi onal and i ntel l ec-
tual basi s. He treated everyone el se the same way! Van Ti l under-
stood what every Chri sti an apol ogi st must do: defend the faith, espe-
ci al l y from those who have made cruci al errors that wi l l i nevi tabl y
l ead to di sastrous i ntel l ectual (i .e., moral ) compromi se l ater on.
Thi s i s exactl y what has been the fate of the Schaeffer movement i n
l ess than hal f a decade si nce hi s death: di sastrous compromi ses wi th
secul ar humani sm, and al l i n the name of Chri sti an pl ural i sm.
Thi s same commi tment to the neutral i ty doctri ne was subse-
quentl y refl ected i n Schaeffers soci al theory i n A Christian Man$esto
(1981). What I argue i n thi s chapter i s that hi s commi tment to the
neutral i ty doctri ne i n phi l osophy destroyed what l i ttl b remai ned of
the Schaeffer movement after hi s death i n 1984. When the Schaeffer-
i tes at l ong l ast real i zed that they coul d not mai ntai n a commi tment
to bi bl i cal Chri sti ani ty and ethi cal and epi stemol ogi ca.1 neutral i t y i n
thei r so-cal l ed secul ar cal l i ngs, they abandoned thei r formerl y out-
spoken commi tment to Chri sti ani ty i n thei r respecti ve professi onal
cal l i ngs. Thi s has been most vi si bl e i n Dr. C. Everett Koops con-
dom wars and i n Franky Schaeffers i l l -fated 1987 R-rated movi e,
Wired to Kill.
Every Chri sti an soci al theori st i s requi red by God to make a key
i ntel l ectual (but ul ti matel y ethi cal ) deci si on. He must i denti fy one
and on~ one of the fol l owi ng as a myth: neutral i ty or bi bl i cal theocracy.
Chri sti an soci al theori sts today wi l l do al most anythi ng to avoi d
maki ng thi s i denti fi cati on, but sooner or l ater they have to deci de.
From the demi se of Puri tani sm after 1660 unti l the appearance of the
Chri sti an Reconstructi on movement, Chri sti an soci al theori sts
sought to avoi d thi s deci si on, i n order to avoi d deci di ng i n favor of
theocracy, meani ng the worl d under Gods reveal ed l aw. I mpl i ci tl y
29. Loui s Gi fford Parkhurst, Jr., Franci s SchaeJer: The Man and His Message
(Wheaton, I l l i noi s: Tyndal e House, 1985), p. 49.
or expl i ci tl y, for over three centuri es, Chri sti an soci al theori sts chose
to defend the myth of neutral i ty.
Thi s was al so true of the Schaefferi tes, but i n a di fferent way.
Schaeffer and hi s fol l owers kept sayi ng that secul ar neutral i ty i s the
myth, but when push came to shove i n the earl y 1980s, they fi nal l y
deci ded that pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i s the l esser of two evi l s, and that
theocracy i s the real l y dangerous myth, so they publ i cl y re-adopted
neutral i ty. Thi s deci si on had been i mpl i ci t from the begi nni ng i n
Franci s Schaeffers apol ogeti cs. I t took a decade, 1975-85, for Franky
Schaeffer and Dr. Koop to become consi stent wi th that ori gi nal
apol ogeti c method. Franci s, Sr. had di ed wi th the di l emma sti l l
unresol ved, but hi s successors coul d no l onger sustai n hi s systems
i nherent i ntel l ectual and ethi cal schi zophreni a.
Schaeffers fol l owers were systemati cal l y mi sl ed throughout hi s
publ i c, publ i shed career regardi ng what he real l y bel i eved. I thi nk i t
i s safe to say that i t was not an oversi ght on Schaeffers part that he
negl ected to repri nt hi s 1976 pamphl et defendi ng i nfant bapti sm i n
hi s mi sl eadi ngl y ti tl ed fi ve-vol ume set, Complete Works (1982). Thi s
pamphl et had been publ i shed by an obscure l ocal publ i sher l ong after
he had become the nati ons best-sel l i ng evangel i cal phi l osopher-
cri ti c, a very pecul i ar publ i shi ng arrangement. so As I wi l l show i n
thi s chapter, there were other si gni fi cant el ements of sel f-consci ous
decepti on i n hi s l ater, post-1967 career. Hi s odd combi nati on of theo-
l ogi cal doctri nes i nevi tabl y l ed hi m i nto troubl e after he began pub-
l i shi ng i n 1968, troubl e that eventual l y destroyed the i nsti tuti onal
remai ns of hi s i ntel l ectual l egacy.
Schaeffer & Son
Franci s Schaeffer was the domi nant i nfl uence i n the i ntel l ectual
revi val among Ameri can Protestant evangel i cal , 1968-84. By 1979,
hi s books had sol d over two mi l l i on copi es. 31 As he correctl y ob-
served regardi ng hi s own i nfl uence, I dont know anyone who has
real l y taken a cl ear Chri sti an posi ti on who has been more wi del y ac-
cepted i n the secul ar ar ea.32
30. Franci s Schaeffer, Ba@r n (Wi l mi ngton, Del aware: Tri mark Publ i shers,
1976).
31. Phi l i p Yancey, Franci s Schaeffer: A Pr ophet for Our Ti me? Christiani~ To-
&y (March 23, 1979), p. 16.
32. Schaeffer on Schaeffer, Part I , Chrirtiani~ Today (Mar ch 23, 1979), p. 20.
How di d thi s offi ci al l y hard-core Cal vi ni st ever gai n such i nfl uence
wi th an Armi ni an audi ence? Si mpl e: by fai l i ng to menti on, l et al one
affi rm, any of Cal vi ni sms uni que doctri nes i n hi s popul ar wri ti ngs.
From the begi nni ng, Franci s Schaeffers publ i c career post-1968
was based heavi l y on decepti on. Thi s rel i ance on decepti on eventual l y
undermi ned hi s theol ogi cal l egacy, as wel l as hi s i nsti tuti onal l egacy.
From an i ntel l ectual standpoi nt, there was a strong el ement of
theol ogi cal schi zophreni a i n hi s l ater career after he had departed from
Rev. Carl McI nti res brand of Presbyteri an fundamental i sm. A si m-
i l ar schi zophreni a burdened al l of the l eaders of the post-1979 New
Chri sti an Ri ght, before that short-l i ved movement di sappeared i nto
the swamp of Ronal d Reagans Presi dency. 33 He steadi l y became
trapped by hi s pessi mi sti c eschatol ogy, by hi s negati ve vi ew of bi bl i cal
l aw, and by hi s hal fway house apol ogeti c methodol ogy (part neutral -
ground rati onal i sm, part Van Ti l l i an presupposi ti onal i i m). He was
a transi ti onal fi gure, but an i mportant one for a decade and a hal f.
Why the Silence?
He borrowed from Van Ti l s apol ogeti c methodol ogy, under
whom he had studi ed at Westmi nster Semi nary i n the mi d-1930s,
and al so from R. J. Rushdoonys wri ti ngs of the 1960s and earl y
1970s, but he never gave ei ther of them credi t i n hi s footnotes and
bi bl i ographi es. (See bel ow, The Case of the Mi ssi ng Footnotes.
n
)
Thi s i ndi cates that he was nervous about hi s rel i ance on thei r hi ghl y
controversi al work. S* Footnotes or not, however, there i s l i ttl e doubt,
33. Gary North, The I ntel l ectual Schi zophreni a of the New Chri sti an Ri ght;
Chri sti ani ~ and Ci oi l i zatzon, 1 (1982), pp. 1-40, The key event i n the l i fe of that move-
ment was the Nati onal Affai rs Bri efi ng Conference that was hel d i n Dal l as i n l ate
summer, 1980. Bri ef i ndeed !
34. LAbri Tapes used to make avai l abl e a set of three di scussi ons by Rev.
Schaeffer enti tl ed Rel ati vi sm: The Real Enemy. The fi rst two di scussi ons (two
hours each) were a survey of the fi rst (unpagi nated, spi ral -bound) edi ti on of Rush-
doonys This I ndependent Republic, whi ch Schaeffer l i ked very much at the ti me. Thi s
i s referred to by Ronal d A. Wel l s, who says that when he vi si ted LAbri i n the 1960s,
and asked about Rev. Schaeffers vi ews on Ameri can hi story, a staff member referred
hl m to thi s taped di scussi on of This I ndependent Republic. Wel l s, Schaeffer on Amer-
i ~a, Rejections on Francis Schaeff~, p. 234.
The thi rd di scussi on took pl ace i n 1964, the ni ght Barry Gol dwater l ost the Presi -
denti al el ecti on. I t i s most reveal i ng. Rev. Schaeffer repeatedl y stated that Johnsons
el ectoral vi ctory showed the truth of what he had taught at LAbri , that i f modern
man i s gi ven a cl ear choi ce between good and evi l , he wi l l choose evi l . Rev.
Schaeffers strongl y conservati ve pol i ti cal vi ews were not i mmedi atel y apparent i n
hi s James Si re-edi ted earl y books, but once they became more vi si bl e, he ceased to
be the darl i ng of the neo-evangel i cal , I nterVarsi ty crowd.
176 ~ POLI TI CAL POLYTHEI SM
as Forrest Bai rd concl udes, that Schaeffer was heavi l y i nfl uenced by
Van Ti l .3
5
When, toward the end of hi s career, hi s son Franky qui te
properl y radi cal i zed hi m regardi ng the ethi cal i ssue of l egal i zed
aborti on, he began to move from hi s stri ctl y i ntel l ectual cri ti que of
humani st ci vi l i zati on i nto soci al acti vi sm. He wrote The Great Evan-
gelical Disa$ter (Crossway, 1983), an attack on the soci al and pol i ti cal
apathy of Ameri can evangel i cal churches. Thi s al i enated many of
hi s fol l owers. A year l ater, he di ed of cancer .3G
Nei ther he nor hi s son Franky ever resol ved the i mmense contra-
di cti on i n thei r attempt to create an i ntel l ectual defense of Chri sti an
acti vi sm whi l e si mul taneousl y denyi ng bi bl i cal l aw and postmi l l en-
ni al i sm, and al so whi l e stayi ng di screetl y qui et about the i nsti tu-
ti onal Church and the sacraments. The father di ed i n the summer of
1984 wi thout suggesti ng any resol uti on to the theol ogi cal di l emma
that hi s wri ti ngs had created. Eventual l y, thi s contradi cti on over-
whel med the son. I n the fal l of 1984, Franky cancel l ed al l hi s future
Chri sti an audi ence speaki ng engagements, and he di sbanded hi s
own C/zri sti arz xl cti ui ~t tabl oi d newspaper a few months l ater. He sol d
the tabl oi ds mai l i ng l i st and then di sappeared from the evangel i cal
scene i n order to produce an atroci ous R-rated, teenage vi ol ence
moti on pi cture, Wired to Kill, that was rel eased i n 1987 and fl opped
fi nanci al l y, fortunatel y, because al most nobody went to see i t. The
fi l m recei ved scathi ng revi ews by Chri sti an fi l m cri ti cs for i ts need-
l ess bl oodshed and i ts l ack of any Chri sti an theme. By the grace of
God, i t was a total economi c fai l ure i n theaters, and the i nvestors
l ost thei r money. 37 Chri sti an fi l m cri ti c Ted Baehr wrote: So, i n the
end, thi s i s a humani sti c fi l m about humani sti c despai r, showi ng no
35. Bai rd, Schaeffers I ntel l ectual Roots, Rejections, p. 64.
36. I met Schaeffer twi ce, the fi rst ti me i n l ate 1963 or earl y 1964 i n the den of
Rev. Ri chard Gray i n Pennsyl vani a, where he di scussed hi s mi ni stry wi th a few
semi nari ans, and agai n i n l ate 1982 at a pri vate meeti ng at Pat Robertsons Vi rgi ni a
Beach headquarters. Rev. Robertson had i nvi ted me, Schaeffer, Franky, and l awyer
John Whi tehead to advi se hi m regardi ng programs that CBN Uni versi ty coul d
l aunch. I wrote a paper for hi m whi ch was l ater publ i shed as Levers, Ful crums,
and Hornets, C/zri ~ti ani ty and Ci vi l i zati on, 3 (1983), pp. 401-31. As far as I know, Rev.
Robertson never adopted any of our suggesti ons. Rev. Fal wel l di d; hi s Li berty Uni -
versi tys vi deotape-based home col l ege educati on program was devel oped after Fal -
wel l s assi stant, Ron Godwi n, read the essay and adopted i ts educati onal strategy.
37. I know. I was one of them. I n retrospect. i t i s understandabl e whv Frankv
. . ,
asked us to i nvest wi thout readi ng the screenpl ay i n advance. I t i s not ful l y under-
standabl e why we were al l so fool i sh as to i nvest, screenpl ay unread. I n any case, far
better that we l ost our money than to have had l ots of peopl e see thi s di sastrous movi e.
HalJ way Covenant Social Criticism 177
way out, no al ternati ve. . . . Stay away from Wired to Kill unl ess
you want to weep at how an opportuni ty for Chri sti an fi l mmakers
was thrown away.ss Franky coul d not sustai n the theol ogi cal battl e
wi thout the i nspi ri ng presence of hi s father and wi thout bi bl i cal l aw,
As we shal l see, nei ther coul d C. Everett Koop.
Religious~ Neutral Capitalism
I t i s not an acci dent that Frankys edi ted col l ecti on of essays, I s
Capitalism Christian? (Crossway, 1985), contai ns not one essay show-
i ng the wel l -known Chri sti an roots of capi tal i sm. Of i ts seventeen
chapters and fi ve appendi xes, most are wri tten by sel f-consci ous hu-
mani sts. Part Fi ve of the book does i ncl ude essays by Chri sti an
authors. These essays tel l us what does not work soci al i sm and eco-
nomi c i nterventi oni sm by the State but they do not tel l us what
economi c program i s bi bl i cal l y i ncumbent on Chri sti ans to pursue as
a systemati c repl acement for the modern wel fare State. The books
ti tl e asks a questi on whi ch i n fact i s never deal t wi th by any of the
essays: I s capi tal i sm Chri sti an? Thi s book i s an unbapti zed defense
of anti -soci al i st secul ar humani sm, whi ch Franky cal l s democrati c
capi tal i sm and pl ural i sm.
I f capi tal i sm i s not Chri sti an, why shoul d Chri sti ans concern
themsel ves very much about defendi ng i t? I f i t i s not worth de-
fendi ng i n the name of Jesus Chri st and the Bi bl e, why shoul d Chri s-
ti ans devote very much ti me, energy, and money i n comi ng to i ts
rescue? I f capi tal i sm i s nothi ng more than a system that works wel l
to make more peopl e weal thi er, why shoul d Chri sti ans regard i t as
any more cruci al to thei r l i ves than the next el ecti on or some new
technol ogi cal devel opment, i .e., onl y margi nal l y i mportant i n the
overal l devel opment of Gods ki ngdom? Capi tal i sm may be onl y a
bri ef hi stori cal force that wi l l be transcended a tradi ti onal cri ti ci sm
made by most soci al i sts. These are a few obvi ous practi cal questi ons.
There are al so cruci al theoreti cal and hi stori cal questi ons. I f cap-
i tal i sm i s not Chri sti an, then why di d i t ari se onl y i n the Chri sti an
West? I f capi tal i sm works, then by what standard shoul d we eval u-
ate i t? I f i t works better than al l other economi c systems, why are al l
the rest of them equal l y Chri sti an, meani ng equal l y non-Chri sti an,
meani ng equal l y neutral theol ogi cal l y? And how does i t happen that
Chri sti ani ty, whi ch i s the onl y true rel i gi on, and the onl y rel i gi on
38. Ted Baehr, The Mouie C& Vi&o Guid for Christian Families (Nashvi l l e, Tennessee:
Thomas Nel son Sons, 1987), p. 213.
that works eternal l y, i s not the onl y possi bl e source of the best sys-
tem of economi cs i n mans hi story? Coul d i t be that there i s no fi xed
rel ati onshi p between covenantal fai thful ness and external bl essi ngs?
Coul d i t be that there i s no covenanta.1 rel ati onshi p between Chri sti -
ani ty and economi c freedom, whi ch i s on$ produced by free market
capi tal i sm? Coul d Chri sti ani ty be that i rrel evant soci al l y?
Fr anky and hi s authors di d not ask any of the questi ons, because
(sel ect one): 1) most of them are not Chri sti ans; 2) none of them be-
l i eves i n the bi bl i cal covenant sancti ons for soci ety (Deut. 28); 3)
they have no answers to these questi ons; 4) they forgot the answers;
5) they are scared to death of appeari ng to be theonomi sts; 6) al l of
the above.
Franky Schaeffer came to thi s embarrassi ng posi ti on because
both he and hi s father systemati cal l y refused to defend the i dea of an
expl i ci tl y Chri sti an economi cs an economi c system that i s sel f-
consci ousl y based on Ol d Testament l aw. He cal l ed for a study of the
economi c evi dence, as i f such evi dence were neutral , as i f rel i gi ous
presupposi ti ons do not control every persons i nterpretati on of evi -
dence, as i f he had forgotten the subti tl e of hi s book, A Timefor Anger:
The Myth of Neutralip (Crossway, 1982). Once agai n, he was the i ntel -
l ectual hei r of hi s fathers hosti l i ty to Van Ti l s ri gorousl y presupposi -
ti onal apol ogeti c method. Franky wrote that we must then l ook
about us and deci de on the basi s of evi dence, not i deol ogy, what eco-
nomi c systems presentl y and real i sti cal l y avai l abl e best provi de for
the needs of most peopl e.
~ w When he sai d i deol ogy, he al so meant
theol ogy. I t was the same argument used by the pro-aborti oni sts:
Let us just l ook as neutral observers at the evi dence to see whether
thi s or that unborn chi l d shoul d be murdered. Let us appeal to evi -
dence, not i deol ogy. The proper Chri sti an response must al ways be:
Let us appeal to the l aw of God, not to the evi dence sel ected by hu-
mani st economi sts i n terms of the rel i gi ous presupposi ti ons of secu-
l ar humani sts. I n the books bi bl i ography, there i s no menti on of
me, Rushdoony, E. L. Hebden Tayl or,* or any other person even
remotel y connected wi th Chri sti an Reconstructi on.
39. Franky Schaeffer, I ntroducti on, i n Franky Schaeffer (cd. ), 1s Capi tal i sm Chtitian?
(Westchester, I l l i noi s: Crossway Books, 1985), p. xxvi i .
40. Author of Economics Morwy and Banking (Nutl ey, New Jersey: Crai g Press,
1978).
lf Not Biblical Law, Ttien What?A~
I t does not matter how many ti mes a person assures us that he i s
i n favor of Chri sti an ci vi l i zati on and opposed to the humani sti c myth
of neutral i ty. I f he does not affi rm the conti nui ng val i di ty of the bi bl i -
cal case l aws, hi s affi rmati on i n favor of Chri sti an ci vi l i zati on i s i n
vai n, i ntel l ectual l y speaki ng. 42 At some poi nt, hi s deni al of the con-
ti nui ng moral and~udicial authori ty of Gods reveal ed l aw wi l l l ogi c-
al l y force hi m to affi rm some form of natural l aw theory or common-
ground reasoni ng, i .e., the myth of neutral i ty. He may prefer for
matters of personal taste to deny the myth of neutral i ty when wri ti ng
about what goes on i nsi de the aborti oni sts offi ce, but i f he enters the
cl assroom or the pul pi t and publ i cl y affi rms democrati c pl ural i sm as
Chri sti ani tys onl y temporal goal for soci ety rather than as merel y
a temporary and transi ti onal hi stori cal phenomenon, then he i s i n
pri nci pl e an ethi cal and epi stemol ogi cal humani st. He speaks wi th a
forked tongue. I f he deni es the conti nui ng val i di ty of the reveal ed
l aw of God, he i s i mpl i ci tl y and operational@ a humani st. Democrati c
pl ural i sm i s hi s true rel i gi on, not bi bl i cal Chri sti ani ty.
Franky Schaeffer deni es the conti nui ng l aw of God for soci ety.
Chri sti ans, of all people, do not want a theocracy. The i dea of theocracy
denotes the l ack of checks and bal ances.As Thi s statement, i f taken
at face val ue, i s a di rect attack on God, for i t was God who establ i shed
theocrati c ci vi l government i n anci ent I srael , as wel l as theocrati c fam-
i l y government and theocrati c Church government. Was Gods l aw for
I srael i nherentl y tyranni cal because i t was i nherentl y unbal anced? 44
Yet i f Schaeffers statement i s not taken at face val ue, i t makes no sense
at al l . Does he thi nk that the concept of i nsti tuti onal checks and bal -
ances came from somewhere other than the Ol d Testament? Does he
thi nk that the Greeks or Remans i nvented the i dea of ci ti zenshi p
whi ch i s protected by pol i ti cal checks and bal ances? I f so, he ought
to r ead Fustel de Coul anges masterpi ece, The Ancient City (1864).
41. For the ori gi n of thi s rhetori cal phrase, see Franky Schaeffer, Bad News for
Modern Man: An Agenda for Christian Actiuixm (Westchester, I l l i noi s: Crossway, 1984),
pp. 54-55,
42. Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute
43. Schaeffer, Bad News, p. 104. He means connotes, not denotes.
44. God i s a Tri ni ty, three yet one. Thus, bi bl i cal theocracy al ways has a di vi si on
of governmental powers: Church, State, and fami l y. I n each, the executi ve possesses
more authori ty than hi s advi sors, but not excl usi ve authori ty. Thi s same ki nd of bal -
ance exi sted i n the theocraci es of the Ol d Testament.
Hi s father was equal l y hosti l e to the bi bl i cal theocrati c i deal .45
Wrote Franci s Schaeffer concerni ng Chri sti an ci vi l government:
I n the Ol d Testament there was a theocracy commanded by God. I n the
New Testament, wi th the church bei ng made up of Jews and Genti l es, and
spreadi ng al l over the known worl d from I ndi a to Spai n i n one generati on,
the church was i ts own enti ty. There i s no New Testament basi s for a l i nk-
i ng of chur ch and state unti l Chr i st, the Ki ng r etur ns. The whol e Constan-
ti ne mental i ty from the fourth century up to our day was a mi stake. Con-
stanti ne, as the Roman Emperor, i n 313 ended the persecuti on of Chri s-
ti ans. Unfortunatel y, the support he gave to the church l ed by 381 to the en-
forci ng of Chri sti ani ty, by Theodosi us I , as the offi ci al state rel i gi on. Mak-
i ng Chri sti ani ty the offi ci al state rel i gi on opened the way for confusi on up
ti l l our own day. There have been ti mes of very good government when thi s
i nterrel ati onshi p of church and state has been present. But through the cen-
turi es i t has caused great confusi on between l oyal ty to the state and l oyal ty
to Chri st, between patri oti sm and bei ng a Chri sti an.
We must not confuse the Ki ngdom of God wi th our country. To say i t
another way: We shoul d not wrap Chri sti ani ty i n our nati onal fl ag.46
What he real l y means, of course, i s that we should not wrap our na-
tion in Christianip%$ag. But every nati on must be wrapped i n some
rel i gi ous fl ag. There i s no rel i gi ous or ethi cal neutral i ty, after al l . So,
we must ask oursel ves, what fl ag di d Franci s Schaeffer prefer that we
wrap our nati on i n? He never sai d, but si nce there i s no neutral i ty,
there wi l l al ways be a fl ag (i .e., a publ i c symbol of pol i ti cal sover-
ei gnty). I t fl i es hi gh today i n the name of neutral i ty, fl appi ng over
the publ i c school system. I t fl i es hi gh every ti me a nati on defaul ts
from an expl i ci t rel i gi on. That fl ag i s the fl ag of secul ar humani sm.
Franci s Schaeffer vs. the Nati onal Covenant
There are four major probl ems i n the passage ci ted above. First,
noti ce the confusi ng use of the word church i n hi s argument. He
rejected any l i nk (undefi ned) between Church (undefi ned) and
State: There i s no New Testament basi s for a l i nki ng of church and
state unti l Chri st, the Ki ng returns. What does he mean by the
word church? Di d he mean the Church as the hi stori c i nsti tuti on
45. For evi dence, see Gary North and Davi d Chi l ton, Apol ogeti cs and Strategy,
Chti sti ani ~ and Civilization, 3 (1983), pp. 116-31.
46. Franci s Schaeffer, A Chr i sti an Man@do(Westchester, I l l i noi s: Crossway, 1981),
p. 121. Thi s statement appears i n The Complete Works, V, pp. 485-86.
whi ch excl usi vel y offers the sacraments? I f so, there i s never a ti me
when Church and State are supposed to be fused (i f thi s i s what he
means by l i nked) i n Gods ki ngdom (ci vi l i zati on), not even i n the
comi ng premi l l enni al ki ngdom that Schaeffer bel i eved i n. Church
and State are separate covenantal i nsti tuti ons. The State i s supposed
to enforce the speci fi ed negati ve sancti ons of bi bl i cal ci vi l l aw by
means of the sword; the Church offers the posi ti ve sancti ons of the
sacraments and enforces i ts di sci pl i ne i n terms of the negati ve sanc-
ti on of wi thhol di ng the sacraments. Schaeffer never got thi s cl ear i n
hi s own mi nd. I f he had, he woul d have had to affi rm the New Cove-
nant l egi ti macy of a theocrati c republ i c.
On the other hand, i f he meant Church as ekklesia cal l ed-out
Chri sti ans then hi s argument offi ci al l y turns the ci vi l government
over to Satan. I f Chri sti ans as citizens are not requi red by God to
bri ng thei r Bi bl e-based vi ews to bear on pol i ti cs, and to pass l egi sl a-
ti on that conforms to Gods reveal ed case l aws, then anti -Chri sti ans
i nheri t al l ci vi l governments by defaul t. Someti mes Schaeffer re-
jected such an i dea, and he cal l ed for Chri sti an pol i ti cal parti ci pa-
ti on, but he al ways rejected the i dea that bi bl i cal l aw i s to be the
model for Chri sti an l egi sl ati on. At other ti mes (such as i n thi s pas-
sage), he affi rmed the separati on of Chri sti ani t y and State by rejec-
ti ng the i dea of a nati onal covenant, for such a covenant cl earl y
necessi tates publ i c obedi ence to bi bl i cal l aw.
Second, what di d he mean by the word l i nked when he wrote:
There i s no New Testament basi s for a l i nki ng of church and state
unti l Chri st, the Ki ng returns? He never sai d what he meant. Di d
he mean a l egal ti e, wi th the i nsti tuti onal Church gi vi ng orders to
ci vi l magi strates? Di d he mean that church membershi p i s requi red
for voti ng, meani ng that onl y Chri sti ans are al l owed to gi ve orders
to ci vi l magi strates? He si mpl y di d not tel l us what he meant. Thi s
necessari l y confuses the reader.
Loyal@ to J esus Christ
Third, he correctl y observed that the fusi on of Chri sti ani ty (not
the i nsti tuti onal Church) and State has caused great confusi on be-
tween I oyal t y to the state and l oyal ty to Chri st, between patri oti sm
and bei ng a Chri sti an. So what? So has the fusi on of fami l y and
Chri sti ani ty, as Jesus predi cted, quoti ng Mi cah 7:6.
Thi nk not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send
peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at vari ance agai nst hi s
father, and the daughter agai nst her mother, and the daughter i n l aw
agai nst her mother i n l aw. And a mans foes shal l be they of hi s own house-
hol d (Matt. 10:34-36).
To paraphrase Schaeffer, through the centuri es i t has caused
great confusi on between l oyal ty to the fami l y and l oyal ty to Chri st,
between bei ng a good fami l y man and bei ng a Chri sti an. The poi nt
i s, deciding these inescapable conzicts of loyalty in favor of J esus Christ is the
essence of loyal~ to J esus. Ther e i s no mor e neutr al i ty i n the r el ati on be-
tween Chri sti ani ty and ci vi l government than between Chri sti ani ty
and fami l y government or Chri sti ani ty and Church government.
Evtvy human institution and human relationship is to be brought under the visi-
ble, covenantal lordship of J esus Christ. There are no exceptions. I f thi s l eads
to confusi on, then the proper sol uti on to such confusi on i s to thi nk
about these probl ems from the poi nt of vi ew of the enti re Bi bl e, Ol d
and New Testaments, rather than to abandon bi bl i cal l aw i n favor of
an i mpl i ci t acceptance of some versi on of Greek natural l aw theory.
W%ose Flag?
Fourth, he sai d, We must not confuse the Ki ngdom of God wi th
our country. To say i t another way: We shoul d not wrap Chri sti ani ty
i n our nati onal fl ag. He was correct, but he del i beratel y fai l ed to
di scuss what the Bi bl e teaches that we shoul d do: wrap our national~ag
in Christianity. We must not confuse the ki ngdom of God wi th our
country, for the ki ngdom of God i s i nternati onal and above al l na-
ti ons,
47
but each Chri sti an shoul d work al l hi s l i fe to do what he can
to l ead hi s busi ness, hi s chi l drens school , hi s fami l y, hi s church, hi s
l ocal communi ty, and hi s country i nto the i nternati onal ki ngdom of
God i n hi story. Thi s i s what i t means to deny the myth of neutral i ty;
i t means affi rmi ng the l egi ti macy of posi ti ve ki ngdom acti vi ti es i n
hi story and then worki ng to achi eve some of them l ocal l y.48 Thi s i s
al so what i t means to pray i n fai th and confi dence, Thy ki ngdom
come. Thy wi l l be done i n earth, as i t i s i n heaven (Matt. 6:10). I f
Jesus di d not expect thi s prayer to be answered i n hi story, He woul d
not have tol d us: Ask, and i t wi l l be gi ven to you; seek, and you wi l l
fi nd; knock, and i t wi l l be opened to you (Matt. 7:7).
47. Gar y DeMar , Ruler of the Natiom: Biblical Blueprints for Govwnmmt (Ft. Wor th,
Texas: Domi ni on Press, 1987); Gary North, Healer of the Nations: Bibhcal Bluzprintsfo?
I ntonational Relations (Ft. Worth, Texas: Domi ni on Press, 1987).
48. For an extended cr i ti que of Rev. Schaeffers attack on theocr acy, see Gar y
North and Davi d Chi l ton, Apol ogeti cs and Strategy: OP. cit., pp. 116-31.
Ha@ay Covenant Social Criticism 183
Schaeffers di sci pl e-bi ographer has wri tten: True Chri sti ani ty
seeks pl ural i sm wi thi n soci ety, a pl ural i sm that al l ows for the free
di scussi on of i deas i n a true democracy, where there i s tremendous
freedom, but wi thi n the moral boundari es set by God i n the Bi bl e.
Chri sti ans bel i eve that i n the marketpl ace of i deas they can demon-
strate the superi ori ty of Chri sti an i deas; therefore, Chri sti ans are not
afrai d to di scuss thei r bel i efs wi th others and promote freedom of
speech. Chri sti ani ty teaches that God has gi ven us moral boundari es
for the publ i c good or for the good of soci ety, as wel l as for the good
of each i ndi vi dual . Chri sti ans stand up for bi bl i cal absol utes i n the
essenti al areas of publ i c moral i ty, because we know that i n doi ng so
we are preservi ng good government, our soci ety, and our cul ture.49
Hear, hear! Thi s i s the correct bi bl i cal vi ew, as stated. The judi ci al
and pol i ti cal probl em comes when we get down to that cruci al
cl ause, wi thi n the moral boundari es set by God i n the Bi bl e. What
moral boundaries? How do we gai n publ i c agreement about them? Do
we appeal to natural l aw? To exi stenti al i sm? To the wi l l of the peo-
pl e? What standards? The whol e Bi bl e, Ol d and New Testaments? Or
mans autonomous mi nd? Whi ch absolutes? (There are l ots of abso-
l utes i n the Bi bl e.) Then come addi ti onal questi ons. Whi ch areas of
publ i c moral i ty are essenti al ? How are the appropri ate bi bl i cal stan-
dards to be enforced? Thi s was the probl em of pol i ti cal soverei gnty
that Schaeffer avoi ded deal i ng wi th i n detai l throughout hi s enti re
career, for he coul d see where the answer to such questi oni ng must
eventual l y l ead: to theocracy, or to natural l aw phi l osophy, or to raw
total i tari an power. I l l ogi cal l y, he deni ed al l three, and hi s movement
di si ntegrated wi thi n four years of hi s death.
The Unresolved Tmsion
There was an unresol ved tensi on i n hi s l ater wri ti ngs regardi ng
pol i ti cal questi ons, just as there had been an unresol ved tensi on i n
hi s earl i er phi l osophi cal wri ti ngs: the presupposi ti on of the Bi bl e as
the starti ng poi nt of al l knowl edge (revel ati onal apol ogeti cs) vs. the
acceptance of the autonomous human mi nd as the judge of al l
knowl edge (neutral common-ground apol ogeti cs). Schaeffer used a
hal fi vay house apol ogeti c method, nei ther ful l y presupposi ti onal nor
ful l y evi denti al . Bai rds assessment needs correcti on: . . . Schaeffer
accepted Van Ti l s presupposi ti onal i sm, though he pl aced more em-
49. Parkhurst, Francis Scha#er, pp. 131-32.
phasi s on the common ground the bel i ever has wi th the nonbel i ever.so
What Van Ti l taught was that there i s no common philosophical
ground between covenant-breakers and covenant-keepers; there i s
onl y the common ground of the image of God in man. The covenant-
breaker sees, but represses, the truth of Gods speci al and natural rev-
el ati on to hi m (Rem. 1:18-22). Thus, i t i s not surpri si ng that SchaeffePs
hal fway covenant apol ogeti cs l ed to confusi on. Nor i s i t sur pr i si ng
that, as Bai rd remarks, that Schaeffer al ways seemed uncomfor ta-
bl e when cornered on the questi on of hi s apol ogeti c approach.51
I t i s i nteresti ng that Schaeffers escape hatch wi th respect to hi s
vague apol ogeti c methodol ogy was the same as Van Ti l s escape
hatch regardi ng eschatol ogy and bi bl i cal l aw: I ts not my fi el d!
Bai rd reports: Asked at a l arge meeti ng whether he was a presuppo-
si ti onal i st or an evi denti al i st, Schaeffer repl i ed, I m nei ther. I m not
an evi denti al i st or a presupposi ti onal i st. Youre tryi ng to press me
i nto the category of a theol ogi cal apol ogi st, whi ch I m real l y not. I m
not an academi c, schol asti c apol ogi st. My i nterest i s evangel i sm. 5
2
Schaeffers answer was decepti ve, perhaps even sel f-decepti ve,
just as Van Ti l s was. I t was no more possi bl e for Schaeffer to sepa-
rate hi s rel i gi ous-phi l osophi cal cri ti que of twenti eth-century human-
i sm from the questi on of apol ogeti c methodol ogy than i t was for Van
Ti l to separate hi s apol ogeti cs from the questi ons of bi bl i cal l aw and
eschatol ogy. Hol l i nger i s correct: Franci s Schaeffer was fi rst and fore-
most an apol ogi st, a defender of the Chri sti an fai th to the twenti eth-
century mi nd.53 Hi s i nterest was evangel i sm, but hi s chosen mi s-
si on fi el d was the worl d of academi c schol arshi p, art, and l i terature.
He di d not get i nvi ted to speak at Oxford Uni versi ty because he was
a country boy preacher. Country boy preachers have to content
themsel ves wi th satel l i te mi ni stri es, Lear jets, and col l eges named
after them.
Schaeffers few remai ni ng i nsti tuti onal hei rs have no sel f-consci ous
apol ogeti c approach, and they have wi l l i ng] y adopted the phi l osophy
of permanent pol i ti cal pl ural i sm, the phi l osophi cal basi s of whi ch i s
50. Bai rd, Schaeffers I ntel l ectual Roots, Rg?ecti om, p. 64.
51. I dem.
52. Zdem. Bai rd ci tes Jack Rogers, Franci s Schaeffer: The Promi se and the Prob-
l em, Rformed Journal (May 1977), pp. 12-13. Thi s response i s cl ear, to the poi nt,
and unashamed. I t i s far better than Gordon R. Lewi s attempt to defend aca-
demi cal l y Schaeffers methodol ogy agai nst Van Ti l s presupposi ti onal i sm. See
Lewi s, Schaeffers Apol ogeti c Methodol ogy, i n R@ections, ch. 3.
53. Denni s P. Hol l i nger, Schaeffer on Ethi cs, ibid., p, 245.
ei ther a forgotten remnant of pre-Darwi ni an natural l aw theory or
el se a systemati c deni al of permanent l aw (exi stenti al i sm). They
have adopted pol i ti cal pl ural i sm because th~ do not believe that Christians
can ever win in history. They are tryi ng to buy ti me by l easi ng out the
crown ri ghts of Ki ng Jesus to the hi ghest bi dder. They are wi l l i ng to
rel y on judi ci al deci si ons made by the second-rate humani sts of the
democrati c West i n preference to procl ai mi ng the l egi ti macy of bi bl i -
cal theocracy, yet these Western humani sts are busy sel l i ng out the
West to the fi rst-rate humani sts behi nd the I ron Curtai n. 54
The Myth of Neutrality
By denyi ng the bi bl i cal l egi ti macy of the i dea of the nati onal cov-
enant, Schaeffer was necessari l y procl ai mi ng the myth of neutral i ty,
the myth of natural l aw, and the myth of permanent pol i ti cal
pl ural i sm. Ul ti matel y, thi s i s a si ngl e myth: the myth of equal time for
Satan. There i s no l ogi cal escape from thi s concl usi on. I f neutral i ty i s
a myth, then there i s a ful l -scal e war goi ng on between Jesus Chri st
and Satan, between Jesus ki ngdom and Satans empi re, between
Jesus l aw and Satans counterfei t l aws. Thi s i s why Schaeffer,
despi te occasi onal l anguage to the contrary, never broke wi th Greek
natural l aw theory. Thi s i s why hi s publ i shed fol l owers sti l l publ i cl y
procl ai m the i deal of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm through natural l aw,
al though they refuse to use the phrase natural l aw. The decepti on
conti nues.
The Cancer of Rel ati vi sm
Franci s Schaeffer hated the i nevi tabl e resul t of pol i ti cal pl ural -
i sm: relativism. What he refused to admi t anywhere i n hi s wri ti ngs
was that thi s rel ati vi sm has been i mpl i ci t i n pl ural i sm from the be-
gi nni ng. The fol l owi ng extract from A Christian Manfesto reveal s hi s
probl em. The transi ti on from what i s descri bed i n the fi rst paragraph
to what i s descri bed i n the second was not the resul t of a di sconti nu-
ous hi stori cal break; i t was the resul t of a conti nuous phi l osophi cal
devel opment:
54. Jean Fran50i s Revel , How Democracies Perish (Garden Ci ty, New York:
Doubl eday, 1984); Al eksandr Sol zheni tsyn, A Worl d Spl i t Apart (1978), Sol.henitsyn
at Harvard (Washi ngton, D. C.: Ethi cs and Publ i c Pol i cy Center, 1980); Sol zheni tsyn,
Mi sconcepti ons about Russi a Are a Threat to Ameri ca, Foreign Affairs (Spri ng
1980). Cf. Nor th, Healer of the Nattom, ch. 8.
186. POLI TI CAL POLYTHEI SM
Al ong wi th the decl i ne of the Judeo-Chri sti an consensus we have come
to a new defi ni ti on and connotati on of pl ural i sm. Unti l recentl y i t meant
that the Chri sti ani ty fl owi ng from the Reformati on i s not now as domi nant
i n the country and i n soci ety as i t was i n the earl y days of the nati on. After
about 1848 the great i nfl ux of i mmi grants to the Uni ted States meant a
sharp i ncrease i n vi ewpoi nts not shaped by Reformati on Chri sti ani ty. Thi s, of
course, i s the si tuati on whi ch exi sts today. Thus as we stand for rel i gi ous free-
dom today, we need to real i ze that thi s must i ncl ude a general rel i gi ous free-
dom from the control of the state for al l rel i gi on. I t wi l l not mean just freedom
for those who are Chri sti ans. I t i s then up to Chri sti ans to show that Chri s-
ti ani ty i s the Truth of total real i ty i n the open marketpl ace of freedom.
Thi s greater mi xture i n the Uni ted States, however, i s now used as an
excuse for the new meani ng and connotati on of pl ural i sm. I t now i s used to
mean that al l types of si tuati ons are spread out before us, and that i t real l y
i s up to each i ndi vi dual to grab one or the other on the way past, accordi ng
to the whi m of personal preference. What you take i s onl y a matter of per-
sonal choi ce, wi th one choi ce as val i d as another. Pl ural i sm has come to
mean that everythi ng i s acceptabl e. Thi s new concept of pl ural i sm suddenl y
i s everywhere. There i s no ri ght or wrong; i t i s just a matter of your per-
sonal preference. . . . Thi s new defi ni ti on and connotati on of pl ural i sm i s
presented i n many forms, not onl y i n personal ethi cs, but i n soci etys ethi cs
and i n choi ces concerni ng l aw. 55
To whi ch I repl y: What el se di d you expect? That the phi l oso-
phy of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm coul d protect a soci ety agai nst a wave of
i mmi grants i f ci vi l l aw grants them al l the ri ght to vote? Woul d you
expect to be abl e to protect the covenantal i ntegri ty of a church i f
anyone coul d wal k i n, joi n the church, and vote, no matter what he
bel i eved theol ogi cal l y? Di d you thi nk i t i s possi bl e to restri ct rel ati v-
i sm i n personal ethi cs to the heart of man, and not have i t become
rel ati vi sm i n soci al ethi cs?
Schaeffer was trapped by the terms of hi s own phi l osophy. He, as
i s true of al l Chri sti an soci al anti nomi ans, real l y di d bel i eve that the
personal ethi cs of Chri sti ani ty need not, and should not, become the
excl usi ve judi ci al foundati on for soci ety i n general and ci vi l govern-
ment i n parti cul ar. Thus, he had to bel i eve that the i nherent rel ati v-
i sm of humani sms per$onal ethi cs woul d not i nevi tabl y i nvade and
capture any ci vi l government judi ci al l y founded on the pri nci pl e of
pol i ti cal pl ural i sm, whi ch i s i tsel f nothi ng more than the pol i ti cal
phi l osophy of rel ati vi sm wri t l arge. He real l y di d bel i eve that i t i s
55. Schaeffer, Christian Man festo, pp. 45-47; Complete Works, V, p. 440.
possi bl e, phi l osophi cal l y and perhaps even hi stori cal l y, to affi rm the
i ndependence of the State from the requi rements of bi bl i cal l aw i n
the name of an i nherentl y undefi nabl e moral l aw, yet si mul taneousl y
preserve the i ntegri ty of the Church from the same pri nci pl e of
pl ural i sm (anti nomi ani sm) that one has al ready affi rmed as judi -
ci al l y bi ndi ng on the State.
What Schaeffer refused to face was that thi s new pl ural i sm i s i n
fact the ol d pl ural i sm become consi stent. When the common grace
of God was removed from natural l aw theory, as Darwi ni sm made
i ts rapi d worl dwi de conquest, the underl yi ng rel ati vi sm of natural
mans phi l osophy became vi si bl e. I t had al ways been rel ati vi sti c, but
i t has become vi si bl y so i n the twenti eth century. Schaeffer fought
thi s humani sti c devel opment of rel ati vi sm i n the fi el ds of personal
ethi cs, art, l i terature, phi l osophy, and popul ar cul ture. He di d not
fi ght i t coul d not fi ght i t i n the fi el d of pol i ti cal acti on, gi ven hi s
vi ew of the rel i gi ousl y neutral State. And when i t was al l over, hi s
son made a ghastl y R-rated, vi ol ence-fi l l ed movi e that contai ned no
expl i ci tl y Chri sti an message of redempti on. Thi s was the fate of hi s
hal fway covenant soci al cri ti ci sm: rel ati vi sm i nvaded hi s own house-
hol d by means of the epi stemol ogi cal and ethi cal drawbri dge that he
l eft down i n the fi el d of pol i ti cal theory. The pri nci pl e of the l eaven
means that the confl i ct i s total . There is no neutrality.
The Professors Knee-Jerk Pol i ti cal Pl ural i sm
Schaeffer has been cri ti ci zed i n recent years by neo-evangel i cal
schol ars who thi nk that he di d not go far enough i n procl ai mi ng the
wonders of pl ural i sm. They see hi m as a ki nd of cl oset theocrat,
whereas we theocrats see hi m as the Pi ed Pi per of Pl ural i sm. The
man i n the col l apsi ng mi ddl e i s l i ke a fi sh caught between two cats. 56
Wells
I t i s i nteresti ng to note that even Schaeffers mi l d observati on
concerni ng the effects of l ate ni neteenth-century i mmi grati on out-
rages Cal vi n Col l ege hi stori an Ronal d A. Wel l s. Whi l e he does not
name the I ri sh speci fi cal l y, Schaeffer suggests that 1848 i s a turni ng
year, a year i n whi ch the mass mi grati on from fami ne-ri dden I rel and
began. Here one may have a vesti gi al remai n of that vi rul ent Protes-
56. I have stol en Ben Frankl i ns remark: A man caught between two l awyers i s
l i ke a fi sh caught between two cats.
tantdi sease: Angl o-S=on mti -Cathol i ci sm. Thi s i s appal l i ng. . . .
57
What Schaeffer may haue meant i s conjectural . What we do have
here i s the case of a professi onal hi stori an wi th a cl ouded memory for
dates and facts. The great mi grati on to the Uni ted States di d i ndeed
begi n i n 1848, and i t accel erated wi th the devel opment of the steam-
shi p i n the 1870s. I t was not just the I ri sh fami ne that swel l ed the
seaboard ci ti es of the East. What does not seem to have occurred to
Professor Wel l s i s that 1848 was al so the year of the soci al i st revol u-
ti ons of Conti nental Europe, the year of Marxs Communist Mant$esto.
Marx and Engel s cel ebrated these revol uti ons, and were saddened
that they di d not tri umph and di d not go far enough i n thei r radi cal -
i sm. 58 I n the wake of the defeat of those revol uti ons by conservati ve
forces, several thousand humani st, soci al i st, and anti -Chri sti an
pol i ti cal refugees streamed i nto the Uni ted States, accompani ed by
three quarters of a mi l l i on peasants, not al l I ri sh, who had al so de-
ci ded that i t was ti me for a change. 59 Few of the i mmi grants were
revol uti onari es; most were Northern Europeans. But 1848 i s the
obvi ous year to date the begi nni ng of the change i n the rel i gi ous
make-up of the Ameri can voter. o The year 1854 was the peak year
for i mmi grati on unti l 1873, wi th over 400,000 i mmi grants enteri ng
the U. S.61 Hi stori an Marcus Lee Hansen cal l s the 1850s The Great
Mi gr ati on.
Gz
Schaeffer was ri ght on target hi stori cal l y. Professor
Wel l s i gnores al l thi s, preferri ng i nstead to tar and feather Schaeffer
posthumousl y wi th the accusati on of hi s possi bl e anti -I ri sh Know-
Nothi ngi sm.Gs My response to hi m i s what he sai d of Schaeffer:
Thi s i s appal l i ng. Judi ci ousness wi th regard to hi stori cal facts i s not
57. Wel l s, Schaeffer on Ameri ca, Rejections, p. 236.
58. Karl Marx, The Class Stmggles i n Frame, 1848-1850 (1850), i n Karl Marx and
Frederi ck Engel s, Collected Works (New York: I nternati onal Publ i shers, 1978), vol .
10, pp. 48-145; Engel s, Two Ymrs of a Revolution; 1848 and 1849 (1850), i n ibid., pp.
353-69. Cf. Jean Si gmann, 1848: The Romantic and Democratic Revolutions in Europe
(New York: Harper & Row, [1970] 1973); Frank Eyck (cd.), The Revolutions of
1848-49 (New Yor k: Bar nes & Nobl e, 1972).
59. Marcus Lee Hansen, The Atlantic Migration, 1607-1860 (New York: Harper
Torchbooks, [1940] 1961), p. 274.
60. I btd. , ch. 12.
61. I bid., p. 303.
62. I bid., ch. 13.
63. The Ameri can Party, a mi nor, anti -i mmi grati on pol i ti cal party of the 1850s,
was known as the Know-Nothi ng Party, for whenever questi oned about i t, i ts mem-
bers i nsi sted that they knew nothi ng. I ts l ack of i mportance i s testi fi ed to by the l ack
of modern monographs on i t wri tten by tenure-hungry hi stori ans.
characteri sti c of modern Chri sti an cl assroom defenders of pol i ti cal
pl ural i sm, as we shal l agai n see i n Chapter 5.
Wel l s and hi s pol i ti cal l y l i beral campus col l eagues i gnore many
thi ngs besi des the hi stori cal facts. They i gnore the enormous prob-
l em of evangel i sm that ni neteenth-century Ameri can Chri sti ans
faced, a battl e for the heart of the Uni ted States and thereby for
Western ci vi l i zati on. Secul ar hi stori ans are someti mes far more sen-
si ti ve to thi s probl em. Hi stori an Paul Kl eppner cal l s attenti on to a
Methodi st conference statement i n 1891 whi ch descri bed the probl em
wel l : Unsaved mi l l i ons of forei gners are comi ng to our shores, forc-
i ng upon us one of the greatest mi ssi onary questi ons of modern
evangel i sm, vi z.: shal l Ameri ca be unameri cani zed, or shal l mi l -
l i ons of North Ameri can ci ti zens be brought i nto sympathy wi th our
Chri sti an i nsti tuti ons through the church of Jesus Chr i st?G4
I t al so shoul d be noted that duri ng the era i n whi ch Chri sti ani ty
was domi nant pol i ti cal l y i n the Uni ted States, there was wi de-open
i mmi grati on. I t was onl y after modern democrati c humani sm gai ned
total power at the nati oi i al l evel after Worl d War I that the i mmi -
grati on l aw of 1924 cl osed the door of sanctuary to most forei gners.
So, the probl em of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i s i n fact i nternati onal i n both
scope and theory, an inescapable fact that all the defenders of democratic
political pluralism refuse even to mention, let alone deal with. Todays
democrati c pl ural i sts i n every nati on use coerci ve i mmi grati on bar-
ri ers to keep out the great forei gn unwashed who mi ght not fi t i nto
nati onal humani st pl ans. Today, the humani sts screen pri mari l y by
means of race, al though thi s i s hi dden because of the l anguage of an-
nual national i mmi grati on quotas. Thi s r aci al scr eeni ng was qui te
openl y admi tted i n the 1920s, when raci al Darwi ni sm and especi al l y
eugeni cs (geneti c raci al sel ecti on) wer e domi nant i deas. I mmi grat-
i on barri ers, steri l i zati on of retarded peopl e and someti mes even the
poor , and nati onal i ntel l i gence tests al l appear ed at once i n the
Uni ted States, and al l wer e pr omoted i n the name of sci enti fi c
r aci sm humani st pl anned, fi nanced, and del i ver ed. 65 Eugeni cs
64. Minutes of the Maine Conference of the Methodtst Episcopal Ghurch, 1891. Gi tecl by
Paul Kl eppner, The Third Electoral System, 1853-1892. Parties, Voters, and Political Cul -
tures (Chapel Hi l l : Uni versi ty of North Carol i na Press, 1979), p. 198.
65. Al l an Chase, The Legacy of Malthus: The Social Cost OJ the New Schntt$c Racism
(Urbana: Uni versi ty of I l l i noi s Press, 1980), chaps. 10-13, 18-20. For a thought-
provoki ng reconsi derati on of the sci enti fi c ri gor of the sci enti sts who testi fi ed for
Scopes, see Burton W. Fol som, Sci enti fi c Bl unders and the Scopes Tri al , The World
& Z (June 1989), pp. 583-97.
faded i n popul ari ty after the Nazi s gave i t a bad press, but I Qtesti ng
and i mmi grati on l aws are wi th us sti l l . Professor Wel l s i s si l ent on
thi s topi c, too.
Pl ural i sm today i s onl y for those who get through U.S. customs
and pass the ci ti zenshi p exams. (And, I mi ght al so add, get through a
mothers bi rth canal . Margaret Sanger, the founder of the pro-aborti on
Pl anned Parenthood movement, was a dedi cated raci st and eugeni cs
pr omoter .
M A major screeni ng device of mod er n pOhkd pl ural i sm
i s the aborti oni sts kni fe. ) But the i dea that any nati on (other than
I srael ) mi ght l egi ti matel y screen access to the pol l i ng booth i n terms
of statements of rel i gi ous fai th or church membershi p i s consi dered
barbari c by the humani sts and thei r Chri sti an accompl i ces. Yet
every nati on screens access to i ts pol l i ng booths, i .e., the exerci se of
pol i ti cal soverei gnty. The debate ought to be over the bi bl i cal ~ l egi ti -
mate basi s of screeni ng, not the l egi ti macy of screeni ng as such. But
the cl assroom defenders of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm careful l y avoi d men-
ti oni ng thi s poi nt. They refuse to debate. They much prefer to
l aunch factual l y unsupported di atri bes.
Professor Wel l s ci tes Schaeffers sentences: Pl ural i sm has come
to mean that everythi ng i s acceptabl e. The new concept of pl ural i sm
suddenl y i s everywhere. There i s no ri ght or wrong; i t i s just a mat-
ter of your personal preference. Then he comments: But, one asks,
what i s the al ternati ve i n a democrati c soci ety? Does Schaeffer mean
that, gi ven the freedom to advocate Chri sti ani ty (he means prosel y-
ti zati on), Chri sti ans shoul d enforce thei r vi ews by l aw i f peopl e wi l l
not accept Chri sti an bel i ef and behavi or by choi ce?GT To whi ch any
Chri sti an not paral yzed wi th gui l t shoul d repl y: That i s what
Schaeffer shoul d have meant, even i f i t wasnt what he di d mean.
The Engl i sh rul ers i n Hi ndu I ndi a banned the practi ce of suttee,
chari tabl y di sregardi ng an anci ent Hi ndu tradi ti on whi ch requi red
that a wi dow be forci bl y pl aced on her husbands funeral pyre. Prot-
estants and Cathol i cs combi ned pol i ti cal l y at the nati onal l evel i n the
Uni ted States to create l egi sl ati on maki ng i l l egal i n Utah the Mor-
mon practi ce of pol ygamy, and they di d i t i n the name of Chri sti an-
i ty. Woul d you cal l these acti ons i mmoral , Dr. Wel l s? And are you
wi l l i ng to say so i n your cl asses at Cal vi n Col l ege? There i s al so the
questi on of l egal i zed aborti on, a questi on whi ch some Chri sti ans are
66. Geor ge Gr ant, Grand I llusions: The LegaV of Planned Parenthood (Brentwood,
Tennessee: Wol gemuth & Hyatt, 1988), ch. 5.
67. Wel l s, Schaeffer on Ameri ca, R@ectiom, p. 236.
answeri ng by i l l egal l y standi ng i n the doorways of aborti on cl i ni cs. 66
What does Professor Wel l s thi nk a ci vi l l aw i s, i f not the pol i ti cal
act of one group or coal i ti on to use the threat of l egal coerci on i n or-
der to restrai n the behavi or of resi dents and ci ti zens? He admi ts that
i t i s the essence of a soci al contract noti ce, he refuses to refer to
ci vi l government as a covenant i n a modern nati on-state: that we
try to change l aw and practi ces through the l aw courts and by pol i ti -
cal means.69 Preci sel y; and i t i s on~ the Cal vi ni sti c postmi l l enni al i st
who bel i eves that Gods Hol y Spi ri t wi l l surel y transform the hearts
of a majori ty of peopl e the doctri ne of h-resi sti bl e or effi caci ous
gr ace70 to accept Chr i sti ani ty. Si nce thi s conver si on pr ocess hap-
pens progressi vel y i n hi story, Chri sti ans wi l l unquesti onabl y change
l aw and practi ces through the l aw courts and by pol i ti cal means. I t
i s the sel f-i mposed i ntel l ectual curse of ami l l enni al i sm and premi l -
l en n i a l i s m th a t i ts defender s do not under stand that bi bl i cal
theocracy in evey area of l$e can and shoul d come through majori ty
vote or acceptance. And when Chri sti ans have the votes, they wi l l
then be faced wi th the moral and pol i ti cal questi on that todays Chri s-
ti an anti nomi ans dread and deepl y resent: By what standard?
I fi nd i t a bi t amusi ng that Wel l s says of Schaeffer that What
Schaeffer real l y cannot handl e i s pl ural i sm, al though he says he de-
fends i t.71 Just because Schaeffer was moral l y appal l ed by the obvi -
ous rel ati vi sm of pl ur~i sm a rel ati vi sm whi ch Wel l s does not even
try to deny Wel l s di smi sses hi m as an enemy of pl ural i sm. Ques-
ti on any aspect of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i n terms of bi bl i cal moral i ty, and
you ther eby questi on humani st democr acy; questi on humani st de-
mocr acy , an d y ou i nvoke the wr ath of the soci al s tu di es an d
humani ti es professors of every Chri sti an l i beral arts col l ege i n the
l and. (You, too, can send your chi l d i nto the cl utches of these peopl e,
to be taught, gr aded, and per haps even captur ed, and i t wi l l onl y
cost you $40,000 or so after taxes. )
Rev. Schaeffer deser ved Pr ofessor Wel l s. Wel l s pr oves that i t
does no good to soft-pedal bi bl i cal soci al ethi cs. No matter how softl y
you pedal , someone at Cal vi n Col l ege wi l l be outr aged.
68. Gary North, When J wtice I s Aborted: Biblical Standards for Non- Violent Resistance
(Ft. Worth, Texas: Domi ni on Press, 1989).
69. Wel l s, R@ections, p. 237.
70. Boettner, Rgfonned Doctrine of Predestination, pp. 162-81.
71. Wel l s, Rejlecttom, p. 236.
Hollinger
But Wel l s i s mi l d compared wi th Davi d P. Hol l i nger, a professor
at Al l i ance Theol ogi cal Semi nary. Li sten to hi s assessment of the
supposed i rrel evance, i mpotence, and downri ght mal evol ence of the
i dea of a Chri sti an soci ety: Onl y a sol i d bi bl i cal doctri ne of the church
enabl es us to assert that the ki ngdom of God i s qual i tati vel y di fferent
from the powers of thi s worl d, and that the l atter cannot l i ve by spe-
ci fi c Chri sti an pri nci pl es, si nce they do i ndeed have a di fferent vi ew
of real i ty. To i mpose Chri sti ani ty on soci ety, or seek to make i t the
l egal basi s of a soci al order, tends to generate undue hosti l i ty i n a
pl ural i sti c context. More i mportantl y, i t undermi nes the uni queness
of the church. The theocrati c i deal , whi ch Schaeffer seems i mpl i ci tl y
to support, fai l s to recal l that i t i s the church, not Ameri ca, that i s a
chosen peopl e, a royal pri esthood, a hol y nati on, a peopl e bel ongi ng
to God, that you may decl are the prai ses of hi m who cal l ed you out
of darkness i nto hi s wonderful l i ght.
72
And what i s he professor of?
You may not bel i eve thi s: Church and Soci ety.
What he seems to be sayi ng i s that i f Chr i sti an standar ds ar e
used to govern soci ety i n general , thi s undermi nes the uni queness
of the church. Does thi s al so i ncl ude standards for the fami l y? I f so,
then on what basi s shal l God-fear i ng peopl e pr omote ci vi l l aws
agai nst i ncest? Or besti al i ty?
Thi s rai ses another i mportant questi on: Wi l l the pl ural i st pri nci -
pl e of equal ti me for Satan exi st i n eter ni ty? I f not, wi l l thi s
absence of ri val theol ogi cal vi ews i n eterni ty undermi ne the uni que-
ness of the Church?
Schaeffer actual l y sai d pretty much what Hol l i nger says about
the necessi ty of di sti ngui shi ng Ameri ca from the Church, as wel l as
the necessi ty of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm, but Hol l i nger i s so outraged I
see no other obvi ous moti vati on by the mi l dl y worded moral warn-
i ng that Schaeffer rai ses regardi ng pl ural i sms moral rel ati vi sm (i . e.,
i mmoral i ty) that he l i teral l y cannot understand what Schaeffer has
cl earl y wri tten. Thi s sel dom stops a l i beral from goi ng i nto pri nt.
J udicial Blindness
I am prepari ng you for evi dence i n Chapter 5 that Chri sti an aca-
demi c pl ural i sts are so utterl y enraged by the very i dea of bi bl i cal
theocracy the vi si bl e mani festati on of God% ki ngdom (ci vi l i zati on)
72. Hol l i nger, Schaeffer on Ethi cs: ibid., p. 266
i n hi story that they l i teral l y l ose thei r abi l i ty to fol l ow the l i ne of an
opponents argument or deal honestl y wi th hi stori cal documents.
They have become judi ci al l y bl i nded. They hate Gods l aw wi th al l
thei r hearts. They want humani st theocracy VOX popul i , vox dei
i n preference to bi bl i cal theocracy. They prefer the soci al phi l oso-
phy of equal ti me for Satan, even when thi s al ways produces no
ti me for Jesus Chri st.7s (And do they ever screen access to col l ege
cl assroom teachi ng posi ti ons ! Have you ever wondered why pol i ti cal
l i beral s al ways seem to control the col l eges, even so-cal l ed Chri sti an
col l eges? Because when i t comes to thei r monopol i sti c turf, pol i ti cal
pl ural i sm i s anathema. Ri val vi ews are screened out wi th a ven-
geance. I t i s a cl assi c exampl e of Do as I say, and not as I do.)
Schaeffer had hi s faul ts. He suffered from a major l i abi l i ty: he
chose to enter the academi c battl efi el d wi thout advanced formal
trai ni ng i n any academi c di sci pl i ne. He had been i sol ated i n Swi t-
zerl and for two decades, teachi ng hi msel f about the humani st West.
He was not the reci pi ent of hi gh wages and tenure at some col l ege.
He di d not have access to a schol ars l i brary. He tended to borrow
sel ecti vel y from other schol ars, not al ways granti ng credi t through
footnoti ng. But hi s parent-subsi di zed neo-evangel i cal opponents
have pl ayed fast and l oose wi th the facts. They have had more than
adequate ti me and fi nanci al support to enabl e them to begi n to deal
honestl y wi th thei r i ntel l ectual opponents, but they much prefer to
beat up the l ess prepared opponents, preferabl y posthumousl y. They
sel ect targets who cannot easi l y fi ght back. The tenured professors i n
neo-evangel i cal col l eges are wi l l i ng to attack Schaeffer, but they are
strangel y si l ent about the wri ti ngs of Bahnsen, Rushdoony, and
North. There are reasons for thi s. 74
The Case of the Mi ssi ng Footnotes
The fol l owi ng remarks need thi s preface: I do not thi nk Franci s
Schaeffer actual l y researched or wro~e A Christian Man$esto. At the
73. The Scopes monkey tri al of 1925 was fought over the l egal ri ght of a publ i c
school bi ol ogy teacher to teach Darwi ni sm al ongsi de creati oni sm. Today, i t i s i l l egal
for publ i c school teacher s to menti on cr eati oni sm i n a sci ence cl assr oom. But our
Chri sti an pl ural i sts say not a word i n protest. George Marsden even went so far
i deol ogi cal l y and geographi cal l y to testi fy i n favor of the AC LUS posi ti on duri ng
the Arkansas creati on tri al , McLean v. Arkansas, i n 1981.
74. Read what I an Hedge di d to Dougl as Vi ckers i n Baptized I nzation, and you
wi l l under stand thei r hesi tati on. These men ar e skati ng on epi stemol ogi cal l y thi n
i ce, and they prefer to avoi d the fi res of heated i ntel l ectual combat.
very l east, we at the I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs were tol d by
one of hi s associ ates that he di d not personal l y do the al l of the basi c
research for i t. Li ke hi s popul ar earl y books, whi ch were edi ted by
James Si re from tapes of SchaeffeFs l ectures,s A Ch.ri ~ti an Man.~edo
may have been merel y edi ted i n i ts fi nal stages by Schaeffer. I f he di d
research i t, then he was even more di shonest i n hi di ng footnotes
than I have previ ousl y i ndi cated.
Chiltons DiscoueV
I n 1981, Davi d Chi l ton spotted a phrase on page 97 of A Christian
Manfesto whi ch had been l i fted vi rtual l y word for word from page
200 of Chi l tons essay on John Knox, publ i shed i n earl y 1979. Here
i s what he found:
Chi l ton: Wi thi n a few years, tens of thousands of Huguenots were
offeri ng armed resi stance to the French government; and the year Knox
di ed saw the begi nni ng of the successful Cal vi ni st revol t and takeover of
Hol l and and Zeel and. Knox had shocked the worl d wi th hi s Adm.orz.i tzon to
England, but he had al so convi nced i t. As Ri dl ey states i t, The theory of the
justi fi cati on of revol uti on i s Knoxs speckd contri buti on to theol ogi cal and
pol i ti caJ thought.76
Schaeffer : Wi thi n a few years, tens of thousands of Huguenots were
offeri ng armed resi stance to the French government; and the year Knox
di ed saw the begi nni ng of the successful revol t and savi ng of Hol l and. Knox
had shocked the worl d wi th hi s Admonition to England, but he had al so been
convi nci ng. Jasper Ri dl ey i n J ohn Knox wri tes, The theory of the justi fi ca-
ti on of revol uti on i s Knoxs speci al contri buti on to theol ogi cal and pol i ti cal
thought.77
Then Chi l ton spotted another di rect l i fti ng, i n thi s case from
Ri chard Fl i nns essay on Samuel Rutherford, whi ch appeared i n the
75. Phi l i p Yancey, Franci s Schaeffer: A Prophet for Our Ti me? C/wi ~ti ani ~
Today (March 23, 1979), p. 16. Yancey says that onl y What Ever Happened to the Human
Race (1979) and How Should We Then Live (1976) were books actual l y wri tten by
Schaeffer, as di sti ngui shed from edi ted tapes (p. 17).
Tremendous pressure was brought agai nst the edi tor of I VP, through Franky
Schaeffers mobi l i zi ng of publ i c protests to the I VP Board of Trustees when I VPS
publ i shed the pro-aborti on book, Braoe New People (1984) by D. Gareth Jones. As
Franky sai d i n an i ntervi ew on Pat Robertsons 700 Cl ub, I VP made i ts money
wi th hi s fathers books and then wound up publ i shi ng a pro-aborti on book. I VP soon
dropped the book, Eerdmans then pi cked i t up.
76. Davi d Chi l ton, John Knox, J ournal of Chri~tian Reconstruction, V (Wi nter ,
1978-79), p. 200, Thi s was the Symposi um on Puri tani sm and Law, whi ch I edi ted.
77. Schaeffer, Compl ete WorkJ , vol. V, p. 472.
Ha@ay Couenant Social Criticism 19.5
same i ssue of the J ournal of Christian Reconstruction i n whi ch Chi l tons
essay had appeared.
Fl i nn: Rutherford suggests that there are levels of resistance i n whi ch a
private person may engage. Fi rstl y, he must defend hi msel f by suppl i cati ons
and apol ogi es; secondl y, he must seek to fl ee i f at al l possi bl e; and, thi rdl y,
he may use vi ol ence to defend hi msel f. One shoul d not empl oy vi ol ence i f
he may save hi msel f by fl i ght; so one shoul d not empl oy fl i ght i f he can save
and defend hi msel f by suppl i cati ons and the empl oyment of consti tuti onal
means of redress. Rutherford i l l ustrates thi s pattern of resi stance from the
l i fe of Davi d. 7s
On the other hand, when the offense i s agai nst a corporate group such as a
dul y consti tuted state or town or l ocal body, or such as a church, then fl i ght
i s often an i mpracti cal and unreal i sti c means of resi stance. 79
Schaeffer: I n such an i nstance, for the private person, the i ndi vi dual ,
Rutherford suggested that there are three appropri ate l evel s of resi stance:
First, he must defend hi msel f by protest (i n contemporary soci ety thi s woul d
most often be by l egal acti on); second, he must fl ee i f at al l possi bl e; and,
third, he may use force, i f necessary, to defend hi msel f. One shoul d not em-
pl oy force i f he may save hi msel f by fl i ght; nor shoul d one empl oy fl i ght i f
he can save hi msel f and defend hi msel f by protest and the empl oyment of
consti tuti onal means of redress. Rutherford i l l ustrated thi s pattern of resi s-
tance from the l i fe of Davi d as i t i s recorded i n the Ol d Testament. 80
On the other hand, when the state commi ts i l l egi ti mate acts agai nst a
corporate body such as a dul y consti tuted state or l ocal body, or even a church
then fl i ght i s often an i mpracti cal and unreal i sti c means of resi stance. 81
Even some of the i tal i cs are the same! Chi l ton compl ai ned about
these cl ear-cut cases of pl agi ari sm i n a l etter to Schaeffer, and he re-
cei ved a repl y from a subordi nate pl eadi ng that Schaeffer had been
gi ven the materi al from a researcher wi thout any source notes at-
tached, and that the l ack of acknowl edgment was not real l y Schaeffers
faul t. I f thi s was the case, i t i s patheti c. I f thi s was not the case, then
i t i s al so patheti c.
I n the ei ghth pri nti ng of Chri>tian Man$esto, dated 1982, Schaeffer
acknowl edged i n a pai r of footnotes hi s debt to the two arti cl es i n
78. Ri chard Fl i nn, Samuel Rutherford and Puri tan Pol i ti cal Theory, Journal of
Chrzstian Reconstruction, OP. ctt., pp. 68-69.
79. I bid., p. 69.
80. Compl ete Works, V, p. 47.5.
81. I bid., V, pp. 475-76.
general , though he di d not admi t to hi s pri or verbati m l i fti ngs. z
Chi l ton l et bygones be bygones and stopped compl ai ni ng. He and I
di d not menti on thi s i nci dent i n our 1983 essay on Apol ogeti cs and
Strategy: al though we di d menti on the nearl y verbati m l i fti ng of cer-
tai n materi al from Rushdoonys l % One and the Many (1971). We had
not noti ced that Schaeffers Complete Works (1982) reproduced the fi rst
edi ti on of the Christian Man.zfesto, so the footnotes acknowl edgi ng
Chi l ton and Fl i nn were agai n mi ssi ng. Had we spotted thi s, we
mi ght not have been so conci l i atory. Pri nti ng and typesetti ng sched-
ul es were presumabl y responsi bl e for the omi ssi on, but when you or
your research assi stant l i teral l y steal other mens works, and the vi c-
ti ms catch you at i t, then you shoul d go out of your way to recti fy
thi ngs, even i f i t means some extra typesetti ng fees or a del ay i n pub-
l i shi ng your Complete Works. Make the set compl ete: add the mi ssi ng
footnotes (not to menti on the mi ssi ng essay on i nfant bapti sm).
Ruthe~ord: Es and No
Why al l of thi s space devoted to an unsavory i nci dent? Because
of the hi ghl y reveal i ng nature of the materi al that Schaeffer refused
to pl agi ari ze or even menti on: Fl i nns l engthy secti on on Samuel
Rutherfords ,use of the Ol d Testaments case l aws. What i s mi ssi ng
poi nts cl earl y to the theol ogi cal schi zophreni a of Franci s Schaeffers
soci al cri ti ci sm: an attempted rejecti on of humani sm, yet al so a re-
jecti on of bi bl i cal l aw.
Here i s what Fl i nn concl uded regardi ng Rutherfords teachi ngs
on the case l aws. Fi rst, Rutherford used the Ol d Testament magi s-
trate as the model for todays ci vi l magi strate. Second, he i nsi sted
that Gods l aw al one properl y defi nes cri me. Fl i nn observes: We
have seen that the magi strate cannot arbi trari l y suspend puni shment
from or pardon those cri mes whi ch Gods l aw sti pul ates as capi tal
cri mes, and requi ri ng the death penal ty. To do so i s to dei fy the
state .8
3
Rutherfords thi rd pri nci pl e regardi ng the ci vi l magi strate
and the case l aw i s that the magi strate has a duty to enforce al l ten
commandments, not just the second fi ve. s4
Fi nal l y, wrote Fl i nn, The most concl usi ve evi dence for Ruther-
fords posi ti on on the case l aw bei ng one of conti nui ng val i di ty for
82. Christian Manijesto, p. 141, notes 2 and 7.
83. Fl i nn, op. cit., p. 71.
84. I bid., pp. 71-72.
juri sprudence, government, and theol ogy i s the way i n whi ch the
author uses the case l aw i n hi s arguments. A cursory readi ng of ~ex,
Rex, for exampl e, wi l l demonstrate that Rutherfords whol e case i s
predi cated upon Deuteronomy 17. Thi s part of the case l aw i s what
he uses to provi de the foundati on for hi s doctri ne of the ci vi l magi s-
trate and ci vi l government. What i s of parti cul ar i nterest i n the use
of thi s case l aw i s that it spec~cal~ calls for the application of that same case
law to civil government, crime, lawmaking, and punishment. . . . But,
what i s of further i nterest i n thi s regard, i s that whereas Deuteron-
omy 17 i s the most frequentl y quoted passage of Scri pture i n Lex,
Rex, i t i s fol l owed i n onl y sl i ghtl y l ess frequency by references to
Remans 13:1-6. Thi s i s hi ghl y si gni fi cant, for i t proves beyond doubt
that Rutherford belieued that there is continui~ throughout history of the divine
prescriptions for civil government and the civil magistrate. The doctri ne of
Remans 13 does not abrogate the Ol d Testament sti pul ati ons for
government, but rati fi es them and bui l ds upon them.as
Fr anci s Schaeffer returned to the l i fe and supposed l egacy of Samuel
Rutherford agai n and agai n i n A Christian Man festo. Hi s cl ose associ ate,
l awyer John Whi tehead, named hi s Chri sti an l egal defense organi zati on
The Rutherford I nsti tute. Yet i t i s cl ear that Schaeffers rel i ance on
Rutherfords exampl e was hal f-hearted, just as hi s rel i ance on Van Ti l
and Rushdoony was hal f-hearted. He appeal ed to a narrowl y and even
ul ti matel y misleading sel ecti ve segment of Rutherfords wi tness. He
refused to admi t to hi s readers where Rutherfords posi ti on cl earl y l ed:
to the Old Testament5 case laws. Why? Rutherford di ed just as the ci vi l
authori ti es were comi ng to try hi m i n court and then execute hi m. No
one was comi ng to arrest Franci s Schaeffer for any si mi l ar breach of
evangel i cal eti quette when he passed from the scene. What was hi s
probl em? I t was thi s: Francis Schaefer was nervous about his own Calvinist
theological heritage nervous i n pri nci pl e, but al so nervous strategi cal l y.
I f he was too embarrassed to admi t to hi s evangel i cal fol l owers that he
had once wri tten a pamphl et i n favor of i nfant bapti sm, then he was
hardl y goi ng to tel l them the ful l story regardi ng hi s proposed model
theol ogi an, Samuel Rutherford, who accepted the conti nui ng val i di ty
of ci vi l l aws agai nst homosexual s, wi tches, and adul terers. G
85, I bid., pp. 72-73.
86. Thi s does not deal wi th the other probl em, namel y whether Rutherford was
an i nfl uenti al source of the Ameri can Consti tuti onal settl ement. I agree wi th
Ri chard V. Pi erard: there was l i ttl e or no di rect i nfl uence, and there i s no documen-
tati on that i ndi cates such a di rect connecti on. Pi erard, Schaeffer on Hi story, Reg2ec-
tions, pp. 212-15. He ci tes Ti mothy D. Hal l , Rutherford, Locke, and the Decl ara-
ti on, unpubl i shed Th. M thesi s, Dal l as Theol ogi cal Semi nary, 1984.
What the reader needs to understand i s that Franci s Schaeffer
di d not have anythi ng l i ke a devel oped phi l osophy of pol i ti cal acti on
or ci vi l l aw. He was much more i nterested i n the arts. Hi s wri ti ngs
are theol ogi cal l y sel f-contradi ctory at thei r very core (e. g., myth of
neutral i ty vs. fear of theocracy). Hi s hosti l i ty to theocracy l ed hi m to
reject the conti nui ng val i di ty of the case l aws of the Ol d Testament.
This rgection of biblical law forced him into a disastrous compromise with nat-
ural law theory. Hi s cl osel y rel ated unwi l l i ngness to go the whol e di s-
tance wi th Van Ti l s presupposi ti onal defense of Chri sti ani ty l ed to
hi s unwi l l i ngness to break compl etel y wi th humani sms fai th i n the
autonomy of mans mi nd. Hi s pr emi l l enni al eschatol ogy l eft hi m
devoi d of hope that Chri sti ans coul d do anythi ng to reverse the dri ft
i nto humani sti c di saster. Thus, the great evangel i cal di saster wa s
al so hi s di saster. The sad fate of hi s spi ri tual and i ntel l ectual hei rs
testi fi es to thi s conti nui ng l egacy of di saster.
Franky Schaeffer i s l i ke hi s father i n a cruci al respect: as a pr e-
mi l l enni al i st, he does not bel i eve that Chri sti ans can ever be success-
ful i n repl aci ng the corrupt humani st i nsti tuti ons of thi s worl d. He
thi nks that the worl d coul d be converted,s7 but that i t wi l l not be
converted. Al so l i ke hi s father, he has spent hi s career publ i cl y i gnor-
i ng the wri ti ngs of the Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sts. But the ol d
pol i ti cal sl ogan i s correct: You cant beat somethi ng wi th nothi ng.
He demonstrated the real i ty of thi s pri nci pl e when he departed from
the evangel i cal scene i n 1985.
The Co-Opti ng of Dr. Koop
Frankys rel ati vel y qui et dri ft out of Chri sti an acti vi sm was par-
al l el ed by the noi sy publ i c defecti on by Schaeffers former anti -
aborti on associ ate, Dr. C. Everett Koop, the Surgeon General of the
Uni ted States, 1981-89.s That he was known by hi s associ ates
throughout hi s stay i n Washi ngton as Chi ck Koop, short for
Chicken, i s one of the great i roni es of recent Ameri can pol i ti cs, for i n
terms of hi s sel f-consci ous publ i c abandoni ng of everythi ng he had
procl ai med pri or to 1980, he was i ndeed chi cken. He had come i nto
offi ce under fi re from the l i beral news medi a.sg He l eft i n Jul y of 1989
as the l ast remai ni ng Reagan pol i ti cal appoi ntee to have won uni ver-
87. Franky Schaeffer, Bad News for Modem Man, p. 131.
88. C. Everett Koop, M.D. and Franci s Schaeffer, Whatever Happened to the Human
Race? (Westchester, I l l i noi s: Crossway Books, 1979).
89. R. Emmett Tyrrel l , Chi cken Koop, American Spectator (June 1989), p. 34.
ml prai se from the l i beral medi a for the fi nal three years of hi s
tenure. The medi a had not changed; Koop had whi ch, of course,
he deni ed to the very end. go
When he came on the scene as the onl y vi si bl y Chri sti an appoi n-
tee by the Reagan Admi ni strati on, he was vocal l y opposed by the
l i beral medi a. The offi ce of Surgeon General carri es wi th i t very l i ttl e
l egal authori ty, and pri or to Dr. Koop, the offi ce had never been a
publ i cl y vi si bl e offi ce, yet the l i beral s neverthel ess strongl y resi sted
hi s appoi ntment. Even hi s presence was resi sted. He had been too
vocal an opponent of aborti on. Wri tes Mari e Wi nn of the New York
Times: The nomi nati on was hel d up for more than ei ght months.
Onl y after Dr. Koop promi sed to abandon the anti aborti on ci rcui t
and to refrai n from usi ng the surgeon general s offi ce as a pul pi t for
hi s ri ght-to-l i fe bel i efs di d the Senate fi nal l y vote i ts approval . Not
onl y di d he keep hi s promi se, but hi s pol i ci es as Surgeon General
proved so di fferent from what hi s fearful opponents expected that i n
ti me, al most wi thout excepti on, the y publ i cl y di savowed thei r for-
mer words about C. Everett Koop.gl That Koop agreed to stop tal k-
i ng about aborti on i n order to secure hi s approval was al so reported
by the Rutherford I nsti tute, the Schaeffer-founded acti vi st publ i c
l aw or gani zati on. 92
For the next two years, he sl i pped i nto obscuri ty. Meanwhi l e, i n
1982, a newborn handi capped i nfant was al l owed to di e of starvati on
and dehydrati on by a hospi tal and l ocal judge i n I ndi ana. The fed-
eral government i n response drew up anti -i nfanti ci de regul ati ons.
No hospi tal that di scri mi nated agai nst the l i fe of a handi capped i n-
fant coul d recei ve federal funds. The U.S. Supreme Court decl ared
these regul ati ons unconsti tuti onal ; i t i s the parents ri ght to deci de,
the court sai d. Koop had been on the si de of the government i n thi s
battl e. But he had caved i n to the medi cal establ i shment by agreei ng
to a rewri tten versi on that al l owed the hospi tal s medi cal ethi cs com-
mi ttees to make the fi nal deci si on regardi ng the i nfants l i fe or death. 93
90. He wi l l conti nue to deny i t i n hi s forthcomi ng book or books, I hereby
predi ct.
91. Mari e Wi nn, The Legacy of Dr. Koop~ The Good Health Magazine, a Sunday
suppl ement to the New fi n? Tima (Ott. 9, 1988), pp. 28-29. Cf. Cooi ng Over
Koop, Nati onal Review (Feb. 10, 1989), p. 17.
92. Marti n Mawyer, Whatever Happened to C. Everett Koop?, Ruthe#ord Znsti -
tute (Spri ng 1989), p. 10. Statements by Koop are taken from the Wmhington Po~t
(Oct. 2, 1981).
93. I bid., p. 11.
200
Ti me passed. Then came the 1986 Surgeon General s report on
AI DS. Koop i n 1986 and 1987 offi ci al l y cal l ed for sex educati on on
AI DS i n the publ i c school s as earl y as ki ndergarten94 and for publ i c
school i nstructi on on how to use condoms. 95 We see here the cl assi cal
Greek heresy: salvation through knowledge. I f men know what i s ri ght,
they wi l l do i t. Thi s i s utter nonsense. I t reverses the epi stemol og-
i cal truth regardi ng fal l en man, as Schaeffer ful l y understood.
Safer Sodomy
Under questi oni ng, Dr. Koop admi tted that as Surgeon General ,
he woul d have to recommend aborti on as one way of deal i ng wi th
the unborn chi l dren of mothers wi th AI DS. G Better that than to
resi gn publ i cl y, he seemed to be sayi ng. He l oved to wear hi s Ad-
mi ral s uni form, whi ch the Surgeon General s posi ti on enti tl es hi m to
wear. (Why the U.S. Surgeon General wears an admi ral s uni form i s
beyond the scope of thi s essay. )97
Conservati ve pol i ti cal acti vi st Phyl l i s Schl afl y cal l ed Dr. Koops
recommended approach safe sodomy. Dr. Koop became the source
of huge i ncreases i n sal es of condoms, refl ected by the 1987 boom i n
the share pri ces of fi rms that manufacture condoms. Then, wi thout
medi a attenti on, he qui etl y reversed hi msel f i n the fal l of 1987, admi tti ng
that condoms real l y are not much protecti on for homosexual con-
tacts. 98 I l i ke to thi nk of thi s admi ssi on as Koops sel f-condemnati on.
Thi s devastati ng admi ssi on recei ved very l i ttl e publ i ci ty. Pro-l i fe ac-
ti vi st Jo Ann Gasper, a hi gh-l evel ci vi l servant who has served i n
both the Department of Heal th and Human Servi ces and the De-
partment of Educati on, has put i t very wel l : When Dr. Koop came
out for safe sex, he was l i ke a man standi ng on top of a church who
sl ashes open a feather pi l l ow and shakes i t. He wi l l never get al l of
the feathers back i n the pi l l ow, no matter how hard he tri es.gg
94. Wmhington Post (March 24, 1987), Heal th Focus.
95. I have wri tten el sewhere: Koop has become a ki nd of bureaucrati c condom
hl msel fi Preachi ng a prophyl acti c sol uti on to a worl d faci ng a rel i gi ous cri si s. He has
betrayed hi s trust. Gary North, Koops Condom Argument Has a Hol e i n I t~A.L.L.
About I ssues (May-June 1987), p. 48; publ i shed by the Ameri can Li fe League.
96. Koop suggests aborti on as opti on for AI DS carri ers, Wahington Times
(March 25, 1987).
97. Tyrrel l referred to Koops attempt to i ntroduce i nto Ameri can fashi on the
uni for m of the Par aguayan navy. . . . Tyrrel l , Chi cken Koop, p. 34.
98. Koop Warns on Ri sk of AI DS i n Condom Use, Los Angeles Times (Sept. 22,
1987).
99. Statement to the author, Jul y, 1987.
HalJ way Covenant Social Criticism 201
By the spri ng of 1987, Koop was sel f-consci ousl y i n retreat from
hi s earl i er Chri sti an posi ti on. Wi th respect to the aborti on i ssue, he
commented: I ve wri tten al l that I have to wri te on that i ssue. There
are other, bi gger thi ngs that I shoul d turn my attenti on to as surgeon
general : Where thi s country i s and where i ts goi ng i n heal th
car e ~~100 He had ope~y adopted ethi cal neutral i ty as hi s theol ogy. I n
an i ntervi ew wi th the l i beral Wh.shington Post, he announced: I am
the surgeon general of the heterosexual s and the homosexual s, of the
young and the ol d, of the moral and the i mmoral , the marri ed and
the unmarri ed. I dont have the l uxury of deci di ng whi ch si de I want
to be on.l ol Thi s i s the essence of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm: a man seeks to
represent the enti re communi ty, meani ng every i ndi vi dual sel f-pro-
cl ai med autonomous god. I t i nvari abl y resul ts i n the abandonment
of Gods l aw and the tri umph of Gods enemi es.
I n thi s cri si s, when God rai sed hi m up so that he coul d make vi si -
bl e the nati ons hi ghest offi ci al medi cal offi ce, i n the very year that
AI DS was i denti fi ed, 1981, Dr. Koop returned to the common-
ground phi l osophy of natural l aw and neutral sci ence. I n 1987, he
announced: I am not afforded the l uxury of bri ngi ng i deol ogy or
moral s i nto my job, especi al l y wi th the sort of threat we have wi th
AI DS. When you wal k i nto a l ab to do a steri l e techni que, you do a
steri l e techni que. When you wal k i nto a heal th job, you make pro-
nouncements about heal th based on facts .l oz Facts? Neutral facts? I n
the fal l of 1986, hi s offi ce rel eased an AI DS report under hi s name
that was mi sl eadi ng medi cal l y through i ts understatement of the
ri sks of transmi ssi on, and whi ch di d not cal l for drasti c measures i n
the face of what he hi msel f says i s a pl ague. 103 There i s a reason for
thi s. AI DS i s a very speci al pl ague, a political~ protected plague.
The Economics of Sex Education
What i s the sol uti on? Dr. Koop sai d i t was sex educati on. One
professi onal economi st knows better. She has concl uded that what i s
needed i s more church attendance. I t i s a remarkabl e i rony of
100. The Sti l l -Crusadi ng Koop Keeps the Moral i zi ng Qui et, l mi g/st (March 16,
1987). Thi s i s publ i shed by the conservati ve Wmhwgton Times.
101. Wmhington Post (March 24, 1987), Heal th Focus. Thi s i s what he had sai d
publ i cl y from the begi nni ng: Wmhington Post (Oct. 2, 1981).
102. Dr. Koop Defends Hi s Crusades, New Ymk Times (Apri l 6, 1987).
103. Gene Antoni o, A Critical Evaluation of the Surgeon Generals Repoti on AI DS
(Ft. Worth, Texas: Domi ni on Press, 1987); Ri chard Bi shi rji an, AI DS Educati on
and the Tal e of Two Ci ti es, World & I (Sept. 1989), pp. 555-67.
Koops tenure that he took the standard humani st route to nati onal
heal i ng more taxpayer-fi nanced educati on whi l e an economi st
teachi ng at a state uni versi ty cal l ed for a spi ri tual sol uti on.
The ri se of promi scui ty among teenagers al ways accompani es
the ri se of sex educati on i n the publ i c school s. Prof. Jacquel i n R.
Kasun 104 of Cal i forni as Humbol dt State Uni versi ty summari zes the
fi ndi ngs of two soci al sci enti sts who di scovered that teenagers who
have had cl assroom sex educati on courses are more l i kel y to engage
i n premari tal sex at an earl y age 15 and 16 than those who have
had no formal cl assroom i nstructi on. The study, by Wi l l i am Mar-
si gl i o and Frank L. Mott, was actual l y publ i shed by the Guttmacher
I nsti tutes journal , Fami@ Planning Per.@ectiues (Jul y/Aug. 1986). The
Guttmacher I nsti tute at one ti me was the research affi l i ate of the
pro-aborti on Pl anned Parenthood organi zati on. A second study by
Deborah Anne Dawson, publ i shed i n the same i ssue of the I nsti tutes
journal , argues that there i s no consi stent stati sti cal effect, but does
report that one of her stati sti cal model s shows that pri or contracep-
ti ve educati on i ncreases the odds of becomi ng sexual l y acti ve at age
14 by a factor of 1.5 , meani ng by 50 percent.
Then what does work to i ncrease chasti ty? Church. Dr. Kasun
reports that the effects of regul ar church attendance on premari tal
sexual behavi or by gi rl s over 17 are stronger than any other observed
effect. She concl udes: The pol i cy i mpl i cati ons of these fi ndi ngs are
obvi ous. I f the i ntent i s to reduce premari tal sexual acti vi ty and
pregnancy among teenagers, there i s-no evi dence that sex educati on
wi l l hel p. Church wi l l . And so wi l l a stabl e home envi ronment.
As a good economi st, Dr. Kasun chi des the soci ol ogi sts who
wrote these studi es for thei r i nattenti on to the economi sts pri me fac-
tor: Pri ce. A youngster who i s gi ven free contracepti ves by her school
bi rth-control cl i ni c wi thout her parents knowl edge and wi th the
promi se of a free and confi denti al aborti on i n the case of pregnancy,
faces a l ow pri ce for premari tal sex acti vi ty. She can be expected to
consume more of i t than a gi rl wi th l ess easy access to contracepti ves
and aborti on. She then goes on to summari ze her own fi ndi ngs, that
states that spend most heavi l y to provi de free contracepti ves and
aborti ons have the hi ghest rates of premari tal teenage pregnancy.
The di fferences are major between states that spend and those that
104. Author of The War Against Population: The Economics and I deolo~ of Population
Control (San Franci sco: I gnati us, 1988).
do not. Teenage ferti l i ty was decl i ni ng before the government bi rth-
control programs were i nsti tuted i n the l ate 1960s, but i t has not
decl i ned si nce 1976. Extra-mari tal teenage ferti l i ty has i ncreased
markedl y si nce the programs were begun, and i s no l ower i n states
where publ i c expendi tures are hi ghest. She expl ai ns why: Free
bi rth control encourages sexual ri sk-taki ng and therefore a hi gher
l evel of uni ntended pregnancy; i n thi s si tuati on many young women
fi nd themsel ves unwi l l i ng to undergo aborti on. The resul t, i ndi cated
i n studi es, i s a hi gher l evel of bi rths that [than] woul d otherwi se oc-
cur.15 The l ong-run effects of the Presbyteri an Church i n Ameri cas
most famous publ i c offi ci al are predi ctabl e: more forni cati on, more
aborti ons, and more di sease.
A Series of Federal Crusades
As he wound down hi s tenure as Surgeon General , Koop used
hi s offi ce: 1) to send out a pro-condom report to every home i n the
country (at taxpayers expense), 1G 2) to l aunch an anti -smoki ng
crusade (at a ti me when 70 percent of Ameri cans had stopped smok-
i ng), 3) to publ i sh a 700-page report i nformi ng Ameri cans that they
eat too much fat; and 4) to cal l for hi gher taxes on l i quor. 107 He re-
fused to cal l offi ci al l y for zero sex outsi de of marri age as the onl y sure
way to hal t the spread of AI DS. Condoms, he sai d, woul d at l east re-
duce some of the ri sk of i nfecti on, si nce peopl e are i nevi tabl y goi ng
to have sex outsi de of marri age. The suggesti on that AI DS i s Gods
negati ve hi stori cal sancti on agai nst homosexual s and agai nst the so-
ci ety that tol erates them i s unthi nkabl e i n Dr. Koops vi ew, or at l east
unpri ntabl e. For hi m, smoki ng i s an addi cti on; promi scui ty i s onl y
behavi or. 108 He has uncompromi si ngl y condemned al l ci garettes,
even those wi th fi l ter ti ps. He recommends onl y absti nence. For
promi scui ty, he recommends condoms. As he sai d: Total absti nence
105. San Di ego Umon (March 5, 1987). For corroborati ng evi dence, see the book
by psychi atri st Mel vi n Anchel l , Killers OJ Children: A Psychoana@ical Look at Sex Educa-
tion (Stafford, Vi rgi ni a: Ameri can Li fe League, 1988).
106. Understanding Aids (Washi ngton, D. C.: U. S. Government Pri nti ng Offi ce,
1988). Hal f of page 4 i s devoted to the condom pi tch. Under ri sky behavi or, the
report l i sts Unprotected sex (wi thout a condom) wi th an i nfected person. Safe be-
havi or i s descri bed as: Not havi ng sex. Sex wi th one mutual l y fai thful , uni nfected
partner. Not shooti ng drugs . Noti ce the reference to partner rather than spouse.
107. Koop Urges Tax and Ad Moves to Curb Dri nki ng, New York Times (June 1,
1989).
108. Ed Payne, A Fami l y Doctor Responds: Koop Was Wrong on AI DS ~ World
(March 4, 1989), p. 6.
204
from al l sexual rel ati ons i s one answer, but i t i s total l y unreal i sti c,
and I m not ready to gi ve up on the human race qui te yet . l og
Judy Brown of the Ameri can Li fe League i s correct: I n 1986
both as a physi ci an and as Surgeon General he rejected the demand
that concl usi ve proof of harm to nonsmokers was needed befor e pub-
l i c acti on coul d be taken. Why does he change the publ i c pol i cy rul es
when deal i ng wi th sex? He used to cal l the r epor ted 1.5 mi l l i on chi l -
dren aborted per year the bi ggest preventabl e cause of death among
Ameri cans. Now he cl ai ms i t i s the esti mated 300,000 who di e from
smoki ng.l *O
Thi s was how the Schaeffer movement di ed: not wi th a bang but
wi th a seri es of taxpayer-funded whi mpers.
The Plagues During Koopk Watch
Whi l e Dr. Koop fretted about ani mal fats i n other peopl es di ets,
al ong wi th ci garettes and l i quor, sexual pl agues were taki ng thei r tol l
on Ameri cans. I t was not just AI DS that appeared duri ng Koops
watch; i t was an escal ati ng horde of ti ny ki l l ers. Each year i n the
U. S., there are ten mi l l i on new cases of sexual l y transmi tted di s-
eases. Thi s breaks down as fol l ows. There are two mi l l i on new cases
annual l y of gonorrhea that are actual ] y reported by women, but as
many as 70 percent of those women affl i cted wi th i t do not know they
have i t. Among school -age chi l dren, gonorrhea i s now the most com-
mon di sease, surpassi ng the combined number of cases of chi cken
pox, mumps, measl es, and rubel l a (German measl es). Peni ci l l i n i s
l osi ng i ts effecti veness agai nst some strai ns of thi s di sease. There are
four to fi ve mi l l i on new cases of chl amydi a. Twenty-fi ve mi l l i on
Ameri cans now suffer from herpes. 111
Out of wedl ock bi rths are up by ni ne to one si nce 1950; aborti on
i s now the most common surgery procedure i n Ameri ca. 112
Through i t al l , Dr. Koop remai ned vi si bl e but si l ent. He wor e
hi s uni form proudl y and basked i n the escal ati ng appl ause of the hu-
mani st Left. Those Chr i sti ans ser vi ng i n publ i c offi ce who take
109. Mawyer, Ruthsr$ord I n.@ute (Spri ng 1989), p. 13.
110. One Womans Opi ni on: What Happened to Koop?, The New A~can
(March 13, 1989).
111. Patr i ck Buchanan, Casual ti es of our own r evol uti on, Wmhington Tinws
(June 12, 1989).
112. Zdem.
pl ural i sm seri ousl y as an ethi cal system are ri ski ng si mi l ar resul ts i n
thei r careers: acceptance by the humani st medi a at the cost of a be-
trayal of both thei r fai th and thei r Chri sti an consti tuents. The pri ce
i s too hi gh. But Chri sti ans have been enthusi asti cal l y payi ng i t i n
North Ameri ca for over three hundred years.
~rrell Writes Koo@k Epitaph
I cannot resi st quoti ng at l ength from R. Emmett Tyrrel l s eval u-
ati on of Koops tenure i n offi ce. Tyrrel l i s not a Chri sti an, but he i s a
conservati ve. As edi tor of The American Spectator, he brought the mag-
azi ne (now a tabl oi d) from utter obscuri ty i n 1967 to perhaps the
l eadi ng popul ar organ of conservati ve opi ni on i n the Uni ted States
by the ear l y 1980s. 113 Hi s edi tori al styl e i s model ed al ong the l i nes of
H. L. Menck ens. But al l owi ng for hi s styl i sti c exagger ati on,
Tyrrel l s comments are on target. He wrote the pol i ti cal obi tuary of
C. Ever ett Koop a few weeks befor e Koop publ i cl y announced hi s
reti rement. I t appeared i n hi s regul ar col umn, Publ i c Nui sances .
As wi th most evangel i cal Chri sti ans, he was not on the offensi ve, expandi ng
the power of the church agai nst state; rather he was the embattl ed bel i ever
attempti ng to preserve tradi ti onal moral i ty from the onsl aughts of the New
Age i deol ogues di recti ng the pol i ce power of the state agai nst the church.
But once i n offi ce Dr. Koop proved hi s modern pol i ti cal mettl e, whi ch i s to
say hi s capaci ty for publ i ci ty, braggadoci o, and sni ffi ng out the course of
l east resi stance. Thus as the months sl i pped by so di d Surgeon General
Koop, and i n June 1987 our own Tom Bethel l awar ded the Sur geon Gener al
hi s Strange New Respect Award for putti ng condoms before conti nence.
Bethel l confers thi s award upon that conservati ve who suddenl y ri ses i n the
esteem of Li beral s by seei ng the worl d from thei r poi nt of vi ew. . . . From
opposi ng aborti on and homosexual i ty he has sl i pped i nto a mi ndl ess tol er-
ance, wi th no expl anati on offered. Hi s sol uti on to the spread of AI DS i s the
pl acebo propounded by al l dope-fetchers, to wi t: he urges educati on. Fur-
thermore, he i s an afi ci onado of the condom. He beseeches the sexual l y
aroused whether homosexual or heterosexual to rol l on those condoms,
consul t a nearby sex manual , and recal l al l rel evant data proffered i n Sex
Ed. Sex educati on i s the cure for al l the peri l s of Eros, accordi ng to Dr.
Koop, and the great enl i ghtenment shoul d begi n wi th ki ndergarten and
conti nue unti l al l ki nks have been covered. . . . How sex educati on mi ght
benefi t ki ndergartners who have onl y recentl y di scovered that thei r pri vate
parts are useful for di schargi ng bodi l y waste, I cannot i magi ne. 114
113. I wrote for i t i n the earl y 1970s unti l I started my own publ i shi ng fi rm.
114. Tyrrel l , Chi cken Koop, pp. 34-35.
Tyrrel l made one other comment that shoul d be taken ser i ousl y
by those Chri sti ans seeki ng the comfort of l ow r esponsi bi l i ty under
pol i ti cal pl ural i sm: the i nescapabi l i ty of the pul pi t i n pol i ti cal offi ce.
Dr. Koop has not honored hi s promi se not to turn hi s offi ce i nto a
pul pi t . Throughout hi s tenure he has preached from i t on behal f of
al l manner of tr endy kooker y and i ntol er ance. . . . Last summer ,
when hi s report on nutri ti on came out, he agai n i denti fi ed the tycoons
of the food i ndustr y as the gr eedy mal efactor of our chol ester ol
count. And when i t comes to one of hi s favori te subjects AI DS he
casti gates hospi tal personnel unwi l l i ng to treat AI DS pati ents .
But Tyrrel l has seen the real heart of Koops message: unr el ent-
i ng hypocr i sy camoufl aged i n the r hetor i c of publ i c heal th. Last
summer , dur i ng the unvei l i ng of hi s report on nutr i ti on, Dr . Koop
r eveal ed how unser i ous a man he i s. . . . He consumes junk foods
happi l y and two marti ni s wi th l unch even more happi l y. He brags
about taki ng no exerci se and bei ng a workahol i c. And so when asked
at the unvei l i ng of hi s nutri ti onal report why he i gnored hi s own rec-
ommendati ons i n hi s own l i fe, he repl i ed, For mysel f I m counti ng
on my genes. I f your chol esterol i s OK and you thi nk your genes are
good, why shoul d you si t on a hi l l the rest of your l i fe and ea t
yogur t? T@el l cal l ed for Koops reti rement, whi ch Koop di d an -
nounce a few days l ater , though not because of Tyrrel l . Tyrrel l s
parti ng shot i s worth ci ti ng: I f he worri es the ci ti zenry any fur ther
our next Sur geon Gener al wi l l have to be a cl i ni cal psychi atri st .~ 15
The End of the Road for the Schaeffer Movement
Koops publ i c defecti on reveal ed that there i s just about nothi ng
r ema i n i n g of Fr an ci s Schaeffers pr emi l l en n i a l i s m-ba s ed, anti -
theonomi c, pr o-pl ur al i sm, si l entl y Gal vi ni sti c, Chr i sti an pr otest
movement. (The one major excepti on i s the publ i c l aw or gani zati on,
the Ruther for d I nsti tute, whi ch was never under Schaeffers di rect
control , and whi ch has al ways had an i ndependent agenda. I t i s not
Cal vi ni sti c.) Jo Ann Gasper, who was fi red from her posi ti on at the
U.S. Department of Heal th and Human Servi ces i n 1987 for havi ng
attempted to enforce exi sti ng federal l aws i n the pro-l i fe fi el d, gave
thi s eval uati on of Dr. Koop, and i t serves as the epi taph for t h e
whol e Schaeffer movement: When Schaeffer was al i ve, he was the
one man Dr. Koop respected and l i stened to. Schaeffer was a ki nd of
115. I bid., p. 35.
moral rudder. Wi thout Schaeffer he was l eft rudderl ess. 116 The
probl em Koop faced was the probl em al l of Schaeffers di sci pl es
faced: wi thout bi bl i cal l aw, they were adri ft. He had l ed them i nto
Chri sti an pol i ti cal acti vi sm, and now he was gone. Wi thi n a few
years, so were they.
Schaeffers son-i n-l aw, Udo Mi ddl eman, buri ed i n 1987 what was
l eft of the movements theol ogi cal remai ns. I n a rambl i ng, jargon-
fi l l ed essay toothl ess and feckl ess he i ssued the standard asserti on
that Chri sti ans are not cal l ed to reestabl i sh the OT ki ngdom i n any
form. . . . He went on, not al l that cl earl y: Cal l i ng out of a broken
si tuati on and worki ng wi th a l i vi ng God rather than an establ i shed
l aw of the Medes and the Persi ans, the Bi bl e speaks of thi ngs that
may wel l be out of the grasp of peopl e whi l e bei ng presented to thei r
r each >~117 What does thi s mean? posi ti vel y, i t means Were on our
own; Chri sti ans get to make thi ngs up as we go al ong; negati vel y, i t
means that Gods l aw does not constrai n us. Styl i sti cal l y, i t means
that when you are tryi ng to abandon bi bl i cal ethi cs i n the name of
the Bi bl e, you may be tempted to try to cover your tracks by substi -
tuti ng such terms as broken si tuati on for publ i c evi l and l aw of the
Medes and Persi ans for Gods Bi bl e-reveal ed l aw.
Wi thout fai th i n the l aw of God or fai th i n the vi ctory of Gods
peopl e i n hi story (the Church Age), what el se shoul d we have ex-
pected from that short-l i ved movement? Or any other Chri sti an
movement, for that matter?
Pol i ti cal Pl ural i sm and Chri sti an Pessi mi sm
Theocr acy means si mpl y that God r ul es: theos (God) kratos
(rul es). The ki ngdom of Gods rul e extends to every area of l i fe, not
just pol i ti cs. Shoul d Chri sti ans deny that God rul es, i n heaven and
on earth (Matt. 28:18)? How can a Cal vi ni st, who affi rms the abso-
l ute soverei gnty of God over every aspect of hi story, deny the exi st-
ence of theocracy? Shoul d Chri sti ans deny that the ethi cal l i fe of
each person i s supposed to conform progressi vel y to Gods wri tten
l aw as hi s personal sancti fi cati on progresses and he matures i n the
fai th? Of course not. But thi s rai ses the key questi on: By what stan-
116. Rutheglord I nstitute (Spri ng 1989), p. 15.
117. Udo W. Mi ddl eman, The Wi der Hori zon i n Bi bl i cal Mandates for Rel i ef
and Devel opment , p. 14; di stri buted at the Vi l l ars Consul tati on on Bi bl i cal Man-
dates for Rel i ef and Devel opment, Apri l 22, 1987.
dzrd? Whose l aw i s to set the standards of ethi cal performance? Gods
or mans? The answer has to be: Gods reveal ed l aw.
Havi ng accepted thi s i n pri nci pl e, why shoul d Chri sti ans then
deny that the l i fe of each covenanted i mti tuti on i s al so supposed to con-
form progressi vel y to the wri tten requi rements of Gods l aw as i ts
corporate sancti fi cati on i ncreases and i t matures i n the fai th? Yet
they do deny i t, by the mi l l i ons, generati on after generati on. They
si mpl y refuse to thi nk through the obvi ous i mpl i cati ons of thei r fai th.
They may even be wi l l i ng to make the i ntel l ectual jump from per-
sonal covenants to Gods vol untary corporate covenants of Church
and fami l y, but not to the State. They therefore deny the possi bi l i ty y
of the progressi ve sancti fi cati on of the State. And because they ful l y
understand that the State exerci ses the greatest vi si bl e power of any
human i nsti tuti on, thei r unwi l l i ngness to admi t the future progres-
si ve sancti fi cati on of the State l eads them strai ght i nto eschatol ogi cal
pessi mi sm: premi l l enni al i sm or ami l l enni al i sm. The worl ds evi l -
doers wi l l progressi vel y conquer the i nstruments of ci vi l power, they
procl ai m, and there i s nothi ng i n the l ong run that Chri sti ans can do
about i t.
Thi s truncated versi on of Chri sti ani ty procl ai ms the theol ogy of
the rescue mi ssi on. The i nsti tuti onal Church i s seen as l i ttl e more
than a gi ant rescue mi ssi on to the bums of the worl d. To pessi mi l l en-
ni al i sts, the whol e worl d i s ski d row, and i t wi l l surel y get worse as
ti me goes by. The bums who vi si bl y run thi s worl d can never be
sobered up, nor can they ever be repl aced by sober Chri sti ans. Pessi -
mi l l enni al i sts are sayi ng that the i nescapabl e theocracy of Gods rul e
over the uni verse wi l l not be progressi vel y mani fested i n ci vi l gov-
ernment or the vast majori ty of contractual i nsti tuti ons on earth un-
ti l Jesus comes agai n i n person, ei ther to set up a mi l l enni al ki ngdom
(premi l l enni al i sm) or Hi s eternal ki ngdom (ami l l enni al i sm).
Yet they al so real i ze that there i~ no neutrali~. But i f Chri sti ans can-
not rul e i nsti tuti onal l y, then humani sts and non-Chri sti ans wi l l rul e.
The humani sts wi l l i nevi tabl y rul e i n the name of thei r god, autono-
mous man. There i s no escape from the concept of theocracy. The
onl y questi on i s: Whi ch god i s soverei gn? Thus, a deni al of bi bl i cal
theocracy i n hi story (pre-second comi ng) i nescapabl y l eads to the
theol ogi cal and emoti onal acceptance of a hurnanih theocracy or some
other i mi tati on gods pol i ti cal rul e i n the Church Age . Those who
deny the hi stori c possi bi l i ty of the progressi ve sancti fi cati on of ci vi l
government must therefore al so deny the exi stence i n New Testa-
ment ti mes of posi ti ve feedback between covenantal fai thful ness to
Gods reveal ed l aw and Gods external bl essi ngs i n hi story (Deut.
28:1-14). I mpl i ci tl y or expl i ci tl y, thi s i s exactl y what they do deny.
They necessari l y remove the i nsti tuti onal covenantal sancti ons and
promi ses from the New Testament era. The Ol d Testament then be-
comes Gods di scarded fi rst draft.
Thi s hosti l e atti tude regardi ng the l egi ti macy of speci fi ed Ol d
Testament covenant sancti ons i n ci vi l government eventual l y spi l l s
over i nto Church government and fami l y government. Were under
grace, not l aw i s a mi sl eadi ng sl ogan that cannot be bottl ed up i n
the real m of ci vi l government; i t refl ects an atti tude corrosi ve of al l
government: sel f-government, fami l y government, and Church gov-
ernment. Thus, we fi nd that bi bl i cal anti nomi ani sm hosti l i ty to
Gods reveal ed l aw becomes ei ther l i berti ni sm or l egal i sm, and
someti mes both. The best exampl e of thi s dual process i s fundamen-
tal i sms hosti l i ty to tobacco and l i quor Never, ever, for any reason!
and i ts i nsti tuti onal tol erance of adul tery, especi al l y by pastors.
They may cl i ck thei r tongues, but they often do not permanentl y de-
frock thei r adul terous l eaders. (Si nce fundamental i st pastors rarel y
wear robes i n the pul pi t, the word defrock has no vi sual reference-
poi nt to them.) At most, the denomi nati on or l ocal church suspends
them for a peri od. 118 And when the adul terous pastors refuse to sub-
mi t even to thi s, whi ch i s most of the ti me, they are not publ i cl y ex-
communi cated as rebel l i ous church members, but are onl y removed
qui etl y from the groups mi ni steri al responsi bi l i ti es. 119 I n some
118. I nternati onal l y known tel evi si on evangel i st Ji mmy Swaggart vi si ted a prosti -
tute for over a year i n Loui si ana. Thi s was publ i cl y exposed i n earl y 1988 by another
pastor whose sexual l i fe had al so been corrupt, and whose l arge mi ni stry had di si n-
tegrated when he had been exposed publ i cl y by Swaggart. (I t i s not wi se to consort
wi th a prosti tute who operates wi thi n a mi l e of the man whose career you destroyed wi th
a si mi l ar accusati on. ) The Assembl i es of God denomi nati on suspended Swaggart
for a year. Thi s preposterousl y mi l d tap on the wri st was too hard for Swaggart, who
l eft hi s denomi nati on i n pr otest and conti nued to run hi s di si ntegrati ng worl dwi de
mi ni stry. Thi s i s what vi rtual l y al l of them do. The modern Church pays no atten-
ti on to Gods sancti ons (bl essi ngs and cursi ngs) that accompany the Lords Supper,
so excommuni cati on means l i ttl e to ei ther chur ch gover nments or the excommuni -
cated members. The i dea that God bri ngs Hi s sancti ons i n hi story appeal s to them
onl y when deal i ng wi th thei r ri val s. Neverthel ess, thei r mi ni stri es never ful l y
recover. I ncredi bl y, Charl es R. Fontai ne and Lynda K. Fontai ne have wri tten a
defense of Swaggart agai nst the Assembl i es of God, J immy Swa@art: To Obty God
Rather Than Men (Crockett, Texas: Kerruso, 1989).
119. The Assembl y of God i mposed no publ i c excommuni cati on on adul terous
Ji m Bakker i n 1987 or on Swaggart i n 1988, thei r most wel l -known tel evi si on preach-
cases, a presbytery wi l l si mpl y al l ow a known adul terous pastor to
take a cal l from a church i n a di fferent presbytery, i f onl y he wi l l
l eave wi thout forci ng the presbytery to conduct an embarrassi ng for-
mal tri al . I n short, Keep hi m away from our wi ves; other husbands
must take thei r chances ! 120
Shoul d we be surpri sed when we fi ndthat thi s deni al of covenant
sancti ons i n hi story eventual l y undermi nes pastors own l eadershi p?
I t destroys thei r own i nsti tuti onal conti nui ty. Thi s i s why both ami l -
l enni al i sm and pr emi l l enni al i sm ar e doomed. Thei r theol ogi ans i n-
si st that Chri sti ani ty (pre-second comi ng) i s doomed to fai l ure and
pr ogr essi ve i mpotence, and thei r fol l ower s act accor di ngl y. Thei r
vi ew of ethi cs i nevi tabl y affects thei r vi ew of hi stor i cal pr ogr ess.
Deny i ng Deuter onomy s covenantal cause-and-effect r el ati onshi p
between ethi cs and Gods judgments i n hi stor y, pessi mi l l enni al i sts
thereby commi t i nsti tuti onal sui ci de. I deas do have consequences.
Why Thi s Chapter?
Unti l Franci s Schaeffer arri ved on the scene, there was l i teral l y
not a si ngl e nati onal l y known Bi bl e-bel i evi ng i ntel l ectual l eader i n
Ameri can Protestanti sm after the death of J. G resham Machen on
New Years Day i n 1937. There had been a gap i n Ameri cas Prot-
estant l eadershi p that l asted al most a ful l generati on. There were
conservati ve theol ogi cal books defendi ng thi s or that ci rcumspectl y
l i mi ted theol ogi cal doctri ne wri tten pri mari l y by Lutherans or
facul ty members of Machens Presbyteri an Westmi nster Theol ogi cal
Semi nary as wel l as Bi bl e commentari es, but there was barel y a
si x-day creati oni st movement and no vi si bl e conservati ve Chri sti an
acti vi sm, pol i ti cal or otherwi se. Protestant Chri sti ani ty di sappeared
as an i ntel l ectual force i n the Uni ted States earl y i n the second term
of Presi dent Frankl i n Roosevel t, and di d not reappear unti l several
years after the assassi nati on of Presi dent John Kennedy i n 1963. I t
di d not emerge as a major pol i ti cal force nati onal l y unti l the 1976
Presi denti al el ecti on (Carter vs. Ford), when fundamental i st Chri s-
ers, when each of them refused to submi t to the denomi nati on. Bakker never showed
up to the formal heari ng, and Swaggart refused to obey the denomi nati ons one-year
ban from preachi ng. The onl y sancti on was the erasure of thei r names from the de-
nomi nati ons mi ni steri al rol l s.
120. I am not exaggerati ng. I purchased part of the l i brary of such a man when he
deci ded not to take hi s presbyterys offer. He vol untari l y resi gned from the pas-
torate; he was not removed.
Ha~way Covenant Social Criticism
211
ti ans who di d not understand how commi tted to humani sm Carter
was deci ded to vote for hi m because of hi s publ i c professi on of a
vague bi bl i cal fai th. 121
Rushdoonys study of Cornel i us Van Ti l s phi l osophy, By What
Standara!? (1959), was a ful l -scal e attack on humani st thought, but i t
was di sgui sed as a narrowl y theol ogi cal book on apol ogeti cs, whi ch
was hardl y a popul ar topi c. Hi s books that fol l owed began to reveal
the broad range of hi s thought: I ntellectual Schizophrenia (1961), The
Al essi ani c Character of American Education (1963), This I ndependent Repub-
lic (1964), The Nature of the American System (1965), Freud (1965), The
Mytholo~ of Science (1967), and so on. He wrote i n the 1960s mai nl y
on the topi cs of hi story and educati on. The I nstitutes of Biblical Law
appeared i n 1973, after Schaeffers books had begun to soften the re-
si stance to i ntel l ectual Chri sti ani ty i n evangel i cal ci rcl es. Rush-
doonys books were publ i shed by ti ny Crai g Press (Presbyteri an &
Reformed), and they di d not sel l wel l . Most of them were al l owed to
go out of pri nt. 22
The major i ntel l ectual transformati on i n the evangel i cal and fun-
damental i st communi ti es came wi th the publ i cati on of Schaeffers
The God Who I s There. Thi s book appeared i n 1968, when the counter-
cul ture had become a worl dwi de phenomenon. Thi s was thi rty-one
years after the death of Machen. The peri od 1965-71 was the cruci al
peri od for fundamental i sts to re-enl i st i n the battl e for the mi nds of
men i n the West thei r best opportuni ty si nce the Scopes Monkey
Tri al of 1925, whi ch the fundamental i sts had l ost to the evol uti oni sts
i n the court of publ i c opi ni on. Now, i n the aftermath of Kennedys
assassi nati on and the Vi etnam War, conventi onal l i beral i sm was
comi ng vi si bl y ungl ued. The sel f-confi dence of pragmati c pol i ti cal
l i beral s was shattered by the campus ri ots and then student and race
ri ots i n the ci ti es. The free speech movement that began i n the fal l of
121. Bob Sl osser, who co-authored The Secret Kingdom wi th Pat Robertson (Nash-
vi l l e, Tennessee: Thomas Nel son Sons, 1983), al so co-authored a paperback book
that can best be descri bed as a campai gn tract: The Miracle of J immy Carter (Logos
I nternati onal , June, 1976). I bought my copy i n a Bri ti sh used book store i n 1986. I t
was publ i shed i n Br i tai n by Logos someti me i n 1976.
122. Hal f a dozen ti tl es were pi cked up by young Davi d Thoburn, who used hi s
own money to repri nt them as paperbacks i n 1978. They have not sol d wel l si nce, ex-
cept for one l arge fi re sal e that I promoted i n my newsl etter, Remnant Review, i n
1982. I fi nanced the republ i cati on of By What Standard? i n 1983, and was rei mbursed
by Thoburn from earl y sal es. These books wi l l probabl y not be repri nted when they
go out of pri nt, unl ess i n a l arge, expensi ve, and very di ffi cul t to sel l col l ected
works versi on.
1964 at the Uni versi ty of Cal i forni a (Berkel ey) was fol l owed the fol -
l owi ng August by the ri ots i n Watts, a bl ack suburb of Los Angel es.
Li beral s were aghast; two of thei r favori te proposed sol uti ons pub-
l i c hi gher educati on and federal l egi sl ati on (the Ci vi l Ri ghts Act of
1964) had fai l ed to bri ng peace to the campus or the ghetto.
Schaeffer spoke out wi th a seri es of i ntel l i gent though l i mi ted
cri ti ques of modern humani st thought and cul ture. He offered no
Bi bl e-based sol uti ons, for he had nei ther eschatol ogi cal hope nor a
devel oped soci al theory, but at l east he poi nted el oquentl y to the root
causes of the phi l osophi cal , moral , arti sti c, cul tural , and pol i ti cal
probl ems of the modern worl d: the deni al of the God of the Bi bl e.
Hi s wri ti ngs began to attract the attenti on of Chri sti ans i n many
camps: evangel i cal , fundamental i st, and tradi ti onal l y Reformed.
They recogni zed the val ue of a uni quel y Chri sti an approach to soci al
cri ti ci sm.
Meanwhi l e, di spensati onal i st premi l l enni al i sts commi tted i ntel -
l ectual sui ci de when they fai l ed to di rect schol arl y or practi cal atten-
ti on to the fundamental pol i ti cal and cul tural i ssues rai sed by the
counter-cul ture. They offered no expl i ci tl y Bi bl e-based answers to
real -worl d questi ons of the day. They offered no soci al theory con-
si stent wi th di spensati onal eschatol ogy. Most i mportant, they
offered no cause-and-effect cri ti ci sm of humani st ci vi l i zati on that
was based on a detai l ed study of that ci vi l i zati on i n terms of bi bl i cal
standards. When di spensati onal i st theol ogi ans remai ned si l ent i n
thi s cruci al moment of cul tural opportuni ty, they i mpl i ci tl y pub-
l i shed thei r own mani festo, The Movement That I snt Quite Here. Then
came Hal Li ndseys Late Great Planet Earth (1970), an i mpl i ci t defense
of tradi ti onal di spensati onal retreat, but magni fi ed: we were supposedl y
runni ng out of ti me. Jesus woul d return soon, probabl y i n 1981. There
was therefore no possi bi l i ty of successful Chri sti an soci al acti on: not
enough ti me. Better (and easi er! ) to hand out gospel tracts on the
beach. Surfs up! Thi s deafeni ng di spensati onal si l ence on the bi bl i cal
basi s of soci al acti on has conti nued si nce 1971, and has been made
i nto a worl dvi ew by Li ndseys paperback successor. 123 Thi s si l ence
doomed the di spensati onal movement far more surel y than the com-
pl eti on of the State of I srael s fi rst forty years (1948-1988) popul ar
di spensati onal i sms generati on of the fi g tree wi thout the prom-
123. Dave Hunt, Whatevm Happmed to Heaven? (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House,
1988).
Hayway Covenant Social Criticism 213
i sed Rapture. 124
Franci s Schaeffers books became the foundati on of an evangel i -
cal cri ti que of humani sm, 1968-1984. These i ntroductory books were
i n fact l engthy essays that had been edi ted from hi s taped l ectures;
they were neverthel ess regarded as heavy readi ng by most evangel i -
cal . These books l ed to a revi ved i nterest i n soci al acti on by funda-
mental i sts, 1976-84, after hal f a century of i ntel l ectual hi bernati on. 125
Onl y the l efti st Si deri te movement (Protestanti sms mi l d-mannered
versi on of l i berati on theol ogy) was general l y regarded as an acti vi st
evangel i cal al ternati ve to Schaeffer s anti -abor ti oni sm i n thi s
peri od. 126 These movements were the two major Ameri can Protes-
tant i ntel l ectual al ternati ves to Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sm, and by
1985, they had both begun to fade, at l east i n the Uni ted States. 27
The Next Phase
The overni ght di sappearance of the Schaeffer movement opened up
the Chri sti an i ntel l ectual communi ty to Chri sti an Reconstsmcti oni sm, a
fact whi ch by 1986 had become far cl earer to the moderni st Chri sti an l eft~28
124. A cl assi c document rel ati ng to the end of popul ar di spensati onal i sm was the
May 1988 i ssue of the di spensati onal magazi ne, Moody Month~, whi ch was devoted
to I srael at 40: A Nati on i n Mi dl i fe Cri si s. I t i ncl uded a hi ghl y reveal i ng admi ssi on
of defeat, Garry Fri esi ngs arti cl e, A Return Vi si t, a mi l d but devastati ng cri ti que
of Hal Li ndseys fai l ed prophecy regardi ng the forty-year generati on of the fi g tree.
I n January 1988, I l aunched a new newsl etter, Di spensati onal i sm in Transition, wi th an
i ssue devoted to 1988: Di spensati onal i sms Year of Cri si s . I di d not know that i n the
summer of 1988, one Edgar C. Whi senant woul d sel f-publ i sh hi s two books i n one
predi cti ng the Rapture someti me between September 11 and 13, 1988, nor woul d I
have guessed that i t woul d sel l over four mi l l i on copi es and become front-page news.
See, for exampl e, Book on Second Comi ng attracts attenti on, Orlando Sentinel
(Sept. 5, 1988), p. 1. The books were ti tl ed On Borrowed Time and 88 Remons Why the
Rapture Will Be I n 1988.
125, George Marsden, l%ndame-ntalism and American Culture: The Shaping of
Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925 (New York: Oxford Uni versi ty Press,
1980); Dougl as W. Frank, Less Than Conqu.aors: How Evangelical Entered the Twentieth
Centwy (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Eerdmans, 1986).
126. Davi d Chi l ton, Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators: A Biblical
Response to RonaldJ . Sider (4th ed.; Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs,
1986).
127. Books by Schaeffer and Si der were al so popul ar i n Engl i sh evangel i cal
ci rcl es. I ntervarsi ty y Press on both si des of the Atl anti c publ i shed the earl y Schaeffer
books, as wel l as Si ders.
128. A warni ng to thi s effect utterl y i gnored, as far as we i n Tyl er coul d deter-
mi ne had been sounded by Davi d A. Rausch and Dougl as Chi smar, The New
Puri tans and Thei r Theonomi c Paradi se; Christian Centuy (Aug. 3-10, 1983).
the secul ar humani st l eft,l zg the neo-evangel i cal mi ddl e-to-l eft,130
and the pi eti st fundamental i st ri ght. 131 The mi d-1980s was a water-
shed peri od for the Chri sti an Reconstructi on movement because the
major Chri sti an i ntel l ectual al ternati ves to Chri sti an Reconstructi on
had si mpl y di sappeared as sel f-confi dent, seri ous i ntel l ectual and
ethi cal forces. Onl y the l i berati on theol ogi ans remai n, and they are
obl i vi ous to our exi stence for the moment. 132 The average Chri sti an
evangel i cal i n the pew knows nothi ng about l i berati on theol ogy, and
woul d be appal l ed at i ts soci al i st economi cs. 133 He i s i nsti ncti vel y
conservati ve, whi ch means the Reconstructi oni st message can be fi l tered
down to hi m by wayof l ess controversi al sources. The fundamental -
i sts and evangel i cal wi l l ei ther have to come to Reconstructi oni st-
l i ke concl usi ons or el se fade away soci al l y and pol i ti cal l y. I n ei ther
case, they are unl i kel y to adopt l i berati on theol ogy. (Some of thei r
chi l dren may, however, i f they attend Chri sti an l i beral arts col l eges
and enrol l i n the soci al sci ences or humani ti es. God wi l l i ng, they
wont, empl oyment opportuni ti es bei ng what they are. I f they do, I
hope thei r parents wi l l be wi se enough to requi re them to read Gary
DeMars Survi vi ng College Successful~ before l eavi ng home.)
1
34
129. Tom Teepen, The march toward theocracy, Atl anta Comti ttdi on (Jul y 3, 1986);
Frederi ck Edwords and Stephen McCabe, Getti ng Out Gods Vote: Pat Robertson
and the Evangel i cal , The Humamst (May/June 1987). The non-profi t and government-
subsi di zed Corporati on for Publ i c Broadcasti ng showed Bi l l Meyers three-part ser-
i es on Chri sti ani ty and pol i ti cs i n December of 1987. The thi rd segment was devoted
excl usi vel y to the Chri sti an Reconstructi on movement. Fortunatel y, i t was i gnored.
Most l ocal Publ i c Broadcasti ng tel evi si on stati ons broadcast i t duri rw Chr i stmas
.
week, whi ch i s not a pri me-ti me market for i ntel l ectual documentari es.
130. Rodney Cl app, Democracy As Heresy: Christiani~ Today (Feb. 20, 1987).
See Gary North, Honest Reporti ng As Heresy: My Response to Christian@ Today,
a posi ti on paper rel eased by the I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs (1987).
131. Ed Dobson and Ed Hi ndson, Apocal ypse Now?, Policy Reznew (Fal l 1986).
Thi s magazi ne i s a publ i cati on of the secul ar conservati ve Heri tage Foundati on of
Washi ngton, D. C.
132. On Chri sti an Reconstructi ons al ternati ve to l i berati on theol ogy, see Gary
North, Liberating Planet Earth: An I ntroduction to Biblwal Blueprints (Ft. Worth, Texas:
Domi ni on Press, 1987). On l i berati on theol ogys i nfi l trati on of Roman Cathol i ci sm,
see Mal achi Marti n, The J esuits: The Society ofJ esas and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic
Church (New York: Si mon & Schuster, 1987).
133. For cri ti ques of l i berati on theol ogy, see Gerard Berghoef and Lester
DeKoster , Liberation Theolo~: The Church? Future Shock (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan:
Chri sti ans Li brary Press, 1984); Ronal d H. Nash (cd.), Liberation Theolo~ (Mi l ford,
Mi chi gan: Mott Medi a, 1984); Mi chael Novak (cd.), Liberation South, Liberation North
(Washi ngton, D. C.: Ameri can Enterpri se I nsti tute for Publ i c Pol i cy, 1981); James
V. Schal l , S.J., Liberation Theolo~ (San Franci sco: I gnati us, 1982).
134. Gary DeMar, Surviving College .$uccessjiul~: A Complete Manual for the Rigors of
Academic Combat (Brentwood, Tennessee: Wol gemuth & Hyatt, 1988).
l l a~way Covenant Soci al Criticism 215
There i s another reason for thi s di gressi on, however: Chri sti ans
need to understand that natural l aw phi l osophy and the i deal of per-
manent pol i ti cal pl ural i sm 135 are cl osel y l i nked, and they have and
al ways must l ead to a dead end for Chri sti ans. The Hebrews of Jere-
mi ahs day were warned by God not to put thei r trust i n pol ythei sti c
Egypt i n thei r confr ontati on wi th the pol ythei sti c Chal deans (Jer.
42: 19); nei ther i s there any hel p agai nst todays Chal deans of Com-
muni sm, soci al i sm, and sodomi sm i n the pl ural i sm of Egypt. The
hal fway house Chri sti ani ty that i s ti ed to natural l aw phi l osophy and
permanent pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i s just that: hal fway. Choose thi s day
whom you wi l l serve: God or Baal , Jesus or Ari stotl e.
The Many Si des of Franci s Schaeffers Mi ni stry
Franci s Schaeffers mi ni stry had several si des. One si de was
evangel i cal yet personal : he attracted to hi s chal et the up and out
chi l dren of the upper mi ddl e cl ass, especi al l y i n the l ate 1960s, when
they wandered ai ml essl y around Europe i n search of adventure,
meani ng, and purpose. He l ed many of them to Chri st.
Another si de was i ntel l ectual : he became a sel f-educated cri ti c of
humani sm, especi al l y the arts. He taught hi msel f a great deal about
many fi el ds, al though he di d not meet the i ntel l ectual standards of
tenured neo-evangel i cal professors who teach al l of 9 to 12 hours
a week, earn fat sal ari es, take four months of pai d vacati on each
year, conduct no evangel i sm programs, counsel no wanderi ng ri ff-
raff, and have l ots of ti me to read obscure journal arti cl es wri tten by
speci al i sts.
He wrote books ai med at l i terate Chri sti ans. He surpri sed every-
one, especi al l y hi s publ i sher, I nterVarsi ty Press, when he found that
market far l arger than anyone had i magi ned. How he accompl i shed
thi s i s as much a mystery as how the Beatl es di d what they di d or Hal
Li ndsey di d what he di d. Al l of a sudden, there were buyers of rather
sophi sti cated books on Bi bl e-bel i evi ng Chri sti ani ty and modern cul -
ture, and Schaeffers reputati on as a schol ar began to spread. He be-
came a schol ar through the back door. Thi s someti mes showed, but
i t rarel y mattered.
135. I am not, l et i t be sai d, argui ng that pol i ti cal pl ural i sm cannot be defended
as a temporary system duri ng whi ch al l si des are mobi l i zi ng to capture the system
permanentl y. There i s nothi ng i nherentl y wrong wi th a temporary cease-fi re.
216
A thi rd si de was i nspi rati onal : he offered a gl i mmer of hope to a
generati on of Chri sti an col l ege students who were bei ng i ndoc-
tri nated dai l y by thei r humani st professors. He showed them that
they coul d remai n Chri sti ans wi thout sacri fi ci ng thei r i ntel l ects. He
thereby broke the spel l of an i nfl uenti al humani st myth as wel l as a
paral yzi ng evangel i cal suspi ci on, a myth that had prevai l ed si nce at
l east the Scopes tri al of 1925.136 Schaeffer performed an i ntel l ectual
servi ce for the evangel i cal worl d comparabl e to what Henry Morri s
and the Creati on Sci ence movement performed for fundamental i sm:
he encouraged Chri sti an l aymen by provi di ng footnotes.
The troubl e was, he di d not al ways provi de al l the footnotes. He
del i beratel y conceal ed from hi s readers the most theol ogi cal l y radi cal
of hi s sources, meani ng the most Cahi ni sti c.
Theol ogi cal Schi zophr eni a
There was somethi ng dark and somewhat mysteri ous i n the
thi nki ng of Franci s Schaeffer a ki nd of omi nous forebodi ng about
the movement he had l aunched. The cul tural , pol i ti cal , and above
al l covenantal i ssues threatened to get out of hand. I thi nk they di d get
out of hand, just as they di d for Jerry Fal wel l and the now-defunct
Moral Majori ty, as wel l as for the presentl y i nvi si bl e New Chri sti an
Ri ght. They were trapped from the begi nni ng by thei r i ntel l ectual
schi zophreni a, as I wrote i n 1982:
I feel sorry for those vi si bl e l eaders of the New Chri sti an Ri ght who
have to face the savage attacks of the humani sts, and who al so face the mor-
al i sti c attacks of those former supporters who are remai ni ng true to thei r
anti -covenantal , anti -pol i ti cal presupposi ti ons. The radi cal i ndependents
are upset that men l i ke Fal wel l and [James] Robi son ar e chal l engi ng them
wi th new, unfami l i ar responsi bi l i ti es responsi bi l i ti es that are meani ngful
onl y wi thi n a Chri sti an framework of covenant theol ogy. But nei ther Fal -
wel l nor Robi son bel i eves i n covenant theol ogy. . . . The Bapti sts who are
i nfl uenti al i n the New Chri sti an Ri ght movement are bei ng torn apart,
epi stemol ogi cal l y speaki ng. Thei r pol i ti czd concl usi ons l ead strai ght i nto
covenantal theocracy, but thei r Anabapti st presupposi ti ons l ead ri ght back
i nto pi eti sm and ul ti matel y i nto anarchi sm. Once a man acknowl edges that
there i s no neutral i ty, he has to confront thi s cruci al i ntel l ectual probl em.
Wi l l i t be covenant theol ogy or Anabapti sm? Wi l l i t be theocracy or anar-
chi sm? Or wi l l i t be a l i fe of bei ng caught i n the mi ddl e, wi th humani sts and
136. Marsden, Fundamtalism and Ameriian Culture, ch. 21.
Ha~way Couenant Social Criticism
217
i ndependents both cal l i ng for your scal p, and wi th covenant theol ogi ans
standi ng on the si del i nes, watchi ng you get ri pped to pi eces? 137
By the ti me thi s essay appeared, James Robi son, the hard-
preachi ng Bapti st evangel i st who i n 1980 had co-sponsored and
hosted the openl y pol i ti cal Nati onal Affai rs Bri efi ng Conference i n
Dal l as, had adopted a radi cal form of pi eti sm, advocati ng a near -
chari smati c vi ew of l i fe. A l ocal chari smati c l ayman had supposedl y
chased the demons out of hi s l i fe, as Robi son descri bed i t i n 1981,
and Robi son was never the same. He became a spokesman for a the-
ol ogy of zero confrontati ons among Chri sti ans. I n 1984, Schaeffer
di ed, havi ng l ost the support of thousands of hi s pi eti st di sci pl es be-
cause of The Great Evangelical Disaster. By 1985, Fal wel l had l eft the
vi si bl e pol i ti cal scene; i n the summer of 1989, he shut down the
Moral Majori ty, hi s pol i ti cal acti on organi zati on (whi ch had been al l
but dead si nce at l east 1984). None of these men ever resol ved thi s
theol ogi cal di l emma. 138
Returning Ha&ay to the Covenant
Schaeffers cri ti ci sm of modern humani st cul ture forced hi m i n
pri nci pl e back to a doctri ne he had been taught i n semi nary: the cov-
enant. But rather than just a Church covenant the ci rcumscri bed
topi c of semi nary cl assrooms the bi bl i cal covenant i s al so ci vi l . The
concept of Gods ki ngdom on earth threatened Schaeffers vi ews
about both ethi cs and eschatol ogy, just as i t had threatened Van Ti l s
vi ew. Van Ti l coul d hi de i nsi de the Westmi nster Semi nary l i brary,
protesti ng that cul ture was not hi s fi el d, pretendi ng that hi s refutati on
of natural l aw theory had not i n pri nci pl e unl eashed the theocrati c
whi rl wi nd. Because of the nature of Schaeffers chosen arena of i ntel -
l ectual confrontati on, he coul d not hi de from tough cul tural questi ons
that coul d onl y be answered i n one of two ways: ei ther the bi bl i cal
covenant or the myth of neutral i ty (natural l aw or exi stenti al i sm). He
feared the fi rst and publ i cl y deni ed the second. Then hi s fear over-
came hi m, and he dejectedl y re-adopted the second al ternati ve, i n the
form of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm. He di ed wi thout resol vi ng the di l emma.
137. North, I ntel l ectual Schi zophreni a of the New Chri sti an Ri ght , C/zri sti anz~
and Civilization (1982), pp. 29-30.
138. The cl assi c statement of thi s theol ogi cal schi zophreni a between soci al l y rel evant
Chri sti ani ty and anti -theocrati c Chr i sti ani ty i s Char l es Col sons book, Kingdoms in
Conzict (1987), co-publ i shed by fundamental i st publ i sher Zondeman and humani st
publ i sher Wi l l i am Mor r ow.
I n the fi nal anal ysi s, Franci s Schaeffer was a defender of hal fway
house Cal vi ni sm. I n hi s popul ar wri ti ngs, he never menti oned the
fundamental doctri nes of the Cal vi ni st fai th, such as predesti nati on,
i rresi sti bl e grace, l i mi ted atonement, and covenant theol ogy, al l of
whi ch he had affi rmed at the ti me of hi s ordi nati on as a Presbyteri an
mi ni ster. (By affi rmi ng hi s commi tment to the Westmi nster Confes-
si on of Fai th, he i ndi rectl y affi rmed these doctri nes. ) Remember: i n
1976, he wrote a pamphl et on i nfant bapti sm, but refused to publ i sh
i t i n hi s mi snamed Complete Works. Was thi s refusal stri ctl y tacti cal ,
i .e., a means of keepi ng hi s mai nl y Bapti st audi ence happy? Or was
i t that he coul d no l onger face the covenantal i mpl i cati ons of i nfant
bapti sm once he had confronted the di sturbi ng covenantal i mpl i ca-
ti ons of pol i ti cal soverei gnty?
Consi der other evi dence of i ntel l ectual schi zophreni a i n hi s hal f-
way covenant theol ogi cal system:
He accepted the Cal vi ni st doctri ne of the total depravi ty of man,
yet he bel i eved that Chri sti ans coul d successful l y appeal to comm-
onl y hel d truths as a means of evangel i sm of si nners.
He adopted the l anguage of Van Ti l s presupposi ti onal apol oget-
i cs, yet he rejected the key epi stemol ogi cal concept i n Van Ti l s sys-
tem: the radi cal and unbri dgeabl e di sti ncti on between the covenant-
keepers vi ew of facts and covenant-breakers vi ew of facts. He then
systemati cal l y spent hi s career coveri ng up the fact that he had
studi ed under Van Ti l and had adopted hi s termi nol ogy.
He gai ned hi s i ni ti al knowl edge of the Chri sti an roots of the
Uni ted States from Rushdoonys This I ndependent Republic, stol e por-
ti ons of Rushdoonys research i n The One and the Many al most word
for word, stol e the words of Chi l ton and Fl i nn al most word for word,
and then gave the i mpressi on (through l ack of appropri ate foot-
noti ng) that he had never heard about Chri sti an Reconstructi on.
He recommended the wri ti ngs of Samuel Rutherford i n hi s
defense of the moral ri ght of Chri sti an resi stance agai nst unl awful
ci vi l government, but he al so systemati cal l y refused to menti on any-
thi ng about Rutherfords theocrati c worl dvi ew, whi ch was the theo-
l ogi cal basi s of Rutherfords theory of l awful resi stance.
He rejected the myth of neutral i ty, but then adopted as hi s rec-
ommended pol i ti cal i deal the concept of pl ural i sm, whi ch rests phi -
l osophi cal l y and judi ci al l y on the doctri ne of neutral i ty.
He warned agai nst the moral i mpl i cati ons and actual soci al
resul ts of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm; neverthel ess, he adopted pl ural i sms
operati ng presupposi ti on: the rejecti on of bi bl i cal theocracy.
Hal&oay Covenant Social Criticism 219
He wrote: We must not confuse the Ki ngdom of God wi th our
country. To say i t another way: We shoul d not wrap Chri sti ani ty i n
our nati onal fl ag. But because he dared even to menti on the i nesca-
pabl e i mpl i cati on of pl ural i sm moral rel ati vi sm he has been post-
humousl y r i di cul ed by academi c gentl emen i n Chr i sti an col l ege
cl assrooms, who i nsi st that he was a cl oset theocrat anyway.
He cal l ed Chri sti ans to a l i fe of ri sky confrontati on wi th the State
over the abor ti on questi on, but as a pr emi l l enni al i st, he bel i eved
that al l such crusades are i n the l ong run futi l e cul tural l y.
He attacked the soci al and pol i ti cal apathy of the modern pi eti s-
ti c evangel i cal wor l d, whi ch pr omptl y abandoned hi m because i t
shared hi s premi l l enni al , anti nomi an worl dvi ew. The pi eti sts knew
enough not to get i nvol ved i n a l osi ng pol i ti cal battl e that Schaeffers
own premi l l enni al i sm i mpl i ed was futi l e. Why get i nvol ved i n pol i -
ti cs anyway? To quote Schaeffer, There i s no New Testament basi s
for a l i nki ng of church and state unti l Chri st, the Ki ng returns. The
whol e Constanti ne mental i ty from the fourth century up to our day
was a mi stake.
Both hi s son and Dr . Koop appar entl y under stood what thi s
meant, and therefore qui t the fi ght as soon as he was dead. Hi s son
produced a vi ol ent R-rated movi e. Dr. Koop abandoned every publ i c
trace of Chri sti an moral i ty to became a pi tchman for condoms and a
promoter of a nati onal no-smoki ng campai gn (Prohi bi ti on revi si ted).
Al though he was a pol i ti cal conser vati ve, hi s few r emai ni ng
i ntel l ectual di sci pl es have refused to get i nvol ved i n pol i ti cal l y con-
ser vati ve causes, and i n fact now appear to be i n the camp of the
pol i ti cal l i beral s (e.g., those al i gned wi th Engl ands John R. Stott).
Concl usi on
Such has been the fate of what was ori gi nal l y an i mpl i ci tl y conser-
vati ve Chri sti an mi ni stry that had adopted an essenti al l y negati ve,
cri ti cal approach to cul ture: the rejecti on of humani sm, the rejecti on
of bi bl i cal l aw, the rejecti on of the i dea of a nati onal covenant, and the
rejecti on of the possi bi l i ty of bui l di ng a Chri sti an ci vi l i zati on before
the second comi ng of Chri st. Li ke the ami l l enni al i sts Van Ti l and
Dooyeweerd, and al so l i ke consi stent premi l l enni al i sts everywhere,
Schaeffer had nothi ng posi ti ve to affi rm concerni ng the future except
the hope of a personal di sconti nuous escape from hi story: ei ther
death or the second comi ng of Chri st, whi chever comes fi rst. For
Schaeffer, death came fi rst.
220
I n short, Franci s Schaeffers mi ni stry ran head-on i nto the hard
real i ty of the ol d pol i ti cal sl ogan: You cant beat somethi ng wi th
nothi ng. I n a ti me of i ntel l ectual and soci al di si ntegrati on, whi ch
thi s century surel y i s, those cl i ngi ng desperatel y to the col l apsi ng
center cannot be expected to, do much more than hol d on for dear
l i fe. The col l apsi ng center surel y cannot pave the way to a better
temporal worl d when i t i s unabl e to hol d thi ngs together. Wi thout
hope for the earthl y future, Franci s Schaeffer coul d not persuade the
bul k of hi s fol l owers to move off-center, away from pi eti sm: neo-
evangel i cal , Reformed, or fundamental i st. There were onl y three
ways out of pi eti sm when he di ed: l i berati on theol ogy, theocracy,
and apostasy. Schaeffer rejected al l three. He di ed before the center
col l apsed. I t i s unl i kel y that hi s spi ri tual hei rs wi l l escape that easi l y.
Thi ngs coul d have been worse, however. Franci s Schaeffer mi ght
have been a pol i ti cal l i beral . He mi ght even have been a trai ned
hi stori an. I f you thi nk Schaeffer sounds confused, or even theol ogi -
cal l y schi zophreni c, wai t unti l you di scover the theori es of professors
Nel l , Hatch, and Marsden i n Chapter 5.
Fi nal l y, Chri sti an hi stori ans themsel ves made a strategi c adjust-
ment that both opened a door to thei r parti ci pati on i n the uni versi ty
worl d and encouraged more respectful treatment of rel i gi on. Thi s
adjustment was to abandon at l east whi l e worki ng wi thi n uni ver-
si ty preci ncts the tradi ti on of provi denti al hi stori ography stretchi ng
back to Constanti nes Eusebi us. I t marked a wi l l i ngness to consi der
hi story wri ti ng i n the sphere of creati on rather than i n the sphere of
grace, as a mani festati on of general rather than speci al revel ati on.
Put di fferentl y, Chri sti an hi stori ans i n the modern academy have
made the i mpl i ci t confessi on that hi story i s not theol ogy. Thi s con-
fessi on means that they construct thei r accounts of the past from
facts ascertai ned through documentary or materi al evi dence and ex-
pl ai ned i n terms of natural human rel ati onshi ps.
Usual l y wi thout defi ni ng thei r theoreti cal commi tments ex-
pl i ci tl y, these hi stori ans have hewn to a mi ddl e course. They have
eschewed provi denti al hi story; Chri sti an hi stori ans assume that a
schol ar worki ng wi th the data of hi stori cal research cannot know
Gods mi nd for past events i n the way that the i nspi red wri ters of
Scri pture di d, and they assume that the pri mary purpose of hi stori -
cal wri ti ng i s not apol ogeti cs or evangel i sm. . . .
Wi th strategi c adjustments by Chri sti an hi stori ans themsel ves,
the forceful voi ce of neo-orthodoxy, and the decay of grand secul ar
expl anati ons, the modern academy has made room for seri ous hi s-
tori cal wri ti ng compati bl e wi th Chri sti an val ues and useful for
Chri sti an purposes. Chri sti ans who wri te thi s ki nd of hi story can sti l l
fal l between stool s. A bel i ever who l eaves to theol ogi ans the job of
assessi ng human events from the di vi ne perspecti ve can be l abel ed a
trai tor wi thi n the church. A Chri sti an who refuses to reduce rel i gi on
to a supposedl y more fundamental real i ty can be scorned as senti -
mental i n the academy. Nonethel ess, i t i s now possi bl e to conduct
such hi stori cal work i n departments of rel i gi on at Pri nceton, Yal e,
Duke, Chi cago, Edi nburgh, Oxford, Cambri dge, and other major
uni versi ti es of the Engl i sh-speaki ng worl d, and al so to functi on wi th
such a perspecti ve i n the hi story departments of most uni versi ti es.
Mark A. Nel l (1988)
*Nel l , Contemporary Hi stori cal Wri ti ng: Practi ce and Presuppo si ti ons, Chrti ti -
ani ~ and History Newslett~ (Feb. 1988), pp. 17-18.
.
5
HALFWAY COVENANT HI STORI OGRAPHY
What of the place of the Bible, then, as a basis for political action?
Should we not bring the nation and its legislation back to the Bible? Here
we haue to make a careful distinction. Christians own political decisions
should be informed by biblical principles. This is an important point not
to miss, I Veuertheless, when bringing these decisions to bear on ciuic de-
bate and legislation we must agree to the rul es of the civic game, which
under the American constitution are pluralistic. That means that no mat-
ter how strong~ the Bible or other revel ati on informs our political uiews,
for the purposes of ci vi c debate and l egi sl ati on we wi l l not appeal
si mp~ to religious authority.
Nell, Hatch, Cd Marsden (1983)
Hi stori ans Nel l , Hatch, and Marsden offer us what they propose
as a defense of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm as the theoreti cal and judi ci al basi s
of the Ameri can pol i ti cal experi ment. They offer thi s as Chri sti an
schol ars.
2
They are professors i n both senses: col l egi ate and confes-
si onal , What I wi sh to di scuss i n thi s chapter i s one questi on: Are
they trustworthy professors?
Thei r statement regardi ng the Bi bl e and pol i ti cal acti on sounds
so reasonabl e. What Chri sti an woul d reject the i dea of becomi ng i n-
formed by bi bl i cal pri nci pl es? Thi s does rai se some controversi al
questi ons: Whi ch pr i nci pl es? Der i ved thr ough what sour ce?
Another i mportant questi on: Are these bi bl i cal pri nci pl es permanent
pr i nci pl es? I f so, then they ar e l aws. Ar e these men cal l i ng for a
1. Mark A. No]], Nathan O. Hatch, and George M. Marsden, The Search for
Chnstiun Ammca (Westchester, I l l i noi s: Crossway, 1983), p. 134.
2. Nel l teaches at Wheaton Col l ege, Hatch at Notre Dame, and Marsden i n 1983
taught at Cal vi n Col l ege. He i s now a professor at Duke Di vi ni ty School , one of the
most radi cal l y l i beral theol ogy departments i n the U.S. I t has a great l i brary, how-
ever, whi ch I thoroughl y enjoyed usi ng free of charge i n the l ate 1970s.
223
return to Ol d Testament l aws? Have they become theonomi sts i n
pri nci pl e, though not i n practi ce? The term bi bl i cal pri nci pl es i s
l i ke a bl ank check. Whether i t bounces or not depends on how l arge
the account i s compared wi th the amount of the check. As we shal l
see, both the account and the check are remarkabl y smal l . I n fact, by
the ti me you fi ni sh thi s chapter, you probabl y wi l l expect to see thei r
check returned to you, wi th the gri m notati on: i nsuffi ci ent funds .
Two other bothersome questi ons may al so i ntrude i nto the mi nd
of a thoughtful Chri sti an. Fi r$t, the U.S. Consti tuti on permi ts
amendments. Thi s al l ows for peaceful pol i ti cal conti nui ty.
3
What i f a
l arge majori ty of voters i n the Uni ted States shoul d someday convert
to Jesus Chri st as Lord and Savi or, and then, over several decades or
more, repeatedl y amend the Consti tuti on i n order to refl ect the pro-
gressi ve transformati on of the nati on i nto a bottom-up, decentral -
i zed, theocrati c republ i c? I am not yet rai si ng the questi on of the
wi sdom of such a pol i ti cal act, though of course I woul d favor i t
under the hi stori cal condi ti ons I have speci fi ed. I am merel y rai si ng
the questi on of the l egal i ty of such a program of C onsti tuti onal revi -
si on. I f i t i s l egal , why not do i t? I f i t i s not l egal , on what basi s i s i t
decl ared i l l egal ?
There i s no doubt, as the authors correctl y observe, that the
Uni ted States i s l egal l y a pl ural i sti c nati on today. Thi s i s not the pri -
mary poi nt. The far more i mportant questi on i s: I s todays pol i ti cal
pl ural i sm necessari l y a judi ci al l y and pol i ti cal l y permunent condi ti on?
Even more to the poi nt: I s i t Con.stitutLwud~ permanent? At what
poi nt i n hi story may a majori ty of voters l egi ti matel y begi n to amend
the Consti tuti on to make i t conform to the wi l l of the Peopl e, i f
those voters have become theonomi sts? I f We, the Peopl e shoul d
sel f-consci ousl y become We, Gods covenanted peopl e, what l egal
or moral pri nci pl e can the pl ural i st offer whi ch woul d prohi bi t the
peaceful , vol untary, and majori tari an abandonment of the doctri ne
of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm, both i n word and i n deed?
The Myth of Neutral i ty (Agai n)
So, the U.S. Consti tuti on can be l awful l y amended to revoke
pol i ti cal pl ural i sm. A second questi on occurs. On the one hand, they
3. The U.S. Consti tuti on i s di vi ded i nto fi ve parts. These parts happen to corre-
spond to Ray Suttons descri pti on of the Bi bl es fi ve-poi nt covenant model , al though
not i n the same order. The fi fth poi nt of the covenant, conti nui ty, corresponds to the
fi fth secti on of the Consti tuti on: the amendi ng process. See Chapter 10.
Ha~way Covenant Historiography 225
i nsi st that At the base of every human cul ture i s a shared set of rel i -
gi ous val ues that hel p hol d the soci ety together.4 (Why do they
pl ace quotati on marks around the word rel i gi ous? They do the same
thi ng repeatedl y wi th the word Christian. Why such hesi tati on adopt-
i ng these cruci al words wi th the words ful l force? Why do they try to
soften the power of these words by pl aci ng them i nsi de quotati on
marks?) On the other hand, the authors promi se that for the pur-
poses of ci vi c deba~e and l egi sl ati on we wi l l not appeal si mpl y to rel i -
gi ous authori ty. A most i ntri gui ng goal ! But thei r promi se rai ses a
cr uci al questi on: What authority, pray tell, is not religious? (Dr. Marsden
studi ed apol ogeti cs under Cor nel i us Van Ti l at Westmi nster
Semi nary. He i s aware of Van Ti l s arguments regardi ng the i mpos-
si bi l i ty of rel i gi ous neutral i ty. At the heart of Van Ti l s apol ogeti c
system i s thi s presupposi ti on: All authori~ is at bottom religious. There
i s no rel i gi ous neutral i ty. I wonder i f he has rejected Van Ti l s con-
cl usi ons. I bel i eve that he must have. How el se coul d he have si gned
hi s name to such a statement?)
Now, i f our three professors of hi story are, as they i nsi st, al so
professors of Chri st, why do they bel i eve that those who deny Chri st
have a l eg (or an epi stemol ogy) to stand on? Every knee shoul d bow
at the name of Jesus: That at the name of Jesus every knee shoul d
bow, of thi ngs i n heaven, and thi ngs i n earth, and thi ngs under the
earth (Phi l . 2:10). The verse does not say that every knee shall bow
at judgment day, but rather that every knee should bow today, mor-
al l y speaki ng. I t i s an ethi cal i mperati ve, not an eschatol ogi cal
prophecy. So i s the requi rement that every tongue shoul d confess
that Jesus Chri st i s Lord (Phi l . 2:11).
I f our three professors are sayi ng onl y that we do not need to ci te
the Bi bl e every ti me we speak, they are sayi ng nothi ng speci al . I can
l egi ti matel y order a sandwi ch from a wai tress wi thout remi ndi ng her
that man does not l i ve by bread al one. (By man I of course mean
manki nd, as i n the fami l y of man. I i ncl ude women i n my use of
the word here. No need to offend l i beral academi c sensi bi l i ti es at thi s
earl y stage !) But our three professors mean somethi ng a bi t more
substanti al . What they are tal ki ng about i s common grace: the abi l i ty
of non-Chri sti ans to understand l ogi cal arguments even though they
reject the Bi bl e, God, and Chri sti ani ty.
5
4. I bid., p. 44.
5. I bid., pp. 135-37,
Of course non-Chri sti ans can understand l ogi c, but as Van Ti l
says, they ar e capabl e of under standi ng anythi ng wel l enough to
functi on i n l i fe onl y because God graci ousl y al l ows them to thi nk.
He restrai ns them from becomi ng total l y consi stent wi th thei r own
covenant-breaki ng presupposi ti ons. Shoul d they ever become total l y
consi stent, they coul d not thi nk at al l , Van Ti l i nsi sted, for they have
borrowed (stol en! ) from Chri sti ani ty every premi se that al l ows them
to thi nk cl earl y. 6
Consistency and ConJ ict
The questi on must then be rai sed: I f covenant-breakers shoul d
steadi l y become more consi stent wi th thei r rel i gi ous presupposi ti ons,
woul d they conti nue to l i sten to Chri sti ans who have adopted the
authors hoped-for common-ground arguments? Or to put i t another
way, once covenant-breakers more ful l y see what Jesus Chri st real l y
demands from them i n hi story, and they al so see what consistent
Chri sti ans shoul d demand from them i n ci vi l affai rs (e. g., the publ i c
executi on of convi cted aborti oni sts as murderers: Exodus 21:22-23),
wi l l they not rush to shut the open door pol i cy of the Consti tuti on?
Wont they try to make aborti ons l egal , for exampl e, by means of a
Supreme Court i nterpretati on? (Oops, sorry: they al ready di d thi s.)
And i f that shoul d be overturned by l egi sl ati on or a subsequent
Court deci si on, wi l l they try to repl ace the Consti tuti on (as several
humani st groups are now acti vel y seeki ng to do)?
7
I n short, as covenant-breakers and covenant-keepers become
more consi stent wi th thei r ri val and irreconcilable rel i gi ous posi ti ons
over ti me, what happens to the real i ty of pl ural i sms judi ci al l y open
door? More to the poi nt, i snt the pri mary premi se of pol i ti cal pl ural -
i sm the assumpti on that men wi l l become progressi vel y more sel f-
consci ous rel i gi ousl y over ti me? What i f C. S. Lewi s (who i s ci ted so
favorabl y by our three authors)s i s correct i n the statement i n hi s
novel , That Hideous Strength ? Lewi s wrote: I f you di p i nto any col -
l ege, or school , or pari sh, or fami l y anythi ng you l i ke at a gi ven
6. The natural man must not be encouraged to thi nk that he can, i n terms of hi s
own adopted pri nci pl es, fi nd truth i n any fi el d. He must rather be tol d that, when he
fi nds truth, even i n the real m of the phenomenal : he unwi tti ngl y fi nds i t i n terms of
pri nci pl es that he has borrowed, wi tti ngl y or unwi tti ngl y, from Chri sti ani ty. Cornel i us
Van Ti l , The Case for Caluimsm (Nutl ey, New Jersey: Crai g Press, 1964), p. 106.
7. Gary North, Hi jacki ng the Consti tuti on: Phase One, Remnant Review, XI I
(May 24, 1985),
8. Van Ti l , Case for Cal vi ni sm, pp. 145-47, 154.
Ha~way Couenant Historiography
227
pofnt i n i ts hi story, you al ways fi nd that there was a ti me before that
poi nt when there was more el bow room and contrasts werent qui te
so sharp; and that theres goi ng to be a ti me after that poi nt when
there i s even l ess room for i ndeci si on and choi ces are even more
momentous. Good i s al ways getti ng better and bad i s al ways getti ng
worse: the possi bi l i ti es of even apparent neutral i ty are al ways di mi n-
i shi ng. The whol e thi ng i s sorti ng i tsel f out al l the ti me, comi ng to a
poi nt, getti ng sharper and harder.g Thi s was al so Van Ti l s posi ti on
regardi ng hi story, as Dr. Marsden knows. What becomes ofpoliticalplu-
ralism in the middle of an escalating religious war? And what can prevent
such a war i f Lewi s i s correct regardi ng the hi stori cal process of
sharpeni ng and hardeni ng i n both the past and the future? 10
Let me put i t bl untl y: as covenant-keepers and covenant-breakers become
more consistent in thought and h$e, pluralism will be shot to pieces in an io20-
logical (and perhaps even litera~ cross~re. Pl ural i sm i s a pol i ti cal arrange-
ment based on a temporary rel i gi ous and i deol ogi cal cease-fi re.
When thi s cease-fi re ends, pl ural i sm al so ends. So wi l l the appeal of
i ts i deol ogy.
Each ti me a Chri sti an presses the cl ai ms of the gospel on a fal l en
worl d, he makes pl ai n the i rreconci l abl e di fferences. Thi s i s true no
matter what he does to soften the punch. Thus, we can expect
escal ati ng confrontati ons as ti me goes on i f Chri sti ans preach and
l i ve the gospel , unti l the fi nal assaul t on the Church at the end of
ti me (Rev. 20:9-10). But i n the meanti me, who becomes domi nant:
the covenant-breaker or the covenant-keeper? Our tri o of hi stori ans
bel i eves that covenant-breakers wi l l ; I bel i eve that Chri sti ans wi l l .
Thi s may sound l i ke a peri pheral debate over eschatol ogy, but i t i s at
the very center of our confl i cti ng vi ews of Ameri can hi story, as we
shal l see. Because our authors do not want to provoke unbel i evers,
they prefer to avoi d pressi ng Gods cl ai ms on them i n the fi el d of ci vi l
government. They have rei nterpreted col oni al Ameri can hi story i n
order to justi fy thei r cal l for Chri sti ans to wi thdraw from the pol i ti cal
arena as peopl e wi th an expl i ci tl y Chri sti an pol i ti cal agenda.
9. C. S. Lewi s, That Htdeous Strength (New York: Macmi l l an, 1946), p. 283.
10. That Lewi s refused to consi der thi s questi on publ i cl y i s obvi ous from hi s
muddl ed defense of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i n God in the Dock (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan:
Eerdmans, 1970), pp. 198-99. I have deal t wi th thi s i n my book, Dominion and Com-
mon Grace: The Biblical Basis of Progress (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Eco-
nomi cs, 1987), pp. 148-53.
228
L$e-and-Death I ssues
The l i beral , pl ural i sti c vi ewpoi nt represented by our three schol -
ars i s representati ve of vi rtual l y al l modern Chri sti an pol i ti cal
theory. They have si mpl y arti cul ated the posi ti on better than most
and more cunni ngl y. Thei r vi ewpoi nt, however, i s qui te common.
Thi s vi ewpoi nt cannot be separated from what Van Ti l cal l s epi ste-
mol ogi cal sel f-consci ousness. I prefer to cal l i t ethical sel f-consci ousness.
Thi s sel f-consci ousness wi l l i ncrease. I bel i eve that as ti me goes on,
l$e-and-death issues will ji nal ~ be perceived by the uoters as l$e-and-death
issues. Aborti on i s one such i ssue. There i s no way to reconci l e pro-
-choi ce murderers and Gods l aw. Thi s confl i ct wi l l not go away. I t
wi l l escal ate. I t i s escal ati ng. I There wi l l be other si mi l ar confl i cts.
The soci al and pol i ti cal fabri c wi l l be ri pped apart, as surel y as
Chri st sai d that fami l i es wi l l i nevi tabl y be ri pped apart because of
di sagreements over who He i s (Matt. 10:34-37). No doubt there are
pro-fami l y peopl e who resent thi s di srupti on. They mi ght be cal l ed
fami l i sti c pl ural i sts. No matter. Thei r worl d was destroyed i n pri nci -
pl e by Chri sts i ncarnati on, mi ni stry, and resurrecti on. He that l ov-
eth father or mother more than me i s not worthy of me: and he that
l oveth son or daughter more than me i s not worthy of me (v. 37).
So al so the worl d of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm. He who l oves the U.S.
Consti tuti on more than he l oves Jesus Chri st i s not worthy of Jesus
Chri st. (He who l oves academi c respectabi l i ty more than he l oves
Jesus Chri st i s equal l y unworthy. But what a patheti c mess of pottage
to sel l ones bi rthri ght for!)
The Word of God (Emeri tus)
The Chri sti an who cl ai ms to bel i eve the whol e Bi bl e faces a very
di ffi cul t probl em i f he i s a pol i ti cal l i beral , or even a pol i ti cal
moderate. The Ol d Testament i s nei ther pol i ti cal l y l i beral nor pol i ti -
cal l y moderate. Woul d you concl ude that the l egi sl ati ve enactment
of the case l aws of the Bi bl e wi l l soon be part of the pol i ti cal pl atform
of any known l i beral pol i ti cal party? Not the reasonabl e case l aws,
but al l of them, taken as a package, unl ess one of them has been an-
nul l ed by the New Testament? Thi s questi on requi res no heavi l y
footnoted answer. Even the conservati ve parti es woul d not touch the
11. Randal l A. Terry, Operation Rescue (Spri ngdal e, Pennsyl vani a: Whi taker
House, 1988); cf. Gary North, When J ustice I s Aborted: Biblical Standards for Non- Violent
Resistance (Ft. Worth, Texas: Domi ni on Press, 1989).
Ha~way Covenant Historiography
229
case l aws. The case l aws are too radi cal rel i gi ousl y, too bi bl i cal l y
theocrati c. The present Western theocraci es of autonomous man wi l l
not tol erate such opposi ti on.
Thi s poses a probl em for the vast majori ty of academi cal l y em-
pl oyed Chri sti ans. Thei r academi c peers are l i beral s. Or Marxi sts.
So, they are i n no posi ti on to defend publ i cl y, l et al one promote, the
l egi sl ati ve enactment of Ol d Testament l aw. Neverthel ess, they
cl ai m to be Chri sti ans. There i s onl y one acceptabl e tacti c: to deny
that the case l aws are bi ndi ng i n New Testament ti mes. (They share
thi s vi ewpoi nt wi th 99.9 percent of al l covenant-breakers, excl udi ng
onl y a few cul ts. ) But wi thout the case l aws, there i s no way to di sti n-
gui sh Chri sti an l egi sl ati on from non-Chri sti an l egi sl ati on. Chri s-
ti ans i n academi c posi ti ons understand thi s, so they concl ude that
there can be no l egi ti mate Chri sti an ci vi l l egi sl ati on. Then they set
out to prove i t. Any other concl usi on woul d be regarded by thei r
present empl oyers as an unacceptabl e narrowi ng of the Chri sti an
worl dvi ew, and i t woul d al so l ead rapi dl y to a drasti c narrowi ng of
thei r career opportuni ti es.
I t i s the contenti on of theonomi sts that the Ol d Testament i s not
the Word of God (emeri tus). We take i ts l aws seri ousl y. Thi s i s why
we are persona non grata i n every Chri sti an col l ege facul ty i n the
l and. Our three authors do not make expl i ci t thei r theol ogi cal objec-
ti ons to theonomy. They i gnore theol ogy as such. I nstead, they put
on the protecti ve cl othi ng of professi onal academi c speci al i zati on.
They have wri tten a l engthy tract agai nst Ol d Testament l aw and
have di sgui sed i t as a survey of Ameri can pol i ti cal hi story.
Humanism? Arrogant Humili@
They make a seri es of asserti ons regardi ng the Ameri can past.
They understand that peopl e who take the whol e Bi bl e seri ousl y
tend to be pol i ti cal conservati ves. They themsel ves are not pol i ti cal
conservati ves. They must reject the noti ons that 1) they themsel ves
are not Chri sti ans and 2) they themsel ves are not consi stent Chri s-
ti ans. To do thi s, they must assert the onl y l ogi cal al ternati ve, namel y,
that the New Testament is inherently ambiguous political~, economical~,
and in ev~y other way. Thi s i s exactl y what our tri o of hi stori ans an-
nounce regardi ng pol i ti cs, but onl y toward the end of thei r book.
They are representati ve of the whol e neo-evangel i cal academi c
worl d. The Bi bl e i s not a pol i ti cal handbook. ~z (What sti ck man
12. The Search, p. 137.
ever sai d that i t i s? The cruci al questi on that our authors do not
want to consi der i s thi s: Does the Bi bl e establ i sh moral and judi ci al
jirst principles that l ead i nevi tabl y, over ti me, to certai n ki nds of pol i ti -
cal i nsti tuti onal arrangements when these pri nci pl es are observed by
Chri sti ans? For exampl e, do these pri nci pl es l ead to the creati on of a
decentral i zed republ i c rather than a one-party uni tary State?) They
conti nue: Thi s pol i ti cal si de of Chri sti ans acti on whether on the
pol i ti cal ri ght, l eft, or mi ddl e shoul d be marked by humi l i ty. We
shoul d not too readi l y cl ai m the authori ty of God for a pol i ti cal or
economi c program by sayi ng that ours i s the Chri sti an posi ti on. 13
Note the academi c hedge words, not too readi l y. Maybe there i s a
Chri sti an posi ti on after al l ! I f one utterl y deni es thi s possi bi l i ty y, one
then appears as a moral rel ati vi st. Then agai n, maybe there real l y i s
no Chri sti an posi ti on. One does not want to appear dogmati c.
Di l emmas, di l emmas. The safe thi ng to do i s to adopt l oophol e
phrases, such as not too readi l y. (Such phrases are used by
academi c peopl e far too readi l y.)
The authors poi nt to the fact that the most common use of the
Bi bl e i n pol i ti cs has been to justi fy ones own sel f-i nterests. 14 True
enough; but what i f ones own sel f-i nterests happen to be bi bl i cal ?
After al l , i snt the whol e purpose of personal regenerati on and pro-
gressi ve moral sancti fi cati on to conform onesel f and onei institutions to
Chri st? Furthermore and thi s i s where thi ngs get sti cky for anti -
nomi ans and pol i ti cal pl ural i sts i snt bi bl i cal l aw the standard by
whi ch Chri sti ans are supposed to exami ne our personal and instdu-
tional moral progress? I snt bi bl i cal l aw the permanent standard that
God appl i es to us, both i n hi story and at the fi nal judgment? The
authors do not rai se thi s questi on. They shoul d.
We theonomi sts keep aski ng: I f not biblical law, then what? By what
other standard?
Our authors conti nue, addi ng hyperbol e and perhaps even just
a bi t of sarcasm. (But, hey, who am I to object to a l i ttl e sarcasm?)
Because we are not i mmune from thi s human frai l ty and because
we are i mperfect i n understandi ng both the Bi bl e and the dynami cs
of modern pol i ti cs, we shoul d thi nk at l east twi ce before cl ai mi ng to
speak wi th the authori ty of a Hebrew prophet . 15 Agai n, noti ce the
13. I btd., p. 139.
14. I dem.
15. I dem.
Ha~way Couenant Historiography 231
hyperbol e. Who cl ai ms to speak today wi th the authori ty of a
Hebrew prophet? Onl y an occasi onal cul ti st or madman. But are
Chri sti ans moral l y requi red to remai n as si l ent as Mi chael Novaks
transcendent i n the face of escal ati ng pol i ti cal probl ems? 16 I f so,
why? I f we as ci ti zens have the l egal ri ght to speak out pol i ti cal l y,
then i n whose name do we speak? Or do we speak neutral l y, si mpl y
i n the name of oursel ves as nothi ng more than a uni que segment of
the Great God Humani ty? Woul dnt thei r rhetori cal fl ouri sh agai nst
drawi ng pol i ti cal concl usi ons wi th the authori ty of a Hebrew
prophet appl y just as easi l y to theol ogi cal concl usi ons made by a
Chri sti an Church? Dont those church offi cers who affi rm and enforce
creeds, and who conduct publ i c excommuni cati ons, speak i n a si mi l ar
fashi on? Humani sts who ri di cul e al l churches argue just exactl y that.
Though@l Covenantalism
I ask Professor Marsden, a Cal vi ni st Presbyteri an: What about the
Westminster Confession of Faith? Di dnt the Westmi nster attendees
thi nk twi ce? Di dnt four or fi ve years of i ntense publ i c debate,
1643-47, consti tute a suffi ci ent peri od of thoughtful ness? Why woul d
the addi ti on of the adjecti ve pol i ti cal l essen the l ogi c of the accusa-
ti on? How do our three schol ars expect to be abl e to toss the rhetori -
cal aci d of rel ati vi sm i n the faces of the Puri tans as pol i ti cal theori sts
and not expect to scar them al so as theol ogi ans? They affi rmed the
covenant i n ci vi l government; 17 they al so affi rmed i t i n Church gov-
ernment. I f they were i ncorrect regardi ng the former, then why not
al so the l atter?
My economi c commentary on Exodus 21-23, Tools of Dominion, is
over 1,200 pages l ong. I have thought about thi s more than twi ce. I
have thought conti nual l y about thi s for over a quarter of a century. I
have concl uded that the Bi bl e i s not al l that ambi guous moral l y or
judi ci al l y. The Bi bl e i s suffi ci entl y cl ear to earn i t the hosti l i ty of gen-
erati ons of humani sti c pol i ti cal l i beral s. The accusati on of i ts am-
16. Mi chael Novak, The Sfiint of Democratic Capitalism (New Yor k: Touchstone,
[1982] 1983). See my I ntroducti on, above.
17. Perry Mi l l er wri tes: Neverthel ess, we do know that wel l before the Ci vi l War
began i n Engl and [1641Ys], Parl i amentari ans and these i ncl uded vi rtual l y al l Puri -
tans had asserted that soci eti es are founded upon the covenant; that the forms of a
parti cul ar soci ety, even though di ctated by uti l i tari an factors, are of di vi ne opera-
ti on; that rul ers who vi ol ate the agreed-upon forms are usurpers and so to be legiti-
matel y resi sted. Perry Mi l l er, Natures Nation (Cambri dge, Massachusetts: Bel knap
Press of Harvard Uni versi ty Press, 1967), p. 98.
bi gui ty i s si mpl y a defensi ve reacti on by men who are pol i ti cal l y l i b-
eral but who sti l l seek to mai ntai n al l egi ance to the Bi bl e. Ambigui~
is a ki nd of hi di ng pl ace i n the shadows for pol i ti cal l i beral Chri sti ans
caught i n a crossfi re between secul ari sts and conservati ve Chri s-
ti ans. Ambigui~ al l ows them to escape the l i mi tati ons i mposed by the
bi bl i cal ci vi l covenant.
Our authors are qui te cl ear about thei r commi tment to non-
covenantal Chri sti an pol i ti cs: We shoul d have Chri sti an approaches
to pol i ti cs, recogni zi ng that there wi l l be a vari ety of these, but we
shoul d not expect to produce the Chri sti an pol i ti cal program. 1s (I
cannot resi st ci ti ng the punch l i ne of the ol d Lone Ranger and Tonto
joke: What you mean we, pal eface? Three centuri es from now, or
three conti nents away, thi s phrase wi l l baffl e some weary graduate
student. ) They apparentl y vi ew Chri sti an ethi cs as i f i t were a mi cro-
cosm of pl ural i sms moral l y ambi guous worl d. Chri sti ans di sagree
wi th other rel i gi ous groups, and they al so di sagree wi th each other.
(Theonomi sts, bei ng masters of di sagreement, are hardl y i n a posi ti on
to di sagree wi th our tri o. ) But what i f Lewi s i s correct? Good i s al -
ways getti ng better and bad i s al ways getti ng worse: the possi bi l i ti es of
even apparent neutral i ty are al ways di mi ni shi ng. The whol e thi ng i s
sorti ng i tsel f out al l the ti me, comi ng to a poi nt, getti ng sharper and
harder. I f so, then the areas of di sagreement wi thi n each camp wi l l
narrow. The i nescapabl e confl i ct i n every area of l i fe between ri val
camps wi l l become cl earer. Then what happens to pl ural i sm?
They at l ast come to the heart of the matter: Fi nal l y, thi s whol e
questi on comes back to what ki nd of book the Bi bl e i s i n rel ati on to
modern pol i ti cs, Speci fi cal l y, whi ch do we emphasi ze more, the parts
of the Ol d Testament whi ch focus on nati onal I srael , or the themes
i n both Ol d and New Testaments whi ch speak to al l peopl e? g
Noti ce the i mposed di chotomy: nati onal I srael (read: speci al revel a-
ti on, now judi ci al l y obsol ete) and al l @o@e (read: natural l aw or
common-ground reasoni ng, forever and ever, amen).
The Di l emma of H. Ri chard Ni ebuhr
The thi nki ng of Nel l , Hatch, and Marsden i s i nti matel y bound
up i n a vi si on of what consti tutes Protestanti sm, as we shal l see.
What I argue i n thi s chapter i s that thei r concepti on of Protestanti sm
18. The Search, p. 139
19. I dem.
HalJ way Covenant Historiography
233
i s essenti al l y that of the l i beral humani st, H. Ri chard Ni ebuhr, the
brother of Rei nhol d. Rei nhol d was a pol i ti cal acti vi st, a real i st, a
pursuer of the Kanti an phenomenal real m. Z Hi s brother was a pi eti st,
a pursuer of the Kanti an noumenal real m. They made qui te a theo-
l ogi cal team. Nei ther of them was a Tri ni tari an Chri sti an.
H. Ri chard Ni ebuhr set forth a pri nci pl e of i nterpretati on whi ch
i s fundamental to The Search for Christian A mertca. He argued i n 1937
that Protestanti sm faces an acute di l emma. Then he took the Kanti an
di l emma and bapti zed i t. (Thi s i s what Karl Barth had begun doi ng
two decades earl i er.)
The di l emma of Protestanti sm l ay rather i n these factors: i t had no wi l l to
power and i n vi ew of i ts posi ti ve pri nci pl e coul d have none, for supreme
power bel onged onl y to God and evi l resul ted from every human arrogati on
of hi s domi ni on; i t had no defi ni te i dea of the end toward whi ch i t was
travel i ng and coul d have none, si nce the future l ay wi th the free God; and i t
coul d not be ruthl ess si nce i t had the i nhi bi ti ng commandments of the gos-
pel ever before i t. As a theory of divine constructi on the Protestant move-
ment was hard put to i t to provi de pri nci pl es for human constructi on. Yet i t
was unabl e to be supi ne, awai ti ng i n pati ence what God mi ght do, si nce i t
was evi dent that men l i ved i n a cri si s and that they coul d not stand sti l l but
were hasteni ng ei ther to destructi on or to l i fe. I t was necessary to press i nto
the ki ngdom. 21
Good rel ati vi st that he was, Ni ebuhr then poi nted out to hi s
readers what he found i n hi msel f The Protestant saw how rel ati ve
were the judgments about good and evi l , about ri ght and wrong,
and how much the moral commandments of soci ety were condi -
ti oned by the i nterests of the powerful .zz Does thi s descri pti on
sound to you l i ke Marti n Luther? No? Wel l , then, does i t sound l i ke
John Cal vi n? No? How about John Knox? No? Wel l , then, who
does i t sound l i ke? I thi nk i t sounds l i ke a skepti cal l i beral theol ogi an
whose far more famous ol der brother was al l too confi dent about
20. Donal d B. Meyer, The Protestant Search for Political Realism, 1919-1941
(Westpor t, Connecti cut: Gr eenwood, [1960] 1973); Ronal d H. Stone, Reinhold
Niebuhr: Prophet to Politician (Lanham, Maryl and: Uni versi ty Press of Ameri ca,
1981); Ernest F. Di bbl e, Young Prophet Niebuhr: Reinhold Niebuhrk Search for SocialJ ustice
(Lanham, Maryl and: Uni versi ty Press of Ameri ca, 1978); D. R. Davi es, Reinhold
Niebuhr: Prophet>om Arnzrica (Bal a Cynwyd, Pennsyl vani a: Ayer, 1945).
21. H. Ri chard Ni ebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America (New York: Harper
Torchbooks, [1937] 1959), p. 30.
22. I bid., p. 31.
234
everythi ng pol i ti cal , and who had even run for Congress on the So-
ci al i st Party ti cket seven years earl i er. 23
The Protestant pri nci pl e, he sai d, suffered from a major defect.
There was no preci si on i n i t; i t offered no standard whereby men
coul d make choi ces between rel ati ve goods and rel ati ve evi l s; i t gave
them no scal e of val ues whereby thei r i nterests coul d be harmoni zed
and the hi gher be made to control the l ower. The Cathol i c cri ti c seemed
unanswerabl e when he sai d that Protestanti sm l ed to moral anarchy.
24
And then he drove home hi s poi nt: What was true of the moral
sphere was perhaps even more true of the pol i ti cal and economi c.2
5
The reader i s warned i n advance: here i s the heart, mi nd, and
soul of modern defenses by sel f-professed Chri sti ans of pol i ti cal pl u-
ral i sm and the Keynesi an mi xed economy. Thi s i s the mi nd-set of
the academi c Chri sti an today. The Bi bl e, they i nsi st, provi des no
bl uepri nts, no moral absol utes that can be transl ated i nto hi stori c
creeds and pol i ti cal pl atforms. I t i s thi s assumpti on whi ch l eaves
them no choi ce but to reject the judi ci al and soci al worl dvi ew of the
Puri tans i n the name of moderni ty. They are Protestants, they tel l
us, and they are i ndeed caught i n a di l emma: Kants di l emma.
What about the Bi bl e? Doesnt i t provi de bl uepri nts? The earl y
New Engl and Puri tans bel i eved i t does, as Ni ebuhr shows. But i t
was a fal se hope, he i nsi sted. The equati on of the Scri ptures wi th
the reveal ed wi l l of God l ed to vi rtual deni al of the l i vi ng real i ty of
God.y*G Here i t i s agai n: the Kanti an di l emma. To the extent that
the Kanti an god i s sai d to be reveal ed i n a phenomenal form, the
Bi bl e and creeds deri ved from i t, to that extent does he retreat ever-
deeper i nto the noumenal shadows. What we need i s mysti cal uni on
wi th God, not a rul e book: . . . the Scri ptures taught the i mmedi ate
acti vi ty of God through hi s Hol y Spi ri t and cri ti ci zed severel y the
worshi p of the l etter.*T The deepl y anti nomi an i mpul se of Ni ebuhrs
outl ook i s obvi ous.
A good summary of Ni ebuhrs thought i s found i n the Dictionav
of American Religious Biography, What he wanted was what Barth
wanted: confessi on without content. Hi s cri ti cal orthodoxy was a form
23. Ni ebuhr, Kar l Paul Rei nhol d: i n DictionaV of Ameri can Religious Biography,
edi ted by Henry Warner Bowden (Westport, Connecti cut: Greenwood, 1977), p. 333.
24. Ni ebuhr , Kingdom of God, p. 32.
25. Zdem.
26. I bid., p. 61.
27. I dem.
Ha@ay Covenant Historiography 235
of confessi onal i sm, but i t avoi ded both sel f-defensi ve apol ogeti cs and
any confl ati on of expressi on wi th content. Confessi onal forms of rel i -
gi ous thought were poi nts of vi ew, not absol utes, and they di d not at-
tri bute ul ti macy to symbol s themsel ves i nstead of to the God who i s
vi ewed i n fai th. From thi s perspecti ve i t made sense to di scuss the
hi stori cal dynami cs of bel i ef acqui red through evol uti onary, revol u-
ti onary processes, more so than to contempl ate doctri nes expressed
as conceptual packages outsi de an encounter wi th real events.2
8
I n
other words, He i s God, and He i s Not Si l ent; You just Cant Pi n
Hi m Down on Anythi ng Speci fi c.
Understand: Nel l , Hatch, and Marsden are Ni ebuhrs devoted
soci ol ogi cal di sci pl es, as we shal l see.
Assumi ng What You I ntend to Prove
I n 1982, Dr. Marsden contri buted an essay to a festschrz@ for hi s
Chur ch hi stor y pr ofessor at semi nar y, Paul Wool l ey. 29 The ti tl e of
the essay tel l s al l : Ameri cas Chri sti an Ori gi ns: Puri tan New Eng-
l and as a Case Study. Noti ce the fami l i ar quotati on marks around
the word Chri.rtian. I t gi ves away the game. He began the essay wi th
thi s observati on: One of the opi ni ons most persi stentl y and wi del y
hel d i n the Ameri can evangel i cal communi ty and i n many conserva-
ti ve Refor med ci r cl es i s that Amer i ca had essenti al l y Chr i sti an
ori gi ns from whi ch l amentabl y i t turned i n the twenti eth century.
30
Then he goes on: Yet i f i t were shown that the Puri tans who settl ed
Ameri ca di d not establ i sh trul y Chri sti an domi nant cul tural pri nci -
pl es that were i n some i mportant ways perpetuated, then a strong
suspi ci on mi ght be rai sed that the enti re case for a now-l ost Chri s-
ti an Amer i ca r ests on r ather nebul ous foundati ons. 3
1
1 this can be
f
shown, then he i s correct: the enti re case for a Chri sti an Ameri ca
woul d i ndeed rest on nebul ous foundati ons. But hi s attempt to show
thi s supposed fai l ure of the Puri tans fal l s fl at.
28. DictionaT, p. 331.
29. I al so took one course under Wool l ey. He had a remarkabl e memory and a
commi tment to pol i ti cal l i beral i sm. I revi ewed hi s book, The Ss@@cance ofJ Gresham
Machen (1977) i n J ournal of Christian Recon.rtrudion, I V (Wi nter, 1977-78), whi ch I
found to be a good deal l ess than schol arl y.
30. Marsden, Ameri cas Chri sti an Ori gi ns: Puri tan New Engl and as a Case
Study: i n J ohn Cal vi n: His I ng%ence in the Western World, edi ted by W, Stanford Rei d
(Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Zondervan, 1982), p. 241.
31. I dem.
2 3 6
Noti ce the weasel word, trul y. I tgi ves hi magreat deal ofl ati -
tude to dance the professi onal hi stori ans ji g. So does the phrase,
some i mportant ways . Then he refers to the ambi guous character
of much of the Puri tan cul tural achi evement and i nfl uence .SZ What
i s i n fact ambi guous i s Dr. Marsdens reconstructi on. He admi ts, to
hi s credi t, that Thi s thesi s i n turn i s based on a more theoreti cal ar-
gument questi oni ng whether there are l i kel y to be found any actual
hi stori cal exampl es of trul y Chri sti an cul tures.sq Noti ce where thi s
i s headed. I f i n theo~ i t i s unl i kel y that there can be any hi stori cal ex-
ampl es of trul y Chri sti an cul tures the heart, mi nd, and soul of
Marsdeni sm and neo-evangel i cal hi stori ography general l y then
of course the Puri tans di d not achi eve a trul y Chri sti an soci ety.
The Puritan Experiment
He admi ts that they had a rel ati vel y free hand i n bui l di ng thei r
soci ety. They represent an uncommonl y i deal l aboratory i n whi ch
to anal yze the possi bi l i ti es and pi tfal l s of a trul y Chri sti an cul ture .
34
He al so admi ts that Puri tan concepti ons l ong remai ned major i nfl u-
ences i n Ameri ca.35 He ci tes Church hi stori an Sydney Ahl stroms
recogni ti on of the domi nance of Puri tani sm i n the Ameri can rel i -
gi ous heri tage.qc But, asks Marsden, di d they provi de a trul y
Chri sti an basi s for Ameri can cul ture? Then he di scusses the di ffi -
cul ti es i n defi ni ng Puritan and Christian. Thi s i s the hi stori ans am-
bi gui ti es game, a tacti c devel oped earl y i n hi s trai ni ng, a ski l l espe-
ci al l y useful when presenti ng a new, i mproved i nterpretati on of
somethi ng. He l i sts several si gns of a trul y Chri sti an cul ture: peace,
chari ty to the poor, and moral i ty. Cul tural acti vi ti es such as l ear -
ni ng, busi ness, or the subdui ng of nature woul d be pursued basi cal l y
i n accord wi th Gods wi l l .s7 Noti ce here the phrase Gods wi l l .
Noti ce the absence of another phrase, Gods Bi bl e-reveal ed l aw.
Thi s i s not a mi stake on Dr. Marsdens part; thi s, too, i s basi c to al l
of modern neo-evangel i cal soci al concern. I t refuses categori cal l y to
appeal di rectl y to Ol d Testament l aw as the basi s for di scoveri ng
Gods wi l l . Thi s woul d be l egal i sti c. More to the poi nt, an appeal to
32. I bid., p. 242.
33. I dem.
34. I dem.
35. I dem.
36. I bid., p. 243.
37. I bid., p. 244.
HalJ way Couenant Historiography
237
the Ol d Testament i nhi bi ts one from bapti zi ng some soci al reform pro-
gram that was di scarded by the l i beral s as unworkabl e ten years ago.
The Puri tans were Cal vi ni sts, he says. They bel i eved i n the sover-
ei gnty of God. 38 They were moral peopl e. 39 I n formi ng a ci vi l govern-
ment, Governor John Wi nthrop appeal ed back to the Ol d Testament
i dea of covenant, wi th i ts doctr i ne of Gods hi stor i cal sancti ons
agai nst nati ons. A And here i s the probl em for Marsden, not for
Wi nthr op: Wi nthr op accor di ngl y assumed that he coul d tr ansfer
the pri nci pl es of nati onhood found i n anci ent I srael to the Massa-
chusetts Bay Company wi th no need for expl anati on.Al Here i s the
sharp object that sti cks i n Marsdens throat. He cannot swal l ow thi s.
I f he did, he would have to equate Christian civil government with theocra~.
He coughs har d and spi ts i t out. He ci tes Wi nthr ops Model of
Chri sti an Chari ty speech gi ven on board the Arbella i n 1630.
Here, before the mai n body of Puri tans ever set foot on Ameri can
shores, i s compressed i n Wi nthrops thought the paradoxi cal character of
al most the enti re Puri tan enterpri se. They bel i eved thei r vi si on for the
transformati on of human cul ture was grounded sol el y on the best pri nci pl es
drawn from Scri pture. Yet thei r hi stori cal experi ence a tradi ti on of over a
thousand years of l i vi ng i n Chri stendom, a concept that cl assi cal Protes-
tanti sm di d not di spel l ed them to i nterpret Scri pture i n an ul ti matel y pre-
tenti ous way that gave thei r own state and soci ety the exal ted status of a
new I srael . 42
Here i s the reason why the cri ti cs of Chri sti an Reconstructi on re-
gard us as pretenti ous. I t i s because any attempt to desi gnate any
cul ture as Chri sti an i s regarded as pretenti ous, i f thi s desi gnati on i s
i n any way ti ed to Ol d Testament l aw and the covenant sancti ons of
that l aw-order. Thus, says Marsden, the Puri tan theory of i ts new
I sr ael status pr oduced dubi ous pr acti cal consequences. Such as?
Such as: Ol d Testament l aw was di rectl y i f not excl usi vel y i ncorpor-
ated i nto the l egal systems of New Engl and.43 He then ci tes the
dozen capi tal cri mes l i sted i n the Body of Li berti es (1641). Such l aws
were not al l wi thout precedent i n Engl i sh Common Law and el se-
where, yet here the Ol d Testament texts were copi ed di rectl y i nto the
38. I dem.
39. I bid., p. 245.
40. I bid., pp. 245-46.
41. I bid., p. 246.
42. I bid., p. 247.
43. I dem,
238
New Engl and l aw books.4A I mean, Ol d Testament l aws ri ght there
i n thei r l aw code! Just thi nk of i t!
Thi s just about settl es i t, i n Marsdens eyes. New Engl and Puri -
tans were cl earl y not engaged i n bui l di ng a trul y Chri sti an soci ety,
si nce they appeal ed di rectl y to the Bi bl e i n order to establ i sh thei r
ci vi l l aws. They assumed that they were the New I srael , and thei r
l aw code testi fi ed to thi s assumpti on. But just to make sure we get
the pi cture, he remi nds us of thei r harsh treatment of the Ameri can
Nati ves. (Oops, sor r y: Nati ve Amer i cans. Capi tal i zed.) Nowher e
do the dangers of thi s assumpti on become more cl ear than i n the
Puri tans treatment of the Nati ve Ameri cans.45 Puri tans stol e the
I ndi ans l and, he says. And then he gets to the poi nt:
They regarded themsel ves as the new pol i ti cal I srael ; but i t was a case of
mi staken i denti ty. The resul t was worse than i f they had made no attempt
to fi nd a Chri sti an basi s for pol i ti cs. 46
Here i t i s, i n bl ack and whi te. Better not to seek becomi ng a
Chri sti an soci ety than to put bi bl i cal l aw i nto your soci etys ci vi l l aw
code. Better to l i ve i n a humani st, pl ural i sti c soci ety than to seek to
establ i sh a theocracy. Better to si t under the humani sts tabl e and eat
the scraps that fal l from i t, even though the humani sts wi l l have taxed
you heavi l y to put food on thei r tabl e. I n short, better pl ural i sms
ci vi l covenant than Gods. This is the presuppositional basis of our trios re-
@tion of the idea that America was ever a Christian nation.
The Appeal to Roger Williams
To whom does he then appeal as the trul y Chri sti an pol i ti cal
phi l osopher of that generati on? Roger Wi l l i ams, the spi ri tual father
of the Bapti sts. Wi l l i ams too may be counted among those Cal vi n-
i sts who contri buted to the Ameri can heri tage, though among Cal -
vi ni sts themsel ves he represented a mi nori ty posi ti on. I n hi s vi ew of
the Church, Wi l l i ams i n a sense was more a puri tan than the Puri -
tans. I n what sense? I n the sense that Cal vi n Col l ege i s today more
Cal vi ni st than Harvard Col l ege was i n 1640. That i s, i t i s more l i ke
Wheaton Col l ege. Thus perhaps we ought to credi t Wi l l i ams as the
best exempl ar of the trul y posi ti ve Cal vi ni st i nfl uence i n Ameri can
44. I dem.
45. I bid., p. 248.
46. I dem.
I +al&ay Couenant ffistoriography 239
cul ture.47 Thi s i s the equi val ent of i denti fyi ng Wi l l i am Jenni ngs
Bryan as the best exempl ar of Grover Cl evel ands trul y posi ti ve Pres-
byteri an i nfl uence i n Ameri can pol i ti cs, or Woodrow Wi l son as the
best exempl ar of Bryans posi ti ve Presbyteri an i nfl uence i n Ameri -
can pol i ti cs. 48 That i s to say, the i dea i s preposterous. Any si mi l ari ty
between the Massachusetts Bay Col ony or Connecti cut and Rhode
I sl and i s l i mi ted to geography.
Al though Dr. Marsden, a former student i n Dr. Van Ti l s cl asses,
somehow fai l ed to menti on thi s, he has taken his readers back to natural
law. Wi l l i ams defended hi s anti -Massachusetts errand i n the Rhode
I sl and wi l derness by an appeal to natural l aw theor y.49 Li ke the dog
returni ng to i ts vomi t (I I Pet. 2:22), those who adopt Van Ti l s pre-
supposi ti onal apol ogeti cs wi thout al so adopti ng the theonomi sts
vi ew of bi bl i cal l aw i n ci vi l soci ety eventual l y are tempted to return
to Thomas Aqui nas i n the name of John Cal vi n and/or Abraham
Kuyper. I t i s cl ear that Dr. Marsden i s Mr. Wool l eys di sci pl e, far
more than Dr. Van Ti l s.
Havi ng l abel ed the Puri tan experi ment as paradoxi cal , endi ng
i n a .maze of paradoxes, he then l abel s thei r l egacy one of uneven
foundati ons .5J He says that they real l y di d hol d to the vi ew of bi bl i -
cal l aw that Rushdoony says that they di d: . . . the l aw i s a si l ent
magi strate, and the magi strate a speaki ng l aw.sl Thi s was a hi gher
l aw concept. Then he goes on to cl ai m John Locke as part of the
next generati on. John Locke? He has jumped across 3,000 mi l es of
ocean and two revol uti ons the Puri tan Revol uti on (1638-60) and
the Gl ori ous Revol uti on (1688) i n order to reach Locke. Are we
bei ng tol d that Lockes natural l aw concept of soci ety was part of the
next generati on of Puritans? Marsden i s too cl ever to say thi s, but hi s
move from the New Engl and Puri tans to Locke takes pl ace wi thi n a
si ngl e paragraph. From there the same paragraph, mi nd you we
move back across the ocean and forward another ei ght and a hal f
decades to 1776 and . . . Thomas Pai ne! They al l hel d a si mi l ar
vi ew of the hi gher l aw.
47. I dem.
48. Cl evel and was a pro-gol d standard, veto-wi el di ng defender of l i mi ted gov-
ernment; Bryan was basi cal l y a Bapti st who bel i eved vaguel y i n i nfant bapti sm, and
whose pol i ti cs was anti -gol d standard, Popul i st, and radi cal ; Wi l son was a secul ar
humani st who bel i eved i n rul e by the educated el i te.
49, See bel ow: Roger Wi l l i ams: Hero of the Pl ural i sts, pp. 245-54.
50. The Search, p. 249,
51. I bid., p. 250.
240
Thi s i s i ndeed paradoxi cal .
He then refers to the Engl i sh Whi gs, John Adams, and ei ghteenth-
century pol i ti cal thought i n general . He correctl y observes that Puri -
tan pol i ti cal i deas became mi xed wi th Whi ggery i n the ei ghteenth
century. But - what he does not do i s tel l us how thi s mi xture took
pl ace. I t took pl ace because of the resurgence of Stoi c natural l aw
theory dressed i n sci enti fi c Newtoni an garb, transmi tted through
Uni tari an Masonry. 52 He then tel l s us that thi s compromi se i s the
basi s of hi s rejecti on of the i dea of Chri sti an Ameri ca. They had al l
abandoned a Chri sti an soci al outl ook and had become pol i ti cal
pl ural i sts.
I cannot resi st aski ng: Does this mean that the natur al law-dependent,
anti- Old Zstament law perspective of modern neo-euangelicalism also makes it
impossible to speak of %.@ Christian scholarship? Does thei r compar abl e
and anal ogous compromi se equal l y negate thei r Chri sti an founda-
(
ti ons? Dr. Marsden and hi s col l eagues real l y ought to respond to
these questi ons. What i s sauce for the col oni al goose i s al so sauce for
the neo-evangel i cal gander.
Marsden admi ts that duri ng the Revol uti on, preachers i denti fi ed
the Revol uti onary cause wi th the new I srael . Thi s was a survi val of
Puri tani sm. Agai n, he says that thi s i s a bl ack mark on the churches,
a vi si bl e demonstrati on of Chri sti an i deol ogi cal i mperi al i sm.5
3
Yet
he sti l l refuses to di scuss the possi bi l i ty that the exi stence of thi s
Chri sti an i mperi al i sm proves the case that thi s nati on was ori gi -
nal l y founded on Chri sti ani ty.
Ambigui~: The Ethical Foundation of Pl ur al i sm
How does he end hi s essay? Of course: wi th a di scussi on of the
concl usi on wi th whi ch he began hi s research: Why There Are No
Chri sti an Cul tures. The resul ts of any attempt to Chri sti ani ze cul -
ture are i nescapabl y . . . ambiguous. 54 Al l that Chri sti ans can expect
to be abl e to do i s act as a retardant agai nst si n i n soci ety. 55 Al l
Chri sti ani ty has provi ded Ameri ca wi th i s a general moral i nfl uence
i n hel pi ng to create a l aw-abi di ng ci ti zenry wi th a strong conci ence.56
Ameri can hi stori cal roots mi ght just as wel l have been Confuci an.
52. See Part 3, bel ow.
54. I btd., p. 259.
55. I dem.
56. I btd. , p, 254.
241
What he i s sayi ng i s si mpl e: There can neuer be an authentical~ Chri s-
tian reconstruction of any socie~ this side of Gods)na13udgment. Thi s i s hi s
theol ogi cal starti ng poi nt, but i t i s careful l y di sgui sed as an hi stori cal
concl usi on.
There i s an even more fundamental concl usi on l urki ng i n the
shadows: let Christians rest content with political pluralism; it is the best we
can hopefor in history. Thi s i s the presupposi ti on our tri o begi ns wi th as
thei r operati ng assumpti on. Thei r other concl usi ons fol l ow.
Van Ti l i s correct: fi ni te man must reason i n ci rcl es, ei ther
vi ci ous ci rcl es or covenantal ci rcl es. What man assumes determi nes
what he concl udes. I t woul d save us al l a l ot of ti me and troubl e i f
schol ars admi tted thi s i n thei r prefaces or i ntroducti ons. Readers
woul d know i n advance where a book i s headed.
Provi ng What You Have Al ready Assumed
Marsdens 1982 essay set forth the basi c themes of The Search for
Christian America. As I sai d before, thi s book i s an i deol ogi cal l y moti -
vated tract i n favor of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm, but i s presented as a work
of hi stori cal schol arshi p. The authors of The Search for Christian A mer-
ica cl ai m that they di d not fi nd Chri sti an Ameri ca. Si nce they very
cl earl y embarked on thei r academi c journey i n order to avoi d fi ndi ng
i t, thi s i s not surpri si ng. They of course do not tel l the reader that the
absence i n hi story of a Chri sti an Ameri ca was thei r i ntel l ectual starti ng-
poi nt. On the contrary, they i nsi st that i t was a study of the facts
that l ed them to thi s concl usi on. We feel that a careful study of the
facts of hi story shows that earl y Ameri ca does not deserve to be con-
si dered uni quel y, di sti nctl y or even predomi nantl y Chri sti an, i f we
mean by the word Chri sti an a state of soci ety refl ecti ng the i deal s
presented i n Scri pture. There i s no l ost gol den age to whi ch Ameri -
can Chri sti ans may return. 57 Furthermore, the i dea of a Chri sti an
nati on i s a very ambi guous concept . . . .
58
(Lost Gol den Age?
Thi s i s part of pagan mans theory of cycl i cal hi story, the myth of the
eternal return. The Church was i n a revol t agai nst such a vi ew of
hi story from the begi nni ng, cul mi nati ng wi th Augusti nes Ci ~ of
God. 59 Why do they keep usi ng thi s utterl y mi sl eadi ng rhetori c i n a
57. I bid., p. 17.
58. I dem.
59. Charl es Norri s Cochrane, Chnitiani~ and Classical Culture: ,A Study i n Thought
and Action from Augustus to Augustine (New York: Oxford Uni versi ty Press, [1944]
1957).
242
supposedl y schol arl y hi stori cal study? Yes, yes, I know; you dont
have to tel l me: for rhetori cal purposes.)
As we read the book, we fi nd that i f we used the same cri teri a
whi ch they empl oy to defi ne and i denti fy a Chri sti an nati on i n hi s-
tory to defi ne a church, fami l y, or i ndi vi dual , we woul d just as surel y
fi nd that earl y [whatever] does not deserve to be consi dered
uni quel y, di sti nctl y or even predomi nantl y Chri sti an, i f we mean by
the word Chri sti an a state of [whatever] refl ecti ng the i deal s pres-
ented i n Scri pture. Thi s i s because the i dea of [Chri sti an what-
ever] i s a very ambi guous concept.
New England as a Tfit Caseh~
They ful l y understand, as Marsden di d i n hi s essay, that i f they
are to mai ntai n thei r thesi s successful l y, the hardest hi stori cal nut for
them to crack i s Puri tan New Engl and. I t was sel f-consci ousl y Cal -
vi ni sti c. I t sel f-consci ousl y procl ai med the three bi bl i cal covenants:
Church, fami l y, and above al l (for the authors thesi s) ci vi l . I ndeed,
al though the authors do not refer to i t, the ci vi l covenant known as
the Fundamental Orders of Connecti cut (1639) i s general l y recog-
ni zed by schol ars as the very fi rst wri tten consti tuti on to l aunch a
new pol i ti cal uni t i n hi story. bl
They do di scuss the Massachusetts Body of Li berti es of 1641, i n
whi ch every Ol d Testament capi tal cri me except sabbath-breaki ngGZ
was brought under the ci vi l sancti on of executi on. Predi ctabl y, they
are hosti l e to such a covenant document. They begi n thei r di scussi on
of the Body of Li berti es wi th thi s dubi ous statement: But these
posi ti ve accompl i shments were offset by more dubi ous practi cal con-
sequences. Ol d Testament l aw was di rectl y i f not excl usi vel y i ncor-
porated i nto the l egal systems of New Engl and.b3 (The word dubious
i s Marsdens; we fi nd i t i n the 1982 essay.) I n other words, these
Chri sti an professors of Ameri can hi story are moral l y di sturbed by
60. The authors subhead (p. 31).
61. McLaughl i n wri tes: But we cannot pass over unnoti ced the organi zati on of
the ri ver towns of Connecti cut, where, i t has been sai d, was formed the fi rst wri tten
consti tuti on i n hi story. Andrew C. McLaughl i n, The Foundations of American Constitu-
ti onal i sm (Greenwi ch, Connecti cut: Fawcett, [1932] 1961), p. 35.
62. As i n the case of al l churches i n hi story, they i mpl i ci tl y recogni zed a shi ft from
tke Ol d Testaments sancti on to somethi ng di fferent i n the New Testament era. On
thi s shi ft, see Gary North, The Si nai Strate~: Economics and the Ten Commandments
(Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1986), ch. 4, Appendi x A.
the obvi ous hi stori cal fact whi ch refutes thei r thesi s: the presence of
bi bl i cal case l aws and thei r sancti ons i n the wri tten ci vi l covenant of
Pur i tan Massachusetts. I n shor t, the best si ngl e pi ece of evi dence
that New Engl and was sel f-consci ousl y, covenantal l y Chri sti an be-
comes, i n thei r pl ural i st hands, evi dence that i t was not Chr i sti an.
Because New Engl and l ooked back to Ol d Testament I srael as thei r
judi ci al model , New Engl and was bei ng untrue to Chri st.
A New I srael
I n the secti on A New I srael , the authors ci te the presence of bi b-
l i cal case l aws as a major probl em not for thei r thesi s, but rather
for New Engl ands cl ai m to be Chri sti an. The central probl em,
however, i mmedi atel y presented i tsel f when Wi nthrop, the ci vi l gov-
ernor, attempted to appl y the summary of the l aw to the enti re soci -
ety of Massachusetts Bay. Whi l e he made the di sti ncti on between
justi ce, whi ch shoul d be expected i n any soci ety, and mercy, to be
found i n Chri sti an associ ati ons, he cl earl y consi dered the enti re
Massachusetts soci ety as such to be essenti al l y Chri sti an.G4 Noti ce
careful l y the di recti on i n whi ch thei r argument i s headed. Most
i roni cal l y, probabl y the pri nci pal factor turni ng the Puri tan cul tural
achi evement i nto a hi ghl y ambi guous one was the very concept that
i s the central theme of thi s chapter the i dea that one can create a
trul y Chri sti an cul ture .65 I n short, because Wi nthrop regarded
Massachusetts Bay as a Chri sti an cul ture, we know that i t coul d not
possi bl y have been a trul y Chri sti an cul ture.
Trul y, thei rs i s a strange argument. Thi nk about i t. Does i t
sound strange to you? They are argui ng that preci sel y because the
New Engl and Puri tans sought the establ i shment of a sel f-consci ousl y
bi bl i cal ci vi l government, i t coul d not therefore have been tn+
Chri sti an. I f you thi nk thi s sounds wei rd, then you have al ready
concl uded that i t must not be i nherentl y anti -Chri sti an (or not trul y
Chri sti an) for a soci ety to pursue the establ i shment of a Bi bl e-based
covenant whi ch embraces the fundamental pri nci pl e of bi bl i cal l aw,
i ncl udi ng Ol d Testament l aw. You may not approve of thi s as the
onl y possi bl e Chri sti an approach to pol i ti cs, but you understand that
i t i s not i nherentl y anti -Chri sti an, i . e., a soci et y whi ch establ i shes
such a covenant cannot therefore be di smi ssed automati cal l y as not
64. I bid., pp. 33-34.
65. I bid., p. 31.
trul y Chri sti an. But our three authors do not thi nk thi s way. They
are so thoroughl y commi tted to the i deol ogy of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm
that they have wri tten a book denyi ng the cl ai m of bei ng Chri sti an to
the New Engl and Puri tans ci vi l covenant. They real l y do bel i eve
that the Puri tans rejecti on of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i s a suffi ci ent cause to
remove from thei r ci vi l order the adjecti ve Chri sti an . They seri ousl y
propose what has become known as a Catch-22 di l emma.GG I f you say
your ci vi l government i s Chri sti an, i t cannot be, but i f you set i t up
so that i t i snt Chri sti an, i t may be Chri sti an, i f i t real l y and trul y
i snt. (I t sounds as though Marsden wrote thi s secti on of the book.)
Wi nthrop ci ted Deuteronomy 30 i n hi s Model of Chri sti an
Chari ty speech on board the good shi p Arbella as the l i ttl e band of
Puri tans sai l ed toward New Engl and i n 1630. He stated that they
were entered i nto Covenant wi th hi m for the worke. . . . He ci ted
the presence of Gods sancti ons, bl essi ngs and cursi ngs, whi ch are
dependent on Gods covenant l aw. Thi s i s what so outrages our tri o:
u
. . . to i nterpret Scri pture i n an ul ti matel y pretenti ous way that
gave thei r own state the exal ted status of a New I srael .G7 Thi s sup-
posedl y was the great si n of New Engl and: pri de. Behi nd al l the
practi cal confusi on of church and state was the overri di ng presump-
ti on that New Engl and was the New I srael .GB I f you trace your pol i t-
i cal ethi cs back to the Ol d Testament, and i f you vi ew your pol i ti cal
i nsti tuti ons as model ed after the Ol d Testaments ci vi l covenant,
then you are obvi ousl y pri deful . Hence, your pol i ti cal vi si on i s not
trul y Chri sti an. (Corol l ary: to be a consi stent Chri sti an i s necessar-
i l y y to be a pol i ti cal pl ural i st, and therefore a pol i ti cal anti nomi an.
Thi s i s preci sel y what they bel i eve, as they tel l us at the end of thei r
book. But not up front.)
Let us be cl ear about al l thi s. New Engl and Puri tans wanted to
serve as the ci ty on the hi l l for the rest of the worl d (Matt. 5:14). The
authors know thi s, and refer to i t. g Thi s Puri tan goal was evangel i -
cal i n the same sense as Deuteronomy y 4: to al l ow fal l en Europe to
see the bl essi ngs of God i n hi story. Puri tans di d not cl ai m to be an
66. The phrase comes from the ti tfe of a novel by Joseph Hel l er, Catch-22 (1961).
The novel pi ctured a sol di ers di l emma. Anyone who sai d he wanted to get out of the
U.S. Army i n Worl d Wru I I coul d not be di smi ssed because of i nsani ty; he was obvi -
ousl y sane. A person who sai d he wanted to stay i n the Army was cl earl y crazy and
woul d be gi ven a di scharge. Thi s was Catch-22 of the regul ati ons.
68. I bid., p. 36.
69. I bid., p. 31.
Ha&ay Couenant Historiography 245
excl usi ve New I srael i n hi story. On the contrary, they saw New Eng-
l and as the l atest i n a l ong seri es of nati onal conversi ons. But the
authors do not expl ai n thi s. They make i t appear as though the Puri -
tans were somehow radi cal l y nati onal i sti c. The authors feel com-
pel l ed to stop such an I srael i te i dea from spreadi ng abroad. I n
effect, these schol ars are i nvol ved i n a job of putti ng the Puri tans
l i ght under a bushel (Matt. 5:15). They are not the fi rst schol ars to
do SO.
Roger Wi l l i ams: Hero of the Pl ural i sts
Thi s i nsi stence that I srael must be regarded as hi stori cal l y
uni que, and i n no way shoul d be regarded as a l egi ti mate covenantal
model for New Testament ci vi l governments, was basi c to Roger
Wi l l i ams deni al of the ci vi l order of Massachusetts Bay. He sent a
l ong l etter (now mi ssi ng) to Governor Wi nthrop i n 1637, the year fol -
l owi ng hi s fl i ght to the wi l derness of Rhode I sl and, i n whi ch he i n-
si sted on the di fferences between I srael and al l other states .
70
(He
was careful al ways to i ssue hi s bl asts agai nst hi erarchi cal authori ty
onl y after he had removed hi msel f from the juri sdi cti on of hi s i ntended
targets, a remarkabl y common practi ce of separati sts down through
the ages. They hate hi erarchi cal authori ty, but they recogni ze i t. )
Wi l l i ams spi ri tual hei rs today control the i nsti tuti ons of Chri s-
ti an hi gher l earni ng. I t i s not surpri si ng that Wi l l i ams has for cen-
turi es been the darl i ng of the anti -Chri sti an humani sts who reject
the Bi bl es expl i ci t theocracy i n thei r quest to establ i sh autonomous
mans i mpl i ci t theocracy. What may be i ni ti al l y surpri si ng i s that he
has had so many al l i es i n the Chri sti an camp. Why shoul d thi s be?
Why shoul d he have supporters i n both camps? Because there i s
now, and al ways has been, an operating political and philosophical alliance
between the escape religion of Christian pietism and the power r el i gi on of
humani~m, the same sort of al l i ance that operated between I srael s
el ders i n Egypt and the tyranni cal Pharaoh. I t i s based on the sup-
posedl y shared pri nci pl es of ci vi c moral i ty (for exampl e, the com-
mon rejecti on of executi on as the appropri ate ci vi l sancti on agai nst
fi rst-degree murder).
The pi eti sts, as al ways, warn the theocrati c domi ni oni sts: The
LORD l ook upon you, and judge; because you have made our savour
70, Ci ted by Perry Mi l l er, Rogo Williams:
(New York: Atheneum, [1953] 1965), p. 42.
His Contribution to the Amaican Tradition
246
to be abhorred i n the eyes of Pharaoh, and i n the eyes of hi s ser-
vants, to put a sword i n thei r hand to sl ay us (Ex. 5:21). They court
Pharaohs bl essi ngs, and they fear hi s taskmasters. And so they i n-
vent a pol i ti cal phi l osophy sui tabl e i n the eyes of the taskmasters:
natural l aw. The taskmasters then use i t to keep the sl aves orderl y,
unti l the restrai nts of natural l aw grow too restri cti ve, whereupon
the taskmasters abandon any pretence of adheri ng to natural l aw,
and they return to the pure versi on of the power rel i gi on. (I n the
West, thi s took pl ace i n the generati on after Darwi ns natural sel ec-
ti on phi l osophy el evated man, the pl anner i nto power, whi l e si mul -
taneousl y destroyi ng any remai ni ng traces of humani st phi l osophi cal
support for natural l aw theory. )71
For many years, nai ve Chri sti an pi eti sts have chosen to go al ong
wi th thi s sel f-decepti on, sti l l dreami ng of a pl ural i sti c republ i c based
on common neutral pri nci pl es of ci vi c moral i ty. They go al ong to
get al ong, to ci te the l ate Speaker of the House, Mr. Sam Rayburn.
The humani sts versi on of common moral i ty has become domi nant
i n the Chri sti an camp. Where Chri sti an pi eti sts once joi ned human-
i sts i n a common rejecti on of murder, they become wi l l i ng to accept,
however bel atedl y, the taskmasters posi ti on on aborti on, al l for the
sake of the fading pluralist alliance. The Chri sti ans sel l thei r bi rthri ght
for a mess of suffr age.
Parnngtons Political I nterpretation
The radi cal humani st l i terary hi stori an Vernon L. Bar r i ngton
was utterl y hosti l e to the Puri tans and a great fan of Wi l l i ams. Hi s
i ntel l ectual i nfl uence was domi nant i n the fi el d of Puri tan studi es un-
ti l Perry Mi l l er, another speci al i st i n Ameri can l i terature, arri ved on
the scene i n the earl y 1930s. Barri ngton rhapsodi zed about Wi l l i ams:
A chi l d of l i ght, he came br i ngi ng not peace but the swor d. A
humane and l i beral spi ri t, he was gropi ng for a soci al order more
generous than any theocracy that shoul d sati sfy the aspi rati ons of
men for a cathol i c fel l owshi p, greater than sect or church, vi l l age or
nati on, embraci ng al l races and creeds, bri ngi ng together the sun-
dered soci eti es of men i n a common spi ri t of good wi l l .72 I n short,
71. Gary North, The Dominion Covenant: Genesis (2nd ed.; Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute
for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1987), Appendi x A: From Cosmi c Purposel essness to Hu-
mani sti c Soverei gnty.
72. Vernon L. Barri ngton, The Colomal Mind, 1620-1800, vol ume I of Main Currents
m Amai2an Thought (New York: Harcourt Brace Harvest Book, [1927] 1954), pp. 62-63.
Barri ngtons versi on of Roger Wi l l i ams had Wi l l i ams cal l i ng for a re-
turn to the one-worl d humani st pol i ti cal order of the Tower of Babel ,
but wi th Tri ni tari an orthodoxy i n the hearts of men, of course.
Wi l l i ams gropi ng for uni versal good wi l l turned hi m i nto a fi re-
brand, as Barri ngton descri bed hi m. Wi l l i ams i ntel l ectual heri tage,
Barri ngton sai d, l ater mani fested i tsel f i n Transcendental i sm,
Uni tari ani sm, and the pol i ti cal phi l osophy of Thomas Pai ne. 73 I be-
l i eve Barri ngton. Why dont Chri sti an pl ural i sts bel i eve hi m? 74 Why
dont they percei ve where Wi l l i ams natural l aw doctri nes, coupl ed
wi th hi s i nner l i ght doctri nes, l ead to? Or do they seri ousl y bel i eve
that they can cl ean up a few mi nor devi ati ons i n Wi l l i ams pol i ti -
cal phi l osophy, thereby maki ng i t sui tabl e throughout the ages for
Chri sti ans to support? I f they real l y bel i eve thi s, then where i s the
evi dence that Wi l l i ams doctri nes can be cl eaned up? Where i s a
body of consi stentl y bi bl i cal and equal l y consi stent pl ural i st pol i ti cal
phi l osophy whi ch reconci l es the two posi ti ons? I t does not exi st, as
wel l our pl ural i st hi stori ans know, whi ch i s why they turn to Dei sts
and non-Tri ni tari ans to defend thei r cheri shed pl ural i st fai th, as we
shal l see.
Why, for that matter, do Chri sti an pl ural i sts refuse to acknowl edge
the truth about natural l aws athei st or at l east panthei st founda-
ti ons? Hi stori an Paul Hazard i s forthri ght i n hi s chapter on natural
l aw: Natural l aw was the offspri ng of a phi l osophy whi ch rejected
the supernatural , the di vi ne, and substi tuted, for the acts and pur-
poses of a personal God, an i mmanent form of natur e.Ts Because to
acknowl edge thi s woul d reveal the nature of the deadl y compromi se
that Chri sti an soci al phi l osophy has made wi th the enemi es of God,
and fai thful Chri sti an peopl e i n the pews and (even more fearful l y)
the voti ng booth mi ght at l ast abandon any such ti es. To reject the
hybri d phi l osophy of natural l aw necessari l y bri ngs Chri sti ans face
to face wi th the questi on of the conti nui ng authori ty of Ol d Testa-
ment l aw. Thi s, above al l , i s what our pl ural i st Chri sti an academi -
ci ans wi sh to avoi d. So do the humani sts who trai n them i n the pres-
ti ge uni versi ti es, certi fy them, and then reserve unto themsel ves the
73. I bid., p. 62.
74. Cf. L. John Van Ti l , The Lib~y of Conscience: The HistoV of a Puntan I dea
(Nutl ey, New Jersey: Crai g Press, 1972), ch. 3. He i s Cornel i us Van Ti l s great-
nephew.
75. Paul Hazard, The Eur opean Mind, 1680-1715 (New York: Meri di an, [1935]
1963), pp. 269-70.
power to gr ant Chr i sti ans academi c tenur e after seven year s of
academi c i ndentured servi tude .76
Barri ngton was qui te correct wi th regard to Wi l l i ams subsequent
i mportance. I t was not stri ctl y as a theol ogi an that he gai ned hi s pri -
mary reputati on i n hi story; i t was as a pol i ti cal phi l osopher. He was
a forerunner of Locke and the natural -ri ghts school , one of the most
notabl e democrati c thi nkers that the Engl i sh race has produced. . . .
He was a soci al i nnovator on pri nci pl e, and he l eft no system unchal -
l enged. . . . Hi s pl ural i st pol i ti cal l egacy i s the one promoted i n the
name of Chri sti ani ty by our tri o. Wrote Barri ngton:
Broadl y, the devel opment of hi s thought fal l s i nto three stages: the substi tu-
ti on of the compact theory of the state for di vi ne-ri ght theory; the rejecti on
of the supposi ti ons compact of the earl i er school and the fi cti ti ous abstract
state sti l l postul ated by many thi nkers and the supposi ti on of a real i sti c
concepti on of the pol i ti cal state as the soverei gn reposi tory of the soci al wi l l ,
and the government or agent of the state as the practi cal i nstrument of
soci ety to effect i ts desi red ends; and, fi nal l y, the di ffi cul t probl em of creat-
i ng a democrati c commonweal th, as the exi genci es of the Rhode I sl and ex-
peri ment requi red. . . . I n hi s substi tuti on of the compact theory for di vi ne
ri ght, Wi l l i ams was brought face to face wi th the fundamental assumpti on
of the Massachusetts theocracy, based on numerous passages of Scri pture,
that the pol i ti cal state i s establ i shed by the God of the Hebrews. . . ,77
Getti ng even cl oser to the pl ural i st hearts of our tri o, Barri ngton
asserted, qui te correctl y, that he accepted the major deducti ons
76. I t i s i nteresti ng that the major Ameri can uni versi ti es i n the 1950s and 1960s
used the sabbati cal year concept i n thei r tenure track system. I f an assi stant pro-
fessor was not el evated i n hi s ei ghth year to associ ate professor, he di d not gai n per-
manent tenured (l i feti me guaranteed) empl oyment. These days, there are so many
unempl oyed Ph. Ds avai l abl e that tenure i s sel dom granted, because of wage con-
si derati ons. Assi stant professors are cheap. Thus, a perverse ranki ng system that
was supposed to assure professors l i feti me empl oyment and power agai nst the ad-
mi ni strati on has backfi red: i t has destroyed l i feti me academi c empl oyment for al l
but a few, maki ng permanent the system of i ndentured servi tude. The untenured
professor goes from uni versi ty to uni ver si ty seeki ng but never fi ndi ng the shel ter of
guaranteed l i feti me i ncome. Thi s system keeps agi ng assi stant professors publ i cl y
humbl e and orthodox i n thei r humani sm, whi ch i s appropri ate for thei r subordi nate
posi ti on. They do not chal l enge thei r masters. What was ori gi nal l y promoted as a
system of academi c freedom to encourage professorkd i ntel l ectual i ndependence has
become vi si bl y a system of academi c suppressi on. Soci ol ogi st-hi stori an Robert
Ni sbet warned about thi s i n 1965, and he has been proven correct . . agai n.
Rober t A. Ni sbet, Tradition and Revolt: Historical and Sociological Essays (New York:
Random House, 1968), ch. 12: The Permanent Professors: A Modest Proposal ,=
or i gi nal l y publ i shed i n Public I nterest (Fal l 1965).
77. Bar r i ngton, op. at., pp. 66-67.
from the compact theory of the state: that government i s a man-
made i nsti tuti on, that i t rests on consent, and that i t i s founded on
the assumed equal i ty of the subjects.Ts What Barri ngton di d not
menti on, but whi ch Perry Mi l l er, Edmund Morgan, and most mod-
ern hi stori ans of Puri tan thought do admi t, i s that the Puri tan con-
cept of the ci vi l covenant al so rested on the consent of the governed.
Those who di d not consent coul d l eave, whi ch Wi l l i ams di d, rapi dl y,
when he l earned that he was about to be deported back to Engl and.
What al i enated Wi l l i ams, and what conti nues to al i enate hi s spi ri -
tual and pol i ti cal hei rs, i s that the Puri tans assumed that onl y those
who professed fai th i n Chri st and who were members of a church
woul d be al l owed by ci vi l l aw to i nterpret and appl y the ci vi l l aws of
God. Why di d they assume thi s? Because they understood the gov-
erni ng pri nci pl e of representati on i n a bi bl i cal hol y commonweal th:
#anyone refuses to a~rm public~ that he is under Go&s historical and eternal
sanctions, he has no lawful right to enforce God3 civil laws on others. Thi s
was a recogni zed pri nci pl e i n Ameri can courts unti l the twenti eth
century: athei sts, not bel i evi ng i n Gods fi nal judgment, were not
al l owed to testi fy i n many state courts. I n short, the Puritans held to
covenant theology: a soverei gn God who rul es hi erarchi cal l y through
human representati ves i n terms of Hi s reveal ed l aw. The rul ers are
requi red by God to bri ng sancti ons i n Gods name agai nst i ndi vi du-
al s who vi ol ate Gods ci vi l l aw. Why? I n order to keep God from
bri ngi ng far worse sancti ons on the whol e soci ety. But modern com-
mentators, including our trio, deny ei ther expl i ci tl y or i mpl i ci tl y that
God bri ngs such corporate sancti ons i n hi story. Thus, hypotheti cal l y
neutral pol i ti cal pl ural i sm seems safe and sound rather than ful l of
sound and fury fury agai nst Gods l aw.
Pluralism and Natural Law TheoV
Perry Mi l l er and most modern hi stori ans faul t Barri ngton for
vi ewi ng Wi l l i ams as a pol i ti cal theori st rather than as a theol ogi an, 79
but thi s i s not to say that Barri ngtons assessment of the Wi l l i ams
operati onal l egacy was i ncorrect. Wi l l i ams i s sti l l remembered by
most Ameri cans even today, i f he i s remembered at al l , as the perse-
cuted sai nt who chal l enged the dour pol i ti cal theocracy of the
-
Mas-
sachusetts Bay Col ony. Thi s i s sti l l the Roger Wi l l i ams of the hi gh
school textbooks, Mi l l ers detai l ed and subtl e revi si oni sm notwi th-
78. I dem.
79. Mi l l er, Roger Williams, pp. 27-32.
standi ng. 80 Wi l l i ams chal l enge to the Puri tan theocracy was founded
on a speci fi c al ternati ve pol i ti cal phi l osophy: pluralism and natural
law. Wi l l i ams understood far better than hi s modern pl ural i st di s-
ci pl es that you cannot beat somethi ng wi th nothi ng. He l eft a uni que
pol i ti cal l egacy. Deny i ts presupposi ti ons natural l aw theory and
the myth of neutral i ty and you must l ogi cal l y reject hi s pol i ti cal
phi l osophy.
But l ogi c i s not al ways a mans domi nant concern. I n thi s transi -
ti onal era, Chri sti an soci al phi l osophers e. g., Van Ti l , Schaeffer ,
and our tri o cannot bri ng themsel ves to go beyond the fi rst stage of
reconstructi on: the deni al of Wi l l i ams fi rst pri nci pl es, natural l aw
and the neutral i ty doctri ne. Thus, they remai n i ntel l ectual y schi zo-
phr eni c and dual i sti c hear t-mi nd dual i sm, l aw-gr ace dual i sm,
spi r i tual -secul ar dual i sm, pol i ti cs-r el i gi on dual i sm, heaven-ear th
dual i sm or remai n si l ent on real -worl d i ssues, or di sappear from
the scene, or el se deci de to accept the myth of neutral i ty after al l . But
what they categori cal l y refuse to do i s to publ i sh a detai l ed, docu-
mented, Bi bl e-based, cogentl y argued presentati on of the hoped-for,
l onged-for, and i mpl i ci tl y promi sed reconci l i ati on of i nevi tabl y non-
neutr al Chr i sti ani ty and pol i ti cal pl ur al i sm. Wi l l i ams coul d not
wri te i t, and thi s i nabi l i ty was not si mpl y because, i n the words of
Perry Mi l l er, we may wel l doubt that he coul d ever construct a sus-
tai ned l ogi cal argument of hi s own . . . .
81
I t was because the two
worl dvi ews are theol ogi cal l y i rreconci l abl e. Pl ural i sm i s the phi l oso-
phy of the temporary cease-fi re; i n contrast, Chri sti ani ty i s the rel i -
gi on of escal ati ng hi stori cal confrontati on, to be fol l owed by Gods
eternal sancti ons. Humani sm i s al so a rel i gi on of escal ati ng confron-
tati on. The debate between Chr i sti ani ty and humani sm i s over
whi ch si de wi l l wi n thi s confrontati on.
Williams us. Couenantal Hierarchies
What the hi gh school textbooks negl ect to menti on i s that thi s
bri ght young man, who fl ed Massachusetts at about age 33, was a
pr ofessi onal emi gr ant. He coul d not settl e down, i ntel l ectual l y or
80. A cl assi c study on Wi l l i ams i s Dexter s 1876 book, As to Roger Wdliarns, and his
Banishment from the Massachusetts Plantation. , publ i shed by the Congregati onal
Publ i shi ng Soci ety. Excerpts are repri nted i n Chtisttant~ and Civilization 1 (1982).
Another versi on appears i n Rogn William and the Massachusetts Magistrates, edi ted by
Theodore P. Greene (Lexi ngton, Massachusetts: Heath, 1964).
81. Mi l l er, Rogo Wi l l i ams, p. 102.
Halfway Covenant Historiography 251
geogr aphi cal l y. He fl ed Engl and i n 1630 at age 27. He coul d no
l onger tol er ate the Engl i sh chur ch because i t pr acti ced open com-
muni on. 82 He was offered the pastorate of a church i n Boston, but he
r efused. The Pur i tans wer e non-separ ati ng Congregati onal i sts,
and Wi l l i ams coul d not tol er ate thi s. 83 He moved to Sal em, and
from there to Pl ymouth, the col ony of the true separati sts. He fl ed
Pl y mouth i n 1633. The Pl ymouth chur ch, he sai d, was not suffi -
ci entl y separati st. When vi si ti ng Engl and, i ts members attended the
Church of Engl and. Too l ax! 84 He returned to Sal em. Once outsi de
of Pl ymouths juri sdi cti on, he wrote a l etter to Pl ymouth, tel l i ng the
authori ti es that they had no l egal ti tl e to thei r l and because they had
not pur chased i t fr om the I ndi ans (see bel ow). At Sal em, he was
agai n offered a pastorate, and he took i t. (Why no concerns about i ts
pr i or i mper fecti on thi s ti me? Empl oyment oppor tuni ti es? A bul l y
pul pi t of a pul pi t?) He fl ed Massachusetts i n 1636 because the mag-
i strates were about to send hi m back to Engl and. Onl y after thi s di d
he begi n hi s war of the pamphl ets wi th Massachusetts. But he was
careful al ways to fl ee the juri sdi cti on of the court he was about to
savage. He understood the real i ty of hi erarchy, and he hated i t.
Here i s the heart and soul of Wi l l i ams thought and earl y l i fe: not
hi s theol ogy, not hi s pol i ti cal phi l osophy, but his hatred of couenantal hi-
erarchies. He rejected poi nt two of the bi bl i cal covenant model . He
wanted no i nter medi ar y between hi s consci ence and Gods mi nd.
God was to speak to Wi l l i ams and ever yone el se di r ectl y, whi ch
meant that God had to remain silent in public. Wi l l i ams was i n pri nci pl e
an earl y theol ogi an of Novaks empty templ e.
When Wi l l i ams began to preach publ i cl y that the Ki ngs patent
was i nval i d and that the Pur i tans of Massachusetts Bay, l i ke the
Pi l gr i ms of Pl ymouth, al so had no val i d ti tl es to thei r l and, and
when he began sayi ng that the Church of Engl and was not a true
church, he was brought under suspi ci on. He was attacki ng the Ki ng
and the magi strates. He was attacki ng the Engl i sh Church. I n short,
k WU.S attacking the fabric of English sociep. Then al l resi dents were asked
by the magi strates to take an oath to support the col ony agai nst al l
enemi es. He refused, sayi ng that thi s was an oath, and that i t was
82. Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Dilemma: The StoT ofJ ohn Winthrop (Boston:
Li ttl e, Brown, 1958), p. 117.
83. Perry Mi l l er, Orthodoxy i n Mamachusetti, 1630-1650 (Boston: Beacon Press,
[1933] 1959), pp. 157-58.
84. Morgan, Puritan Dilemma, p. 120.
therefore an act of worshi p. I t woul d have i nvol ved Wi l l i ams i n com-
muni on wi th unregenerate peopl e, he sai d. Thi s was a deni al of cov-
enant status to the ci vi l r eal m pr eci sel y the vi ew of our tr i o.
Williams recognized the inherent~ religious nature of an oath. He deni ed
that the ci vi l government coul d l awful l y requi re one. He then per-
suaded others of hi s vi ew.
85
Next, he sai d that regenerate men and unregenerates shoul d not
pr ay together , and thi s i ncl uded pr ayi ng wi th wi fe and chi l dr en.
There shoul d be no prayers of thanks after meal s. Al l of Sal em was
agl ow wi th hi s strange i deas. The col ony was ready to spl i t. What
saved i t from a spl i t was that Wi l l i ams conti nued on and on, cl ai m-
i ng that al l the churches of Massachusetts had gi ven up congrega-
ti onal i ndependence and wer e ther efor e not tr ue chur ches. 86 He
r api dl y l ost hi s suppor t, and when thr eatened wi th depor tati on to
Engl and, he fl ed.
He r ejected hi er ar chy, and he r ejected the l egi ti macy of ci vi l
covenant sancti ons. But thi s was not enough. He had to attack the
hi er ar chi cal Chur ch covenant, too. A few fol l ower s joi ned hi m i n
Provi dence. There, he became a Bapti st. He woul d no l onger bap-
ti ze i nfants. He had hi msel f and hi s fol l owers rebapti zed. But was
thi s bapti sm val i d? No, he then concl uded, they must wai t for God
to r ai se up a new apostol i c power . He wi thdr ew fr om the chur ch,
and woul d take communi on onl y wi th hi s wi fe. But then he reversed
hi msel f. He woul d not take the~nal step in his war against hierarchy, i.e.,
abandon his fami(y couenant. Therefore, havi ng abandoned the pri nci -
pl e of absol ute separ ati sm at thi s poi nt, he then abandoned hi s
separati sm al together. He fi nal l y concl uded that no church can at-
tai n puri ty i n thi s worl d, whi ch i s what the Church of Engl and and
John Wi nthr op had al ways mai ntai ned. Fr om that poi nt on, he
woul d pr each, pr ay, and take communi on wi th ever yone. 87 Al l of
thi s took pl ace wi thi n one decade, 1630-40. But he never recanted hi s
pol i ti cal vi ews.
I n shor t, by any standar d, Roger Wi l l i ams was a nut, a l oose
cannon r attl i ng ar ound on the deck. He had come ful l ci r cl e to a
theol ogi cal l y cor r upted for m of Angl i cani sm open chur ch, open
communi on al though he sti l l refused to joi n that nati onal , hi erar-
85. I bid., p. 124.
86. I bid., p. 126.
87. I bid., p. 131.
253
chi cal church. Meanwhi l e, he had l eft di zzy, di sori ented fol l owers i n
hi s wake. He had offered them a pol i ti cal phi l osophy of pri nci pl ed
di zzi ness, pl ural i sm, and i t was much l ater to become the domi nant
pol i ti cal phi l osophy i n Western cul ture.
The Legaqv of Rover Williams
Hi s i ntel l ectual hei rs are sti l l di zzy. Chri sti an pl ural i sts cal l for
an empty ci vi l templ e, yet decry the naked publ i c square. They i n-
si st on the ri ghts of consci ence, yet they defend the soverei gnty of
pol i ti cal majori ti es. They promote pol i ti cal pl ural i sm, a pol i ti cal phi -
l osophy whi ch al l ows i ts own sui ci de by major i ty vote. They deny
the myth of neutral i ty, yet they al so deny the l egi ti macy of theocracy.
They i nsi st that man has been gi ven common grace i n order to thi nk
cl earl y by means of natural -l aw categori es, yet they al so say that
common gr ace i s bei ng r emoved as men become i ncr easi ngl y mor -
al l y per ver se. They say that the basi s of pl ur al i sm i s mank i nds
handful of shared moral presupposi ti ons, and then they i nsi st that as
covenant-br eaker s and covenant-keeper s become mor e consi stent
over ti me, these shared areas of moral agreement grow ever more
narrow. They are i n a moral and theol ogi cal muddl e, and they cal l i t
Chr i sti an soci al theor y.
88
(The major Amer i can publ i sher of thi s
muddl e i s Wi l l i am B. Eer dmans Co., but I nter Var si ty Pr ess and
Crossway Books are not far behi nd. To be respectabl e i n academi c
Chri sti an ci rcl es, you must defend the ethi cal and theol ogi cal mud-
dl e of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm, and thi s commi tment to a hybri d worl d-
vi ew steadi l y undermi nes theol ogy proper i n al l the other areas, just
as i t di d wi th Roger Wi l l i ams. To paraphrase the Mormon vi ew of
God and man, What Eer dmans once was, Cr ossway i s, and what
Eer dmans i s, Cr ossway may become. And someday, Ruper t Mur -
doch may buy them al l out, thereby col l ecti ng the backl i st of ti tl es of
the formerl y fai thful . )89
88. As I argued earl i er (footnote #l O), C. S. Lewi s exhi bi ted thi s same dual i sm:
escal ati ng di vi si veness vs. pol i ti cal pl ural i sm. At l east Lewi s made no cl ai ms re-
gar di ng hi s ski l l s i n pol i ti cal phi l osophy or hi stori ography. Hi s muddl e was not pro-
fessi onal .
89. Thi s bl ackl i sted book i ncome i s val uabl e. When I nter Var si ty Pr ess publ i shed
D. Gareth Jones defense of aborti on, Brave New Peopl e (1984), Franky Schaeffer went
on C BN Tel evi si ons 700 Cl ub and correctl y observed that i t had been hi s fathers
books that had bankrol l ed I nterVarsi ty Press. I nterVarsi ty Press board capi tul ated
to the publ i c Chri sti an pressure that Franky sti rred up, pul l i ng the book out of pri nt,
whereupon Eerdmans negoti ated wi th Jones and became i ts publ i sher.
The l egacy of Roger Wi l l i ams i s cl ear: once you enter the Rhode
I sland wilderness, you Coseyour sense of direction. To cr oss over i nto Rhode
I sl and, you are requi red at the border to abandon mans onl y val i d
compass, the bi bl i cal covenant.
Rel ati vi sm vs. Covenantal i sm
Our three schol ars at l ast present us what they have been l eadi ng
up to for 139 pages: political relativism.0
. . . Cal vi ni sts i n the Engl i sh Puri tan tradi ti on, who have had di spropor-
ti onatel y l arge i nfl uence i n Ameri ca, often stressed, as we have seen, na-
ti onal i sti c parts of the Ol d Testament i n assessi ng our nati on. I nti mati ng
that Ameri cas rel ati onshi p to God i s si mi l ar to that of anci ent I srael , they
l ong have hel d up the i deal of Chri sti an pol i ti cs and a Chri sti an nati on.
I f, however, we emphasi ze more the other si de of the Ameri can Protes-
tant heri tage, that whi ch sees the New Testament as the pri mary gui de to
pol i ti cal atti tudes i n thi s age, al l pol i ti cs i s rel ati vi zed. Chri sti ans have ci vi c
responsi bi l i ti es and obl i gati ons to promote justi ce. I n modern democraci es,
where to an extent the peopl e rul e, these responsi bi l i ti es are greater than i n
the Roman Empi re. Yet the New Testament nowhere i nti mates that the
Ki ngdom i s pol i ti caJ or that i t can be i denti fi ed wi th a nati on or wi th na-
ti onal objecti ves.gl
All politics is relatiuized here i s humani st pl ural i sms offi ci al pol i ti -
cal mani festo. The kingdom is not political: her e i s the escape r el i gi on. z
But what Chri sti an has ever sai d that the ki ngdom i s pol i ti cal , mean-
i ng essential~ or primari~ pol i ti cal ? Not anyone who I have ever heard
of. (Many humani sts, however, surel y see thei r ki ngdom as pri mar-
i l y pol i ti cal .)gs These men know al l about the Chri sti an theol ogy of
90. To use a basebal l pi tchi ng anal ogy: the l ong, sl ow cur ve, and then the fast-
bal l .
91. The Search, pp. 139-40.
92. Gar y Nor th, Moses and Pharaoh: Dominion Religion vs. Power Religion (Tyl er,
93. Gary North, Edi tors I ntroducti on, George Grant, The Changing of the Guard:
Biblical Blueprint-s for Political Action (Ft. Worth, Texas: Domi ni on Press, 1987), pp.
xvi i i -xxi i . Some humani st phi l osophers have embraced pol i ti cs, Levi wri tes, whi l e
others have rejected i t. However, i t i s possi bl e to see that the fr equent humani st
wi thdrawal from the pol i ti cal arena does not al ways represent a repugnance for pol i -
ti cs as such, but rather the judgment agai nst a pol i ti cs whi ch i s too narrow, i n whi ch
the stakes are petty and tri vi al when measured agai nst the humani tari an i deal .
Al bert Wi l l i am Levi , Humunism and Politics: Studies in the Relationship of Power and Value
in the Wistern Tradition (Bl oomi ngton: I ndi ana Uni versi ty Press, 1969), p. 454.
Halfiway Covenant Historiography
255
pol i ti cs and cul ture devel oped by Abraham Kuyper, the Dutch
schol ar and Pri me Mi ni ster of the l ate-ni neteenth century.4 Surel y
he was no defender of a pol i ti cal ki ngdom! 95 They al so know that the
Puri tans were i n no sense pol i ti cal sal vati oni sts. Thei r own book
demonstrates how concerned the Puri tans were regardi ng rel i gi ous
puri ty: , . . earl y New Engl anders had determi ned that they were
Gods chosen peopl e because they had such pure rel i gi on.9G So why
does the tri o adopt such rhetori c? Thi s rhetori c regardi ng the ki ng-
dom as pol i ti cal i s mi sl eadi ng, and I bel i eve del i beratel y so. Al l they
need to do i s appeal to the Bi bl e. Thei r rhetori c establ i shes a fal se
di chotomy between bi bl i cal l aw and New Testament ethi cs. I t
asserts a fal se di chotomy between the Ol d Testaments ci vi l covenant
and New Testament ci vi l covenants.
Rhetoric I nstead of Scholarship
Why do they substi tute rhetori c for sol i d hi stori cal anal ysi s re-
gardi ng the New Engl and Puri tans theory of pol i ti cs? Certai nl y
there are some excel l ent monographs on the topi c, yet thei r footnotes .
do not refer to any of them. At the very l east, they shoul d have re-
ferred to T. H. Breens Character of the Good Ruler. Breen wri tes: The
Puri tans concern about the good rul er grew out of thei r even greater
concern about the covenant. They i nsi sted that the Lord had made a
compact wi th the Engl i sh peopl e at some i ndetermi nabl e ti me i n the
past, granti ng them peace, prosperi ty, and Protestanti sm i n ex-
change for obedi ence to scri ptural l aw. The Puri tans regarded thi s
agreement as a real and bi ndi ng contract for whi ch al l men coul d be
hel d responsi bl e. I f a nati on fai l ed the Lord by al l owi ng evi l to fl our-
i sh, He puni shed the enti re popul ati on, sai nts and si nners al i ke.97
I n other words, because they bel i eved i n the hi stori cal sancti ons of
God, the Puri tans attempted to obey God i n the ci vi l real m by
affi rmi ng the case l aws of the Bi bl e. Thi s was done for the good of
the whol e soci ety, so as to avoi d external negati ve sancti ons. Breens
standard schol arl y study appears nei ther i n the books footnotes nor
i n the bi bl i ography.
94. Abr aham Kuyper , Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Eerd-
mans, [1898] 1931), ch. 3.
95. Cf. Frank Vanden Berg, Abraham I K@er. A Biography (St. Cathari nes, Ontari o:
Pai dei a Press, [1960] 1978).
97. T. H. Breen, The Charactm of the Good Ruler: Puritan Polztical I deas in New Eng-
land, 1630-1730 (New Haven, Connecti cut: Yal e Uni versi ty Press, 1970), p. 15.
Why thi s sel f-consci ous negl ect of the schol arl y l i terature on Pur-
i tani sms vi ew of pol i ti cs? I suggest i t i s because the Puri tans were so
sel f-consci ousl y covenantal . Our tri o had a hi dden theological agenda
whi ch was not reveal ed unti l the books fi nal pages: the denial that there
is a valid civil covenant between God and any society in the New Testament era,
meani ng a covenant by whi ch God vi si ts corporate rebel l i on wi th
hi stori cal sancti ons. They must therefore affi rm that al l ci vi l cove-
nants are earth-bound. They have i mpl i ci tl y deni ed the very exi st-
ence of a ci vi l covenant. They have adopted Lockes posi ti on that
there i s merel y a ci vi l contract made among men. Thi s i s preci sel y
what the Puri tan pol i ti cal experi ment expl i ci tl y deni ed. (I n a sense,
so di d Rousseaus versi on of soci al contract, for i t repl aced God wi th
the absol utel y soverei gn general wi l l , whi ch speaks onl y through the
rul ers of the ci vi l government. gs Thi s sover ei gnty i mpar ts to
Rousseaus ci vi l contract the character of absol uteness whi ch i s char-
acteri sti c, not of a bi bl i cal covenant, but of a pagan ci ty -state.)
The authors defense of New Testament anti -covenantal i sm i s
hi ghl y sel ecti ve. I t appl i es onl y to the ci vi l covenant. Woul d they say
the same about fami l i es? I hope not. About churches? I hope not.
So, on what authori ty have they uni l ateral l y decl ared the permanent
abol i ti on or annul ment of ci vi l covenants between God and men? I
suggest thi s answer: on the authority of I mmanuel Kant, who was the
master at creati ng fal se dual i sms that push God and Hi s l aw out of
the real m of autonomous man. gg
The Rejecti on of Nati onal Covenants
The tri o had al ready asked the modern neo-evangel i cal s favori te
rhetori cal questi on regardi ng bi bl i cal pol i ti cs: . . . i s i t proper ever
to l ook upon the Ameri can nati on as the speci al agent of God i n the
worl d? 100 They wai t unti l the end of the book to answer thi s rhetori -
cal questi on, and thei r answer, not surpri si ngl y, i s i n the negati ve.
What they, as sel f-consci ous pol i ti cal pl ural i sts, l ove to do i s to chal -
l enge the asserti on by Chri sti an Ameri cans that God has (or has had
i n the past) a speci al (i . e., covenantal ) rel ati on to thi s nati on. Why?
Because such an assertion raises the issue of national covenants, which in turn
98. Robert A. Ni sbet, Tradition r.tnd Reuo[t, op. cit., ch. 1: Rousseau and the
Pol i ti cal Communi ty.
99. I return to thi s theme i n Appendi x A: The Authori ty of H. Ri chard
Ni ebuhr.
Hayway Covenant Historiography 257
necessarily raises the question of biblical law and God? sanctions in history.
They reject the i dea of Gods covenant judgments agai nst any nati on
i n the New Testament era. (I f thi s statement i s exaggerated, whi ch I
do not thi nk i t i s, then at the very l east they assume that we cannot
determi ne whether any event or group of events i s part of Gods
posi ti ve or negati ve sancti ons i n hi story. Dr. Marsden states thi s em-
phati cal l y, as we shal l see.)
They have adopted thi s atti tude from the anti -Tri ni tari an pro-
fessors who taught them, certi fi ed them, and tenured them. Thei r
former professors have a much deeper reason for adopti ng such a
vi ew of Gods sancti ons: Gods covenantal judgments i n hi story, i f
accepted as a fact of hi story, poi nt di rectl y to Gods fi nal judgment
beyond hi story. Presumabl y, Nel l , Hatch, and Marsden are not
worri ed too much about fi nal judgment. But they are qui te ready to
remove the ci vi l -judi ci al aspect of the gospel from seri ous con-
si derati on. Our three schol ars announce openl y regardi ng thei r
previ ous academi c publ i cati ons (whi ch, I mi ght add as a trai ned hi s-
tori an, are techni cal l y and i ntel l ectual l y way above average): We
have wri tten for our academi c peers. . . .101 They are sti l l wri ti ng
for them as thei r agents i n The Search for Christian Ammca. They
are al so wri ti ng to them, at l east i n part.
Agai n, they reject the cl ai m that New Engl ands ci vi l order was
trul y Chri sti an. Thi s i s a very strange argument, gi ven thei r asser-
ti on that onl y church members were al l owed to vote i n Puri tan New
Engl and. 102 (Thi s asserti on, by the way, i s questi onabl e; town resi -
dents were al l owed to vote i n town el ecti ons i f they were property
hol ders but not church members, but l et us pass over thi s hi stori cal
probl em.) Woul d they al so try to argue that I rans ci vi l order i s not
Musl i m because onl y Musl i ms are al l owed to vote? I doubt i t.
Piping the Almost Noble Savages
Furthermore, there i s that other great, i ntol erabl e evi l of the
New Engl and Puri tans: the Puri tans took l and away from the na-
ti
ve
Ameri cans. 10S YOU know, the I ndi ans. (Li beral s have adopted
the phrase nati ve Ameri cans i n recent years. They never, ever say
Ameri can nati ves, si nce thi s i s onl y one step away from Ameri can
savages, whi ch i s preci sel y what most of those demon-worshi ppi ng,
101. I bid., p. 16.
102. I btd,, p, 36.
103. I bid., p. 36.
Negro sl ave-hol di ng, frequentl y l and-pol l uti ng peopl e 104 were, but
just about no schol ar other than former Uni versi ty of Col orado an-
thropol ogi st John Greenway has had the courage to say so i n pri nt
for over a generati on.
10S What l i beral academi cs are al so equal l y un
-
wi l l i ng to attack root and branch i s the soci ety-destroyi ng system of
soci al i sti c, federal bureaucracy-run I ndi an reservati ons, the fi rst
and l ongest Ameri can experi ment i n soci al i sm and cl earl y thi s na-
ti ons most ti me-tested soci al fai l ure. ) Thi s was one of the great si ns
i n Ameri can l i fe, they say: the steal i ng of I ndi an l ands.l Oc I n fact,
because thi s i s one of the few ci vi c si ns our tri o can poi nt to i n the
hi story of New Engl and, other than thei r adopti on of Ol d Testament
l aw, i t consti tutes the bul wark of thei r moral case for New Engl and
as not bei ng trul y Chri sti an. 107 Thi s theme has been pi cked up by
other pri nci pl ed pl ural i sts .l os
As menti oned previ ousl y, thi s theme, too, can be traced back to
Roger Wi l l i ams. I n 1633, ci ti zen Wi l l i ams, i n hi s typi cal author-
i tati ve manner, sent a l etter to the governor and counci l of nearby
104. Thi s has been deni ed, wi th consi derabl e evi dence, regardi ng the New Eng-
l and I ndi ans i n the seventeenth centur y: Wi l l i am Cr oni n, Changes i n the Land: I n-
dians, Colontits, and the Ecology of New England (New York: Hi l l & Wang, 1983), ch. 3.
105. John Greenway, wi l l the I ndi ans Get Whi tey? National Reuiew (March 11,
1969); The I ndi an at Home, i n Greenway (cd.), Folklore of the Great West (Pal o Al to,
Cal i forni a: Ameri can West Publ i shi ng Co., 1969), ch. 3.
107. That a mi l l i on savages had a l egi ti mate l egal cl ai m on the whol e of Nor th
Ameri ca north of Mexi co i s the unstated assumpti on of such critics. They never ask
the questi on: From whom di d the I ndi ans of earl y col oni al Ameri ca get the l and?
They al so never ask the even more perti nent questi on: Was the advent of the Euro-
pean i n North Ameri ca a ri ghteous hi stori cal judgment of God agai nst the I ndi ans?
On the contrary, our three authors ri di cul e the Puri tans for havi ng suggested that
the I ndi ans wer e the mor al and covenantal equi val ent of the Canaani tes (p. 33). I n
fact, i f ever a conti nent of covenant-breakers deserved thi s attri buti on, the nati ve
Ameri cans di d. On the esti mate of a mi l l i on I ndi ans i n 1492, see Wi l l i am Peterson,
Population (2nd ed.; New York: Macmi l l an, 1969), p. 359: esti mates by Kroeber
(1939), Rosenbl at (1945), and Steward (1949). The urbani zed Puebl o I ndi ans i n 1600
may have total ed 100,000: D. W. Mei ni g, The Shaping oj America, 2 vol s. (New
Haven, Connecti cut: Yal e Uni versi ty Press, 1986), I I , Atlantic Anwrica, 1492-1800, p.
16. He judi ci ousl y avoi ds any nati onal esti mate of the I ndi an popul ati on. See espe-
ci al l y pp. 205-13, where he di scusses the European-I ndi an encounter as of 1750. He
speaks of a catastrophi c depopul ati on of I ndi ans on the Eastern seaboard, but
offers no fi gures (p. 208). What we do know i s that on the Eastern seaboard, ti ny
col oni es of whi te settl ers survi ved I ndi an attacks, 1610-1650, and grew to some three
mi l l i on by 1750, i ndi cati ng that ther e had not been ver y many I ndi ans.
108. Cf. Gary Scott Smi th, I ntroducti on, Smi th (cd.), God and Politics: Four Views
on the Reformation of Civil Governnwnt (Phi l l i psburg, New Jersey: Presbyteri an & Re-
formed, 1989), p. 4.
HalJ way Covenant Historiography 259
Pl ymouth, protesti ng that thei r ti tl e to the l and was faul ty. The Ki ng
may have granted them thi s l and, but thi s ti tl e was i l l egi ti mate; onl y
by purchase of l and from the I ndi ans coul d thei r cl ai m be defended.
Obvi ousl y, thi s was as much an attack on the Massachusetts Bay as
i t was on Pl ymouth.
The rul ers of the Massachusetts Bay then ordered hi m to court
for a proposed censure for asserti ng that the Ki ng had l i ed. Thei r
second charge agai nst hi m ri ngs down through the ages to rest at the
door of our tri o: the court al so threatened to censure hi m for hi s hav-
i ng accused the Ki ng and others of bl asphemy for cal l i ng Europe
Chri stendom, or the Chri sti an worl d; . . . l og Then he backed
down, apol ogi zi ng to everyone. Thi s became hi s fami l i ar, l i fel ong
tacti c: l aunchi ng a seri es of ful l -scal e frontal assaul ts on the very
l egal foundati ons of New Engl and, and then, when he faced publ i c
censure, offeri ng abject apol ogi es. He di d thi s repeatedl y unti l they
were about to bani sh hi m, whereupon he fl ed to the wi l derness of
Rhode I sl and, where he was joi ned the fol l owi ng year by Mrs.
Hutchi nson and the anti nomi ans, who had al so chal l enged the foun-
dati ons of New Engl and. 110 And then, once safel y outsi de the bor-
ders of Massachusetts, hi s l anguage agai nst the Massachusetts con-
cept of a bi bl i cal ci vi l covenant grew ever-more outrageous: My end
i s to di scover and procl ai m the dryi ng and horri bl e gui l t of the
bl oody doctri ne, one of the most sedi ti ous, destructi ve, bl asphe-
mous, and bl oodi est i n any or i n al l the nati ons of the worl d. . . .111
I t was safe to say thi s i n Rhode I sl and.
The New Rhode I sland
The modern Chri sti an academi c worl d sti l l l i ves metaphori cal l y
and judi ci al l y i n Rhode I sl and, surrounded by anti nomi ans. A di s-
ti nct school of hi stori cal i nterpretati on has grown up i n recent years,
whi ch I l i ke to refer to as the Rhode I sl and wi l derness school of hi s-
109. Winthrops Jour nal : HistoV of New England, 1630-1649, edi ted by James K.
Hosmer, 2 vol s. (New York: Barnes & Nobl e, [1908] 1966), I , p. 117.
110. Emery Batti s, Satnts and Sectaries: Anne Hutchinson and the Antinomian Controversy
in tlu Massachusetts Bay Colony (Chapel Hi l l , North Carol i na: Uni versi ty of North
Carol i na Press, for the I nsti tute of Earl y Ameri can Hi story and Cul ture at
Wi l l i amsburg, Vi rgi ni a, 1962).
111. Wi l l i ams, The Bloody Tmant I -2t More BlooajI (1614), extr act i n Theodor e P.
Greene (cd.), Ro~er Williams and the Massachusetts MaGdrates (Boston: D. C. Heath,
1964), p. 14.
tori ography.l l z The Search for Christian America is a typi cal document
of thi s school . I ts i nherent worki ng al l i ance wi th secul ar humani sm
i s someti mes hi dden by i ts members unstated commi tment to the
vague and l oosel y defi ned categori es of natural l aw and natural rea-
son. Roger Wi l l i ams defended natural l aw theory and pol i ti cal pl u-
ral i sm as the ci vi l al ternati ve to Puri tani sms commi tment to bi bl i cal
l aw. 113 What do our modern cri ti cs of New Engl and Puri tani sm offer
as an al ternati ve? They are l ess forthri ght than Wi l l i ams. They si m-
pl y do not repl y to the questi on: I f not bi bl i cal l aw, then what? Li ke
some i nsane Dutchman who i nsi sts that the di kes of Hol l and be
bl own up, but systemati cal l y refuses to suggest an al ternati ve for
keepi ng out the North Sea, so are todays evangel i cal cri ti cs of bi bl i -
cal l aw. There i s thi s di sti ncti on, however: nobody woul d pay any
attenti on to the nutty Dutchman, except possi bl y to l ock hi m up for
hi s own (and everyone el ses) safety. We al l ow the anti nomi an Chri s-
ti an pl ural i sts to teach our chi l dren i n tenured and subsi di zed safety
from free market forces, not to menti on Church censure.
Our tri os one other bi t of supposed evi dence of thi s l ack of a trul y
Chri sti an cul ture i s the l ack of wi despread church membershi p, 114
whi ch they dare not emphasi ze too heavi l y, si nce they al l know about
Edmund S. Morgans Vi si bl e Sai nh, whi ch they wi sel y do not ci te,
even i n thei r books extensi ve annotated bi bl i ography. At l east one of
the tri o, George Marsden, began hi s doctoral studi es at Yal e Uni ver-
si ty under Morgan i n the same year that Visible Saints was publ i shed,
so they know what Morgan di scovered. Hi s book shows that the Pur-
i tans extra-bi bl i cal requi rement for church membershi p of a speci al
conversi on experi ence was at the heart of the second generati ons
refusal to joi n l ocal churches, and was al so the reason why New Eng-
l ands second-generati on Puri tan theol ogi ans i nvented the theol ogy
of the hal fway covenant.115 Hi stori an Robert Mi ddl ekauff com-
112. Another exampl e of thi s school of thoughts i nfl uence i n Chr i sti an ci r cl es i s
Gary Scott Smi ths book, The Seeds of Sectdaniation: Calvinism, Culture and Pluralism in
America, 1870-1915 (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Chri sti an Uni versi ty Press, a subdi vi -
si on of W i l l i am B. Eerdmans, 1985). The most sel f-consci ous defender of thi s tradi -
ti on i s anarchi st economi st Murray N. Rothbard i n hi s four-vol ume hi story of col o-
ni al Ameri ca, Comeived in Liberty (New Rochel l e, New York: Arl i ngton House,
1975-79).
113. E. L. Hebden Tayl or, The Christian Philosophy of Lazq Politics and the State
(Nutl ey, New Jersey: Crai g Press, 1966), pp. 511-21.
(
115. See above, Chapter 3: Hal fway Covenant Ethi cs.
ments regardi ng thi s requi rement of a conversi on experi ence, I t
may seem curi ous that the Puri tans of the Bay carri ed the search for
puri ty farther than the Puri tans of Pl ymouth. 116 To admi t thi s,
however, the tri o woul d be compel l ed to i denti fy the Puri tans of
Massachusetts Bay as even more ri gorous i n i ntent about thei r
Chri sti ani ty than The Search admi ts, so they do not menti on i t.
The authors have compl etel y, utterl y mi srepresented the Puri tan
pol i ti cal experi ment as somehow not bei ng trul y Chri sti an, when i t
was probabl y the most sel f-consci ous experi ment i n bui l di ng a com-
prehensi ve Chri sti an ci vi l order i n the mi dst of a wi l derness that any
group has come cl ose to achi evi ng i n hi story. Why di d these profes-
si onal hi stori ans so compl etel y mi srepresent Puri tani sm? The an-
swer i s cl ear: they reject, above al l , the i dea of a bi bl i cal l y mandated
ci vi l covenant. Nothi ng i s al l owed to stand i n the way of thei r
di atri be agai nst the whol e i dea of a bi bl i cal ci vi l covenant. I thi nk
that thi s was the number-one purpose of thei r book, both from thei r
poi nt of vi ew and the publ i shers. I n rejecti ng the i dea of a bi bl i cal
ci vi l covenant, they l ead thei r readers i nto the swamp of rel ati vi sm.
[T]he i dea of a Chrkti an nati on i s a very ambi guous concept. . . .11
I t i s not surpri si ng, then, that they appeal here for academi c support
to one of the modern apostl es of rel ati vi sm, H. Ri chard Ni ebuhr
not someone who can be regarded as an uni mpeachabl e source. 1 I S
Thomas Jefferson, Prophet ?
The authors try to persuade the reader of a second unusual hypo-
thesi s. Thei r fi rst hypothesi s i s that the Puri tans, bei ng systemati c
covenant theol ogi ans, coul d therefore not be trul y Chri sti an i n
thei r worl dvi ew, because they bel i eved that the ci vi l covenant under
God i s sti l l a val i d concept. Second, they argue that the Consti tuti ons
Framers, who were at best nomi nal Chri sti ans, i nvented a pl ural i st
ci vi l covenant whi ch i s supposedl y the uni versal standard for a
Chri sti an soci ety. Thus, the most sel f-consci ous Chri sti ans i n hi story
(New Engl and Puri tans) were not trul y Chri sti ans i n thei r pol i ti cal
vi ews, whi l e a group of essenti al l y non-Chri sti an pl ural i st pol i ti ci ans
i n 1787 devi sed the onl y l egi ti mate ci vi l foundati on for Ameri can
Chri sti ans to accept, now and forever more, amen.
116. Rober t Mi ckl l ekauff, The Mathem: Three Generations of Puntan I ntellectuals,
1596-1728 (New York: Oxford Uni versi ty Press, 1971), pp. 48-49.
118. See Appendi x A: The Authori ty of H. Ri chard Ni ebuhr.
We have exami ned thei r arguments regardi ng the Puri tans. Let
us now l ook at thei r arguments regardi ng the worl dvi ew of the
Foundi ng Fathers (the Framers of the Consti tuti on), whi ch I ac-
cept as hi stori cal l y val i d, based on my own readi ng of thei r works
and the debates at Phi l adel phi a i n 1787.119 They wri te: I t i s di ffi cul t
for modern Ameri cans to recapture the rel i gi ous spi ri t of the
countrys great earl y l eaders George Washi ngton, Thomas Jeffer-
son, Benjami n Frankl i n, and thei r col l eagues. The di ffi cul ty ari ses
because these bri l l i ant l eaders, surel y the most capabl e generati on of
statesmen ever to appear i n Ameri ca, were at once genui nel y rel i -
gi ous but not speci fi cal l y Chri sti an. Vi rtual l y al l these great men
had a profound bel i ef i n the Supreme Judge of the worl d and i n the
protecti on of Di vi ne Provi dence, to use the words of the Decl arati on
of I ndependence. Yet onl y a few bel i eved i n the orthodox teachi ngs
of tradi ti onal Chri sti ani ty that, for exampl e, Chri sts death atoned
for si n, that the Bi bl e was a uni que revel ati on from God, or that the
mi racl es recorded i n the Scri pture actual l y happened . ~20 They do
l i st a few excepti ons John Wi therspoon, Patri ck Henry (who
smel l ed a rat i n Phi l adel phi a and who, opposed the rati fi cati on of
the Consti tuti on), and John Jay but the major fi gures were not Tri -
ni tari ans. Thi s i s certai nl y true of Jefferson, John Adams, Frankl i n,
and Madi son. I t i s probabl y true of Washi ngton. ~zl
Al l of thi s shoul d provi de a major red fl ag wi th respect to the
soundness of the Consti tuti onal settl ement from a bi bl i cal poi nt of
vi ew. On the contrary, our tri o of hi stori ans concl ude that the apos-
tates were correct and the Puri tans were wrong. So correct were the
Framers that we must never attempt to change the rul es back to a
Puri tan vi si on of the ci vi l covenant. We return to the statement wi th
whi ch I began thi s essay:
What of the pl ace of the Bi bl e, then, as a basi s for pol i ti cal ai l i on?
Shoul d we not bri ng the nati on and i ts l egi sl ati on back to the Bi bl e? Here
we have to make a careful di sti ncti on. Chri sti ans own pol i ti cal deci si ons
shoul d be i nformed by bi bl i cal pri nci pl es. Thi s i s an i mportant poi nt not to
mi ss. Neverthel ess, when bri ngi ng these deci si ons to bear on ci vi c debate
and l egi sl ati on we must agree to the rul es of the ci vi c game, whi ch under
the Ameri can consti tuti on are pl ural i sti c, That means that no matter how
119. See Part 3.
121. Paul F. Boi l er , Jr ., Geor ge Wmhington & Religion (Dal l as, Texas: Southern
Methodi st Uni versi ty Press, 1963).
263
strongl y the Bi bl e or other revel ati on i nforms our pol i ti cal vi ews, for the purposes
of civic debate and legislation we wi l l not appeal si mpl y to rel i gi ous authori ty. 122
Thi s statement appears i n thei r secti on, A Mi ddl e Way. A mi d-
dl e way to where? Or what?
I thi nk i t i s safe to say that The Search for Christian America, i f ex-
ami ned cri ti cal l y, turns out to be a second-rate pi ece of hi stori ography
i n search of a thi rd-rate thesi s: the theol ogy of pl ural i sm as the hi gh-
est pol i ti cal goal of the Chri sti an. Such shoddy schol arshi p from a
gr oup of pr evi ousl y competent schol ar s testi fi es to a deep and
abi di ng i ntel l ectual schi zophreni a on thei r part, as wel l as a task too
di ffi cul t for the best avai l abl e mi nds. They found i t i mpossi bl e to be
true to both Jefferson and the Ol d Testament i n matters ci vi l , so they
si ded wi th Jefferson i n the name of true Chri sti ani ty. Thi s i s the
basi s of thei r rejecti on of what they di sparagi ngl y refer to as the
myth of Ameri cas Chri sti an ori gi ns. 123
Frankl y, I am not i mpressed.
Pl ural i sm: Moral Decepti on and Judi ci al Deferral
Our authors wri te: The compl exi ty and i rony of hi story bl ast al l
our cheri shed noti ons and our pet theori es .
124
I ndeed? I shoul d
have thought that Gods sancti ons i n hi story are what bl ast them.
These hi stori cal sancti ons certai nl y have bl asted the sel f-confi dence
of Ameri can pol i ti cal l i beral i sm duri ng the l ast quarter century. No
one seri ousl y procl ai ms the end of i deol ogy the way that soci ol ogi st
Dani el Bel l di d before Kennedy and Camel ot di sappeared, to be re-
pl aced by Johnson and Vi etnam. 125 But i f i deol ogy has not ended,
then what i s the future of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm? I f i deol ogy escal ates,
what i s pl ural i sms future? Nel l , Hatch, and Marsden have bet thei r
pool ed reputati ons on a fi rst-pl ace fi ni sh by Common Sense Pl ural -
123. I bid., p. 43.
124. I bid,, p. 154.
125. Dani el Bel l , The End of I deolo~ On the Exhaustion of Political I deas in the Ffties
(rev. ed.; New York: Free Press, 1962). By 1968, the thesi s was passf: Chai m 1.
Waxman (cd.), The End of I deoloo Debate (New Yor k: Funk & Wagnal l s, 1968). The
second book was dedi cated to the memory of Marti n Luther Ki ng, Jr., whi ch seems
appropri ate: the i deol ogi cal debates had escal ated sharpl y. Thi s symposi um aP-
peared seven years after Bel l s fi rst edi ti on (1961). Usual l y such symposi a appear
shortl y thereafter, not seven years. The whol e worl d had changed, 1964-65. On thi s
era as a watershed peri od, see Gary North, Unholy Spirst~. Occulhsrn and New Age
Humanism (Ft. Worth, Texas: Domi ni on Press, 1986), I ntroducti on. Cf. pp. 22-25.
i sm i n the Ci vi l Compact Derby, an aged, wi nded nag that has al -
ready begun to fade i n the stretch.
They i nsi st that The Ameri can pol i ti cal system i s very frankl y a
system of compromi ses.
m 126 I t surel y was deepl y compromi sed i n
1789 wi th respect to the i nsti tuti on of chattel sl avery, and al l the
pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i n the worl d coul d not have made that comprom-
i se any l ess moral l y repugnant. The i nherent confl i ct escal ated; i t
had to. The Ci vi l War was an i rrepressi bl e confl i ct, gi ven the unwi l l -
i ngness of the South to honor the New Testaments annul ment of
I srael s jubi l ee l and tenure and i ts permanent sl ave system. What
thi s nati on needed after 1800 wi th respect to chattel sl avery was not
more pl ural i sm but l ess. I t needed a Consti tuti onal settl ement that
announced at l ong l ast a cl osed door to the rel i gi on, i deol ogy, eco-
nomi cs, and ci vi l i zati on of chattel sl avery. The worl d needed to cl ose
that open door from the day that Jesus announced Hi s ful fi l l ment of
the jubi l ee year. 127
The Ameri can Ci vi l War stands as a vi si bl e testi mony to the fai l -
ure of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm. Bul l ets repl aced bal l ots. The Norths vi ew
of Consti tuti onal l aw tri umphed over the Souths, not i n pol i ti cal cau-
cuses but on battl efi el ds. Why do our authors refer agai n and agai n
to the evi l s of Ameri can chattel sl avery, i f they al so thi nk that pol i ti -
cal pl ural i sm provi des anythi ng l i ke permanent peaceful sol uti ons to
what are cl earl y i nescapabl e moral confl i cts? Why do they want to
avoi d getti ng fundamental moral i ssues sol ved pol i ti cal l y, and i n
terms of bi bl i cal revel ati on? I percei ve that they are of the opi ni on
that the moral i ssues rai sed excl usi vel y or pri mari l y by Chri sti an
theol ogy are of far l ess i mportance moral l y and especi al l y judi ci al l y
than common-ground (i .e., Uni tari an-domi nated) abol i ti oni sm was,
and so these Chri sti an i ssues must be adjudi cated i n rel i gi ousl y neu-
tral ci vi l courts. Thi s l eads to the fol l owi ng outl ook: The i ssue of
sl avery deal t wi th by the Dred Scott case was too i mportant an i ssue to
be l eft to the Supreme Court to deci de; Roe u. Wbde, on the other
hand, i s not equal l y cruci al , so Chri sti ans must abi de by i t.
I n Bri tai n, the sl ave i ssue was sol ved by democrati c coerci on; the
sl ave-owners di d not have the votes after 1832. Not so i n the U.S.
Sl aves were kept i n chai ns here for an addi ti onal three decades, and
126. The Search, p, 133.
127. Gary North, Tools of Domi ni on: The Case Laws of Exodw (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti -
tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1989), pp. 228-30.
Ha@ay covenant Historiography
265
then a ci vi l war settl ed the i ssue. (Thi s i s bad news for Ri chard John
Neuhaus theory that Democrati c persuasi on, not empti ness, i s the
al ternati ve to coerci on. 128 For Ameri can sl aves, the al ternati ve was
a form of empti ness for thi rty extra years, and then coerci on: of thei r
masters. ) Thi s i s al ways the fate of pl ural i sm: someone eventual l y
says, Oh, no, you wont, hi s opponent says, Oh, yes, I wi l l , and
the fi ght begi ns. At that poi nt, the questi on al ways i s: What i s real l y
worth fi ghti ng over? Thi s questi on cannot be forever deferred pol i ti -
cal l y, wi th or wi thout the pol ythei sti c rel i gi on of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm.
At best, pluralism is a political cease-&-e until one side is ready to resume the
@ght to the death whi ch the Bi bl e teaches i s humani sms death.
When the fi ght resumes i n earnest, there wi l l be few pl ural i sts to
be found on the di vi si ve i ssue i n questi on. Li ke those who promote
an unspeci fi c, hypotheti cal , and not-yet-publ i shed mi ddl e way be-
tween aborti on and anti -aborti on, pl ural i sts wi l l have few consti tu-
ents once the rel i gi ous confl i ct escal ates. Li ke paci fi sts the day after a
shooti ng war breaks out, pl ural i sts wi l l vani sh from the arena of
publ i c di scourse. What had formerl y been percei ved as a ti mel ess
pol i ti cal phi l osophy wi l l be at l ong l ast recogni zed for what i t i n-
evi tabl y i s: a short-term propaganda campai gn for a temporary
pol i ti cal cease-fi re. Whi l e i t i s certai nl y l egi ti mate for Chri sti ans to
cal l for such a cease-fi re from ti me to ti me, i n order to prepare for
the next phase of the battl e, i t i s nai ve for Chri sti ani tys i ntel l ectual
l eaders to treat thi s cease-fi re as i f i t were a permanent arrangement,
l et al one the basi s of a uni versal l y val i d pol i ti cal phi l osophy. But they
do. For the ti me bei ng.
Pluralism and Moral Confusion
A generati on ago, l eft-wi ng soci ol ogi st C. Wri ght Mi l l s wrote an
i ndi ctment of Ameri can pl ural i sm, The Power Elite. Though cri ti cs
have shown that hi s anal ysi s was anythi ng but detached, and hi s
data were not al ways concl usi ve, hi s basi c argument was correct:
there are el i tes i n Ameri can l i fe. 129 A permanent el i te whi ch mai n-
tai ns power i rrespecti ve of the attempted negati ve sancti ons of those
represented by i t i s the covenant-breakers versi on of covenantal hi -
128, Ri char d John Neuhaus, The Naked Public Squar e: Reltgion and Democracy in
Ama-ica (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Eerdmans, 1984), p. 121.
129. C. Wri ght Mi l l s, The Poww Elite (New York: Oxford Uni versi ty Press, 1957).
Cf. Phi l i p H. Burch, Jr., Elites i n American Histo~, 3 vols (New York: Hol mes &
Mei er, 1981).
erarchy. There must be representati on i n hi story; the questi on i s: I n
what way are hi stori cal sancti ons brought agai nst the representati ves?
Mi l l s correctl y i denti fi ed the nature of todays i l l usi on: pol i ti cal
pl ural i sms phi l osophy of bal anced moral and economi c i nterests.
Pol i ti cal l i fe i s far more ruthl ess than thi s. He al so i denti fi ed the
source of thi s bel i ef ei ghteenth-century Scotti sh Enl i ghtenment phi -
l osophy, whi ch undergi rded free market economi cs and the Framers
pl ural i st pol i ti cal phi l osophy. 130 (Scotti sh Enl i ghtenment phi l osophy
was a secul ari zed versi on of Scotti sh common sense real i sm, whi ch
was the basi c phi l osophy of Ameri can Protestant academi c theol ogy
unti l at l east the end of the ni neteenth century, and real l y unti l after
Worl d War I . Mark Nel l i s a speci al i st i n thi s fi el d, 131 and one
wonders i f he has ever abandoned i ts overal l outl ook, Van Ti l s
demol i ti on of i t notwi thstandi ng.)
Mi l l s argued forceful l y that thi s vi ew of Ameri can pol i ti cal i nsti -
tuti ons i s mythi cal , that power i s not parcel l ed out i n the way that
the pl ural i sts say i t i s. Ul ti matel y, Mi l l s i nsi sted, the political struggle is
in fact a conzict over moral values. The fai l ure of Ameri cans to under-
stand thi s, he sai d, i s the heart of the modern pol i ti cal cri si s:
The moral uneasi ness of our ti me resul ts from the fact that ol der val ues
and codes of upri ghtness no l onger gri p the men and women of the corpor-
ate era, nor have they been repl aced by new val ues and codes whi ch woul d
l end moral meani ng and sancti on to the corporate routi nes they must fol -
l ow. I t i s not that the mass publ i c has expl i ci tl y rejected recei ved codes; i t i s
rather that to many of the members these codes have become hol l ow. No
moral terms of acceptance are avai l abl e, but nei ther are any moral terms of
rejecti on. As i ndi vi dual s, they are moral l y defensel ess; as groups, they are
pol i ti cal l y i ndi fferent. I t i s thi s general i zed l ack of commi tment that i s
meant when i t i s sai d that the publ i c i s moral l y confused. 132
Such moral confusi on regardi ng publ i c i ssues i s the i nevi tabl e
product of a phi l osophy whi ch teaches that i rreconci l abl e moral con-
fl i cts are not i nherentl y rel i gi ous, and therefore perhaps not i nher-
entl y i rreconci l abl e. I n such a pl ural i st pol i ti cal order, there must be
no publ i c pol i ti cal appeal to ul ti mate, God-gi ven moral standards.
130. I bid., p. 242.
131. Mark A. Nel l (eel .), The Pnnceton Theology 1812-1921: Scn@ure, Science, and
Theological Method >om Archibald Alexand~ to Benjamin Breckinridge W@eld (Gr and
Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Baker, 1983). Hi s footnotes i n the i ntroducti ons to each chapter
l ead the student i nto the background of Scotti sh real i st phi l osophy.
132. Mi l l s, PoweY Elite, p. 344.
Hal@ay Covenant Historiography 267
To ci te our tri o once agai n, when bri ngi ng these deci si ons to bear
on ci vi c debate and l egi sl ati on we must agree to the rul es of the ci vi c
game, whi ch under the Ameri can consti tuti on are pl ural i sti c. That
means that no matter how strongl y the Bi bl e or other revel ati on i n-
forms our pol i ti cal vi ews, for the purposes of civic debate and legislation we
will not appeal si mpl y to rel i gi ous authori ty. 133
Thi s i s the wi del y hel d vi ew of most voters today. Why, then,
shoul d we be surpri sed to di scover that Chri sti ans i n the el ectorate
do not know where to turn for ri ghteous sol uti ons to the probl ems of
the day? Thei r schol arl y l eaders to whom they have entrusted the
trai ni ng of thei r chi l dren have tol d them Chri sti ans have a moral
and pol i ti cal obl i gati on to shut thei r Bi bl es when they enter the pub-
l i c arena. Todays Chri sti an voters have fai th i n no authori tati ve
judi ci al standards by whi ch moral and pol i ti cal order can be restored
i n the mi dst of the real and now wi del y percei ved moral di ssol uti on
of our era. Thus, pol i ti cal sol uti ons to cri ses come onl y when some
secular humanist moral scene is coercive~ imposed by a power elite to solve the
problem. There i s onl y one pol i ti cal l y acceptabl e al ternati ve to thi s
process: moral confl i cts are deferred for a season by pol i ti cal or
bureaucrati c ti nkeri ng, pl us an addi ti onal i nfusi on of government
money.
Tutic or Permanent Philosophy?
Once we understand that pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i s a process of public
moral deception and~udicial deferral, the onl y reasonabl e defense of thi s
phi l osophy becomes pure pragmati sm: to reduce visible con~icts tempor-
ari~. One can of course attempt to defend pl ural i sm as a permanent
phi l osophy by argui ng that Chri sti ani ty i n pol i ti cs tends to promote
vi ol ent confl i ct, so l et us choose pl ural i sm for the sake of soci al
peace. Thi s i s exactl y what the authors argue. I n pol i ti cal l i fe, i f
every party i s certai n i ts posi ti on i s backed by the sure authori ty of
God, the l i kel i hood of vi ol ence i ncreases vastl y. 134 They are obvi -
ousl y worri ed about the terrors of i deol ogi cal pol i ti cs, a fear shared
by other l i beral hi stori ans. 35 So, they concl ude, l et us choose i n-
stead pl ural i sm. But for how l ong?
134. I bid., p. 137.
135. Mari an J. Morton, The Torors of I deological Pohtics: Liberal Historians i n a Con-
servative Mood (Cl evel and, Ohi o: Case Western Reserve Uni versi ty, 1972). I ncl uded
i n thi s sur vey i s a ckapter on Marsdens teacher, Edmund S. Morgan.
The hopes and dreams of the pl ural i sts are bei ng smashed by the
real i ti es of the l ate twenti eth century. The l oomi ng moral cri si s can-
not be i ndefi ni tel y deferred. Thi s al so means that the covenantal
connecti on between l aw and Gods hi stori cal sancti ons cannot be
deferred. Our pol i ti cal system, based on pl ural i sm, i s fal l i ng apart.
I t has become i rrati onal . The government cannot deal wi th huge
government-created probl ems that threaten the very fabri c of the
Ameri can soci al order. I t cannot even di scuss some of them publ i cl y .
(e.g., the i nevi tabl e bankruptcy of the Soci al Securi ty reti rement
program). Davi d Kettl er i s correct: I t i s not enough to remark that
the Ameri can pol i ti cal order i s bi ased and not, as i deol ogi cal Pl ural -
i sts contend, the neutral arbi ter among equal contestants or the wi l l -
i ng i nstrument of shi fti ng temporary majori ti es; i t i s al so necessary
to see that the bi as tends to produce i rrati onal pol i ci es and acti ons . 136
How Accurate I s Dr. Marsden?
George Marsden i s by far the best known and most respected of
our three hi stori ans, al though he i s not known pri mari l y as an hi sto-
ri an of col oni al Ameri can rel i gi on, but more for hi s more recent
work on twenti eth-century Ameri can fundamental i sm and evangel i -
cal i sm. He was the domi nant author of the secti ons of The Sear ch
devoted to the prai se of pl ural i sm, si nce the arguments are the same
as what he had wri tten the year before i n hi s essay i n the Paul
Wool l ey festschr$t. I n the one-vol ume Eerdrnans Handbook to Chnstzan-
i~ in America, edi ted by Nel l , Hatch, Marsden, Davi d F. Wel l s, and
John D. Woodbri dge, Marsden asks: Were Ameri cas Ori gi ns Chri s-
ti an?137 He has a tough ti me answeri ng thi s one negati vel y, si nce
most of the facts are agai nst hi m. He admi ts that The vi ew that the
col oni es were si gni fi cantl y Chri sti an has a good bi t to recommend i t.
Two of the most i nfl uenti al settl ements, New Engl and and Pennsyl -
vani a, were founded expl i ci tl y on Chri sti an pri nci pl es. Each was a
remarkabl e attempt to establ i sh a hol y commonweal th.
1
38 (Yes,
reader, thi s i s the very same man who co-authored The Search. ) But
other col oni es, he says, were more nomi nal l y Chri sti an .
136. Davi d Kettl er, The Pol i ti cs of Soci al Change: The Rel evance of Democrati c
Approaches, i n Wi l l i am E. Connol l y (cd.), The Biu of Pluralism (New York: Al di ne-
Atherton, 1969), p. 214.
137. Eerdmans Handbook to ChristianiQ in America (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Eerd-
mans, 1983).
138. Zbid., p. 150.
Havway Covenant Historiography
269
What does he mean, more nomi nal l y Chri sti an? Wi th the ex-
cepti on of Rhode I sl and, they were l egal l y, covenantal l y Chri sti an
governments. They were chartered under the Ki ng and Parl i ament.
Bl asphemy was sti l l a major cri me i n Engl and i n the l ate seventeenth
century. I n hal f the col oni es, col ony-l evel ci vi l magi strates had to
take a Tri ni tari an oath i n order to hol d offi ce, and thi s was true up
unti l the Ameri can Revol uti on and i n some cases beyond. 139
Virginia
I n 1610-11, Gen. Thomas Gates began hi s col oni al l aws wi th a
cal l to mens duty to God, to whom men owe hi ghest and supreme
duty. . . .
~~140 He required all captai ns and offi cers to have morni ng
and eveni ng prayer. The death penal ty was to be i mposed on anyone
speaki ng i mpi ousl y regardi ng any Person of the Tri ni ty.141 No man
shal l speak any word or do any act whi ch may tend to the deri si on or
despi te of Gods hol y word, upon pai n of death; nor shal l any man
unworthi l y demean hi msel f unto any preacher or mi ni ster of the
same, but general l y hol d them i n al l reverent regard and duti ful en-
treat y; otherwi se he the offender shal l be openl y whi pped three ti mes
and ask publ i c forgi veness i n the assembl y of the congregati on three
several Sabbath days.
142 Sodomy, rape (i ncl udi ng the rape of an I n-
di an), and adul tery were speci fi ed as capi tal cri mes. Sacri l ege theft
of church property was a capi tal cri me. 143
Later l aws were l ess theol ogi cal l y ri gorous. The l aws of 1619
requi red weekl y church attendance, and fi nes were i mposed on
vi ol ators. 144 The church remai ned extremel y i mportant i n Vi r-
gi ni as hi story. At the ti me of the Great Awakeni ng i n the mi d-
1700s, the i ssue of church establ i shment fl ared up pol i ti cal l y, i ndi cat-
i ng that Chri sti an i ssues were sti l l basi c to the di sputes of col oni al
era Vi rgi ni a. 145
139. See Part 3.
140. Arti cl es, Laws, and Orders, Di vi ne, Pol i ti c, and Marti al for the Col ony i n
Vi rgi ni a, 1610-1611, i n Foundations of Colonial America: A Documentary Histoy, edi te~ by
W. Kei th Kavenaugh, 3 vol s. (New Yor k: Chel sea House, 1973), I I I , p. 1869.
141. I bid., I I I , p. 1870.
142. I dem.
143. I bid., I I I , p. 1871.
144. I bid., I I I , p. 1888.
145. Rhys I saac, The Transformation of Virginia, 1740-1790 (Wi l l i amsburg,
Vi rgi ni a: I nsti tute of Earl y Ameri can Hi story and Cul ture, 1982), Pt. I I .
270
Pennsylvania
Pennsyl vani a i s an i nteresti ng case. I t was founded by Wi l l i am
Penn, a Quaker who had once been i mpri soned for bl asphemy. 4b
Penn was very sensi ti ve to thi s topi c. He wanted no persecuti on of
rel i gi ous groups. He began hi s Charter of Li berti es of 1682 by ci ti ng
the ori gi n of ci vi l government: Adams fal l . Then he ci ted I Ti mothy
1:9-10: the l aw was not made for the ri ghteous but the di sobedi ent
and ungodl y. Then he ci ted Remans 13:1-5 on the magi strate as
Gods mi ni ster of terror to evi l . 147 The Charter prohi bi ted any
mol esti ng of al l persons l i vi ng i n thi s provi nce who confess and
acknowl edge the one al mi ghty and eternal God to be the creator,
uphol der, and rul er of the worl d. . . . 14s They were not to be com-
pel l ed to attend church or pay compul sory ti thes. But Penn made i t
cl ear i n hi s 1701 update of the charter that such theol ogi cal l ati tude
was onl y for common ci ti zens. Ci vi l magi str ates wer e under
Tri ni tari an theocrati c restri cti ons. To serve as a ci vi l magi strate, a
person had to al so profess to bel i eve i n Jesus Chri st, the savi our of
the worl d. . . .
~ 1 w Magistrates had to take thi s oath:
And I , A. B., profess fai th i n God the Father and i n Jesus Chri st hi s
eternal son, the true God, and i n the Hol y Spi ri t, one God bl essed for ever-
more; and do acknowl edge the Hol y Scri ptures of the Ol d and New Testa-
ment to be gi ven by di vi ne i nspi rati on. 150
And fi nal l y, i n good Quaker fashi on, every member of the Assembl y
had to pay the cl erk of the Assembl y fi ve pence to record thi s decl a-
rati on i n the offi ci al rol l book. (Waste not, want not, and there are
no free l unches. )
146. I n 1868-69, Penn had spent ei ght months i mpri soned i n the Tower of Lon-
don duri ng the Pri vy Counci l s extended i nvesti gati on of hi s theol ogi cal vi ews. The
Pri vy Counci l coul d not convi ct anyone; i t coul d, however, permanentl y i mpri son
someone duri ng i ts i nvesti gati on. Penn, onl y one year a Quaker, had wri tten Sandy
Foun&ztions Shaken i n 1668, an attack on the Tri ni ty, He was persuaded to retract hi s
vi ews by the Ki ngs chapl ai n, Edward Sti l l i ngfl eet. Penn l ater admi tted onl y
Sabel l i an vi ews: the three Persons of the Tri ni ty as aspects of God. But he affi rmed
the di vi ni ty of Jesus. Leonard W. Levy, Treaon Against God: A HistoV of the Offense of
Bla@hemy (New York: Schocken, 1981), pp. 308-11.
147. Charter of Li berti es and Frame of Government of Pennsyl vani a (1682);
repri nted i n Foundations, I I , p. 1134.
148. I bid., I I , p. 1144.
149. Charter of Pri vi l eges by Wi l l i am Penn (1710); ibid., I I , p. 1161.
150. I bid., I I , p. 1169.
Carolina
Carol i na was l i beral . The 1662/3 Charter of Carol i na di d al l ow
those who coul d not i n good consci ence take a publ i c oath or con-
form to the publ i ck exerci se of rel i gi on, accordi ng to the l i turgy,
form and ceremoni es of the church of Engl and to be exempted from
doi ng so. A l arge majori ty of the i nhabi tants were nonconformi ng
Protestants, al though the Angl i can Church was the establ i shed
church, and i ts pastors were supported by compul sory taxes. There
were onl y two Angl i can churches i n South Carol i na the major
Carol i na col ony as l ate as 1700.151 The authori ty to grant such a
speci al di spensati on was gi ven to the ori gi nal founders and thei r
hei rs. Such a grant of tol erati on was ti ghtl y restri cted: the exempted
ci ti zen had to decl are repeated l oyal ty to the Ki ng and hi s hei rs, and
be subject and obedi ent to al l the other l aws, ordi nances, consti tu-
ti ons of the sai d provi nce, i n al l matters whatsoever, as wel l eccl esi -
asti cal as ci vi l , and do not i n any wi se di sturb the peace and safety
thereof, or scandal i ze or reproach the sai d l i turgy, forms and cere-
moni es, or anythi ng rel ati ng thereunto, or any person or persons
whatsoever, for or i n respect of hi s or thei r use or exerci se thereof, or
hi s or thei r obedi ence and conformi ty, thereunto. 152 The 1669/70
Fundamental Consti tuti ons of Carol i na, wri tten by John Locke, 153
was an attempt by one propri etor, Lord Ashl ey, to l i beral i ze and for-
mal i ze the earl i er charter. He never succeeded i n i mposi ng i t l egal l y
on the col ony, al though i t di d become a judi ci al model . 154 I n thi s
document, we di scover: No man shal l be permi tted to be a freeman
of Carol i na or to have any estate or habi tati on wi thi n i t that does not
acknowl edge a god; and that god i s publ i cl y and sol emnl y wor-
shi pped .~55 I n the Engl i sh col oni es of North Ameri ca i n 1670, that
meant Chri sti ani ty. I n 1721, the Assembl y passed an act l i mi ti ng the
franchi se to free whi te men, 21 years of age or greater, resi di ng i n the
state for a year or more, and professi ng the chri sti an rel i gi on. . . .156
Church wardens were to manage the actual el ecti ons. 157
151. Curti s P. Nettel s, The Roots of American Civilization: A HistoV of Ameri can Col -
oni al L~e (2nd ed.; New York: Appl eton-Century-Crofts, 1963), p. 188.
152. Charter of Carol i na (March 24, 1662/63); repri nted i n Foundati ons, I I I , p.
1747.
153. Nettel s, op. cit., p. 340.
154. I bid., p. 187.
155. Provi si on 95, Foundations, I I I , p. 1772.
156. I bid., I I I , p. 1981.
157. I dem.
272
I n 1704, the l ords propri etors decl ared that onl y communi cant
members i n good standi ng i n the Church of Engl and coul d l awful l y
hol d offi ce i n the Assembl y. 158 Another decl arati on i n 1704 estab-
l i shed the Church of Engl and as the rel i gi on of the col ony. A protest
to Parl i ament from seventeen i nhabi tants persuaded both Parl i a-
ment and the Queen that the l aw was contrary to reason and there-
fore nul l and voi d. 159
But no one protested to Parl i ament regardi ng the strong anti -
bl asphemy l aw enacted the year before by the Assembl y i n Carol i na,
whi ch made i t i l l egal for anyone, once havi ng publ i cl y professed
Chri sti ani ty, i n any publ i c manner thenceforth to deny any one of
the persons of the Hol y Tri ni ty to be God, or assert or mai ntai n
there are more Gods than one, or deny the Chri sti an rel i gi on to be
true, or the hol y scri ptures of the Ol d and New Testament to be of
di vi ne authori ty. . . . Any person so convi cted for the fi rst offense
l ost the ri ght to serve i n any publ i c offi ce, or be empl oyed by the
State, i ncl udi ng the mi l i tary. I f at the ti me of convi cti on, he hel d
such offi ce or empl oyment, he i mmedi atel y forfei ted i t. The second
convi cti on resul ted i n the persons l oss of the ci vi l ri ght to sue, prose-
cute, pl ead, or use any acti on or i nformati on i n any court of l aw or
equi ty, or to be guardi an of any chi l d, or executor or admi ni strator
of any person, or capabl e of any l egacy or deed of gi ft, or bear any
offi ce . . . forever, wi thi n thi s part of the provi nce; and shal l suffer
i mpri sonment for the space of three years, wi thout bai l . . . . l CO So
much for the more mi ni mal l y Chri sti an resi dent of the Carol i nas!
New J ers~
The Fundamental Consti tuti on for the Provi nce of East New
Jersey (1683) was adamant: rel i gi ous l i berty had to be uphel d. I n
fact, every ci vi l magi strate was requi red by l aw to affi rm thi s. He
had to swear to i t. To whom was thi s bi ndi ng oath sworn? To Jesus
Chri st. 161 I mmedi atel y fol l owi ng thi s requi rement, we read: Nor by
thi s arti cl e i s i t i ntended that any under the noti on of l i berty shal l
al l ow themsel ves to avow athei sm, i rrel i gi ousness, or to practi ce
cursi ng, sweari ng, drunkenness, profaneness, whori ng, adul tery,
158. I bid., I I I , pp. 2276-79.
159, Zb?d. , I I I , pp. 2291-96.
160. Act for the More Effectual Suppressi ng of Bl asphemy and Profaneness
(1703); i n zbid., I I I , p. 2275.
161. I bid., I I , p. 1107.
Hal jway Covenant Historiography 273
murderi ng, or any ki nd of vi ol ence, or i ndul gi ng themsel ves i n stage
pl ays, masks, revel s, or such l i ke abuses; . . .162 Thi s was not what
you coul d accuratel y descri be as a model col ony for the Ameri can
Ci vi l Li berti es Uni on.
The Nominal~ Christian Colonies
New York di d not i mpose oaths on i ts magi strates, but i t di d have
a state church, Angl i cani sm, up unti l the Consti tuti on of 1777. But i t
was careful about i mmi grants. An Act for Natural i zi ng Al l Those of
Forei gn Nati ons was passed i n 1683. The probl em, began the Act,
was that Forasmuch as several persons of di verse forei gn nati ons
professi ng Chri sti ani ty now and for di verse years past have settl ed
i n the col ony. So, the Governor, Counci l , and representati ves
decl ared that such resi dents, professi ng Chri sti ani ty, coul d become
ci ti zens by taki ng an oath of al l egi ance to the state government. 63
Georgi a, the southernmost col ony, was establ i shed as a trusteeshi p
i n 1733. I t seems to have had no Tri ni tari an standards for voti ng or
offi ce-hol di ng, as far as I can determi ne from the records i n my l i brary.
Not many col oni sts l i ved i n Georgi a, however. James Ogl ethorpes
1733 Account of the Desi gns of the Ti wstees di d say that Chri sti ani ty
wi l l be extended by the executi on of thi s desi gn. . . .164 The fact that
Ogl ethorpe, the founder of the col ony, was a Freemasoni G5 may have had
somethi ng to do wi th the absence of col ony-wi de Tri ni tari an standards.
I f I had a readi l y avai l abl e set of J. N. Thorpes Federal and State
Comti tuti om, and i f I had more ti me, I coul d conti nue thi s game of
fi nd the document. I thi nk thi s i s unnecessary. The poi nt i s, Marsdens
evi dence for hi s rejecti on of Chri sti an col oni al Ameri ca i s remark-
abl y weak. (I have not referred to the New Engl and charters, to
Maryl ands, and to Del awares, whi ch I cover i n Part 3.) The aver-
age reader woul d never guess from readi ng The Search that one of the
major i ssues l eadi ng to the Ameri can Revol uti on was the questi on of
whether the Church of Engl and shoul d send a bi shop to the col oni es,
rather than l eavi ng the Bi shop of London as the presi di ng bi shop. 166
Thi s i ssue woul d hardl y promote a pol i ti cal revol uti on today.
162. I dem.
163. I bid., I I , p. 1195.
164. I bid., I I I , p. 1834.
165. J. Hugo Tatsch, Freemmonty i n the Thirteen Colonies (New York: Macoy, 1929),
p, 11.
166. Car l Bri denbaugh, Mitre and Sceptre: Transatlantic Faiths, I deaJ , Personalities,
and Politics (New York: Oxford Uni versi ty Press, 1962).
l %omas Morton
Marsden does not menti on any of thi s. I nstead, he poi nts to
Thomas Morton (1620s) as a more representati ve col oni al Ameri can.
Thi s i s an outrageous asserti on, the product of Marsdens i deol ogy
rather than any detai l ed research on hi s part (or anyone el ses).
You probabl y have never heard of Thomas Morton. He i s known
onl y to speci al i sts i n col oni al hi story. That Dr. Marsden refers to hi m
i n a bri ef essay i n a one-vol ume general encycl opedi a i s si mpl y
astoundi ng. What i s even more astoundi ng i s that he thi nks Morton
i s representati ve of col oni al l i fe. I n the fi rst decade of New Engl and,
Morton i mmi grated, set up a l i ttl e communi ty outsi de the normal
juri sdi cti on of Pl ymouth col ony, sol d guns to the I ndi ans, denounced
Chri sti ani ty, and erected (the correct verb) a maypol e. 167 Thi s prac-
ti ce had been condemned as a survi val of pagani sm by Puri tan
Phi l i p Stubbes hal f a century earl i er. 168 Mi l es Standi sh was i mmedi -
atel y sent by the authori ti es at Pl ymouth to arrest Morton, whi ch he
di d, and the authori ti es deported Morton back to Engl and. 169 Hi s-
tori an Charl es M. Andrews descri bed hi m thusl y: Morton was a,
bohemi an, a humori st, a scoffer, and a l i berti ne, wi th no moral stan-
dards of thought or conduct.
~ 1 TO Morton l ater returned to Massachu-
setts, where he remai ned i n i ntermi ttent confl i ct wi th the authori ti es.
Marsden negl ects to menti on any of thi s, and then concl udes: I n the
col oni es as a whol e, the Thomas Mortons probabl y were al ways
more numerous than the stri ct Cal vi ni sts. They are just as l egi ti -
matel y part of the Ameri can heri tage. 171
I nteresti ng. Yet i t rai ses thi s questi on: Whi ch hi stori cal records
i ndi cate that those hol di ng to Mr. Mortons theol ogy, l et al one i m-
i tators of hi s maypol e acti vi ti es, were more wi despread i n the col -
oni es than Chri sti ans or even stri ct Puri tans , from 1624 unti l , say,
167. Danci ng around a maypol e, a phal l i c symbol , i s commonl y practi ced i n
May. Wherever thi s custom i s found, wri tes El i ade, the Maypol e gi ves an occa-
si on for general jol l i ty endi ng wi th a dance round the pol e. The chi ef part i s usual l y
pl ayed by young peopl e or chi l dren. I t i s a feast of spri ng but, l i ke al l such mani fes-
tati ons, can turn i nto somethi ng of an orgy. Mi rcea El i ade, Patterns in Comparative
Religion (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1958), p. 310.
168. L&m. The wor k was Anatomic of Abties (1583).
169. Charl es M. Andrewq The Colonial Pmod of Ammican HistoT, 4 vol s. (New
Haven, Connecti cut: Yal e Uni versi ty Press, [1934] 1964), I , p. 362.
170. Zbid., I , p. 333.
171. I dem.
1787 ? They are few and far between. But thi s dearth of documentary
evi dence i s nei ther here nor there for Dr. Marsden. He resorts i n-
stead to rhetori c, whi ch i s a safe tacti c onl y. i f ones i ntended au-
di ence i s utterl y i gnorant of even the most cursory facts of ones own
academi c di sci pl i ne. Thi s i s grossl y unfai r to the vi cti mi zed reader,
who thi nks he i s readi ng a hi story book rather than a pol i ti cal tract.
We can honestl y trace the hi story of Ameri can pl ural i sm From
Morton to Marsden. That Dr. Marsden woul d sel ect Thomas Mor-
ton, a hi ghl y unrepresentati ve fi gure i n col oni al Ameri can hi story, as
probabl y more representati ve of most col oni sts than the stri ct
Puri tans, i s cl ear testi mony to Dr. Marsdens personal war agai nst
any ci vi l mani festati on of Chri sti an ci vi l i zati on. Morton was a de-
vi ant both sexual l y and rel i gi ousl y, and those few humani sti c text-
book wri ters who have bothered to menti on thi s otherwi se peri pheral
fi gure have done so onl y because he was the representati ve exampl e
of what New Engl and was not. But not Dr. Marsden; he si ngl es out
Morton as a representati ve of what most col oni sts probabl y were i n
thei r anti -prayer cl osets.
To present Thomas Morton as a more representati ve fi gure than
the stri ct Puri tans i n Ameri can col oni al hi story i s the equi val ent of
sel ecti ng Benedi ct Arnol d as a representati ve fi gure i n col oni al mi l i -
tary hi story, or Aaron Burr as a representati ve Ameri can pol i ti cal
fi gure. I t woul d make as much sense to sel ect Shi mei as a representa-
ti ve pol i ti cal fi gure i n Davi di c I srael (I I Sam. 16:5-14; I Ki . 2:8-10,
36-46). I n fact, Dr. Marsden can be accuratel y descri bed as the dean
of the Shi mei school of hi stori ography.
What Marsdens statement regardi ng Morton i ndi cates i s that
he, i n hi s academi c l i fe, has reverted back to somethi ng remi ni scent
of the secul ar humani st worl dvi ew of Vernon L. Barri ngton and the
Progressi ve hi stori ans, but wi thout doi ng any new pri mary source
research. I t was they who regarded New Engl ands theocrati c experi -
ment as an aberrati on. Havi ng moved to post-Ci vi l War Ameri can
rel i gi ous hi story as hi s preferred speci al ty, Marsden bri efl y returned
to col oni al rel i gi ous hi story i n 1983 as i f Perry Mi l l er and Edmund
Morgan had never appeared on the academi c scene. I t was Mi l l er
who understood the Puri tan doctri ne of the covenant as foundati onal
to the devel opment of Ameri can pol i ti cal theory, wi th the doctri ne of
natural ri ghts a secul ari zed deri vati ve; 172 i t was Barri ngton who
172. Perry Mi l l er, From the Covenant to the Revi val , i n The Shapi ng of American
Religton, 4 vol s., edi ted by James Ward Smi th and A. Lel and Jami son (Pri nceton,
New Jersey: Pri nceton Uni versi ty Press, 1961), I , pp. 322-68.
di smi ssed Puri tan pol i ti cal phi l osophy as the phi l osophy of natural
ri ghts whi ttl ed down to a covenant between God and man . 173 So
powerful i s Marsdens i deol ogi cal commi tment to pol i ti cal pl ural i sm
that by 1983, he had si mpl y scrapped the i ntel l ectual resul ts of the
fi rst two decades of hi s academi c trai ni ng and wri ti ngs i n pre-Ci vi l
War Ameri can rel i gi ous hi story. Thi s i s the man who began hi s fi rst
book i n 1970 a reworked doctoral di ssertati on wi th these words:
For many years Ameri can hi stori ography was marked by a qui et
prejudi ce agai nst evangel i cal Protestanti sm i n ni neteenth-century
Ameri can l i fe. Hi stori ans duri ng the earl y twenti eth century, i n the
mi dst of thei r own emanci pati on from Protestant i ntel l ectual and
moral dogmati sm, emphasi zed the tol erant and the progressi ve i n
Ameri cas nati onal tradi ti on. Evangel i cal i sm, whi ch i n the openi ng
decades of thi s century was usual l y masked i n the robes of mi l i tant
fundamental i sm, appeared retrograde and obscuranti st. I ts heri tage
seemed best forgotten. . . . Protestant i ntel l ectual and theol ogi cal
devel opments, except those taki ng pl ace i n the i mmedi ate vi ci ni ty of
Boston, were vi rtual l y i gnored.
1 A Thi rteen years l ater, he had be-
come a defender of the col oni al l egacy of Thomas Morton and hi s
maypol e fol l i es. Vernon L. Barri ngton, you were a pi ker!
Hi stori ans Need Good Memori es
Our three hi stori ans have presented a case for a non-Chri sti an
Ameri ca whi ch i s di ffi cul t to defend, gi ven what al l three of them
have wri tten i n the past. Al l three of them were apparentl y struck by
col l ecti ve amnesi a around 1979. Not one of them remembers hi s own
past wri ti ngs or the wri ti ngs of hi s two col l eagues, an i ntel l ectual
affl i cti on whi ch I have desi gnated as OTwellus bibliographus. What we
have i n The Search for Christian America is one of the most remarkabl e
cases of mul ti pl e amnesi a i n academi c hi story.
Nell
Nells fi rst book was ti tl ed Christians in the American Resolution. 175
The books concl udi ng chapter notes that Whi l e the i deas and ac-
173. Barri ngton Colonial Mind, I , p. 49.
174. Marsden, The Evangelical Mind and the New School Presbyterian Experience: A Case
Stt@y of Thought and Theolo@ in Nineteenth-Century America (New Haven, Connecti cut:
Yal e Uni versi ty Press, 1970), p. i x.
175. Mark A, Nel l , Christians in the American Revolution (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan:
Chri sti an Uni versi ty Press, 1977).
ti ons of Chri sti ans at the ti me of the Ameri can Revol uti on di d not
l ock succeedi ng generati ons i nto the patterns of the Revol uti onary
generati on, they di d exert a profound i nfl uence on the subsequent
rel i gi ous l i fe of the i ndependent Uni ted States .
176
Nel l i mmedi atel y
summari zes thi s l egacy:
I n the fi rst and most i mportant pl ace, Chri sti ans i n Ameri ca conti nued
to assume that God had si ngl ed out the Ameri can nati on for speci al
pri vi l eges and responsi bi l i ti es. Even before the Revol uti on, the assumpti on
that God favored the Engl i sh nati on and i ts Ameri can col oni es was wi de-
spread, but thi s convi cti on was reforged wi th new i ntensi ty i n the vi ol ent
cruci bl e of events that saw the Uni ted States break i ts ti es wi th the mother
country. The growi ng bel i ef that Europe had entered a peri od of decadence
l ed to a correspondi ng convi cti on that Gods chi l dren were concentrated
parti cul arl y i n Ameri ca. When the events of the Revol uti on seemed to bear
out thi s assumpti on, when i t became cl ear, i n Moses Mathers words, that
i t i s God that fi ghteth for us, bel i ef i n Ameri cas speci aJ pl ace i n Gods
esteem took even fi rmer hol d on the masses of Chri sti an Ameri cans.
Agai nst al l odds, God had prospered the val i ant efforts of hi s col oni al chi l -
dren as they struggl ed to throw off the i mmoral tyranny of thei r despoti c
masters.
The el aborate system of covenantal thought whi ch had undergi rded
earl i er expressi ons concerni ng Gods care for the col oni es was l argel y aban-
doned duri ng the second hal f of the ei ghteenth century, but the essenti al
dogma of the covenantal system that the col oni es stood i n a speci al rel a-
ti onshi p to God survi ved as an arti cl e of fai th throughout the denomi na-
ti onal spectrum. By 1800 the asserti on that God deal t wi th the Uni ted States
i n a uni que way was a commonpl ace. 177
I need to remi nd the reader that i t i s thi s covenantal and provi -
denti al i dea of Ameri ca that Nel l , Hatch, and Marsden take such
pai ns to deny i n thei r book, as do thei r neo-evangel i cal col l eagues i n
the Wheaton-Cal vi n-Gordon Col l ege al l i ance. So, we need to note
the di fference between thei r vi ew of Ameri ca and the vi ews of the
col oni al peri od. We need to note i t i n order to prepare oursel ves for
the bai t-and-swi tch procedure of our tri o: thei r readi ng of modern
vi ews of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm back i nto the wi del y hel d pol i ti cal phi -
l osophy of ei ghteenth-century Ameri ca.
The Ameri can Revol uti on was a product of a parti cul ar eschatol -
ogy: postmi l l enni al i sm. Our three authors reject such a vi ew of hi s-
176. I btd. , Pp. 163-64.
177, I btd., p. 164,
tory, but they know i t was the most common vi ew i n earl y Ameri ca.
There i s no doubt that they al so understand i ts i mpact i n Ameri can
hi story. 178 Nel l wri tes:
Mi l l enni al overtones have al so persi sted i n the course of Ameri cas hi s-
tory, due at l east i n part to the thorough mi l l enni al i sm that marked such a
l arge part of the re~gi ous reacti on to-the Revol uti on. The way i n whi ch
Ameri cas i deal s of freedom and justi ce have been champi oned i n publ i c
di scourse has encouraged the i dea that perfect freedom and perfect justi ce
mi ght be obtai nabl e through the concentrated efforts of those upon whom
God has al ready bestowed a foretaste of these bl essi ngs. Duri ng the Revol u-
ti on, Chri sti ans fel t that a successful compl eti on of the war mi ght be the
prel ude to the vi si bl e appearance of the Ki ngdom of God on earth. I n l ater
Ameri can hi story the mi l l enni al vi si on l ost i ts sharp theol ogi cal defi ni ti on,
but never thel ess l i ved on. 179
The l i terature on the postmi l l enni al vi si on i n Ameri can hi story
was vol umi nous when Nel l wrote thi s, and i t has grown l arger sub-
sequentl y. l sO
Nel l correctl y argues that the Revol uti on was a product of both
Engl i sh l i bertari an or Whi g thought and Chri sti an orthodoxy. 181
There i s no questi on that thi s Whi g pol i ti cal tradi ti on was not i nher-
entl y Tri ni tari an, al though Tri ni tari ans (especi al l y the nonconformi st
sects) had adopted i t. 182 Any attempt to downpl ay thi s fact has l ed
and wi l l conti nue to l ead to i naccurate hi stori ography. But there i s
al so equal l y l i ttl e doubt that among the broad masses of the col o-
ni sts, on both si des of the Revol uti onary struggl e, most peopl e were
Chri sti ans, not secret Soci ni an (proto-Uni tari an) Whi gs.
83
Vi rtual l y
178. See Marsden, Fundamentalism and Anwrkan Cul ture, pp. 27, 86-88, 136.
179. Nel l , op. cit., p. 166.
180. Edward McNal l Bur ns, The American I dea of Mission: Concepts of National
Destiny and Purpose (New Brunswi ck, New Jersey: Rutgers Uni versi ty Press, 1957);
Al an Hei mert, Religion and the Amcan Mind: From the Great Awakening to the Revolution
(Cambri dge, Massachusetts: Harvard Uni versi ty Press, 1966); Ernest Lee Tuveson,
Redeemer Nation: The I dea of AmeA~at Millennial Role (Chi cago: Uni versi ty of Chi cago
Press, 1968); Conrad Cherry (cd. ), Gods New I srael: Reli~ous I nterpretations of Ameri can
Destiny (Engl ewood Cl i ffs, New Jersey: Prenti ce-Hal l , 1971); Cushi ng Strout, The
New Heavens and New Earth: Political Reli~on in Amca (New York: Harper & Row,
1974).
181. No1l , op. cit., pp. 150-53.
182. Car ol i ne Robbi ns, The Eighteenth-Ctmtuty Commonwealthman (Cambri dge,
Massachusetts: Harvard Uni versi ty Press, 1959).
183. Some i mportant l eaders were secret and not-so-secret Soci ni an Whi gs, how-
ever: Washi ngton, Jefferson, Madi son, and Frankl i n.
al l ei ghteenth-century col oni al Chri sti ans had adopted a Newtoni an
vi si on of cause and effect, fusi ng thi s vi ew wi th the remnants of
medi eval natural l aw theory. They di d not recogni ze the enormous
threat to thei r worl dvi ew that any such rel i ance on Newtoni an theory
pr esented 84 nor do most Chri sti ans recogni ze thi s today. Apol o-
geti cs i s sti l l conducted as i f Kants revol uti on and Darwi ns revol u-
ti on had not taken pl ace.
1
s
5
By 1983, Nel l had toned down hi s l anguage consi derabl y. Thus,
we read i n the book co-edi ted by Nel l , Hatch, Marsden, Davi d
Wel l s, and John Woodbri dge that I t i s occasi onal l y sai d that the
Uni ted States was founded on Chri sti an pri nci pl es. Whi l e that i s
not true i n any speci fi c pol i ti cal sense, i t i s true that certai n themes
from the Puri tan past contri buted to Revol uti onary thought. I n par-
ti cul ar the Puri tan i dea of the covenant l ent force to some Real Whi g
i deas. Puri tans had bel i eved that settl ers i n the New Worl d sustai ned
a speci al rel ati onshi p wi th God. Thi s convi cti on gave a moral over-
tone to al l of l i fe .l sG Noti ce the shi ft si nce 1977. Here he speaks onl y
of the moral overtone of Chri sti an i deas; Real Whi ggery i s the
mai n i ssue.
Li sten to hi m on the subject of col oni al eschatol ogy; he i nserts the
hi stori ans weasel phrase, to the extent that . 1s7 To the extent that
col oni sts i n 1776 sti l l bel i eved i n the di vi ne mi ssi on of Bri ti sh North
Ameri ca, they were ready to i nterpret Parl i aments admi ni strati ve
errors as assaul ts upon God and hi s peopl e. 18s I n 1977, he had made
i t cl ear that few i deas were more promi nent i n 1776 and l ong after
than the i dea of the di vi ne mi ssi on of Bri ti sh North Ameri ca.
Then, over thi rty pages l ater, he admi ts as much: ~udged by the
number of sermons and books addressi ng propheti c themes, the fi rst
generati on of Uni ted States ci ti zens may have l i ved i n the shadow of
Chri sts second comi ng more i ntensel y than any generati on si nce.l sg
Both premi l l enni al i sm and postmi l l enni al i sm were preached. 190
184. James Ward Smi th, Rel i gi on and Sci ence i n Ameri can Phi l osophy, i n
Smi th and Jami son (eds.), Shaping of Amerkan Religion, I , pp. 402-42.
185. Van Ti l devoted hi s enti re career to exposi ng and refuti ng thi s tradi ti onal
apol ogeti c approach.
186. Nel l , i n Nel l , et al . (eds.), Eerdmans Handbook, p. 134.
187. Thi s i s the hi stori ans versi on of the economi sts weasel phrase other thi ngs
remai ni ng equal .
188. I dem.
189. I bid., p. 167.
190. Zbid., pp. 168-70.
There i s no doubt that eschatol ogy was a major i dea i n the Revol u-
ti onary peri od, and thi s was a Chri sti an concern.
Nel l i s forced to admi t what shoul d be obvi ous to any hi stori an of
the Revol uti onary era: the bel i efs of the common peopl e who fought
the war were not the same as the pol i ti cal tracts wri tten by the l ead-
ers, especi al l y when those tracts were ai med at each other. Nel l
knows thi s. The fi rst three el ected Presi dents of the Uni ted States
Washi ngton, Adams, and Jefferson al l advocated a form of reason-
abl e rel i gi on that drai ned the supernatural from rel i gi on and val ued
pi ety pri mari l y for i ts ci vi c uti l i ty. Al though thi s form of enl i ghtened
rel i gi on never came to command the al l egi ance of most common
peopl e, i t di d enjoy great popul ari ty among educated Ameri cans and
was qui te the i ntel l ectual rage among col l ege students i n the l ast two
decades of the ei ghteenth century.
~~gl An i ntel l ectual fad among a
ti ny handful of col l ege-educated peopl e was not the rel i gi on whi ch
produced the Ameri can Revol uti on, l et al one the Great Awakeni ng
that preceded i t.
Nel l correctl y observes that By 1776 Ameri ca was wel l on the
way to becomi ng a pl ural i sti c Protestant country. 192 Noti ce that the
nati on was not pl ural i sti c, meani ng a system i n whi ch every rel i gi on
was equal ; i t was unquesti onabl y Protestant, and wi thi n thi s broad
Tri ni tari an category, there were many opi ni ons. But thi s i s not good
enough to sal vage our tri os thesi s: that they just cannot seem to fi nd
evi dence of a Chri sti an Ameri ca. Protestant pl ural i sm i s a far cry
i ndeed, a Ci vi l War battl e cry away from the pol i ti cal pl ural i sm
promoted by our tri o i n The Search of Christian America. Nel l ful l y
understands thi s. He admi ts that Rel i gi ous poi nts of vi ew whi ch
strayed from that nati onal i sti c center woul d have to wai t unti l the
twenti eth century to be recogni zed as si gni fi cant factors i n the cul -
ture of Ameri can rel i gi on.
~~ l W, Thi s highly damagi ng admi ssi on aP-
peared i n 1983, the same year that The Search was publ i shed. Nel l i s a
hi stori an wi th a very short memory. He cannot seem to remember
what he has wri tten i n the manuscri pt on the other si de of hi s desk.
Duri ng the earl y 1980s, Nel l and hi s two col l eagues began to re-
wri te Ameri can col oni al hi story i n terms of thei r preference for some
modern versi on of ei ghteenth-century Real Whi ggery. To use Nel l s
phrase, they (l i ke most of thei r academi c peers) had adopted h-el i -
191. I bid., pp. 164-65.
192. I bid., p. 147.
193. I dem.
Ha@ay Couenant Historiography 281
gi ous poi nts of vi ew whi ch strayed from Ameri cas nati onal i sti c cen-
ter. They became determi ned to break the spel l of both judi ci al cov-
enantal i sm and postmi l l enni al i sm i n the thi nki ng of evangel i cal
Chri sti ans, as di d thei r forebears: the Real Whi gs of the Consti tu-
ti onal Conventi on. 194 (Thi s rai ses an i mportant questi on, whi ch I
wi l l try to answer at the end of thi s secti on: Why di d the tri o deci de
to take up thi s chal l enge? What event or events persuaded them that
there had been a shi ft i n the thi nki ng of Ameri can Chri sti ans away
from pi eti sm toward judi ci al covenantal i sm and away from passi ve
eschatol ogi es toward postmi l l enni al i sm?) They have been stymi ed i n
thi s sel f-appoi nted task so far onl y by thei r i nabi l i ty to l ocate a previ -
ousl y i gnored cache of ei ghteenth-century bapti smal records pres-
enti ng formul as al ong these l i nes: I bapti ze thi s chi l d i n the name of
James Barri ngton, John Trenchard, and Adam Smi th. But thei r
search for a Whi g Ameri ca nonethel ess conti nues.
Why, then, such strong objecti ons i n 1983 to the i dea of the
Chri sti an ori gi ns of Ameri ca? 195 Where i s the evi dence that Ameri ca
was anythi ng but a Chri sti an nati on at i ts foundi ng? Perhaps the
anti -oath cl ause of the U.S. Consti tuti on (Arti cl e VI , Cl ause 111). 196
But thi s pi ece of evi dence poi nts to a very controversi al possi bi l i ty,
one whi ch nei ther our tri o nor the defenders of the Chri sti an hi story
of the Consti tuti on wi sh to di scuss seri ousl y: that the Consti tuti on
was the product of a coup delat by the Soci ni an Vi rgi ni a dynasty and
thei r al l i es from other col oni es. Thi s i s too conspi ratori al a thesi s for
our tri o to accept, and too unpatri oti c for thei r opponents to accept. 197
Nel l s comment i n a 1988 book descri bes thei r di l emma: they
must expl ai n how the Consti tuti on was l ess i nfl uenced by Chri sti an
preachi ng yet far better for Chri sti ani ty. Nel l s words are si gni fi cant.
He admi ts that hi s concl usi ons appear paradoxi cal . Such a concl u-
si on bri ngs us back to the apparent paradox. When Chri sti an i n-
vol vement was i ntense duri ng the Revol uti on Chri sti ani ty suf-
fered. When Chri sti an i nvol vement was much l ess i ntense duri ng
the wri ti ng of the Consti tuti on the resul ts were far better for the
194. See Part 3
195. Our tri o i s correct i n warni ng agai nst an overl y nai ve vi ew of the Foundi ng
Father s as Chr i sti ans, a war ni ng I am re-i ssui ng i n spades i n Part 3. We must di s-
ti ngui sh between pre-Revol uti on and post-Revol uti on Ameri ca.
196. See Part 3.
197. See Appendi x B: Rushdoony on the Consti tuti on.
fai th. 198 Thi s suggests that Chri sti ans shoul d keep thei r mouths
shut, argue publ i cl y onl y i n terms of the prevai l i ng covenant-breaki ng
soci al theory, never menti on Ol d Testament l aw or Gods hi stori cal
sancti ons, and pay thei r taxes duti ful l y. Better a pen name of Publ i us
than Josi ah. Why? Si mpl e. peopl e who take the Old Testament case laws
serious~ m a ~udicial~ binding guide for modern legislation usual~ oote con-
servative. Thi s di sturbs our tri o. And i f such a vi ew of the Ol d Testa-
ment i s ever adopted by Ameri can pol i ti cal conservati ves, they wi l l
start voti ng theocrati c. Thi s di sturbs our tri o even more.
Hatch
Nathan Hatch made hi s academi c reputati on wi th hi s fi rst book,
The Sacred Cause of Liber~ (1977). Thi s was fortunate for hi m, si nce i t
remai ns hi s onl y book. 199 There i s sti l l the l i ngeri ng scent of doctoral
di ssertati on about the book, but i t i s nonethel ess an excel l ent study.
I t i s subti tl ed, Republican Thought and the Millennium in Revolutionary
New England. I t argues, not surpri si ngl y, that the theol ogi cal topi c of
eschatol ogy was i mportant i n the pre-Revol uti onary col oni al era.
Thi s rai ses an obvi ous questi on. I f Ameri ca was never a Chri sti an
nati on, then why i n the name of autonomous man di d questi ons of
bi bl i cal eschatol ogy have any i mpact whatsoever-on pre-Revol uti onary
New Engl and? And why on earth di d Hatch begi n hi s book wi th a
quotati on from Levi Hart (1775)? Hart wrote:
I ndeed, the sacred cause of l i berty bath been, and ever wi l l be venerabl e
i n every part of the worl d where knowl edge, and l earni ng fl ouri sh, and men
suffered to thi nk and speak for themsel ves. Yea, i t must be added, that
Heaven bath appeared i n the cause of l i berty, and that i n the most open and
deci si ve manner: For thi s, the Son of God was mani fest i n the fl esh, that he
mi ght destroy the tyranny of si n and satan, assert and mai ntai n the equal
government of hi s Father, redeem the gui l ty sl aves from thei r more than
Egypti an bondage, and cause the oppressed to go free. Zoo
I cal l your attenti on to the ti tl e of Chapter 3 of Hatchs book:
The Demand for a Republ i c of Chri sti an Vi rtue: The Cri ti cal
198. Mark A. Nel l , One Nati on Under God: Christian Faith and Pohltcal Action in
America (New York: Harper & Row, 1988), p. 72. Noti ce how he has now <escaped
the Chri sti an ghetto and moved i nto the worl d of humani st book publ i shi ng. Why
wri te for l owl y Zondervan Books (owned by Rupert Murdoch) when you can wri te
for Harper & Row (al so owned by Rupert Murdoch)?
199. I do not count edi ted books and co-authored books.
200. Nathan O. Hatch, The Sacred Cause of Ltber~ (New Haven, Connecti cut:
Yal e Uni versi ty Press, 1977), page faci ng page 1.
Ha~way Covenant HistorzograPhy 283
Peri od and the Moral Roots of New Engl and Federal i sm. I coul d go
on, but why bother? You get the poi nt.
I n 1979, a book by Hatch, Nel l , and a thi rd pl ural i st hi stori an,
John D. Woodbri dge, was publ i shed by Zondervan, The Gospel in
America. I n thi s book, we l earn that The watershed of the Ameri can
sense of mi ssi on and desti ny can be traced to Puri tan Engl and. Re-
cent studi es have emphasi zed the i ntense sense of r el i gi ous
patri oti sm that domi nated seventeenth-century Engl and and par-
ti cul arl y those of Puri tan persuasi on. . . . The Puri tans who came
to establ i sh New Engl and were even more i ntense i n thei r convi cti on
that God had chosen them. The theme that crossi ng the Atl anti c was
the Exodus for Gods New Engl i sh I srael runs throughout the earl y
sermons of Massachusetts .201
They al so say that Duri ng the col oni al peri od the strongest
attack on the i dea that Ameri ca was a ci ty on a hi l l came from the
l i ps of Roger Wi l l i ams, founder of Rhode I sl and and spi ri tual father
of Ameri can Bapti sts .ZOZ Do they then go on to demonstrate that
Wi l l i ams opi ni on became domi nant duri ng the ei ghteenth century?
On the contrary:
I n the years pri or to Ameri can i ndependence, the di ssenti ng voi ce of
Roger Wi l l i ams gave way to an ever stronger chorus that Ameri ca was
uni que and provi denti al l y so. I n New Engl and mi ni sters conti nued to ap-
pl y to thei r own col oni es Ol d Testament texts addressed to I srael ; they
began al so to address the Puri tan founders by such names as Moses,
Aaron, and Joshua. I f other Ameri cans consi dered Yankees a bi t provi nci al
because of thi s, they were soon rel i eved to fi nd that i n the aftermath of the
Gr eat Awakeni ng (a r evi val i gni ted thr oughout the col oni es) that Jonathan
Edwards announced that not just New Engl and but al l of Ameri ca woul d be
the center of Chri sts mi l l enni al ki ngdom. And as the Ameri cans took up
arms agai nst the French i n the Seven Years War (1756-1763), many agreed
wi th the evangel i cal Presbyteri an Samuel Davi es from Vi rgi ni a that de-
feati ng Cathol i c France woul d wound Anti chri st suffi ci entl y to bri ng on
that l ong-awai ted rei gn. Z03
There was one i mportant shi ft i n perspecti ve, however: the reason
offered for thi s mi l l enni al tri umph. I t was Ameri cas ci vi l l i berty
whi ch was the basi s of Gods favor. Z04
201. John D. Woodbri dge, Mark A. No1l , and Nathan O. Hatch, The Gospel I n
Ameri ca: Themes m the StoV of Ammcas Evangelwals (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Zon-
dervan, 1979), p. 212.
202. I bid., p. 213.
203. I bid., p. 214.
204. I dem.
After the Revol uti on, they say, Ameri ca went through the l ow
ebb of rel i gi ous vi tal i ty i n the nati ons hi story. Yet i n contrast to the
downward state of rel i gi on, mi l l enni al expectancy duri ng these years
rose to unparal l el ed hei ghts.
i z05 They then ask a reasonabl e ques-
ti on, but thei r answer i s remarkabl e, gi ven the subsequent thesi s of
The Search. But how coul d mi ni sters rejoi ce i n the success of the
ki ngdom whi l e thei r own churches l ay devastated by the enemy?
Thei r answer was that God, i n thei r vi ew, had shi fted hi s pri mary
base of operati ons to the arena of nati ons. I n the ri ngi ng success of the
Ameri can republ i c, they wi tnessed a model for the comi ng age: . . . 206
Hows that agai n? The mi ni sters i n the l ate ei ghteenth century
bel i eved that God was deal i ng wi th nations as Hi s base of operati ons.
He was deal i ng wi th the Uni ted States i n thi s way. They therefore
sti l l rejected Roger Wi l l i ams vi ew of a pl ural i sti c, non-covenantal
nati on. Then how, i n the name of covenant sancti ons, can i t be that
Ameri ca was never our tri os 1983 thesi s a Chri sti an nati on?
Gi ven the thesi s of The Search for Christian America, consi der al so
thi s statement: Evangel i cal have not al ways been a bel eaguered
mi nori ty i n Ameri can soci ety. I n fact, thei r attempt to Chri sti ani ze
Ameri can soci ety i n the ni neteenth century i s a remarkabl e success
story. I n the enti re peri od, onl y the Revol uti onary era was a peri od
of decl i ni ng fortunes, and i t was reversed by 1800, they say, so
much so that hi stori ans are l ed to descri be that peri od of Ameri can
hi story as an Evangel i cal Empi re.
207
The safest way to deny the evi dence of Chri sti an Ameri ca i s to
i gnore the evi dence. But thi s requi res a two-step strategy: one set of
books for your peers and another book for your vi cti ms. Because your
205. I bid., p. 215.
206. I dem.
207. I bid., p. 216. I do not want to prai se thi s book as a work of schol arshi p. I t i s
just a somewhat more i ntel l i gent tract than The Search. I t i s si gni fi cant that i n i ts di s-
cussi on of the twenti eth-century revi val of evangel i cal Chri sti ani ty, i t made no men-
ti on of the creati oni st movement. The authors prai sed Bernard Ramms 1954 book
promoti ng a non-l i teral i nterpretati on of Genesi s 1-10, Th Chrirtian View of Scieme
and Scn@m (p. 86), but they di d not menti on Henry Morri s Genesi s Flood (1961).
That Ramm dri fted out of orthodoxy and toward Barthi ani sm i n the 1970s i s not
surpri si ng, gi ven hi s anti -creati oni st vi ews of 1954. He si mpl y fol l owed the l ogi c of
hi s presupposi ti ons. Ramm may have i mpressed a handful of neo-evangel i cal s i n the
1950s, but hi s i nfl uence outsi de of the Wheaton Col l ege cl assr oom was mi ni mal .
That they coul d di scuss Ramm and i gnore Morri s, and that they di d not even men-
ti on the ri se of the i ndependent Chri sti an school movement after 1960, reveal s that
they were engaged i n rewri ti ng the hi stoq of Ameri can Chri sti ani ty accordi ng to
Chnstianip Today.
Ha@ay Covenant Historiography
285
covenant-breaki ng academi c peers know the pri mary sources, you
had better be wi se enough not to argue that there was never any such
thi ng as Chri sti an Ameri ca. But when wri ti ng for neo-evangel i cal s,
you do not have to be equal l y carefhl . They are unfami l i ar wi th the
evi dence, and are ready to assume that the wri ter i s i ntel l ectual l y hon-
est. They wi l l not check the footnotes; thus, they can be easi l y fool ed.
Mar.rden
George Marsdens fi rst major academi c publ i cati on was hi s 1970
Church Histoy revi ew arti cl e on Harvard hi stori an (actual l y, an Eng-
l i sh professor) Perry Mi l l er. Mi l l er had been the acknowl edged mas-
ter of the worl dvi ew of Ameri can Puri tani sm. What Marsden dem-
onstrated i n what has become a wi del y ci ted hi stori ographi cal essay
i s that Mi l l er had been remarkabl y i gnorant of the vol umi nous wri t-
i ngs of John Cal vi n, especi al l y C al vi ns commentari es on the Bi bl e,
yet the Puri tans were sel f-consci ousl y the hei rs of Cal vi n. Not ful l y
understandi ng Cal vi ns covenant theol ogy, Mi l l er mi stakenl y em-
phasi zed di fferences between the Puri tans and Cal vi n di fferences
that real l y di d not exi st. 208 Mi l l er was al so i gnorant of the Bi bl e, and
so he di d not see the bi bl i cal basi s of many of the Puri tans bel i efs.
He pai d i nsuffi ci ent attenti on to thei r creeds. Marsden then made a
tel l i ng observati on: The l ack of emphasi s on the pl ace of Scri pture
and doctri ne suggests that Mi l l er real i zed that the Puri tans coul d not
be rehabi l i tated i n the mi d-twenti eth century unl ess they were di s-
soci ated as far as possi bl e fr om thei r excl usi vel y Chr i sti an
emphases.
>~209 Miller ignored & person and work of Chri st i n thei r
system of theol ogy and phi l osophy. At l east, one hardl y comes away
from any of Mi l l ers accounts wi th the feel i ng that Chri st was even
theoreti cal l y central i n the Puri tan system. Yet Mi l l er makes no
apol ogi es for thi s omi ssi on .zl o
To whi ch I add: neither does Marsden in his post-1980 treatments OJ
Christian colonial America! Mi l l er, however, may si mpl y have been i g-
norant of the Bi bl e; Marsden, the son of a mi ni ster and a graduate of
Cal vi ni sti c Westmi nster Theol ogi cal Semi nary, i s not equal l y i gnor-
ant of Scri pture. He stands condemned by hi s own words:
208. I had hoped to wri te a si mi l ar essay, but Marsden beat me to i t. I probabl y
woul d not have gotten around to i t anyway; i t obvi ousl y took a l ot of work.
209. Marsden, Perry Mi l l ers Rehabi l i tati on of the Puri tans: A Cri ti que, Church
H@wy (March 1970), p. 95.
210. I bid., p. 96.
286
By mi ni mi zi ng Scri pture, systemati c doctri ne, and the rol e of Chri st,
Mi l l er i n effect seems to be engagi ng i n a ki nd of demythol ogi zi ng, or more
properl y de-Chri sti ani zi ng, of Puri tani sm. Thi s process i s not by any
means a ful l y devel oped thesi s, but i t i s an undeni abl e subtl e tendency.211
I n Marsdens case, thi s de-Chri sti ani zi ng of col oni al Ameri can hi s-
tory i s a ful l y devel oped thesi s, and there i s nothi ng subtl e about i t.
He accused Mi l l er of de-emphasi zi ng basi c rel i gi ous doctri nes
that the Puri tans hel d dear. When he i nterprets Puri tan thought for
hi s contemporary audi ence, concepts whi ch the Puri tans themsel ves
consi dered most essenti al are l ost among the ri ches of the comments
of the twenti eth century observer.zl z When Marsden i nterprets
col oni al Ameri can thought for hi s contemporary Chri sti an audi ence,
he does the same thi ng. But there i s thi s di fference: Mi l l er was wri t-
i ng for covenant-breakers, and chose not to assaul t thei r theol ogi cal
sensi ti vi ti es by emphasi zi ng the Chri stocentri c worl dvi ew of the
Puri tans; Marsden, i n contrast, co-authored thi s book for use by
covenant-keepers who mi ght have a soft spot i n thei r hearts for the
i dea of a Chri sti an soci ety, an i dea whi ch utterl y repel s Marsden.
For Mi l l ers peers, theocracy was an anti quari an rel i c; for Marsdens
i ntended audi ence though not hi s academi c peers theocracy i s an
i dea whi ch mi ght be worth consi deri ng. Marsden i s far more wi l l i ng
to di scuss the Chri sti an roots of Ameri ca wi th hi s de-sensi ti zed
academi c peers than wi th the Chri sti ans who mi ght concei vabl y read
The Search.
Here i s how he ended hi s cri ti que of Mi l l er: The qual i ty of
Mi l l ers rehabi l i tati on of the Puri tan i mage shoul d not be taken
l i ghtl y ei ther. Hi s work was a revi si on, and l i ke al l revi si ons errs
somewhat i n the other extreme. Certai nl y Mi l l er pl ayed fewer hi s-
tori cal tri cks on the Puri tans than di d hi s Ameri can predecessors.
Hi s contri buti on to both understandi ng and appreci ati ng Puri tan-
i sm i s i nval uabl e. He does, however, restore the Puri tan i mage at
the expense of i mportant aspects of Puri tan theol ogy and rel i gi on.
When we remember, as Mi l l er has demonstrated, that the Puri tans
were tough-mi nded men of the Renai ssance, l et us recal l al so that
they were uncompromi si ng Chri sti ans and (i n the twenti eth century
vi ew) bi goted Cal vi ni sts. As for the thesi s that the covenant of grace
represented a revi si on of Cal vi ni sm, Mi l l er has created a myth that
211. I dem.
212. I bid. , p. 104.
has been so el egantl y presented and wi del y repeated that i t wi l l be
di ffi cul t to destroy.zl s
Havi ng casti gated Perry Mi l l er for hi s systemati c de-Chri sti ani zi ng
of the Puri tans, Marsden warns hi s Chri sti an readers of the fai l ure of
the New Engl and Puri tans. New Engl and had some seri ous short-
comi ngs , he says. Paradoxi cal l y paradoxi cal l y for the pl ural i st
hi stori an perhaps the most seri ous were rel ated to the very i dea
under di scussi on that they thought of themsel ves as an [ si c]
uni quel y Chri sti an soci ety. The Puri tans supposed that they stood i n
the same rel ati on to God as had Ol d Testament I srael . They thought
that God had chosen them to pl ay a speci al rol e i n the hi story of the
New Worl d, to be a new I srael . They even put some of the Ol d Tes-
tament l egi sl ati on i nto thei r l aw books.214 Here i s the heart of the
matter for the pl ural i st: Ol d Testament l aw, meani ng Old Tatament
capital sanctions. The Puri tans of Massachusetts put a dozen of them
i nto thei r consti tuti on, the Body of Li berti es, i n 1641, even ci ti ng the
Ol d Testament Scri pture passages. 215 Thi s i s what the pl ural i sts can-
not accept: the i dea that God hol ds modern men and modern soci -
eti es responsi bl e to Hi m covenantal l y, whi ch means they are under
Hi s Bi bl e-reveal ed covenant sancti ons i n hi story. On thi s poi nt,
modern fundamental i sts, modern Cal vi ni sti c pl ural i sts, and mod-
ern secul ar humani sts agree compl etel y. Marsden speaks representa-
ti vel y for the whol e era i n whi ch we l i ve.
God, have mercy on us, mi serabl e offenders.
Yet by 1983, Marsden had begun to pl ay hi s own tri cks, not si m-
pl y on the Puri tans, but on those contemporary Chri sti ans who
mi ght take seri ousl y the ci vi l i zati on whi ch they bui l t on the founda-
ti on of Ol d Testament ci vi l l aw. I n the fi nal anal ysi s, who has been
more fai thful to the Puri tans as Chri sti ans, Marsden or Mi l l er?
Mi l l er stressed thei r vi ew of the covenant and i ts rel ati on to every-
thi ng they di d, i ncl udi ng pol i ti cs and l aw-maki ng. Marsden stresses
thei r Cal vi ni sm and rejects as non-Chri sti an thei r l aw-maki ng. I
thi nk the answer i s cl ear who has been the truer wi tness: Mi l l er the
pagan, not Marsden the semi nary graduate.
213. I bid., p. 105.
214. Eerdmans Handbook, p. 151.
215. Secti on 94, Capi tal Laws, Body of Li berti es (1641); i n Davi d Hawke (cd.),
US. Colonial History: Readings and Documents (New York: Bobbs-Merri l l j 1966), pp.
127-28.
Mi l l er may have had an academi c axe to gri nd; Marsden has a
pol i ti cal one. Pol i ti cal conservati ves make hi m very nervous, for
good reason, and the Puri tans were surel y conservati ves. He fears a
revi val of Puri tani sm, al so for good reason. Thei r very presence i n
Ameri can hi story stands as a testi mony agai nst the l i beral mess of
pottage or pot of message that our tri o of hi stori ans thought more
worthy than thei r theol ogi cal bi rthri ght as Chri sti ans.
Shoul d we be surpri sed to l earn that George Marsden i n 1981 vol -
unteered to testi fy agai nst the creati oni sts i n the l andmark Arkansas
school case, McLean u. Arkansas? The Arkansas l egi sl ature had passed
a bal anced treatment l aw requi ri ng the.presentati on of a stri pped-
down versi on of si x-day creati oni sm nei ther the Bi bl e nor God was
to be menti oned i n cl ass 216 whenever evol uti oni sm was pr esented
i n a publ i c school cl assroom or textbook. When the Ameri can Ci vi l
Li ber ti es Uni on (ACLU) went to court to protest thi s l aw, Dr .
Marsden journeyed to Arkansas to testi fy on behal f of the ACLU-
l ed forces. Expl ai ni ng the zeal of the creati oni st forces, Marsden
compared them to ni neteenth-century fundamental i sts. Li teral
defense of the Bi bl e, he was quoted as sayi ng, i s the fi rst defense
agai nst modern thought.
w 1 T Cl earl y, no one coul d fai r l y accuse
George Marsden of bei ng a ni neteenth-century fundamental i st! 218
(Predi ctabl y, the creati oni sts l ost the case.)
The Election of Ronald Reagan
I suggest that the cause of our tri os col l ecti ve amnesi a regardi ng
so much of what they had wri tten pri or to 1980 was the el ecti on i n
1980 of Ronal d Reagan as Presi dent of the Uni ted States. Thi s was
done wi th the voci ferous support of a cl ear majori ty of the funda-
mental i st and evangel i cal communi ty. The al most uni versal pol i ti cal
passi vi sm and neutral i sm of Ameri can fundamental i sm, whi ch
Marsden had chroni cl ed i n 1980,
219
di sappeared al most overni ght.
216. Thi s i s the compromi sed creati oni sm promoted by John N. Moore i n hi s
book, How to Teach Origins (Without ACLU I nte@rence) (Mi l ford, Mi chi gan: Mott
Medi a, 1983). Thi s vi ew assumes that the publ i c school system i s moral l y and bi bl i -
cal l y l egi ti mate, and that you can di scuss creati oni sm i n such school s wi thout any re-
ference to the Bi bl e or the Creator. I chal l enge thi s vi ew i n Appendi x B of I f the World
Running Down? (his i n the Christian Worldview (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an
Economi cs, 1988): The End of I l l usi ons: Creati oni sm i n the Publ i c School s.
217. James German, Judgment Day for Creati oni sm, Discou~ (Feb. 1982), p. 17.
218. He was the commencement speaker at Westmi nster Semi nary (East) i n 1989.
219. George Marsden, Funaimwntnlism and Ameri can Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-
Centwy Euangelkalism, 1870-1925 (New York: Oxford Uni versi ty Press, 1980).
Hal@ay Couenant Historiography 289
The l eader s of Amer i can fundamental i sm had publ i cl y l i nked up
wi th the pol i ti cal techni ci ans of the New Ri ght at the Nati onal
Affai rs Bri efi ng Conference i n Dal l as i n the l ate summer of 1980.
The l anguage of r efor mi ng Amer i ca accor di ng to Chr i sti an pr i nci -
pl es was spreadi ng rapi dl y i n the earl y 1980s, and our tri o sensed
the l i beral i sm-threateni ng nature of thi s shi ft. zz And l et ther e be no
doubt about i t: our tri o i s pol i ti cal l y l i beral .
For al most three generati ons, the Soci al Gospel l i beral s had chal -
l enged fundamental i sts to put thei r Chri sti ani ty i nto acti on, whi ch
to the Soci al Gospel l i beral meant voti ng for l egi sl ati on proposed by
Woodr ow Wi l son and Fr ank l i n Roosevel t. When the fundamen-
tal i sts at l ast began showi ng si gns of getti ng pol i ti cal l y i nvol ved, they
voted for Reagan. The l i beral s were appal l ed. They chal l enged thi s
as a mi sgui ded bapti zi ng of secul ar conservati ve pol i ti cs wi th the
gospel . I t was cl ear l y a mi suse of r el i gi on. Ther e ar e no bi bl i cal
bl uepri nts, they shouted. They started counti ng votes the l i beral s
ver si on of hol y communi on and the votes for Reagan wer e far
greater than the votes for Carter. No more tal k about a uni quel y
Chr i sti an pol i ti cs, they pr ocl ai med. Thi s sounds l i ke theocracy to
us, and you know what we thi nk of theocracy! (I n thei r l exi con,
theocr acy i s defi ned as an i mmor al , tyr anni cal pol i ti cal system i n
whi ch Chr i sti an conser vati ves get el ected. ) What was ther efor e
needed was a book ai med at the i ntel l i gent Chr i sti an communi ty
provi ng that there are nei ther hi stori cal nor judi ci al grounds for re-
gar di ng the Uni ted States as a Chr i sti an nati on. These peopl es
dreams of exerci si ng pol i ti cal authori ty had to be de-fused, and fast.
And so our tr i o wr ote The Search for Christian America.
A Hi dden Agenda
Marsden has stated that Love i s the Chri sti ans central obl i ga-
ti on, and understandi ng i s an essenti al i ngredi ent i n l ove.zzl I f so,
then The Search for Christian Ammca i s an exampl e of hate l i terature.
What i s the probl em wi th The Search for Christian America? I t i s an
astoni shi ngl y shoddy pi ece of hi stori ography. I t i s more of a l awyers
220. Wri tes Nel l : A further sti mul us to the i dea of Chri sti an Ameri ca has been
the effecti ve pol i ti cal l obbyi ng of acti vi sti c theol ogi cal conservati ves, often styl ed the
New Ri ght, or the New Chri sti an Ri ght . One Nation Under God, p. 6,
221. Marsden, A Chri sti an Perspecti ve for the Teachi ng of Hi story; i n George
Marsden and Frank Roberts (eds.), A Chri~tian View OJ HistoT? (Grand Rapi ds,
Mi chi gan: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 32.
290
bri e fthanaseri ous hi story book. The questi on i s: Why? Why di d
three professi onal hi stori ans who on other occasi ons have produced
excel l ent academi c work fai l so mi serabl y i n thi s book? Because i n
thi s book they at l ast put thei r presupposi ti onal cards on the tabl e for
al l to see: both thei r academi c peers and thei r vi cti ms, namel y, hi s-
tori cal l y i gnorant Chri sti an readers. The tri o wanted to prove to
thei r col l eagues especi al l y thei r neo-evangel i cal , Ph. D-hol di ng col -
l eagues that they are sti l l i nsi de the camp of the humani st-certi fi ed
academi c gui l d. They had not broken covenant wi th academi c Egypt.
To prove thi s, they were forced to betray the unski l l ed reader,
who nai vel y thi nks that thi s book i s a work of Chri sti an hi stori ography
rather than an exerci se i n di si nformati on. The l ayman does not real -
i ze what i s goi ng on, or whose i nterests are bei ng fai thful l y served.
He becomes the sacri fi ci al l amb on the al tar of academi c respectabi l -
i ty. He i s bei ng asked to gi ve up hi s search for Chri sti an Ameri ca i n
the documents of the past, so that he will not gain a vision of re-establzshing
Christian civilization in the present. The authors wel l understand the
threat faci ng Canaani tes throughout hi story: covenant-keepers who
dwel l l ongi ngl y on the promi ses gi ven to Abraham may begi n to
thi nk seri ousl y about the possi bi l i ty of conqueri ng Canaan. Thi s di s-
turbs the Canaani tes, as wel l as thei r offi ci al l y certi fi ed representa-
ti ves wi thi n the covenant communi ty.
The Search for Christian America i s the product of an atti tude of hat-
red. These men hate Gods Ol d Testament l aw. They have bui l t thei r
shared worl dvi ew on the deni al of the vi si bl e sancti ons of Gods cove-
nant l aw i n hi story, for i f Gods sancti ons appear i n hi story, then
Chri sti ans are responsi bl e for obeyi ng hi m. They are responsi bl e for
r e-conquer i ng Canaan.
w?zol~ Revealed by Being Whol~ Hidden
Li ke al l pol i ti cal pl ural i sts, Nel l , Hatch, and Marsden begi n
thei r anal ysi s wi th a presupposi ti on: men cannot l ook at the events
of hi story and percei ve the acti ons of God. Why not? Because the
events of hi story are si l ent wi th respect to Gods promi sed covenant
sancti ons. Marsden made thi s qui te cl ear i n an earl i er essay: Bi bl i -
cal hi story records not onl y that God acts, but often tel l s us expl i ci tl y
how and why God acts. Non-bi bl i cal hi stori cal records l ack these l at-
ter qual i ti es. At best we know onl y the most general pri nci pl es of
how God i s worki ng i n hi stori cal devel opments. We must therefore
exerci se the utmost cauti on i n our i nterpretati ons, l est we appear to
Ha@ay Couenant Historiography 291
be cl ai mi ng speci al pr opheti c i nsi ghts i nto the wor ki ngs of God.
Fi nal l y, as Professor Charl es J. Mi l l er has poi nted out, any attempt
to appl y the patterns of Ol d Testament hi story to the era si nce the
comi ng of Chri st confuses the character of the two eras. I n the Ol d
Testament, Gods care for hi s peopl e i nvol ved di rect materi al bl ess-
i ngs as wel l as spi ri tual bl essi ngs. The New Testament age, on the
other hand, i s the age of the Spi ri t, when Chri sti ans are not tol d that
they shoul d expect to pr osper i n thi s wor l d, but r ather that they
shoul d expect to be the poor and sufferi ng. zzz What a movi ng and
humbl e senti ment, especi al l y fr om any tenur ed col l ege pr ofessor
pul l i ng down $45,000 or more for teachi ng ni ne hours a week (and
maybe even twel ve), ei ght months a year! Concl usi on: We therefore
cannot presume to correl ate the judgments of God wi th a nati ons
apparent good deeds or bad deeds.zzs
Thi s may be cal l ed Chr i sti an schol ar shi p, but i t i s pl ur al i sm,
pure and si mpl e. I t i s an appl i ed versi on of Meredi th Kl i nes theol -
ogy of an i nscrutabl e God a theol ogy whi ch al l ows Chri sti ans to
make up thei r phi l osophy and thei r ethi cal rul es as they go through
l i fe: And meanwhi l e i t [the common gr ace or der ] must r un i ts
course wi thi n the uncertai nti es of the mutual l y condi ti oni ng pri nci -
pl es of common grace and common curse, prosperi ty and adversi ty
bei ng experi enced i n a manner l argel y unpredi ctabl e because of the
i nscr utabl e sover ei gnty of the di vi ne wi l l that di spenses them i n
myster i ous ways.
224
There i s a syl l ogi sm whi ch secretl y undergi rds thi s vi ew of hi s-
tory. I t i s thi s:
No covenant sancti ons i n New Covenant hi story, so no covenant
l aw i n New Covenant hi story; no covenant l aw i n New Covenant
hi story, so no covenant responsi bi l i ty i n New Covenant hi story.
I n short, Chri sti ans may vote ei ther l i beral or conservati ve,
Democrati c or Republ i can, but they must not vote bi bl i cal . Most
i mportant, they must not seek to i nfi l trate and then capture al l pol i t-
i cal organi zati ons i n the name of a covenant God who has estab-
l i shed Hi s judi ci al l y bi ndi ng bl uepri nts i n Hi s Bi bl e-reveal ed l aw.
222. Marsden, Teachi ng of Hi story, Christian View of HistoV?, pp. 39-40.
223. I bid. , p. 40.
224. Meredi th G. Kl i ne, Comments on an Ol d-New Error; Westrni mter Theological
J ournal, XLI (Fal l 1978), p. 184.
292
Because Gods covenant sancti ons are supposedl y not reveal ed i n
New Covenant hi story, al though He swore that He woul d enforce
them i n Levi ti cus 26 and Deuteronomy 28, Chri sti ans today therefore
have no justi fi cati on i n seeki ng to i mpose the ci vi l governments sanc-
ti ons as set forth by God, and as Moses and Joshua i mposed them.
Marsden has made hi s posi ti on cl ear: . . . nati onal di sti ncti ons
are no l onger the basi s for Gods bl essi ngs and curses as i n the Ol d
Testament .225 Therefore, there can be no nati onal covenant. There-
fore, there can be no Chri sti an nati on. Therefore, The Search for
Christian America di d not fi nd a Chri sti an Ameri ca. Surpri se, sur-
pri se ! Wi l l wonders never cease?
I s the Ballot Box Real~ Sovereign?
Pl ural i sm presents i tsel f publ i cl y as a pol i ti cal phi l osophy of
stri ctl y formal procedures. I t careful l y di sti ngui shes these formal
procedures from any parti cul ar moral or substanti ve goal (i . e., eth-
i cs). I ts phi l osophi cal defense i s based on the l ogi c of a certai n form
of ei ghteenth-century, Angl o-Saxon, l i beral Enl i ghtenment human-
i sm: the l i berty of the autonomous i ndi vi dual ci ti zen. Thi s defense
has usual l y been connected wi th arguments rel ati ng to the freedom
of consci ence. Pl ural i sm i s offi ci al l y supposed to avoi d bei ng drawn
i nto debates over the ethi cal content of l egi sl ati on. Ethi cal l y speak-
i ng, as far as the offi ci al phi l osophy of pl ural i sm i s concerned, any-
thing goes, just so l ong as the States formal procedural requi rements
are adhered to. I offer as evi dence aborti on on demand i n the U. S.,
a l aw whi ch was decl ared retroacti vel y by the U.S. Supreme Court,
not by any state or federal l egi sl ature. The Supreme Court has
rul ed, we are tol d by smi rki ng, sancti moni ous defenders of conven-
i ent mass murder. But aborti on i s i mmoral ! Chri sti ans repl y. Repl y:
Neverthel ess, the Court has rul ed. I ts the l aw. To whi ch the per-
cepti ve Chri sti an may choose to answer: Then l ets test the l aw . . .
i f necessary, 20,000 ti mes a year i n the courts . And i f the outraged
pl ural i st repl i es, Thats not pl ayi ng fai r; that woul d destroy the
court system, the Chri sti an may choose to remai n si l ent, a Consti -
tuti onal guarantee.
The probl em of pl ural i sm i s far deeper than just i ts vul nerabi l i ty
to pri nci pl ed court-jammi ng. Who or what i s to say that a formal ju-
di ci al structure i s ethi cal l y (substanti vel y) sacrosanct? Who or what
225. Marsden, Teachi ng of Hi story; op. cit., p. 40.
HalJ way Covenant Historiography
293
i s to say that peopl e who adhere to i ts requi rements preci sel y cannot
subsequentl y change (i . e., amend) these requi rements? Who i s to say
that the voters may not vote i n a system that forbi ds further amend-
ments? Who i s to say that the sui ci de of pl ural i sm i s i l l egal ? To deny
that such a procedural l y correct abandonment of pl ural i sm i s ful l y
l egi ti mate i n terms of the rul es of the pol i ti cal game, defenders of a
pl ural i sti c pol i ti cal order can do so successful l y onl y by an appeal to
some supposedl y hi gher soverei gnty that has decl ared pl ural i sms ju-
di ci al formal i sm as manki nds hi ghest ethi cal goal . The procedural
soverei gnty of the pl ural i st pol i ti cal order must then be defended by
an appeal to a hi gher soverei gnty. What I am sayi ng i s that the god
of pl ural i sm i s not i n fact the god who reveal s hi msel f sol el y through
the secret bal l ot; i t i s the god who reveal s hi msel f al l too publ i cl y i n
the humani st-accredi ted cl assrooms of Ameri cas col l eges and
uni versi ti es.
Pl ural i sm i s sai d to be the l aw of the l and. To whi ch I repl y: For
now, my fri end, for now. Thi s need not be a permanent condi ti on .
To whi ch the pl ural i st i mpl i ci tl y repl i es: I wi l l appeal my case to a
hi gher power.
I ntellectual Schizophrenia
Thi s appeal to a hi gher power, I contend, i s i mpl i ci tl y what pro-
fessors Nel l , Hatch, and Marsden have done. They do not tel l us
what thi s hi gher soverei gnty i s. They i mpl y that i t must be the God
of the Bi bl e, yet the l anguage of thei r presentati on i ndi cates that
thei r unnamed proposed soverei gnty i s that wel l -known amorphous
di vi ni ty, the People of 1788. I n any case, they have been ei ther ex-
ceedi ngl y cl ever i n conceal i ng thi s hi dden Soverei gn from thei r
readers or el se they are themsel ves unaware of what thei r conceal ed
presupposi ti on real l y i s: the absolute sovereign of late-eighteenth-centu~,
Angl o-Saxon, Enlightenment judicial formalism. 226 I n short, they appeal
226. Wri tes Forrest McDonal d: I nsi de the Angl o-Saxon scheme of thi ngs, the
sum total of governmental power that was regarded as l egi ti mate was vi %al l y
boundl ess, bei ng subject to onl y two l i mi tati ons. One was the contract, publ i c or
pri vate. The other was tradi ti on, l argel y as embodi ed i n the common l aw, whi ch was
i n essence a set of personal ri ghts i n the form of procedures that governed the exer-
ci se of power. Together they pl aced l i fe, l i berty, and property moral l y beyond the
capri ce of ki ngs, l ords, and majori ti es. But these two theoreti cal l y unbreakabl e
l i mi tati ons wer e the onl y r estr i cti ons on other wi se unl i mi ted power? McDonal d,
E Pluribus Unum: The Formation of the American Republic, 1776-1790 (I ndi anapol i s:
Li berty Press, [1965] 1979), p. 310. The Ci vi l War i n pri nci pl e destroyed the former
l i mi tati on, and Darwi ni sm destroyed the l atter.
294
to one of two conveni entl y speechl ess di vi ni ti es: 1) the Peopl e, or 2)
the god announced by Thomas Jefferson i n the Decl arati on of I nde-
pendence: Nature and Natures God. But our three professors al so
publ i cl y profess Chri st. Thus, they are forced to i mpl y (though they
never attempt to prove) that the God of the Bi bl e has spoken defi ni -
ti vel y i n the pol i ti cal real m for al l the ages through Thomas Jefferson
or the Consti tuti on. 227 I t i s an odd posi ti on for Chri sti ans to hol d.
The pol i ti cal probl em whi ch we face today i s thi s: most Chri s-
ti ans i n the pews and voti ng booths do not yet understand that any
pl ural i sm-i nduced l ul l i n the pol i ti cal war between Gods ki ngdom
and Satans i s merel y a temporary cease-fi re. They have forgotten
the Bi bl es l ong-term judi ci al strategy: the suppressi on of bi bl i cal l y
defi ned publ i c evi l i n every area of l i fe, by every covenant i nsti tu-
ti on, each i n i ts own God-authori zed sphere of responsi bi l i ty. They
have forgotten about covenant l aw and covenant sancti ons. Such a
vi ew cl earl y sets l i mi ts on the extensi on of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm.
There i s an addi ti onal God-r eve,ded l i mi tati on on the modern
pl ural i st order, however, one whi ch todays pl ural i sts refuse to
acknowl edge: civil government must not collect as much as 10 percent of its
cztizens annual net i ncome to use i n its various assignments (I Sam. 8). Thi s
tax l i mi tati on keeps the State smal l , whi ch i s not what todays Chri s-
ti an pl ural i sts, so domi nated i ntel l ectual l y and i nsti tuti onal l y by
Darwi ni an State-worshi ppers, want to accept as a governi ng pri nci -
pl e. They have forgotten Samuel s warni ng regardi ng State power.
They have forgotten Deuteronomy 17s warni ngs to the ki ngs of
I srael . Thi s i s not random amnesi a. Covenantal forget$dness is always
the przce which pluralism exacts from those who do not recognize its temporary
tactical nature.
Check Kiting
Our tri o has been passi ng bad epi stemol ogi cal checks for the past
decade. The fact that, as i ndi vi dual s, they wrote checks on accounts
wi th cash i n them pri or to 1980 does not offset the fact that they are a
tri o of check-ki ters today. They wri te from one account to the other,
wi th each check ever-l arger, i n the vai n hope that thei r ki te can keep
fl yi ng. They al so wri te checks to each others accounts, drawi ng on
thei r own empty accounts. Nel l wri tes somethi ng that supports
227. The books i ndex refers to Jefferson on pages 72-75, 86, 92, 97, 99, 109,
129-30, 160, 169. They refer to Benjami n Frankl i n on pages 14, 30, 41, 51, 72-73,107,
109, 113, 117, 156.
Haljway Covenant Historiography 295
Marsdens concl usi ons; Marsden wri tes somethi ng that seems to
support NoI l . Hatch cl osed hi s onl y account the year he opened i t, i n
1977, but sti l l duti ful l y co-si gns the other mans checks, and al so runs
the checks back and forth between thei r banks. When thi ngs get
real l y desperate, they cal l i n Woodbri dge to cover a check or two. To
the outsi der who has never had an accounti ng course, they al l l ook
ri ch. After al l , they al l dri ve ni ce cars and have credi t cards from
three dozen oi l compani es.
Eventual l y, al l check ki ti ng schemes col l apse. Then al l the checks
are returned, marked i nsuffi ci ent funds. My offense i n al l thi s i s to
expose the scheme by cal l i ng on al l thei r readers to demand payment
i n cash. Let us hope that thei r next co-operati ve endeavor wi l l not be
counterfei ti ng.
Slow Learners
I wri te i n thi s books Concl usi on that Chri sti ans seem to l earn
more sl owl y than thei r opponents duri ng the waki ng up phase of
any era. Whi l e our enemi es are seal i ng the tomb to prevent us
from faki ng the resurrecti on whi ch they fear above al l (Matt.
27:62-66), we Chri sti ans are fl eei ng from the scene of judgment i n
confusi on. Chri sts power-hol di ng enemi es need not fear our efforts !
The onl y thi ng that saves Chri sti ans i s that God does di rect every
event i n hi story, and the progressi ve mani festati on of Gods ki ngdom
i n hi story does take pl ace. The fi rst stages of thi s resurrecti on of
Chri sti an soci ety take pl ace wi thout the awareness by Chri sti ans, l et
al one thei r publ i c approval . Eventual l y, however, a mi nori ty of
Chri sti ans wi l l wake up, re-group, and begi n the work of compre-
hensi ve domi ni on anew. We have seen thi s agai n and agai n i n hi s-
tory, most notabl y duri ng the Protestant Reformati on a fact of hi s-
tory whi ch nearl y gags Protestant l eaders today, especi al l y col l ege-
l evel hi stori ans.
These newl y awakened Chri sti ans do not recei ve moral support
from the Churchs i ntel l ectual l eaders of the sl eepi ng phase; the l at-
ter have too much of thei r personal and i ntel l ectual capi tal i nvested
i n the dyi ng worl d of the seal ed tomb. Li ke the Hebrew assi stants to
the Egypti an taskmasters, or l i ke the sl ave trustees of the Southern
pl antati on system, those who bear the tenured whi p i n the name of
the sl ave-masters resent any si gns of Gods del i verance i n hi story.
Such del i verance cal l s both thei r certi fi cati on and thei r source of i n-
come i nto questi on. They prefer that thei r fel l ow-sl aves content
themsel ves wi th hymn-si ngi ng on Sunday. I n our day, onl y the
humani sts are offi ci al l y authori zed to si ng We shal l overcome.
Postmi l l enni al i sm i s supposedl y a val i d earthl y eschatol ogy onl y for
covenant-breakers.
Concl usi on
Chri sti an pol i ti cal pl ural i st Gordon Spykman rests hi s case for
pl ural i sm not on the Bi bl e but on hi story, si nce confessi onal di ver-
si ty or rel i gi ous heterogenei ty i s a hi stori cal real i ty. He i nsi sts that
we must recogni ze the di al ecti c that exi sts i n hi story because of si n
and the counter-acti ng effect of Gods grace; a confl i ct i s occurri ng
between the ci ty of God and the ci ty of the worl d, between the ki ng-
dom of l i ght and the ki ngdom of darkness.228 He i s qui te correct,
and thi s same tensi on and war exi sted i n Ol d Testament I srael , i n
whi ch pol i ti cal pl ural i sm was forbi dden by Gods reveal ed l aw.
Strangers i n the gate di d not serve as ci vi l judges. T. M. Moore,
commenti ng on Spykmans presentati on, remarks that hi s bel i ef
that hi story provi des ul ti mate norms creati onal norms whi ch
shoul d di rect our i nterpretati on of the Bi bl e. Yet such an approach
exal ts the anal yti cal powers of mans mi nd above the pl ai n words of
the text of Scri pture and i gnores the supremacy of Gods revel ati on
over mere human i nterpretati ons (cf. I sa. 55: 8-9; 2 Pet. 1: 20-21 ).
229
The truth of thi s accusati on appl i es equal l y wel l to The Search for
Christian Arnmca.
I argue i n thi s chapter that The Search for Christian America i s not a
seri ous pi ece of hi stori cal schol arshi p. Yet I al so admi t that our tri o
as i ndi vi dual s had previ ousl y wri tten academi cal l y reputabl e books.
I n those earl i er books and essays, the authors presented evi dence
that Ameri ca was from the begi nni ng a Chri sti an nati on, and that
any attempt to deny these ori gi ns i s comparabl e to Marsdens charge
agai nst Perry Mi l l er: an attempt to de-Chri sti ani ze a sel f-consci ousl y
Chri sti an peopl e. By the ti me these men (l i ke mysel f) reached grad-
uate school , secul ar hi stori ans had done too much research showi ng
the Chri sti an roots of the Uni ted States. I t was no l onger academi cal l y
respectabl e to promote a pure, unvarni shed Progressi vi st versi on of
228. Gordon Spykman, The Pri nci pl ed Pl ural i st Major Response, i n Gary
Scott Smi th (cd.), God and Politics, p. 248.
229. T. M. Moore, The Chri sti an Ameri ca Response to Pri nci pl ed Pl ural i sm,
ibid., p. 110.
Ha&oay Covenant Historiography 297
hi story. Vernon L. Barri ngton was out of fashi on; Perry Mi l l er was
i n. I n fact, a good way for a young schol ar to make hi s mark was to
out-Mi l l er Perry Mi l l ers vi ew of the Puri tans, whi ch i s what
Marsden di d.
I n short, the hi stori cal professi on i n the 1970s knew thei r pri -
mary source documents, or at l east knew the story second-hand from
Mi l l er and Edmund Morgan. I t was no l onger possi bl e to fool them
wi th a tal e of a humani st, pl ural i st Ameri ca, at l east up to the rati fi -
cati on of the Consti tuti on. But i t i s qui te possi bl e to fool Chri sti ans,
who are usual l y the products of i nane publ i c school textbooks, and
whose knowl edge of the pri mary sources i s negl i gi bl e. Therefore,
our tri o spotted an opportuni ty: to wri te a pl ural i st tract for the
Chri sti ans, i n the hope that few secul ar hi stori ans woul d ever cri ti ci ze
i t publ i cl y, si nce one does not cri ti ci ze Ameri can pol i ti cal pl ural i sm on
todays campus, even though any hi stori an knowl edgeabl e regardi ng
the sources woul d spot the mi sl eadi ng nature of thi s tracts thesi s.
What they di d not count on was me.
At the begi nni ng of thi s books I ntroducti on, I l i sted fi ve prob-
l ems wi th the phi l osophy of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm. Let me l i st a si xth:
pluralism seems to lead to what can polite~ be termed be the hognzlive dysfunc-
tion of its Christian defenders. When you devote your i ntel l ectual career
to defendi ng a pol i ti cal phi l osophy based on ri val pri nci pl es from
those you espouse on Sunday morni ng, i t turns your thought proc-
esses i nto the equi val ent of Si l l y Putty.
The Forbidden Guide
We must be careful : our tri o warns us, not uncri ti cal l y to accept
generi cal l y Chri sti an tradi ti on as a soci al -pol i ti cal gui de. Such tradi ti on
i s al ways mi xed wi th other heri tages and i nfl uences, so we must al ways
test i t i n the refi ners fi re.zso Wai t a mi nute. What are they real l y
sayi ng here? What do they mean, gui de? What other gui de what
other blueprint shoul d Chri sti ans use? Why shoul d Chri sti ans use
any gui de other than the gui de set forth i n the Bi bl e? Why, i n the
name of Darwi n, shoul d we accept pol i ti cal pl ural i sm as our gui de?
Why shoul d we avoi d adopti ng a theocentri c gui de a generi cal l y
Chri sti an tradi ti on- as a gui de to the future? So what i f duri ng the
l ast century and a hal f there was a mi xed mul ti tude i n Ameri can
pol i ti cs? Thi s tel l s us somethi ng about the Consti tuti on, but i t tel l s
us nothi ng about the covenantal foundati on of Ameri ca before 1788.
230. The Search, p. 138
Our three hi stori ans have l ooked at the pol i ti cal resul ts of the
Ameri can mel ti ng pot wi thout cl earl y i denti fyi ng the Tri ni tari an
fl avor of the stew i n the ei ghteenth century. They take an i deal of
bi bl i cal l aw, and then they say that Ameri ca never measured up.
They except onl y the Puri tans, who, we are assured, di d not estab-
l i sh a trul y Chri sti an commonweal th. Wel l , so what? Nei ther di d
I srael measure up. Nei ther di d Judah. Does thi s mean that nei ther
I srael nor Judah was judged i n hi story by God? On the contrary, the
ve~ fact of God5 historic ~udgments testifies to the reali~ of the covenant.
The Uni ted States i s sti l l a Chri sti an nati on. I t i s under the cove-
nant sancti ons of God, posi ti ve and negati ve. I t may be a Chri sti an
nati on i n the sense that I srael was a covenanted nati on just before
the Assyri ans i nvaded, or as Judah was when Nebuchadnezzars
forces had surrounded the ci ty, but thi s does not deny the covenant.
These three men have l ooked at the evi dence and have rejected i t.
Yet the very i mperfecti on of the Ameri can peopl es subsequent com-
mi tment to thi s hi stori c covenant i s what now threatens us: a broken
covenant is nonetheless a covenant when it comes to the question of Gods nega-
tive sanctions in histogt I t i s thi s that our three schol ars have devoted
thei r careers to denyi ng.
Broken Covenants
A man who publ i cl y deni es hi s bapti smal vows i s surel y under
the negati ve sancti ons of that covenant, even though he i s no l onger
a Chri sti an. He no l onger has l egal access to the communi on tabl e,
whi ch i s a bl essi ng removed from hi m. A husband who commi ts
adul tery and i s subsequentl y di vorced by hi s wi fe i s surel y under the
negati ve sancti ons of the ori gi nal marri age covenant, even though
he i s no l onger marri ed. He no l onger has l egal access to her bed,
whi ch i s a bl essi ng removed from hi m. Presumabl y, our tri o admi ts
thi s. But then i t comes to the ci vi l covenant, and they cal l , Ki ngs
X. They mean Ki ng Man. No covenant here! No negati ve sanc-
ti ons here! Pl ural i st man gets endl ess access to the l and, a bl essi ng of
the covenant, onl y now thi s no l onger has anythi ng to do wi th posi ti ve
covenantal sancti ons. Access to the l and i s sai d to be covenantal l y
ruwtral, or covenantal l y i rrel evant, whi ch i s the same thi ng.
And so, to use the anal ogy of the marri age covenant, they cal l
thei r fel l ow Chri sti ans to conti nue to commi t pol i ti cal adul tery as a
way of l i fe i n fact, the onl y l egi ti mate way of l i fe. Dont worry
about Gods negati ve sancti ons i n hi story, they assure us. He doesnt
do any of that Ol d Testament stuff any more.
Ha~way Couenant Historiography
299
Yet men worry about nucl ear war. We coul d bl ow up the whol e
worl d ! I ndeed, we coul d. Ki ng Man can commi t the cri me of at-
tempted regi ci de. More to the poi nt strategi cal l y, the Sovi et Uni on
coul d bl ow us up wi th l i ttl e (and dai l y decl i ni ng) threat of effecti ve
mi l i tary retal i ati on. 231 Mans negati ve sancti ons are a real threat to
man these days. Man worri es about mans sancti ons. To whi ch Jesus
repl i ed: And fear not them whi ch ki l l the body, but are not abl e to
ki l l the soul : but rather fear hi m whi ch i s abl e to destroy both soul
and body i n hel l (Matt. 10:28). And how do we know that such a
fi nal negati ve sancti on i s possi bl e? Because we are gi ven prel i mi nary
sancti ons: And i t shal l be, i f thou do at al l forget the LORD thy God,
and wal k after other gods, and serve them, and worshi p them, I tes-
ti fy agai nst you thi s day that ye shal l surel y peri sh. As the nati ons
whi ch the LORD destroyeth before your face, so shal l ye peri sh; be-
cause ye woul d not be obedi ent unto the voi ce of the LORD your
God (Deut. 8:19-20).
The Canaani tes di d not i nheri t the l and of I srael ; the Roman
Empi re di d, and then the Chri sti ans, and then the Arabs. God wi l l
not gi ve Ameri ca back to the I ndi ans, ei ther. He may gi ve i t to the
Communi sts, and then to someone el se. God i s not mocked.
A Time for Histoncal Revisionism
I agree wi th our tri os vi ewpoi nt regardi ng the Ameri can Chri s-
ti an pol i ti cal tradi ti on after 1789. By l aw (Arti cl e VI , Cl ause 3), i t
has been formal l y based on pol i ti cal pl ural i sm at the nati onal l evel
(see Part 3: Apostate Covenantal i sm). Pol i ti cal pl ural i sm has pro-
gressi vel y become the tradi ti onal pol i ti cal phi l osophy i n most Chri s-
ti an ci rcl es. I al so agree that a mythi cal vi ew of the Chri sti ani ty of
the Consti tuti ons pri mary promoters must not be uncri ti cal l y ac-
cepted any l onger. And surel y i t i s our responsi bi l i ty to test the story
of the Consti tuti on i n the refi ners fi re. But thi s i s where I part com-
pany wi th our tri o. We di sagree over the nature of thi s fi re. What i s
thi s refi ners fi re? Biblical law.
I f not bi bl i cal l aw, then what?
I know. The ethi cal i nsi ghts of H. Ri chard Ni ebuhr. 232 Forgi ve
me i f I adopt a di fferent bl uepri nt, for I am not a member of ei ther
the Rhode I sl and wi l derness school of Ameri can hi stori ography or
the Shi mei school .
231. Ar thur Robi nson and Gar y Nor th, Fighting Chance: Tm Feet to Survi ual (Ft.
Worth, Texas: Ameri can Bureau of Economic Research, 1986).
232. See Appendi x A: The Authori ty of H. Ri chard Ni ebuhr.
Through the maze of di al ecti c wi th whi ch the covenant theol og-
i ans rephrased conventi onal tenets runs one consi stent purpose: they
were endeavori ng to mark off an area of human behavi or from the
general real m of nature, and wi thi n i t to substi tute for the rul e of ne-
cessi ty a rul e of freedom. They were stri vi ng to push as far i nto the
background as possi bl e the order of thi ngs that exi sts by i nevi tabl e
equi l i bri um, that i s ful fi l l ed by unconsci ous and ai ml ess moti ons,
that i s determi ned by i nerti a and i nexorabl e l aw, and i n i ts pl ace to
set up an order founded upon vol untary choi ce, upon the del i berate
assumpti on of obl i gati on, upon unconstrai ned pacts, upon the sov-
erei gn determi nati ons of free wi l l s. They were struggl i ng to extri cate
man from the rel entl ess pri mordi al mechani sm, from the chai ns of
i nsti nct and fear, to set hi m upon hi s own feet, to endow hi m wi th a
knowl edge of uti l i ty and purpose, wi th the facul ti es to i mpl ement hi s
knowl edge, so that he mi ght rati onal l y choose and not be dri ven
from pi l l ar to post by fate or ci rcumstance. They were i nspi red, even
though but hal f consci ous of thei r moti ve, wi th a desi re to transform
the concept of duty from somethi ng i mposed brutal l y and i rrati on-
al l y by an ul ti mate datum i nto somethi ng to whi ch man hi msel f ra-
ti onal l y and wi l l i ngl y consented. Obedi ence was no l onger to be
wrung from subjects by mi ght, but accepted as a spontaneous token;
a man was to be good or bad, not because he coul d never have been
otherwi se, but because he whol e-heartedl y preferred hi s course. Cer-
tai nty i n human affai rs was to rest not upon i nexpl i cabl e decrees but
upon the seal that attested the sworn covenant and i nsured the ful -
fi l l ment of covenant terms.
Perry Mi l l er (1939)
Mi l l er, The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Centuy (Cambri dge, Massachu-
setts: Harvard Uni versi ty Press, [1939] 1954), p. 398,
CONCLUSI ON, PART 2
The Christian istorexist thespirit of the world. But when wesay this,
we must understand that the world-spint does not always take the same
form. So the Christian must resist the spirit of the world i n the form i t
takes i n hi s own generati on. I f he does not do this, he is not resisting
the spirit of the world at all. This is especial~ so for our generation, as
the forces at work against us are of such a total nature.
Francis SchaeJ ler (1968)1
The spi ri t of thi s worl d has for al most two mi l l enni a cl ouded
Chri sti an phi l osophy by means of the doctri ne of natural l aw. The
Church has adopted vari ati ons of an i ntensel y pagan phi l osophy
based on neutral i ty, uni versal categori es of reason, and the Greek
i dea of sal vati on through knowl edge: know thysel f. I t has overl ai d
these doctri nes on top of Paul s di scussi on of uni versal categori es of
ethics i n the human heart:
For there i s no respect of persons wi th God. For as many as have si nned
wi thout l aw shal l al so peri sh wi thout l aw: and as many as have si nned i n the
l aw shal l be judged by the l aw; (For not the hearers of the l aw are just be-
fore God, but the doers of the l aw shal l be justi fi ed. For when the Genti l es,
whi ch have not the l aw, do by natur e the thi ngs contai ned i n the l aw, these,
havi ng not the l aw, are a l aw unto themsel ves: Whi ch shew the work of the
l aw wri tten i n thei r hearts, thei r consci ence al so beari ng wi tness, and thei r
thoughts the mean whi l e accusi ng or el se excusi ng one another;) I n the day
when God shal l judge the secrets of men by Jesus Chri st accordi ng to my
gospel (Rem. 2:11-16).
What Paul taught was thi s: al l men have been gi ven suffi ci ent i n-
ternal revel ati on of God the i mage of God i n man to condemn
1. The God Who I s There (1968); i n The Complete Works of Francis A Schaefer, 5 vols.
(Westchester, I l l i noi s: Westchester, 1982), I , p. 11.
301
them eternal l y. Know thysel f gets you i nto hel l , not heaven. Thi s
l i ght of i nternal revel ati on, through Gods restrai ni ng grace (com-
mon grace), enabl es human soci ety to functi on i n hi story. God does
not al l ow men to become total l y consi stent wi th thei r own covenant-
br eak i ng pr esupposi ti ons.
2
But to the extent that men become con-
si stent wi th thei r covenant-breaki ng rel i gi ons, they depart from thi s
testi mony of Gods ethi cal standards. Thus, natural l aw theory as a
concept separated from bi bl i cal revel ati on i s l i ke every other doctri ne
separated from bi bl i cal revel ati on: wrong. The outl i ne of autonomous
l aw i s wrong; the judi ci al content i s al so wrong.
Darwi ni sm destroyed natural l aw theory. Secul ar schol ars very
sel dom take seri ousl y the tradi ti on of natural ri ghts. (A handful of
l i ber tar i an anarcho-capi tal i sts do.) Onl y i n the twenti eth centur y
have we seen a few systemati c efforts by Cal vi ni sti c Chr i sti ans to
abandon natural l aw and natural ri ghts theori es. But they have not
gone the di stance i n abandoni ng natural l aw, for to do so automat-
i cal l y and necessari l y del i vers soci ety i nto ei ther judi ci al chaos or
theocracy. Chri sti ans do not want ei ther al ternati ve. Thus, they are
gi ven l arger and l arger doses of moral chaos, i nterspersed wi th per-
i ods of arbi trary tyranny. Thi s i s al l that the phi l osophy of autono-
mous man has ever been abl e to del i ver i n theory, and what i t i s now
del i veri ng i n practi ce.
We have seen i n the wri ti ngs of Van Ti l , Schaeffer, and the tri o of
hi stor i ans Nel l , Hatch, and Mar sden var i ati ons of the same
theme: the i l l egi ti macy of at l east three and probabl y four poi nts of
the bi bl i cal ci vi l covenant. They do not expl ai n the detai l s of bi bl i cal
ci vi l hi erarchy: the mutual representati on of God and Hi s covenant
peopl e God befor e men and men befor e God by ci vi l magi s-
trates. They reject the Ol d Testament-reveal ed ci vi l l aw-order, the
hi stori cal sancti ons attached to thi s l aw-order, and the postmi l l enni al
i mpl i cati ons of these hi stori c sancti ons. What i s then l eft of the i dea
of the bi bl i cal covenant i n ci vi l government? Nothi ng concrete. Not
bi bl i cal l aw, not natural l aw (our Cal vi ni st schol ars are too sophi sti -
cated epi stemol ogi cal l y for that), not Newtoni an l aw, not exi sten-
ti al i st l aw nothi ng. The category of ci vi l l aw i s open-ended.
Thi s i s a deni al of covenant theol ogy. Nothi ng i s ethi cal l y open-
ended i n hi story. Al l of mans hi story i s under the ethi cal terms of the
2. Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace: The Biblical Basis of Progress (Tyl er,
thr ee God-or dai ned covenants. Van Ti l and Schaeffer knew thi s;
thei r commi tment to the Westmi nster Confessi on of Fai th and the
Catechi sms made i t i mpossi bl e for them to evade the covenantal i m-
pl i cati ons of thei r fai th. Van Ti l systemati cal l y and steadfastl y refused
to comment on the judi ci al and ci vi l i mpl i cati ons of hi s compl ete
demol i shi ng of the supposedl y neutr al r easoni ng abi l i ti es of sel f-
pr ofessed au~onomous man. Schaeffer was unwi l l i ng to fol l ow Van
Ti l i n thi s absol ute rejecti on of the reasoni ng of covenant-breaki ng
man. He repeatedl y returned to the natural l aw-natural ri ghts l an-
guage of the Ameri can Consti tuti onal settl ement. He went searchi ng
for a sel f-attesti ng, common-gr ound tr ue rati onal i ty.3 He di d not
fi nd i t. Nei ther di d hi s son nor C. Everett Koop.
Van Ti l and Schaeffer forgot the key rul e: there is no neutrali@ They
al so forgot the other rul e: You cant beat somethi ng wi th nothi ng.
Conservati ve Ameri can Chri sti ans i n recent years have tri ed to
overcome thei r obvi ous judi ci al di l emma nei ther theocracy nor hu-
mani st l aw by appeal i ng back to the ori gi nal U.S. Consti tuti on.
We need to exami ne i n detai l the success or fai l ure of such an appeal .
3. Schaeffer, Complete Works, I , p. 123.
Part 3
APOSTATE
COVENANTALISM
The word that came to Jeremi ah from the LORD, sayi ng, Hear
ye the words of thi s covenant, and speak unto the men of Judah, and
to the i nhabi tants of Jerusal em; And say thou unto them, Thus sai th
the LORD God of I srael ; Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the
words of thi s covenant, Whi ch I commanded your fathers i n the day
that I brought them forth out of the l and of Egypt, from the i ron fur-
nace, sayi ng, Obey my voi ce, and do them, accordi ng to al l whi ch I
command you: so shal l ye be my peopl e, and I wi l l be your God:
That I may perform the oath whi ch I have sworn unto your fathers,
to gi ve them a l and fl owi ng wi th mi l k and honey, as i t i s thi s day.
Then answered I , and sai d, So be i t, O LORD. Then the LORD sai d
unto me, Procl ai m al l these words i n the ci ti es of Judah, and i n the
streets of Jerusal em, sayi ng, Hear ye the words of thi s covenant, and
do them. For I earnestl y protested unto your fathers i n the day that I
brought them up out of the l and of Egypt, even unto thi s day, ri si ng
earl y and protesti ng, sayi ng, Obey my voi ce. Yet they obeyed not,
nor i ncl i ned thei r ear, but wal ked every one i n the i magi nati on of
thei r evi l heart: therefore I wi l l bri ng upon them al l the words of thi s
covenant, whi ch I commanded them to do; but they di d them not.
And the LORD sai d unto me, A conspi racy i s found among the men
of Judah, and among the i nhabi tants of Jerusal em. They are turned
back to the i ni qui ti es of thei r forefathers, whi ch refused to hear my
words; and they went after other gods to serve them: the house of
I srael and the house of Judah have broken my covenant whi ch I
made wi th thei r fathers.
Therefore thus sai th the LORD, Behol d, I wi l l bri ng evi l upon
them, whi ch they shal l not be abl e to escape; and though they shal l
cry unto me, I wi l l not hearken unto them. Then shal l the ci ti es of
Judah and i nhabi tants of Jerusal em go, and cry unto the gods unto
whom they offer i ncense: but the y shal l not save them at al l i n the
ti me of thei r troubl e. For accordi ng to the number of thy ci ti es were
thy gods, O Judah; and accordi ng to the number of the streets of
Jerusal em have ye setup al tars to that shameful thi ng, even al tars to
burn i ncense unto Baal . Therefore pray not thou for thi s peopl e,
nei ther l i ft up a cry or prayer for them: for I wi l l not hear them i n the
ti me that they cry unto me for thei r troubl e (Jer. 11:1-15).
Ye have seen what I did unto the E~fitians, and how I bareyou on
eagles wings, and brought you unto rnyse~ Now therefore, tfye will
obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar
tr easur e unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: Andye shall
be unto me a kingdom ofpnests, and an ho~ nation. These are the words
which thou shalt speak unto the children of I srael. And Moses came and
called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these
words which the LORD commanded him. And all the people answered
togethq and sai d, Al l that the LORD bath spoken we wi l l do. And
Moses returned the words of the Peo@e unto the LORD (Ex. 19:4-8).
I n the fal l of 1965, I took a graduate semi nar on the Ameri can
Revol uti on. The i nstructor was a vi si ti ng professor from a nearby
col l ege, Dougl ass Adai r. I had not heard of hi m when I began that
semi nar; I have heard about hi m many ti mes ever si nce. That semi -
nar was a marvel ous academi c experi ence i n a worl d of i nfrequent
marvel ous experi ences. The most memorabl e aspect of i t was the
day he asked a pai r of questi ons that have been i n the back of my
mi nd and occasi onal l y at the front ever si nce. The fi rst questi on
was: Who taught the tutors of the members of the Vi rgi ni a dynasty?
And the second questi on was l i ke unto i t: What books di d the mem-
bers of that dynasty read?
He di d not answer these questi ons i n great detai l , but the general
answers he suggested were these: the tutors, more often than not,
were taught i n some Scotti sh uni versi ty, and the books they assi gned
to thei r students were the books of the Scotti sh Enl i ghtenment.
Ri ght or wrong, these are the sorts of questi ons that hi stori ans ought .
to be aski ng.
Who Were the Founders?
But there i s a more fundamental questi on, one that I am aski ng
here: Who were these, and what, exactl y, di d they found?
307
Two covenantal i nsti tuti ons today are characteri zed by thi s ques-
ti on: Church and State. I n cl an soci eti es, the fami l y al so must an-
swer thi s questi on, but there are few cl an soci eti es remai ni ng i n the
West. To ask thi s questi on regardi ng the founders i s to ask a di s-
ti nctl y covenantal questi on. And a covenantal questi on al ways has
fi ve essenti al and i nescapabl e parts i n rel ati on to foundi ng:
1. On whose authori ty di d the Founder act?
2. What ki nd of authori ty di d the Founder i mpose?
3. What were the boundari es that he establ i shed?
4. What ki nd of sancti ons does hi s i nsti tuti on i mpose?
5. What are the connecti ng l i nks between hi m and us?
I n a church, the answer to the fi rst questi on i s cl ear: on Gods au-
thori ty. Second, the Founder i mposed a church hi erarchy. Thi rd, the
church has boundari es, whi ch are theol ogi cal and l egal . Fourth,
most churches have membershi p l i sts, and therefore sancti ons. The
churchs pri mary sancti on i s excommuni cati on: cutti ng off a devi ant
member from access to the Lords Supper (communi on). Churches
wi th open communi on and no membershi p rol es adopt other, l ess
vi si bl e and l ess cl ear forms of sancti ons, but there are al ways posi ti ve
and negati ve sancti ons i n any organi zati on. Fi nal l y, the questi on of
membershi p. The l i nk between the Founder and todays member
may be confessi onal (i n creedal churches), emoti onal , l i turgi cal , or
l egal (membershi p), or any mi xture thereof. I n the case of i m-
mi grant churches, i t may be l i ngui sti c or raci al .
Nati ons have an anal ogous set of questi ons. Fi rst, i n whose name
di d the Founder act? Hi s own (the chari smati c l eader)? Hi s fami l ys
(patri archal -tradi ti onal )? The Partys (i deol ogi cal )? Gods (theol ogi -
cal )? Natures (rati onal )? Someone had to authori ze i t. There had to
b e a n a u t h or .
Second, what i s the nature of the nati onal organi zati ons hi erar-
chy? What i s the basi s of obedi ence? Personal al l egi ance (mi l i tary-
patri archal )? Theocrati c i nvesti ture (theocracy)? Publ i c i nvesti ture
(democracy)? The l eaders offi ce (bureaucracy)?
Thi rd, what are the boundari es of pol i ti cal authori ty? Boun-
dari es are both geographi cal and l egal . I n other words, what are the
l i mi ts of pol i ti cal authori ty?
Fourth, what are the posi ti ve and negati ve sancti ons of govern-
ment? Are they essenti al l y negati ve (l i mi ted government)? Posi ti ve
(wel fare State)? A mi xture? The basi c questi on i s thi s: I n what ways
do l eaders encourage se~-government, si nce the consent of the gov-
erned i s al ways necessary.
Fi nal l y, the questi on of successi on or conti nui ty. Thi s i s the ques-
ti on of rul ershi p and ci ti zenshi p. What i s the l egal basi s of transi -
ti on, rul er to rul er, ci ti zen to ci ti zen? Bi rth? Legal adopti on? El ec-
ti on? Natural i zati on? Peopl e are born and they di e. They move.
They change al l egi ances. Soci eti es and ci vi l governments must deal
wi th these facts of l i fe and death. To do so, they create judi ci al l y
bi ndi ng publ i c events, events that are best understood as acts of cove-
nant renewal . An el ecti on i s an act of covenant renewal . So i s swear-
i ng an oath of offi ce. Especial~ sweari ng an oath of offi ce, for the oath
expl i ci tl y or i mpl i ci tl y cal l s down the negati ve sancti ons of the cove-
nant, shoul d the swearer break the l egal terms of the covenant.
Covenantal i sm: An I nescapabl e Concept
Thi s secti on of Political Po@heism deal s pri mari l y wi th the pol i ti -
cal and judi ci al i mpl i cati ons of poi nt four of the bi bl i cal covenant
model : oaths/sancti ons. Thi s i s not to say that none of the other
poi nts i s i nvol ved. A covenant i s presented to men as a uni t, and i t
i s ei ther accepted or rejected as a uni t. When we deal wi th any of
Gods covenant i nsti tuti ons, we must consi der al l fi ve aspects of the
bi bl i cal covenant model . Fol l owi ng Ray Suttons model , 1 I di vi de up
the covenant i nto these fi ve poi nts:
Transcendence (soverei gnty), yet i mmanence (presence)
Hi erarchy/authori ty/representati on
Ethi cs/l aw/domi ni on
Oath/judgment/sancti ons (bl essi ngs, cursi ngs)
Successi onl conti nui tyl i nheri tance
Al l three of the authori zed corporate covenant i nsti tuti ons
Church government, fami l y government, and ci vi l government
must bear the i nsti tuti onal marks of these fi ve poi nts. There i s no
escape. Al l fi ve are basi c to each of the covenant i nsti tuti ons. The
covenant may i denti fy a god di fferent from the God of the Bi bl e, but
the covenant structure i tsel f i s i nescapabl e. There can be no govern-
ment apart from thi s structure. The covenant i s an i nescapabl e con-
cept. I t i s never a questi on of covenant vs. no covenant . I t i s
al ways a questi on of whi ch covenant. More to the poi nt, i t i s a ques-
ti on of which sovereign master.
Because Western Protestanti sm ever si nce the l ate seventeenth
century has cooperated wi th the forces of rati onal i sm i n abandoni ng
the ori gi nal covenantal foundati ons of Western ci vi l i zati on, we sti l l
face a 300-year-ol d di l emma. I t i s most acute i n the Uni ted States,
where vesti ges of the ol der covenantd Chri sti ani ty sti l l remai n, and
where the confl i ct between covenant-breakers and covenant-keepers
has vi si bl y escal ated si nce about 1975. Ameri can Church hi stori an
Si dney Mead stated the nature of the i ntel l ectual probl em, whi ch
has now begun to assert i tsel f as a cul tural and pol i ti cal probl em an
anci ent one i n Ameri can hi story. Wri ti ng i n 1953, he observed:
But the great i tem of unfi ni shed i ntel l ectual busi ness confronti ng the
Protestant denomi nati ons was and i s the probl em of rel i gi ous freedom. And
here the si tuati on i s al most as desperate as i ncreasi ngl y i t becomes cl ear that
the probl em cannot be sol ved si mpl y by mal i gni ng the character of those
who questi on the Ameri can practi ce.
I s i t not passi ng strange that Ameri can Protestanti sm has never devel -
oped any sound theoreti cal justi fi cati on of or theol ogi cal ori entati on for i ts
most di sti ncti ve practi ce? Today we shoul d probabl y have to agree wi th the
wri ter of 1876 who sai d that we seem to have made no advance whatever i n
harmoni zi ng (on a theoreti cal l evel ) the rel ati ons of rel i gi ous sects among
themsel ves, or i n defi ni ng thei r common rel ati on to the Ci vi l power.z
Part 3 of Political Po&theism asks the questi on: To what extent i s
the U.S. Consti tuti on a covenant document? I f I can show that i t i s a
covenant document, then a second questi on ari ses: What ki nd of
covenant, Chri sti an or secul ar humani st? To answer these two ques-
ti ons, I shal l present a consi derabl e quanti ty of hi stori cal materi al ,
much of i t unfami l i ar even to professi onal hi stori ans unl ess they are
speci al i sts i n col oni al Ameri can hi story and ei ghteenth-century rel i -
gi ous controversi es. I was trai ned professi onal l y i n the former fi el d,
yet what I di scuss i n thi s secti on was never menti oned i n any gradu-
ate semi nar I ever took or any book I ever read i n the 1960s. The
2. Si dney E. Mead, Ameri can Protestanti sm Duri ng the Revol uti onary Epoch;
Church History, XXI I (1953); repri nted i n Religion in Ammcan HistoV: I nterpretive
Essays, edi ted by John M. Mul der and John F. Wi l son (Engl ewood Cl i ffs, New Jer-
sey: Prenti ce-Hal l , 1978), p. 175; ci ti ng J. L. Di man, Rel i gi on i n Ameri ca,
1776 -1876, North American Review, CXXI I (Jan. 1876), p. 42. Mead al so ci tes the
vi ews of Wi l hel m Pauck, Theol ogy i n the Li fe of Contemporary Ameri can Protes-
tanti sm, Shane Quarterb, XI I I (Apri l 1952), pp. 37-50.
source materi al s, both pri mary and secondary, di d exi st, but they
had been l ong forgotten.
I n thi s secti on, I argue that the Consti tuti ons Framers were not
the nati ons Foundi ng Fathers. Though I do not devel op the theme
extensi vel y, i t i s my vi ew that Gov. John Wi nthrop of the Massachu-
setts Bay Col ony rather than George Washi ngton deserves the ti tl e of
Foundi ng Father. So, however, does Roger Wi l l i ams, for because of
Wi l l i ams, George Washi ngton and the Framers became pol i ti cal l y
possi bl e. I argue that the Consti tuti on, l i ke the charter of col oni al
Rhode I sl and, i s a substi tute covenant. Thi s i s not the standard text-
book account of the Consti tuti on, or a standard anythi ng account.
But i t i s a true account, assumi ng that the Bi bl e i s true. I assume
that i t i s.
Warren Burger, the former Chi ef Justi ce of the U. S. Supreme
Court, has offered hi s opi ni on that The Uni ted States, as a true na-
ti on, was concei ved i n Phi l adel phi a i n the summer of 1787, but i t was
not yet born unti l the document was rati fi ed.3 Thi s sentence sum-
mari zes what I cal l the myth of the Consti tuti on as the sol e cove-
nantal basi s of the nati on we cal l the Uni ted States of Ameri ca. I
contend that thi s myth i s the l egacy of a humani st conspi racy a
conspi racy whi ch may be about to be escal ated once agai n.
The Decl arati on of I ndependence of the Uni ted States agai nst
Great Bri tai n i n 1776 was a formal decl arati on of pol i ti cal i ndepend-
ence. I t was the fi rst step i n a more i mportant Decl arati on of I nde-
pendence: a covenantal decl arati on of i ndependence from the God of
the Bi bl e. That l atter decl arati on i s the document we know as the
U. S. Consti tuti on. To prove my poi nt, I have wri tten Part 3.
I focus on the cruci al but much-negl ected secti on of the Consti tu-
ti on, the one pr ohi bi ti ng r el i gi ous test oaths: The Senator s and
Representati ves before menti oned, and the Members of the several
State Legi sl atures, and al l the executi ve and judi ci al Offi cers, both
of the Uni ted States and of the several States, shal l be bound by
Oath or Affi rmati on, to support thi s Consti tuti on; but no rel i gi ous
Test shal l ever be requi red as a Qual i fi cati on to any Offi ce or publ i c
Trust under the Uni ted States (Arti cl e 111, Cl ause 3). Thi s seem-
i ngl y i nnocuous provi si on was and i s far more i mportant than the
Fi r st Amendment i n establ i shi ng the r el i gi ous char acter of the
3. Warren E. Burger, Foreword, Patri ck T. Conl ey and John P. Kami nski (eds.),
The Consti tuti on and the States: The Role of the Original Thirteen in the Frami ng and Adoption
of the Federal Constitution (Madi son, Wi sconsi n: Madi son House, 1988), p. vi i .
Ameri can nati on, yet i t i s sel dom di scussed, even by speci al i sts i n
Consti tuti onal theory. The qui et revol uti on whi ch thi s p~ovi si on ac-
compl i shed i s sti l l equal l y qui et, two centuri es after the revol uti on
began. As Garet Garett sai d, speaki ng of Frankl i n Roosevel ts New
Deal of the 1930s and earl y 1940s, the revol uti on was.
Hi stori ography
There i s no neutral i ty. Ones presupposi ti ons about the nature of
God, man, l aw, and ti me
4
shape ones i nter pr etati on of al l facts.
There i s no brute factual i ty, as Van Ti l al ways i nsi sted; there i s onl y
i nterpreted factual i ty.
The hi story of the ori gi ns of the U.S. Consti tuti on i n the twenti eth
century has been a debate between the ol d Whi g vi ew an i nstrument
wri tten by men who sought to i ncrease human l i berty and the eco-
nomi c-Marxi st-B eardi an vi ew: a document wri tten by a parti cul ar
economi c cl ass of men who were seeki ng economi c advantage. There
has al so been a modi fi ed Tory vi ew, represented by the i mperi al
hi stori es wri tten by men l i ke Charl es M. Andrews and Lawrence H.
Gi pson, who argue that thi ngs real l y were not so bad, 1763-75, and
that the di sputes coul d have been worked out between the col oni es
and Great Bri tai n wi thi n the framework of the i mperi al system. The
Whi g vi ew, however , has pr edomi nated. Thi s vi ew goes back to the
ver y er a of the Consti tuti on i tsel f, to South Car ol i ni an Davi d
Ramsey. There have been wi de vari ati ons wi thi n thi s tradi ti on, re-
fl ecti ng the di vi si ons wi thi n the Consti tuti onal Conventi on: bi g gov-
er nment (Hami l toni an Feder al i st), l i mi ted gover nment (Jeffer so-
ni an republ i can), and states ri ghts. To put i t bl untl y, the wi nners
wr i te the hi stor y books, and even the l oser s (e. g., Al exander H.
Stephens A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States) wi nd
up si di ng wi th some facti on wi thi n the camp of earl i er wi nners.
Thi s study of the Consti tuti on i s an excepti on to the rul e. I am
wri ti ng from the perspecti ve of the real l osers, the ones whose case i s
vi r tual l y never even consi der ed, l et al one defended. I am ar gui ng
the case fr om the poi nt of vi ew of the Founder s of Amer i ca, the
Puri tans. I t was they who steadi l y l ost the battl e, begi nni ng wi th
the restorati on of Charl es I I to the throne i n 1660. I t took over a cen-
tury for thi s defeat to be consummated by the rati fi cati on of the U.S.
4. Gar y Nor th, Unconditional Surrender: Go#s Program for Victory (3rd ed.; Tyl er,
Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1987), Part 1.
Consti tuti on. They had basi cal l y l ost the war by 1684, marked by the
revocati on of the Massachusetts charter under Charl es I I , who di ed
i n 1685. After the Gl ori ous Revol uti on agai nst James I I a Whi g
r evol uti on of 1688-89, Massachusetts was gr anted a new r oyal
charter (1691), but one whi ch was no l onger Puri tan i n ori gi n. Voti ng
henceforth was regul ated stri ctl y i n terms of property ownershi p, not
rel i gi on. Covenantal l y speaki ng, the l awyers and the merchants i n-
her i ted the Pur i tan commonweal th.
The Rhode I sl and Experi ment
Theol ogi cal l y and even covenantal l y, thi s was not the begi nni ng
of the battl e; thi s was the begi nni ng of the end. The fi rst ski rmi sh i n
the struggl e to create the modern worl d was i n the wi nter of 1636,
when Roger Wi l l i ams fl ed Massachusetts and headed i nto the wi l -
derness of what was to become Rhode I sl and. Wi l l i ams successful l y
created a new col ony, but i t was far more than a new col ony; i t was a
new concept of ci vi l government. I t was a concept that has become
domi nant today the very di sti ngui shi ng mark of moderni sm. He
founded a col ony that was openl y secul ar; there woul d be no Church-
State connecti on, or even a r el i gi on-State connecti on.
I n 1642, the Gener al Cour t of Rhode I sl and or gani zed a new
government. I t requi red an oath of offi ce from magi strates to wal k
fai thful l y and taken i n the presence of God.5 Ther e was no other
menti on of rel i gi on. The col onys ci vi l government was formal l y rec-
ogni zed as a democr acy, or popul ar gover nment .6 I n March of
1644 (ol d cal endar, 1643), Charl es I granted a charter to the Provi -
dence Pl antati ons. I n response, i n 1647, acts and orders were agreed
upon. The col ony was agai n i denti fi ed as democrati cal , meani ng a
gover nment hel d by the fr ee and vol untar y consent of al l , or the
gr eater par t of the fr ee i nhabi tants.
7
I t admi tted the exi stence of
our di fferent consci ences touchi ng the truth as i t i s i n Jesus, and
affi rmed each mans peaceabl e and qui et enjoyment of hi s l awful
ri ght and l i berty. . . . s They enacted ci vi l l aws and sancti ons for
vari ous cri mes, i ncl udi ng murder, rebel l i on, mi sbehavi or, wi tch-
5. Organi zati on of the Government of Rhode I sl and, March 16-19, 1641/42 , i n
W. Kei th Kavenaugh (cd.), Foundations of Col oni al America: A Documental HistoV, 3
vol s. (New Yor k: Chel sea House, 1973), I , p. 343.
6. L&m.
7. I bid., 1, p. 347.
8. I dem.
craft, adul tery, forni cati on, perjury, ki dnappi ng, whoremongeri ng,
etc. They di d not, as had been done i n Massachusetts, i denti fy these
cri mes as cri mes l i sted i n the Ol d Testament, wi th passages ci ted
(e.g., Massachusetts Body of Li berti es, 1641). I nstead, they made
thi s statement:
These are the l aws that concern al l men, and these are the penal ti es for
transgressi on thereof, whi ch, by common assent, and rati fi ed and estab-
l i shed throughout the whol e col ony; and otherwi se than thus what i s herei n
forbi dden, al l men may wal k as thei r consci ences persuade them, everyone
i n the name of hi s god. And l et the sai nts of the most hi gh wal k i n thi s col -
ony wi thout mol estati on i n the name of Jehovah, thei r God for ever and
ever, etc., etc.
g
Thi s meant, however, that non-sai nts had the same ci vi l powers and
i mmuni ti es, that they, too, coul d wal k i n the col ony wi thout mol es-
tati on, and more to the poi nt covenantal l y, vote i n al l col oni al el ec-
ti ons, everyone i n the name of hi s god, or l ack thereof.
I n 1663, Charl es I I , as a sel f-i denti fi ed Chrkti an monarch, granted
to them i n the name of the true Chri sti an ffai th, a speci al di spensa-
ti on: they woul d not have to worshi p God accordi ng to the Church of
Engl and, or take or subscri be the oaths and arti cl es made and es-
tabl i shed i n that behal fe; . . . The charter then adopted l anguage
that was to be repeated agai n and agai n i n the next hundred years of
charter-granti ng and consti tuti on-maki ng: . . . noe person wi thi n
the sayd col onye, at any tyme hereafter, shal l bee any wi se mol ested,
puni shed, di squi eted, or cal l ed i nto questi on, for any di fferences i n
opi ni one i n matters of rel i gi on, and doe not actual l y di sturb the ci vi l l
peace of our sayd col ony: . . . I O Thi s he cal l ed a hopeful l under-
takei nge.l i The charter menti oned the good Provi dence of God,
from whome the Pl antati ons have taken thei r name,l z but that was
a mere formal i ty; the heart of the experi ment was judi ci al . What i s
remarkabl e i n retrospect and what has become standard fare i n
maki ng the case for modern Chri sti an pl ural i sm was the Ki ngs ex-
press hope that by severi ng the col onys ci vi l government from rel i -
gi on, the settl ers may bee i n the better capaci ty to defend them-
9. I bid., I , p. 349.
10. Charter of Rhode I sl and and the Provi dence Pl antati on, Jul y 8, 1663 , ibid.,
I , p. 121.
11. I bid., I , p. 120.
12. I dem.
sel ves, i n thei re just ri ghts and l i berti es agai nst al l the enemi es of the
Chri sti an ffai th, and others, i n al l respects . 13
On August 8, 1989, the l egacy of Roger Wi l l i ams experi ment i n
ci vi l rel i gi ous neutral i ty came to consi stent frui ti on. The State Di vi -
si on of Taxati on of the state of Rhode I sl and granted tax exempti on
to the rel i gi on of wi tchcraft. Al l covens i n the state must henceforth
be treated for tax purposes as any other l egi ti mate church.
Concl usi on
I t i s my contenti on argued, many wi l l say, contenti ousl y that
the experi ment i n pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i n the Rhode I sl and wi l derness
set the standard for al l modern pol i ti cal devel opments. I t was the
fi rst ci vi l order i n the West to break wi th the concept of Tri ni tari an
ci vi l covenantal i sm. Thi s ti ny col ony, establ i shed sel f-consci ousl y as
an al ternati ve to the theocracy of the Massachusetts Bay Col ony,
was the bi rthpl ace of modern pol i ti cal pl ural i sm. More than thi s, I
contend that the major arguments i n defense of Chri sti an pol i ti cal
pl ural i sm i nvari abl y sound l i ke those used by Wi l l i ams to justi fy hi s
opposi ti on to, and departure from, Massachusetts.
The pol i ti cal hi story of the Uni ted States after 1689 has essenti al l y
been the extensi on of Roger Wi l l i ams vi ew of ci vi l government, as
opposed to John Wi nthrops. 14 The defenders of democracy have not
often quoted ei ther man, but they have quoted Wi l l i ams more often.
Wi l l i ams and hi s col l eagues l ai d the covenantal foundati ons for
modern democracy, but they have not been gi ven suffi ci ent credi t for
thei r pi oneeri ng effort. Modern defenders of democracy prefer to
avoi d nami ng Jesus i n thei r defenses of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm. They are
therefore far more consi stent i n thei r understandi ng of the theol ogy
of pl ural i sm. I t i s mai nl y Chri sti an defenders of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm
who are drawn to Wi l l i ams these days.
But i f Rhode I sl and was not the expl i ci t pol i ti cal -theol ogi cal rep-
resentati ve model i n ei ghteenth-century col oni al Ameri ca, what
was? We must begi n therefore wi th the questi on: What were the rel i -
gi ous and i ntel l ectual roots of the U.S. Consti tuti on?
13. I bid., I , p. 121.
14. Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Dilemma: The StogJ of J ohn Winthrop (Boston:
Li ttl e, Brown, 1958).
I t i s onl y agai nst the backgr ound of the Ol d Wor l d Enl i ghten-
ment that we can appreci ate the pol i ti cal achi evements of the men
who were to be i mmortal i zed as Foundi ng Fathers of the new Repub-
l i c, thei r resourceful ness, thei r i ngenui ty, thei r wi sdom, thei r saga-
ci ty, thei r vi rtue. Where most of the phi l osopher of the Ol d Worl d
were recrui ted from Natural i sts and doctors and eccl esi asti cs how
the Abb6s di sported themsel ves i n the pages of the Encycl opedi a!
i n Ameri ca most of them were students of the l aw. Law was the com-
mon denomi nator of Jefferson and Madi son, of George Mason who
wrote Vi rgi ni as famous Bi l l of Ri ghts and George Wythe who pre-
si ded over her hi ghest cour t, of Al exander Hami l ton and of John
Jay, of John Adams who was the chi ef justi ce of hi s state (he never
took offi ce, to be sure) and Roger Sherman and Ol i ver El l sworth of
Connecti cut, and the Amer i can Bl ackstone, James Wi l son, and hi s
fel l ow commentator on the Consti tuti on, Nathani el Chi pman of
Ver mont, and the two br i l l i ant Pi nckneys of South Car ol i na, and
even of the educator and l exi cogr apher Noah Webster . And even
those who were not trai ned to the l aw, l i ke Frankl i n, Dr. Rush, and
Tom Pai ne, wer e mor e than l awyer s, they wer e pol i ti cal phi l oso-
phers. I t was the l awyers who had wri tten the Decl arati on of I nde-
pendence and the Northwest Ordi nance and i t was mostl y l awyers
who drafted the Consti tuti ons of the States and of the new Uni ted
States. For forty years every Presi dent of the new nati on, wi th the
excepti on of Washi ngton hi msel f, and ever y Vi ce-Pr esi dent and
Secretary of State, wi thout excepti on, was a l awyer. I n Ameri ca pol i -
ti cs was the uni ver sal pr eoccupati on, l egi sl ati on the uni ver sal r e-
source, and Consti tuti ons the uni versal panacea.
Henry Steel e Commager (1977)*
* Commager, The Empire of Reason: How Europe I ma~med and Ameri ca Realized the
Enlightenmmt (New York: Oxford Uni versi ty Press, 1977), pp. 176-77.
6
THE THEOLOGI CAL ORI GI NS
OF THE U.S. CONSTI TUTI ON
As has been noted, many men use words which to others imp~ a reli-
gious view not held by the speaker or writer without an awareness either
of the divergence of meaning or the mixed presuppositions. Witness, for
example, Rev. J ohn Withmpoon (1722-X794), Presbyterian leader who
in 1768 assumed the presidency of th College of New J ersey (now Prance-
ton Univemi@. Witherspoon taught many who later played an active role
in A merzcan ltfe. His own belief in sound money, mixed government and
a division of powers was pronounced. An orthodox Calvinist, Wither-
spoon, without any sense of contradiction, also followed the philosophy
of Thomas Reid (1710-1796), Scottish realism, using this questionable
tool against Hume, Deism and French philosophers. I n his ~ectur es
on Moral Phi l osophy, he spoke the l anguage of rights and reason,
combining with this man-centered emphasis his own theocentric faith.
R. J . Rushdoony (1964) I
Men know of Harvard and Yal e, but Pri nceton seems to be a
newcomer to the ranks of the Bi g Three. Not so, or at l east not qui te
so. Pri nceton has had i ts ups and downs over the centuri es, but
Pri nceton, even before i t was cal l ed Pri nceton, served a cruci al rol e
i n Ameri can hi story: the transmi ssi on bel t of rati onal i sm and pol i ti -
cal l i beral i sm i nto Presbyteri ani sm. Accordi ng to recent mono-
graphs on the school s hi story, whenever i t fai l ed to do thi s, i t fel l i nto
a peri od of decl i ne and i nsi gni fi cance, i .e., fel l under the control by
men who real l y di d bel i eve i n the Westmi nster Confessi on of Fai th.
Pri nceton has had more wel l -known presi dents than any school i n
1. R. J. Rushdoony, This I ndependent Republic: Studies in the Nature and Meani ng of
Amwican Histoy (Fai rfax, Vi rgi ni a: Thoburn Press, [1964] 1978), p. 3.
317
Ameri can hi story: Jonathan Edwards,z John Wi therspoon, and
Vi r gi ni an Woodrow Wi l son. Two other l ess famous presi dents
pl ayed i mportant rol es i n transformi ng the Presbyteri ans: Vi rgi ni an
Samuel Davi es, a l eader i n the Great Awakeni ngs who succeeded
Edwards bri efl y unti l hi s death, and the Scotti sh defender of natural
l aw who brought Chri sti an evol uti oni sm to young Presbyteri an
gentl emen i n the l ate ni neteenth century, James McCosh.4 I f we
count Wi l l i am Tennents Log Col l ege as the predecessor of the Col -
l ege of New Jersey, then we shoul d add hi s name to the l i st. Every
Presbyteri an cl ergyman except one who was promi nent i n the Great
Awakeni ng was a Log Col l ege man.
5
I begi n my di scussi on of apostate covenantal i sm where Rushdoony
began hi s di scussi on of what he regards as covenantal l y Chri sti an
Ameri ca: wi th Rev. John Wi therspoon. He was the teacher of the man
who i s often cal l ed the Father of the Consti tuti on, James Madi son. G
He was a si gner of the Decl arati on of I ndependence, the onl y mi ni s-
ter of the gospel to do so.
Wi therspoon serves as perhaps the best exampl e i n the hi story of
the Chri sti an Church as a man who defended a hal fway covenant
phi l osophy and subsequentl y pressed for an apostate nati onal cove-
nant. He was the most promi nent cl ergyman i n the col oni es duri ng
the Revol uti onary War. He was hated by the Bri ti sh. When Bri ti sh
troops captured Rev. John Rosborough, they bayoneted hi m on the
spot, thi nki ng that they had captured Wi therspoon.
7
He was there-
2. Aaron Burr was Edwards son-i n-l aw; Burrs father had been presi dent of
Pri nceton, where Burr graduated. He requested and recei ved permi ssi on to be buri ed
i n the cemetery pl ot of the presi dents of Pri nceton, al though for the fi rst twenty
years, the grave went unmarked. Mi l ton Lomask, Aaron Burr: The Conspira~ and
Ears of Exile, 1805-1836 (New York: Farrar, Straus, Gi roux, 1982), pp. 404-5.
3. I t was duri ng a col l ege fund-rai si ng tour i n Engl and wi th Gi l bert Tennent i n
1755 that Davi es presented hi s ci vi l case for rel i gi ous tol erati on of di ssenti ng
chur ches i n Vi r gi ni a, whi ch Davi es won. Thi s subsequentl y i ncr eased the degr ee of
tol er ati on for col oni al di ssenter s gener al l y. Thi s was pr obabl y the most si gni fi cant
col l ege fund-rai si ng program i n Ameri can hi story. See the entry for Davi es i n Dic-
tionay of American Religiow Biography, edi ted by Henry Warren Bowden (Westport,
Connecti cut: Greenwood Pres, 1977).
4. J. Davi d Hoevel er, Jr., J ames McCosh and the Scottish I ntellectual Tradition: From
Glagow to Princeton (Pri nceton, New Jersey: Pri nceton Uni versi ty Press, 1981). After
he reti red, McCosh wrote a bi ography of Wi therspoon (1890).
5. Dictionay, entr y under Wi l l i am Tennent, p. 459.
6. For exampl e, Neal Ri emer, J ames Madison: Creating the Ammcan Constitution
(Washi ngton, D. C.: Congressi onal Quarterl y, 1986).
7. James Hasti ngs Ni chol s, John Wi ther spoon on Chur ch and State: Jour nal of
Presbyterti n Histoy, XLVI I (Sept. 1964), pp. 166-67.
The Theological Origins of the US. Constitution 319
for e the representati ve of the Church i n that era. He di d not merel y
si gn the Decl arati on of I ndependence; he symbol i cal l y si gned hi s
bri ghtest students 200-year (or more) jai l sentence for the Ameri can
Church.
Wi therspoon, i n the name of Cal vi ns God, substi tuted Lockes
compact theory of ci vi l government for bi bl i cal covenantal i sm:
soci ety as contractual , not covenantal . He di d not di sti ngui sh soci ety
from the State. Soci ety I woul d defi ne to be an associ ati on or com-
pact of any number of persons, to del i ver up or abri dge some part of
thei r natural ri ghts, i n order to have the strength of the uni ted body,
to protect the remai ni ng, and to bestow others.8 Soverei gn men
agree wi th each other to set up a hi erarchy, to pass and enforce l aws,
and to bestow ri ghts on others i n the future. Here i s the Lockean
covenant i n al l i ts autonomous grandeur. Soci ety i s a vol untary
compact among equal s.
g
Most i mportant, hi s di scussi on of oaths
was l i mi ted stri ctl y to contracts (person to person) and vows: per-
sonal promi ses between God and an i ndi vi dual . Oaths, he says, are
appendages to al l l awful contracts; . . . 1 He di d not di scuss cove-
nants as oath-bound contracts among men i n whi ch God i s the en-
forci ng party. Had he done so, he woul d have had to abandon Locke
and the whol e Whi g tradi ti on.
Wi therspoon made the assumpti on that there i s a common sense
l ogi cal real i sm that l i nks the l ogi cal processes of al l men, Chri sti ans
and non-Chri sti ans. He appeal ed to thi s common sense real i sm i n
hi s defense of the Chri sti an fai th. Thi s was the heri tage of ei ghteenth-
century Scotti sh rati onal i sm, the bi rthpl ace of the ri ght wi ng of the
Enl i ghtenment.
Because he bel i eved that there i s such a real m of neutral human
reason, i t was easy for Wi therspoon to fal l i nto the trap of bel i evi ng
i n common pri nci pl es of pol i ti cal phi l osophy. After al l , thi s was the
common error of a generati on of l evel -headed Scots who were i n the
8. John Wi therspoon, An Annotated Edition of Lectures on Mor al Philosophy, edi ted
by Jack Scott (Newark: Uni versi ty of Del aware Press, 1982), Lecture 10, p. 123.
9. I bid., p. 124. Sl avery was a probl em for hi m, and he took the vi ew that ori gi -
nal sl avery i s onl y val i d for those captured i n war or l awful l y puni shed as cri mi nal s
(PP. 125-26). Her e we see the Ol d Testaments i nfl uence, not Lockes. But we are not
obl i gated to rel ease them, once we fi nd them i n sl avery. Here we see everyone el ses
i nfl uence i n the hi story of man except the Quakers after 1770, not the New Testa-
ments. See Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyl er, Texas:
I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1989), ch. 4: A Bi bl i cal Theol ogy of Sl avery.
10. I bid., Lecture 16: Of Oaths and Vows, p. 177.
process of reshapi ng the i ntel l ectual heri tage of Western ci vi l i zati on.
I t was the most common cul tural error of ei ghteenth-century Engl i sh-
speaki ng Protestanti sm. I t was al so the most devastati ng; i t l ed to
the transfer of pol i ti cal and judi ci al authori ty to the humani sts. Yet
Rushdoony adds thi s crypti c eval uati on: Thi s confusi on, however,
was sl i ght i n contrast to other phenomena of the Ameri can scene .
On the contrary, thi s was the heart of that confusi on, a confusi on
whi ch l ed to the publ i c breaki ng of the ci vi l covenants of the fi rst cen-
tury and a hal f of Ameri can pol i ti cal l i fe. That Rushdoony di d not
see how devastati ng the resul ts of thi s confusi on were poi nts to an al -
most equal l y great confusi on on Rushdoonys part. (See Appendi x B.)
Wi thout ci ti ng hi s source, Rushdoony says that Wi therspoon
trai ned many of the future l eaders of the new nati on. They i ncl uded
a presi dent (James Madi son), a Vi ce Presi dent (Aaron Burr), 10
cabi net offi cers, 21 U.S. Senators, 39 congressmen, and 12 governors.
He coul d have added that si x served i n the Conti nental Congress
and 56 served i n state l egi sl atures. Furthermore, of the 25 col l ege
graduates at the Consti tuti onal Conventi on, ni ne were Pri nce-
toni ans and si x had Wi therspoons si gnature on thei r di pl omas. 11
The magni tude of what these men di d breaki ng the ci vi l covenants
of the ori gi nal col oni al settl ement testi fi es to the catastrophi c con-
fusi on i n Wi therspoons system.
Madi son, after remai ni ng i n New Jersey to study wi th Wi therspoon
for an extra year, returned to Vi rgi ni a and vowed to devote hi s l i fe to
overturni ng the rel i gi ous oaths requi red to hol d publ i c offi ce i n Vi rgi ni a,
a task that he and Jefferson achi eved i n earl y 1786. He was not i n re-
vol t agai nst hi s teacher; he was appl yi ng what he had been taught, as
he conti nued to do for the remai nder of hi s career. 12 The next year,
he di d much better (or worse) than thi s: he made i l l egal any such oath
at the nati onal l evel . Yet i t was Wi therspoon who had i ntroduced hi m
to the wri ti ngs of the Scotti sh Enl i ghtenment phi l osophers through hi s
syl l abus on Mor al Phi l osophy : Davi d Hume, Fr anci s Hutcheson,
Adam Smi th, Thomas Rei d, Lor d Kames, and Adam Fer guson. I t
was these wri ti ngs, he l ater sai d, that had brought hi m to hi s vi ews
on ci vi l and rel i gi ous l i berty, 13 i .e., apostate covenantal i sm.
11. Var num Lansi ng Col l i ns, President Witherspoon, 2 vol s. (New York: Arno
Press, [1925] 1969), I I , p. 229.
12. James H. Smyl i e, Madi son and Wi therspoon: Theol ogi cal Roots of Ameri -
can Pol i ti cal Thought, Princeton Universi~Libray Chronicle, XXI I (Spri ng 1961).
13. Dougl ass Adai r, James Madi son, i n Wi l l ard Thorpe (ed. ), The Lives of Eightem
from Pri nceton (Pri nceton, New Jersey: Pri nceton Uni versi ty Press, 1946), pp. 141-42.
Who Taught the Lawyers?
Wi l l i am Bl ackstones Commentaries on the Laws of England was pub-
l i shed i n 1765. Al most i mmedi atel y, i t became the standard textbook
for apprenti ces i n l aw i n the Ameri can col oni es. I t i s occasi onal l y re-
ferred to i n Ameri can hi story textbooks, but i t i s sel dom read today.
I n retrospect, i t seems strange that we shoul d i denti fy hi m as the
teacher of Ameri can col oni al l awyers. He was a staunch defender of
the absol ute judi ci al sover ei gnty of Par l i ament; any l aw that was
physi cal l y possi bl e for Parl i ament to enforce was val i d l aw, he i n-
si sted. I n shor t, he deni ed hi s other oper ati ng pr esupposi ti on: the
bi ndi ng authori ty of natural l aw. Ameri cans pai d l ess and l ess atten-
ti on to thi s aspect of Bl ackstones theor i es as the Revol uti on ap-
proached and then broke out. They took what they l i ked from hi s
system and i gnored the rest.
To answer the questi on, I n whose author i ty di d the Fr amer s
act ? we need fi rst to go to Bl ackstone. The Commentaries pr ovi de an
offi ci al answer, yet one whi ch hi des a far more i mportant cl ue as to
the nature of the Consti tuti onal covenant and i ts true author. I n one
of the few passages comprehensi bl e to readers who are not i nti matel y
fami l i ar wi th the i ntri caci es of the Engl i sh common l aw up to 1765,
Bl ackstone wr ote:
Thi s l aw of nature, bei ng co-eval wi th manki nd and di ctated by God
hi msel f, i s of course superi or i n obl i gati on to any other. I t i s bi ndi ng over al l
the gl obe, i n al l countri es, and at al l ti mes: no human l aws are of any-val i d-
i t y, i f contrary to thi s; and such of them as are val i d deri ve al l thei r force,
and al l thei r authori ty, medi atel y or i mmedi atel y, from thi s ori gi nal .
But i n order to appl y thi s to the parti cul ar exi genci es of each i ndi vi dual ,
i t i s sti l l necessary to have recourse to reason; whose offi ce i t i s to di scover,
as was before observed, what the l aw of nature di rects i n every ci rcum-
stance of l i fe; by consi deri ng, what method wi l l tend the most effectual l y to
our own substanti al happi ness. 14
Bl ackstone sai d that he bel i eved i n a l i teral ethi cal fal l of a l i teral
man. The fal l of man had corrupted human reason. And i f our rea-
son were al ways, as i n our fi rst ancestor before hi s transgressi on,
14. Wi l l i am Bl ackstone, Commentari es on the Laws of England, 4 vol s. (Chi cago:
Uni versi ty of Chi cago Press, [1765] 1979), 1, The Rights of Persons, p. 41. Thi s i s a fac-
si mi l e reproducti on of the fi rst edi ti on. Thi s set was fi rst pri nted i n the Ameri can
col oni es i n 1771.
cl ear and per fect, unr uffl ed by passi ons, uncl ouded by pr ejudi ce,
uni mpai red by di sease or i ntemperance, the task woul d be pl easant
and easy; we shoul d need no other gui de but thi s. But every man
now fi nds the contrary i n hi s own experi ence; that hi s reason i s cor-
rupt, and hi s understandi ng ful l of i gnorance and error. 15 Ther e-
fore, God gave us revel ati on regardi ng Hi s l aw i n the Bi bl e. The
doctri nes thus del i vered we cal l the reveal ed or di vi ne l aw, and they
are to be found onl y i n the hol y scri ptures . 16
He went so far as to argue that the reveal ed l aw i s (humanl y
speaki ng) of i nfi ni tel y more authori ty than what we general l y cal l the
natural l aw. He based thi s concl usi on on the weakness of human
reason to understand the natural l aw. Reveal ed l aw i s more certai n.
I f we coul d be as certai n of the l atter as we are of the former, both
woul d have an equal authori ty; but, ti l l then, they can never be put
i n any competi ti on together. 17
Undermining Biblical Law
Havi ng sai d thi s, he then spent four vol umes descri bi ng Engl i sh
common l aw wi th onl y a few footnote references to the Bi bl e. I n the
fi rst three vol umes, runni ng al most 500 pages each, each has one
footnote reference to the Bi bl e. The fourth vol ume, on cri mi nal l aw
(Public Wrongs), has ten references. Not one of them was taken by
Bl ackstone as authori tati ve for ci vi l l aw; they were seen merel y as
hi stor i cal exampl es. Ther e i s not a si ngl e r efer ence to Bi bl e,
Moses, or Revel ati on i n the sets i ndex.
How coul d thi s be i f he was persuaded that bi bl i cal l aw and natu-
ral l aw are the same, but wi th bi bl i cal l aw so much cl earer to us?
Bl ackstones pr el i mi nar y r emar ks wer e commonpl aces for the er a.
Engl i shmen commonl y ti pped the bri ms of thei r epi stemol ogi cal caps
to God and the Bi bl e, but they di d not take off thei r caps i n the presence
of God. They pursued thei r academi c speci al ti es just as Chri sti ans
do today: wi th no systemati c study of what bi bl i cal l aw speci fi cal l y
reveal s regardi ng those di sci pl i nes. I t was consi dered suffi ci ent for
Bl ackstone to have formal l y equated bi bl i cal l aw wi th natural l aw.
Havi ng done so, he coul d then safel y i gnor e bi bl i cal l aw.
Thi s common equati on of bi bl i cal l aw wi th natural l aw faced two
monumental probl ems i n the ei ghteenth century: 1) the conti nui ng
15. I dem.
16. I bid., I , p. 42.
17. I dan.
The Theological Ortgins of the US. Constitution 323
negati ve l egacy of the Engl i sh Ci vi l War, 1640-60, i n whi ch the vari -
ous Ghri sti an churches and sects had fai l ed to agree on much of any-
thi ng, a soci al and pol i ti cal experi ment whi ch ended wi th the resto-
r ati on of Char l es I I ; 2) the i ntel l ectual l egacy of I saac Newton,
whi ch had cr eated a bl i ndi ng i l l usi on of the near -per fecti bi l i ty of
reasons abi l i ty to di scern the perfect l aws of nature i n the physi cal
worl d, and whi ch therefore hel d out hope that thi s coul d al so be ac-
compl i shed i n the moral and soci al real ms. 1s Thi s dual l egacy i ndi -
cated that bi bl i cal revel ati on or at l east mens understandi ng of
that revel ati on was far l ess certai n as a gui de to human acti on than
unai ded, unr egener ate r eason. Bi bl i cal hi gher cr i ti ci sm was a cen-
tur y ol d i n Engl i sh r el i gi ous thought and pol i ti cs by the ti me
Bl ackstone wrote hi s Commentaries. 19 Thus, by the ti me that the Com-
mentanes appeared, the foundati on of hi s defense of the superi ori ty of
bi bl i cal l aw to natural l aw the greater cl ari ty of bi bl i cal revel ati on
compared to reasdms percepti on of natural l aw was not bel i eved by
most men who cal l ed themsel ves educated.
Thi s rai ses another questi on: Was Bl ackstone i n fact del i beratel y
l yi ng? I n a percepti ve essay by Davi d Berman, we l earn of a strategy
that had been i n use for over al most a century: combatti ng a posi ti on
by supporti ng i t wi th arguments that are so weak that they i n fact
prove the opposi te. Thi s was a tacti c used by those who di d not be-
l i eve i n i mmortal i ty to promote thei r skepti ci sm. Berman makes a
very shrewd obser vati on r egar di ng academi c hi stor i ans and schol -
ars: Most of us do not l i ke l i ars or l yi ng; nor are we i ncl i ned to ac-
cept conspi racy theori es or expl anati ons that postul ate secret codes
or cabal s. These aversi ons may expl ai n why the art of theol ogi cal
l yi ng has been so general l y i gnored. . . . 2 There i s at l east reason-
abl e suspi ci on that Bl ackstone was l yi ng; i f he was not, then he was
nai ve beyond descri pti on, for hi s l ame defense of bi bl i cal revel ati on
greatl y assi sted the pol i ti cal tri umph of the enemi es of Chri sti ani ty
i n the Ameri can col oni es.
18. Loui s I . Bredvol d, The Brave New World of the Enlightenment (Ann Arbor: Uni -
versi ty of Mi chi gan Press, 1961).
19. Henni ng Graf Reventl ow, The Authonty of the Bible and the Rise of the Modern
World (London: SCM Press, [1980] 1984; Phi l adel phi a: Fortress Press, 1985). Thi s
negl ected book i s a gol d mi ne of i nformati on on Engl i sh pol i ti cal phi l osophy through
the mi d-ei ghteenth century.
20. Davi d Berman, Dei sm, I mmortal i ty, and the Art of Theol ogi cal Lyi ng, i n
J. A. Leo Lemay (cd.), Deism, Ma.romy, and the Enlightenment (Newar k, New Jer sey:
Uni versi ty of Del aware Press, 1987), p. 61.
By 1765, the Newtoni an vi ew of the authori ty of uni versal reason
had l ong-si nce transformed Engl i sh pol i ti cal thought .21 I n thi s chap-
ter, we wi l l expl ore the background of thi s monumental i ntel l ectual
and moral transformati on. Thi s survey i s necessary, i n order to an-
swer thi s questi on:
The U.S. Consti tuti on: Chri sti an or Secul ar ?
The Consti tuti on of the Uni ted States i s a uni que document. I t
has served as the i ntegrati ng l egal framework for the Uni ted States
for two centur i es. Peopl e ar ound the wor l d gi ve l i p ser vi ce to i ts
greatness, al though no other nati on operates i n terms of a consti tu-
ti on model ed after the U.S. Consti tuti on. The conser vati ve col um-
ni st Ri char d Greni er i s cor r ect: I t has never occur r ed to most
Amer i cans that thei r Republ i c the fi rst democrati c state on a na-
ti onal scal e adopted a Consti tuti on that has been taken seri ousl y as
an endur i ng model by nobody. I sai d, nobody.zz Whi l e other na-
ti ons have someti mes attempted to r ewr i te thei r nati onal gover n-
ments i n ter ms of i t, some coup comes, or some r evol uti on, and
sweeps away any traces of the i mported document. The Consti tuti on
apparentl y cannot be successful l y exported. I t was the product of a
uni que set of hi stori cal ci rcumstances that ~annot be dupl i cated, ci r-
cumstances so fundamental to the comi ng of the Consti tuti on that
wi thout them, the document cannot oper ate successful l y.
I t i s not surpri si ng that many present-day rel i gi ous and pol i ti cal
groups i n the Uni ted States want to take credi t for i t. Over a century
ago, i n the mi dst of the Ci vi l War, B. F. Morri s wrote hi s massi ve
(but unfor tunatel y unfootnoted) Christian Lye and Character of the Civil
I nstitutions of the United States (1864). He made a cogent case for the
Chri sti an foundati ons of Ameri can Consti tuti onal hi story. A si mi l ar
theme has been pur sued by Ver na Hal l and Rosal i e Sl ater i n thei r
Christian HistoT of the Constitution seri es of repri nted pri mary source
documents and extracts from uncopyri ghted l ate ni neteenth-century
pol i ti cal l y conservati ve humani st hi story textbooks.
21. I am not ar gui ng that Engl i shmen tr usted a pri ori r eason as the sol e gui de to
human i nsti tuti ons; they al so pl aced great wei ght on hi stori cal experi ence. My poi nt
i s onl y that they pl aced al most zero practi cal wei ght on Ol d Testament l aw and ex-
peri ence, and when they ci ted the Ol d Testament, they di d so because i t was merel y
one hi stor i cal sour ce among many.
22. Ri chard Greni er, A system out of bal ance? Washington Times (Jul y 13, 1987).
I do not agree wi th Greni ers openi ng l i nes: I m ti red of the U.S. Consti tuti on.
What has i t done for me l atel y?
J erusalem or Mythological Rome?
Yet thi s vi ew of the Consti tuti on has al ways had i ts chal l engers,
for good reasons. There was l i ttl e menti on of theol ogy and eccl esi asti -
cal i nfl uences i n the common textbook hi stori es of Ameri ca unti l the
l ate 1930s. Thi s change came about l argel y as a resul t of Harvards
Perry Mi l l er and hi s student Edmund Morgan, who taught hi story
at Yal e. Mi l l er rehabi l i tated the Puri tans and earl y Ameri can Prot-
estant rel i gi ous i deas, begi nni ng i n the 1930s, and Morgan carri ed
on thi s tradi ti on.
The fact remai ns, however, that John Locke, who was a cauti ous
Tri ni tari an, made no menti on of Chri sti ani ty i n presenti ng the case
for pol i ti cal l i berty i n hi s Second Treatise of Government (publ i shed i n
1690; wri tten around 1682). 23 I t was to the Second Treatise that l i terate
defenders of Engl i sh l i berti es i n the Ameri can col oni es (but onl y
rarel y i n Whi g Engl and) 24 appeal ed i n the mi d-ei ghteenth century,
not to hi s Paraphrase and Notes on tb Epistles of St. Paul, whi ch were non-
pol i ti cal , z5 or hi s book, wri tten i n the l ast years of hi s l i fe, when he
returned openl y to Chri sti ani ty, Tk Reasonublenas of Chn~tiani@ (1695). 2b
We fi nd few references to the Chri sti an rel i gi on i n Catos Letters
and The I ndependent Whig, the anti cl eri cal 27 and l i bertari an Engl i sh
newspapers of the 1720s that became popul ar readi ng i n the col oni es
i n the 17 70s, accordi ng to John Adams 28 and patri ot hi stori an Davi d
Ramsey. 29 At best, the bi bl i cal el ement i n Whi # pol i ti cal theory
23. The standard edi ti on i s Peter Lasl etts: Locke, Two Treatises of Gover nment
(New York: Cambri dge Uni versi ty Press, 1963; Mentor, 1965).
24. Margaret Jacob, The Radical Enlightenment: Pantheists, Freemasons and Re@b-
l i cans (London: George Al l en & Unwi n, 1981), p. 85. Whi gs are revol uti onari es be-
fore the success of thei r revol uti ons; not afterwards. Thi s was as true after 1789 as
after 1689.
25. These manuscr i pts wer e publ i shed posthumousl y i n 1704-7, and have been
i gnored by hi stori ans: A Paraphrase and Notes on the Eptitles of St. Paul (5th ed.; Lon-
don, 1751). Locke, i n di scussi ng chapter 2 of Gal ati ans, affi rms both Gods revel a-
ti on to Paul and the mi racl es Paul performed (p. 10, note 2). He speaks of the Hol y
Ghost and Hi s bestowal of the offi ce of apostl e on Peter and Paul , whereby they
were enabl ed to do Mi racl es for the Confi rmati on of thei r Doctri ne (p. 14, note 8).
26. For a detai l ed anal ysi s of Lockes epi stemol ogy, theol ogy, and pol i ti cal theory,
see Reventl ow, Authori~ of the Bible, pp. 243-85.
27. On the anti cl eri cal i sm of The I ndependent Wh~, see Reventl ow, ibid., pp. 330-31.
28. Davi d L. Jacobson (cd.), Tl u English Libertarian Hmtage (I ndi anapol i s, I ndi ana:
Bobbs-Merri l l , 1965). Adams remark i s reproduced i n the I ntroducti on, p. xvi i .
29. Davi d Ramsey, Hi stoy of the United States (1816), I ; extract i n Verna M. Hal l
(cd.), The Chrixtian Histoy of the American Revolution: Coruider and Ponakr (San Fr an-
ci sco: Foundati on for Ameri can Chri sti an Educati on, 1976), p. 435.
duri ng the Ameri can Revol uti on i s uncl ear. 30 I f one were to trace the
pol i ti cal thought of John Adams back to anyone, i t woul d have to be
James Barri ngton, the author of The Commonwealth of Oceana (1656),
a secul ar, ari stocrati c document that i s concerned wi th questi ons of
pr oper ty and pol i ti cal power , not cov enants and domi ni on. 31
Barri ngton hi msel f was essenti al l y a panthei st. 32 He expl ai ned the
Puri tan confl i ct of the Engl i sh Ci vi l War of the 1640s i n terms of so-
ci al forces, not r el i gi on, a secul ar tradi ti on of hi stori ography to
whi ch Marxi st hi stori an Chri stopher Hi l l appeal s. 33 The textbook
hi stori es of the Ameri can Revol uti on from the earl i est days have
been far cl oser to Barri ngtons vi ew of hi stori cal causati on than to
R. J. Rushdoonys.34
We do not fi nd authori tati ve references to the Bi bl e or Church
hi story i n ei ther The Federalist Papers or the Anti federal i st tr acts.
Adri enne Kochs compi l ati on of pri mary source documents, The
American Enlightenment, i s not mythol ogi cal , even though i t i s sel f-
consci ousl y sel ecti ve. 35 Ther e was an Amer i can Enl i ghtenment,
though subdued i n i ts hosti l i ty to Chri sti ani ty. 36 Jefferson, after al l ,
kept hi dden hi s cut-up, re-pasted New Testament, purged of the mi -
r acul ous and super natur al ; he knew what hi s consti tuents woul d
have thought of such a theol ogy.37 He refused to publ i sh thi s book,
he tol d hi s fri end, Chri sti an physi ci an Benjami n Rush, because he
was averse to the communi cati on of my rel i gi ous tenets to the pub-
30. Mark A. Nel l , The Bi bl e i n Revol uti onary Ameri ca, i n James Turner John-
son (cd. ), The Bible in Anwrscan Law, Politics, and Political Rhetoric (Phi l adel phi a: For-
tress Press, 1985), pp. 43-48.
31. Zol tan Harasti , J ohn Adams and the Prophets of Progress (New York: Grosset and
Durdap, [1952] 1964), pp. 34-35.
32. Jacob, Radical Enlightenment, p. 80, ci ti ng W. C. Di amond, Natural Phi l oso-
phy i n Barri ngtons Pol i ti cal Thought, J ournal of the Hirtoy of Philosophy, XVI
(1978), pp. 387-98.
33. Chri stopher Hi l l , Puritanism and Revolution: Studies in I nterpretation of the English
Resolution of the 17th CentuV (New York: Sehocken, [1958] 1964), p. 5.
34. For my cri ti que of Rushdoonys vi ew of the U. S. Consti tuti on, see Appendi x
B: Rushdoony on the Consti tuti on.
35. Adr i enne Koch (cd. ), The American Enlightennwnt: The Shaping of the Ametican
Experiment and a Free Sociep (New York: Brazi l l er, 1965). See al so Koch, Power, Morals,
and the Founding Fathem: Essays in the I nt~pretation of the American Enlightenment (I thaca,
New York: Cornel l Uni versi ty Press, 1961).
36. Henry F. May, The Enlightenment in Anwrica (New York: Oxford Uni versi ty
Press, 1976).
37. The Life and Morals of J esus of Nasareth Extracted textw+ from the Gospels.
Repri nted as An Ammcan Christian Bible Extracted by Thomas J@r son (Rochester ,
Washi ngton: Soverei gn Press, 1982). .
l i e, because i t woul d countenance the pr esumpti on of those who
have endeavored to draw them before that tri bunal , and to seduce
publ i c opi ni on to erect i tsel f i nto that i nquest over the ri ghts of con-
sci ence, whi ch the l aws have so justl y proscri bed.3s That i s, i f word
got out to the Ameri can voters, who were overwhel mi ngl y Chri sti an
i n thei r vi ews, regardi ng what he real l y bel i eved about rel i gi on, he
and hi s party mi ght l ose the next el ecti on, despi te a generati on of
systemati c pl anni ng by hi m and hi s Dei sti c Vi rgi ni a associ ates to get
Chri sti ani ty removed from the pol i ti cal arena i n both Vi rgi ni a and
i n nati onal el ecti ons. 39 (The book was not made publ i c unti l 1902. I n
1904, the 57th Congr ess r epr i nted 9,000 copi es, 3,000 for use by
Senators and 6,000 for the House. 40 I t was a very di fferent Ameri ca
i n 1904. )
The Framers rhetori cal l y appeal ed back to Roman l aw and cl as-
si cal pol i ti cal model s i n thei r defense of the Consti tuti on. Madi son,
Jay, and Hami l ton used the Roman name Publ i us i n si gni ng the
Federalist Papers, and Publ i us was a promi nent founder of the Roman
Republ i c. The Anti feder al i sts r esponded wi th pseudo-Roman
names. Yet both groups were heavi l y dependent on l ate seventeenth-
century pol i ti cal phi l osophy, as wel l as on earl y ei ghteenth-century
Whi g republ i cani sm al though perhaps not so dependent as was
thought i n the 1960s and 1970s.11 They shared a common uni verse
of pol i ti cal di scourse, and Tri ni tari an Chri sti ani ty was what both
si des were attempti ng to downpl ay. The pol i ti cal di scourse of the age
was domi nated by cl assi cal al l usi ons, not by Hebrai c ones. The cur-
ri cul a of the col l eges at Oxford and Cambri dge had al ways been
grounded on the i deal of thorough knowl edge of the pagan cl assi cs,
and even the Puri tans, whi l e al ways offi ci al l y skepti cal about such
trai ni ng, and al ways fi l l ed wi th fear and trembl i ng about i ts threat to
the soul , were forced to submi t thei r mi ni steri al candi dates and the
sons of the gentry and merchants to the cl assroom ri gors of the hu-
mani sts, generati on after generati on. AZ They di d not succeed i n
38. Ci ted by Russel l Ki rk, The Roots of Arrwrican Order (LaSal l e, I l l i noi s: Open
Court, 1974), pp. 342-43.
39. I bid. , p. 343.
40. I ntroducti on, American Chritian Bible, p. 4.
41. Other i mportant themes are l i beral i sm, i ndi vi dual i sm, and capi tal i sm. See
Joyce Appl eby, Capitalism and the New Social Order (New York: New York Uni versi ty
Press, 1984); Robert E. Shal hope, Republ i cani sm and Earl y Ameri can Hi stori o-
graphy, William and Ma~ @artn~, 3rd ser., XXXI X (Apri l 1982), pp. 334-56.
42. John Mor gan, God~ Learning: Puritan Attitudes towards Reason, Learntng, and
Education, 1560-1640 (New York: Cambri dge Uni versi ty Press, 1986).
changi ng the curri cul a of the uni versi ti es duri ng the Puri tan Revol u-
ti on, and after that, Puri tans had no possi bi l i ty of doi ng so.
The cl assi cal educati onal model of Oxford and Cambri dge di d i ts
steady work of secul ari zati on i n the Engl i sh-speaki ng worl d, even i n
Puri tan Harvard and Yal e. Decade by decade, the two uni versi ti es
moved toward epi stemol ogi cal Uni tari ani sm, and i n the earl y ni ne-
teenth century, offi ci al Uni tari ani sm tri umphed. 43 But thi s commi t-
ment to the cl assi cs was steadi l y tempered, not by Chri sti ani ty, but
by Newtoni an sci ence. I n the second hal f of the seventeenth cen-
tury, wri tes Morgan, as the i mpact of Hobbes, Locke, and Newton
i l l ustrates, men were seeki ng knowl edge of a new fi xi ty i n thei r l i ves
and i n the worl d around them .*
44
I n the ei ghteenth, thi s quest for
fi xi ty accel erated. The col l ege curri cul a di d not change, but the
spi ri t and moti vati on of educated men di d. What we must under-
stand i s that the U.S. Consti tuti on i s i n l arge part a product of a rhe-
torical Enl i ghtenment appeal back to the Greco-Roman worl d, yet i t
was i n fact somethi ng qui te modern: speci fi cal l y, a reacti on agai nst
the Puri tani sm of ,both seventeenth-century Ameri can col oni al i sm
and the Puri tani sm of the Cromwel l i an revol uti on of 1640-60.
The questi on rai sed by Professor Pangl e i s l egi ti mate: To what
extent was thi s verbal appeal back to Rome rhetori cal ? He bel i eves,
as I do, that the Framers were essenti al l y moderns rather than an-
ci ents . They were far more i nfl uenced by l ate seventeenth-century
soci al thought than by the events of Roman hi story, l et al one cl assi -
cal pol i ti cal phi l osophy, whi ch had l i ttl e i mpact on them except i n a
negati ve sense. General l y speaki ng, the anci ents, i n contrast to the
Ameri can Founders, appear to pl ace consi derabl y l ess emphasi s on
protecti ng i ndi vi dual s and thei r ri ghts ri ghts to pri vate property
and fami l y safety, to property, to freedom of rel i gi on, and to the pur-
sui t of happi ness. 4
5
Al so, he argues 1,bel i eve correctl y that the
cl assi cal phi l osophers put vi rtue above fraterni ty and l i berty.4G The
Framers, whi l e they di scussed the need for vi rtue and rel i gi on
al ways careful l y undefi ned di d so as defenders of pol i ti cal and eco-
43. Dani el Wal ker Howe, The Unitarian Conscience: Harvard Moral Philosoph~
180.5-1861 (Mi ddl etown, Connecti cut: Wesl eyan Uni versi ty Press, [1970] 1988).
44, Morgan, God~ Learning, p. 308.
45. Thomas L. Pangl e, The Spirit of Modern Republicanism: The Moral Vision of the
Arnaican Founding Fathem and the Philosophy of Loch (Chi cago: Uni versi ty of Chi cago
Press, 1988), p. 53.
46. I bid., p. 54.
The Theological Origins of the L? S. Constitution 329
nomi c freedom. Vi rtue was therefore instrumental for them a means
of achi evi ng soci al stabi l i ty and progress, l i berty and securi ty. 47
I contend i n thi s book that thi s was al so thei r vi ew of rel i gi on. I n
thi s, the y were not fundamental l y di fferent i n pri nci pl e from
Robespi erre, who establ i shed a formal ci vi c rel i gi on of nature and
reason i n the mi dst of the Terror i n 1794. De-Chri sti ani zati on was
moral l y debi l i tati ng, Robespi erre concl uded; i t had to be fol l owed
by the establ i shment of a new ci vi c rel i gi on. 48 He knew that men
needed to bel i eve i n Gods sancti ons i n order to keep them obedi ent.
Tal mon i denti fi es thi s i mpul se as cosmi c pragmati sm.4g The major
fi gures among the Framers were wi ser men than Robespi erre, more
i nfl uenced by tradi ti onal Chri sti ani ty, but they were Enl i ghtenment
men to the core; thei r veneer and thei r consti tuenci es were di fferent
from those of the French Revol uti onari es, but not thei r theol ogy.
Thei r rel i gi on was ci vi c rel i gi on. The di fference i s, they saw ci vi c re-
l i gi on as a decentral i zed, i ndi vi dual matter rather than as a State
affai r; i t was to ai d the nati onal government but not be part of the
nati onal government. Uni tari an John Adams wrote i n hi s autobi o-
graphy, presumabl y for hi msel f and not the el ectorate:
One great advantage of the Chri sti an rel i gi on i s that i t bri ngs the great
pri nci pl e of the l aw of nature and nati ons, Love your nei ghbour as yoursel f,
and do to others as you woul d that others shoul d do to you, to the knowl -
edge, bel i ef and venerati on of the whol e peopl e. Chi l dren, servants, women
and men ar e al l professors i n the sci ence of publ i c as wel l as pri vate moral -
i ty. No other i nsti tuti on for educati on, no ki nd of pol i ti cal di sci pl i ne, coul d
di ffuse thi s ki nd of necessary i nformati on, so uni versal l y among al l ranks
and descri pti ons of ci ti zens. The duti es and ri ghts of the man and the ci ti -
zen are thus taught, from earl y i nfancy to every creature. The sancti ons of
a future l i fe are thus added to the observance of ci vi l and pol i ti cal as wel l as
domesti c and pri vate duti es. Prudence, justi ce, temperance and forti tude,
are thus taught to be the means and condi ti ons of future as wel l as present
happi ness. so
Not a word about the atonement; not a word about the sacraments.
The whol e passage i s geared to the needs of publ i c moral i ty. The
47. I bid., pp. 72-73.
48. R. R. Pal mer, Twel ve Who Ruled: The Yur of the Twor in the French Revolution
(Pri nceton, New Jersey: Pri nceton Uni versi ty Press, 1941), pp. 323-26.
49. J. L. Tal mon, The Ortgins of Totalitarian Democracy (New York: Praeger, 1960),
p. 148.
50. L. H. Butterfi el d, et al., (eels.), The Diay and Autobiography of J ohn Adams, 4
vol s. (Cambri dge, Massachusetts: Harvard Uni versi ty Press, 1962), I I I , pp. 240-41.
churches are vi ewed as effecti ve educati onal i nsti tuti ons; no other i n-
sti tuti on coul d accompl i sh thi s task more effecti vel y. Hence, Chri sti -
ani ty i s a good thi ng soci al l y. The whol e perspecti ve i s ci vi c: what i s
good for the churches i s good for the nati on. Adams vi ew i s wi th us
sti l l ; Robespi erres di d not survi ve 1794.
The Ri ght Wi ng of the Enl i ghtenment
I n my vi ew, i t i s Rushdoonys greatest si ngl e hi stori ographi cal er-
ror that he has al ways downpl ayed the Enl i ghtenment i nfl uence on
ei ghteenth-century Ameri can hi story. 51 At the heart of the Enl i ght-
enments ri ght-wi ng branch phi l osophi cal l y (the Scotti sh Enl i ghten-
ment) 52 and al so i ts l eft-wi ng branch (the French #.i l ow@es, but
above al l Rousseau) were the doctri nes of natural l aw and natural
ri ghts. Thi s commi tment to natural l aw, i n fact, was what made both
branches part of the same movement. Thei r mai n di fferences were
hi stori cal : di fferent enemi es. I t woul d not be far from wrong to sum-
mari ze the ori gi ns of the two wi ngs as fol l ows:
The Scotti sh Enl i ghtenment phi l osophy was devel oped by Presby-
teri ans who had abandoned Chri sti an orthodoxy, but who mai ntai ned
certai n outward forms of bel i ef by substi tuti ng a new humani sti c
theory of contracts for the Cal vi ni sti c theory of covenants. 53 Con-
ti nental Enl i ghtenment phi l osophy was devel oped by graduates of
Roman Cathol i c i nsti tuti ons who had abandoned Chri sti ani ty al to-
gether , and who substi tuted the State for the Chur ch as the agency of
soci al sal vati on. 54
51. Rushdoony, This I ndependent Republic, p. 4. See Appendi x B: Rushdoony on
the Consti tuti on, bel ow.
52. I woul d cal l the earl y seventeenth-century Angl i can-Whi g movement conser-
vati ve, but i t di d not devel op a systemati c moral phi l osophy and pol i ti cal phi l osophy
comparabl e i n i nterpreti ve power to that produced by the Scotti sh Enl i ghtenment.
53. Adam Ferguson (1723-1816), a founder of the Scotti sh Enl i ghtenment tradi -
ti on, and a cl ose fri end of skepti c Davi d Hume, was al so an ordai ned mi ni ster i n the
Church of Scotl and and had been chapl ai n to the Bl ack Watch regi ment. He taught
natural phi l osophy (sci ence) at the Uni versi ty of Edi nburgh, and l ater moral phi -
l osophy, a chai r he resi gned i n 1785, to be repl aced by Dugal d Stewart. Hi s l ast
words were: There i s another worl d . Dictionay of Nati onal Biography (Oxford Uni -
versi ty Press, 1921-22), vol . 6, pp. 1200-4. F. A. Hayek regards hi s work as cruci al to
hi s own economi c worl dvi ew.
54. The best exampl e i s Adam Wei shaupt, founder of the Bavari an I l l umi nate,
who was for a ti me professor of canon l aw at the Uni versi ty of I ngol dstadt. Another
exampl e i s Robespi erre, who had been a pri ze-wi nni ng student at Loui s-l e-Grand
col l ege of the Uni versi ty of Pari s. Otto Scott, Robespierw: The Vbice of Virtue (New
York: Mason/Charter, 1974), pp. 18-19. Di stri buted by Ross House Books,
Val l eci to, Cal i forni a.
The Theological Ori gi ns of the 1% S. Constitution 331
The former were cl oset hereti cs; the l atter were open apostates. The
former were phi l osophi cal nomi nal i st; the l atter were phi l osophi cal
real i sts. The former were methodol ogi cal i ndi vi dual i sts; the l atter
were methodol ogi cal col l ecti vi sts. The former saw the natural de-
vel opment of soci ety as the unpl anned, evol uti onary outcome of vol -
untary l egal contracts among men, contracts capabl e of revi si on; the
l atter saw soci ety as a vol untary metaphysi cal contract that cannot
subsequentl y be broken after consummati on, and whi ch i s i ncarnate
i n the State. Both groups sought to establ i sh a new order of the ages
by substi tuti ng thei r respecti ve forms of the covenant for the bi bl i cal
forms.
The Commonwealthrmm
Bai l yn traces the i deol ogi cal ori gi ns of the Ameri can Revol uti on
to fi ve sources: cl assi cal anti qui ty, especi al l y Rome; the wri ti ngs of
Enl i ghtenment rati onal i sm Locke, Rousseau, Vol tai re, Groti us,
Montesqui eu, Vattel , Pufendorf, Baccari a; Engl i sh common l aw;
Puri tan covenant theol ogy; and most i mportant, the Ol d Whi gs of
the earl y ei ghteenth century. 55 These were the Commonweal th-
men, the i ntel l ectual hei rs of those di ssenti ng rel i gi ous and human-
i st groups that fi rst made thei r appearance duri ng the Engl i sh Ci vi l
War of 1640-60.56
The Commonweal thmen appeal ed back to the tradi ti on of rel i -
gi ous tol erati on that had been establ i shed by Ol i ver Cromwel l dur-
i ng the Puri tan Revol uti on. Hi s New Model Army was fi l l ed wi th
di ssenters, and Cromwel l gave them what they wanted. 57 He
created a Tri ni tari an ci vi l government i n whi ch al l Protestant
churches woul d have equal access pol i ti cal l y, and the state woul d be
gui ded by the common l i ght of Chri sti ani ty.5s (I cal l thi s Athana-
55. Bernard Bai l yn, The I deological Origim of the American Revolution (Cambri dge,
Massachusetts: Bel knap Press of Harvard Uni versi ty Press, 1967), ch. 2.
56. A detai l ed study of thei r movement i s found i n Carol i ne Robbi ns, The E~htemth-
CentuT Comrnonwealthman (Cambri dge, Massachusetts: Harvard Uni versi ty Press,
1959).
57. Chri stopher Hi l l , The World Turned U@i& Down: Radical I deas During the Eng-
lish Revolution (New York: Vi ki ng, 1972).
58. Ni chol s, John Wi therspoon,
I @. ci t., p. 172. He argues that thi s was Wi ther-
spoons vi ew, not Roger Wi l l i ams secul ari zed versi on. There i s nothi ng i n the wri t-
i ngs or l i fe of Wi therspoon that I have seen that woul d persuade me of Ni chol s
thesi s. Wi therspoon echoed Locke, and Lockes theory was basi cal l y Wi l l i ams
theory with Dei sti c modi fi cati ons: a natural -l aw based pol i ti cal pol ythei sm i n the
name of an undefi ned Di vi ne Agent. He di d not refer to Cromwel l .
si an pl ural i sm .)59 Thi s outraged the Presbyteri ans, who met i n the
mi d-1640s to hammer out the Westmi nster Confessi on of Fai th and
i ts catechi sms. I t outraged Presbyteri an Thomas Edwards, whose
60-page treati se tel l s the story: Grangraena; o~ a Catalogue and DiscoueV
of many of the Errors, Heresies, Blasphemies, and Pernicious Practices of the
Sectaries OJ this Time (1645). Hi s l i st i ncl uded 16 hereti cal sects: I nde-
pendents, Browni sts (i . e., Pi l gri ms), Mi l l enari es, anti nomi ans,
Anabapti si sts, Armi ni ans, l i berti nes, fami l i sts, enthusi asts, seekers,
perfecti oni sts, soci ni ans, Ari ans, anti tri ni tari ans, anti scri turi sts,
and skepti cs. o
The spi ri tual hei rs of these groups became the Whi g Common-
weal thmen. For the most part, thei r most promi nent fi gures were
non-Tri ni tari an i n thei r theol ogy, uni nterested i n questi ons of theol -
ogy and eccl esi ol ogy except i nsofar as these questi ons i n any way i n-
terfered wi th pol i ti cal l i berty as they saw i t. Thei r i nfl uence i n the
col oni es was al l -pervasi ve. Wri tes Bai l yn: The col oni sts i denti fi ed
themsel ves wi th these seventeenth-century heroes of l i berty: but they
fel t cl oser to the earl y ei ghteenth-century wri ters who modi fi ed and
enl arged thi s earl i er body of i deas, fused i t i nto a whol e wi th other,
contemporary strai ns of thought, and, above al l , appl i ed i t to the
probl ems of ei ghteenth-century Engl i sh pol i ti cs. . . . But more than
any other si ngl e group of wri ters they shaped the mi nd of the Ameri -
can Revol uti onary generati on .61 Some were l i beral (l ati tudi nari an)
Angl i cans; some were non-rel i gi ous; most were members of noncon-
formi st churches. Thei r l eaders i ncl uded Joseph Pri estl ey, the chemi st
and theol ogi an, and hi s fri end Ri chard Pri ce, the economi st and
theol ogi an, who were both hosti l e to Tri ni tari ani sm. Thei r i nfl uence
i n Ameri ca i ncreased as anti -Engl i sh acti vi ti es escal ated after 1770.
These were the radi cal republ i cans. Thei r i ntel l ectual roots can be
traced back to Barri ngton. New Left hi stori an Staughton Lynd
summari zes the Di ssenters vi ews:
Parti ci pati on i n radi cal Protestant church l i fe cri ti cal l y i nfl uenced the Di s-
senters i deas. Further, thei r refusal to swear prescrl %ed rel i gi ous oaths ex-
cl uded them from pol i ti cal offi ce and uni versi ty empl oyment. . , . From
1750 through the Ameri can Revol uti on the Di ssenters poured forth books
59. See Chapter 12.
60. Phi l i p Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols. (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan:
Baker Book House, [1877] 1977), I , p. 797n.
61. Bai l yn, I deological Origins, p. 35.
and pamphl ets whi ch ci ted one another profusel y . . . and cumul ati vel y
expounded a common doctri ne. Thi s was the doctri ne of natural l aw, made
by God, evi dent to every man, consonant wi th the best parts of the tradi -
ti onal l aw of Engl and but superi or to any l aw or government whi ch was ar-
bi trary or unjust. When, on the bri nk of open rebel l i on, Ameri cans needed
an i ntel l ectual resource more potent than the ri ghts of Engl i shmen to justi fy
acti ons so obvi ousl y sedi ti ous as the Boston Tea Party, they turned to the
ri ghts-of-man teachi ng of thei r staunchest Engl i sh supporters. [Wri tes
Cl i nton Rossi ter: ] Not unti l the argument shi fted substanti al l y away from
Engl i sh ri ghts and over to natural justi ce di d Pri ce and Pri estl ey i nfl uence
Ameri can mi nds.6z
Thi s hosti l i ty to rel i gi ous oaths as a requi rement of hol di ng pol i t-
i cal offi ce was basi c to the Di ssenters and Protestant nonconformi sts
general l y, who faced an oath of al l egi ance to the Church of Engl and
and not just to the Tri ni ty.3 Thi s same hosti l i ty l ater fl ared up at the
Consti tuti onal Conventi on, as we shal l see.
The i ntel l ectual basi s of the cruci al al l i ance i n 1787 between di s-
senti ng Protestanti sm and i nci pi ent Uni tari ani sm was the shared
fai th i n natural l aw. Where di d thi s fai th come from? I t shoul d be
cl ear that i t di d not come from Thomas Aqui nas or medi eval scho-
l asti ci sm general l y. The Framers di d not read the schol asti cs, nor
di d many other Protestant thi nkers of the ei ghteenth century. They
were far more l i kel y to read Ren6 Descartes, or summari es of hi s
thought .
The Lure of Geornet~
Descartes vi si on of a l ogi cal , geometri cal uni verse fasci nated
pol i ti cal thi nkers throughout the seventeenth century. Thomas Hob-
bes defense of the States near-absol ute soverei gnty i n Leviathan
(1651) was surel y governed by hi s Cartesi an worl dvi ew: a pol i ti cal
worl d anal yzed i n terms of mathemati cal preci si on. Thi s goal of
mathemati cal preci si on i n the affai rs of men l ong remai ned a basi c
tenet of Conti nental Enl i ghtenment thought, especi al l y i n France. 64
62, Staughton Lynd, I ntellectual Origins of Amai2an Radicalism (New York: Vi nt-
age, 1969), p. 25.
63. The Uni versi ty of London was founded i n 1828 for nonconformi ng church
members. Oxford and Cambri dge were cl osed to them.
64, Bredvol d, Brave New World of the Enlightenment; Margaret C. Jacob, The
Cultural Meaning of the Scient$c Revolution (Phi l adel phi a: Templ e Uni versi ty Press,
1988), ch. 2.
Neverthel ess, more was needed than Descartes mere theoreti cal
asserti ons i n order to make thi s mathemati cal vi si on a part of al l ed-
ucated Engl i shmens thi nki ng. French specul ati on was not suffi ci ent
to persuade these practi cal men of affai rs . What was needed was a
practi cal and seemi ngl y i rrefutabl e demonstrati on of the i nescapabl e
rel ati onshi p between mans ri gorous mathemati cal specul ati ons and
the physi cal operati ons of the external worl d. Thi s was what Si r
I saac Newtons Princifiia gave to manki nd i n 1687. Hi s work was part
of a one-generati on shi ft i n worl dvi ew that transformed European
thi nki ng. Thi s era was the begi nni ng of both rati onal i sm and roman-
ti ci sm, the ei ghteenth centurys i ncarnati on of two si des of autono-
mous mans thi nki ng: rati onal i sm and i rrati onal i sm. 65
I n phi l osophy, the reacti on was panthei sm, especi al l y i n the
works of Spi noza, I n Tri ni tari an rel i gi on, a dual reacti on was evi -
dent wi thi n a decade of Newtons death: the ri se of Armi ni an Meth-
odi sm i n Engl and and the revi val i sm of the Great Awakeni ng i n the
col oni es. I n the col oni al case, the authori ty of the establ i shed
churches over the thi nki ng of the l ai ty, especi al l y i n pol i ti cs, recei ved
a mortal wound from whi ch i t has yet to recover, especi al l y i n Puri -
tan New Engl and. G
I saac Newton: The Trojan Horse
I t was wi th I saac Newton that we can mark the overwhel mi ng
tri umph of Enl i ghtenment fai th i n the Engl i sh-speaki ng worl d.
From 1690 to 1790, we can date a major and nearl y sel f-contai ned i n-
tel l ectual era that l ai d the phi l osophi cal and cul tural foundati ons of
modern athei sm.7 Because of what was done duri ng that century
begun by Newton and ended by the French Revol uti on and al so
because of what Darwi n di d i n 1859, we l i ve i n a cul ture i n whi ch,
65. Paul Hazard, The European Mind, 1680-1715 (New York: Meri di an, [1935]
1964). See Margaret C. Jacob, The cri si s of the European mi nd: Hazard revi si ted,
i n Politics and Culture in Ear~ Modern Eur ope: Essays in Honor of H. G. Koenigsberger,
edi ted by Phyl l i s Mack and Margaret C. JoCob (New York: Cambri dge Uni versi ty
Press, 1987), pp. 251-71. She emphasi zes the growth of panthei sm and mysti ci sm as
a si de-effect of rati onal Newtoni ani sm, an i rrati onal si de of Newtoni ani sm that
Hazard di d not cl earl y recogni ze.
66. Cf. Ri chard L. Bushman, From Puntan to Yankee: Charmter and the Social Order in
Connecticut, 1690-1765 (Cambri dge, Massachusetts: Harvard Uni versi ty Press,
1967), Parts 4 and 5.
67. James Turner, Without God, Without Creed: The Otigim of Unbeli~ in Ammca
(Bal ti more, Maryl and: Johns Hopki ns Uni versi ty Press, 1985), ch. 2.
for the fi rst ti me i n manki nds hi story, bel i ef i n God i s opti onal , a
worl d i n whi ch The opti on of not bel i evi ng has eradi cated God as a
shared basi s of thought and experi ence and reti red hi m to a pri vate
or at best subcul tural rol e. The bul k of modern thought has si mpl y
di spensed wi th God.Gs I t began wi th Newton, of whom Al exander
Pope wrote:
Nature and Natures Laws l ay hi d i n Ni ght.
God sai d, Let Newton be! and Al l was Li ght.
I t was Ameri can Chri sti ans who consented, step by step, to the
transformati on of thi s nati on i nto a theol ogi cal l y pl ural i sti c republ i c.
I t began wi th natural l aw. The Puri tans had been compromi sed to
some degree by natural l aw doctri ne from the begi nni ng, and thi s i n-
fl uence i ncreased after the magi steri al successes of I saac Newton i n
the fi el d of natural phi l osophy. They di d not know that he had aban-
doned Tri ni tari an Chri sti ani ty and had become an Ari an, though a
very pri vate and cauti ous one, at l east a decade before the Principia
was publ i shed. g They al so were unaware of another si de of Newton,
a si de whi ch was suppressed by hi s fol l owers i mmedi atel y after hi s
death, and whi ch was then forgotten for two centuri es (and i s known
onl y to hi ghl y speci al i zed hi stori ans today): hi s occul ti sm.
Newton the Alchemist
Newtons rejecti on of the Tri ni tari an fai th had taken pl ace i n the
earl y 1670s, a decade and a hal f before the Principia was publ i shed. TO
That he was al so an al chemi st i s a fact that was del i beratel y conceal ed
from the publ i c for at l east two centuri es by those who had access to
hi s pri vate papers, and i s sti l l never found i n textbooks, al though the
detai l ed bi ographi es of Newton do di scuss the fact. Onl y wi th the
purchase at an aucti on of Newtons papers by that modern economi c
al chemi st, John Maynard Keynes who sought, as Mi ses sai d, to
turn stones i nto bread through i nfl ati on71 di d the academi c worl d
68. I bid., p. xi i .
69. Gal e E. Chri sti ansen, I n the Presence of the Creator: I saac Newton and His Times
(New York: Free Press, 1984), pp. 470,564. Newtons hand-pi cked successor at Ox-
ford, Wi l l i am Whi ston, adopted Newtons opi ni ons, publ i shed hi s Ari an i deas, and
was fi red from the facul ty. I bid., p. 471.
70. I bid., pp. 249-54.
71. Ludwi g von Mi ses, Stones I nto Bread: The Keynesi an Mi racl e (1948), i n
Henry Hazl i tt (cd,), Cri ti cs of Kgmesian Economics (Pri nceton, New Jersey: Van
Nostrand, 1960), pp. 305-15.
l earn the truth. Keynes i denti fi ed Newton as the l ast of the magi -
ci ans, the l ast of the Babyl oni ans and Sumeri ans. . . .
72
Why di d
he cal l hi m thi s? Because he l ooked on the whol e uni verse and al l
that i s i n i t as a riddle, as a secret whi ch coul d be read by appl yi ng
pure thought to certai n evi dence, certai n mysti c cl ues whi ch God
had hi d from the worl d to al l ow a sort of phi l osophers treasure hunt
to the esoteri c brotherhood.
73
Day and ni ght, Newton woul d pursue hi s al chemi cal exper i -
ments, someti mes wi thout eati ng. 74 Hi s experi ments on al chemy
were as ri gorous and as detai l ed as hi s other sci enti fi c experi ments. 75
Wri tes Frances Yates, the remarkabl e hi stori an of earl y modern oc-
cul ti sm: . . . Newton attached equal , or greater i mportance to hi s
al chemi cal studi es than to hi s work i n mathemati cs.7G He actual l y
bel i eved that i n di scoveri ng the l aw of gravi ty, he was redi scoveri ng
an anci ent secret truth whi ch had been known by Pythagoras. 77
I t i s remarkabl e that so many of those few i ntel l ectual hi stori ans
of Newton and the Newtoni an Enl i ghtenment who acknowl edge hi s
al chemi cal experi ments seem to di smi ss the epi stemol ogi cal i mpor-
tance of hi s secret al chemi ca.1 experi ments. 7s They downpl ay al -
chemys i mportance i n hi s l i fe and thought. They sti l l see hi m more
i n terms of the rati onal i sti c pi cture pai nted by hi s i mmedi ate suc-
cessors. The y do not understand, or choose to i gnore, the deepl y
72. John Maynard Keynes, Newton the Man, i n Newton T~centenna~ Celebra-
tions (Cambri dge: Cambri dge Uni versi ty Press, 1947), p. 27; ci ted i n Chri sti ansen,
Presence of the Creator, p. 205.
73. Chr i sti ansen, idem. Chri sti ansen has wel l ti tl ed thi s chapter, The Treasures
of Darkness . Chri sti ansen downpl ays the magi cal si de of al l thi s, sayi ng that
Newton was dri ven by a Puri tan sense of mi ssi on (p. 223), but why woul d Newton
have wri tten a mi l l i on words of pri vate notes on al chemy (p. 203) i f i t was not some-
thi ng he was i mmersed i n, body and soul ?
74. I bid., p. 223.
75. See Betty J. T. Dobbs, The Foundations of Newtonk Alchemy; OG The Hunting of
the Green Lyon? (Cambri dge: Cambri dge Uni versi ty Press, 1977).
76. Frances A. Yates, Collected Essays, VOI . 3, I deas and I deals in the North European
Renaissance (London: Routl edge & Kegan Paul , 1984), p. 121. For more extensi ve
documentati on of her assessment, see J. E. McGui re and P. M. Rattansi , Newton
and the Pi pes of Pan, Notes and Records oj the Royal Sociep of London, XXI (1966),
pp. 108-43.
77. Yates, ibid., 3, p. 269.
78. Newtons al chemy i s menti oned bri efl y by Lynn Thorndi ke i n hi s ei ght-vol -
ume set, A HistoV of Magic and Expmmental Science (New York: Col umbi a Uni versi ty
Press, 1958), VI I , p. 8; VI I I , p. 240. I n a study thi s si ze, concerni ng a man so i m-
portant, on the very topi c the study i s supposed to be deal i ng wi th, such an omi ssi on
i s not acci dental ; i t i s systemati c.
mysti cal and magi cal goal of al chemy: the self-transcendence of the al-
chemist. The al chemi st, by a mani pul ati on of the el ements, seeks to
achi eve a l eap of bei ng, what today woul d be cal l ed an evol uti onary
l eap. The fami l i ar l egend of the phi l osophers stone the al chemi cal
means of transformi ng base metal s i nto gol d negl ects the real goal
whi ch thi s transformati on merel y symbol i zes: the transformati on of
the al chemi st, and by i mpl i cati on and representati on, of humani t y. 79
Gol d, we repeat, i s the symbol of i mmortal i ty.so To dabbl e i n al -
chemy, even for i ntel l ectual y techni cal reasons, i s to come very cl ose
to the messi ani c i mpul se of the dei fi cati on of man. I t i s l i ke dabbl i ng
i n magi c; i t has consequences.
One of the consequences was the French Revol uti on. Margaret
Jacobs Radical Enlightenment i s cl ear about the spread of panthei sti c
versi ons of Newtoni ani sm i nto France through the Netherl ands and
Freemasonry. Wi th i t came a procl i vi ty for the ol d neopl atoni c Ren-
ai ssance vi ew of man and soci ety. Thi s vi ew i s anal ogous to
al chemys vi ew of man. They both begi n wi th the presupposi ti on of
magi c and hermeti ci sm: AS above, so bel ow.sl There i s an ontologi-
cal rel ati onshi p between man and the cosmos, a chai n of bei ng.
Mol nar put i s thi s way: . . . i t means that there i s an absol ute al -
though hi dden concordance between the l ower and the hi gher
worl ds, the key of whi ch l ends to the magus i ncal cul abl e powers.s
2
Thus, by mani pul ati ng the cosmos, the i ni ti ate can change the
nature of man (e. g., envi ronmental determi ni sm). On the other
hand, by mani pul ati ng somethi ng near at hand, he can affect some-
thi ng far aways3 (e. g., both voodoo and modern sci enti fi c chaos
theory).4 One mani pul ates the external el ements i n order to change
79. Mi rcea El i ade, The Forge and the Crucible: The Origins and Structures of Alchmy
(New York: Harper Torchbooks, [1956] 1971). See especi al l y chapter 13: Al chemy
and I ni ti ati on . For a detai l ed bi bl i ography on al chemy, see Al an Pri tchard, Alchemy:
A bibliography of English-language wrstings (London: Routl edge & Kegan Paul , 1980).
80. El i ade, ibid., p. 151.
81. Hermeti ci sm i s named after the mythi cal Hermes Tri smegi stus, who enun-
ci ated thi s above-bel ow pri nci pl e. Mol nar qui te properl y makes thi s the theme of hi s
dkcussi on of modern subjecti vi st phi l osophy and revol uti onary pol i ti cs. Thomas
Mol nar, God and the Knowledge of Reali~ (New York: Basi c Books, 1973).
82. I bid., p. 82.
83. I bid., p. 83.
84. I n contemporary chaos theory, the so-cal l ed butterfl y effect teaches that ti ny
di sturbances at one end of the envi ronment (the butterfl y i n Cal i forni a) can produce
l arge-scal e effects on the other si de of the envi ronment (the storm i n New York). See
James Gl ei k, Chaos: Making a New Science (New York: Vi ki ng, 1987), ch. 1.
the nature of man. One al so changes the nature of i ndi vi dual men i n
order to transform the envi ronment. E. M. Butl er descri bes the goal
of magi c; i t i s al so the goal of soci al engi neeri ng: The fundamental
ai m of al l magi c i s to i mpose the human wi l l on nature, on man or on
the supersensual worl d i n order to master them.
85
Al chemy i nvol ves i ni ti ati on access to secrets not known to com-
mon men. b The al chemi st uses hi s chemi cal s i n a ki nd of sel f-i ni ti a-
ti on process. The vi rtue of the al chemi st i s cruci al to the outcome of
the exper i ment
87
a radi cal l y di fferent concepti on from modern
chemi stry. Al chemi cal l i terature i s fi l l ed wi th the theme of death and
rebi rth. 88 Man i s vi ewed as co-creator wi th God.
sg
The al chemi sts procedures are seemi ngl y si mi l ar to, yet radi cal l y
di fferent from, the chemi sts procedures. He mi xes hi s chemi cal s i n
exactl y the same way, agai n and agai n, wai ti ng for a transformati on.
The chemi st, i n contrast, al ters hi s procedure sl i ghtl y i f the experi -
mental resul ts repeatedl y do not conform to hi s hypothesi s. The mai n
di fference procedural l y between al chemy and chemi stry i s i n the
techni ques of cause and effect. The chemi st publ i cl y veri fi es the
val i di ty of hi s experi ment by speci fyi ng the condi ti ons under whi ch
he conducted the experi ment, so that others can dupl i cate the exper-
i ments resul ts. The al chemi st, on the contrary, seeks to keep hi s pro-
cedures secret, as Newton di d, and he expects most of these repeti -
ti ons to produce no change. Then, after many attempts, after an un-
speci fi ed seri es of repeti ti ons of the mi xi ng of the el ements, there wi l l
be a di sconti nuous l eap of bei ng. The al chemi st transcends hi msel f,
symbol i zed and veri fi ed by the transformati on of the el ements.
Thi s vi ew of man and change has i nevi tabl e soci al i mpl i cati ons.
The al chemi st sees hi msel f as the fi rst man of a new race, the repre-
sentati ve i n the present of a new peopl e. I t i s an el i ti st vi ew of soci al
transformati on. Rushdoonys summary i s correct: The purpose of the
al chemi st was to create the condi ti ons of chaos i n order to further the
l eap ahead i n evol uti on. I t i s not at al l surpri si ng, therefore, that i n
the Enl i ghtenment al chemi sts were cl osel y al l i ed to and central to the
forces of revol uti on. Revolution is simply the theo~ of social alchemy.go
85. E. M. Butl er, Ritual Magic (San Bernardi no, Cal i forni a: Borgo Press, [1949]
1980), p. 1.
86. El i ade, Forge and Crwible, ch. 13.
87. I bid., p. 159.
88. I bid., pp. 155, 161.
89. I bid., p. 170.
90. Rushdoony, Law and Liber~ ([ Nutl ey, New Jersey]: Crai g Press, 1971), p. 46.
I n one sense, the i ntermedi ate goal of the al chemi st i s the same
as the practi cal goal of the chemi st: greater power over the envi ron-
ment through speci al i zed experi mental techni ques. A detai l ed
knowl edge of mathemati cs i s basi c to both; a knowl edge of the char-
acteri sti cs of normal l y i nert substances i s basi c to both. The al -
chemi st wants to transform mans very bei ng; the chemi st wants to
transform mans envi ronment and qual i ty of l i fe. Better l i vi ng
through chemi stry, sai d Monsanto Chemi cal Co. i n the 1950s, a
sl ogan i mi tated i n i rony by the devotees of LSD and chemi cal i l l umi -
nati on i n the l ate 1960s. Ei ther approach can and has become
power-seeki ng and messi ani c.
Rati onal i sm and I rrati onal i sm
I t was the ri gi d mathemati cal rati onal i sm of the official Newtoni an
fai th whi ch l ed, step by step, to the bl oody i r r ati onal i sm of ei ghteenth-
century French rati onal i sm. The French Revol uti on was the cul mi -
nati on of thi s Enl i ghtenment dual i sm between the rati onal and the
i rrati onal . The French Revol uti on was prepared by a seven-decade
i ntel l ectual assaul t on the Chri sti an rel i gi on and i ts i nsti tuti ons, but
i t was tri ggered by the Ki ng% fi scal cri si s i n 1788, the year of the rati -
fi cati on of the U.S. Consti tuti on. The Ki ng had to cal l the estates-
gener al not cal l ed i n a century and a hal f to authori ze new taxes.
Thi s fi scal cri si s was a vi si bl e si gn of hi s weakness. Thi s bourgeoi s
assembl y rapi dl y escal ated i ts demands to the procl amati on of the
ri ghts of man. I t peaked wi th the rei gn of the l awyersgl by means of
Dr. Gui l l oti nes remarkabl y effi ci ent technol ogy. The Terror was the
pol i ti cal appl i cati on of the doctri ne of the necessi ty of human sacri -
fi ce as a means of regenerati ng si n-fi l l ed soci ety, i .e., the rel i gi on of
revol uti on. (That l egacy i s wi th us sti l l i n Marxi sm. )92 The revol u-
ti onary process ended i n a mi l i tary di ctatorshi p.
Whi l e i t i s true, as Margaret Jacob demonstrates, that there were
two versi ons of Newtoni ani sm the offi ci al , Angl i can, hi erarchi cal
provi denti al Newtoni ani sm, and the mysti cal , panthei sti c, repub-
l i can, and ul ti matel y revol uti onary Newtoni ani sm her rati onal /
i rrati onal di vi si on i s cut too sharpl y between the Moderate Whi gs
and the Radi cal Whi gs. She makes i t appear as though the i rrati on-
91. Scott, Robespizrre: The Voice of Virtae.
92. Gary North, Marx? Religion of Revol uti on: Regeneration Through Chaos (Tyl er,
Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, [1968] 1989).
al i sm and nature mysti ci sm of the Radi cal Whi g panthei sts who sub-
sequentl y cl ai med to be fol l owers of Newton were not i nherent i n hi s
ori gi nal system. However, Newtons supposed mere fl i rtati on wi th
al chemy poi nts to a very di fferent concl usi on. The offi ci al , publ i ci zed
si de of hi s sci enti fi c system was rati onal i st i n the transcendent, Dei sti c
sense, but there was a dark and troubl ed si de of hi s own bel i efs and
practi ces that l ed hi m back i nto experi ments that had ori gi nal l y been
grounded i n the panthei sm of Renai ssance neopl atoni sm.
Newtons system was not i ntel l ectual l y sel f-sustai ni ng on the
basi s of i ts formal sci enti fi c categori es. Newton had to appeal to a
provi denti al , transcendent god, whi ch he publ i cl y i denti fi ed wi th the
God of the Bi bl e, i n order to sustai n hi s system metaphysi cal l y. But
i t was equal l y easy for the panthei sts of the radi cal Enl i ghtenment to
appeal to a god i nherent i n nature. Such an appeal was an i ntel l ec-
tual necessi ty. Absol utel y central to the Radi cal Enl i ghtenment ,
Jacob wri tes, i s the search for the phi l osophi cal foundati ons of a
new rel i gi on.93 Fi nal l y, the debate ceased after 1859; Darwi ni sm
made the hypothesi s of any god unnecessary an appendage wi th no
further sci enti fi c useful ness. Because Chri sti ans i n the l ate seven-
teenth century had ti ed thei r defense of Chri sti ani ty to Newtons
natural theol ogy, Darwi n successful l y destroyed thi s foundati on of
Chri sti ani t y.
94
Providentialism
Newton was a provi denti al i st. He bel i eved i n Gods creati on of
the uni verse out of nothi ng, i ts i nevi tabl e runni ng down, and the
need for God occasi onal l y to i ntervene i n nature to keep the cosmi c
cl ock runni ng i n good order.g5 I n hi s General Scholium, whi ch he added
to Part I I I of the Principia The System of the Worl d i n 1713, a
quarter century after the Principia fi rst appeared, he i nsi sts that The
si x pri mary pl anets are revol ved about the sun i n ci rcl es concentri c
wi th the sun. . . . 96 Noti ce hi s use of the passi ve voi ce: are reuolued.
93. Jacob, Radical Enlightenment, p. 176.
94. Margaret C. Jacob, The Newtoniam and the English Reuolutzon, 1689-1720
(I thaca, New York: Cornel l Uni versi ty Press, 1976), p. 16.
95. Stanl ey Jaki , Science and Creation: From eternal qcles to an oscillating umueme @di n-
burgh and London: Scotti sh Academi c Press, [1974] 1980), p. 287. J&i takes very
seri ousl y Newtons Schol i um, whi ch he added to the 1713 edi ti on of the Prtnci pi a.
96. I saac Newton, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, vol. 34 of Great
Books of the Western World (Chi cago: Encycl opedi a Bri tanni ca, I nc., [1934] 1952),
p. 369.
I n other words, revolved by something or someone. He i mmedi atel y tel l s
us that i t i s someone: Thi s most beauti ful system of the sun,
pl anets, and comets, coul d onl y proceed from the counsel and do-
mi ni on of an i ntel l i gent and powerful Bei ng.
g
He then formal l y re-
jects al l panthei sm: Thi s Bei ng governs al l thi ngs, not as the soul of
the worl d, but as Lord over al l ; and on account of hi s domi ni on he i s
wont to be cal l ed Lord God. . . .
98
The phrase, soul of the worl d,~ i s
panthei sti c. He i s not eterni ty and i nfi ni ty, but eternal and i nfi ni te;
he i s not durati on or space, but he endures and i s present.gg Moti on
i s therefore i mposed on matter by spi ri tual forces not i nnate to i t.
The l aws of nature are imposed l aws, not i nherent i n nature, as i t was
i n the Stoi c concepti on of the l aws of nature.
00
Thi s i s what l i nks
Newtoni ani sm to the nomi nal i sm of Wi l l i am of Ockham, who al so
grounded natural l aw on the wi l l of God. 101 Thi s i s the vohmtarist tra-
di ti on, the tradi ti on of contractual i sm. On fi rst gl ance, i t i s cl ose to
Puri tan covenantal i sm the ordi nary provi dence of God12 but
i t i s surel y Cartesi an. 103
What must be understood i s that Newtons system of natural
causati on i s Dei sti c. I t demands bel i ef i n an i nherentl y i mpersonal
God who reveal s Hi msel f onl y i n nature. Thi s God can be known
onl y through Hi s attri butes i n nature; there i s no menti on of Hi s
revel ati on i n Scri pture. We know hi m onl y by hi s most wi se and ex-
cel l ent contri vances of thi ngs, and fi nal causes; we admi re hi m for
hi s perfecti ons; but we reverence and adore hi m on account of hi s
domi ni on: for we adore hi m as hi s servants; and a god wi thout do-
mi ni on, provi dence, and fi nal causes, i s nothi ng el se but Fate and
Nature .14
Metaphysical Architecture
Thi s Newtoni an god exerci ses domi ni on, but hi s system gi ves us
no warrant for bel i evi ng that men can know hi m ethi cal l y through
wri tten revel ati on; we can onl y know hi m metaphysi cal l y and i n-
97. I dem.
98. I bid., p. 370.
99. I dem.
100. Franci s Oakfey, Chri sti an Theol ogy and the Newtoni an Sci ence: The Ri se
of the Concept of the Laws of Nature , Church Hi$togj XXX (1961), p. 437.
101. I bid., p. 439.
102. I bid., p. 448.
103. I bid., p. 443.
104. Newton, op. cit., p. 370.
di rectl y through hi s creati on. We know hi m onl y through hi s mani -
festati on physi cal l y and mathemati cal l y. Geometry was seen as the
common l anguage among men. I f God was to be di scerned i n the
creati on at al l , wri te Bai gent and Lei gh, i t was not i n the mul ti pl i -
ci ty of forms, but i n the uni fyi ng pr i nci pl es r unni ng thr ough those
for ms and under l yi ng them. I n other wor ds, God was to be di s-
cer ned i n the pri nci pl es of shape determi ned ul ti matel y by the
degr ees i n an angl e and by number. I t was thr ough shape and
number, not by representati on of di verse forms, that Gods gl ory was
hel d to be mani fest. And i t was i n edi fi ces based on shape and num-
ber, rather than on representati onal embel l i shment, that the di vi ne
presence was to be housed.
~ 105 Thi s i s one reason why Newton was
so fasci nated wi th the di mensi ons of the Templ e bui l t by Sol omon. 106
The Templ e was seen as a metaphysical representati on of Gods cosmos,
not as the pl ace where the tabl ets of the l aw of God resi ded i n the Ark
of the Covenant, and where Hi s gl ory cl oud resi ded. The Templ e was
seen more as a tal i sman than as a pl ace of ethi cal worshi p. 107
The ori gi ns of thi s geometri cal rel i gi on can be traced back to the
anci ent worl d. I t was kept al i ve i n the West by both rabbi ni c Judai sm
and I sl am:
The synthesi s of shape and number i s, of course, geometry. Through
geometry, and the regul ar recurrence of geometri c patterns, the synthesi s of
shape and number i s actual i zed. Through the study of geometry, therefore,
certai n absol ute l aws appeared to become l egi bl e l aws whi ch attested to an
underl yi ng order, an underl yi ng desi gn, an underl yi ng coherence. Thi s
master pl an was apparentl y i nfal l i bl e, i mmutabl e, omni present; and by vi r-
tue of those very qual i ti es, i t coul d be construed, easi l y enough, as some-
thi ng of di vi ne ori gi n a vi si bl e mani festati on of the di vi ne power, the
di vi ne wi l l , the di vi ne craftsmanshi p. And thus geometry, i n both Judai sm
and I sl am, came to assume sacred proporti ons, becomi ng i nvested wi th a
character of transcendent and i mmanent mystery. 108
The Roman archi tect Vi truvi us recommended the establ i shment
of collegia of bui l ders. Let the al tars l ook to the east; he sai d. 109 The
105. Mi chael Bai gent and Ri chard Lei gh, The Tmple and the Lodge (London:
Jonathan Cape, 1989), p. 132.
106. Frank E. Manuel , I saac Newton, Hzstori an (Cambri dge, Massachusetts: Har-
vard Uni versi ty Press, 1963), pl ate faci ng page 148.
107. See Nor th, Tools ofl)ominion, p. 888.
108. Bai gent and Lei gh, Tmple and Lodge, p. 132.
109. I bid., p. 133.
The Theological Origins of the U! S. Constitution 343
archi tect i s to become i n effect a speci es of magus. Geometry was at
the heart of thi s posi ti on. I n thi s respect, too, Judai sm and I sl am
were to converge wi th cl assi cal thought. For was not archi tecture the
supr eme appl i cati on and actual i zati on of geometry. . . . Was i t not
i n archi tecture that geometry i n effect became i ncarnate? 110 (That
Roman ar chi tectur e has domi nated gover nment bui l di ngs i n the
U.S. and i n Europe i s no acci dent.) I t was thus i n structures based
on geometry, wi th no embel l i shment to di stract or defl ect the mi nd,
that Gods pr esence was to be accommodated and wor shi ped. The
synagogue and the mosque, therefore, were both based not on deco-
rati on, but on geometri c pri nci pl es, on abstract mathemati cal rel a-
ti onshi ps. And the onl y ornamentati on al l owed i n them was of an
abstract geometri cal ki nd the maze, for exampl e, the arabesque,
the chessboard, the arch, the pi l l ar or col umn and other such pure
embodi ments of symmetry, regul ari ty, bal ance and proporti on . 1 i 1
Ther e was a r evi val of schol ar l y i nter est i n Vi truvi us dur i ng the
Renai ssance. 112
Thi s vi si on of the archi tect as magus goes back to Pl atos Timaeus
(53c to 62c). The creator god i s equated wi th the Archi tect of the
Uni verse. The tekton is the craftsman; the arche-teckton is the mas ter
craftsman. Thi s arche-tekton created the uni verse by means of geom-
et.
v
.113 Ther e i s l i ttI e doubt that geometry, and speci fi cal l y Pythagor ean
geometr y, was basi c to Pl atos teachi ngs. Phi l osopher Kar l Popper
has i denti fi ed Pl ato as the founder of the geometri cal theory of the
worl d. 114 Whi l e the desi gner of the Cheeps pyrami d seems to possess
a better cl ai m on thi s ti tl e, 115 sur el y Pl ato has been the more i nfl uen-
ti al hi stori cal l y. He saw the mastery of geometry as fundamental to
the phi l osopher-ki ngs creati on of a pol i ti cal l y central i zed soci al or-
der and hi s control over the affai rs of manki nd. So have hi s spi ri tual
hei rs.
Bai gent and Lei gh argue that such a neopl atoni c and her meti c
theol ogy was of necessi ty occul t hi dden duri ng the Mi ddl e Ages.
110. Zdem.
111. I dem.
112. Frances A. Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment (London: Routl edge & Kegan
Paul , 1972), p. 11. On John Adams fasci nati on wi th Vi truvi us, see pp. 382-83, bel ow.
113. Bai gent and Lei gh, Temple and Lodge, p. 138.
114. Karl Popper, The Open Socie~ and I ts Enemies, 2 vol s. (4th ed.; Pri nceton, New
Jersey: Pri nceton Uni versi ty Press, 1963), I , p. 335.
115. Peter Tomki ns, Secrets of the Great Pyramid (New York: Harper Col ophon,
[1971] 1978).
I t coul d be transmi tted safel y onl y wi thi n a secret fr ater ni ty. The
stonemasons wer e one such fraterni ty. Here wer e the seeds of the
l ater specul ati ve Freemasonry. 116
Thi s Newtoni an i mpul se i s basi c to understandi ng the cl ose asso-
ci ati on of Newtons fol l owers i n the Royal Soci ety and the spread of
r econsti tuted Fr eemasonr y after 1717. Fr eemasonr y wor shi ped
geometry, even as the Principia had rel i ed on geometry to prove i ts
case.
Ther e was another aspect of thi s theol ogy of geometry: the search
for God i n hi story. Gods transcendence was mani fested by geometry,
but thi s was not suffi ci ent; God had to make Hi msel f mani fest to
man. Agai n, geometr y was the key. Thi s was the r eason for the
fasci nati on wi th Sol omons Templ e. Wri te Bai gent and Lei gh:
Wi thi n thi s esoteri c tradi ti on of i ni ti ated masters, sacred geometry
was of paramount i mportance a mani festati on, as we have seen, of the
di vi ne. For such masters, a cathedral was more than a house of God. I t
was somethi ng aki n to a musi cal i nstrument, an i nstrument tuned to a par-
ti cul ar and exal ted spi ri tual pi tch, l i ke a harp. I f the i nstrument were tuned
correctl y, God Hi msel f woul d resonate through i t, and Hi s i mmanence
woul d be fel t by al l who entered. But how did one tune i t correctl y? How
and where di d God speci fy Hi s desi gn requi rements? Sacred geometry pro-
vi ded the general pri nci pl es, the underl yi ng l aws. 117
Geometry was not enough. Musi c was not enough. There must
be i ntel l ectual content to thi s i mmanence. There must be ethi cal
content, i ncl udi ng the assurance of personal sal vati on, i tsel f defi ned
as presence wi th God i n eterni ty. Thi s i s what sci enti fi c Newtoni an-
i sm coul d not provi de. The creati on of specul ati ve Freemasonry a
gui l d open to men wi thout any connecti on to stonemasonry was a
major theol ogi cal and i nsti tuti onal attempt to provi de thi s assur-
ance, but wi thi n the geometri cal worl dvi ew of Newtoni an sci ence.
A Distant God
The god of Newton was not the God of the Bi bl e; i t was the god
of the Dei sts. I t was the cosmi c cl ockmaker rather then the Soverei gn
Judge of al l men, i n hi story and i n eterni ty. I t was thi s concept of
God whi ch swept Europe i n the ei ghteenth century. Any attempt to
116. Tmpl e and Lodge, p. 134.
117. I dem. Cf. J. E. McGui re and P. M. Rattansi , Newton and the Pi pes of Pan,
Notes and Records of the Royal Socie~ of London, XXI (1966), pp. 108-43.
The Theological Ori gi ns oj the L? S. Constitution 345
argue that thi s god was not the bi bl i cal God was doomed to fai l ure.
Before Darwi n, thi s fal se connecti on l eft men under the soci al and
pol i ti cal domi ni on of those who had rejected the Bi bl e as the fi nal
voi ce of earthl y authori ty; after Darwi n, i t l eft men under the do-
mi ni on of men who were not even wi l l i ng to acknowl edge the exi st-
ence of the stri pped-down god of Newtoni ani sm.
The Newtoni an system, bei ng Uni tari an-Soci ni an 118 theol ogi -
cal l y and mathemati cal epi stemol ogi cal l y, l eft manki nd wi thout a
personal , covenantal God who i ntervenes i n hi story i n order to meet
the needs of manki nd. At best, He i ntervenes to meet the needs of a
di sjoi nted uni verse. Thi s Newtoni an god real l y was the di stant,
transcendent god of ol der hi gh school textbook accounts of Dei sm.
There was i nsuffi ci ent presence of thi s Newtoni an god wi th hi s peo-
pl e. He was al l system and no sancti ons. The quest for an i mmanent
god l ed a segment of the Newtoni an movement back i nto panthei sms
mysti cal paths. Any segment of Newtoni ani sm that di d not go down
these paths eventual l y headed out to the far shore of athei sm.
Newtons god of gravi ty i nfl uence at a di stance but wi thout physi -
cal connecti on was too l i ttl e for the panthei sts and too much for the
athei sts. 1 g
Thi s god of gravi ty became even too much for Newton to bear as
ti me went on. Li ke a dog returni ng to i ts vomi t, i n the second edi ti on
of Opticks (1717), he once agai n returned to hi s experi mental l y unten-
abl e theory of the ether that fi l l s al l i ntermedi ary spaces. He had to
fi nd a physi cal means of expl ai ni ng attracti on at a di stance. 120 He
had offered thi s theory i n an earl y paper to the Royal Soci ety (1675),
a paper whi ch had been cogentl y attacked by Robert Hooke. ~z 1
Newton had defended thi s ethereal theory i n Book I V of the 1693
manuscri pt Opticks, but hi s experi ments l ater concl uded that the ex-
118. Soci ni ani sm i s named after Fausto Paol o Sozzi ni , who l i ved i n the l ate si x-
teenth century. He procl ai med the doctri ne of an omni potent God. He deni ed the
atoni ng nature of the death and resurrecti on of Jesus Chri st. Jesus i nfl uence i s pri -
mari l y moral . I t was essenti al l y a Uni tari an fai th. See Soci ni ani sm, James
Hasti ngs (cd.), Emyclo@dia of Religion and Ethics, 12 vols. (Edi nburgh: T. & T.
Cl ark, 1920), XI , pp. 650-54.
119. For a study of Newtons rel i gi ous perspecti ve on the ori gi n of gravi ty, see
J. E. McGui re, Force, Acti ve Pri nci pl es, and Newtons I nvi si bl e Real m, Ambix,
XV (1968), pp. 154-208. Ambix is a schol arl y journal devoted to the hi story of
al chemy.
120. Edwi n Arthur Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science
(Garden Ci ty, New York: Doubl eday Anchor, [1925] 1954), p. 266.
121. Chr i sti ansen, Presence of the Creator, pp. 189, 447.
i stence of the ether coul d not be veri fi ed, so he di d not publ i sh thi s
secti on i n the fi rst edi ti on of 1704. He capi tul ated i n 1717, however,
di si nterri ng i t from i ts resti ng pl ace i n the qui et graveyard of unveri -
fi abl e hypotheses, thereby converti ng hi s system i nto what coul d
l ater stand al one as a purel y mechani sti c theory. 122 Chri sti ansen
cal l s thi s probl em of the ether Newtons thi rty-year ni ghtmare . 123
Fri cti on i n thi s hypotheti cal ethereal uni verse made i t necessary for
Newton to hypothesi ze the need for God to i ntervene peri odi cal l y to
restore thi s i nsuffi ci entl y harmoni ous system to ful l harmony. 124
Burtt descri bes thi s vi ew of God: the cosmi c pl umber. 125 Newton
coul d have concl uded i nstead that the uni verse woul d si mpl y run
down over ti me, but thi s entropi c worl dvi ew di d not appear unti l
the mi d-ni neteenth-century. 126 That was the pri ce of pure mate-
ri al i sm, whi ch Samuel Cl arke had predi cted woul d l ead to athei sm
i n hi s Fi nal Repl y, 127 a pri ce the ni neteenth century athei sts wi l l -
i ngl y pai d. That, however, was a century and a hal f i n the future.
Koyr6 concl udes: At the end of the century Newtons vi ctory was
compl ete. The Newtoni an God rei gned supreme i n the i nfi ni te voi d
of absol ute space i n whi ch the force of uni versal attracti on l i nked
together the atomi cal l y structured bodi es of the i mmense uni verse
and made them move around i n accordance wi th stri ct mathemati cal
l aws .128 Mechani sm, athei sm, and entropy came l ater, after the
Chri sti ans had hi tched thei r epi stemol ogi cal wagon to Newtons
bri ght shooti ng star.
The Return of Pantheism
Van Ti l wri tes of Pl atoni c thought that i ts Dei sm and i ts pan-
thei sm were correl ati ve. I n al l of Pl atos methods he took for
granted that al l thi ngs are at bottom one. Even when he seemed to
be abstracti ng the I deal worl d from the sense worl d so far that they
seemed to have nothi ng to do wi th one another, Pl ato was not deny-
i ng the assumpti on of an underl yi ng uni ty of al l real i ty. I n hi s most
122. Reventl ow, Authorip oj the Bible, p. 338.
123. Chr i sti ansen, Presence of the Creator, p. 447
124. Jaki , Science and Creati on, p. 287.
125. Burtt, Metaphysical Foundation, p. 298.
126. Cf. Gar y Nor th, I s the Wmld Runni ng Down? Crisis in the Christian Worldview
(Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1988), ch. 2.
127. Al exander Koyr6, From the Closed World to the I ry$nite Univuse (Bal ti more,
Maryl and: Johns Hopki ns Press, [1957] 1970), p. 238.
128. I bid., p. 274.
dei sti c fl i ghts, Pl ato was panthei sti c sti l l . Dei sm and Panthei sm are
at bottom one ~ 129 The same was true of Newtoni ani sm.
Newtoni ani sm was offi ci al l y Dei sti c. The establ i shment New-
toni an, i ncl udi ng Newton, had no use for panthei sm. They di d not
want a revi val of Gi ordano Brunos magi c or hi s specul ati ons regard-
i ng a worl d soul . Neverthel ess, panthei sm coul d not be successful l y
overcome by the Newtoni an moderate Whi gs, gi ven the real i ty of
Newtons heavy Soci ni an emphasi s on the absol ute transcendence of
God. The unsol ved theol ogi cal probl em for Newton was i mmanence.
Where i s Gods Personal presence i n thi s worl d?
The Puri tans possessed a consi stent answer to thi s probl em based
on the doctri ne of the Tri ni ty. Fi rst and foremost, God i s transcendentl y
i n control of al l thi ngs the doctri ne of covenantal provi dence. 130
Thi s same God i s al so present wi th Hi s peopl e i n the Person of the
Hol y Spi ri t, who dwel l s i n the hearts of regenerate men and who en-
abl es both regenerate and unregenerate to perform good works. 13 i
He gi ves Hi s peopl e new hearts. Those who are once effectual l y
cal l ed, and regenerated, havi ng a new heart, and a new spi ri t created
i n them, are further sancti fi ed, real l y and personal l y, through the
vi rtue of Chri sts death and resurrecti on, by Hi s Word and Spi ri t
dwel l i ng i n them: . . .
132
God i nteracts wi th manki nd i n hi story, for
He had been a man i n hi story, and i n Hi s perfect manhood, He now
si ts at the ri ght hand of God the Father (Mark 16:3). 133 God i s pres-
ent representati vel y i n the Bi bl e, the reveal ed Word of God i n hi s-
tory, and al so i n Hi s Church.
I n contrast to the Puri tans concept of cosmi c personali.rm stands
Newtons cosmi c i mpersonal i sm. Hi s was a hal fway covenant cos-
mol ogy: rel yi ng on the i ntel l ectual resi due of Puri tani sm, he deni ed
the power thereof. Newton was not a Tri ni tari an. Hi s cosmol ogy di d
not al l ow for much i nteracti on between God and man, and even hi s
peers resented hi s di scussi on of Gods cosmi c i nterventi ons to shore
up the rusti ng cl ock. 134
129. Cornel i us Van Ti l , A SUTVV of Chrtstian Epistemology, vol . 2 of I n Defense of Bib-
lical Christiani~ (den Dul k Foundati on, 1969), pp. 54-55. Cf. pp. 42-43,
130. Westminstu Confession of Faith, V, Provi dence.
131. I bid., XVI , Of Good Works.
132. Zbid., X111:1, Sancti fi cati on.
133. I bid., VI I I : 4, Chri st the Medi ator.
134. Jacob, Radical Enlightenment, pp. 59-60.
The wri ti ngs of Dei sti c Newtoni an such as Vol tai re 135 were far
more vi si bl e and i nfl uenti al i n French i ntel l ectual ci rcl es than the l i t-
erature of the panthei sti c Newtoni an, yet i n the fi nal anal ysi s, the
panthei sts tri umphed i n the Terror. I n Newtoni an rati onal i sm, Van
Ti l woul d say, there l ay hi dden a Newtoni an i rrati onal i sm, as i s true
of every form of rati onal i sm. Panthei sm si mpl y made thi s i mpl i ci t i r-
rati onal i sm more vi si bl e to a handful of Masoni c i ni ti ates; Newtons
Soci ni an provi denti al i sm ul ti matel y contai ned the seeds of i ts own
destructi on. I t coul d not resol ve the probl em of the one and the
many, structure and change, mathemati cs and matter. I t coul d not
expl ai n why mathemati cs, an artful creati on of mans i ntel l ect,
shoul d have such a cl ose correl ati on wi th the operati ons of the exter-
nal worl d. Newtoni ani sm was, i n the words of Nobel Pri ze-wi nni ng
physi ci st Eugene Wi gner, an unr easonabl e fai th. 136
Panthei sm l ed a furti ve, underground exi stence i n Engl i sh thought
duri ng the ei ghteenth century. Thi s di d not mean that panthei sts
were i rrel evant to events; i t just meant that they were not open i n
thei r i ntel l ectual defenses of the system. .Jacobs studi es i ndi cate that
mechani sti c panthei sm spread fro-m Engl and to the Netherl ands and
from there i nto France. 137 On the Conti nent, thi s became part of the
occul t underground that eventual l y produced the French Revol uti on.
The athei sts cl earl y won the battl e after Darwi n. But duri ng the
twenti eth century, there has been a successful bori ng from wi thi n at
the very heart of the secul ar Newtoni an templ e: quantum mechan-
i cs. 138 Thi s has sent a si gnal to the panthei sts that the athei sts i n the
templ e can no l onger defend the outski rts of thei r empi re. Si nce
about 1965, the panthei sts and mysti cs have begun to make a seri ous
assaul t on the fri nges of athei sms i nsti tuti onal empi re. 139 That
135. Once i n Engl and, Vol tai re embraced Newtons system of the worl d and nat-
ural phi l osophy l i ke a rel i gi ous convert embraces a new fai th. I ndeed, throughout
hi s l i fe that cosmi c system possessed an al most rel i gi ous i ntensi ty; i t l ay at the founda-
ti ons of Vol tai res understandi ng of the worl d. Jacob, Radical Enlightenrmmt, p. 105.
136. Eugene Wi gner, The Unreasonabl e Effecti veness of Mathemati cs i n the
Natural Sci ences: Communications on Pure and Applied M&hematics, XI I I (1960), pp. 1-14.
137. Jacob, Radical Enlightenment.
138. Ni ck Herbert, Quantum Reali~: B~ond the New Physim (Gar den Ci ty, New
York: Anchor Press/Doubl eday, 1985).
139. Cf. Lyl e Watson, Sups-nature: A Natural History of the Supernatural (Garden
Ci ty, New York: Anchor Press/Doubl eday, 1973); Thel ma Moss, The Probabili@ of the
I mpossible: Scient$c Discowries and Exploration in th Psychic Wbdd (Los Angel es: Tarcher,
1974); Fri tjof Capra, The Tm of physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modem
Physics and Easten Mysticism (2nd ed.; Boul der, Col orado: Shambal a, 1983).
Frances Yates coul d fi nd a market for her revi si oni st study of the
panthei sti c magi c of Gi ordano Bruno had a great deal to do wi th the
paradi gm shi ft that began i n the mi d-1960s. 140 But none of thi s was
suspected i n the earl y ei ghteenth century, or even i n the earl y twenti eth
century. Men sel dom recogni ze the fact that Van Ti l observed through-
out hi s career: there i s a secret treaty between rati onal i sts and i rrati on-
al i sts agai nst the God of the Bi bl e. 141 Or as he sai d more graphi cal l y,
they support themsel ves by taki ng i n each others washi ng.
Newtoni ani sm for Chri sti an I ntel l ectual s
Reventl ows summary of the i mpact of Newtoni an thought i s
cruci al l y i mportant i n understandi ng the nature of ei ghteenth-
century sci ence, rel i gi on, and soci al theory:
I n practi ce, i n the l ong run the Newtoni ans onl y pl ayed i nto the hands of
the Dei sts, agai nst whom they wanted to fi ght, and the Athei sts (who at that
ti me were more a chi maera than a real danger, though thei r ti me came i n
the second hal f of the century). The Ari ani sm wi despread among them
(whi ch was accepted e.g. by Newton hi msel f, [Samuel ] Cl arke, and most
natural l y by [Wi l l i am] Whi ston) i s an i ndubi tabl e si gn that the vi ew of God
hel d by these peopl e was pri mari l y ori ented on the book of hi s works.
Above al l , however, moral i sti c ethi cs, al ready a l i vi ng l egacy of humani sti c
theol ogy, gai ned an addi ti onal foundati on i n the new phi l osophy, whi ch
made i t i ncreasi ngl y i ndependent of the Bi bl e and thus more and more
i ndependent of theol ogy general l y. 142
Ri chard Westfal l i s even more speci fi c: Natural rel i gi on was sup-
posed to be the sure defender. Yet i n the end the defender turned out
to be the enemy i n the gates.143
None of thi s was suspected by the l i terate Chri sti an publ i c i n the
earl y ei ghteenth century. Surel y i t was not suspected by the Rev.
Cotton Mather, whose A Christian Philosopher (1721) i s a l ong tract
prai si ng Newtons system. I t was not suspected by John Wi ther-
spoon when he began hi s fi rst l ecture on moral phi l osophy i n 1768:
140. Frances Yates, Gi orako Bruno and the Hermetzc Tradztion (New York: Vi ntage,
[1964] 1969),
141, Cornel i us Van Ti l , Apologettis (Syl l abus, Westmi nster Theol ogi cal Semi nary,
1961), p. 81.
142. Reventl ow, AuthoriQ OJ the Bible, p. 341.
143. Ri chard West fal l , Science and Religion i n Seventeenth-CentuV England (Ann
Arbor: Uni versi ty of Mi chi gan, 1973), p. 106.
Dr. Cl arke was one of the greatest champi ons for the l aw of nature;
but i t i s onl y si nce hi s ti me that the shrewd opposers of i t have ap-
peared.144 Or when he sai d, Wet perhaps a ti me may come when men,
treati ng moral phi l osophy as Newton and hi s successors have done
natural [phi l osophy], may arri ve at greater preci si on. 145 Yates i s cor-
rect about the cover-up of Newtons al chemy: Modern sci ence, be-
gi nni ng i ts vi ctori ous career, had bl otted out the i mmedi ate past.n14G
By the earl y ei ghteenth century, natural l aw doctri nes were uni versal
accepted by al l educated men i n the col oni es. 147 I t was by means of
the twi n doctri nes of natural l aw and the autonomy of mans reason
that the Enl i ghtenments i ntel l ectual conquest of Ameri ca took pl ace.
Hi stori an Kei th Thomas i s correct: The tri umph of the mechani cal
phi l osophy meant the end of the ani mi sti c concepti on of the uni verse
whi ch had consti tuted the basi c rati onal e for magi cal thi nki ng.14B
Thi s i nherentl y mechani cal Newtoni an worl dvi ew al so i n pri nci -
pl e meant the end of the Chri sti an concepti on of the uni verse, wi th
i ts doctri ne of cosmi c personal i sm provi dence wi th mi racl es. 149
Agai n, ci ti ng Thomas: The mechani cal phi l osophy of the l ater
seventeenth century was to subject the doctri ne of speci al provi -
dence to a good deal of strai n. Under i ts i nfl uence many wri ters
tended to speak as i f Gods provi dence consi sted sol el y i n the ori gi nal
act of creati on and that thereafter the worl d had been l eft to be gov-
erned mechani cal l y by the wheel s whi ch the Creator had set i n mo-
ti on ~> l so Thi s of course, i s the outl ook of Engl i sh Dei sm, whi ch al so
>
was steadi l y adopted by l i beral Armi ni an Angl i cans. They became
i ts promoters, as di d many of the di ssenters. Wri tes Margaret Jacob:
Eventual l y the more i ngeni ous cl ergy, l argel y of Protestant Europe, re-
al i zed that i t woul d be necessary to construct a new Chri sti an rel i gi osi ty
based i n l arge measure on mechani cal assumpti ons. That was preci sel y the
synthesi s devel oped by moderate Angl i cans, who had been forced under the
144. Wi therspoon, Lectures on Moral Philosophy, Lecture 1, p. 65.
145. I bid., Recapi tul ati on, p. 186.
146. Yates, Collected Essays, I I I , p. 121,
147. Wi therspoon, Lectures on Moral Philosophy, Lecture 13: On the Law of Nature
and Nati ons . He asserts: I f there are natural ri ghts of men, there are natural ri ghts
of nati ons (p. 150).
148. Kei th Thomas, Religion and the Declim- of Magic (New York: Scri bne?s, 1971),
p. 644.
for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1987), ch. 1: Cosmi c Personal i sm.
150. Thomas, Religion and the Dechne of Magic, p. 80.
i mpact of the Engl i sh Revol uti on to rethi nk the rel ati onshi p between naturzd
order, soci ety, and rel i gi on. Eventual l y al l progressi ve European Chri sti ans,
from the German phi l osopher Lei bni z to the Cartesi an pri est Mel abranche,
woul d be forced to restructure the phi l osophi cal foundati ons of Chri sti ani ty
to conform to one or another versi on of the new sci ence. I t i s hardl y surpri s-
i ng that l i beral Angl i cani sm, wedded as i t was by the 1690s to Newtoni an
sci ence, took the l ead i n thi s enterpri se.5 1
Earl i er, she had wri tten: The l i nkage they forged between l i beral
Protestanti sm and earl y Newtoni ani sm was never enti rel y broken
duri ng the ei ghteenth century. . . . The l ati tudi nari an proponents
of earl y Newtoni ani sm had succeeded i n resti ng thei r soci al i deol ogy
on the model provi ded by the Newtoni an uni verse. 152 There i s great
i rony here, she says, gi ven the humani sti c soci ety that emerged as a
resul t of thei r worl dvi ew. The soci ety that the l ati tudi nari ans wi shed
to create was to be Chri sti an and godl y i n the bi bl i cal sense of those
terms. Thei r vi si on of hi story had been condi ti oned by the Reforma-
ti on, and they bel i eved themsel ves to be prepari ng Engl i shmen for
the mi l l enni al paradi se.i 5s These were not stri ctl y Enl i ghtenment
men; they were transi ti onal fi gures, 1680-1720.54
As ti me passed, the di fferences separati ng l i beral Angl i cans from
the Whi g Commonweal thmen became pol i ti cal rather than theol ogi -
cal . A new common ground theol ogi cal l y became possi bl e because of
the new sci ence. Armi ni ans, Cal vi ni sts, and di ssenti ng Soci ni ans al l
coul d agree on the nature of the rel ati onshi p between the Creator
and the heavens. That rel ati onshi p was Newtoni an. But Newtoni an-
i sm was i nherentl y Dei sti c.
Deism and Christiani~
We are wi se to mark the growth of Dei sm wi th the tri umph of the
Newtoni an worl dvi ew. Russel l Ki rks summary of Dei sm i s ac-
curate: Dei sm was nei ther a Chri sti an schi sm nor a systemati c phi -
l osophy, but rather a way of l ooki ng at the human condi ti on; the
men cal l ed Dei sts di ffered among themsel ves on many poi nts.
(Thomas Pai ne often was cal l ed an athei st, but i s more accuratel y
descri bed as a rather radi cal Dei st.) Dei sm was an outgrowth of
151. Jacob, Cul tur al Meaning of the Scient@c Revolution, p. 111.
152. Jacob, The Newtonian, p. 19.
153. I dem.
154. I bid., p. 20.
seventeenth- and ei ghteenth-century sci enti fi c specul ati on. The
Dei sts professed bel i ef i n a si ngl e Supreme Bei ng, but rejected a
l arge part of Chri sti an doctri ne. Fol l ow Nature, sai d the Dei sts (as
the Stoi cs had sai d before them), not Revel ati on: al l thi ngs must be
tested by pri vate rati onal judgment. The Dei sts rel i ed especi al l y
upon mathemati cal approaches to real i ty, i nfl uenced i n thi s by the
thought of Si r I saac Newton. 155
The Dei sti c i mpl i cati ons of the Newtoni an system were fi rst ful l y
devel oped by the thi rd Earl of Shaftesbury i n hi s mul ti -vol ume Char-
mteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times (6th edi ti on, 1738). He was
the grandson of the enormousl y popul ar Whi g opponent of Charl es
I I and James I I and defender of Parl i amentary ri ghts. 156 The grand-
son was a cl ose fri end of John Locke; he regarded hi msel f as Lockes
fri end and foster-son, 157 but he abandoned hi s Lockeani sm l ate i n
l i fe and returned to fai th i n Greek phi l osophy, especi al l y Xenophon. ~sB
(I t was Xenophon who was assi gned by presi dent John Wi therspoon
to the sophomore cl ass at the Col l ege of New Jersey.) 159 Shaftesbury
set the tone of the age of mi l d (non-revol uti onary) skepti ci sm regard-
i ng Chri sti ani ty. He rejected the Bi bl e as a source of ethi cs, preached
a god subordi nate to i ndependent ethi cal pri nci pl es, and rel i ed on
Newtons worl dvi ew to defend hi s system. The Bi bl e i n the l ate
seventeenth century, even i n the l i beral Protestant camp, was a pri n-
ci pl e of formal authori ty. Not so wi th the Dei sts. Begi nni ng wi th
Shaftesbury, they procl ai med the autonomy of ethics. Shaftesbury, says
Reventl ow, connected ethi cs wi th the i dea of a harmony wi thi n the
worl d as establ i shed by Newton, and then he showed that the revel -
ati on contai ned i n the Bi bl e and handed down by hi stori cal tradi ti on
coul d be di spensed wi th.
~ 160 Men coul d henceforth r el y on reason
and tradi ti on to achi eve thei r goal s.
I t was thi s Newtoni an vi ew of the uni verse that i nfl uenced most
of the l eaders who organi zed the Consti tuti onal Conventi on i n 1787.
But why di d the voters accept the Dei sti c work of the Conventi on?
155. Ki r k, Roots of Anwri2an Order, p. 338.
156. K. D. H. Hal l ey, The First Earl of Shaftesbuy (New York: Oxford Uni versi ty
Press, 1968).
157. J. Ar onson, Shaftesbury on Locke, Ameri can Political Science Review, L1ll
(Dec. 1959), p. 1103.
158. Pangl e, Sptrit of Modern Republicanism, pp. 25, 37.
159. Col l i ns, President Witherspoon, I I , p. 216.
160. Reventl ow, Authori~ of the Bible, p. 318.
Dei sm i n the col oni es as a separate rel i gi ous movement was vi rtual l y
nonexi stent i n the col oni es pri or to the rati fi cati on of the Consti tu-
ti on; Ethan Al l en and Thomas Pai ne are the onl y famous Dei sts (i f,
i n fact, Pai ne was a Dei st rather than an athei st) i n that era. 161 Al so,
why were church members who attended the Consti tuti onal Con-
venti on i n 1787 and those who l ater voted to rati fy the Consti tuti on
wi l l i ng to accept a document that was cl earl y the theol ogi cal product
of Dei sm? Chri sti an hi stori ans have adopted three approaches to
these questi ons: fi rst, i gnore the fact that the Consti tuti on i s Dei sti c
(the strategy of sel f-decepti on); second, argue that the rel i gi ous pre-
supposi ti ons of the Consti tuti on can be equal l y agreed to by Desi sts,
Chri sti ans, and just about every other rati onal person of good wi l l
(the strategy of common-ground phi l osophy); thi rd, argue that the
Consti tuti on i s essenti al l y Chri sti an, but Dei sts, by the grace of
God, not onl y can accept i t, but they actual l y wrote i t Gods way (the
strategy of provi denti al schi zophreni a). 1 z
The second strategy seems most common today. Chri sti an stu-
dents of the Consti tuti on i nsi st that the Consti tuti on i s i n conformi ty
wi th commonl y shared judi ci al pri nci pl es, on the implicit or explicit as-
sumption of the validity of some ver si on of natural law theory. They begi n
wi th the mi sl eadi ng presupposi ti on of the commonal i ty of 2 + 2 =
4, just as the Framers di d, and from thi s they concl ude that pol i ti cal
pol ythei sm i s val i d. I t does not even occur to them that the phrase
2 + 2 = 4 does not mean the same thi ng i n a Chri sti an theory of
God-created real i ty as i t does i n a non-Ch~i sti an theory of evol uti on-
ary real i ty. I t does not occur to them that wi thout the presupposi ti on
of the Tri ni tari an God of the Bi bl e, i t takes a gi ganti c l eap of fai th to
concl ude that 2 + 2 = 4.163 They sti l l thi nk i n terms of ei ghteenth-
century Newtoni ani sm rather than ei ther si x-day creati oni sm or
modern quantum physi cs and chaos theory. They have not yet come
to gri ps wi th I mmanuel Kant, l et al one Werner Hei senberg.
Newton,i ani sm had l ong been di ffused through the Engl i sh-
speaki ng worl d i n the name of natural theol ogy. Chri sti ans had not
161. G. Adol f Koch, Reli~ion of the American Enlightenment (New York: Crowel l ,
[1933] 1968). What the book shows i s that there were al most no Dei sts pri or to 1789,
al though thi s was not i ts i ntent.
162. The questi on i s: Were the Dei sts at the Conventi on the i ntel l ectual schi zo-
phreni cs or the Chri sti ans who today defend the Consti tuti on by an appeal to i ts
hi dden or ul ti mate bi bl i cal pri nci pl es?
163. Vern S. Poythress, A Bi bl i cal Vi ew of Mathemati cs, i n Gary North (cd.),
Foundations of Christian Scholars+: Essays i n the Van Til Perspective (Val l eci to, Cal i for-
ni a: Ross House Books, 1976), ch. 9.
studi ed Newtons Principia, any more than modern humani sts have
studi ed Ei nstei ns ori gi nal essays on the photoeffect, Browni an mo-
ti on, and general rel ati vi ty. The y were not fami l i ar wi th the books
techni cal detai l s. But they had accepted Newtons vi si on of a me-
chani cal , orderl y uni verse, a vi ew offi ci al l y undergi rded by a god
(Uni tari an) who has made hi msel f known pri mari l y through mathe-
mati cs and astronomy a worl d whose operati ons can be studi ed
and di scovered by al l sci enti fi cal l y trai ned men, i rrespecti ve of thei r
theol ogi cal vi ews. Al most everyone accepted thi s worl dvi ew i n the
ei ghteenth century. Wri tes Thomas: I t di d not matter that the ma-
jori ty of the popul ati on of ei ghteenth-century Engl and had possi bl y
never heard of Boyl e or Newton and certai nl y coul d not have ex-
pl ai ned the nature of thei r di scoveri es. At al l ti mes most men accept
thei r basi c assumpti ons on the authori ty of others. New techni ques
and atti tudes are al ways more readi l y di ffused than thei r underl yi ng
sci enti fi c rati onal e . 164
Ei ghteenth-century Chri sti ans were not ready to see what the
Newtoni an worl dvi ew of i mpersonal mechani cal causati on ul ti -
matel y i mpl i ed: the abol i ti on of Gods presence wi th and Hi s di rect
i nterventi on i nto Hi s worl d. Tet most of those who concei ved of the
uni verse as a great cl ock were i n practi ce sl ow to face up to the ful l
i mpl i cati ons of thei r anal ogy.
n
165 Not unti l Charl es Darwi n i n 1859 at
l ast destroyed the necessi ty or even sci enti fi c acceptabi l i ty of natural
theol ogy by removi ng the need of a Di vi ne Cl ockmaker or cosmi c
purposeful ness i n expl ai ni ng the orderl i ness of nature and not un-
ti l Van Ti l and a handful of other Chri sti an phi l osophers at l ast
understood cl earl y what Kants dual i sm 166 and Darwi ns moni sm 167
had accompl i shed, di d thi s nai ve atti tude regardi ng natural l aw and
i ts empi re begi n to change. (Sl owl y, ever so sl owl y.)
The Newtonian Dynamic
There i s one addi ti onal aspect of Newtoni ani sm that needs to be
deal t wi th. Newtons nearl y i mpersonal god i s a Tory ki nd of God
di stant, hi erarchi cal , and preservi ng. Hi s days of creati ng are over;
164. Thomas, Religion and the Dechne of Magic, pp. 646-47.
165. I bid., p, 80.
I
166. Ri chard Kroner, Kant? Weltanschauung (Chi cago: Uni versi ty of Chi cago
Pr ess, [1914] 1956).
167. Loren Ei sel ey, Darwi ns Cenhgx Evolution and the Men Who Discovered I t
(Garden Ci ty, New York: Doubl eday, 1958), ch. 11: Wal l ace and the Brai n.=
he now i s a preserver and repai rer of cosmi c order. Thi s was a transi -
ti onal concept of God. 166 Humes skepti ci sm undermi ned fai th i n
thi s Tory god from mans perspecti ve, and advanci ng sci ence sys-
temati cal l y found ways of removi ng the need for thi s god by fi ndi ng
ways of autonomousl y shori ng up natures fri cti on-bound autono-
mous order. Neverthel ess, the i dea of an orderl y system of nature
under the rul e of mathemati cs remai ned (and remai ns) a powerful ~
moti vati ng i dea for men i n thei r quest to master nature i ncl udi ng
mans own nature and soci ety by means of ri gorous i nvesti gati on
and the appl i cati on of practi cal sci ence to the envi ronment. Li ke the
doctri ne of predesti nati on, fai th i n whi ch supposedl y shoul d make
fatal i sts and passi vi sts out of Cal vi ni sts, who subsequentl y turn out
to be a dynami c soci al force, so was Newtoni an mathemati cal l aw. I t
del i vered practi cal knowl edge to man, and i n doi ng so, offered hi m
the possi bi l i ty of domi ni on and power.
What was needed to i nfuse Newtoni ani sm wi th power was a new
dynami c. What was needed was a vi ew of the possi bi l i ty of mans
ethi cal transformati on, whi ch coul d then produce soci al transforma-
ti on. What was needed was a doctri ne of the new man. Rousseau pro-
vi ded one versi on of thi s doctri ne of human transformati on; the
Ameri can revi val i sts provi ded another. Both vi ews rested on a doc-
tri ne of man as bei ng more than transcendent to the mechani cal
l aws of matter i n moti on. Both vi ews therefore rested on a program of
personal and soci al change that was beyond the boundari es of reason.
The Great Awakeni ng
The shi ft from rati onal i sm to emoti onal i sm i n the l i fe of col oni al
Ameri ca can best be seen i n the wri ti ngs of Jonathan Edwards. He
began wi th hi s youthful specul ati ons on sci ence:
U.
. . i t i s sel f-evi dent
I bel i eve to every man, that Space i s necessary, eternal , i nfi ni te and
omni present. But I had as good speak pl ai n: I have al ready sai d as
much as, that Space i s God. And i t i s i ndeed cl ear to me, that al l the
Space there i s, not proper to the body, al l the Space there i s wi thout
the bounds of Creati on, al l the Space there was before the Creati on,
i s God hi msel fi . . .
169 Yet he was to wri te that l engthy defense of
sweet emoti onal i sm, the Peatise Concerning the Religious Afections
168. Burtt, Metaphysical Foundations, pp. 301-2.
169. Notes on Natural Sci ence. Of Bei ng. Ci ted by Rushdoony, This I ndependent
Republic, p. 6.
(1746). Ren6 Descartes was the i ntel l ectual godfather of the youthful
Edwards God as Space was cl earl y not Newtoni an but Newton
was surel y the i ntel l ectual godfather of the Edwards of the Great
Awakeni ng. Men needed confi dence that Gods mi l l enni al judgments
on the worl d woul d not mel t the predi ctabl e order of the uni verse.
Newtoni ani sm gave them thi s confi dence. Men needed assurance that
i n abandoni ng the l egal i sm of the ol der covenantal Puri tani sm that
there woul d be somethi ng to repl ace the shattered ci vi l foundati ons.
Lockeani sm and i ts deri vati ves gave them thi s assurance.
At the heart of the evangel i cal ethi c, wri te Hei mert and Mi l l er,
two master hi stori ans of the era, was the hope of human bet-
terment, the vi si on of a communi ty i n whi ch men, i nsti ncti vel y as i t
were, woul d seek the general wel fare.
~ l TO But Cal vi ni sts knew better:
i n a worl d i n whi ch men are total l y depraved, i t takes more than i n-
sti nct to persuade men to seek the common wel fare. I t takes ci vi l l aw
to restrai n them. But the ei ghteenth-century Chri sti ans had no spe-
ci fi c system of ci vi l l aw to recommend i n the name of God. So, they
recommended other l aw-orders and other sources than the Ol d Tes-
tament. (Condi ti ons have not changed si nce then, ei ther.)
Experience vs. Creeds
The heart of the theol ogi cal probl em wi th the Great Awakeni ng
was i ts abandonment of the bi bl i cal doctri ne of the covenant. Thi s
l ed to an i nsti tuti onal cri si s. When push came to shove, the pro-
ponents of the Great Awakeni ng wanted a new Chri sti an commu-
ni ty based on warm, fuzzy feel i ngs rather than creedal orthodoxy.
They wanted emoti onal i sm. The hal fway covenant theol ogy of New
Engl and was a compl ex theol ogi cal i nventi on to deal wi th the unfore-
seen outcome of requi ri ng a prospecti ve church member to rel ate hi s
experi ence of conversi on as one basi s of acceptance i nto the church.
Hal fway covenant theol ogy was abandoned by the revi val i sts be-
cause they abandoned Puri tan covenant theol ogy al together. They
deci ded to abandon any test other than the conversi on experi ence as
the ul ti mate standard of church fel l owshi p. Every other test was sec-
ondary, at l east i n actual practi ce. The experi ence of ecstati c rapture
steadi l y repl aced the hi stori c creeds of the Church as the basi s of
170. Al an Hei mert and Perry Mi l l er, I ntroducti on, i n Hei mert and Mi l l er (eds.),
The Great Awakening: Documents I llustrating the Cn3is and I ts Con.sequt-nces (I ndi anapol i s,
I ndi ana: Bobbs-Merri l l , 1967), p. l vi i i .
mens church communi on i n the thi nki ng of the Cal vi ni st revi val i sts.
Thei r Armi ni an col l eagues agreed. Thi s opened the door to Armi n-
i ani sm and then, when the fi res cool ed, to Dei sm and rati onal i sm. I t
establ i shed hot gospel l i ng as the basi s of evangel i sm. The l east-
common-denomi nator pri nci pl e took hol d, unti l peopl e fel l to thei r
knees and barked l i ke dogs for Jesus. I n the next century, Ol d
School Cal vi ni st Charl es Hedge referred to thi s as the l eaven of en-
thusi asm. As he sai d, such outbursts were opposed by Jonathan
Edwards, the Boston cl ergy, by Gi l bert Tennent, and others (though
i ni ti al l y, not by George Whi tefi el d). 171 Hedge defended the Pr esby-
teri an Churchs di sci pl i nary structure and i ts essenti al l y judi ci al ,
covenantal theol ogy i n opposi ng such anti nomi an outbursts of re-
vi val i sm. Hedge spoke for the orthodox, hi erarchi cal Church of al l
ages agai nst anti nomi an l awl essness when he wrote:
Those under i ts i nfl uence pretended to a power of di scerni ng spi ri ts, of
deci di ng at once who was and who was not converted; they professed a per-
fect assurance of the favour of God, founded not upon scri ptural evi dence,
but i nward suggesti on. I t i s pl ai n that when men thus gi ve themsel ves up to
the gui dance of secret i mpressi ons, and attri bute di vi ne authori ty to sug-
gesti ons, i mpul ses, and casual occurrences, there i s no extreme of error or
fol l y to whi ch they may not be l ed. They are beyond the control of reason or
the word of God. 172
He cl earl y had i n mi nd Presbyteri an revi val i st Gi l bert Tennent,
a founder of the Log Col l ege, whi ch became the Col l ege of New
Jersey, and fi nal l y became Pri nceton Col l ege i n the l ate ni neteenth
century, who wrote The Danger of an Unconverted Minist~ (1741). He
accused hi s creed-procl ai mi ng, juri sdi cti on-protecti ng fel l ow Pres-
byteri ans of bei ng reprobates and Ol d Phari see-Teachers. 173 They
had exerted the Craft of Foxes, and had di spl ayed the Cruel ty of
Wol ves .174 The ol d Phari sees, for al l thei r l ong Prayers and other
171. Charl es Hedge, The Consti tuti onal HistoV of the Presbytwian Church i n the United
States of Ameri ca, 2 vol s. (Phi l adel phi a: Presbyteri an Board of Publ i cati on, 1851), I I ,
p. 82.
172. I bid., I I , p. 83.
173. Gi l bert Tennent, The Danger of an Unconverted Mi ni stry (1741), i n
Hei mert & Mi l l er, Great A wakeni ng, p. 73.
174. I bid., p. 74.
pi ous Pretences, had thei r Eyes, wi th J udas, i i xed upon the bag.l Ts
Judas mi ni stry was al so partl y l egal .17G Tennent i nvoked the l an-
guage of the senses, as Edwards al so di d: Thei r Conversi on bath
nothi ng of the Savour of Chri st, nei ther i s i t perfumd wi th the Spi ces
of Heaven . 177 (Years l ater, he apol ogi zed publ i cl y for hi s i ntemper-
ate l anguage, l ong after the damage had been done and the fi res of
enthusi asm had burned across the col oni es. )
Thi s i s taste-bud theol ogy and aromati c creedal i sm, however
l oudl y i ts proponent cl ai med that he was defendi ng Cal vi ni sm. I t i s
al so sel f-consci ousl y anti cl eri cal . Thi s anti cl eri cal i sm was a common
outl ook among the i ti nerant preachers, many of them unordai ned
men, who wi l l ful l y i nvaded the terri tori es of l ocal churches through-
out the col oni es, justi fyi ng thi s chal l enge to l ocal church authori ty on
the pretence that the l ocal pastors had fai l ed to preach a pure gospel .
Worse, as Tennents ti rade shows, they accused pastors of not bei ng
converted men. They made few attempts to bri ng formal charges
agai nst these supposed apostate pastors i n thei r respecti ve denomi -
nati ons; the y si mpl y conducted nondenomi nati onal , non-worshi p
publ i c meeti ngs i n the l ocal communi ti es. The anti cl eri cal i sm, anti -
denomi nati onal i sm, and anti -creedal i sm of the Great Awakeni ng
became progressi vel y more sel f-consci ous as the movement spread
i ntermi ttentl y across the col oni es for more than two decades.
The probl em, Hedge sai d a century l ater, was that They pai d
more attenti on to i nward i mpressi ons than on the word of God. l Ts
The i ndi vi dual i sti c i nwardness l ed to an i nsti tuti onal i ncl usi vi sm
based on experi ence rather than the Bi bl e, creeds, and Church sanc-
ti ons. They screened thei r ranks i n terms of outward si gns of en-
thusi am rather than professi on of fai th. I f an honest man doubted
hi s conversi on, he was decl ared unconverted. I f any one was fi l l ed
wi th great joy, he was pronounced a chi l d of God. . . . I f they di d
not feel a mi ni sters preachi ng, they mai ntai ned he was unconverted,
or l egal .179 Or l egal . Thi s was the probl em, i n thei r eyes. The revi val -
175. I bid., p. 75. Thi s was a reference to John 12:4-6: Then sai th one of hi s di s-
ci pl es, Judas I scar i ot, Si mons son, whi ch shoul d betr ay hi m, Why was not thi s oi nt-
ment sol d for three hundred pence, and gi ven to the poor? Thi s he sai d, not that he
cared for the poor; but because he was a thi ef, and had the bag, and bare what was
put therei n.
176. I bid., p. 83.
177. I bid., p. 79.
178. Hedge, Consti tuti onal Hi stov, I I , p. 83.
179. I dem.
The Theological Ortgins of the 1% S. Constitution 359
i sts were vol untari sts, i ndi vi dual i sts, and i ncl usi vi sts; they were
offended by the rul es and procedures of organi zed churches. Thi s
anal ysi s was made a century l ater by a cri ti c, but Hedges cri ti ci sm
was based on hi s knowl edge of the hi stori cal sources wi thi n the de-
nomi nati on, such as mi nutes of the presbyteri es, and on hi s knowl edge
of other hi stori cal studi es of the era. He understood the revi val i sts
assaul t on the Church.
Tennent was ejected from the denomi nati on i n 1741. The emo-
ti onal i sts and the creedal i sts (nati onal i sts, as thei r opponents cal l ed
them) coul d tol er ate communi on no l onger ; the Pr esbyter i an
Church spl i t i n 1741: Phi l adel phi a Synod (Ol d Si de) and New York
Synod (New Si de). The New Si de (semi -creedal i sts) and the Ol d
Si de (ri gorous creedal i sts) di d not reuni te unti l 1758, and the resul t
was the erosi on of creedal i sm, cul mi nati ng i n the revi si on of the
Westmi nster Confessi on i n 1787. (A paral l el spl i t [1838] and reuni on
[1869] took pl ace i n the next century New School vs. Ol d School
wi th the same l ong-term resul t: the spread of semi -creedal i sm after
1870, the ri se of Armi ni ani sm after 1893, the tri umph of l i beral i sm i n
1925, the expul si on of the Cal vi ni sts i n 1936, and the compl ete revi -
si on of the creed i n 1967.) What happened to the Presbyteri ans dur-
i ng the Great Awakeni ng was repeated i n Congregati onal i sm (Ol d
Li ghts vs. New Li ghts). 180
Tennent was not al one. Hei mert has noted Edwards rati onal i sti c
aestheti cs: Edwards turned to nature, not for refuge from the sti l l ,
sad musi c of humani ty, but because he bel i eved that God had devi sed
a worl d of natural beauty where one thi ng sweetl y harmoni zes
wi th another.. . .
~l el That vi ew was wi del y shared i n the col oni es.
I ndeed, even Vol tai re woul d have agreed. Where di d Edwards get
such an i dea? From Newton, the master theol ogi an of not qui te per-
fectl y harmoni ous nature. What Newtoni ani sm di d for Ameri can
ci vi l pol i ty, experi enti al i sm eventual l y di d for Ameri can eccl esi asti -
cal pol i ty: create a new judi ci al basi s for communi on and confedera-
ti on. Uni tari an rati onal i sm and non-creedal Chri sti an i rrati onal i sm
joi ned forces i n the second hal f of the ei ghteenth century, and the
resul t was a new nati on, concei ved i n neutral i ty, and dedi cated to
the proposi ti on that al l church creeds are created equal .
180. Al an EI ei mert, Religion and the Ameri2an Mind: From the Great Awakening to the
Revolution (Cambri dge, Massachusetts: Harvard Uni versi ty Press, 1966), p. 2.
181. I bid., p. 103.
I f anythi ng other than verbal professi on of fai th and outward wal k
accordi ng to Gods Bi bl e-reveal ed l aw i s suggested as a substi tute re-
qui rement for Church membershi p, the resul t i s the creati on of a di s-
ti ncti on i n membershi p based on thi s added requi rement. I f the added
requi rement i s experi ence, then someone i n the church wi l l not meet
thi s i nherentl y undefi nabl e standard. I f experi ence becomes i n any
way a formal basi s of membershi p, detai l ed creeds wi l l then be seen
as i nherentl y di vi si ve wi thi n the church, and the defenders of such
creeds wi l l be seen as narrow bi gots. The suppl emental standard wi l l
become the pri mary screeni ng devi ce i n the eyes of those who bel i eve
that i t i s more than suppl emental . Thi s i s what happened duri ng the
Great Awakeni ng and i ts aftermath i n the 1760s. The Great Awak-
eni ng restructured Church government as surel y as i t restructured
ci vi l government. 182
Samuel Davi es, a l eader i n Vi rgi ni a Presbyteri an ci rcl es and
who succeeded Jonathan Edwards as presi dent of the Col l ege of New
Jersey, began i n the l ate 1750s to urge a uni ~ of a~ection and design
among al l of Vi rgi ni as di ssenters, Bapti sts and Presbyteri ans. He
argued that thi s uni ty woul d not be based on doctri ne or l ogi c, but
on experi mental and practical Religion. 183 I n the revi val of 1763, thi s
was the basi s of another cal l to Chri sti an uni on; Chri sti ans were to
be one i n heart, one i n affecti on i n attendi ng to the same great con-
cern , whi ch was the Work of Redempti on. 184 Contrary to Hei merts
asserti on that the essenti al s of Cal vi ni sm were the New Bi rth and
experi mental rel i gi on,
~ 1*S there was nothi ng expl i ci tl y or even i m
-
pl i ci tl y Cal vi ni sti c about these concerns. There was cl earl y nothi ng
Puri tan. The Great Awakeni ng was creati ng a new basi s of Chri sti an
uni t y: experi enti al i sm and a l east-common-denomi nator creedal i sm.
Thi s uni ty coul d not be mai ntai ned eccl esi asti cal l y. Bapti sts were
Bapti sts; Presbyteri ans were Presbyteri ans (and separated from thei r
brethren unti l 1758). Where, then, was thi s hoped-for uni ty to be
mani fested? I n ci vi c rel i gi on. Thi s woul d r equi r ~ a common vi ew of
ci vi l l aw to match the ever-l eaner creedal confessi ons and the ever-
l ess covenantal concepti on of Chri sti an soci ety. Thi s was refl ected i n
the Presbyteri ans steady acceptance of a practi ce they had never
been comfortabl e wi th, publ i c fast days. These days were a cel ebra-
ti on of Gods common moral l aw among nati ons:
182. See Bushman, From Puritan to Yankee.
183. Ci ted i n Hei mert, Religion, p. 142.
184. I dem.
185. I dem.
The Theological Origins of the .?% S. Constitution 361
By the 1770s the noti on of Gods moral government of the nati ons had
been ful l y transl ated by the Cal vi ni st mi nd i nto i ts own i nterpretati on of the
course of empi re. . . . By the l ate years of the Revol uti on Cal vi ni sts were
urgi ng thanksgi vi ngs i n terms of the common l aws of soci ety that obl i ged
al l men to joi n i n expressi ons of grati tude for the fel i ci ty of communi ti es,
as col l ecti ve bodi es .. . . Over the course of thi rty years they had moved
from a di senchantment wi th the course of col oni al hi story to a cel ebrati on of
the fact that the sai nts, havi ng engaged themsel ves i n pol i ti cal ti ai rs, had
seemi ngl y succeeded i n i mposi ng thei r moral l aw on Ameri can soci ety. 1s6
On the contrary, the Uni tari ans had i mposed thei r vi ew of the
revel ati on-free moral l aw on the Cal vi ni sts and everyone el se. The
non-creedal Great Awakeni ng, fol l owed by the nati onal spi ri t of the
Revol uti on agai nst a common pol i ti cal enemy, had destroyed al l
traces of the Puri tan hol y commonweal th i deal . I t had vi rtual l y de-
stroyed i ts ori gi nal i nternati onal i sm the ci ty on a hi l l and had
seri ousl y damaged i ts ci vi l l ocal i sm. Common-ground, mi ni mal -
creed rel i gi ous experi enti al i sm had combi ned wi th common-ground
Newtoni an rati onal i sm to produce the nati onal ci vi l rel i gi on.
There was a spi ri t of rebel l i on at the heart of the Great Awaken-
i ng: agai nst Church authori ty and agai nst State authori ty. I t tore up
the churches and i t tore up the l ast remnant of the Tri ni tari an hol y
commonweal th i deal i n New Engl and. The i ndi vi dual i sts had organ-
i zed agai nst the parti cul ari sm of the creeds. I t unl eashed the same
forces that the revol uti on i n Engl and had unl eashed a century earl i er.
Thi s ti me, however, the wave of anti -creedal i sm coul d not be stopped,
short of the restructuri ng of ci vi l government i n New Engl and. The
spi ri t of Spi ri t-fi l l ed i ndi vi dual i sm so si mi l ar i n effects to the spi ri t of
panthei sti c autonomy coupl ed wi th the i nevi tabl e quest for some
basi s of fel l owshi p outsi de the organi zed churches, even i f thi s peri od
l asted onl y for a year or two i n a mans l i fe, transformed mens thi nk-
i ng. They were never agai n wi l l i ng to fi ght for Tri ni tari an oaths as the
foundati on of ci ti zenshi p. The Great Awakeni ngs one-generati on
spi ri t of rebel l i on washed away the bi bl i cal covena~t i deal al ong wi th
the l ast pol i ti cal remnants of that i deal . I t has yet to be restored. 1s7
186. I bid. , pp. 296, 297.
187. I t i s si gni fi cant that Rushdoonys Chalcedon Report i n Jul y of 1989 began a ser -
i es of arti cl es defendi ng the revi val i sts of the Great Awakeni ng agai nst the Church
authori ti es of that day. The spi ri t of i ndependency, when unchecked by Church au-
thori ty and the sacraments, has an i nnate tendency to tri umph over mens formal l y
professed creeds. Creeds wi thout formal sancti ons cannot survi ve. Thi s i s al ways the
threat of Whi ggery, whether eccl esi asti cal or pol i ti cal : i t hates eccl esi asti cal sanc-
ti ons, and i t hates creeds i f they are enforced by sancti ons. Because it hates creeds
and sancti ons, Whi ggery eventual l y comes to terms wi th the myth of neutral i ty.
New Theology; New Ecclesiology
The revi val i sts i n 1740-60 di d not ask themsel ves a cruci al ques-
ti on: What woul d remai n when the honeymoon fi res of the revi val
cool ed, and theol ogi cal strangers found themsel ves i n eccl esi asti cal
beds together? as The answer was a new theol ogy, a ci vi l theol ogy,
whi ch woul d be common to al l vaguel y defi ned and vaguel y di sci -
pl i ned Chri sti ans. Rushdoony has noted that there was a shi ft i n the
character of preachi ng as Puri tani sm decl i ned. Col oni al el ecti on ser-
mons shi fted from an attempt to preserve the i ntegri ty of the church
to an attempt to preserve the i ntegri ty of ci vi l government. The hol y
commonweal th was now i ncreasi ngl y civil government and Christiani~
r ather than chur ch and state, or ci vi l and eccl esi asti cal govern-
ments. ~ I w Thi s process of secul ari zati on accel erated, especi al l y dur-
i ng the Revol uti on. some schol ars bel i eve that the Great Awakeni ng
made the Revol uti on possi bl e. 190
Thi s process of heati ng and cool i ng di d take pl ace. The fi res of
the Great Awakeni ng spread across the face of the l and from 1735
unti l the mi d-1750s. But when the fi res of revi val went out, and the
shatter ed eccl esi asti cal str uctur es l ay di vi ded acr oss the Amer i can
l andscape and soul scape, what other i nsti tuti onal str uctur e coul d
offer men the sense of fel l owshi p, fraterni ty, and commonal i ty that
the churches no l onger seemed abl e to provi de? The quest for such a
fraterni ty has been a negl ected story i ndeed, the negl ected story
of the transformati on of the Ameri can covenant. I t i s the story of the
ri se of Freemasonry.
Anci ents and Moderns
What ei ghteenth-century men bel i eved that Newton had accom-
pl i shed for the physi cal uni verse expl ai ni ng the physi cal cosmos
wi thout any appeal to the detai l s of Chri sti an theol ogy they al so
bel i eved the human mi nd coul d do to the pol i ti cal uni verse. They
bel i eved that a wel l -crafted contractual document coul d produce the
188. And regul ar beds. The combi nati on of anti nomi ani sm, emoti onal i sm, and a
breakdown of l ocal church authori ty was potent. The era of the Great Awakeni ng
was an era of rampant sexual i ty. I n Bri stol , Rhode I sl and, i n the peri od 1720-40, the
number of new mar r i ages wi th a chi l d bor n i n the ei ghth month was 10 Yo. I n the
1740-60 peri od, i t was 49%. I n 1760-80, i t dropped sl i ghtl y to 44~0. John Demos,
Fami l i es i n Col oni al Br i stol , Rhode I sl and: An Exerci se i n Hi stori cal
Demography, William and May Quarter~, 3rd ser., XXV (Jan. 1968), p. 56,
189. Rushdoony, This I ndependent Republic, p. 106.
190. Hei mert, Reli&on.
bl essi ngs of l i berty and the reducti on of the i nfl uence of pol i ti cal fac-
ti ons, as Madi son asserted i n Federalist 51. Hami l ton had framed the
questi on of questi ons i n Federalist 1: . . . whether soci eti es of men
are real l y capabl e or not, of establ i shi ng good government from re-
fl ecti on and choi ce, or whether they are forever desti ned to depend,
for thei r pol i ti cal consti tuti ons, on acci dent and force .l gl What the
Federal i sts needed, pol i ti cal l y speaki ng, was a cri si s, a l oomi ng di s-
conti nui ty y or better yet, the appearance of a l oomi ng di sconti nui ty
so that they coul d persuade voters to adopt the Consti tuti on rather
than dri ft al ong wi th the exi sti ng pol i ti cal order. Thus, sai d
Hami l ton, the cri si s, at whi ch we are arri ved, may wi th propri ety
be regarded as the era i n whi ch that deci si on i s to be made; . . . 192
Here was the great opportuni ty: to i mpose a new system of nati onal
ci vi l government on the thi rteen mostl y i ndependent col oni es. But
what ki nd of order woul d thi s new order be? I t woul d not be Chri s-
ti an. There i s no doubt that after the Revol uti on, the focus of the
ci vi l government became one of protecti ng i ndi vi dual l i berty rather
than protecti ng Chri sti an soci ety (e. g., sexual moral i ty), even i n
once-Puri tan Massachusetts. 193
Mi chael Li eneschs superb summary of the Framers outl ook
demonstrates that they hel d a modern vi ew of pol i ti cs a vi ew of
pol i ti cs anal ogous to Newtoni an astronomy. Whi l e they referred to
Roman hi story, thei r mi nds were governed by a very di fferent para-
di gm, especi al l y when they sought to defend the work of the Consti -
tuti onal Conventi on. The fol l owi ng extract from Li eneschs book
must be read careful l y.
Wi th thi s new form of pol i ti cal sci ence, Federal i sts sought to create a
ti mel ess form of pol i ti cs. Transcendi ng any need for the l essons of the past,
preventi ng any possi bi l i ty of decl ensi on i n the future, the Ameri can Consti -
tuti on exi sted enti rel y i n a theoreti cal l y perfect present. The di scoveri es of
modern sci ence had made i t possi bl e to bri ng the pri nci pl es of the pol i ti cal
real m i nto compl ete conformi ty wi th the l aws of the natural worl d. Wri tten
i n the l anguage of reason and truth, based on pri nci pl es as fi xed and un-
changeabl e as the l aws whi ch operate i n the natural worl d, the Consti tu-
191. Hami l ton, Federal i st 1, i n The Fedmalist, edi ted by Jacob E. Cooke (Mi ddl e-
town, Connecti cut: Wesl eyan Uni versi ty Press, 1961), p. 3.
192. I dem.
193. Wi l l i am E. Nel son, The Americanization of the Common Law: The I mpact of Legal
Change on Mass~husetts Socie@ 1760-1830 (Cambri dge, Massachusetts: Harvard Uni -
versi ty Press, 1975), pp. 89-110.
,364 POLI TI CAL POLYTHEI SM
ti on was i ntended to be a perfect system, as i nfal l i bl e as any mathemati cal
cal cul ati ons. 194 Secure i n thei r sci enti fi c fai th, Federal i sts waxed euphori c
on the superi ori ty of the new Consti tuti on; i t was, as one sai d, the best
form of government that has ever been offered to the worl d. 195 Whereas
other schemes had fal l en i nto corrupti on and decl i ne, a perpetual l y bal -
anced federal Consti tuti on seemed capabl e of conti nui ng forever. Wi th i t,
predi cted an admi ri ng Robert Davi dson, the Ameri can states shaJl resem-
bl e, the Sol ar System, where every obedi ent pl anet moves on i ts proper
path, never seeki ng to fl y from, nor even approachi ng the great attracti ve
orb, than the wi se author of nature i ntended. 196 The federal Consti tuti on
was created to appl y equal l y to every age, never runni ng down, weari ng
out, or fal l i ng i nto di srepai r. As far as these Federal i st wri ters were con-
cerned, the new republ i c coul d conti nue i n thi s perfect state forever a
system: Barl ow rhapsodi zed, whi ch wi l l stand the test of ages. 197
Throughout the debates, Federal i sts woul d conti nue to argue that the
Consti tuti on was a theoreti cal l y perfect i nstrument. As the state conven-
ti ons drew on, however, they came to admi t the col d hard truth so often
propounded by the Anti federal i sts that the Consti tuti on, however excel -
l ent i n theory, mi ght wel l be fl awed i n practi ce. Equal l y i mportant, they re-
al i zed that the case for rati fi cati on coul d be strengthened by embraci ng the
Anti federal i st demand for an amendment procedure. Thus, i n Federal i st
r hetor i c, experi ence began to undergo one fi nal change, from experi ence
as sci enti fi c truth to experi ence as sci enti fi c experi mentati on. 198
Thi s appeal to experi ence was no devi ati on from Newtoni ani sm.
Newton had admi tted that God must occasi onal l y rei mpose Hi s wi l l
on a decl i ni ng, fri cti on-bound cosmi c order. The uni verse i s not a
perfect auton~mous cosmi c cl ock. Thus, the revi sed vi ew of those
who defended thi s modern vi ew of the Consti tuti on was real l y con-
si stent wi th Newtoni ani sm. Li enesch does not make thi s cl ear i n hi s
194. The Fri ends of Uni on and Just Government, An Address to the Citizem of Penn-
sylvania (Phi l adel phi a: n. p., [1789]; El i zur Goodr i ch, D. D., The Prircci#les of CWil
Union and Happiness considoed and Recommended. A Sermon . . . (Hartford, Corm.:
Hudson and Goodwi n, 1787), p. 8; Hami l ton, address to the New York Conven-
ti on, 28 June 1788, i n [El l i ots] Debates, I I , p. 366.
195. Si meon Bal dwi n, An Orati on Pronounced B~ore tk Citizens of New-Haven, J u~ 4,
1788 . . . (New Haven, Corm.: J, Mei gs, 1788), p. 13.
196. Robert Davi dson, D .D., An Oration on the I ndependence of the United States of
Arnaica . . (Carl i sl e, Pa.: Kl i ne and Reynol ds [1787]), p. 15.
197. Joel Barl ow, An Oration, Delivered in the North Church in Hatiford . J u~ 4,
1787. . . (Hartford, Corm.: Hudson and Goodwi n, [1787]), p. 19.
198. Mi chael Li enesch, New Order of the Ages: Time, the Constitution, and the Making
of Modern Ammcan Political Thought (Pri nceton, New Jersey: Pri nceton Uni versi ty
Press, 1988), pp. 134-35.
The Theological Or i gi ns of the US. Constitution 365
study. He does correctl y poi nt out that ei ghteenth-century sci ence
accepted a dual vi ew of sci ence: theoreti cal permanence and practi -
cal i mprovement. 199
A Familiar Stov
Thi s dual i sm between theoreti cal permanence and hi stori cal
change i s equal l y true of every phi l osophi cal system. There has to be
a system of permanence whi ch undergi rds and gi ves meani ng to al l
change i f nothi ng el se, then at l east a communi cati ons system based
on grammar (fi xed rul es, yet wi th al l owance for change through
usage). Wi th regul ari ty there had to be a way to deal wi th human ex-
peri ence. The Framers were wel l aware of thi s di l emma, and they
devoted consi der abl e ti me and effort to studyi ng the experi ence of
pol i ti cal orders i n the past, especi al l y cl assi cal poi i ti cs. Thi s was al so
a heri tage of the Whi g tradi ti on. ZOI J
Thi s di l emma i s the conti nuati on of the anci ent phi l osophi cal
probl em of l aw vs. fl ux, l ogi c vs. hi story, or as Van Ti l l i ked to put i t,
the stati c i ce bl ock phi l osophy of Par meni des vs. the fl uctuati ng
fl owi ng ri ver of Heracl i tus. I t i s the fundamental anti nomy of al l hu-
mani st thought. Pl ato tri ed to reconci l e the two, Van Ti l sai d, but
fai l ed. Pl ato coul d not stop hi s i ce cubes from becomi ng water un-
l ess he woul d freeze al l the water i nto i ce.zol Thi s dual i sm between
l aw and hi stori cal change cannot be reconci l ed apart from the doc-
tri nes of the Tri ni ty, the creati on out of nothi ng, and Gods absol ute
pr ovi dence over hi story i n terms of Hi s soverei gn decree and
pl an. ZOZ Once men abandon the Bi bl e as Gods onl y per manent
Word i n hi story, they are caught between the fal se, tyranni cal per-
manence of mans word and the chaoti c fl ux of hi story.
199. I bid., p. 135.
200. H. Trevor Col bourn, The Lamp of Experience: Whig HistoV and the Begi nni ngs of
ihe Atmmican Revolution (Chapel Hi l l : Uni versi ty of North Carol i na Press, 1965). See
especi al l y J. G. A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and
the Atlantic Republican Tradition (Pri nceton, New Jersey: Pri nceton Uni versi ty Press,
1975), Pt. 3. Pangl es warni ng i s l egi ti mate: we can easi l y overl ook the moderni st
i mpul se of the Whi g tradi ti on i f we take too seri ousl y the rhetori cal references to the
anci ent cl assi cs i n the wri ti ngs of these Machi avel l i an republ i cans. Pangl e, Spi r i t of
Moakrn Republ i cani sm, ch. 4.
201. Van Ti l , A SurvqY of Christian Epistemology, p. 43.
202. Accordi ng as he bath chosen us i n hi m before the foundati on of the worl d,
that we shoul d be hol y and wi thout bl ame before hi m i n l ove (Eph. 1:4). Who bath
saved us, and cal l ed us wi th an hol y cal l i ng, not accordi ng to our works, but accord-
i ng to hi s own pur pose and gr ace, whi ch was gi ven us i n Chr i st Jesus befor e the
worl d began (I I Ti m. 1:9).
Thus, the fundamental probl ems of the pol i ti cal phi l osophy of
the anci ents reappear i n the pol i ti cal phi l osophy of the moderns.
Both of these humani st vi ewpoi nts are anti -Tnni tari an and anti -bi b-
l i cal covenant. There was no Consti tuti onal sol uti on to the probl ems
of pol i ti cal phi l osophy i n ei ther Feder al i st Whi g Newtoni an r e-
publ i cani sm or Anti feder al i st Whi g Newtoni an r epubl i cani sm. The
sought-for Consti tuti onal bal ance of the one and the many, apar t
from the Bi bl e and the Ol d Testament case l aws, i s unattai nabl e.
Li ke Newtons uni ver se. apar t fr om Gods constant, acti ve pr ovi -
dence, the bal anced Consti tuti on wi l l i nevi tabl y move toward cen-
tral i zed tyranny (the fear of the Anti federal i sts) or toward di ssol u-
ti on (the fear of the Feder al i sts). Both movements took pl ace i n
1861-65. The central i sts won the i ntel l ectual battl e of pol i ti cal phi -
l osophy on the mi l i tary battl efi el ds of the U.S. Ci vi l War. (So di d the
banker s.)
203
The federal bureaucracy began to expand as never be-
fore after 1860, al though i t appears smal l i n retrospect i n todays
bur eaucr ati c wor l d. Contr ar y to Madi sons vi si on, but consi stent
wi th Madi sons system after the Fourteenth Amendment had made
l egal l y possi bl e the i ncr easi ng centr al i zati on of the nati on, these
new bureaucraci es were geared to speci al i nterests i n a di versi fyi ng
economy. 204
What the Fr amer s needed was a model : a fi xed gover nmental
system that woul d deal wi th man as he i s, yet encourage hi m to act
i n ways that are best for hi m. The Framers were al most messi ani c;
they bel i eved that such a consti tuti on had never before been devi sed.
The republ i cs of Greece and I tal y had fai l ed, Hami l ton sai d, for they
had osci l l ated between tyranny and anarchy
205
the perpetual prob-
l em of the one and the many. 206 But there i s hope: The sci ence of
pol i ti cs, however , l i ke most other sci ences has r ecei ved gr eat i m-
pr ovement. The effi cacy of var i ous pr i nci pl es i s now wel l under -
stood, whi ch were ei ther not known at al l , or i mperfectl y known to
the anci ents.27 Were thi s not the case, pessi mi sm al one woul d be
203. Gary North, Greenback Dol l ars and Federal Soverei gnty, 1861 -1865, i n
Hans F. Sennhol z (cd.), Gold I s Mon.sy (Westport, Connecti cut: Greenwood, 1975),
pp. 122-56.
204. James Q. Wi l son, The Ri se of the Bureaucrati c State, Public I nterest (Fal l
1975), p. 88.
205. Hami l ton, Federal i st 9, Federalist, p. 50.
206. R. J. Rushdoony, The One and the Many: Studies in the Philosophy of Order and
UltimaU (Fai rfax, Vi rgi ni a: Thoburn Press, [1971] 1978).
207. Hami l ton, Federal i st 9, Federalist, p. 51.
appropri ate regardi ng republ i cs, that i s, I f i t had been found i m-
practi cabl e, to have devi sed model s of a more perfect structure. . . .
208
But The Federalist i s a defense of a new day, a new way, a new model ,
a new order of the ages.
And thi s or der woul d be judi ci al l y non-Chr i sti an.
These men saw themsel ves as archi tects of a new nati on and a
new order of the ages: Novu.s Ordo Seclorum. Thi s i denti fi cati on wi th
archi tecture was not a random devel opment. Consti tuti on-bui l di ng
was, i n thei r mi nds, anal ogous to the work of a Great Archi tect. I t
was a new creati on. I t was a break from the past a speci fi cal l y
Chri sti an past. Yet there was a suffi ci ent l egacy from that past, i n-
cl udi ng a mi l l enni al aspect, 209 to persuade them that such an exper i -
ment woul d succeed.
To make possi bl e thi s hypotheti cal l y di si nterested exami nati on of
pol i ti cs, the Consti tuti on r emoved Chr i sti an r el i gi ous tests as the judi -
ci al requi rement of the judges and offi cers of the new nati onal govern-
ment. That, i n and of i tsel f, del i vered the republ i c i nto the hands of
the humani sts. Nothi ng el se was necessary after that. From that poi nt
on, the secul ar i zati on of Amer i ca was a moppi ng-up oper ati on.
Negl ecti ng the Newtoni an-Great Awakeni ng Connecti on
Jonathan Edwards i s someti mes vi ewed as the l ast of the Puri -
tans. Thi s i s a mi stake. He was not among the Cal vi ni st anci ents .
He i s better descr i bed as the fi r st of the Cal vi ni st moder ns.
Edwar ds theol ogy of exper i enti al i sm hel ped to destr oy Cal vi ni st
covenant theol ogy i n Ameri ca, whi ch i s one reason why vi rtual l y al l
modern schol ars prai se hi m as the greatest theol ogi an i n Ameri can
hi story: he abandoned l egal i sm.
z 10 He took predesti nati on, human-
i sti c rati onal i sm, postmi l l enni al i sm, and emoti onal i sm, and he fused
them i nto a non-covenantal theol ogy. Hi s theol ogy wasanti nomi an.211
208. I dern.
209. Li enesch, New Order, ch. 8. Cf. Ruth 1310ch, Visionary Republic: Millennial
Themes i n American Thought, 1756-1800 (New York: Cambri dge Uni versi ty Press,
[1985] 1988), chaps. 5, 6.
210. Wri tes Wi l l i am Frankena: Edwards was perhaps the best phi l osopher Cal -
vi ni sm ever produced. . . . Frankena, Foreword, Edwards, The True Nature of Virtue
(Ann Arbor: Uni versi ty of Mi chi gan Press, 1960), p. vi .
211. Bi bl i cal l aw i s nowhere even menti oned by Edwards i n hi s study, The Tme
Nature of Virtue (1755); i nstead, Edwards di scussed such topi cs as Concerni ng the
Secondary and I nferi or Ki nd of Beauty (Chapter 3), Of Natural Consci ence and
the Moral Sense (Chapter 5), and I n What Respects Vi rtue or Moral Good I s
Founded i n Senti ment; and How Far I t I s Founded i n the Reason and Nature of
Thi ngs (Chapter 8). Here i s pre-Kanti an ethi cal dual i sm by a Cal vi ni st.
But the bi bl i cal covenant model depends on the presence of Gods
Bi bl e-r eveal ed sti pul ati ons. Hei mer t i s correct; Edwards repudi ated
the covenant as a meani ngful concept. 212 Hi s i ti nerant Arfni ni an i m-
i tators di d not even begi n wi th the ol der covenant model , l et al one
repudi ate i t i mpl i ci tl y, as he di d. Thei r spi ri tual hei rs i n the next
generati on were even more adri ft covenantal l y i n a new nati on and
new soci ety. Thus, by the 1780s, the nati on was wi thout a cove-
nantal rudder. Thi s vacuum was fi l l ed by a new covenant theol ogy,
Uni tari an i n content and pol i ti cal i n appl i cati on (as Uni tari an theol -
ogy general l y i s).
2
13
From the Puri tan founders and thei r requi rement for experi ence
as a mar k of tr ue conver si on and chur ch member shi p unti l the
Synod of 1662 and the hal fway covenant bapti sm but no Lords
Supper for grandchi l dren of members was thi rty years. From that
Sy nod to Sol omon Stoddards theol ogy of open communi on as a
means of conversi on was another forty-fi ve years. From Stoddard to
hi s grandson Jonathan Edwards and the Great Awakeni ng, i t took
214 By then, Cal vi ni st covenant theol ogy was dead thi r ty mor e year s.
or ter mi nal l y i l l . Exper i enti al i sm had mor tal l y wounded i t i n the
1630s and had bur i ed i t i n the 1740s. 215 From Edwards death i n
1758 the year of Presbyteri an reuni on to the rati fi cati on of the
Consti tuti on was another thi rty years.
Men need a covenant. The questi on i s: Whi ch covenant? Par t
3 of Pol i ti cal Po@heism i s basi cal l y a Tri ni tari an and covenantal
devel opment of the bri ef i nsi ght made by E. S. Corwi n i n 1929, gen-
eral l y regarded as the most i nfl uenti al student of the Consti tuti on
i n thi s century. 216 Corwi ns or i gi nal 1928-29 essays i n the Harvard
Law Review wer e publ i shed as The Higher Law Background of Ameri-
can Constitutional Law (1955). 217 He traced the Consti tuti onal i deal
of the or der ed pol i ti cal uni ver se back to Newton and Groti us, a
2 + 2 = 4 vi ew of mans worl d. 2]8 Corwi n got the i dea from Carl
212. Hei mert, Religion and the American Mind, p. 126.
213, The best defi ni ti on of Uni tari an theol ogy I have ever heard was offered by
phi l osopher Davi d Harrah: There i s, at the most, one God.
214. James Carse, J onathan Edwards and the Visibilib of God (New York: Scri bners,
1967), p. 24.
215. Davi d Chi l ton once tol d me that he pl anned to wri te a book cal l ed Reuival: Zts
Causes and Cure.
216. He hel d sway from the 1920s through the 1940s; after hi s death, there were
too many contenders for the ti tl e for any one of them to match hi s i nfl uence.
217. I thaca, New York: Cornel l Uni versi ty Press.
218. I bid., pp. 58-59.
The Theological Origins of the .?.% S. Constitution 369
Becker.zl g Becker had traced the i dea i n part back to a 1728 book,
The Newtonian System of the World the Best Model of Government, an Alle-
gorical Poem, publ i shed the year after Newtons death and wr i tten by
J. T. Desagui l i ers. Becker unfor tunatel y di d not i denti fy Desagui l -
i ers, who i s one of the most i mportant forgotten men i n ei ghteenth-
centur y Angl o-Amer i can hi stor y. He was Newtons hand-pi ck ed
popul ari zer of hi s sci enti fi c system, the fi rst pai d sci enti fi c l ecturer i n
moder n hi stor y, and the founder , al ong wi th James Ander son, of
moder n Fr eemasonr y. (See Chapter 9.)
Thi s vi ew of the Consti tuti on has not gone unchal l enged. Phi l o-
sopher Morton whi te rejects i t i n hi s Philosophy of the American Revolu-
tion, zzo But there are other ways of avoi di ng the Corwi n-Becker
thesi s. The most effecti ve way to do thi s i s to adopt a str ategy of
si l ence r egar di ng Newton, and then r epr oduce detai l ed ci tati ons
fr om l esser subsequent fi gur es who wer e i nfl uenced heav i l y b y
Newton, a fact one s el dom menti ons or consi der s. For exampl e,
there i s l i ttl e doubt i n my mi nd that the most i nformed hi stori an of
the ori gi ns of the U.S. Consti tuti on i s Forrest McDonal d. Yet i n hi s
Nouus Ordo Seclorum: The I ntellectual Origins of the Constitution (1985), he
menti ons I saac Newton onl y once, and then onl y i n a l i st of names of
peopl e ci ted i n one col oni al or ati on. 221 McDonal d goes i nto gr eat
detai l , as my teacher Dougl ass Adai r used to do, regardi ng the i nfl u-
ence of Cok e, Bol i n gbr ok e, Mon s tes qu i eu , Hu me, Bl ackstone,
Locke, Groti us, Vattel , and dozens of other l ong-for gotten fi gur es.
Yet the toweri ng i ntel l ectual fi gure of the age i ndeed, the tower i ng
i ntel l ectual fi gure of the modern worl d, whose Principia dates the ad-
vent of thi s worl d the man who set the foundati onal paradi gm of al l
modern sci enti fi c thought, i s not even di scussed. (Adai r was equal l y
gui l ty of thi s negl ect.) I t was I saac Newton who more than any other
fi gure made possi bl e the cul ture-wi de i deol ogi cal shi ft of the West
fr om Tr i ni tar i ani sm to Dei sm, and from thence to athei sm. I t was
I saac Newton who, i n hi s meti cul ous, geometr i cal , guar ded wa y ,
turned the worl d upsi de down ether or no ether .
219. Car l Becker , The Declaration of I ndependence: A Stuaj i n the Histoy of Political
I deas (New Yor k: Vi ntage, [1922] 1942), ch. 2.
220. Hi s argument agai nst thi s Newtoni an vi si on of the Framers thi nki ng i s basi -
cal l y negati ve: Corwi n di d not prove hi s case. Thi s was not a persuasi ve argument
i n 1978, and today, after Margaret Jacobs books, i t i s woeful l y out of date. Morton
Whi te, The Philosophy of the Amaican Revolution (New York: Oxford Uni versi ty Press,
1978), pp. 157-60.
221. Forrest McDonal d, Novus Ordo Seclorum: The I ntellectual Origim of the Comtitu-
tion (Lawrence, Kansas: Uni versi ty Press of Kansas, 1985), p. 69.
McDonal d i s representati ve of the best of the humani st hi stori ans
of the ori gi ns of the Ameri can Revol uti on and the Consti tuti on. Hi s
mastery of the facts of the 1780s i s i mpressi ve; for exampl e, he has
read every col oni al newspaper of the era. Hi s mi stake i s i n aski ng
subordi nate questi ons of subordi nate fi gures. He i gnores the source
of the modern Wests paradi gm shi ft I saac Newton and concen-
trates i nstead on i ts di l i gent devel opers i n the l i mi ted fi el d of pol i ti cal
theory. He does not di scuss the ori gi n of the pol i ti cs of the 1780s ~ i n
the l aboratori es of the 1680s. The story of the Ameri can Revol uti on
does not begi n i n 1688 wi th the Gl or i ous Revol uti on; i t begi ns i n
1687 wi th the ~ri nc@a, or i n 1660 wi th the restorati on of Charl es I I
and hi s i ncorporati on i n 1661 of the Royal Soci ety. When the I nvi si -
bl e Col l ege became vi si bl e, the r evol uti on was. 222
Concl usi on
McDonal ds negl ect of Newton i s matched by hi s far l ess wel l -
i nformed equi val ents i n the Chri sti an academi c communi ty. For
wel l over a century, a handful of Chri sti an conservati ves have at-
tempted to pl ace the Amer i can Revol uti on wi thi n the context of
Chri sti an thought and cul ture, despi te the steady expi rati on of both
expl i ci tl y Chri sti an thought (moral casui stry) and cul ture i n the earl y
ei ghteenth century. Thi s approach can be somewhat successful wi th
respect to certai n i ntel l ectual defenses of the Ameri can Revol uti on
i tsel f, especi al l y by an appeal to patri oti c sermons, though not wi th-
out consi derabl e qual i fi cati on and a cl ear recogni ti on of the cri ppl i ng
effects of Newtoni an natural l aw phi l osophy on the defenses of the
best Chri sti an pol i ti cal apol ogi sts. 223 On the other hand, such an at-
tempt i s utterl y frui tl ess wi th respect to the i deol ogi cal ori gi ns of the
U.S. Consti tuti on. Nel l , Hatch, and Mar sden r ecogni ze thi s, and
they have successful l y defeated thei r tradi ti onal conservati ve Chri s-
ti an ri val s i n the fi el d of i ntel l ectual battl e. Thei r pol i ti cal i deal i s
Newtoni an, and they can demonstrate that thei r preference i s i ncar-
nated i n the Consti tuti onal settl ement. (Bei ng Newtoni an, however,
such an i deal i s wi thout epi stemol ogi cal foundati on today, ther eby
maki ng i t possi bl e for neo-evangel i cal s to go wi th the fl ow of evol u-
222. Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment.
223. Archi e P. Jones, The Chri sti an Roots of the War for I ndependence,Journal
of Christian Reconstruction, I I I (1976), pp. 6-51.; M. E. Bradford, And God Defend
the Ri ght: The Ameri can Revol uti on and the Li mi ts of Chri sti an Obedi ence, Chris-
tiani~ and Civilization, 2 (1983), pp. 233-41.
The Theological Or i gi ns of the US. Constitution 371
ti onary secul ar humani sm about 80% of the ti me, whi ch i s exactl y
what they want to do. They cl i ng to the remai ni ng 20 YO i n order to
justi fy thei r cl ai m to themsel ves and to thei r eccl esi asti cal superi -
ors that they are real l y di fferent i n spi ri t from thei r tenured, God-
hati ng, academi c peer s.)
Unfortunatel y, we have had a dedi cated movement of Chri sti an
non-hi stor i ans, woul d-be hi stor i ans, and l awyer s pr etendi ng to be
hi stori ans who thi nk that hi stori cal revi si oni sm appl i ed to the pre-
vai l i ng humani st textbook account of the Consti tuti on i s cal l ed for,
not to show the trul y conspi ratori al basi s of that judi ci al revol uti on,
whi ch the humani sts pr udentl y i gnor e, but i n or der to show that
somehow, i f we just l ook cl osel y enough, we wi l l see traces of Chri sti -
ani ty y i n the Consti tuti on. To whi ch I say: l et us cut our l osses now. I t
i s ti me to scrap thi s parti cul ar revi si oni st effort, I t has produced noth-
i ng but confusi on i n the mi nds of Chri sti ans and ri di cul e from the hu-
mani sts who have the footnotes on thei r si de i n thi s confrontati on.
What we need to do i n the future i s to exami ne the records of the
Consti tuti onal conventi on and i ts i ntel l ectual and institutional back-
ground. Thi s wi l l begi n to open a l ong-cl osed book. Thi s procedure
must be done by Chri sti an schol ars i n terms of a bi bl i cal presupposi -
ti on: that the quest for permanent pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i s i nher entl y a
demoni c quest. Thi s presupposi ti on has been rejected by both si des,
Chri sti an and non-Chri sti an. So, we have yet to be presented wi th a
ser i ous study of the hi stor i cal and theol ogi cal or i gi ns of the U.S.
Consti tuti on. Part 3 of Political Po&heism i s l i ttl e mor e than an outl i ne
of the work that needs to be done by several generati ons of presuppo-
si ti onal l y sound Chri sti an researchers.
What I am argui ng i n thi s chapter, and i ndeed i n thi s book, i s
that Cromwel l s versi on of Tri ni tari an pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i s the one
whi ch i s der i ved fr om the Bi bl e. Roger Wi l l i ams secul ar i zed thi s
posi ti on, and uni versal i zed i t by means of natural l aw theory. Thi s i s
the theol ogi cal foundati on of moder n pol i ti cal pol ythei sm. James
Madi son and the Framers put forth a new nati onal covenant based
on Wi l l i ams model i n 1787, and the voters representati ves rati fi ed i t
i n 1788. We l i ve under i ts jur i sdi cti on sti l l . We wi l l not l i ve under
i t forever.
Madi son coul d not pause to rest. Hi s domi nant rol e i n drafti ng
the Consti tuti on and forci ng the Fi rst Amendment upon a rel uctant
Congress i n 1789 i s wel l known. I n the l i ght of hi story, i t woul d have
been an i rony had any other man performed the task certai nl y no
one i n the House of Representati ves or Senate coul d match hi s record
as a fi ghter for rel i gi ous freedom. Some thi rty years l ater Madi son
was sti l l as concerned about the need for separati on of church and
state as he had been i n 1774. Around 1832 he wrote a retrospecti ve
memorandum on the scenes of publ i c l i fe he had wi tnessed and al so
set down a few of hi s fears. Among the l atter was a feel i ng that the
danger of si l ent accumul ati ons /?z encr oachments, by Eccl esi asti cal
Bodi es have not suffi ci entl y engaged attenti on i n the U. S.. . .
Warmi ng to the i ssue, Madi son cal l ed on the errant states to bui l d
an i mpenetrabl e wal l separati ng the church and state and thus make
the exampl e of your Country as pure & compl eat, i n what rel ates to the
freedom of the mi nd and i ts al l egi ance to i ts maker, as i n what be-
l ongs to the l egi ti mate objects of pol i ti cal and ci vi l i nsti tuti ons.. . .
Wi th Madi son the l i ne between chur ch and state had to be
drawn wi th absol ute fi rmness. The establ i shment of the chapl ai n-
shi p to Congs i s a pal pabl e vi ol ati on of equal r i ghts, as wel l as of
Consti tuti onal pr i nci pl es. And what about pr esi denti al pr ocl ama-
ti ons i nvol vi ng r el i gi ous feast days and fasts? Even though they
come as recommendati ons onl y, they i mpl y a rel i gi ous agency and
ar e ther efor e suspect. On bal ance, Madi son r easoned, even these
procl amati ons are not a good i dea, and he appears to have regretted
those i ssued dur i ng hi s pr esi dency. They seem to i mpl y and cer-
tai nl y nouri sh the erroneous i dea of a national rel i gi on, he expl ai ned.
Duri ng the admi ni strati on of Mr. Jefferson no rel i gi ous procl ama-
ti on was i ssued. Looki ng back, Madi son wi shed he had fol l owed the
same rul e.
Robert A. Rutl and (1983)*
*Rutl and, James Madi sons Dream: A Secul ar Republ i c, Free l nqui ~ (Spri ng
1983), p. 11.
7
RENEWED COVENANT OR BROKEN COVENANT?
For with what~udgmentye~udge, ye shall be~udged; and with what
rmwsure ye nwte, it shall be nwasured to you again (Matt. 7:2).
I n every countV where an oath of ofice is required, as is required in
the United States by the Constitution, the oath has reference to sweari ng
by almigh~ God to abide by His covenant, invoking the cursings and
blessings of God for obedience and disobedience.
R. J . Rushdoony (1983) I
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
Members of the seueral State Legislatures, and all the executive andjudi-
cial O@cers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be
bound by Oath or A#irmation, to support this Constitution; but no reli-
gious Test shall ever be required as a Qual@cation to any O@ce or public
Trust under the United States.
Article VI Clause 3, US. Constitution
The fourth poi nt of the bi bl i cal covenant rel ates to the oath and the
sancti ons attached to i t. The i ndi vi dual swear s an oath to God, who i n
turn promi ses to bl ess the i ndi vi dual for covenantal fai thful ness or curse
hi m for di sobedi ence. I t i s the cursi ng aspect of an oath that estab-
l i shes h as a covenant oath, as di sti ngui shed from a mere contract, for
the curses establ i sh i t as a se~-maledictoV oath. I t i s the oath that rati fi es
the covenantal bond between the sovere@i and the subordi nate.
God, the covenantal Soverei gn, rul es i n hi story through a covenant-
bound tri o of hi er ar chi es: Chur ch, State, and fami l y. The head of
1. R. J. Rushdoony, The Athism of the Ear~ Church (Bl ackheath, New South
Wal es: Logos Foundati on, 1983), p. 77.
373
each covenantal organi zati on i s requi red to take an oath before God
to preserve and defend the organi zati on and i ts members. Those
beneath the oath-taker i n the hi erarchy are under the covenants l aw-
order through the oath-taki ng representati ve agent. Unti l she says I
do, the woman i s not a wi fe; once she does, she i s bound l egal l y to
God through her husband and to her husband under God. The same
i s true i n a church. Si mi l arl y, when a ci ti zen agrees to remai n under
the juri sdi cti on of the ci vi l government, he has i mpl i ci tl y taken an
oath to defend i t and obey i ts authori zed representati ves.
The oath i nvokes negati ve covenant sancti ons; once i nvoked,
there i s no escape: And Moses came and cal l ed for the el ders of the
peopl e, and l ai d before thei r faces al l these words whi ch the LORD
commanded hi m. And al l the peopl e answer ed together , and sai d,
Al l that the LORD bath spoken we wi l l do. And Moses returned the
words of the peopl e unto the LORD (Ex. 19:7-8). He was thei r repre-
sentati ve agent. When they promi sed to obey, they took an oath for
themsel ves and thei r posterity. The oath has conti nui ty over genera-
ti ons. So do its stipulations. Onl y the soverei gn who establ i shes the
oath can change the sti pul ati ons or the oath. The abi l i ty to change the
sti pul ati ons or the oath i s therefore a mark of ul ti mate soverei gnty.
Wi th thi s i n mi nd, we begi n our di scussi on of the U.S. Consti tu-
ti on as a covenant document.
A Ci vi l Covenant
The U.S. Consti tuti on reveal s i ts covenant structure i n i ts fi ve
di vi si ons:
Soverei gnty: Preambl e
Law: Legi sl ati on (Congress: Arti cl e I )
Sancti ons: Enforcement (Executi ve: Arti cl e I I )
Hi erarchy: Appeal s (Judi ci al : Arti cl es I I I , I V)
Successi on: Amendments (Arti cl e V)
The fi ve poi nts do not appear i n the same order that they do i n the
bi bl i cal covenant model , but al l fi ve are present. I n thi s sense, the
Consti tuti on i s surel y a covenant document one that i s far more
vi si bl y covenantal i n structure than i s the case i n other consti tuti ons.
The Consti tuti on begi ns wi th a decl arati on of soverei gnty, poi nt
one of the covenant model : We the Peopl e of the Uni ted States . . .
do ordai n and establ i sh thi s Consti tuti on for the Uni ted States of
Ameri ca. Thi s Preambl e coul d not be cl earer. The Framers pres-
Renewed Covenant or Broken Covenant? 375
ented the document for rati fi cati on i n such a form that the enti re
popul ati on acti ng corporatel y through the states woul d gai n formal
credi t for the document. Warren Burger, who served as Chi ef Justi ce
of the U.S. Supreme Gourt, says that these are the documents most
i mpor tant wor ds. Z As he wr ote to me when I questi oned hi m about
the meani ng of hi s statement, They are the key words conceptual~.s
The suzerai n of thi s covenant i s the Peopl e. We have here an
echo of cl assi cal Roman pol i ti cal phi l osophy, enunci ated by Ci cero,
who was one of the favori tes of the Framers: ZI OX Pofwl i , vox dei. The
voi ce of the peopl e i s the voi ce of God. Professor Cl ark i s correct: vox
PoPul i , vox dei is a di vi ne-ri ght sl ogan.4 The di vi ne-ri ght doctri ne
teaches that no earthl y appeal beyond the speci fi ed soverei gn agent
or agency i s l egi ti mate. Nothi ng l awful l y separates the authori ty of
the di vi ne-ri ght agency from God. I f there i s no personal God i n the
system, then thi s agency takes the pl ace of God i n soci ety. Thi s
phrase announces i n pri nci pl e the geni us of the peopl e.
5
We shoul d
not forget that geni us i n pre-i mperi al Rome meant the di vi ni ty of the
ci ty of Rome and i ts peopl e (i n the Dea Roma cul t), and l ater be-
came an attri bute of the EmperoFs di vi ni ty. G
Thi s rai ses an i nescapabl e probl em for pol i ti cs: Who speaks for
the soverei gn? I n no covenantal system does God speak conti nual l y
and di rectl y to those under the authori ty of the covenant. The de-
bate i n the West unti l the twenti eth century was between those who
defended the ki ng or executi ve branch and those who defended the
l egi sl ature. I t was the questi on of the enforcer vs. the decl arer. As I
wi l l show l ater on i n thi s chapter, i n twenti eth-century Ameri ca, the
l ocus of fi nal earthl y soverei gnty has shi fted: the judi ci al branch i n
the U.S. government has become the soverei gns excl usi ve voi ce, i ts
sol e authori zed i nterpreter. T
2. Orlando Sentinel (Sept. 8, 1988), p. A-2.
3. Letter to author: Sept. 26, 1988. Emphasi s hi s.
4. Geor ge Cl ar k, The Seuezteenth CentuU (2nd ed.; New York: Oxford Uni versi ty
Pr ess, [1947] 1961), p. 223.
5. Charl es L. Mee, Jr., The Genim of the People (New York: Harper & Row, 1987).
6. R. J. Rushdoony, The One and the Many: Studies in the Philosophy of Order and
Ultimacy (Fai rfax, Vi rgi ni a: Thoburn Press, [1971] 1978), p. 93.
7. The courts have gai ned a potent ri val from a whol l y new source: executi ve bu-
reaucracy. The untouchabl e admi ni strati ve agenci es of ci vi l government have nearl y
tri umphed al l over the worl d i n thi s century. The ri se of admi ni strati ve l aw i s i n fact
a true revol uti on, one whi ch threatens the very fabri c of freedom i n the West. On
thi s poi nt, see Harol d J. Berman, Law and Revolution: The Formation of thz Western
Legal Tradition (Cambri dge, Massachusetts: Harvard Uni versi ty Press, 1983), I ntro-
ducti on. I regard thi s I ntroducti on as one of the most i mportant academi c di scus-,
si ons of my generati on.
Peopl e, Ki ng, and Parl i ament
We the Peopl e can al so be i nterpreted i n a more Protestant
fashi on. The anti -monarchi cal Vi rzdi ci tse Contra Tyrannis, by Luci us
Juni us Brutus, publ i shed i n 1579, offered a bi bl i cal and covenantal
justi fi cati on for pol i ti cal rebel l i on. I t was transl ated i nto Engl i sh and
publ i shed i n the year fol l owi ng the Gl ori ous Revol uti on of 1688.
Thi s book became a fami l i ar reference duri ng the Ameri can Revol u-
ti on. I t asserted the soverei gnty of the peopl e above the soverei gnty
of ki ngs. One of the secti ons of The Thi rd Questi on announces:
The whol e body of the peopl e i s above the ki ng.s So common were
these i deas among Protestants i n the l ate si xteenth century that even
Ri chard Hooker appeal ed to the Vindiciae i n hi s Laws of Ecclesiastical
Polity (1594) i n hi s defense of the di vi ne ri ght of the ki ngs of
Engl and.
9
He sai d that the representati ves of the peopl es majesty
crown the ki ng. 10 The ki ng rul es by God through the peopl e. He
rul es by l aw, meani ng natural law, whi ch i s the same as Gods re-
veal ed l aw i n the Bi bl e. Hooker began hi s study wi th a di scussi on of
natural l aw, whi ch remai ned the hypotheti cal l aw structure that sup-
posedl y serves autonomous man as a l egi ti mate substi tute for bi bl i -
cal l aw.
The Stuart Kings
Wi thi n hal f a decade after the death of Hooker, James I came to
the throne. A pagan Renai ssance monarch to the core, 11 James I
asserted the di vi ne ri ght of ki ngs far more forceful l y than Hooker
had. He vi ewed ki ngshi p as di rectl y under God, wi thout any refer-
ence to the soverei gnty of the peopl e. I t i s athei sme and bl asphemi c
to di spute what God can doe, so i t i s presumpti on and hi gh contempt
i n a subject, to di spute what a Ki ng can doe. . . . 12 Thi s arrogance
di d not go wi thout a chal l enge. I n a document publ i shed by the
House of Commons i n 1604, An ApologY, the argument appears that
8. A Dejence of Libdy Agaimt Tyants, I ntroducti on by Harol d J. Laski (Gl ouces-
ter, Massachusetts: Peter Smi th, 1963), p. 124.
9. Hooker, Laws of Ecdesia$tical Poli~, Book VI I I , Ch. 2, Sect. 7; i n The Works of
Mr. Richard Hooker, arranged by Rev. John Kebl e, 3 vol s. (Oxford: At the Cl arendon
Press, 1865), I I I , pp. 347n, 348n.
10. I bid., I I I , p. 348.
11. Otto Scott, J ames I (New York: Mason/Charter, 1976). Thi s i s now di stri buted
by Ross House Books, Val l eci to, Cal i for ni a 95251.
12. Ci ted by C. Northcote Parki nson, The Evolution of Political Thought (Boston:
Houghton Mi ffl i n, 1958), p. 80.
Renewed Covenant OT Broken Covenant? 377
the ri ghts of Engl i shmen areas ol d as the monarchy, especi al l y prop-
erty ri ghts. The voi ce of the Peo@e i s sai d to be as the voi ce of
God.13 I n response, James suspended Commons. The theoreti cal
and i nsti tuti onal battl e between Stuart ki ngs and Parl i ament began.
I t ended onl y wi th the Revol uti on of 1688.
I n the Puri tan Revol uti on of the 1640s, Parl i ament conducted i ts
revol t agai nst James I s son Charl es I i n the name of both God and
the peopl e. Obvi ousl y, the Jacobi te concept of the di vi ne ri ght of
ki ngs had to be jetti soned. But jetti soned i n the name of what earthl y
agent? The di vi ne-ri ght doctri ne al ways meant that the named agent
woul d be the fi nal earthl y court of appeal . The person of the ki ng
had been that sol e agent, Charl es I s father had mai ntai ned. Not so,
sai d Parl i ament. They reasserted the ol der Protestant vi ew of the
soverei gnty of God as del egated to al l ci vi l governments through the
peopl e. 14 Neverthel ess, duri ng the Restorati on peri od, 1660-1688,
the vi ews of James I resurfaced. I n an 1681 address to Charl es I I by
the Uni versi ty of Cambri dge, we read:
We wi l l sti l l bel i eve and mai ntai n that our ki ngs deri ve not thei r ti tl e from
the peopl e but from God; that to hi m onl y they are accountabl e; that i t
bel ongs not to subjects, ei ther to create or censure but to honour and obey
thei r soverei gn, who comes to be so by a fundamental heredi tary ri ght
of successi on, whi ch no rel i gi on, no l aw, no faul t of forfei ture can al ter or
di mi ni sh. 15
The Tnumph of Parliament
These senti ments di d not l ast l ong. Parl i ament overthrew Charl es
I I s son James I I i n 1688. Neverthel ess, the probl em of soverei gnty
sti l l remai ned: someone must speak for the Peopl e-Dei ty i n the Peo-
pl es corporate pol i ti cal capaci ty. The Parl i ament asserted that
Parl i aments soverei gnty i s unbounded. I n thi s pol i ti cal theori sts
were fol l owi ng Si r Edward Coke [Cook], who had drawn James I s
i re for hi s defense of absol ute Parl i amentary soverei gnty.
Thi s vi ew of Parl i amentary soverei gnty was carri ed down i n
Wi l l i am Bl ackstones Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) to the
era i mmedi atel y precedi ng the Ameri can Revol uti on. As we have
13. Ci ted by Scott, J ames Z, p. 285.
14. Edmund S. Morgan, I nventi ng the People: The Rise of Popular Soverei gn in Eng-
land and Ammia (New Yor k: Nor ton, 1988), p. 56.
15. Quoted by John N. Fi ggi s, The Divine Rtght of Kings (2nd ed.; 1914; repri nted
by Peter Smi th, Gl oucester, Massachusetts), p. 6.
seen i n Chapter 6, Bl ackstone was a defender of natural l aw, whi ch
he formal l y equated wi th Gods l aw. 16 Thi s l aw of nature, bei ng co-
eval wi th manki nd and di ctated by God hi msel f, i s of course superi or
i n obl i gati on to any other . I t i s bi ndi ng over al l the gl obe, i n al l coun-
tri es, and at al l ti mes; no human l aws are of any val i di ty, i f contrary
to thi s. . . .1
7
Yet he al so defended the absol ute sover ei gnty of
Parl i ament, i ndi cati ng that he bel i eved that Parl i ament al ways and
i nevi tabl y adhered to the di ctates of natural l aw. Bl ackstone began
hi s defense of Par l i amentar y sover ei gnty by ci ti ng Coke. Si r Ed-
ward Coke says: The power and juri sdi cti on of Parl i ament i s so tran-
scendent and absol ute, that i t cannot be confi ned, ei ther for causes
and persons, wi thi n any bounds. Bl ackstone conti nued i n thi s vei n:
I t can, i n short, do everythi ng that i s not natural l y i mpossi bl e; and
therefore some have not scrupl ed to cal l i ts power, by a fi gure rather
too bol d, the omni potence of Parl i ament. True i t i s, that what the
Parl i ament cl oth, no authori ty on earth can undo. 1s Bl ackstone was
wrong: begi nni ng el even years l ater, the Ameri can col oni es undi d a
l ot of what Parl i ament had done.
The American Revolution
The Ameri can Revol uti on was a revol t agai nst Bl ackstones vi ew
of Parl i amentary soverei gnty. Thi s revol t was conducted after 1774
i n the name of the l egi ti mate l egi sl ati ve soverei gnty of the col oni al
parl i aments, i .e., the state assembl i es. Duri ng the Revol uti onary
War, the state l egi sl atures transferred speci fi ed porti ons of thei r own
l i mi ted soverei gnty to Congress. Late i n the war, they transferred l i m-
i ted soverei gnty agai n to the central government i n the Arti cl es of
Confederati on (1781). Thi s transfer was then chal l enged by the Con-
sti tuti onal Conventi on i n 1787 and by the rati fi cati on of the U.S.
Consti tuti on i n 1788. But the fundamental i ntel l ectual questi on of
the Revol uti on, as hi stori an Bernard Bai l yn has mai ntai ned, was the
questi on of soverei gnty. Representati on and consent, consti tuti on
and ri ghts these were basi c probl ems, consi derati on of whi ch l ed to
shi fts i n thought that hel ped shape the character of Ameri can
16. Wi l l i am Bl ackstone, Commentaries on the .Laws of England, 4 vol s. (repri nt of fi rst
edi ti on, Uni versi ty of Chi cago Press, [1765] 1979), I , p. 41. Thi s was fi rst pri nted i n
the Ameri can col oni es i n 1771.
17. ldem. See the i ntroductory secti on of Chapter 6, above.
18. Ci ted by A. V. Di cey, I ntroduction to the Study of thz Law of the Constitution (8th
ed.; I ndi anapol i s, I ndi ana: Li berty Cl assi cs, [1915] 1982), p. 5.
Renewed Covenant or Broken Couenant? 379
radi cal i sm. But of al l the i ntel l ectual probl ems the col oni sts faced,
one was absol utel y cruci al : i n the l ast anal ysi s i t was over thi s i ssue
that the Revol uti on was fought. 19
The sol uti on to thi s i ntel l ectual probl em was settl ed i n a prel i mi -
nary way i n 1788, wi th the rati fi cati on of the Consti tuti on; i t was set-
tl ed more deci si vel y on the battl efi el ds of 1861-65. But i t i s sti l l not
settl ed i n the Uni ted States. I t wi l l not be settl ed hi stori cal l y i n any
nati on unti l the whol e wor l d for mal l y affi r ms the cr own r i ghts of
Ki ng Jesus. Z
What I assume i n thi s secti on of Political Po@heism i s that the Ar-
ti cl es of Confederati on served as a hal fway nati onal covenant. Thi s
chapter i s about the Consti tuti on, but the Consti tuti on was the cove-
nantal successor of the Arti cl es. The Arti cl es di d not expl i ci tl y deny
that the God of the Bi bl e i s Lord over al l governments, nor di d they
affi rm i t. Several of the state consti tuti ons di d affi rm thi s. Thus, the
nati onal ci vi l gover nment was a covenantal mi xture, for the nati onal
government pri or to 1788 was a confederati on, not a uni tary state. I t
was a hal fway covenant. As we shal l see, the U.S. Consti tuti on i s far
mor e consi stent. What the Ar ti cl es di d not posi ti vel y affi r m, the
Consti tuti on posi ti vel y deni es: the l egi ti macy of rel i gi ous test oaths
as a screeni ng devi ce for offi cers of the nati onal ci vi l government. I t
i s thi s shi ft that marks the transi ti on from the ol der Tri ni tari an state
covenants to what became, over decades, apostate state covenants.
Thi s transi ti on at the nati onal l evel di d not occur overni ght; there
was an i ntermedi ary step: the Arti cl es of Confederati on. Yet when
the next-to-the l ast step was taken the Consti tuti onal Conventi on
those who took i t i gnored the ori gi nal by-l aws of the Arti cl es and
appeal ed forward to the Peopl e. The Framers publ i cl y i gnored the
Decl ar ati on of I ndependence, whi ch had for mal l y i ncor por ated the
nati onal government, for they were i nterested i n uphol di ng the myth
of the sover ei gn Peopl e, and the Decl ar ati on had r epeatedl y men-
ti oned God. Thus, the Decl ar ati on and the Ar ti cl es both di sap-
peared from the Ameri can judi ci al tradi ti on and i ts system of l egal
pr ecedents, and the Ar ti cl es di sappear ed fr om Amer i can pol i ti cal
thought. Two thi ngs were retai ned, however: the nati onal name es-
19. Bernard Bai l yn, The I deological Or i gi ns of the American Revolution (Cambri dge,
Massachusetts: Harvard Uni versi ty Press, 1967), p. 198.
20. Gary North, Heakr of the Nations: Biblical Blueprzntsfor I nternational Relations (Ft.
Worth, Texas: Domi ni on Press, 1987); Gary DeMar, Ruler of the Nahons: Biblical
Bluefirintsjor Government (Ft. Worth, Texas: Domi ni on Press, 1987).
tabl i shed by the Arti cl es the Uni ted States of Ameri ca and the
seal of the nati on that had been formal l y i ncorporated on Jul y 4, 1776.
The Arti cl es of Confederati on
What was wrong wi th the Arti cl es? Accordi ng to Madi son and
the cri ti cs, i t was the absence of sancti ons. There was no power to
tax and compel payment. Al so, there was no executi ve who coul d
enforce sancti ons. I n hi s l etter to George Washi ngton (Apri l 16,
1787), Madi son i nsi sted: A Nati onal Executi ve must al so be pro-
vi ded. . . . I n l i ke manner the ri ght of coerci on shoul d be expressl y
decl ared.zl I n that same month, a month before the conveni ng of
the Conventi on, Madi son had noted hi s objecti ons to the Arti cl es i n
hi s unpubl i shed Vi ces of the Pol i ti cal System of the Uni ted States.
He i ncl uded thi s momentous cri ti ci sm: A sancti on i s essenti al to the
i dea of l aw, as coerci on i s to that of Government. The federal system
bei ng desti tute of both, wants the great vi tal pri nci pl es of a Pol i ti cal
Consti tuti on. Under the form of such a consti tuti on, i t i s i n fact
nothi ng more than a treaty of ami ty of commerce and of al l i ance, be-
tween i ndependent and Soverei gn States .22
He wanted more than a treaty. He wanted a nati onal govern-
ment. But thi s, he knew, had been achi eved i n the past onl y through
an agreement regardi ng a common god that sancti oned the creati on
of ci vi l government. Wi thout such a god to sancti on the ci vi l govern-
ment, the government coul d not l egi ti mate y i mpose sancti ons on
those under i ts juri sdi cti on. The sancti on on the peopl e coul d onl y
be justi fi ed i n terms of the ul ti mate sancti oni ng power of the agreed-
upon god of the covenant. What Madi son and the Framers proposed
was a revol uti onary break from the hi story of manki nds govern-
ments, wi th onl y one gl ari ng excepti on: the state of Rhode I sl and
the number-one obstructi oni st state that had produced the paral y-
si s of the Confederati on. But i nstead of abandoni ng the covenantal
l egacy of Rhode I sl and, the Framers adopted i t as the judi ci al foun-
dati on of the proposed nati onal government. The l eaven of neutral -
i ty woul d now l eaven the whol e l ump.
21. Marvi n Meyers (cd.), The Mind of the Founder Sources of the Political Thought of
J anws Madison (I ndi anapol i s, I ndi ana: Bobbs-Merri l l , 1973), p. 97.
22. Madi son, Wi ces of the Pol i ti cal System of the Uni ted States, ibid., pp.
85-86.
The Structure of Nati onal Soverei gnty
The Consti tuti on offi ci al l y di vi des nati onal judi ci al spokes-
manshi p i nto three branches: l egi sl ati ve, executi ve, and judi ci al .
Each of these i s a separate juri di cal sphere. Each has i ts own secti on
i n the document i tsel f. For a l aw (pi ece of l egi sl ati on) to be bi ndi ng,
al l three branches must agree.
Ori gi nal l y, thi s was not cl ear to the Framers. They bel i eved that
the agreement of the executi ve and the l egi sl ature woul d be suffi -
ci ent. They di vi ded the l egi sl ati ve branch i nto two secti ons, House
of Representati ves and Senate. Very l i ttl e was sai d of the judi ci al
branch. I t was assumed that i t woul d be by far the weakest of the
three. Al exander Hami l ton went so far as to say that the judi ci ary i s
beyond compari son the weakest of the three departments of power, ,
and assured hi s readers that i t can never attack wi th success ei ther
of the other two; and that al l possi bl e care i s requi si te to enabl e i t to
defend i tsel f agai nst thei r attacks.2
3
The Framers di d not recogni ze
that he who int~pret.s the law authoritative~ is in fact the true voice of sovere-
ign majesty. They al so di d not ful l y understand that the i mpl i ci tl y
vast powers of pol i ti cal central i zati on that the Consti tuti on created
on a nati onal l evel woul d l ead to the creati on of a new hi erarchy,
The federal (nati onal ) government woul d steadi l y swal l ow up subor-
di nate juri sdi cti ons. Why? Because i n any covenant, there must be a
hi erarchy, and the pi nnacl e of that hi erarchy i s the agent who pos-
sesses the authori ty to announce the l aw and therefore sancti fy the
l aws sancti ons.
So, there was i ni ti al confusi on over hi erarchy and representa-
ti on, poi nt two of the bi bl i cal covenant model . Thi s had been the
great pol i ti cal debate i mmedi atel y pri or to the Revol uti on: Whi ch
body had l egi ti mate l egi sl ati ve soverei gnty i n the col oni es, the Eng-
l i sh Parl i ament or the col oni al l egi sl atures? Thi s was al so the heart
of the pol i ti cal debate over the Bi l l of Ri ghts, the fi rst ten amend-
ments to the Consti tuti on. The voters, as represented by state rati fy-
i ng conventi ons i n 1788, had i nsi sted on retai ni ng numerous powers
i n the states. Any power not expressl y transferred to the central gov-
ernment automati cal l y resi des i n the states (Amendment 10). Thus,
the debate became one of states ri ghts vs. nati onal power.
23. Hami l ton, Federal i st No. 78: Tiu Federalist, edi ted by Jacob E. Cooke (Mi d-
dl etown, Connecti cut: Wesl eyan Uni versi ty Press, 1961), p. 523.
J ohn Adams, Architect
The major i ntel l ectual i nfl uence i n the actual structuri ng of the
U.S. Consti tuti on was probabl y John Adams rather than Madi son.
I n December of 1787, the fi nal vol ume appeared of Adams famous
three-vol ume study of the state consti tuti ons, A D@nse of the Constitu-
tions of the Government of the United States. The fi rst vol ume had ap-
peared whi l e the Conventi on was assembl i ng. Thi s study was a
defense of the i dea of the separati on of powers, a theme that he had
wri tten about earl i er. Adams had been the pri mary archi tect of the
1780 Massachusetts consti tuti on. Thus, hi s bl unt speaki ng was both
representati ve of the new worl dvi ew and authori tati ve nati onal l y.
He vi ewed thei r earl i er consti tuti on-wri ti ng acti ons as uni que i n hi s-
tory: the creati on of a republ i c founded on the soverei gnty of the
peopl e, wi th onl y a bri ef peri pheral menti on of Chri sti ani ty. Noti ce
careful l y hi s reference to Vi truvi us, the Roman archi tect; thi s
fasci nati on wi th Vi truvi us had been basi c to European humani sm
si nce the Renai ssance. 24
I t was the general opi ni on of anci ent nati ons that the Di vi ni ty al one was
adequate to the i mportant offi ce of gi vi ng l aws to men. . . . The Uni ted
States of Ameri ca have exhi bi ted, perhaps, the fi rst exampl e of govern-
ments erected on the si mpl e pri nci pl es of nature; and i f men are now suffi -
ci entl y enl i ghtened to di sabuse themsel ves of arti fi ce, i mposture, hypocri sy,
and supersti ti on, they wi l l consi der thi s event as an era i n thei r hi story. . . .
I t wi l l never be pretended that any persons empl oyed i n that servi ce had i n-
tervi ews wi th the gods or were i n any degree under the i nspi rati on of
Heaven, more than those at work upon shi ps or houses, or l abori ng i n mer-
chandi se or agri cul ture; i t wi l l forever be acknowl edged that these govern-
ments were contri ved merel y by the use of reason and the senses, . . .
Nei ther the peopl e nor thei r conventi ons, commi ttees, or subcommi ttees
consi dered l egi sl ati on i n any other l i ght than as ordi nary arts and sci ences,
onl y more i mportant. Cal l ed wi thout expectati on and compel l ed wi thout
previ ous i ncl i nati on, though undoubtedl y at the best peri od of ti me, both
for Engl and and Ameri ca, suddenl y to erect new systems of l aws for thei r
future government, they adopted the method of a wi se archi tect i n erecti ng
a new pal ace for the resi dence of hi s soverei gn. They determi ned to consul t
Vi truvi us, Pal l adi o, and al l other wri ters of reputati on i n the art; to ex-
ami ne the most cel ebrated bui l di ngs, whether they remai n enti re or i n
rui ns; to compare these wi th the pri nci pl es of wri ters; and to enqui re how
24. Frances A. Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment (London: Routl edge & Kegan
Paul , 1972), p. 11. See above, pp. 342-43.
far both the theori es and model s were founded i n nature or created by
fancy; . . . Thi rteen governments thus founded on the natural authori ty of
the peopl e al one, wi thout a pretense of mi racl e or mystery, . ..25
Adams fasci nati on wi th the exampl e of Vi truvi us, who had become
a magi ci an i n the wri ti ngs of Renai ssance neopl atoni sts, i s i gnored by
modern hi stori ans. Adams was not speaki ng of bui l di ng physi cal
structures; he was speaki ng of constructi ng ci vi l covenants. He used the
anal ogy of l ooki ng at the records of anci ent bui l di ngs when he real l y
meant a cl ose exami nati on of anci ent consti tuti ons. He saw hi msel f as
the chi ef archi tect of new ci vi l governments for a new age. Al though
he was i n Engl and at the ti me, the great archi tectural work was i n
progress when hi s fi rst vol ume appeared. He knew that i t woul d be.
Adams bri efl y menti oned Chri sti ani ty: The experi ment i s made
and has compl etel y succeeded; i t can no l onger be cal l ed i n questi on
whether authori ty i n magi strates and obedi ence of ci ti zens can be
,gounded on reason, moral i ty, and the Chri sti an rel i gi on, wi thout
the monkery of pri ests or the knavery of pol i ti ci ans .Z6 I n short, a
state consti tuti on can be archi tectural l y constructed wi thout benefi t
of cl ergy or el ected pol i ti ci ans. Thi s i s exactl y what the del egates at
Phi l adel phi a i ntended to prove at the nati onal l evel . The archi tects
were about to rebui l d the structure of Ameri can government on a
foundati on that woul d have been unrecogni zabl e to the Foundi ng
Fathers of the seventeenth century, wi th one excepti on: Roger Wi l l i ams.
Before the Consti tuti on
The Framers knew that rel i gi ous test oaths were requi red for tes-
ti fyi ng i n l ocal and state courts. The word test i n both cases test
oath and testi fy refers back to the bi bl i cal l anguage of the cove-
nant, i .e., testament. I t refers judi ci al l y to a wi tness who testi fi es i n a
cour t. The Fr amer s knew that r el i gi ous oaths wer e someti mes r e-
qui red for exerci si ng the franchi se i n state el ecti ons. But they made
i t cl ear: federal~urasdiction is to be governed by another covenant, and therefore
by another god. I t i s therefore a ri val system of hi erarchy. l t i s not a
compl ementary system of courts; i t i s ri val system, for an oath to the
God of the Bible is prohibited by law in one of these hierarchies.
25. John Adams, Defense of the Consti tuti ons, i n The Political Writings of J ohn
Ao!ums, edi ted by George A. Peek, Jr. (I ndi anapol i s, I ndi ana: Bobbs-Merri l l , [1954]
1980), pp. 116-18.
26. I bid., p. 118.
To serve i n Congress under the Arti cl es, a man had to be ap-
poi nted by hi s state l egi sl ature. He coul d be recal l ed at any ti me. He
coul d serve i n onl y three years out of every si x. He was under publ i c
scruti ny conti nual l y. And to exerci se the authori ty entrusted to hi m
by hi s state l egi sl ature, he had to take an oath. These oaths i n most
states were both pol i ti cal and rel i gi ous. The offi cer of the state had to
swear al l egi ance to the state consti tuti on and al so al l egi ance to God.
Consi der Del awares requi red oath:
Art. 22. Every person who shal l be chosen a member of ei ther house, or ap-
poi nted to any offi ce or pl ace of trust, before taki ng hi s seat, or enteri ng
upon the executi on of hi s offi ce, shal l take the fol l owi ng oath, or affi rma-
ti on, i f consci enti ousl y scrupul ous of taki ng an oath, to wi t:
I , A B, wi l l bear true al l egi ance to the Del aware State, submi t to i ts
consti tuti on and l aws, and do no act wi tti ngl y whereby the freedom thereof
may be prejudi ced.
And al so make and subscri be the fol l owi ng decl arati on, to wi t:
I , A B, do profess fai th i n God the Father, and i n Jesus Chri st Hi s onl y
Son, and i n the Hol y Ghost, one God, bl essed for evermore; and I do
acknowl edge the hol y scri ptures of the Ol d and New Testament to be gi ven
by di vi ne i nspi rati on.
And al l offi cers shal l al so take an oath of offi ce. 27
The Consti tuti on of Vermont i n 1777 was not much di fferent:
Secti on I X. A quorum of the house of representati ves shal l consi st of two-
thi rds of the whol e number of members el ected and havi ng met and chosen
thei r speaker, shal l , each of them, before they proceed to busi ness, take and
subscri be, as wel l the oath of fi del i ty and al l egi ance herei n after di rected, as
the fol l owi ng oath or affi rmati on, vi z.
I do solenm~ swea~ by the euer living God, (o3 I do
solemn~ ajirm in the Presence of Almigh~ God) that as a member of this assemb~, 1
will not Propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution, which shall appear to me in-
juri ous to the people; nor do or consent to any act or thing whateve~ that shall have a
tendency to l essen or abndge their rights and privileges, as declared in the Constitution of
this State; but will, in all things, conduct myse~as a faithful, honest representative and
guardian of the people, according to the best of my judgment and abilities.
And each member, before he takes hi s seat, shal l make and subscri be
the fol l owi ng decl arati on, vi z.
I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the univeme, the rewarder of
27. Phi l i p B. Kurl and and Ral ph Lerner (eds. ), The Foun&m Consti tuti on, 5 VOI S.
(Chi cago: Uni versi ty of Chi cago Press, 1987), V, p. 634.
Renewed Couenant or Broken Couenant? 385
the good andpunishzr of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and
new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion.
And no further or other rel i gi ous test shal l ever, hereafter, be requi red
of any ci vi l offi cer or magi strate i n thi s State. a
Noti ce the l anguage: no further or other rel i gi ous test shal l ever be
requi red. There coul d be onl y one ki nd of oath: to the Tri ni tari an
God of the Bi bl e. Thi s made Tri ni tari ani sm the permanent judi ci al
foundati on of the state.
I n order to break thi s Tri ni tari an monopol y, the Framers had to
undermi ne the states oaths.
A New Covenant Oath
1 began thi s chapter wi th Arti cl e VI of the Consti tuti on, whi ch
prohi bi ts rel i gi ous oaths as a requi rement for hol di ng federal offi ce.
Thi s i s not one of the better known secti ons of the Consti tuti on. I t i s
sel dom di scussed by hi stori ans. w Typi cal i s Saul K. Padovers
cl ause-by-cl ause recapi tul ati on of the debates at the Conventi on.
When he comes to Arti cl e VI , he does not even menti on Cl ause 3; he
summari zes onl y the debate over the oath of al l egi ance to the Consti -
tuti on. ~ Even more amazi ng i s the near-si l ence of Edwi n S. Corwi n,
acknowl edged as the twenti eth-century master of the Consti tuti on:
one bri ef, undi sti ngui shed paragraph out of ten pages devoted to
Arti cl e VI . 31
Everyone today assumes automati cal l y that no rel i gi ous test
shoul d be admi ni stered as a requi rement for hol di ng publ i c offi ce.
Everyone al so assumes that offi ce-hol ders shoul d swear al l egi ance to
the Consti tuti on. Yet i n 1787, the reverse was true. There was con-
si derabl e debate at the Consti tuti onal Conventi on regardi ng the pro-
pri ety of requi ri ng state offi ce-hol ders to swear al l egi ance to the Con-
sti tuti on. Furthermore, the states had rel i gi ous tests of vari ous ki nds
for offi ce hol ders. A great reversal i n the l egal structure of the nati on
took pl ace when the Consti tuti on was rati fi ed, and thi s i s re-
28. I detn.
29. An excepti on was Church hi stori an Phi l i p Schaff who, a century ago, began
hi s di scussi on of the Consti tuti on wi th a two-page di scussi on of test oaths: Phi l i p
Schaff, Church and State in the United States (New York: Arno, [1888] 1972), pp. 20-22.
30, Saul K. Padover, To Secure These Blessin~s (New York: Washi ngton Square/
Ri dge Press, 1962), pp. 80-82.
31. Edwi n S. Corwi n, The Constitution and what it means today (12th ed.; Pri nceton,
New Jersey: Pri nceton Uni versi ty Press, [1920] 1958), pp. 177-87.
veal ed by the al terati on of the oaths requi red to hol d representati ve
(hi erarchi cal ) offi ce. A great change i n publ i c thi nki ng al so took
-
pl ace subsequent to rati fi cati on.
The rati fi cati on of the Consti tuti on was i n fact si mul taneousl y a
covenant-breaki ng and covenant-maki ng act. As wi th al l covenant
acts, thi s one i nvol ved the acknowl edgment of l egi ti macy. When the
voters sent the fi rst representati ves to the Congress i n Phi l adel phi a
i n 1789, the l egi ti macy of the new government was secured. 32 The
theol ogi cal and judi ci al terms of the new covenant began to be i mi tated
at the state l evel unti l the resi stance of the South cal l ed a hal t to thi s
process. The Ci vi l War and the Fourteenth Amendment revi ved i t.
Arti cl e VI , Cl ause 3, establ i shed the thi rd covenantal pi l l ar of what
i s one of the three keys to a proper understandi ng of the nature of
the Consti tuti onal covenant. The fi rst pi l l ar i s the l ocus o~ author i zi ng
sovereignty: the Peopl e. Thi s i s the desi gnated creator of the covenant.
Thi s appears as the Consti tuti ons Preambl e. The second pi l l ar i s the
nature of political participation: the authori zi ng el ectorate. Who i s a ci ti -
zen? Thi s establ i shes the nature of, and l egal access to, formal acts of
covenant renewal i n a republ i can system of government. Thi s was
not defi ni ti vel y settl ed unti l the passage of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment i n 1868. The thi rd pi l l ar i s the nature of public oaths by federal oJ h-
cers. Thi s i s the authori zed representati ves act of formal covenant
affi rmati on of, and subordi nati on to, the terms of the covenant.
An offi cer i s the person who i s charged wi th the assi gnment of en-
forci ng the covenants sancti ons (poi nt four of the bi bl i cal covenant).
He must therefore swear al l egi ance to the covenant subordi nati on
(poi nt two) and al so to i ts sti pul ati ons (poi nt three). He agrees to
obey the l aw. I n the bi bl i cal covenant, thi s agent must al so swear
al l egi ance to the Soverei gn Hi msel f God. Thi s l ast requi rement i s
deal t wi th i n Arti cl e VI . Arti cl e VI represents the Consti tuti ons de-
fi ni ti ve break wi th the previ ous Ameri can pol i ti cal tradi ti on except
Rhode I sl ands, and wi th al l previ ous ci vi l covenants except Rhode
I sl ands.
The Senators and Representati ves before menti oned, and the Members
of the several State Legi sl atures, and al l the executi ve and judi ci al Offi cers,
both of the Uni ted States and of the several States, shal l be bound by Oath
32. Steven R. Boyd, The Politics of Opposi ti on: Antifederalists and the Acceptance of the
Constitution (Mi l wood, New York: Kraus-Thomson Organi zati on, 1979), ch. 7: The
Capstone of Legi ti macy: The Fi rst Federal El ecti ons.
or Affi rmati on, to support thi s Consti tuti on; but no rel i gi ous Test shal l ever
be requi red as a Qual i fi cati on to any Offi ce or publ i c Trust under the
Uni ted States.
The basi c pri nci pl e of any covenant i s that al l those under the cove-
nant? sanctions are to be governed by its statutes and provisions. The publ i c
mark of bei ng under the soverei gn i s the taki ng of an oath. Publ i c
offi cers must take the oath verbal l y. They are to enforce the l aw of
the covenant by i mposi ng the sancti ons of the covenant. I f they do
not swear to uphol d i t, they are not l egal l y enti tl ed to defi ne, i nter-
pret, or enforce i ts sancti ons. State offi cers have to swear al l egi ance
to the Consti tuti on. The fi nal prohi bi ti on by the federal government
on the states wi th regard to rel i gi ous test oaths came i n 1961.33
The weak l i nk i n the oath system was the U. S. Senate. A Senator
was an i ndi rectl y appoi nted offi cer. The state l egi sl atures el ected
Senators. Thus, a prel i mi nary screeni ng based on a rel i gi ous test
oath was sti l l l i kel y because the l egi sl atures presumabl y woul d el ect
men from thei r own ranks. I n some states, Senators woul d al ready
have taken such an oath. Thi s probl em di d not defi ni ti vel y end unti l
1913, the year the Consti tuti on was amended to requi re the di rect
el ecti on of Senators. (That was al so the year of the supposed rati fi ca-
ti on of the Si xteenth Amendment, the i ncome tax, whi ch was rati -
fi ed as i l l egal l y as the Fourteenth Amendment was. 3A The other ma-
jor nati onal judi ci al event of 1913 was the passage of the Federal
Reserve Act, whi ch created the nati ons quasi -pri vate central bank.)
The Conventi ons Judi ci al Revol uti on
At the Consti tuti onal Conventi on of 1787, Edmund Randol ph
defended thi s nati onal oath of al l egi ance. He sai d that the offi cers of
the states were al ready bound by oath to the states. To preserve
a due i mparti al i ty they ought to be equal l y bound by the Natl . Govt.
The Natl . needs every support we can gi ve i t. The Executi ve &
33. Tmca.so u. Watkins (1961). A Maryl and notary publ i c, the l owest l evel state offi -
cer i n Ameri ca, had been deni ed hi s offi ce because he refused to say that he bel i eved
i n God. The Court overturned thi s state l aw as unconsti tuti onal under the Four-
teenth Amendment. Congressi onal Research Servi ce, Li brary of Congress, The
Constitution of the United States of America: An+is and I nterpretation (Washi ngton, D. C.:
Government Pri nti ng Offi ce, 1972), p. 935.
34. Bi l l Benson and M. J. Red Beckman, The Law That Never Wm (South
Hol l and, I l l i noi s: Consti tuti onal Research, 1985).
Judi ci ary of the States, notwi thstandi ng thei r nati onal i ndependence
on the State Legi sl atures are i n fact, so dependent on them, that un-
l ess they be brought under some ti e to the Natl . system, they wi l l
al ways l ean too much to the State systems, whenever a contest ari ses
between the two.35 He added thi s comment as debate progressed:
We are erecti ng a supreme nati onal government; ought i t not be
supported, and can we gi ve i t too many si news?3G
Hamilton and RousseauBT
I t i s to Hami l tons expl anati on on the need for thi s l oyal ty oath
that we must turn i n order to see what was real l y i nvol ved. He was
the most el oquent defender of the strongest possi bl e nati onal govern-
ment. I n Federalist 27, he stated pl ai nl y what was bei ng done by
means of thi s requi red oath. A new judi ci al rel ati onshi p was bei ng
created by the Consti tuti on: a direct covenant between the new national
civil government with the individual citizen, without any internwdiary civil
government. (Thi s al terati on i s general l y regarded by l egal theori sts as
the most i mportant si ngl e i nnovati on that the Consti tuti on i mposed.
They are wrong; the prohi bi ti on of rel i gi ous test oaths was i ts most
i nnovati ve breakthrough: one nati on, under the god of the Peopl e,
i ndi vi si bl e, wi th a ci vi l war to prove i t. )
The l ack of i ntermedi ate governments, soci al and ci vi l , between
the i ndi vi dual and the nati onal ci vi l government, was the heart of
Rousseaus concept of the General Wi l l , meani ng the heart of Rousseaus
total i tari ani sm, as Robert Ni sbet and many other schol ars have
argued. 3s Because the col oni al pol i ti cal and soci al tradi ti ons were
Chri sti an, and therefore decentral i st and institutionally pl ur al i st
(though not ethi cal l y and confessi onal l y pl ural i st), the C-onsti tuti on
woul d not have been rati fi ed by the exi sti ng Congress. The Phi l a-
del phi a conspi rators ful l y understood thi s. They were ready to aban-
don th e col on i al Ch r i s ti an tr adi ti on of decen tr al i zed power .
Hami l ton made i t cl ear that the Consti tuti on, when rati fi ed, woul d
take a major step for war d i n the di r ecti on of Rousseaus Gener al
Wi l l i deal of weakeni ng i ntermedi ary ci vi l governments. He wrote:
35. Max Farrand (cd.), Recorh of the Fedmal Conventi on, I , p. 203; extract i n
Founders Constitution, I V, p. 637.
36. Records, I , p. 207; idem.
37. See Chapter 9, subsecti on on Madi son and Rousseau: pp. 450-52.
38. Robert A. Ni sbet, Tradition and Revolt: Historical and Sociological Essays (New
York: Random House, 1968), ch. 1: Rousseau and the Pol i ti cal Communi ty. J. L.
Tal mon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy (New York: Praeger, 1960).
The pl an reported by the Conventi on, by extendi ng the authori ty of the
foederal head to the i ndi vi dual ci ti zens of the several States, wi l l enabl e the
government to empl oy the ordi nary magi stry of each i n the executi on of i ts
l aws. I t i s easy to percei ve that thi s wi l l tend to destroy, i n the common ap-
prehensi on, al l di sti ncti on between the sources from whi ch they mi ght pro-
ceed; and wi l l gi ve the Foederal Government the same advantage for secur-
i ng a due obedi ence to i ts authori ty, whi ch i s enjoyed by the government of
each State; i n addi ti on to the i nfl uence on publ i c opi ni on, whi ch wi l l resul t
from the i mportant consi derati on of i ts havi ng power to cal l to i ts assi stance
and support the resources of the whol e Uni on. I t meri ts parti cul ar attenti on
i n thi s pl ace, that the l aws of the confederacy, as to the enumerated and legiti-
mate objects of i ts juri sdi cti on, wi l l become the SUPREME LAW of the
l and; to the observance of whi ch, al l offi cers l egi sl ati ve, executi ve and judi -
ci al i n each State, wi l l be bound by the sancti ty of an oath. Thus the
Legi sl atures, Courts and Magi strates of the respecti ve members wi l l be
i ncorporated i nto the operati ons of the nati onal government, as far as itiju.rt
and constitutional authority extends; and wi l l be rendered auxi l i ary to the en-
forcement of i ts l aws. 39
Hami l ton di d not consi der the l oyal ty oath i r r el evant. He under -
stood very wel l the i mportant rol e i t woul d pl ay judi ci al l y and al so i n
publ i c opi ni on.
Objecti ons to thi s nati onal l oyal ty oath were rai sed at the Con-
venti on. James Wi l son of Vi rgi ni a sai d A good Govt. di d not need
them, and a bad one coul d not or ought not to be supported.~ Hi s
objecti on was voted down. The del egates to the Conventi on knew
the i mportance of oaths, publ i c and secret.
Religious Tats
Now we come to the second part of Arti cl e V1S provi si ons on a
rel i gi ous I oyal t y oath. That meant, i n the context of the requi red state
oaths, a Chri>tian l oyal ty oath. At thi s poi nt, the arguments for and
agai nst oaths were reversed. There i s no need for such an oath, most
of the Conventi ons del egates concl uded. Echoi ng Wi l sons com-
ments on the usel essness of a federal oath, Madi son l ater wrote to
Edmund Pendl eton: I s not a rel i gi ous test as far as i t i s necessary, or
woul d be operate, i nvol ved i n the oath i tsel f? I f the person sweari ng
bel i eves i n the supreme Bei ng who i s i nvoked, and i n the penal con-
39. Hami l ton, Federal i st 27, The Fed~alist, pp. 174-75; extract i n Foundem Consti-
tution, I V, p. 641.
40. Records, I I , p. 87; i n ibid., I V, p. 638.
sequences of offendi ng hi m, ei ther i n thi s or a future worl d or both,
he wi l l be under the same restrai nt from perjury as i f he had previ -
ousl y subscri bed to a test requi ri ng thi s bel i ef. I f the person i n ques-
ti on be an unbel i ever i n these poi nts and woul d notwi thstandi ng
take an oath, a previ ous test coul d have no effect. He woul d sub-
scri be to i t as he woul d take the oath, wi thout any pri nci pl e that
coul d be affected by ei ther.~41 I n short, a bel i ever al ready bel i eves; a
l i ar wi l l subscri be; so why bother wi th an oath? Thi s argument was
used by other defenders of the abol i ti on of a rel i gi ous test oath. 42
But the argument mi sses a key poi nt: What about hme~t Dei sts
and Uni tari ans who woul d not want to betray thei r pri nci pl es by
taki ng a fal se oath to a Tri ni tari an God? A Chri sti an oath woul d bar
them from servi ng as covenantal agents of the ul ti mate soverei gn,
the God of the Bi bl e. By removi ng the requi rement of the oath, the
Conventi ons del egates were i n fact openi ng up the door to federal
offi ce-hol di ng that woul d otherwi se be cl osed to honest non-Chri s-
ti ans, a poi nt observed by some of the defenders of the removal of
the rel i gi ous test. 43 I t woul d al so open up offi ces of authori t y to men
who had taken other binding oaths that were hostile to Christiani~ men who
had taken these rival oaths in goodfaith. That possi bi l i ty was never openl y
di scussed, but i t was a possi bi l i ty whi ch l ay si l entl y i n the back-
ground of the cl osed Conventi on i n Phi l adel phi a. By cl osi ng the l i t-
eral doors i n Phi l adel phi a, the del egates were openi ng the judi ci al
door to a new group of offi ci al s. They were therefore cl osi ng the judi -
ci al door to the ori gi nal authori zi ng Soverei gn Agent under whom
al most al l offi ci al s had been servi ng from the very begi nni ng of the
country. The proposal was submi tted by Charl es Pi nckney of South
Carol i na. After debate, i t was accepted overwhel mi ngl y. North
Carol i na opposed i t; Maryl and was di vi ded. 44
Those hosti l e to Arti cl e VI , Cl ause 3 suspected what mi ght hap-
pen: . . . i f there be no rel i gi ous test requi red, pagans, dei sts, and
Mahometans mi ght obtai n offi ces among us, and that the senators
41. I bid., I V, p. 639. Cf. Mr. Spencer, North Carol i na rati fyi ng conventi on, i n
Jonathan El l i ot (cd.), The Debates in the Several State Conventi ons on the Adoption of the
Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Conventi on at Philadelphia i n 1787, 5
VOI S. (Phi l adel phi a: Li ppi ncott, [1836] 1907), I V, p. 200.
42. Cf. Mr. Shute i n the debate i n Massachusetts r ati fyi ng conventi on: ibid., I V,
p. 642; Mr. I redel l of North Carol i na: El l i ot, Debates, I V, p. 193.
43. Tr ench Coxe, Ol i ver El l sworth, Mr. Shute, Edmund Randol ph: Founders
Constitution, I V, pp. 639, 643, 644.
44. Far r and, Records, I I , pp. 461, 468.
Renewed Covenant or Br oken Covenant? 391
and r epr esentati ves mi ght al l be pagans.
45
A pr opheti c voi ce, i n-
deed! I t was not heeded. But thi s objecti on was more di sti ncti vel y
pol i ti cal and pr acti cal . The mor e i mpor tant i ssue was covenantal ,
but the opponents of the Consti tuti on di d not ful l y understand thi s.
(Sur el y todays textbook commentator s do not.) The offi cer s of the
U.S. government are not to be subjected to a rel i gi ous test for hol d-
i ng offi ce.
We must understand what thi s means. I t means that ciuil oj$cers
are not under an oath to the God of the Bible. I t means that i n the exerci se
of thei r vari ous offi ces, ci vi l magi strates are bound by an oath to a
di fferent god. That god i s the Ameri can Peopl e, consi dered as an au-
tonomous soverei gn who possesses ori gi nal andjnal earthl y juri sdi c-
ti on. Thi s vi ew of the sover ei gn Peopl e i s r adi cal l y di ffer ent fr om
anythi ng that had been formal l y stated or publ i cl y assumed by pre-
vi ous Chr i sti an pol i ti cal phi l osopher s. The Peopl e wer e no l onger
acti ng as Gods del egated judi ci al agents but as thei r own agent.
Thi s same vi ew of pol i ti cal sover ei gnty under gi r ded Rousseaus
pol i ti cal theor y, and al so the var i ous consti tuti ons of the Fr ench
Revol uti on. The rati fi cati on of the U. S. Consti tuti on was therefore a
for mal covenantal step towar d the l eft-wi ng Enl i ghtenment and
away from the hal fway covenant pol i ti cal phi l osophy of Chri sti ani ty
combi ned wi th r i ght-wi ng Scotti sh Enl i ghtenment r ati onal i sm. 46 I t
woul d take the ri se of Darwi ni sm and the vi ctory of the North i n the
Ci vi l War to make cl ear the judi ci al nature of thi s defi ni ti ve step to-
war d Rousseaus unhol y commonweal th. 47
The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) brought the federal govern-
ments r el i gi ous tol er ati on to the states, a pr ocedur e or i gi nal l y
deni ed to the feder al gover nment by the Fi r st Amendment, whi ch
45. Henry Abbot, North Carol i na rati fyi ng conventi on: El l i ots Debates, I V, p,
192.
46. Thi s i s not to say that Ameri cans steadi l y abandoned Scotti sh common sense
rati onal i sm after 1787. They di d not. I t remai ned the domi nant i ntel l ectual tradi ti on
i n the U.S. unti l Darwi ni sm broke i ts hol d on mens thi nki ng, But the major func-
ti on of thi s school of thought was to preserve Newtoni an rati onal i sm and ei ghteenth-
century natural l aw phi l osophy i n the thi nki ng of evangel i cal . See George M.
Marsden, The Evangelical Mand and the New School presbyteri an Experience: A Case Study of
Thought and Theolo~ in Nineteenth-CentuT America (New Haven, Connecti cut: Yal e
Uni versi ty Press, 1970), pp. 231-33.
47. I am not argui ng that thi s was a sel f-consci ous step toward Rousseau. Rousseaus
i nfl uence i n col oni al Ameri ca was mi ni mal , l i mi ted mai nl y to hi s educati onal theori es
i n Emile. See Paul M. Spyrl i n, Rou.weau i n Amemca, 1760-1809 (LJni versi t y, Al abama:
Uni versi ty of Al abama Press, 1969),
prohi bi ted Congress from maki ng l aws regardi ng rel i gi on. I n Cant-
well v. Connecticut (1940), the Supreme Court decl ared: The Fi rst
Amendment decl ares that Congress shal l make no l aws respecti ng
the establ i shment of rel i gi on or prohi bi ti ng the free exerci se thereof.
The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the l egi sl atures of the
states as i ncompetent as Congress to enact such l aws .
48
Fi nal l y, i n
1961, the l ast state rel i gi ous test oath was decl ared unconsti tuti onal :
i n Maryl and. Justi ce Bl ack ci ted the concl usi on of Cantwell u. Connec-
ticut to overturn thi s l ast vesti ge of the pre-Consti tuti onal oath-
bound ci vi l covenants .49
The heart, mi nd, and especi al l y soul of the confl i ct wi thi n Amer-
i can pol i ti cal phi l osophy between states ri ghts and federal sover-
ei gn y i s seen here, i n Arti cl e VI of the U.S. Consti tuti on. Yet thi s
cl ause regardi ng rel i gi ous tests i s vi rtual l y never di scussed i n de-
tai l or even menti oned, i n some i nstances by modern hi story
textbooks, Consti tuti onal l aw textbooks, or even the Chri sti an Con-
sti tuti onal monographs and col l ecti ons of ol d pri mary source docu-
ments. The neutral common-ground reasoni ng of the natural l aw
tradi ti on recei ves i ts mark of soverei gnty here. Here i s the soul of
pre-Darwi ni an humani sm. (Darwi ni sm destroyed i t, and has l eft
hi stori ci sm, exi stenti al i sm, rel ati vi sm, and Marxi sm as i ts evol vi ng
spi ri tual successors. ) Here i s the juri di cal foundati on of the Ameri -
can Ci vi l Li berti es Uni ons protests agai nst al l traces of rel i gi on i n
publ i c pl aces. Here i s the bapti smal font of the U.S. Department of
Educati on. Al l that was needed was a central i zati on of judi ci i d con-
trol through the federal (nati onal ) courts, and the extensi on of man-
datory federal judi ci al athei sm to the states. Both were provi ded by
the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment: Ci ti zenshi p Wi thout God
The cul mi nati on came wi th the Ci vi l War (1861-65) and the un-
consti tuti onal l y rati fi ed Fourteenth Amendment (1868). 50 I t i s wi th
the Fourteenth Amendment, as Harvard l egal hi stori an Raotd Berger
has so concl usi vel y demonstrated, that we fi nd the ori gi ns of what he
48. Cantwel[ v. Connectuut, i n John J. McGrath (cd.), Church and State in Anwrican
Law: Gbes and Matmials (Mi l waukee, Wi sconsi n: Bruce, 1962), p. 281.
49. I n the case of Tom-so v. Watkins, ibid., p. 353.
50. Wal ter J. Suthon, Jr., The Dubi ous Ori gi n of the Fourteenth Amendment,
Tul ane Law Review, XXVI I I (1953), pp. 22-44.
cal l s government by judi ci ary. 51 I agree wi th Rushdoonys assess-
ment of i ts i mpact: The Canaan and refuge of pi l gri ms i s becomi ng
the house of bondage.52
We need to consi der the Fourteenth Amendment i n rel ati on to
ci ti zenshi p. The fi rst sentence of Cl ause 1 reads:
Al l persons born or natural i zed i n the Uni ted States, and subject to the
juri sdi cti on thereof, are ci ti zens of the Uni ted States and the State wherei n
they resi de.
Thi s amendment was added i n 1868 i n the aftermath of the Ci vi l
War. Why so l ate? Because the Consti tuti on had not previ ousl y
defi ned ci ti zen. Ci ti zenshi p was l eft to the i ndi vi dual states to
defi ne. After the Ci vi l War, freed sl aves needed protecti on. Thus,
they were made ci ti zens under the protecti on of the l aw. They had
not been protected as ci ti zens pri or to the war. Thi s was one reason
why the Consti tuti on had been si l ent regardi ng ci ti zenshi p: to avoi d
a wal k-out by Southern del egates to the Conventi on.
T&ing the Oath of Citizenship
Ameri can ci ti zens now take thi s i nherentl y athei sti c ci vi l oath.
They take i t at bi rth. I t i s taken implicit~ and representatzve~. They are
ci ti zens by bi rth. Thi s concept ci ti zenshi p by physi cal bi rth and
geography i s cruci al i n understandi ng the transformati on of the
Ameri can covenant. I t made ci vi l covenant membershi p dependent
on an oath of stri ctl y ci vi l subordi nati on rather than professi on of re-
l i gi ous fai th, i .e., eccl esi asti cal and ci vi l subordi nati on.
I n the Massachusetts Bay Col ony i n the seventeenth century,
an adul t mal e became a ci ti zen by formal church covenant. Wi th-
out formal church membershi p, he was merel y a town resi dent, not
a ci ti zen. Thi s system began to break down al most from the begi n-
ni ng; becomi ng a property hol der made you el i gi bl e to vote i n town
el ecti ons, though not i n col ony-wi de el ecti ons. Steadi l y, the pos-
sessi on of capi tal repl aced the oath as the basi s of pol i ti cal ci ti zen-
shi p. Later, the formal devel opment of thi s pri nci pl e of ci vi l contract
51. Raoul Berger, Government by J udicial: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment (Cambri dge, Massachusetts: Harvard Uni versi ty Press, 1977).
.52. R. J. Rushdoony, This I nde@ndent Republic: Studies in the Nature and Meaning of
Ameri can Histoty (Fai rfax, Vi rgi ni a: Thoburn Press, [1964] 1978), p. 47.
became one of John Lockes i ntel l ectual l egaci es to pol i ti cal thought,
i f not the major one. 53
Neverthel ess, there was al ways the oath taken i n a ci vi l court.
Gods name was brought i nto the proceedi ngs. Locke was aware of
the bi ndi ng nature of an oath, and al so i ts rel i gi ous foundati ons. I n
hi s Essay on Toleration (1685), he speci fi cal l y exempted the athei st
from the ci vi l protecti on of tol erati on: Lastl y, those are not al l to be
tol er ated who deny the bei ng of God. Pr omi ses, covenants, and
oaths, whi ch are the bonds of human soci ety, can have no hol d upon
an athei st. The taki ng away of God, though but even i n thought,
di ssol ves al l ; besi des al so, those that by thei r athei sm undermi ne and
destroy al l rel i gi on, can have no pretence of rel i gi on whereupon to
chal l enge the pri vi l ege of tol erati on .5
4
The oath to God remi nded a
ci ti zen of the Soverei gn who woul d i mpose sancti ons on courtroom
l i ars, so men were requi red to swear wi th one hand on a Bi bl e and
the other one rai sed toward heaven. Presi dents sti l l do thi s when
they have the Consti tuti onal oath admi ni stered to them. Thi s ri te i s
not requi red by l aw. I t i s an empty formal ri te i n the eyes of most
peopl e, yet ri tes are never enti rel y empty. There i s al ways some mys-
teri ous el ement i n a ri te, some degree of forebodi ng i f the proper tra-
di ti onal formul as are not observed. The outward shel l of the ori gi nal
col oni al ci vi l covenants sti l l per sever es, just as bapti sm and the
Lords Supper do i n apostate churches.
The Tnumph of the Federal J udicia~
By defaul t, the federal judi ci ary has tri umphed, for i t al one
speaks the true word of the si l ent, amorphous soverei gn. Professor
Berger begi ns hi s book on government by judi ci ary wi th these
53. I do not wi sh to overemphasi ze Lockes di rect i mpact on Ameri can pol i ti cal
thi nki ng. An Ameri can edi ti on of hi s Treatise on Ciuil Government di d not appear unti l
1773. Hi s i nfl uence was i ndi rect through hi s popul ari zers, just as Newtons i nfl uence
was. Of far greater di rect i nfl uence were the wri ti ngs of the 1720s by John Trenchard
and Thomas Gordon i n Catos Letters and The I ndependent Whig. See Bai l yn, I aZological
Origim, pp. 25-36, 43-45. Neverthel ess, Lockes i ndi rect i nfl uence, l i ke Newtons,
shoul d not be underesti mated. See Thomas L. Pangl e, The Spirit of Modem Repub-
l i cani sm: The Moral Vtiion of the Amcan Founders and the Philosophy of Locke (Chi cago:
Uni versi ty of Chi cago Press, 1989). Before the Revol uti on, col oni sts knew Locke
more for hi s Essay Concerning Human Understanding than for the Treatise: Henry F.
May, The Enlightenment in Ammca (New York: Oxford Uni versi ty Press, 1976), p. 38.
.54. Locke, Treattie of Civil Government and A Letter Concenung Tol erati on, edi ted by
Charl es L. Sherman (New York: Appl eton-Century Co., 1937), pp. 212-13.
words: The Fourteenth Amendment i s the case study par excel l ence
of what Justi ce Harl an descri bed as the Supreme Courts exerci se of
the amendi ng power, i ts conti nui ng revi si on of the Consti tuti on
under the gui se of i nterpretati on.ss The Supreme Court or fi nal
court of appeal i n any covenantal i nsti tuti on provi des the day-to-day
judi ci al conti nui ty; onl y rarel y are there fundamental , di sconti nuous
revi si ons made i n thi s process of judi ci al conti nui ty. There i s no
escape from thi s aspect of temporal conti nui ty. The pri mary ques-
ti on of covenantal sancti ons i s thi s one: Who authori zes the appl i ca-
ti on of the covenants sancti ons? The answer: the one who administers
the covenant oath. Therefore, we need to i denti fy the character of the
ci vi l oath. The Consti tuti on i s cl ear: . . . no rel i gi ous Test shal l
ever be requi red as a Qual i fi cati on to any Offi ce or publ i c Trust
under the Uni ted States.
The second sentence of Cl ause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment
has been the wedge by whi ch federal judi ci al soverei gnty has spl i t
apart the ori gi nal Consti tuti onal federal i sm (al though thi s was not
ful l y apparent unti l the ri se of Progressi vi sm i n the earl y twenti eth
centur y).5G
No State shal l make or enforce any l aw whi ch shal l abri dge the
pri vi l eges or i mmuni ti es of ci ti zens of the Uni ted States; nor shal l any State
depri ve any person of l i fe, l i berty, or property, wi thout due process of l aw;
nor deny any person wi thi n i ts juri sdi cti on the equal protecti on of the l aws.
Si nce the earl y 1940s, the Supreme Court has been unwi l l i ng to
protect pri vate property from any and al l ki nds of confi scati on and
control by l ocal , state, and federal governments. ST Post-Darwi ni an
55. Berger, Government by J udiciary, p. 1.
56. Harol d M. I -I yman, A More Pe@ect Union: Thz I mpact of the Civil War and Recon-
struction on the Constitution (Boston: Houghton Mi fi i l n, 1975). Hyman argues that the
Ci vi l War and Reconstructi on di d not radi cal l y or permanentl y central i ze federal
authori ty at the expense of state authori ty. Compared to what took pl ace after 1900,
and especi al l y after 1913, he i s correct wi th regard to the 1876-1900 era. But the Four-
teenth Amendment made possi bl e the pol i ti cal central i zati on that took a generati on
(1880-1920), under the i nfl uence of post-%oci al Darwi ni sm Darwi ni sm, to devel op.
57. Bernard H. Si egan, Economic Libdies and the Constitution (Chi cago: Uni versi ty
of Chi cago Press, 1980); Si egan, The Supreme Court: The Fi nal Arbi ter, i n Davi d
Boaz and Edwar d Cr ane (eds.), Beyond the Status Quo: Pohcy Proposals for Amzrica
(Washi ngton, D. C.: Cato I nsti tute, 1985). See al so the symposi um on Si egans Con-
sti tuti onal studi es publ i shed i n the Cato J ournal, I V (Wi nter 1985). For havi ng taken
thi s hard l i ne, Professor Si egans nomi nati on to the Uni ted States Court of Appeal s
l i beral i sm won out over Lockean l i beral i sm. I n 1973, the Supr eme
Court determi ned that l i ves i n the womb are not under thi s protec-
ti on because of a Court-i nvented Consti tuti onal guarantee of pri vacy:
woman and physi ci an. State ci vi l sancti ons coul d no l onger be br ought
agai nst thi s cl ass of murderers who had successful l y conspi red to
depri ve another person of l i fe. 58 Post-Darwi ni an l i beral i sm won
agai n. Human l i fe can now be l egal l y sacri fi ced on the al tar of con-
veni ence. The hope of the Framers to pl ace judi ci al l i mi ts on the
worst deci si ons of the l egi sl ature di d not succeed, al though thi s fact
took a century and a hal f to become cl ear to everyone. I f anythi ng,
the Court, i nsul ated from di rect publ i c opi ni on, proved i n 1973 that
i t was the worse offender .
A Political J udiciaV
The procedural l i mi ts of the Consti tuti on proved to be no safe-
guard from the substanti ve apostasy of the humani sts who have
domi nated pol i ti cs i n the twenti eth century. The Lockean l i beral s of
1787 desi gned a system that was nei ther substanti vel y nor pro-
cedural l y i mmune to the Darwi ni an l i beral s of the twenti eth century.
Whi g l i beral i sm won i n 1788, and i ts spi ri tual hei r i s sti l l wi nni ng to-
day. Consti tuti onal procedure has reveal ed i tsel f to be as mor al l y
neutral as humani sms ethi cs i s, i .e., not at al l . 59 I t someti mes takes
l onger for procedure to r espond to the shi fti ng moral and pol i ti cal
wi nds, al though i n the case of the Warren Court, procedure shi fted
mor e r api dl y than pol i ti cs di d. I t was not, after al l , the U.S. Con-
gress that forced i ntegrati on of the publ i c school s of Topeka, Kansas,
and therefore the nati on, i n 1954. ~
Dar wi ni an jur i st Ol i ver Wendel l Hol mes, Jr ., who l ater ser ved
on the U.S. Supreme Court, began hi s 1881 l ectures on the common
l aw wi th thi s observati on: The l i fe of the l aw has not been l ogi c: i t
has been experi ence. The fel t necessi ti es of the ti me, the preval ent
by Presi dent Reagan was rejected i n 1988, by a vote al ong party l i nes, 8 to 6, by the
Senate Judi ci ary Commi ttee. Of 340 previ ous nomi nati ons by Presi dent Reagan,
onl y one had been successful l y bl ocked by the Judi ci ary Commi ttee; two others
both conservati ves had al so been opposed by the commi ttee, but the fi nal vote
went to the whol e Senate, wher e one was defeated, Rober t Bork. Panel Rejects
Reagan Court Nomi nee, New I br k Times (Jul y 15, 1988).
58. I n the Uni ted States, the death penal ty i s excl usi vel y a state sancti on, except
i n the case of treason wi thi n the mi l i tary.
59. See Appendi x B: Rushdoony on the Consti tuti on.
60. Brown u. Board of Education of T@eka, Kansas (1954).
Renewed Couenant or Broken Covenant? 397
moral and pol i ti cal theori es, i ntui ti ons of publ i c pol i cy, avowed or
unconsci ous, even the prejudi ces whi ch judges share wi th thei r fel l ow-
men, have had a good deal more to do than the syl l ogi sm i n deter-
mi ni ng the rul es by whi ch men shoul d be governed.cl Thi s was put
l ess academi cal l y and more memorabl y by the fi cti onal Mr. Dool ey
(humori st Fi nl ey Peter Dunne) i n the earl y years of the twenti eth
century: The Supreme Court fol l ows the el ecti on returns.
The ambi val ence of ei ghteenth-century Scotti sh moral phi l oso-
phy regardi ng the judi ci ary as a fi el d i ndependent from pol i ti cs now
has been answered: i t i s not i ndependent from pol i ti cs; i t i s an arm of
pol i ti cs. Wi therspoon had warned Madi son about thi s, but Madi son
and hi s col l eagues di d not take the bri ef warni ng seri ousl y enough. 62
Thi s fai l ure of procedural structure to match the speed of soci al
change has become a fami l i ar theme of l i beral i sm. As an hei r of both
Madi son and Hol mes, Cl i nton Rossi ter, known (i ncorrectl y) as a
conservati ve schol ar, di smi sses the Arti cl es of Confederati on:
Al though handi capped i n many ways i n the battl es of rhetori c and pol i ti cal
maneuver wi th the fearful republ i cans, the nati onal i sts had one advantage
that, i n the l ong run and therefore i n the end, woul d prove deci si ve: they
knew, as di d many of thei r opponents, that the prescri pti ve course of
nati on-bui l di ng i n Ameri ca had run beyond the Arti cl es of Confederati on
to serve nati onal needs. By 1787. . . the consti tuti onal l ag had become too
exaggerated for men l i ke Washi ngton and Madi son to bear pati entl y. 63
Thi s i s the same cri ti ci sm that we hear today regardi ng the Con-
sti tuti on, whi ch i s an omi nous pol i ti cal i ndi cati on of a consti tuti onal
cri si s i n the maki ng.
Lockes Legacy: Li fe, Li berty, and Property
Lockes covenant formul a l i fe, l i berty, and property echoes
down through the centuri es i n the Fourteenth Amendment. Jeffer-
sons i nserti on i nto the Decl arati on of I ndependence the phrase of
61. Ol i ver Wendel l Hol mes, Jr., The Common Law (Boston: Li ttl e, Brown, [1881],
1923), p. 1. My agi ng copy (undated) was l i sted as the 47th pri nti ng.
62. Wi therspoon wrote: Moral phi l osophy i s di vi ded i nto two great branches,
Ethi cs and Pol i ti cs, to thi s some add Juri sprudence, though thi s maybe consi dered
as a part of pol i ti cs . John W i therspoon, An Annotated Edition of Lectures on Moral Phi-
losophy, edi ted by Jack Scott (Newark: Uni versi ty of Del aware Press, 1982), Lecture
1, p. 65.
63. Cl i nton Rossi ter, 1787: The Grand Convention (New York: Norton, [1966]
1987), p. 38.
l i fe, l i berty, and the pursui t of happi ness was another si mi l ar echo,
though del i beratel y di storted.
John Locke, the defender of uni versal natural ri ghts through
uni versal natural l aw, substi tuted the concept of the ci vi l contract or
ci vi l compact for the bi bl i cal noti on of ci vi l covenant. So di d Jean Jac-
ques Rousseau. The ri val pol i ti cal phi l osophi es of the two wi ngs of
the ei ghteenth-centur y Enl i ghtenment, Scotti sh a po.steriori (em-
pi ri cal ) rati onal i sm vs. French a Pri ori (deducti ve) rati onal i sm, devel -
oped out of these two ri val concepti ons of the ci vi l contract. Lockes
compact offered three stated goal s that provi ded l egi ti macy to any
ci vi l contract: l i fe (i . e., sel f-preservati on), l i berty, and property.
Rousseaus had none: the General Wi l l spoke through the State, and
none coul d stay i ts hand. The French Revol uti onari es, especi al l y the
Jacobi ns, pi cked up the sl ogan of French Grand Ori ent Masonry,
Li ber ty, Equal i ty, Fr ater ni ty,64 and fused i t wi th Rousseaus
General Wi l l . Rousseaus pol i ti cal theol ogy was total i tari an; so was
the French Revol uti on .65
The Two Revolutions
One i mportant di fference that di sti ngui shes the i deol ogi cal
defense of the Ameri can Revol uti on from that of the French Revol u-
ti on can be seen i n these ri val Enl i ghtenment concepts of ci vi l con-
tract. Lockes versi on of the theory had somethi ng speci fi c i n hi story
that coul d i denti fy a val i d ci vi l compact: i ts defense of pri vate prop-
erty. He made thi s the touchstone of hi s pol i ti cal theory: The great
and chi ef end, therefore, of Mens uni ti ng i nto Commonweal ths, and
putti ng themsel ves under Government, i s the Preservation of their Prop-
erty.ti The French vi ew of the soci al contract had no l i nk between
the transcendent soverei gn wi l l and hi story, except the voi ce of the
pol i ti cal soverei gn. Jefferson hesi tated to use Lockes proper~ and
substi tuted pursuit of happiness. I t i s not cl ear why he di d thi s. He had
personal fai th i n pri vate property, i ncl udi ng the ri ght of owni ng
sl aves; he never freed hi s. 67 Hi s economi c thi nki ng seems to have
64. Al bert G. Mackey (cd.), An Emyclopaedia of Freem-mony and I ts Kindred Sciences,
2 vol s. (New York: Masoni c Hi story Co., [1873] 1925), I , p. 445.
65. A. D. Li ndsey, T/ u Modern Demonatic State (New York: Oxford Uni versi ty
Press, 1943), pp. 126-36. See al so Tal mon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy.
66. Locke, Second Treatise of Government (1690), paragraph 124. I am usi ng Lasl etts
edi ti on (New York: Menton, 1965), p. 395.
67. Thomas Fl emmi ng, The Man from Monticello: An I ntimate Lfe of ThonmsJ e&on
(New York: Morrow, 1969), pp. 369-70.
Renewed Covenant oi Broken Covenant? 399
been shaped by Humes free market thi nki ng and, l ater, by Adam
Smi ths Weal th o~~ati ons (1776). But when he sought a substi tute for
the bi bl i cal concept of transcendent l egi ti macy, he turned away from
hi story and adopted undefi ned, ti mel ess categori es: l i fe, l i berty, and
the pursui t of happi ness. Perhaps he was merel y wri ti ng to pl ease
the philosopher and i ntel l ectual s i n France, knowi ng wel l thei r prefer-
ence for grand sl ogans devoi d of hi stori cal content. a Or perhaps the
reason may have been merel y styl i sti c. i g
There i s al so another factor, one recogni zed by Bri ti sh pol i ti cal
phi l osopher A. D. Li ndsey: The Amer i can l i mi tati ons on gover n-
ment were l argel y of Puri tan ori gi n and partl y desi gned to secure
freedom of the churches. But i n France there was onl y one church,
r egar ded i n the mi nds of the uphol der s of the Revol uti on as an
enemy of the state and therefore i n thei r mi nd an i nsti tuti on to be
attacked, not to be secured i n i ts l i berti es. I n short, i t was the eccl e-
siastical pluralism of competing Tnnitarian churches that made possi bl e the
Ameri cans confi dence i n the possi bi l i ty of l i mi ted ci vi l government.
Thi s acceptance of eccl esi asti cal pl ural i sm within thejudicialframework
of confessional Trinitarianism then l ed to the publ i cs nai ve acceptance
of a radi cal l y di fferent doctri ne: the religious Pl ural i sm of a nations moral
and ~udicial foundations. Thi s same confusi on of concepts judi ci al
bl i ndness i s the foundati on of modern Chri sti an pol i ti cal pl ural i sm. 71
Thi s di sti ncti on was not cl earl y understood by most Chri sti an
voters i n 1788 when they voted for and agai nst rati fi cati on. Most of
them si mpl y assumed that Tri ni tari ani sm was soci al l y normati ve i n
Ameri ca, and al so that i t woul d probabl y conti nue to be normati ve.
The di sti ncti on between confessi onal pl ural i sm and eccl esi asti cal
pl ural i sm under a common Tri ni tari an confessi on was understood,
and wel l understood, by the i ntel l ectual l eaders of the Consti tuti onal
Conventi on, as we shal l see. Thus, Church hi stori an Si dney Mead
68. The appeal to French sensi bi l i ti es was suggested by Carl Becker, The Decl ara-
ti on of I ndependence: A Study in the HistoT of Political I deas (New York: Vi ntage, [1922]
1942), p. 129.
69. Thi s i s the opi ni on of Adri enne Koch, Je~i mon and Madison: The Great Collabo-
ration (New York: Oxford Uni versi ty Press, [1950] 1964), pp. 78-80.
70. Li ndsey, Democrati c State, p. 128.
71. Gordon J. Spykman l abel s these vi ews as structural pl ural i sm pl ural i nsti -
tuti ons under God, or sphere soverei gnty and confessi onal pl ural i sm. He and hi s
peers argue that the second necessari l y requi res the fi rst. Spykman, The Pri nci pl ed
Pl ural i st Posi ti on, i n Gary Scott Smi th (cd.), God and Politics: Four Views on the Refor-
mation of Civil Government (Phi l l i psburg, New Jersey: Presbyteri an & Reformed,
1989), p. 79. See al so the i ntroducti on to thi s essay by Smi th: p. 75.
hasaval i d poi nt:. . . the struggl es for rel i gi ous freedom duri ng the
l ast quarter of the ei ghteenth century provi ded the ki nd of practi cal
i ssue on whi ch rati onal i sts and sectari an-pi eti sts coul d and di d uni te,
i n spi te of underl yi ng theol ogi cal di fferences, i n opposi ti on to ri ght
wi ng tradi ti onal i sts. z I t was the pol i ti cal tri umph of Dei sm and
Uni tari ani sm over Chri sti ani ty; i n our day, i t i s the tri umph of
athei sm over al l forms of ri val publ i c rel i gi ous expressi on. Dei sm,
Uni tari ani sm, and athei sm achi eved pol i ti cal vi ctory wi thout ever
havi ng been more than ti ny mi nori ty fai ths. 73
The Appeal to God
John Wi therspoon adopted a compact theory of the state, fol l ow-
i ng Locke. He accepted as hi stori cal l y val i d the l egal fi cti on of the
ori gi nal state of nature. 74 Russel l Ki rk maybe correct that Hami l ton
and Madi son, i n devi si ng thei r pol i ti cal theori es, were di sci pl es of
Scotti sh skepti c Davi d Hume rather than Locke. 75 Dougl ass Adai r
agrees.
G Thi s dependence on Hume vs. Locke i s uncl ear. Anyone
appeal i ng to the i nsi ghts of Hume brought i nto questi on any appeal
to natural ri ghts. Hume di smi ssed Lockes natural ri ghts theory and
natural l aw theory as emphati cal l y as he di smi ssed the concept of
physi cal cause and effect. Madi sons pol i ti cal theory has al so been at-
tri buted to hi s readi ng of the anci ent cl assi cs, especi al l y Thucydi des. 77
But thi s onl y extends the probl em: On what judi ci al basi s was the
Consti tuti on to be made l egi ti mate? The Framers appeal ed to the
72. Mead, Ameri can Protestanti sm i n John M. Mul der and John F. Wi l son
(eds.), Religion in Ameri can Hi sto~ (Engl ewood Cl i ffs, New Jersey: Prenti ce-Hal l ,
1978), pp. 165-66. Cf. Mead, The Liue~ Ex@rtment: The Shaping of Chnstiani~ in Area=
ica (New Yor k: Har per & Row, 1963), ch. 3.
73. On the rel ati vel y smal l numbers of Dei sts i n Ameri ca i n the earl y days of the
Republ i c, see G. Adol ph Koch, Religion of the American Enlightenment (New York:
Crowel l , [1933] 1968). On Uni tari ani sms i nfl uence, see Rushdoony, The Nature of the
American Sy$tem (Fai rfax, Vi rgi ni a: Thoburn Press, [1965] 1978), ch. 6: The
Rel i gi on of Humani ty.
74. Wi therspoon, Lectures on Moral Philosophy, Lecture 10: Pol i ti cs.
75. Russel l Ki rk, Burke, Hume, Bl ackstone, and the Consti tuti on of the Uni ted
States, i n The J ohn M. Olin Lectures on the Bicentennial of the U. S, Comtttutton (Reston,
Vi rgi ni a: Young Ameri cas Foundati on, 1987), p. 13.
76. Dougl ass Adai r, That Pol i ti cs May Be Reduced to a Sci ence: Davi d Hume,
James Madi son, and the Tenth Federal i st (1957); repri nted i n Fame and the Founding
Fathers: Essays by Douglass Adair, edi ted by Trevor C ol bourn (New Yor k: Nor ton,
1974), pp. 93-106.
77. Ral ph L. Ketcham, James Madi son and the Nature of Man: Journal of the
Histoty of I deas, XI X (Jan. 1958), pp. 62-76.
wi l l of the peopl e. But coul d thi s be consi dered both necessary and
suffi ci ent i n l ate ei ghteenth-century Ameri can l i fe? Woul d there not
al so have to be an appeal to God?
There was no escape. There had to be an appeal to God. Thi s
was what Hume sensed, and he forthri ghtl y rejected al l traces of
thei sm i n hi s pol i ti cal theory. Locke had known better. At the end of
hi s Second Treatise, he i nvoked the name of God. He di d so when he
rai sed the questi on of sancti ons. We can see here hi s attempted fu-
si on between Chri sti ani ty and natural l aw theory. I t was an attemp-
ted fusi on that has domi nated Chri sti an pol i ti cal theory down to our
own era. He rai sed the questi on of the ri ght of pol i ti cal rebel l i on, the
di ssol uti on of the compact.
Here, i t i s l i ke, the common questi on wi l l be made: Who i s to judge
whether the pri nce or l egi sl ati ve act contrary to thei r trust? Thi s, perhaps,
i l l -affected and facti ous men may spread among the peopl e, when the
pri nce onl y makes use of hi s due prerogati ve. To thi s I repl y: the peopl e
shal l be judge. . . . But further, thi s questi on, Who shal l be the judge? can-
not mean that there i s no judge at al l ; for where there i s no judi cature on
earth to deci de controversi es among men, God i n heaven i s Judge. He
al one, i t i s true, i s Judge of the ri ght. But every man i s judge for hi msel f, as
i n al l other cases, so i n thi s, whether another has put hi msel f i nto a state of
war wi th hi m, and whether he shoul d appeal to the Supreme Judge, as
Jephthah di d.
So, there was some degree of transcendence i n Lockes system.
But he i nvoked the name of an undefi ned God rather than an earthl y
hi erarchy i n formal covenant wi th a speci fi c God. He pl aced man as
a soverei gn agent acti ng di rectl y under God. There i s no hi erar-
chi cal chai n of command, no hi erarchy of temporal appeal , no doc-
tri ne of d%jlned representation, i n Lockes concept a l i mi ti ng concept or
conveni ent theoreti cal backdrop of a theocrati c covenant. How i s
God to enforce Hi s transcendent covenant i n the mi dst of hi story?
Di rectl y or medi atori al l y through speci fi c judi ci al i nsti tuti ons? That
was the questi on Locke needed to answer. He di d not even attempt
to do SO.
Rousseau and Darwin
Rousseaus concept of pol i ti cal l egi ti macy was stri ctl y i mmanent.
I n hi s system, there i s no transcendent Soverei gn who enforces the
78. Second Treatiw, paragraphs 240, 241. Here I am usi ng Shermans edi ti on.
terms of Hi s covenants i n hi story. The soverei gn i s i mmanent: hu-
mani t y. The pol i ti cal hi erarchy i s stri ctl y ,pol i ti cal . Al l other l oyal ti es
are to be excl uded, whi ch i s the heart of hi s total i tari ani sm. 79 The
Consti tuti on fol l ows Rousseau. The l aws are the product of excl usi vel y
human del i berati on. The sancti ons are excl usi vel y hi stori cal , so the
oath acknowl edges onl y the authori ty of the document and, by i m-
pl i cati on, the amorphous soverei gn Peopl e. Fi nal l y, successi on i s a
matter of formal al terati ons of the ci vi l contract. Ew@si ng i s se~-
consci ous~ ?mmanentized~ the transcendent has been entire~ removed.
Then came Darwi ni sm. The transcendent was erased from
sci enti fi c cause and effect. God the Creator, Sustai ner, and Judge
was shoved unceremoni ousl y out of the cosmos. The Darwi ni an
worl dvi ew. rapi dl y swept the fi el d of l aw as surel y as i t swept every
other academi c fi el d. Thi s took l ess than a generati on. Process phi -
l osophy fused wi th democrati c theory to produce a concept of l aw
compl etel y di vorced from the transcendent. The judi ci al resul t can
be found i n Ol i ver Wendel l Hol mes The Common Law (1881), a
defense of unrestri cted judi ci al soverei gnty, but al l i n the name of the
evol vi ng preferences of the judges and the el ectorate.
Evol uti oni sm: From Wi therspoon to Hol mes
The el ement of evol uti oni sm was i nherent i n Scotti sh Enl i ghten-
ment theory. The empi ri ci sm of Scotti sh common sense real i sm was
i nherentl y evol uti onary. There i s a connecti on between the judi ci al
theory of Scotti sh empi ri ci sm and post-Darwi ni an theori es of justi ce.
Hol mes announced: The l i fe of the l aw has not been l ogi c: i t has
been experi ence. Over a century earl i er, Wi therspoon had taught
Madi son and hi s other students that phi l osophers coul d not agree on the
answer to the questi on: What di sti ngui shes man from the ani mal s?
The phi l osophers, Wi therspoon sai d, had wanted to fi nd one i n-
communi cabl e characteri sti c i n man, but they coul d not fi nd one:
reason, memory, l aughter, rel i gi on, and a sense of ri di cul e. so Wi ther-
spoon was not sure what the di fference between man and beast i s.
He appeal ed to the beauty of hi s form, whi ch the poet takes note
of,81 an argument that no l onger carri es any wei ght i n a worl d of
79. Ni sbet, Rousseau and the Pol i ti cal Communi ty: op. ci t.; see al so Ni sbet, The
Quest$r Communi ~ (New York: Oxford Uni versi ty Press, 1952), ch. 5.
80. Lecture 1, i n Lectures on Moral Philosophy, pp. 66-67.
81. I bid., p. 67.
rel ati vi sm, especi al l y aestheti c rel ati vi sm. He l i sted the knowl edge
of God and a future state, another dead argument i n the eyes of the
secul ar humani st. 82 Thi s was phi l osophi cal l y conveni ent i n the ei gh-
teenth century. I t i s no l onger even remotel y conveni ent.
The Fr amer s al so coul d have appeal ed to thi s eschatol ogi cal
aspect of church teachi ng i n thei r quest for publ i c support of the na-
ti onal government, but Arti cl e VI , Cl ause 3 removed the i dea as a
covenantal l y seri ous factor. The ci vi l oath of the nati on was severed
from any concepti on of Gods sancti ons i n eterni ty. I n fact, Wi ther-
spoon coul d not, gi ven hi s empi ri ci sm, l ocate a fi xed, rel i abl y i ncom-
muni cabl e attr i bute i n man that i s acknowl edged by autonomous
mans phi l osophy. Thi s was the unmi stakabl e message of hi s Lectures
on Moral Philosophy. He appeal ed to an undefi ned vi rtue, as but so di d
the Dei sts and Uni tari ans. So had the Renai ssance athei sts and
Renai ssance magi ci ans.
What he and al l ei ghteenth-century Protestant moral phi l oso-
phers refused to appeal to was bi bl i cal l aw. He wanted somethi ng
el se anythi ng el se or evqthing el se to serve as the transcri pt of
Gods moral nature: The resul t of the whol e i s, that we ought to take
the rol e of duty from consci ence enl i ghtened by reason, experi ence,
and every way by whi ch we can be supposed to l earn the wi l l of our
Maker, and by i ntenti on i n creati ng us such as we are. And we ought
to bel i eve that i t i s as deepl y founded as the nature of God hi msel f,
bei ng a transcri pt of hi s moral excel l ence, and that i t i s producti ve of
the greatest good.s4
Wi thout the bi bl i cal doctri ne of creati on and the doctri ne of man
as the i mage of God, there i s no i ncommuni cabl e attri bute i n man to
separate hi m from the ani mal s. When Darwi n destroyed both the
hi stori c and bi ol ogi cal barri ers between man and ani mal , the re-
strai ned evol uti oni sm of Locke and hi s successors i n Scotl and was
transformed i nto the modern versi on. Onl y bi bl i cal covenantal i sm
can negate evol uti oni sm and i ts ethi cs of temporary power. I t was
bi bl i cal covenantal i sm that the Framers sel f-consci ousl y abandoned.
An Athei sti c Covenant
There i s no escape from thi s concl usi on: the United States Constitu-
tion is an atheistic, humanistic covenant. The l aw governi ng the publ i c
82. I dem.
83. Lectur e 4.
84. Lectur e 4, ibid., p. 87,
oath of offi ce reveal s thi s. Unfortunatel y, thi s oath i s rarel y di s-
cussed. Chri sti ans who do not anal yze soci al and pol i ti cal i nsti tu-
ti ons i n terms of the bi bl i cal covenant model are not suffi ci entl y al ert
to thi s cruci al but negl ected secti on of the Consti tuti on. The Constitut-
ion is not a Christian covenant document; it is a secular humanist covenant
document. Whi l e there have been many attempts over the years by
Chri sti ans to evade thi s concl usi on, they have al l been unsupported
wi th pri mary source documents; these attempts have al so been ob-
scurel y argued. (That the phrase Lord appears i n Arti cl e VI I , the
Seventeenth Day of September i n the Year of our Lord one thousand
seven hundred and ei ght y Seven, i s not what I woul d cal l a per-
suasi ve argument for i ts Chri sti an character. )5 I t has taken the Ci vi l
War, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the l ast hal f century of
Supreme Court i nterpretati ons to make the Consti tuti ons humani sti c
foundati on obvi ous to everyone except a handful of Chri sti an hi stori ans.
(That the Fourteenth Amendment was never l egal l y rati fi ed i s not
menti oned i n publ i c school textbooks. 86 I t was a post-war i mposi ti on. )
I real i ze that I am breaki ng wi th the fundamental thesi s of the
Rushdoony-Hal l -Sl ater-Whi tehead-CBN Uni versi ty i nterpretati on
of Amer i can Consti tuti onal hi stor y. I am al so br eaki ng wi th
C. Gregg Si ngers thesi s of the Dei st Decl arati on of I ndependence,
and the i dea of the Consti tuti on as somewhat more Chri sti an, some-
what more conservati ve. Si nger proves more than he suspects when
he says that The basi c phi l osophi es of the two documents were not
compati bl e.87 Both documents were humani sti c, but the Consti tuti on
abandons natural ri ghts phi l osophy. I f anythi ng, the Decl arati on
was more Chri sti an; Congress added two extra references to God. ss
Of course, that god was the undefi ned god of common ci vi l cere-
moni es of the era, or perhaps more to the poi nt, common Masoni c
ceremoni es. Whi l e Harol d O. J, Brown does not pursue the matter,
he has put hi s fi nger on the probl em: Ameri cas symbol i sm i s not
real l y thei sm at al l , even of an Ol d Testament vari ety. The Seei ng
Eye i s someti mes found i n Chri sti an art, but on the Great Seal of the
85. Thi s ar gument was offer ed ser i ousl y by a Chr i sti an l egal schol ar . I cannot
fi nd the or i gi nal sour ce, so I wi l l pol i tel y r efr ai n fr om menti oni ng hi s name.
86. Dan Smoot, The I l l egal Fourteenth, Review of the News (May 17, 1972).
87. Si nger, A Theological interpretation of Ammcan I iistoy (Nutl ey, New Jersey:
Crai g Press, 1964), p. 43.
88. Davi d Hawke, A Tr ansacti on of Free Men: The Birth and Course of the Dec~a?ati on of
I ndependence (New York: Scri bners, 1964), p. 198.
Uni ted States i t, l i ke the pyrami d, refl ects the vague Great Archi -
tect dei sm of Ameri can Freemasonry rather than fai th i n the per-
sonal God of Chr i sti ani ty.
s g
That Brown shoul d appeal to the reverse of the Great Seal , the
al l -seei ng eye and the pyrami d, i s si gni fi cant, though even Brown i s
unaware of just how si gni fi cant. The Congress on Jul y 4 appoi nted a
commi ttee to recommend desi gns for a seal of the U.S. The commi t-
tee was made up of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjami n
Frankl i n.0 The obverse (front) of the Great Seal i s the eagl e. The re-
verse of the Great Seal i s the al l -seei ng eye above a pyrami d, a fami l -
i ar Masoni c symbol . There i s an oddi ty here, one whi ch i s sel dom
menti oned: there i s no reverse si de of a corporate seal . A seal i s used
to produce an i mpressi on. I t i s ei ther a one-pi ece seal for i mpressi ng
wax, or a convex and concave matchi ng pai r for i mpressi ng a pi ece
of paper. (Thi s reverse seal was i gnored by the government for a
centur y and a hal f unti l Henr y A. Wal l ace, Fr ankl i n Roosevel ts
pol i ti cal l y r adi cal Secr etar y of Agr i cul tur egl and r esi dent occul t
mysti c, persuaded the Secretary of the Treasury to restore i t to publ i c
vi ew by pl aci ng i t on the back of the one dol l ar bi l l , the most common
currency uni t. Thi s was done i n 1935, and remai ns wi th us sti l l . )gz
We have returned symbol i cal l y i n thi s century to the ori gi nal nati onal
hal fi vay covenant the Decl arati on and the Arti cl es of Confederati on
that i nvoked the god of Masonry. Men need sym~l i c mani festa-
ti ons of ul ti mate soverei gnty, and the eagl e i s no l onger suffi ci ent i n a
judi ci al l y secul ar age of confusi on and despai r. The eagl e, the sym-
bol on the nati onal seal under the Decl arati on and the Arti cl es, i s no
l onger the sol e nati onal i mage that pops i nto Ameri cans mi nds.
89. Harol d O. J. Brown, The Chri sti an Ameri ca Major Response, i n God and
Politics, p. 256.
90. Monroe E. Deutsch, E Pl uri bus Unum, Cl assi cal J ournal, XVI I I (Apri l
1923), p. 387.
91. I t was under Wal l aces Department of Agri cul ture, i n the Agri cul tural Ad-
justment Admi ni strati on (AAA), that the fi rst major Communi st cel l i n the federal
government was formed i n 1933, the Ware group. See Al l en Wei nstei n, Pe@y The
Hiss-Chambem Cure (New York: Knopf, 1978), ch. 4: The Ware Group and the New
Deal . Ware was the son of Mother Bl oor, one of the l eaders of the U.S. Commu-
ni st Party: ibid., p. 5.
92. Arthur M. Schl esi nger, Jr., The Coming of the New Deal (Boston: Houghton
Mi ffl i n, 1959), vol . 2 of The Age of Roosevelt, pp. 29-34. Wal l ace was l ater Roosevel ts
Vi ce Presi dent, 1941-45. He was repl aced as V.P. by Harry S. Truman i n Januar y of
1945, three months before Roosevel ts death; otherwi se, Wal l ace woul d have become
Presi dent.
Deisrn and Unitarianism
The fact i s, the Decl arati on of I ndependence i s a Dei sti c docu-
ment. Three of the fi ve-man commi ttee that was responsi bl e for
wri ti ng i t were Uni tari ans: Jefferson, Frankl i n, and John Adams. 93
Three were Masons: Roger Sherman,g4 Rober t Li vi ngston,gs and
Frankl i n. As Davi d Hawke wri tes of Adams: He verged on dei sm i n
rel i gi on and found i t no easi er than Jefferson to admi t hi s wayward-
ness publ i cl y. He respected the fi ndi ngs of natural phi l osophy and
was i ncl i ned to extend those fi ndi ngs i nto the soci al and pol i ti cal
worl d. He bel i eved that natural l aw resembl ed the axi oms of mathe-
mati cs Sel f-evi dent pri nci pl es, that every man must assent to as
soon as proposed. 96 I n thei r ol d age, Adams and Jefferson renewed
thei r fri endshi p i n a l ong correspondence, and thei r l etters reveal
that they were al most total l y agreed on rel i gi on. They hated Chri sti -
ani ty, especi al l y Cal vi ni sm. 97 I n Jeffersons Apri l 11, 1823, l etter to
Adams, he announced that i f anyone ever worshi ped a fal se God,
Cal vi n di d. Cal vi ns rel i gi on, he sai d, was Daemoni ani sm, mean-
i ng bl asphemy. gs He knew that Adams was al ready i n basi c agree-
ment wi th hi m i n these opi ni ons. After surveyi ng thei r l etters,
Cushi ng Strout concl udes: Whatever thei r pol i ti cal di fferences,
Jefferson and Adams were vi rtual l y at one i n thei r rel i gi on. He
i denti fi es the creed of thi s rel i gi on: Uni tari ani sm. ~
Jefferson was real l y systemati c i n hi s hatred of Tri ni tari an Chri s-
ti ani ty. I n hi s ol d age, he sent a l etter to James Smi th, whi ch he
stressed was confi denti al , i n whi ch he expressed confi dence that the
present generati on wi l l see Uni tari ani sm become the general rel i -
93. The other two members were Roger Sherman, a Connecti cut Cal vi ni st Con-
gregati onal i st, and Robert Li vi ngston. For bri ef bi ographi es and an account of the
surroundi ng events, see Merl e Si ncl ai r and Annabel Dougl as McArthur, Thg Signed
@Us (New York: Duel l , Sl oan and Pear ce, 1957).
94. Phi l i p Roth says that Sherman was a Mason. Roth, Masonry in the Formation ~
Our Gowrmnent (Mi l waukee, Wi sconsi n: by the author, 1927), p. 53. Heaton says
there i s no proof that he was a Mason, al though he may have been. Ronal d E.
Heaton, Masonic Membership of the Founding Fathem (Si l ver Spri ng, Maryl and:
Masoni c Servi ce Associ ati on, [1965] 1988), pp. 100-1.
95. Roth, MasonT in the Formation of Our Government, p. 114.
96. Hawke, Tramaction, pp. 81-82.
97. John Murray Al l i son, Adams and J @mson: The StoV of a Friendship (Norman:
Uni versi ty of Okl ahoma Press, 1966), pp. 267 (on Adams rejecti on of the doctri ne of
predesti nati on), 269-71, 294-97 (on thei r theol ogi cal agreement).
98. I bid., p. 295.
99. Cushi ng Strout, The New Heavens and the New Earth: Political Religion in America
(New York: Harper & Row, 1974), p. 81.
gi on of the Uni ted States. W I n a l etter to Benjami n Waterhouse
that same year, he wrote: I trust that there i s not a young man now
l i vi ng i n the Uni ted States who wi l l not di e a Uni tar i an.101 The
Bi bl e i s just another hi story book, he wrote to Peter Carr: Read
the Bi bl e, then, as you woul d read Li vy or Taci tus.l z What, then,
becomes of the sancti ons of rel i gi on that the Framers hoped woul d
be out i n the servi ce of soci ety? As Pangl e asks: Can bel i ef i n i m-
mortal i ty of the soul or i n provi denti al i nterventi ons i n thi s l i fe be
di vorced from bel i ef i n mi racl es, and can one easi l y confi ne theol ogi -
cal di sputati on once one encourages the bel i ef i n mi racl es? We search
i n vai n for answers i n Jeffersons wri ti ngs, publ i c or pri vate. . . . 1OS
The same questi on must be posed regardi ng the other Framers vi ews,
and the same si l ence i s omi nous. Many of them based thei r hopes of
soci al stabi l i ty on a rel i gi on they had personal l y rejected. They drew
l arge drafts on a Tri ni tari an cul tural bank account i nto whi ch they
made few deposi ts i n thei r l i feti mes.
The Declaration of I ndependence
The Decl arati on of I ndependence announced the creati on of a
new nati on i n 1776. The day i t was approved, Jul y 4, 1776, the Con-
gress authori zed a commi ttee to create a nati onal seal . A seal i s an
aspect of i ncorporati on, just as bapti sm i s. Thi s i s why we know that
the Decl arati on was an i ncorporati ng document. The by-l aws of the
nati on were agreed to i n November of 1777, but they were not rati -
fi ed unti l 1781: the Arti cl es of Confederati on. What very few peopl e
are ever tol d today i s that thi s was not the ful l name of the Arti cl es.
The document was cal l ed, Arti cl es of Confederati on and perpetual
Uni on between the States. . . .
I t then l i sted the 13 states by name.
The words perpetual Uni on reveal the nature of the Consti tuti onal
Conventi on of 1787 and the cal l for state rati fyi ng conventi ons: an
i ni ti al l y i l l egal revocati on of the ori gi nal by-l aws of the nati on, whi ch
was to have been a perpetual uni on.
Thi s ori gi nal uni on was l egal l y di ssol ved i n 1788 by the rati fi ca-
ti on of the Consti tuti on. A new Dei ty was i denti fi ed, We the
Peopl e. The ol d Dei ty of the Decl arati on, the undefi ned god of
100. Jefferson to Smi th, Dec. 8, 1822; ci ted i n Pangl e, Sfiirit of Mode-n Republican-
&n, p. 83.
101. Jefferson to Waterhouse, June 26, 1822; idem.
102. Jeffer son to Car r , Oct. 31, 1787; ibid., p. 84.
103. I bid., p. 85.
nature, was not menti oned i n the Consti tuti on. Thi s i s why the
Framers made no menti on of the Decl arati on: i t was thi s hal fway
covenant that was sel f-consci ousl y bei ng repl aced. But the Framers
knew that the new nati on woul d need symbol i c conti nui ty to support
the judi ci al di sconti nui ty. Fi rst, the Arti cl es offi ci al desi gnati on of
the Confederati on as the Uni ted States was retai ned i n the new by-
l aws i n order to provi de the i l l usi on of judi ci al conti nui ty: We the
peopl e of the Uni ted States. . . . (The same publ i c rel ati ons strat-
egy was used i n 1945 when the name Uni ted Nati ons, whi ch had
been used to desi gnate the Al l i ed forces duri ng Worl d War I I , was
appropri ated by the i nternati onal organi zati on known thereafter as
the Uni ted Nati ons.) Second, they appropri ated the other vi si bl e
token of nati onal conti nui ty: the Great Seal .
(An anal ogous revol uti on can be seen i n twenti eth-century
Ameri can churches. The apostates who control todays mai nl i ne
churches have scrapped the creeds of the churches, but they sti l l
admi ni ster the sacraments. The churches have reduced the pro-
cedural si gns of the ori gi nal covenant oath to mere formal i ti es, yet
these formal i ti es sti l l convey a sense of l egi ti macy and conti nui ty.
They are the si gns of conti nui ty wi th the past, despi te the fact that
the church covenant has been broken, as the revi si ons of the creeds
reveal , denomi nati on by denomi nati on, but especi al l y the Presby-
teri ans, who have been the most creedal church of al l , wi th the most
ri gorous creed. l w)
Two questi ons need to be answered. Fi rst, i f the foundati onal
documen~s of the Ameri can ci vi l covenant are Dei sti c and humani s-
ti c, then why di d Bi bl e-bel i evi ng Chri sti ans agree to defi ne the Rev-
ol uti onary War as Jefferson di d i n the Decl arati on of I ndependence?
Second, why di d Chri sti ans rati fy the Consti tuti on?
To answer the fi rst questi on, we need to recogni ze that the
Decl arati on was never di rectl y rati fi ed by the voters. They rati fi ed i t
onl y representati vel y, through the offi ci al s sent to Congress by state
revol uti onary l egi sl atures. Nobody i n the col oni al publ i c pai d much
attenti on to the Decl arati on. I t was not rati fi ed by anyone outsi de
the Assembl y i n 1776. I t was si gned i n August. 105 The names of the
si gners were not rel eased unti l January of 1777. l w The Decl arati on
104. The Presbyteri an Church U.S.A. (Northern) revi sed i ts creed i n 1967
105. Hawke, A Transacti on, p. 209.
106. I bid., p. 186.
was pri mari l y a forei gn pol i cy document ai med at France and
Europe, al though i t was desi gned to uni fy those at home. 10T I t ex-
pressed onl y commonpl ace senti ments i n Ameri ca. I t di d not be-
come a wel l -known document of the hi story of the Revol uti on unti l
decades l ater. I t had not even been a part of Fourth of Jul y
ceremoni es i n the decade of the 1790s. 10s Unti l the Presi denti al el ec-
ti on of 1796, when John Adams ran agai nst Thomas Jefferson, the
publ i c had barel y heard of the Decl arati on. Jeffersons supporters
resurrected i t as a symbol of thei r candi dates i mportance, much to
the di spl easure of Adams, who was one of the fi ve men on the com-
mi ttee that was responsi bl e for drafti ng i t. The Federal i st Party di d
i ts best to de-emphasi ze Jeffersons part i n the Decl arati ons draft-
i ng. l cN But Adams coul d hardl y deny-that the l anguage and concepts
were mostl y Jeffersons. I l o
John Wi therspoon si gned the Decl arati on and served i n the war-
ti me Congr ess. He ther efor e ser ved as the new nati ons bapti zi ng
agent for the Ameri can Whi g churches. Thi s was the publ i c anoi nt-
i ng that was covenantal l y ne~ded i n al l Chri sti an nati o-ns pri or to the
rati fi cati on of the U.S. Consti tuti on. Thi s was, i n short, the sanction-
ing of the new revol uti onary consti tuti onal order of 1776. Thi s i s why
Wi ther spoon was so i mpor tant i n Amer i can hi stor y, and why the
Whi g chur ches ever si nce have pr ai sed hi s acti ons and desi gnated
hi m as the eccl esi asti cal fi gure i n the Revol uti onary War era, whi ch
he undoubtedl y was, but not for the reasons l i sted today. He was not
mer el y a pol i ti cal r epr esentati ve who happened to be an or dai ned
Presbyteri an mi ni ster; he was i n effect the covenantal representati ve
agent of the Whi g-Patri ot churches. The Bri ti sh recogni zed hi m as
such, whi ch i s why the mi l i tary i mmedi atel y bayoneted the man they
bel i ev ed to be Wi ther spoon. 111 Wi ther spoon was cr uci al to the
107. Zbzd., p. 143.
108. I bid., p. 212.
109. Phi l i p F. Detwei l er, The Changi ng Reputati on of the Decl arati on of I nde-
pendence: The Fi rst Fi fty Years,
William and Ma~ Quar+, 3rd. ser., XI X (1962),
pp. 565-66.
110. For my vi ews on the Decl arati on, see my essay, The Decl arati on of I nde-
pendence as a Conservati ve Document, J ournal of Chriktian Reconstruction, I I I (Sum-
mer 1976), pp. 94-115. I di d not di scuss the character of the Decl arati on as an i ncor-
porati ng document, however, an oversi ght common to hi stori ans and most l awyers,
I was i nformed of thi s judi ci al character i n 1985 by a reti red presi dent of an obscure
and defunct conservati ve l aw school . Thi s theme of the Decl arati on as an i ncor-
porati ng document i s now taught at CBN Uni versi ty l aw school .
111. James Hasti ngs Ni chol s, John Wi therspoon on Church and State, J ournal
of Presbyterian Ht$tory, XLVI I (Sept. 1964), pp. 166-67.
Ameri can cause because of hi s representati ve offi ce. The churches
saw hi m as thei r man i n Phi l adel phi a. What the textbooks sel dom
menti on i s that he was thei r representati ve i n Phi l adel phi a twi ce: i n
1776 and i n 1787-89.112
We sti l l need to deal wi th the second questi on: the rati fi cati on of
the Consti tuti on. I have al ready menti oned the confusi on i n the
mi nds of the voters regardi ng confessi onal pl ural i sm vs. eccl esi asti -
cal pl ural i sm under a Tri ni tari an oath. 113 I consi der thi s questi on i n
greater detai l i n Chapter 9. Before we get to that questi on, however,
we need to consi der some negl ected facts regardi ng the actual wri t-
i ng of the Consti tuti on. Here, l et the reader be warned, I break wi th
just about everyone.
Concl usi on
Two features of the U.S. Consti tuti on mark i t unmi stakabl y as a
humani st covenant: the Preambl e and the rel i gi ous test oath cl ause
of Arti cl e VI . Whi l e the famous phrase of Jeffersons regardi ng a
wal l of separati on between church and State i n hi s 1802 l etter to the
Danbury Bapti sts 114 i s not i n the Consti tuti on i n thi s fami l i ar form,
i t i s nonethel ess i n the Consti tuti on judi ci al l y. Whi l e the Preambl e
has recei ved consi derabl e attenti on, Arti cl e VI , Cl ause 3 has been
al most uni versal l y i gnored. Despi te the si l ence of the commentators
and hi stori ans, there i s no si ngl e covenantal cause of the suppressi on
of Chri sti ani t y i n Ameri ca, and therefore i n the modern worl d, that
has had greater i mpact than the test oath cl ause. I t i s thi s cl ause that
establ i shed judi ci al l y the anti -Chri sti an nature of the Consti tuti onal
experi ment. Whi l e We the Peopl e i s vi ewed by some Consti tuti onal
schol ars as havi ng no l egal i mpact, the oath cl ause i s so sacrosanct
that i t recei ves l i ttl e attenti on. I ts l egi ti macy, i ts normal i ty, i s assumed
by everyone who reads i t. Thi s was general l y the case i n 1789, too.
Thi s fact testi fi es to the i mpact of natural l aw phi l osophy i n the hi s-
tory of Chri stendom. I deas do have consequences i n thi s case, di s-
astrous consequences. But few peopl e recogni ze the cause of the di s-
asters. Li ke the I srael i tes i n Egypt, Chri sti ans woul d rather serve as
sl aves i n the househol d of Gods enemi es than serve those who pro-
fess bi bl i cal rel i gi on. The pol i ti cs of Chri sti an envy begi ns wi th Arti -
cl e VI , Cl ause 3.
112. See the Concl usi on to Part 3, p. 547.
113. See above, under Lockes Legacy: Li fe, Li berty, and Property; p. 399.
114. Thomas J &son: Writings (New York: Li brary of Ameri ca, 1984), p. 510.
I argued at the begi nni ng of thi s chapter that the oath has con-
ti nui ty over generati ons. So do its stipulations. Onl y the soverei gn who
establ i shes the oath can change the sti pul ati ons or the oath. The
abi l i ty to change the sti pul ati ons or the oath i s therefore a mark of ul -
ti mate soverei gnty. The U.S. Consti tuti on can l egal l y be amended.
Doesnt thi s i ndi cate that the nati ons soverei gn i s the el ectorate
rather than God? Thi s i s exactl y what the amendi ng process i ndi -
cates under the present Consti tuti on. Thi s i s why the Consti tuti on i s
a broken covenant.
To preserve i ts judi ci al conti nui ty, a nati onal covenant must es-
tabl i sh the Bi bl e as the l aw of the l and. The Bi bl e i s an permanent
covenant document. I ts sti pul ati ons do not change. A nati ons ci vi l
courts must therefore enforce the Bi bl es ci vi l l aws. Any statute not
i n conformi ty to the Bi bl e must be decl ared unconsti tuti onal . An
oath of al l egi ance to the nati onal government i s a promi se to uphol d
the nati onal consti tuti on; thi s must automati cal l y be an oath to up-
hol d and enforce the Bi bl e.
A nati onal consti tuti on i s requi red by God to serve as the by-l aws
of the ul ti mate source of l egi ti mate ci vi l l aw, the Bi bl e. A consti tu-
ti ons Preambl e i s the appropri ate pl ace to decl are thi s publ i cl y. The
Preambl e shoul d be a nati ons Decl arati on of Absol ute Dependence
on the Tri ni tari an God of the Bi bl e. The Preambl e shoul d therefore
decl are the Bi bl e as the unchangi ng l aw of the l and. I t shoul d decl are
thi s l aw as bei ng i mmune to any subsequent al terati on. Thus, any
publ i c rejecti on of thi s judi ci al standard woul d be i denti fi abl e as a
breaki ng of the nati onal covenant.
\
The general Federal Conventi on that framed the Consti tuti on at
Phi l adel phi a was a secret body; and the greatest pai ns were taken
that no part of i ts proceedi ngs shoul d get to the publ i c unti l the Con-
sti tuti on i tsel f was reported to Congress. The Journal s were confi ded
to the care of Washi ngton and were not made publ i c unti l many
years after our present Government was establ i shed. The framers of
the Consti tuti on i gnored the purposes for whi ch they were del e-
gated; they acted wi thout any authori ty whatever; and the docu-
ment, whi ch the warri ng facti ons fi nal l y evol ved from thei r quarrel s
and di ssensi ons, was revol uti onary. Thi s capi tal fact requi res i tera-
ti on, for i t i s essenti al to an understandi ng of the desperate struggl e
to secure the rati fi cati on of that then unpopul ar i nstrument.
Not one l egi sl ature i n the Uni ted States had the most di stant
i dea when they fi rst appoi nted members for a [Federal ] conventi on,
enti rel y commerci al . . . that they woul d wi thout any warrant from
thei r consti tuents, presume on so bol d and dari ng a stri de, truth-
ful l y wri tes the exci tabl e Gerry of Massachusetts i n hi s bombasti c
denunci ati on of the fraudul ent usurpati on at Phi l adel phi a. The
more rel i abl e Mel ancton Smi th of New York testi fi es that previ ous
to the meeti ng of the Conventi on the subject of a new form of gov-
ernment had been l i ttl e thought of and scarcel y wri tten upon at al l .
. . . The i dea of a government si mi l ar to the Consti tuti on never
entered the mi nds of the l egi sl atures who appoi nted the Conventi on
and of but very few of the members who composed i t, unti l they had
assembl ed and heard i t proposed i n that body.
Had the i dea of a total change [from the Confederati on] been
started, asserts the trustworthy Ri chard Henry Lee of Vi rgi ni a,
probabl y no state woul d have appoi nted members to the Conven-
ti on. . . . Probabl y not one man i n ten thousand i n the Uni ted States
. . . had an i dea that the ol d shi p [Confederati on] was to be de-
stroyed. Pennsyl vani a appoi nted pri nci pal l y those men who are
esteemed ari stocrati cal . . . . Other States . . . chose men pri nci -
pal l y connected wi th commerce and the judi ci al department . Even
so, says Lee, the non-attendance of ei ght or ni ne men made the
Consti tuti on possi bl e.
Senator Al bert J. Beveri dge (1916)
Beveri dge, The L#e ofJ ohn Marshall, 4 vol s. (Boston: Houghton Mi ffl i n, 1916), I ,
pp. 323-25.
8
THE STRATEGY OF DECEPTI ON
Before I arrived, a number of rules had been adopted to regulate the pro-
ceedings of the Convention, by one of which, seven states might proceed to
business, and consequent~ four states, the mgori~ of that numbe~
might euentual~ have agreed upon a system which was to affect the whole
Union. By anothe~ the doors were to be shut, and the whole proceedings
were to be kept secret; and so. far did this rule extend, that we were thereby
preventedfrom corresponding with gentlemen i n the dtjferent states up&
the subjects under our discussion a circumstance, siq which I confess I
great~ regretted. I had no idea that all the wisdom, integrip, and virtue
of this state fMaryland], or of the others, were centred in the Conventi on.
Luther Martin (1788)
The U.S. Consti tuti on i s a covenantal document that was drawn
up by del egates to an hi stori c Conventi on. Thi s Conventi on had
been authori zed by Congress i n February of 1787 for the sol e and
express purpose of revi si ng the Arti cl es of Confederati on, and report-
i ng to Congress and the several l egi sl atures such al terati ons and pro-
vi si ons therei n as shal l when agreed to i n Congress, and confi rmed by
the states, render the federal Consti tuti on adequate to the exi genci es
of government and the preservati on of the Uni on.2 I t was on thi s
expl i ci t l egal basi s al one that three of the state l egi sl atures sent del e-
gates to Phi l adel phi a: Massachusetts, Connecti cut, and New York.
3
1. Letter from Luther Marti n, Attorney-General of Maryl and, to Thomas C.
Deye, Speaker of the House of Del egates of Maryl and (Jan. 27, 1788); i n Jonathan
El l i ot (cd.), The Debates i n the Several State Conventions on the Adoption ojthe Fed~al Comti-
tution as Recommended by the General Convention at Phdadelphia i n 1787, 5 vols. (Phi l a-
del phi a: Li ppi ncott, [1836] 1907), I , p. 345.
2. I b?d., I , p. 120.
3. The wordi ng of Congress for the sol e and express purpose of revi si ng the
Arti cl es of Confederati on was adopted by the formal authori zati on of the del e-
gates from Massachusetts, Connecti cut, and New York. I bid., I , pp. 126-27. See al so
Documents I llustrative of the Formation of the Uni on of the Amm2an States, edi ted by Charl es
C. Tansi l l (Washi ngton, D. C.: Government Pri nti ng Offi ce, 1927), pp. 56-59.
413
Madi son ci tes these provi si ons i n Federalist 40, cl ai mi ng that the
Conventi on honored the fi rst provi si on suggesti ng al terati ons
whi l e i t l egi ti matel y vi ol ated the second: not reporti ng back to Con-
gress. Thi s was what Cl i nton Rossi ter cal l ed the four-part short-
range bet of the Framers: that they coul d get away wi th a four-step
transgressi on of the rul es under whi ch the Conventi on had been au-
thori zed.
4
Therefore, men such as Rufus Ki ng and Sam Adams be-
l i eved the Conventi on to be unconsti tuti onal and dangerous.
5
Vi rgi ni a del egate George Mason had wri tten a l etter i n l ate May
stati ng that the most preval ent i dea I thi nk at present i s a total
change i n the federal system and i nsti tuti ng a great nati onal
counci l .6 From the openi ng of the Conventi on, no consi derati on
was gi ven to a mere revi si ng of the Arti cl es of C onfederati on. Gover-
nor Edmund Randol ph of Vi rgi ni a opened the mai n busi ness of the
Conventi on on May 29 by gi vi ng a speech on why a total l y new gov-
ernment ought to be created, and he then submi tted the fi fteen-poi nt
Wi rgi ni a Pl an or l arge-states pl an to restructure the nati onal gov-
ernment. Thi s had been drawn up by James Madi son.
7
Accor di ng
to New Yorks Chi ef Justi ce Yates, who became an opponent of the
Consti tuti on, and who made notes for hi s personal use (but not for
publ i cati on): He candi dl y confessed, that they were not i ntended
for a federal government; he meant a strong, consol i dated uni on, i n
whi ch the i dea of States shoul d be nearl y anni hi l ated .
8
The Arti cl es were compl etel y scrapped by the del egates. There i s
l i ttl e doubt that thi s had been the ori gi nal i ntenti on of the smal l group
of men who fi rst promoted the i dea of the Conventi on, begi nni ng
wi th. the meeti ng hel d i n the spri ng of 1785 at Washi ngtons home at
4. The steps were the deci si ons of the del egates: 1) to become Framers of a new
government; 2) to go beyond thei r i nstructi ons; 3) to desi gnate speci al conventi ons
to rati fy the new document; and 4) to determi ne that the new government woul d
come i nto exi stence when onl y ni ne of the state conventi ons rati fi ed i t. Cl i nton
Rossi ter, 1787: The Grand Conventi on (New York: Norton, [1966] 1987), p. 262.
5. Steven R. 130yd, The Politics of Opposition: Antifederalists and the Acceptance of the
Constitution (Mi l wood, New Yor k: Kraus-Thomson Organi zati on, 1979), p. 4.
6. Mason to Ar thur Lee, May 21, 1787: The Papers of George Mason, edi ted by
Rober t Rutl and, 3 vol s. (Chapel Hi l l : Uni versi ty of North Carol i na Press, 1970),
I I I , p. 882; ci ted i n ibid., p. 6.
7. I rvi ng Brandt, The Bill of Rights: I ts Orcgin and Meaning (I ndi anapol i s, I ndi ana:
Bobbs-Merri l l , 1965), p. 16.
8. Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Convention (1838), p. 101; repri nted by Omni
Publ i cati ons. Hawthorne, Cal i forni a, 1986. Repri nted al so i n Documents I llustrative of
the Formation of the Uni on, p. 747.
The Strate@ of Deception 415
Mount Vernon. These men, i n the words of Forrest McDonal d, had
been chagri ned by the i mpotence of Congress, the recal ci trance of
state parti cul ari sts and republ i can i deol ogues, and the seemi ng i n-
di fference of the popul ati on at l arge. . . . g Thi s phrase, the seem-
i ng i ndi fference of the popul ati on at l arge, i s hi ghl y si gni fi cant. I t
testi fi es to a l ack of concern and the absence of any sense of nati onal
cri si s on the part of the publ i c i n the year of the great Conventi on.
The sense of cri si s was fel t mai nl y by the nati onal i sts at the Conven-
ti on, the sen~e of cri si s that they mi ght mi ss the moment, or i n con-
temporary terms, mi ss the wi ndow of opportuni ty.
A Handful of Di sgruntl ed Men
Ameri cans thi nk of the Phi l adel phi a Conventi on as the pl ace
where al l the gi ants of the Revol uti onary War era met to settl e the
fate of the republ i can experi ment. Some gi ants di d show up; not al l
of them. I n retrospect, hi stori ans have usual l y defi ned gi ants as
those who di d show up and di d stay wi th the program, meani ng
Madi sons COUP. (The vi ctors wri te the textbooks.) Earl y Consti tuti on
hi story speci al i st Forrest McDonal ds descri pti on of the openi ng day
of the Conventi on i s far cl oser to the truth: some of the best men
stayed away.
The l i st of di sti ngui shed Ameri cans certai n not to come was l arge. Onl y
one of the great di pl omats of the Revol uti on, Frankl i n, woul d be there;
John Jay of New Yor k and Henr y Laur ens of South Car ol i na had not been
chosen, and Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were i n Europe as am-
bassadors. Most of the great Republ i cans woul d l i kewi se be mi ssi ng.
Thomas Pai ne (Where l i berty i s not, Si r, there i s my country) was al so i n
Europe, hopi ng to spread the gospel of republ i can revol uti on. Nei ther Sam
Adams nor John Hancock of Massachusetts nor Ri chard Henry Lee and
Patri ck Henry of Vi rgi ni a chose to come (Henry di d not because, he sai d,
I smel t a rat; the others offered no excuses). 10
I t i s i mportant to note that Henry was a dedi cated, Bi bl e-bel i evi ng
Chri sti an. 11 Sam Adams, who al so refused to attend, was ei ther a
9. Forrest McDonal d, Nouus Ordo Seclorum: The I ntellectual Or@ns of the Constitution
(Lawrence, Kansas: Uni versi ty Press of Kansas, 1985), p. 172.
10. Forrest McDonal d, E Pl uri bus Unum: The Formation of the Ameri can Republic,
1776-1790 (I ndi anapol i s, I ndi ana: Li berty Press, [1965] 1979), pp. 259-60.
11. On Henrys use of the Bi bl e i n hi s rhetori c, see Charl es L. Cohen, The
Li berty or Death Speech: A Note on Rel i gi on and Revol uti onary Rhetori c,
William & Ma? Quarter~, 3rd ser., XXXVI I I (Oct. 1981), pp. 702-17.
Cal vi ni st or at l east hi ghl y i nfl uenced by Cal vi ni sm. z (Hancock was
a Freemason; Adams was not; Henry was not; and Ri chard Henry
Lee al so seems not to have been one:) 13 Henry was the pri mary op~
ponent i n the debate over rati fi cati on. For thi s, he has been
rel egated i nto the outer darkness by the hi stori ans. I agree enti rel y
wi th M. E. Bradfords amusi ng assessment of the modern hi stori cal
gui l ds treatment of Henry: Our schol ars, most of them rati onal i sts
and neo-Federal i sts, had a vested i nterest i n produci ng Henrys
present reputati on: that he was a si mpl e-mi nded count-t-y pol i ti ci an
turned demagogue, a Popul i st tri mmer whose tal ents happened to
serve hi s more far-si ghted contemporari es when the Revol uti onary
cri si s came. That Madi son was the fel l ow to read, and Jefferson be-
fore hi m or certai n sel ected Boston radi cal s, as repri nted under the
auspi ces of the Harvard Uni versi ty Press. 14
A handful of men had deci ded to take the new nati on down a di f-
ferent path. I t was not enough to amend the Arti cl es by taki ng such
steps as repeal i ng al l i nternal tari ffs and establ i shi ng gol d or si l ver
coi ns as l egal tender for a nati onal currency. 15 They wanted a com-
pl etel y new system of nati onal government. Thi s woul d have to be
achi eved through a coup. Congress was unwi l l i ng and probabl y un-
abl e to undertake such a radi cal revi si on of the Arti cl es i n 1787. Yet
the Arti cl es of Confederati on, as the l egal by-l aws of the nati onal
government, speci fi ed that al l changes woul d have to be approved by
Congress and then by al l of the state l egi sl atures: And the Arti cl es of
thi s confederati on shal l be i nvi ol abl y observed by every state, and
the uni on shal l be perpetual ; nor shal l any al terati on at any ti me
hereafter be made i n any of them; unl ess such al terati on be agreed to
i n a congress of the uni ted states, and be afterwards confi ~ed by
the l egi sl atures of every state (Arti cl e XI I I ). Congress and the state
l egi sl atures woul d therefore have to be bypassed. Thi s requi red
some very speci al preparati ons.
I t requi red, i n short, a conspi racy.
12. On Adams Cal vi ni sm, see Wi l l i am Appl eman Wi l l i ams, Samuel Adams:
Cal vi ni st, Mercanti l i st, Revol uti onary; Studies on the L#t, I (1960), pp. 47-57.
13. Ronal d E. Heaton, Masonic Membership of the Founding Fathms (Si l ver Spri ng,
Maryl and: Masoni c Servi ce Associ ati on, [1965] 1988), pp. 25, 110, 88, 92.
14. M. E. Bradford, A Better Guide Than Reason: Studies i n the Amencan Revolution
(LaSal l e, I l l i noi s: Sherwood Sugden & Co., 1979), p. 107.
15. The Consti tuti on di d make gol d and si l ver coi ns l egal tender for the states,
but sai d nothi ng about any such restri cti on on the nati onal government. See Geral d
T. Dunne, MonetaV Decisions of the Supreme Court (New Brunswi ck, New Jersey:
Rutgers Uni versi ty Press, 1960), Preface.
The Strategy of Deception 417
Sworn to Secrecy
To conceal the nature of thi s attempted COUP from the publ i c,
especi al l y fr om any member s of Congr ess who di d not attend the
Conventi on, the debates i n Phi l adel phi a were cl osed to the publ i c.
(Can you i magi ne the hue and cry of the press and news medi a i f such
a conventi on wer e cl osed to them today? No scoops for Pul i tzer
Pr i ze-seeki ng r epor ter s? No detai l s at el even ?) So secr eti ve wer e
the attendees that Madi son, who was the pri mary engi neer of the
COUP and i ts unoffi ci al l y desi gnated scr i be, 16 r efused to al l ow hi s
transcri pts to be publ i shed unti l after hi s death. They di d not be-
come publ i c unti l 1840.17 .Thi s code of si l ence was menti oned by
Warren Burger, shortl y after he announced hi s resi gnati on as Chi ef
Justi ce of the U. S. Supreme Court, who i nformed a nati onal tel evi -
si on audi ence: 1 thi nk one of the reasons of the success of the Con-
sti tuti on was the i ron code of si l ence that bound al l of the members
who were there . 1s
I t was not just Madi son who fel t so bound. Robert Yates, who
was at the ti me Chi ef Justi ce of the State of New York, attended the
earl y days of the Conventi on. He l eft i n di sgust, convi nced that the
Conventi on ser ved i l l pur poses. He had taken notes of the pr o-
ceedi ngs through Jul y 5. Yet even thi s opponent of the Consti tuti on
refused to publ i sh these notes. I n a publ i c transcri pt of them, pub-
l i shed fi rst i n 1838, hi s anonymous bi ographer took great care to ex-
pl ai n that Yates had not br oken the Conventi ons code of si l ence:
Chi ef Justi ce Yates, though often sol i ci ted, refused duri ng hi s l i fe,
to permi t hi s notes of those debates to be publ i shed, not onl y because
they were ori gi nal l y not wri tten for the publ i c eye, but because he
concei ved hi msel f under honor abl e obl i gati ons to wi thhol d thei r
publ i cati on. These notes, after hi s death, fel l i nto the hands of hi s
wi dow, who di sposed of them, and they are thus become publ i c. 19
So, the del egates wer e swor n to secr ecy. Gentl emen obvi ousl y
took oaths seri ousl y back i n 1787. Parti ci pants who soon opposed the
whol e pr ocedur e as i l l egal never r eveal ed what had gone on i nsi de
16. Major Wi l l i am Jackson was voted the offi ci al secretary, and hi s si gnature ap-
pears on the Consti tuti on as secretary.
17. The publ i cati on of these notes contri buted to a peri od of vaci l l ati on over sl av-
er y questi ons i n the cour ts; the abol i ti oni sts saw i n the notes proof of the Framers
compromi se over sl avery. Mi chael Kammen, A Machine That Would Go of I tse& The
Constitution in American Culture (New York: Vantage, [1986] 1987), p. 97.
18. Transcri pt, CBS News Speci al , The Burger Years, June 9, 1986, p. 13.
19. Marti n, Secret Proceedings, p. 333n.
those wal l s, not even i n thei r ol d age. Why not? I n a modern worl d
fi l l ed wi th l eaks to the press and everyone el se, we can hardl y i m-
agi ne what i t mi ght have been that persuaded these men to keep
thei r si l ence. I have read no hi story book that has even rai sed the
questi on. But of thi s we can be confi dent: they al l feared some ki nd
of negati ve sancti ons, ei ther external or i nternal , for breaki ng thi s
oath of secrecy.
When the Conventi on ended, they took the fi nal step. They
handed al l the mi nutes over to Geor ge Washi ngton to take back to ,
Mount Ver non. They knew that no one i n the nati on woul d have the
audaci ty to tel l George Washi ngton that he had to hand over the evi -
dence of what was i n fact a COUP. Madi sons notes state speci fi cal l y
that The presi dent, havi ng asked what the Conventi on meant shoul d
be done wi th the Journal s, &c., whether copi es were to be al l owed to
the members, i f appl i ed for, i t was resol ved, nem con., that he retai n
the Journal and other papers, subject to the order of Congress, i f
ever formed under the Consti tuti on . The members then proceeded
to si gn the Consti tuti on. . . .
~ZO I n short, i f the coup was successful ,
then the new Congress coul d gai n access to the records. I f not, no
one woul d have any wri tten evi dence to prove anythi ng except the
untouchabl e Gener al Washi ngton. 21 On that basi s, they si gned.
Hi stori an Jack Rakove argues that thi s el ement of secrecy was
the resul t of years of near-secrecy by the Conti nental Congress i tsel f.
To thi s extent, he i mpl i es, i t was a fi tti ng end for the ol d Congress.
Thi s i s a strange way to argue; nothi ng i n Congress hi story ri val ed
the degree of secrecy i n Phi l adel phi a. Rakove i s neverthel ess correct:
For the most remarkabl e aspect of the Conventi ons four-month i n-
qui ry was that i t was conducted i n vi rtual l y absol ute secrecy, un-
i nfl uenced by external pressures of any ki nd. . . . Except for the
occasi onal rumors many of them i naccurate that Ameri can
newspapers publ i shed, the general publ i c knew nothi ng of the Con-
venti ons del i berati ons .22
Bypassing Congress
I nstead of submi tti ng the Consti tuti on to Congress, as ori gi nal l y
agreed to by al l the del egates so much for l egal but pol i ti cal l y i n-
20. El l i ot, Debates, V, p. 558.
21. Woul dnt Ri chard Ni xon have appreci ated such rul es i n 1974!
22. Jack N. Rakove, The Begi nni ngs of National Politics: An I nterpretive HistoV of the
Continental Congress (New York: Knopf, 1979), p. 399.
The Strate~ of Deception 419
conveni ent oaths and as demanded by Congress, Arti cl e VI I of the
Consti tuti on passed over the Congress and announced that rati fi ca-
ti on by ni ne state l egi sl atures woul d suffi ce to abol i sh the Arti cl es.
Thi s was a cal cul ated gambl e by the members of the conventi on.
The Feo2raltit Papers were propaganda devi ces to persuade the voters
retroacti ve y to sancti on the coup of 1787. The rati fi cati on process was
i n fact a pl ebi sci te for or agai nst the l egi ti macy of a COUP. As hi stori an
Ri chard Buel , Jr., has poi nted out: Al though the Consti tuti on had
been desi gned to remove the nati onal government from the i mmedi -
ate reach of the popul ace, i ts power was sti l l ul ti matel y dependent on
publ i c opi ni on. . . .
23
The publ i c was al l owed to rati fy the coup; after
that, the voters were to be kept farther at bay. Thi s i s why the nati on-
al i sts had to submi t to thei r opponents demand for the Bi l l of Ri ghts
i n 1789. The nati onal i sts resented havi ng to do thi s, but they had l i ttl e
choi ce, i f the rati fi cati on of 1788 was to become a l egi ti mi zi ng event.
Once sancti oned by the rati fi cati on process, the ori gi nal con-
spi rators became, retroacti vel y, Foundi ng Fathers. The fact that i t
was a coup was conceal ed to the general publ i c. The vi ctors and thei r
al l i es wrote the textbooks. The Anti federal i sts became i n retrospect
men of l i ttl e fai th .
24
Onl y i n recent years have the Anti federal i sts
been taken seri ousl y as pol i ti cal thi nkers. 25
Bi bl i cal l y speaki ng, the appeal to the peopl e to rati fy the Consti -
tuti on was ei ther an act of covenant renewal or i t was an act of covenant
creation. There i s no doubt whi ch the Conventi on had i n mi nd: the
l atter. Thi s i s cl ear from the debates i n the Conventi on, the rati fyi ng
conventi ons, and The Federalist. They recogni zed that a new govern-
ment was bei ng establ i shed. To rati fy the Consti tuti on was an act of
discontinui~. I t was a revol t agai nst exi sti ng judi ci al authori ty. Patter-
son of New Jer sey admi tted thi s i n the Conventi on: I f the con-
federacy was radi cal l y wrong, l et us return to our States, and obtai n
l arger powers, not assume them for oursel ves.26
23. Ri chard Buel , J-., Securi ng the Revolution: I deology and American Politics,
1789-1815 (I thaca, New York: Cornel l Uni versi ty Press, 1974), p. i x.
24. Cecel i a Kenyon, Men of Li ttl e Fai th: The Anti -Federal i sts on the Nature of
Representati ve Government, Wi l l i am and Mag Quarter@, 3rd ser., XI I (Jan. 1955),
p p . 3 - 4 6 .
25. Herbert J. Stori ng, What the Anti-Federalists W&e For (Chi cago: Uni versi ty of
Chi cago Press, 1981). Thi s i s a paperback versi on of Vol ume 1 of Stori ngs col l ecti on
of pri mary source documents, Tb Complete A nti-Fedmalist, 7 vol s. (Chi cago: Uni ver-
26. June 16; Max Farrand (cd.), Records of the Fedwal Convention, I , p. 250. Ci ted
i n The Founders Constitution, edi ted by Phi l i p B. Kurl and and Ral ph Lerner, 5 vol s.
(Chi cago: Uni versi ty of Chi cago Press, 1987), I V, p. 649.
Were the Conventi ons Leaders Chri sti ans?
Were the l eaders of the Conventi on Chri sti ans? After al l , many of
them bel onged to churches. M. E. Bradford concl udes that 50 of the
55 attendees were Chri sti ans, as determi ned by church membershi p.
27
The answer to the questi on, however, i s not resol ved si mpl y by an ap-
peal to church membershi p. As Margaret Jacob remarks regardi ng
members of the subversi ve Kni ghts of Jubi l ati on, a freethi ri ki ng, pan-
thei sti c Dutch secret soci ety of the fi rst hal f of the ei ghteenth century,
i ts members mai ntai ned church membershi p i n Cal vi ni st Wa.l l oon28
congregati ons throughout thei r l i ves. The churches gave them a soci al
i denti ty and the hi nt of i rrel i gi on woul d have destroyed thei r reputa-
ti ons and probabl y thei r busi nesses.29 We therefore need to exami ne
i n greater detai l the rel i gi ous opi ni ons of three of the most famous of
the Framers: Washi ngton, Frankl i n, and Madi son. 30
George Wahington
Washi ngton was a member of the Angl i can Church al l hi s l i fe.
Offi ci al l y, he was a communi cant member, but he never took com-
muni on, even though hi s wi fe di d. He woul d ri se and l eave the church
as soon as communi on was about to be served. When chal l enged
publ i cl y about thi s by the rector of Chri st Church i n Phi l adel phi a,
Bi shop Wi l l i am Whi te, he l ater apol ogi zed i ndi rectl y by way of a
U.S. Senator, and promi sed never agai n to attend the church on
communi on day, a promi se that he apparentl y kept. 31 Dr. James
Abercrombi e had been assi stant rector of Chri st Church duri ng
Washi ngtons Presi dency, and he di d not mi nce words i n an 1831
statement: That Washi ngton was a professi ng Chri sti an i s evi dent
from hi s regul ar attendance i n our church; but, Si r, I cannot con-
si der any man a real Chri sti an who uni forml y di sregards an or-
di nance so sol emnl y enjoi ned by the di vi ne Author of our hol y rel i -
gi on, and consi dered as a chal l enge to di vi ne grace.32
27. M. E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the framers of the United States
Constitution (Marl borough, New Hampshi re: Pl ymouth Rock Foundati on, 1982).
28. Southern Netherl ands.
29. Margaret Jacob, The Radical Enlightmnumt: Pantheists, Freemasons and Repub-
licans (London: George Al l en & Unwi n, 1981), p. 162.
30. The fourth was Al exander Hami l ton, whose rel i gi ous opi ni ons duri ng hi s ac-
ti ve pol i ti cal years were vague.
31. Paul F. Boi l er , Jr ., Geor ge Wmhington &? ReJi gi on (Dal l as, Texas: Southern
Methodi st Uni versi ty Press, 1963), p. 34.
32. Ci ted i n ibid., p. 18.
Here was the strange si tuati on: George Washi ngton was formal l y
a communi cant church member who systemati cal l y refused to take
communi on. The i nsti tuti onal pr obl em her e was the unwi l l i ngness
of church authori ti es to appl y formal church sancti ons. Any church
member who r efuses to take communi on has ther eby excommuni -
cated hi msel f. A refusal to take communi on or a prohi bi ti on agai nst
ones tak i ng communi on i s what ex communi cati on means . Self-
excommunication is excommunication, ~ust as xure~ as suicide is jirst-degree
murder. Neverthel ess, the churches to whi ch Washi ngton bel onged
di d not take offi ci al acti on agai nst hi m by ei ther requi ri ng hi m to
take communi on or by publ i cl y excommuni cati ng hi m. I t was thi s
di sci pl i nary fai l ure on the part of these churches that l ed to the pub-
l i c l egi ti mi zi ng of Washi ngton as a Chri sti an. Thi s fai l ure l ater i n-
di rectl y l egi ti mi zed the Consti tuti on that he conspi red to i mpose on
the nati on. Wi thout Washi ngtons support of the acti ons of the Con-
venti on, the Consti tuti on woul d never have been rati fi ed. But Wash-
i ngton was deemed ei ther too powerful or too sacrosanct to bri ng
under church di sci pl i ne.
A fai l ure of sancti ons here, at the heart of the churchs sanc-
ti oni ng pr ocess, the communi on tabl e, r eveal s the extent to whi ch
ei ghteenth-centur y Chr i sti ani ty had abandoned the ver y concept of
sancti ons. Thi s eccl esi asti cal fai l ur e was r efl ected i n the col oni al
pol i ti cal order throughout the peri od, but especi al l y after the rati fi -
cati on of the Consti tuti on. The churches were subsequentl y brought
under a new ki nd of di sci pl i ne: formal removal of Chri sti ani ty from
the nati onal ci vi l covenant by means of the Consti tuti onal prohi bi -
ti on of rel i gi ous test oaths. The churches reaped what ~ey had
sown. They had refused to i mpose Gods negati ve eccl esi asti cal cove-
nant sancti ons; thus, God i mposed Hi s negati ve sancti ons on them.
Thi s was the l esson of the Book of Judges, one repeated throughout
church hi story. Jordan i s correct: Where there i s compromi se wi th
si n, the very si n becomes the means God uses to chasti se Hi s chi l -
dren. Our si ns become our scourges.3s The si n of our day, as he
poi nts out, i s Baal i sti c pl ural i sm. 34
There i s very l i ttl e evi dence i n Washi ngtons publ i c communi -
cati ons that he accepted the doctri ne of the Tri ni ty. Boi l er i nsi sts that
not once i n hi s vol umi nous l etter s does he actual l y menti on the name
33. James B. Jordan, J udges: Gods War Against Humanzsm (Tyl er, Texas: Geneva
Mi ni stri es, 1985), p. 42.
34. I bid., p. 45.
of Jesus Chri st, 35 al though announci ng uni verszd negati ves i s al ways
ri sky. Washi ngton refused to commi t to publ i c pronouncements any
statement of hi s personal fai th besi des a commi tment to di vi ne Provi -
dence. Except duri ng warti me, he onl y attended church once a month. 36
Thus, concl udes Boi l er, i f to bel i eve i n the di vi ni ty and resurrecti on
of Chri st and hi s atonement for the si ns of man and to parti ci pate i n the
sacrament of the Lords Supper are requi si tes for the Chri sti an fai th,
then Washi ngton, on the evi dence whi ch we have exami ned, can
hardl y be consi dered a Chri sti an, except i n the most nomi nal sense.37
The key to understandi ng Washi ngtons publ i c rel i gi on i s found
on the page faci ng the ti tl e page of J. Hugo Tatschs book, The Facts
About George Wmhington as a Freemason. There we fi nd Wi l l i ams 1794
pai nti ng of Washi ngton i n the regal i a of Grand Master of a Masoni c
l odge. I t was an offi ci al pai nti ng; hi s l odge at Al exandri a pai d $50 to
the pai nter. 3s Washi ngton had served as Grand Master of the Al ex-
andri a l odge i n 1788 and 1789. When he was i naugurated Presi dent
of the U. S., he was therefore a Grand Master, the onl y Mason ever
to be i naugurated Presi dent whi l e servi ng as a Grand Master.39
Later, on September 18, 1793, Presi dent Washi ngton, i n ful l
Masoni c regal i a, al ong wi th the Grand Master of the Al exandri a
Lodge 22 and the Grand Master fi ro tern of Maryl and, l ai d the south-
east cornerstone of the Capi tol i n Washi ngton, D. C .
40
Presi dent Washi ngton proposed, and Congress authori zed, the
l ayi ng of 40 mi l estones to mark the boundari es of the ci ty. Pri or to
1846, Al exandri a, Vi rgi ni a was part of the Terri tory of Col umbi a.
On Apri l 15, 1791, the cornerstone of the ci ty was l ai d at Jones Poi nt,
i n Al exandri a. I t was l ai d by Lodge 22, Washi ngtons l odge. 41
The Whi te House then cal l ed the Presi dents House had i ts
cornerstone l ai d on the south-west corner: Ott. 13, 1792.42 The
35. Boi l er, Wmhington, p. 75.
36. I bid., pp. 28-29.
37. I bid., p. 90.
38. J. Hugo Tatsch, The Facts About George Wmhington as a Freemason (New York:
Macoy, 1931), p. 43.
39. I bid., p. 6.
40. I bid., pp. 24-27. Cf. Your Masomc Capital Ci~ (Si l ver Spri ng, Maryl and:
Masoni c Servi ce Associ ati on, n.d., 1988?), pp. 1-4; Mi chael Bai gent and Ri chard
Lei gh, The Tmple and the Lodge (London: Jonathan Cape, 1989), pp. 261-62.
41. Your Masonic Capitol Ci&, pp. 26-27.
42. I bid., pp. 13-14. The report appeared i n the Nov. 15, 1792 i ssue of the
Charl eston, South Carol i na Ci ~ Gazette. The desi gner of the Capi tol and the Presi -
dents House, James Hoban, was a resi dent of Charl eston at the ti me he submi tted
hi s desi gns.
Washi ngton Monument l ooks l i ke a Masoni c project, and i t was. 43
Subsequent Masoni c-admi ni stered Capi tol cornerstones were l ai d:
Senate and House, Jul y 4, 1851; Capi tol , Sept. 18, 1932; Capi tol ,
Jul y 4, 1959.
44
George Washi ngton was i ni ti ated i nto the l odge at Frederi cks-
burg on November 4, 1752.45 I n the 1780s, hi s name was proposed
as Grand Master of a proposed Uni ted Grand Lodge of al l mi l i tary
l odges, but the vari ous state Grand Lodges refused to authori ze the
creati on of such a l odge.AG I n fact, no nati onal Grand Lodge ever
came i nto exi stence. Carters account of Washi ngtons fi rst i naugura-
ti on as Presi dent i s i l l umi nati ng: On Apri l 30, 1789, Washi ngton
took the oath of offi ce as Presi dent of the Uni ted States admi ni stered
by Chancel l or Robert R. Li vi ngston, Grand Master of the Grand
Lodge of New York. General Jacob Morton, Worshi pful Master of
St. Johns Lodge i n New York Ci ty the ol dest l odge i n the ci ty
and Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of New York, was marshal
of the i naugurati on. I t was one of hi s duti es to provi de a Bi bl e for the
occasi on. Morton brought from the al tar of St. Johns Lodge the
Bi bl e upon whi ch Washi ngton pl aced hi s hand whi l e repeati ng the
obl i gati on to uphol d the Consti tuti on of the Uni ted States and then
kksed the sacred vol ume to compl ete the cer emony.AT
You wi l l not read i n the textbooks that 33 of Washi ngtons gen-
eral s were Masons .48 You wi l l al so not read that LaFayette was not
gi ven command over any troops unti l after he agreed to be i ni ti ated
i nto Uni on Lodge No. 1, at whi ch ceremony Washi ngton offi ci ated
as Master Mason. But such was the case. 49 Washi ngton presi ded
43. I bid., pp. 19-26.
44. I bid., pp. 5-12.
45. JameB D. Car ter , Mosomy. i n Texas: Background, HistoT, and I ny7uence to 1846
(Austi n: Uni versi ty of Texas Press, 1955), p. 26.
46. I bid., p. 104.
47. I bid., p. 144. Freemasons i n attendance were Leonard Bl eeker, Amos Dool i ttl e,
Pi erpont Edwards, Benjami n Frankl i n, Samuel Hi nsdal e, Davi d Humphreys,
Henry Knox, Morgan Lewi s, Robert Li vi ngston, Wi l l i am Mal com, Jacob Morton,
Frederi ck Muhl enberg, James Ni chol son, Arthur St. Cl ai r, and Frederi ck Wi l l i am
von Stueben. James R. Case, Freemasons at the First Znaugwati on of George Wmhington
(Si l ver Spri ng, Maryl and: Masoni c Servi ce Associ ati on, n.d., 1964?), pp. 25-29.
48. Heaton, Masonic Membership, p. xvi .
49. Ber nar d Fay, Revolution and Freemason, 1680-1800 (Boston: Li ttl e, Br own,
1935), pp. 249-50. He ci tes Phi l i p A. Roth, Masony in the Formation of Our Government,
1761-1799 (by the Author, 1927), pp. 43-45. Roth was the Manager of the Masoni c
Servi ce Bureau i n Washi ngton, D. C. Lafayettes statement that Washi ngton never
wi l l i ngl y gave seni or command to non-Masons i s repeated by Morse, Freemason~ and
the American Revolution, p. i x.
over a processi on i n Phi l adel phi a on December 27, 1778, after the
evacuati on of the Bri ti sh. Dressed i n ful l Masoni c atti re, he marched
through the ci ty wi th three hundred other Masons, and then hel d a
Masoni c servi ce at Chri st Church, whi ch became hi s congregati on
of preference duri ng hi s Presi dency. 50
As Presi dent, he recei ved many honors from l ocal l odges. Hi s
wri tten repl i es to them were generous. He never wavered i n hi s at-
tachment to Masonry. I n a l etter to Ki ng Davi ds Lodge No. 1 of
Newport Rhode I sl and, wri tten on Sunday, August 22, 1790, Wash-
i ngton wrote: Bei ng persuaded that a just appl i cati on of the pri nci -
pl es, on whi ch the Masoni c Fraterni ty i s founded, must be promoti ve
of pri vate vi rtue and publ i c prosperi ty, I shal l al ways be happy to ad-
vance the i nterests of the Soci ety, and to be consi dered by them as a
deservi ng br other .51 I n several l etters, he referred to God as the
Supreme Archi tect. A representati ve exampl e i s hi s l etter to Penn-
syl vani a Masons (Dec. 27, 1791): . . . I request you wi l l be assured
of my best wi shes and earnest prayers for your happi ness whi l e you
remai n i n thi s terrestri al Mansi on, and that we may thereafter meet
as brethren i n the Eternal Templ e of the Supreme Archi tect .
52
John Ei dsmoe, i n hi s book-l ength attempt to defend the Consti -
tuti on as a Chri sti an document, takes seri ousl y Washi ngtons out-
ri ght l i e i t can be nothi ng el se i n a l etter to G. W. Snyder i n 1798,
that he had not been i n a masoni c l odge more than once or twi ce i n
the l ast thi rty years.53 One does not become the Grand Master of a
l odge by attendi ng servi ces once or twi ce over thi rty years, but one
can certai nl y fool two centuri es of Chri sti an cri ti cs by l yi ng through
ones wooden teeth about i t. 54
That he may have been a Chri sti an i n pri vate i s possi bl e, though
hi s atti tude toward the Church betrays a woeful mi sunderstandi ng of
50. I bid., p. 246; ci ti ng Roth, pp. 63-64, and Tatsch, Freemason in the Thirteen
Colonies, pp. 206-11.
51. Tatsch, Fwts About Wmhington, p. 14.
52. I bid., p. 18.
53. John Ei dsmoe, Chriitiani~ and the Constitution: The Faith of OUT Founding Fathers
(Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Baker Book House, 1987), p. 125, ci ti ng John C. Fi tz-
patri ck (cd. ), The Writings of George Wmhington from the Original Manuscrt~t Sources,
1745-1799 (Washi ngton, D. C.: U.S. Government Pri nti ng Offi ce, 1931-44), vol . 34,
p. 453.
54. Washi ngtons fal se teeth, attri buted to fel l ow Mason Paul Revere, were made
by John Greenwood, who as a boy was a nei ghbor of Reveres duri ng the peri od of
Reveres bri ef, i l l -fated or i l l -fi tti ng career as a denti st. Esther Forbes, Paul Revere and
The World He Lived I n (Boston: Houghton Mi ffl i n, [1942] 1962), p. 133.
Chr i sti an r esponsi bi l i ti es. He di d possess a per sonal pr ayer book,
wri tten i n hi s own hand, whi ch he cal l ed Dai l y Sacri fi ce. I t contai ned
fami l i ar formal set prayers, such as thi s one: I beseech Thee, my
si ns, remove them from Thy presence, as far as the east i s from the
west, and accept of me for the meri ts of Thy Son Jesus Chri st.nss
Si mi l ar Tri ni tari an prayers are publ i shed i n the Ahirnan Rezon, the
consti tuti onal handbook for Anci ent Masons. 56 He perhaps was a
cl oset Tri ni tari an i n the way that John Locke was. Publ i cl y, he was
a Masoni c Uni tari an. Of hi m i t can l egi ti matel y be sai d, as Mark
Nel l i n fact says: I n short, the pol i ti cal fi gures who read the Bi bl e i n
pri vate rarel y, i f ever, betrayed that acquai ntance to the publ i c.sT
I n contrast to Washi ngtons publ i c si l ence stands the exampl e of
Patri ck Henry. A member of the same Protestant Epi scopal Church,
he took regul ar communi on. Whi l e he was governor of Vi rgi ni a, he
had pri nted at hi s own expense Soame Jenyns View of the I nternal Evi-
dence of Christiani~ and an edi ti on of Butl ers Analogy. These books he
gave to skepti cs he woul d meet. 58 He never joi ned the Masoni c fra-
terni ty. He wrote to hi s daughter i n 1796: Amongst other strange
thi ngs sai d of me, I hear i t sai d by the dei sts that I am one of thei r
number; and, i ndeed, that some good peopl e thi nk I am no Chri sti an.
Thi s thought gi ves me more pai n than the appel l ati on of Tory; . . . 59
Benjamin Franklin
I n order to modi fy the argument that Frankl i n was a Dei st, Rush-
doony ci tes Frankl i ns June 28 pl ea at the Consti tuti onal Conventi on
that they pray to God i n order to resol ve thei r di fferences. Then,
speaki ng of Jefferson and Frankl i n, he wri tes: That both these men
55. Ci ted i n Benjami n Hart, Faith &? Freedom: The Chrtstian Roots of Amaiian Libe@
(Dal l as, Texas: Lewi s & Stanl ey, 1988), p. 274. Seven of these set prayers are repri nted
i n Ti m LaHaye, Faith of Our Foundtng Fathers (Brentwood, Tennessee: Wol gemutb &
Hyatt, 1987), pp. 111-13. LaHaye ci tes W. Herbert Burk, Wiihmgtonk Prayers (Morri s-
town, Pennsyl vani a: Publ i shed for the Benefi t of the Washi ngton Memori al Chapel ,
1907),
56. Ahiman Rezon Abridged and Digested (Phi l adel phi a: Hal l & Sel l ers, 1783), pp.
111-12.
57. Mark A. Nel l , The Bi bl e i n Revol uti onary Ameri ca, i n James Turner
Johnson (cd.], The Bible in American Law, Politics, and Political Rhetoric (Phi l adel phi a:
Fortress Press, 1985), p. 43.
58. Moses Coi t Tyl er, Patrick ,Henry (New Rochel l e, New York: Arl i ngton House,
[1887] 1975), pp. 392-95. Henry adopted thi s practi ce toward the end of hi s l i fe. Henry
Mayer, A Son of Thunder: Patrick Henry and the Arne-nian Republic (New York: Fr ankl i n
Watts, 1986), pp. 467-68.
59. I bid., p. 392.
were i nfl uenced by Dei sm, among other thi ngs, i s certai nl y to be
granted, but, unl ess one charges these statements off as the most ar-
rant ki nd of hypocri sy, i t becomes equal l y cl ear that even stronger
col oni al i nfl uences were at work. Here, i n cl ear and forthri ght l an-
guage from these men, i s Cal vi ni sms predesti nati on and total provi -
dence, and, at the same ti me, the near Uni tari an excl usi on of Chri st
from the Godhead. God i s not seen as an absentee l andl ord, and not
onl y reason but more than reason i s appeal ed to. I t becomes cl ear
that, i n vi ew of the mi xed l i ngui sti c, rel i gi ous and phi l osophi cal
premi ses, no facile cla.ssijication can be ventured.co
On the contrary, a very accurate faci l e cl assi fi cati on can be ven-
tured, the one whi ch Rushdoony appeal s to over and over i n hi s di s-
cussi on of the French Revol uti on: the providentialism of the Masonic
theological system. Frankl i n became the Grand Master of the most i n-
fl uenti al Masoni c l odge i n France, the Ni ne Si sters (Nous Sours),
i n 1779. c1 He had been there when the l odge i ni ti ated Vol tai re i n
1778, four months b~ore Vol tai re di ed.cz
Fi rst, Rushdoony and al l those Chri sti an authors who ci te Frank-
l i ns famous prayer request shoul d i nform thei r readers that onl y three
or four of the del egates voted to sustai n i t. 63 These prayers were
never offered. Thi s i ndi cates the degree of the orthodox theol ogi cal
commi tment of the Framers. Second, we do i ndeed need to ask: Was
Frankl i n capabl e of hypocri sy? He surel y was capabl e of l ooki ng the
other way whi l e treason was bei ng commi tted under hi s nose.
Throughout hi s tenure i n France as the seni or Ameri can representa-
ti ve i n Pari s, he hi red known Bri ti sh spi es to serve on hi s staff,
despi te repeated warni ngs that they were spi es. Furthermore, i n hi s
work i n Pari s to negoti ate the peace treaty between Engl and and the
col oni es, he steadfastl y objected to the i nsi stence of hi s superi ors that
the col oni es be granted formal i ndependence by the treaty.4
When Professor Ceci l Currey, who had devoted most of hi s aca-
demi c career i n studyi ng Frankl i n, and who had previ ousl y been
consi dered a wel l -i nformed Frankl i n schol ar, 65 wrote hi s expos6 of
60. R. .J , Rushdoony, This I ndependent Republic: Studies in the Nature and Meaning of
Anwri2an Histoy (Fai rfax, Vi rgi ni a: Thoburn Press, [1964] 1978), p. 6. Emphasi s hi s.
61. Car l Van Dor en, Benjamin Franklin (New York: Vi ki ng, 1938), p. 655.
62. I bid., p. 606.
63. Max Farrand (cd.), The Records of the Federal Conventi on of 1787, 4 vol s. (New
Haven, Connecti cut: Yal e Uni versi ty Press, [1913] 1966), I , p. 452n.
64. Ceci l B. Currey, The Frankl i n Legend, Journal of Christian Reconstruction, I I I
(Summer 1976), p. 136.
65. Ceci l B. Cur r ey, Road to Reoolutton: Benjamin Franklin in England, 1765-1775
(Garden Ci ty, New York: Doubl eday Anchor, 1968).
Frankl i ns work i n Pari s, Code Number 72: Ben Franklin Patriot or Spy?
(1972),66 the hi stori cal gui l d was general l y hosti l e, as he rel ated i n an
essay I asked hi m to wr i te i n 1976. (An excepti on was For r est
McDonal d. )67 He says that he recei ved a l etter from Thomas Fl em-
i ng, Washi ngtons bi ographer, who had attacked the book i n pri nt,
and then wrote to the author: I wi l l state bl untl y here that I have not
read your book because the ti tl e speaks for i tsel f. The questi on i t
rai ses i s preposterous.68 Code Number 72 went out of pri nt and has
remai ned out of pri nt. The dark si de of Frankl i ns Pari s career i s i g-
nored by tenured professi onal hi stori ans.
I deal wi th Frankl i ns theol ogy i n Chapter 9, Frankl i ns Theol -
ogy of Uni on. I al so trace hi s earl y Masoni c connecti ons. He was
the most promi nent Freemason i n the col oni es from 1734 unti l Wash-
i ngton rose to fame.
J ames Madison
Hi stori an Robert Rutl and i s correct regardi ng James Madi sons
vi ew of r el i gi on. The for mer student of Rev. John Wi ther spoon at
the Col l ege of New Jersey had a dream. That dream was the creati on
of a secul ar republ i c. 69 He had spent an extra year i n post-graduate
study wi th Wi therspoon studyi ng Hebrew, ethi cs, and theol ogy, 70 so
he knew what Chr i sti ani ty i s. He wanted no par t of an expl i ci tl y
Chr i sti an r epubl i c. (Nei ther di d Wi ther spoon.) He wor ked har d to
see to i t that such a republ i c, whi ch exi sted at the state l evel under
the Arti cl es of Confederati on, woul d not survi ve. He was a gui di ng
for ce behi nd the Mount Ver non Confer ence (1785) and the subse-
quent Annapol i s Conventi on (1786), where wi th other choi ce spi ri ts
he pl anned out the set of maneuvers whi ch fi nal l y l ed to the Great
Conventi on i n Phi l adel phi a the fol l owi ng May.71 (Bradfords refer-
ence to the Mount Vernon conference i s one of the few I have come
acr oss. Thi s meeti ng, wher e the coup fi rst began to be pl anned, i s
si mpl y i gnored i n most hi stori es of the Conventi on. )
66. Engl ewood Cl i ffs, New Jersey: Prenti ce-Hal l .
67. McDonal d, Revi ew of Code Number 72, William and May Quarter~, XXXI
(Jan. 1974).
68. Ci ted by Currey, Frankl i n Legend, p. 145.
69. Robert A. Rutl and, James Madi sons Dream: A Secul ar Republ i c, Free I n-
gui~ (Sept. 1983), pp. 8-11.
70. Bradford, A Worthy Company, p. 142.
71. I bid., p. 144.
Madi son was a dedi cated man. As we shal l see i n Chapter 9,
what had l ong moti vated hi m was hi s commi tment to remove the re-
l i gi ous test oath from Vi rgi ni a pol i ti cs and then nati onal pol i ti cs. He
achi eved both of these goal s wi thi n a three-year peri od, 1786-88.
Madi son i s often cal l ed the Father of the Consti tuti on. I ntel l ec-
tual l y speaki ng, i t was John Adams, the Ameri can ambassador i n
Engl and at the ti me of the Conventi on, who was an equal l y domi -
nant fi gure at the Conventi on because of hi s detai l ed studi es of the
state consti tuti ons, especi al l y hi s pre-Conventi on, three-vol ume
work, Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the United States.
Hi s model of the bal anced consti tuti on was an i mportant i nfl uence
at Phi l adel phi a. 72 Neverthel ess, i t was surel y Madi son who was the
father of the Conventi on, wi th Washi ngton si tti ng si l entl y as the
godfather. I t was Madi son who, more than ahy other man, broke the
nati onal covenant wi th God.
Conspi r acy
Arrant hypocri sy?, Rushdoony asks rhetori cal l y. Not at al l . Arrant
conspiracy. These men were conspi rators. The Arti cl es of Confedera-
ti on had stated cl earl y that No two or more states shal l enter i nto
any treaty, confederati on or al l i ance whatever between them, wi th-
out the consentof the uni ted states i n congress assembl ed, speci fyi ng
absol utel y the purposes for whi ch the same i s to be entered i nto, and
how l ong i t shal l conti nue (Arti cl e VI ). Thi s i s why the conspi rators
tri ed to surround the proposed Consti tuti on wi th an ai r of l egal i ty by
stati ng i n the Preambl e:
U
. . . i n Order to form a more perfect
Uni on, establ i sh Justi ce, etc. The speci fi ed ti me l i mi t was perpet-
ual : . . ; to secure the Bl essi ngs of Li berty to oursel ves and our Pos-
teri ty. . . . But Congress had not authori zed any such treaty, con-
federati on or al l i ance. The conspi rators knew i t, especi al l y the man
who made the coup possi bl e, George Washi ngton. More than most
men, comments Garry Wi l l s, he showed an earl y and unbl i nki ng
awareness that the Phi l adel phi a conventi on woul d engage i n acts not
onl y i rregul ar or extral egal , but very l i kel y i l l egal . John Jay had
al erted hi m to thi s probl em as earl y as January.73 Jays fears were
72. Gordon S. Wood, The Creati on of the American Republic, 1776-1787 (Wi l l i ams-
burg, Vi rgi ni a: I nsti tute of Earl y Ameri can Hi story, publ i shed by the Uni versi ty of
North Carol i na Press, 1969), ch. 14.
73. Garry Wi l l s, Cincinnatus: George Wmhington and the Enlightenment (Garden Ci ty,
New York: Doubl eday, 1984), p. 154.
onl y parti al l y al l ayed when i n February, Congress authori zed the
Conventi on, but onl y to suggest amendments to Congress. On
March 10, Washi ngton wrote to Jay: I n stri ct propri ety a Conven-
ti on so hol den may not be l egal .7q But they proceeded.
They knew the whol e thi ng was i l l egal , a subversi ve act of revo-
l uti on. They were l awyers, and they had read thei r Bl ackstone. 75
Bl ackstone had commented on the conventi on-parl i ament that had
cal l ed Wi l l i am 111 to the throne i n 1688-89. I t had been l egal , he
sai d, onl y because James I I had abdi cated. (Bl ackstone fai l ed to
menti on the l ess-than-vol untary ci rcumstances of the ki ngs depar-
ture. ) Bl ackstone wrote: The vacancy of the throne was precedent
to thei r meeti ng wi thout any royal summons, not a consequence of
i t. They di d not assembl e wi thout wri t, and then make the throne
vacant; but the throne bei ng previ ousl y vacant by the ki ngs abdi ca-
ti on, they assembl ed wi thout wri t, as they must do i f they assembl ed
at al l . Had the throne been ful l , thei r meeti ng woul d not have been
regul ar; but, as i t was empty, such meeti ng became absol utel y neces-
sary.7b The throne was occupi ed i n 1787; Congress had not abdi -
cated. The Conventi on had been i ssued wri ts; these wri ts expressl y
prohi bi ted the substi tuti on of a new consti tuti onal document. Those
who came to Phi l adel phi a for any other purpose were conspi rators.
Yet most of those who came arri ved i n Phi l adel phi a wi th the death
sentence i n thei r pockets agai nst the exi sti ng Confederati on and the
authori zi ng Congress.
I t was thi s wel l -organi zed conspi racy that had control over the
i nsti tuti onal l evers that made possi bl e the events of the Revol u-
ti onary War era that transformed the enti re pol i ti cal and soci al
structure of the thi rteen col oni es i n l ess ti me than i t now takes to
send a Fi rst Amendment case from appeal to the Supreme Cour t.TT
The Masoni c Connecti on
James D. Carter wrote hi s doctoral di ssertati on under Professor
Wal ter Prescott Webb, one of the most di sti ngui shed Ameri can hi s-
74. I bid., p. 155.
75. Bernard Bai l yn, The I deological 0ri8ins of the Ameri can Revolution (Cambri dge,
Massachusetts: Bel knap Press of Harvard Uni versi ty Press, 1967), p. 31;
McDonal d, Novus Ordo Secl orum, p. xi i .
76. Wi l l i am Bl ackstone, Commentanes on the Laws of England, 4 vol s. (Chi cago:
Uni versi ty of Chi cago Press, [1765] 1979), vol . I , Of the Rights of Persons, p. 148.
77. Rutl and, James Madi sons Dream, op. ci t., p. 9.
tori ans of the mi d-twenti eth century. The di ssertati on was l ater pub-
l i shed by the Uni versi ty of Texas Press, Masony i n Texas i n 1955.
Webb was l audatory: After readi ng Dr. Carters book, no one can
doubt that Freemasonry has exerted an i nfl uence on the nati on and
the state whi ch cannot and shoul d not be i gnored.78
Carter began wi th the hi story of col oni al l odges i n the earl y ei gh-
teenth century. He i ncl udes an 80-page chapter on Freemasonry
and the Ameri can Revol uti on, and a 30-page chapter, Free-
masonry and Uni ted States Government . I n many r$spects, he ex-
aggerates the number of Masons i nvol ved i n the formati on of the
Uni on, but hi s basi c presumpti on i s correct: they were very i nfl uen-
ti al i n thi s process.
Leaders on both si des of the Consti tuti onal debate were mem-
bers of Masoni c l odges. There i s a probl em i n knowi ng preci sel y
how many. Lodge membershi p was not al ways fl aunted by mem-
bers, and hi stori ans have not pai d much attenti on to the subject.
Tatsch sai d that 18 of the 56 si gners of the Decl arati on were Masons,
and 18 of the 39 si gners of the Consti tuti onal Conventi on. 79 Roth re-
duced thi s to possi bl y a dozen si gners of the Decl arati on. 80 Heaton
pl aced i t at ni ne.81 Heaton says that 13 of the 39 si gners of the Con-
sti tuti on were Masons: Bedford, Bl ai r, Br ear l ey, Broom, Carrol l ,
Dayton, Di ckenson, Frankl i n, Gi l man, Ki ng, McHenry, Paterson,
and Washi ngton. 82 Of these, fi ve had been or l ater became Grand
78. Webb, fl yl eaf, James D. Carter, Masonry in Taas. I refer to the fi rst edi ti on of
thi s book, whi ch has al l of the appendi xes.
79. J. Hugo Tatsch, The Facti About George Wmhington m a Freemzron (New York:
Macoy, 1929), p. xi v.
80. Roth, MasonV in tb Formation of Our Govwnment, pp. 154-64.
81. Heaton, Masoni c Membersh@ of the Founding Fathers, p. xvi . Carters study
whi ch I fi nd greatl y exaggerated and i nsuffi ci entl y documented on thi s poi nt con-
cl udes that at l east 32 of the si gners of the Decl arati on were Masons, i ncl udi ng Ben
Frankl i n, El bri dge Gerry, John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, Ri chard Henry Lee,
Robert Morri s, Benjami n Rush, Roger Sherman, and John Wi therspoon. Maony
in ZZxar, pp. 67-68. There i s consi derabl e doubt regardi ng the Masoni c membershi p
of most of these men. Carter i ncorrectl y i ncl udes Sam Adams, who was not a
Mason, al though Adams cooperated wi th the Masons of the Green Dragon Tavern,
and the fol l owi ng men whose membershi p cannot be documented: Gerry, Rush,
Jefferson, Lee, Morri s, Wi therspoon, and Sherman. These men were probabl y not
Masons. Heaton, pp. xvi -xxi i i . See al so Si dney Morse, FreenwonV i n the American
Revolution (Washi ngton, D. C.: Masoni c Servi ce Associ ati on of the Uni ted States,
1924), pp. 44-45.
82. Heaton, p. xvi . Carter says that of the 55 del egates to the Consti tuti onal
Conventi on, 33 wer e Masons. Car ter , Masomy in Tma, p. 138.
Masters. 83 Edmund Randol ph was al so a major Masoni c fi gure i n
Vi rgi ni a and a major fi gure at the conventi on, but he di d not si gn
the document because of doubts, al though he l ater supported i ts rati -
fi cati on at the Vi rgi ni a rati fyi ng conventi on. He had been a former
mi l i tary Ai de-de-Camp for Washi ngton, and he had been the offi ci al
who si gned the char ter documents that cr eated Al exandr i a Lodge
No. 39, l ater No. 22, when Washi ngton, as i ts fi r st or Char ter
Master, served as Grand Master. 84
Does l odge membershi p of several promi nent nati onal i sts prove
my thesi s r egar di ng the Consti tuti onal Conventi on as a Masoni c
coup? No, because men on both si des of the Consti tuti onal debate
were found i n the l odges, just as evangel i cal Chri sti ans today are i n
the l odges, despi te two centuri es of protest from the hi stori c Reformed
chur ches and tr adi ti onal di spensati onal l eader s .85 Dani el Shays
seems to have been a Mason, yet i t was hi s rebel l i on i n Massachu-
setts that so fri ghtened the nati onal i sts. 86 What has to be consi dered
i n assessi ng the accuracy of my thesi s regardi ng the Conventi on i s
the theol ogi cal character of the Consti tuti on i tsel f. Was the C onsti tu-
ti on a ci vi l covenant model ed aJong the l i nes of Masoni c theol ogy?
Was i t cl oser to the Masoni c i deal than the exi sti ng state consti tu-
ti ons were? I n other words, were the terms of ]udicial and political dis-
course shaped by the Masonic wodduiew? I t i s my contenti on that
Masonr y di d shape the ter ms of di scour se, tr ansl ati ng the near-
i mper sonal mathemati cal pr ovi denti al i sm of Newtons Cr eator i nto
the l anguage of the aver age man. The Masons Grand Archi tect of
the Uni verse was i n fact the Newtoni an Dei ty.
83. Bedford (Del aware), Bl ai r (Vi rgi ni a), Brearl ey (New Jer sey, but i n 1806),
Frankl i n (Pennsyl vani a), Washi ngton (Vi rgi ni a, but i n 1788).
84. Heaton, Maomc Membership, pp. 56, 74.
85. Chri sti an Reformed Church, Report 37: Lodge and Church Membershi p,
Act~ of Synod 1974 (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Board of Publ i cati ons of the Chri sti an
Reformed Church, 1974), pp. 504-67; Lutheran Church, Mi ssouri Synod, Mason~
i n the LiZht of the Bible (St. Loui s, Mi ssouri : Concordi a, 1964); Al va J. McLai n,
Freemasonry and Chri sti ani ty, repri nted i n E. M. Storms, Should a Christtan Be a
Mason? (Fl etcher , Nor th Car ol i na: New Pur i tan Li br ar y, n.d.). From a Roman
Cathol i c perspecti ve, see Paul A. Fi sher, Behind the Lodge Door: Church, State and Free-
ma.son~ (Washi ngton, D. C.: Shi el d, 1988). A very easy to read yet wel l documented
i ntroducti on to thi s topi c i s John Ankerberg and John Wel d on, Christtani@ and the
Secret Tmchin~s of the Masonic Lodge: What Goes on Behind Closed Doors (Chattanooga,
Tennessee: John Ankerberg Evangel i sti c Associ ati on, 1989).
86. Car ter , Mason~ in Texas, p. 58.
Why I gnore Col oni al Masonry?
Carl Van Doren, i n hi s popul ar bi ography of Frankl i n, wri tes:
Freemasonry i n Ameri ca had been soci al and l ocal , wi th l i ttl e i nfl u-
ence i n pol i ti cs.87 To the extent that any hi stori an even menti ons
Masonr y, whi ch i s i nfr equent, thi s i s the standar d vi ew. Masonr y
was merel y cl ubbery.ss But the naggi ng questi on r emai ns: What
other i nter-col oni al cl ub had so many l eaders duri ng the Ameri can
Revol uti on?
The textbooks i gnore al l thi s. Masonry i s sel dom di scussed as a
factor i n Ameri can hi story; i t appears onl y i n chapters devoted to the
Anti -Masoni c pol i ti cal party of the 1820s and 1830s. Thi s has an-
noyed Masoni c hi stori ans. sg I t i s a major mi ssi ng l i nk i n earl y Amer-
i can hi stori ography. More than thi s: i t i s the mi ssi ng l i nk. And not
just i n Amer i can hi stor i ogr aphy. Mar gar et Jacob has obser ved a
si mi l ar l ack of i nterest i n the Masoni c connecti ons i n Engl i sh hi story.
Despi te the i mpor tance of Fr eemasonr y for the Enl i ghtenment, of
whatever vari ety, thi s ori gi nal l y Bri ti sh i nsti tuti on has recei ved scant
attenti on from Bri ti sh academi c hi stori ans. . . . Thi s i s a parti cul -
arl y unfortunate gap i n the hi stori ography of the ei ghteenth century,
not onl y for i ntel l ectual but al so for pol i ti cal hi story.go
She i s careful to di stance hersel f from conspi racy theori sts. She
refers di sparagi ngl y to Fays paranoi d readi ng of the Masoni c con-
necti on, r epeatedl y mi sspel l i ng Fay. gl Thi s i s remi ni scent of Crane
Bri ntons di smi ssal of Nesta Websters vol umi nous researches on the
Fr ench Revol uti on: . . . fr i ghtened Tor i es l i ke Mr s. Nesta Web-
ster. . . .9
2
She hastens to assure her readers that We can now di s-
pense wi th conspi racy theori es and sti l l show the survi val throughout
the fi rst hal f of the ei ghteenth century of a soci al worl d that was
often, but not necessar i l y, Masoni c wher ei n some ver y danger ous
i deas were i n fact di scussed and di ssemi nated.93 She qual i fi es her
87. Van Doren, Franklin, p. 656.
88. Robert Mi ckl us, The Secret Fal l of Freemasonry i n Dr. Al exander
Hami l tons The Histoy of thz Twsday Club, i n J. A. Leo Lemay (cd.), Deism, MasonV,
and the Enlightenment (Newark, New Jersey: Uni versi ty of Del aware Press, 1987),
pp. 127-28.
89. Cf. Morse, Freemason in the American Revol uti on, pp. 7-8.
90, Jacob, Radical Enlightenment, pp. 121-22.
91. I bid., p. 224.
92. Crane Bri nton, The Anatomy of Revolution (New York: Vi ntage, [1938] 1952),
p. 56.
93. Jacob, Radical Enlightenment, pp. 240-41.
books thesi s down to a bare mi ni mum: Masonry as one possi bl e
source of several sources of revol uti onary ideas. I t seems not unrea-
sonabl e to suggest that thi s soci al ci rcui t was i nternati onal i n scope
whi l e at the same ti me acknowl edgi ng that we sti l l have a very i m-
perfect account of the extent to whi ch some Masoni c l odges, under
certai n ci rcumstances, woul d encourage a radi cal cri ti que of the ex-
i sti ng order.g4
But she had al ready gone way too far, and her books mi l d thesi s,
i ntel l i gentl y argued, was savagel y ri di cul ed by one revi ewer as a
farrago of pr etenti ous and por tentous moonshi ne.95 Menti on
Masonry as an organi zati on that spread the i deas of revol uti on, l et
al one that i t provi ded the revol uti ons organi zati onal backbone, and
you ri sk l osi ng your academi c reputati on. Hi stori ans know thi s, and
they take great care to avoi d transgressi ng thi s cruci al professi onal
boundary. Even great care i s someti mes i nsuffi ci ent, as Dr. Jacob
l earned.
Forrest McDonal ds three vol umes on the ori gi n of the Consti tu-
ti on have become nearl y defi ni ti ve. There i s not a word i n any of
them on Masonry, despi te the fact that i VoUus Ordo Seclorum (1985) i s
subti tl ed, The I ntellectual Ori gi ns of the Constitution. Wi l son Carey
McWi l l i ams book, The I dea of l%aterni~ in America, al most 700 pages
l ong, devotes onl y one bri ef paragraph to pre-Consti tuti on Masonry,
and then onl y as a soci al cl ub made up of outsi ders: I ts members were
l ess comfortabl e i n the establ i shed order than were the el i tes. . . . 96
There are pages of pai nti ngs and scul ptures of George Washi ngton
i n Garry Wi l l s Cincinnatus, but not one exampl e of hi m dressed i n
hi s Masoni c garb, and not one reference to the craft .
Washi ngton was the man who l ed the mi l i tary Soci ety of Ci nci n-
nati , and who had as hi s subordi nate general s onl y those i ni ti ated
i nto Masonry. Thi s was the man who gave LaFayette a separate
command onl y after the l atter had been i ni ti ated personal l y by
Washi ngton. The army was the onl y functi oni ng nati onal ci vi l hi er-
archy i n the Patri ot cause. I t was an i deal recrui ti ng ground, for
Washi ngton was the source of promoti ons (posi ti ve sancti ons). He
made sure hi s seni or offi cers were Masons. Thi s was the man who
94. I bid., p. 241.
95. G. C. Gi bbs, The Radi cal Enl i ghtenment, British J ournal of the Histoy of
Science, XVI I (1984), p. 75.
96. Wi l son Carey McWi l l i ams, The I dea of Fraterni~ i n America (Berkel ey: Uni ver-
si ty of Cal i forni a Press, 1974), p. 205.
had at l east ten mi l i tary Masoni c l odges i n hi s army.gT The textbooks
are nonethel ess si l ent.
How many peopl e have ever heard of the Templ e of Vi rtue? Thi s
was the bui l di ng i n Newburgh, New York, that was constructed on
Washi ngtons i nstructi ons for hi s headquarters and for a meeti ng
pl ace for the troop l odges. I t was i n thi s bui l di ng that he warned the
members of the Soci ety of Ci nci nnati to be prudent i n thei r de-
mands, thus cutti ng short a potenti al mi l i tary coup. 98 Scarcel y a
word on any of these Masoni c connecti ons i s i n the conventi onal
monographs and bi ographi es, l et al one the more general textbooks.
The Boston Tea Par@
There i s an occasi onal excepti on. Page Smi ths mul ti -vol ume
peopl es hi story of the Revol uti on, suggesti vel y ti tl ed A New Age
Now Begins, does menti on that Joseph Warren and Paul Revere were
Masons. 99 He al so menti ons somethi ng al most never seen i n a text-
book, that Bostons famous Green Dragon Tavern, whi ch was the
central meeti ng pl ace of the patri ots, had been chosen for a reason.
Thi s tavern was doubtl ess chosen because patri ot organi zer Joseph
Warren was al so Grand Master of the Boston Masoni c Lodge, and
the Masons had thei r headquarters there.10J Esther Forbes, i n her
wel l -recei ved yet popul ar bi ography of Revere, 101 descri bes the
background of the Boston Tea Party, where col oni al s dressed up as
I ndi ans and tossed i nto the harbor the taxed tea that had been
brought to Boston on board Bri ti sh shi ps:
Two of Rever es cl ubs, the North Caucus and Sai nt Andrews l odge, are
known to have had a hand i n i t. The Masons had met the ni ght the shi ps ar-
ri ved, but thei r records read, Lodge adjourned on account of few Brothers
present. N.B. Consi gnees of Tea took the Brethrens ti me. Thi s ni ght the
record i s even bri efer: Lodge cl osed on account of few members present.
Sai nt Andrews had by thi s ti me bought the ol d Green Dragon. Thi s was a
97. Morse, Freemasonry i n the Amerkan Revolution, p. 17. A l i st of these l odges and a
bri ef hi story of them i s found i n Roth, Ma.sony i n the Formation of Our Government, pp.
138-48. For a l i st of the 34 l odges i n the Bri ti sh mi l i tary forces i n 1775-77, see Bai gent
and Lei gh, Tem.le and Lodge, Appendi x 2.
98. Morse, ibid., p. 131.
99. Page Smi th, A New Age Now Begins: A Peoplek Histoy of the Anwican Revolution
(New York: McGraw-Hi l l , 1976), I , p. 306.
100. I bid., I , p. 464.
101. Thi s book was assi gned to us by Dougl ass Adai r i n a 1965 graduate semi nar
on the Ameri can Revol uti on.
The StrateD of Deception 435
l arge, bri ck tavern standi ng on Uni on Street. . . . More Revol uti onary
eggs Were hatched i n thi s-dragons nest than i n any other spot i n Boston.
Other l odges and radi cal cl ubs were begi nni ng to meet there, shel tered by
the i nvi ol abl e secrecy of the Masons. I t was at the Green Dragon the pl an
to destroy the tea was perfected and ei ther there or at Benjami n Edes house
Paul Revere and others put on thei r di sgui ses.
02
The i mmedi ate aftermath of the tea party i n 1773 was the cl osi ng
of Boston Harbor by the Bri ti sh what soon became known as the
I ntol erabl e Acts. Sam Adams Commi ttees of Correspondence went
to work. Thi s l ed to an i nter-col oni al organi zed outrage. More than
any other si ngl e event, thi s l aunched the Revol uti on. And who were
these Boston men? I n a speci al i zed monograph on Boston pol i ti cs
duri ng thi s era, we are treated to one bri ef, tantal i zi ng reference: At
l east ei ght of the twenty-one members al so bel onged to the North
End Caucus, a pri vate pol i ti cal cl ub whi ch met regul arl y i n several
Boston congregati ons, i n both of Bostons Masoni c l odges, the fi re
compani es of several wards, as wel l as a vari ety of pri vate cl ubs. 03
But that i s al l .
Even such bri ef references as these are few and far between. The
average student of Ameri can hi story i s never tol d that the Commi t-
tees of Correspondence and Commi ttees of Safety were very often
headed by Masons, hel d thei r meeti ngs i n l odges or taverns that
served as l odge headquarters, and became l eaders of the Provi nci al
assembl i es. 04 I n Phi l adel phi a i n 1775, where the fi rst Conti nental
Congress met, there were approxi matel y one thousand Masons,
al though we do not know on whi ch si de they fel l out i ni ti al l y. 105 As
the war progressed, the Anci ent l odges became domi nant i n
Phi l adel phi a. 1G
Bernard Fay
The one major excepti on to thi s hi stori cal bl ackout by academi c
hi stori ans of
-
the Ameri can Revol uti on i s the French hi stori an Ber-
nard Fay. Hi s book, Revolution and Freemason (1935), does go i nto
102. Forbes, Paul Revere, pp. 197-98.
103. Ri charcl D. Brown, Revol uti onary Politics in Ma.rsachusetts: The Boston Commi ttee
of Correspondence and the Towns, 1772-1774 (Cambri dge, Massachusetts: Harvard Uni -
versi ty Press, 1970), p. 60.
104. Morse, Freenw.romy and the American Revolution, p. 58.
105. I bid., p. 60.
106. I bid., pp. 99-100.
many of these detai l s. He al one reports that Frankl i n, as Deputy
Postmaster General for the Engl i sh Col oni es i n Ameri ca, travel l ed
extensi vel y and joi ned together Masoni c l odges. Frankl i ns Ameri -
can Phi l osophi cal Soci ety, a col oni al model of the Royal Soci ety,
founded i n 1741, was made up mostl y of Masons. 107 Perhaps most
i mportant, Frankl i n set up a number of Mason-owned newspapers
around the col oni es, i ncl udi ng John Peter Zengers New York~oumal
and Edens Boston Gazette. 108
Fay expl ai ns why i t i s that so many hi stori ans thi nk that the
Masons were pol i ti cal l y i rrel evant i n thi s era. The l odges were en-
joi ned on both si des of the Atl anti c to avoi d pol i ti cs, but they coul d
set up anci l l ary organi zati ons that coul d get i nvol ved pol i ti cal l y.
They were careful to keep pol i ti cs as much as possi bl e outsi de the
regul ar meeti ngs of the l odges. . . . But thei r pol i ti cal i nfl uence was
based on the fact that i n Ameri ca a l odge meant a tavern. Al l l odges
met i n al ehouses, i nns and taverns; most of them owned thei r meet-
i ng pl aces or met i n a bui l di ng whi ch was owned by a member of the
l odge. The l odge i tsel f hel d i ts ceremoni es di screetl y and formal l y i n
a back room, after whi ch the members gathered i nformal l y and l ess
di rectl y i n the mai n room to dri nk and, when the l odge was not i n
sessi on, to speak and act wi thout restrai nt .109 Maybe even toss a bi t
of tea i nto the harbor!
Conventi onal hi stori ans do not consi der such matters because
few of them know anythi ng about Masonry, and those who have
heard anythi ng about i t vi ew i t pri mari l y as a soci al cl ub. They have
never asked themsel ves the obvi ous questi on: What are the i nsti tu-
ti onal connecti ons that make possi bl e a successful revol uti on? They
have been taught by tradi ti onal hi stori ography to l ook at pol i ti cal
events or mi l i tary events. They have been taught by Marx to ex-
ami ne cl ass al i gnments, and by Charl es Beard and hi s i ntel l ectual
hei rs to exami ne the personal economi c sel f-i nterest of the parti ci -
pants. Hi stori ans i n recent years are far more wi l l i ng to consi der the
i nfl uence of rel i gi ous i deas, but they have been trai ned to pl ay down
the great man theory of hi story. They have been taught, above al l ,
that seri ous, reputabl e schol ars do not rai se the questi on of conspi r-
107. Fay, Freenuzsony and Resolution, p. 232.
108. I bid., p. 233.
109. I bid., p. 234.
aci es. Speci al -i nterest groups, yes; el i tes, yes; 110 just not conspi raci es.
Why i s thi s? I thi nk the reason i s theol ogi cal . Conspi raci es poi nt
too cl osel y to personal i sm as the basi s of hi stori cal change, and per-
sonal i sm poi nts to a God who bri ngs sancti ons i n hi story. 1 ~ 1
Hi stori ans prefer to speak of hi stori cal forces and economi c cl asses.
So, onl y peopl e such as Nesta Webster ask the forbi dden questi ons,
and for thei r i ndi screet behavi or, they are wri tten off by professi onal
hi stori ans. I n Crane Bri ntons bi bl i ography, he acknowl edged onl y
Websters l ess schol arl y, l ess detai l ed book, Secret Societies and Subver-
si ve Movements (1924). He conveni entl y i gnored her masterpi ece, The
French Revolution (1919), whi ch presents a far more detai l ed case for
what he sneers at as the pl ot theory of revol uti on.
]
12 Bri nton
knew. Hi s fi rst publ i shed book was on the Jacobi ns, and he showed
how cl osel y they were associ ated wi th the Masoni c l odges of France. 1 i s
He knew. But he al so knew enough to keep hi s mouth shut and hi s
opi ni ons conventi onal . Just a bunch of l ocal good ol d bourgeoi s boys
l ooki ng for a few busi ness deal s, good food, and l i vel y di scussi on.
Offer a conspi racy theory of hi story, and you wi l l probabl y fi nd
yoursel f at a professi onal dead end i n a professi on that i s mostl y
career dead ends anyway. 1~
Nesta Websters Bl i nd Spot
Nesta Websters i nfl uence on Rushdoony i s very strong i n This
I ndependent Republic. He rel i es heavi l y on her book, The French Revolu-
tion, to expl ai n those events. He al so fal l s i nto the same trap that she
di d: he concentrated hi s expos~ on the evi l s of French Grand Ori ent
Masonry, but del i beratel y i gnored the mi l d-mannered apostasy of
Angl o-Saxon Masonry.
Rushdoony and Webster were not the fi rst cri ti cs of Grand
Ori ent Masonry to fal l i nto thi s trap. So di d John Robi son, whose
ProoJ s oj a Conspiraq (1798), al ong wi th Abb6 Bar uel s study (1797),
110. By far the most i mpressi ve study of Ameri can el i tes i s the l i ttl e-known set by
Phi l i p H. Burch, Elites in American Histoy, 3 VOI S. (New York: Hol mes & Mei er,
1981).
111. See R. J. Rushdoony, The Nature of the Amencan System (Fai rfax, Vi rgi ni a:
Thoburn Press, [1965] 1978), ch. 8: The Conspi racy Vi ew of Hi story.
112. I btd. , p. 300.
113. Cr ane Br i nton, TheJ acobms: An Essay m the New HistoT (New York: Russel l &
Russel l , [1930] 1961).
114. Gary North, Conspi racy: A Biblical View (Ft. Worth, Texas: Domi ni on Press,
1986), ch. 6: Court Hi stori ans.
was an earl y source of the story of the connecti ons between secret so-
ci eti es and the French Revol uti on. Robi sons was the fi rst book to
gai n wi de attenti on on thi s subject i n the col oni es. I t l aunched a ma-
jor anti -French and anti -Masoni c movement, especi al l y among Fed-
eral i sts i n New Engl and. 115 I n a Postscri pt to the book, Robi son
wrote di sparagi ngl y of the fri ppery, profl i gacy, and i mpi ety of
Grand Ori ent Masonry. I n contrast, he sai d, Masonry has been re-
tai ned i n Bri tai n i n i ts ori gi nal form, si mpl e and unadorned, and the
l odges have remai ned scenes of i nnocent merri ment, or meeti ngs of
Chari ty and Benefi cence. i 16
Webster echoed Robi son: . . . Bri ti sh Masonry, by taki ng i ts
stand on patri oti sm and respect for rel i gi on, necessari l y tends to
uni te men of al l cl asses and therefore offers a formi dabl e bul wark
agai nst the forces of revol uti on. Any attacks on Bri ti sh Masonry as
at present consti tuted and di rected are therefore absol utel y opposed
to the i nterests of the country.
117 Thi s was al so the atti tude of vi rtu-
al l y al l the Ameri can Revol uti ons l eaders regardi ng col oni al Masonry.
Nai vel y, she wrote on the next page: I n the opi ni on of M. Copi n
Al bancel l i , the abol i ti on of the oath woul d go far to prevent penetra-
ti on of Bri ti sh Masonry by the secret soci eti es.118 Thi s was equal l y
true of Grand Ori ent Masonry.
What she fai l ed to grasp i s thi s: the heart of Masony is its oath. I t
was Masonrys top-down hi erarchi cal system of bureaucrati c author-
i t y, coupl ed wi th i ts sel f-val edi ctory oath of secrecy, obedi ence, and
l oyal ty, that provi ded Adam Wei shaupt and hi s I l l umi ni st con-
spi rators wi th the organi zati onal system and source of i nfi l trati on
that they had sought. Wei shaupt saw Masonry as an organi zati onal
structure that paral l el ed the ti ghtl y kni t Jesui t Order that had trai ned
hi m. No ones wri ti ngs have made cl earer Wei shaupts strategy of
subversi on than Mrs. Websters. 119 What Mrs. Webster, l i ke the
patri oti c col oni sts of 1776, fai l ed to recogni ze i s that Angl o-Saxon
Masonrys uni versal i st l ed to the subversi on of Chri sti an ci vi l i za-
115. Vernon Stauffer, New England and the Bauari an I lluminate (New York: Russel l &
Russel l , [1918] 1967).
116. John Robi son, Frooj$ of a Con@a~ (4th ed.; New York: George Forman,
1798), p, 394.
117. Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements (Hawthorne, Cal i forni a: Omni
Press, [1924] 1964), p. 293.
118. I bid., p. 294.
119. I bid., ch. 9. See al so Webster, World Revolution: The Plot Against Civilization
(Hawthorne, Cal i forni a: Omni , [1921] 1964), ch. 1.
ti on; French Masonrys hosti l i ty to absol uti sm l ed to open revol u-
ti on. Subversi on by steal th i s no l ess a threat than subversi on by rev-
ol uti on. Steal th i n fact cal l s l ess attenti on to i tsel f. l ZI J
Concl usi on
Col oni al Masonry was one of the major components of the
Ameri can Revol uti on, and especi al l y of the Consti tuti onal settl e-
ment. On thi s poi nt, Rushdoony has remai ned si l ent, al most as i f he
has been afrai d to rai se the questi on. 21 Were he to pursue i t, he
woul d fi nd hi s thesi s regardi ng the Chri sti an roots of the Consti tu-
ti on seri ousl y threatened.
I have cal l ed the Conventi on the fi rst stage of a COUP. I have
argued that Masoni c i nfl uence was i mportant both i n terms of the
phi l osophy of the del egates and thei r membershi p i n the l odges. I f
the enti re nati on had been Masoni c, then thi s woul d not have been a
COUP. But very few col oni sts were Masons. Pri or to the Revol uti on-
ary War, there were about two hundred l odges i n the thi rteen col -
oni es. 122 Thei r combi ned membershi p was somewhere between 1,500
and 5,000. Yet the total popul ati on of the nati on was about 2.5 mi l -
l i on. By 1800, there were perhaps 16,000 members. 123 Thus, to argue
that the Consti tuti on was essenti al l y Masoni c i s necessari l y to argue
for a conspi racy.
Chri sti ans rati fi ed i t. They must have been i gnorant about the
l ong-term effects of thei r acti ons. They must have been unaware of
the covenantal i mpl i cati ons of thei r deci si on. The defenders of the
document were abl e to appeal to a common body of opi ni on regardi ng
rel i gi ous freedom and the supposed tyranny of Chri sti an creeds. 1 Z*
120. Cf. Mar gar et Patr i ci a McCarran, Fabianism in the Political Lt~e of Britain,
1919-1933 (2nd ed.; Chi cago: Heri tage Foundati on, 1954); Rose L. Marti n, Fabian
Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U S. A., 1884-1966 (Bel mont, Massachusetts:
Western I sl ands, 1966). Thi s was a popul ar condensati on of McCarrans suppressed
manuscri pt, The Fabi an Transmi ssi on Bel t.
121. I have often wondered what i s i n Rushdoonys 1965 manuscri pt, The Strategy
of Subversi on, whi ch he never compl eted, or at l east never submi tted for publ i cati on.
122. Morse, Freemasomy in the Ameri can Revolution, p. 28.
123. Wi l l i am Preston Vaughn, The Anti-Masonic Parp in the Umted States,
1826-1843 (Lexi ngton: Uni versi ty Press of Kentucky, 1983), p. 11. Vaughn esti mates
that there were onl y a hundred l odges at the outbreak of the Revol uti on.
124. Thi s anti -creedal i sm was a heri tage of the pi eti sm and revi val i sm of the mi d-
dl e thi rd of the ei ghteenth century. See Mead, Ameri can Protestanti sm, John M.
Mul der and John F. Wi l son (eds. ), Religion in American Histoy (Engl ewood Cl i ffs,
New Jersey: Prenti ce-Hal l , 1978), pp. 164-65, 173-74.
They presented to the el ectorate a supposedl y creedl ess covenant
there are no creedl ess covenants devoi d of any expl i ci t rel i gi ous
oath. The Chri sti ans fai l ed to recogni ze the true nature of the i nesca-
pabl e i mpl i ci t oath: the soverei gnty of the Peopl e, meani ng the ofi -
ci al soverei gnty of fi ve Supreme Court judges and the real sover-
ei gn y of a massi ve, facel ess, Ci vi l -Servi ce protected bureaucracy.
The mani festati on of both these new soverei gns appeared wi thi n a
si ngl e generati on: the deci si ons of Federal i st Supreme Court Chi ef
Justi ce John Marshal l and the advent of the Federal i st Party-domi nated
ci vi l servi ce. 125
The conspi rators were successful . I n retrospect, Ameri cans cal l
them the Foundi ng Fathers. They were surel y founders. They sought
to gi ve Ameri cans a new i nheri tance. What they di d was to appro-
pri ate an ol der i nheri tance i n the name of a new fami l y of man.
One man had understood thi s i n 1788. We do not know hi s
name. He si gned hi s essay Davi d, one of the few i nstances of any
author i n the debate over the rati fi cati on of the Consti tuti on who used
a bi bl i cal pseudonym. He was a resi dent of Connecti cut, and hi s
comments appeared i n the March 7, 1788 i ssue of the Massachusetts
Gazette. He remi nded hi s readers that throughout hi story, ci vi l gov-
ernments had cal l ed upon God to defend them. Peopl e had l ong
understood the corporate threat of the negati ve sancti ons of God:
u
. . . i t has been general l y i f not al ways a fundamental arti cl e that
moral offences woul d be puni shed by the Dei ty, even i f they escaped
the l aws of human soci ety, unl ess sati sfacti on was made to the sover-
ei gn of the uni verse for the vi ol ati on of good order. 126 He al so
remi nded them that the states had al ways had fast days and other
frequent and publ i ck acknowl edgments of our dependence upon the
Dei ty.127 Speaki ng of Connecti cut, he i nsi sted: Never di d any peo-
pl e possess a more ardent l ove of l i berty than the peopl e of thi s state;
yet that very l ove of l i berty has i nduced them to adopt a rel i gi ous
test, whi ch requi res al l publ i ck offi cers to be of some Chri sti an, pro-
testant persuasi on, and to abjure al l forei gn authori ty. Thus rel i gi on
secures our i ndependence as a nati on, and attaches the ci ti zens to
our own government . 12s
125. Car l E. Pr i nce, The Federalists and the Origins of the Civil Sewice (New York:
New York Uni versi ty Press, 1977).
126. Letter by Davi d; i n Th Compk4e Anti-Federaltit, I V, p. 247.
127. I dem.
128. I bid., I V, pp. 247-48.
The probl em, i n Davi ds vi ew, was that the new nati on was
about to i mi tate the government of Rhode I sl and, or as he referred
to that provi nce, our next nei ghbors. As edi tor Herbert J. Stori ng
comments, Thi s i s one of the rare statements i n the Federal i st
Anti -Federal i st debate concerni ng the wi del y agreed-upon pol i ti cal
excesses of Rhode I sl and and her rel i gi ous tol erati on. 129 Davi d
foresaw that i f the new nati on adopted as i ts ci vi l model the anti -
covenantal , anti -oath contractual i sm of Rhode I sl ands pol i ti cal
theory, i t woul d eventual l y become l i ke Rhode I sl and. Thi s thought
di sturbed hi m: the resul t woul d be a nati onal ci vi l government based
stri ctl y on force:
We have now seen what have been the pr i nci pl es gener al l y adopted by
manki nd, and to what degree they have been adopted i n our own state.
Before we deci de i n favour of our practi ce, l et us see what has been the suc-
cess of those who have made no publ i ck provi si on for rel i gi on. Unl ucki l y
we have onl y to consul t our next nei ghbors. I n consequence of thi s publ i ck
i nattenti on they deri ve the vast benefi t of bei ng abl e to do whatever they
pl ease wi thout any compuncti on. Taught from thei r i nfancy to ri di cul e our
formal i ty as the effect of hypocri sy, they have no pri nci pl es of restrai nt but
l aws of thei r own maki ng; and from such l aws may Heaven defend us. I f
thi s i s the success that attends l eavi ng rel i gi on to shi ft whol l y for i tsel f, we
shal l be at no l oss to determi ne, that i t i s not more di ffi cul t to bui l d an
el egant house wi thout tool s to work wi th, than i t i s to establ i sh a durabl e
government wi thout the publ i ck protecti on of rel i gi on. What the system i s
whi ch i s most proper for our ci rcumstances wi l l not take l ong to determi ne.
I t must be that whi ch has adopted the purest moral pri nci pl es, and whi ch i s
i nter woven i n the l aws and consti tuti on of our countr y, and upon whi ch ar e
founded the habi ts of our peopl e. Upon thi s foundati on we have establ i shed
a government of i nfl uence and opi ni on, and therefore secured by the affec-
ti ons of the peopl e; and when thi s foundati on i s removed, a government of
mere force must ari se. 130
Li ke John the Bapti st, Davi d was a voi ce cryi ng i n the wi l der-
ness. Or more to the poi nt, he was a voi ce cryi ng i n the promi sed
l and warni ng peopl e agai nst departi ng i nto the wi l derness: the
Rhode I sl and wi l derness. They di d not heed hi s warni ng.
129. I bid., I V, p. 249.
130. I bid., I V, p. 248.
I t was Madi son who came up wi th the remedy that ul ti matel y
prevai l ed, the Uni ted States Consti tuti on, though i t di d not take
qui te the form that he i ni ti al l y hoped for, as he and hi s contem-
porari es groped thei r way toward i t at the great Consti tuti onal Con-
venti on of 1787. That conventi on, whi ch Madi son was i nstrumental
i n bri ngi ng about, di d not conform to the i deal prescri pti on for si mu-
l ati ng an exerci se of consti tuent power by the peopl e, for the mem-
bers were chosen by the state l egi sl atures, not di rectl y by popul ar
vote. But even before the conventi on met, Madi son recogni zed that
i t coul d achi eve the objecti ves he had i n mi nd for i t onl y by appeal -
i ng to a popul ar soverei gnty not hi therto ful l y recogni zed, to the peo-
pl e of the Uni ted States as a whol e. They al one coul d be thought to
stand superi or to the peopl e of any si ngl e state. And what Madi son
had most di rectl y i n vi ew was to overcome the defi ci enci es of the
l ocal l y ori ented representati ves who sat i n the state l egi sl atures. To
that end he envi si oned a genui ne nati onal government, resti ng for
i ts authori ty, not on the state governments and not even on the peo-
pl es of the several states consi dered separatel y, but on an Ameri can
peopl e, a peopl e who consti tuted a separate and superi or enti ty, capa-
bl e of conveyi ng to a nati onal government an authori ty that woul d ne-
cessari l y i mpi nge on the authori ty of the state governments.
The ful l i mpl i cati ons of what he was goi ng to propose were not at
fi rst apparent even to Madi son hi msel f. As the Engl i sh House of
Commons i n the 1640s had i nvented a soverei gn peopl e to overcome
a soverei gn ki ng, Madi son was i nventi ng a soverei gn Ameri can peo-
pl e to overcome the soverei gn states.
Edmund S. Morgan (1988)*
*Morgan, I nventing the People: The Rise of Popular Soverei@y i n England and America
(New Yor k: Nor ton, 1988), p. 267.
9
FROM COUP TO REVOLUTI ON
The conduct of eve~ popular assemb~ acting on oath, the st?ongest of re-
ligious ties, proves that individualsjoin without remorse in acts, against
which their consciences would revolt z~proposed to them under the like
sanction, separately in their closets. When indeed Religion is kindled
into enthusiasm, its force like that of other passions, is increased by the
sympathy of a multitude. But enthusiasm is on~ a temporary state of re-
ligion, and while it lasts will hard~ be seen with pleasure at the helm of
Government. Besides as r el i gi on i n its coolest state is not infallible, it
may become a motive to oppression as well as a restraint from inlustice.
J ames Madison (1787)
James Madi son was an angry young man i n the spri ng of 1787.
(He was 36 years ol d.) He had been angry for a l ong ti me. Every-
thi ng he saw i n the Arti cl es of Confederati on, i n the state l egi sl a-
tures, i n the economy made hi m angry. He was determi ned that
ther e woul d soon be a change. Thi s change woul d have to be pol i ti -
cal and nati onal . He set down hi s pri vate thoughts i n the weeks be-
fore the great conventi on that he had organi zed, a conventi on that
he had begun pl anni ng at the meeti ng at Mount Ver non two year s
earl i er.
He was al so determi ned to achi eve hi s l ong-term goal of separat-
i ng Chri sti ani ty from ci vi l government not just separati ng Church
from State, but Chri sti ani ty from ci vi l government. He knew what
had to be done i n order to accompl i sh thi s goal : the severi ng of the
bi ndi ng power of Tr i ni tar i an r el i gi ous oaths that wer e r equi r ed of
state offi cers i n several states. Those oaths had to be ci rcumvented.
1. James Madi son, Vi ces of the Pol i ti cal System of the Uni ted States (Apri l
1787); repri nted i n Marvi n Myers (cd.), The Mind of the Founder: Sources of the Political
Thought of J ames Madison (I ndi anapol i s, I ndi ana: Bobbs-Merri l l , 1973), p. 90.
443
Yet many of the members of Congress who had authori zed the con-
venti on had taken such oaths. Thus, Congress i tsel f had to be ci r-
cumvented, and then overthrown.
I t was a tri bute to Madi sons pol i ti cal geni us that he came up
wi th a fi ve-poi nt tacti cal sol uti on tacti cs that matched the fi ve-
poi nt model of al l covenantal i sm, poi nt for poi nt.
First, the conventi on woul d be authori zed by a nai ve and trusti ng Con-
gress to make mi nor adjustments i n the Arti cl es. The ol d nati onal govern-
ment had been the creati on of the states. The new one woul d be the crea-
ti on of the Peopl e.
Second, under cover of an i mpl i ci t oath-bound secrecy, thi s conventi on
woul d from the openi ng gavel vi ol ate the i nstructi ons of the superi or
l egi sl ati ve agency, Congress, and propose the abol i ti on of the Arti cl es. Thi s
woul d br eak the hi er ar chi cal chai n of command. The conventi on repl aced
Congress as the voi ce of authori ty. I t became the representati ve of the Peo-
pl e. Thi s i s why i t was a convention.
Third, the nati ons enti re l egal order woul d be reconsti tuted, i ncl udi ng
the prohi bi ti on of rel i gi ous oaths at the federal l evel . New judi ci al bound-
ari es assessi ng rel ati ve state and nati onal po~r woul d be created. New i n-
ternal judi ci al boundari es federal i sm woul d be created for the nati onal
government, most notabl y a nati onal l y el ected executi ve, whi ch the Arti cl es
had l acked.
Fourth, the conventi on woul d appeal to a new sancti oni ng agency, the
Peopl e. The wi l l of the Peopl e woul d be voi ced judi ci al l y i n state rati fyi ng
conventi ons that Madi son expected the nati onal i sts (a pol i ti cal facti on) to
domi nate.
F$th, the rati fyi ng conventi ons woul d authori ze a new covenant. What
was to have been an act of nati onal covenant renewal (revi si on of the Ar-
ti cl es) woul d become the cutti ng of a new nati onal covenant. Subsequent
changes (renewal s) woul d be by amendment by Congress and voti ng by
state l egi sl atures, but the door was l eft open for another Consti tuti onal con-
venti on, cal l ed by the state l egi sl atures or by Congress, wi th subsequent ra-
ti fi cati on by ei ther state l egi sl atures or by state conventi ons (Arti cl e V).
The Meani ng of Conventi on
Edmund Morgan has seen the revol uti onary i mpl i cati ons of cal l -
i ng the Consti tuti onal Conventi on a conventi on. Thi s wor d had
been i nvoked duri ng the two previ ous transfers of executi ve sover-
ei gnty i n Engl i sh hi story. These two conventi ons marked temporary
From Coup to Revolution 445
repl acements of Parl i ament i n order to award new ki ngs thei r l awful
executi ve author i ty: Char l es I I i n 1660 and Wi l l i am I I I i n 1689.2
Wri ti ng of these two Engl i sh precedents, he observes:
But the i dea of an el ected conventi on that woul d express enduri ng popul ar
wi l l i n fundamental consti tuti ons superi or to government was a vi abl e way
of maki ng popul ar creati on and l i mi tati on of government bel i evabl e. I t was
fi cti onal , for i t ascri bed to one set of el ected representati ves meeti ng i n con-
venti on a more popul ar character, and consequentl y a greater authori ty,
than every subsequent set of representati ves meeti ng as a l egi sl ature. But i t
was not too fi cti onal to be bel i eved and not so l i teral as to endanger the
effecti veness of government. I t never came i nto use i n Engl and, but i t was
rei nvented i n the Ameri can Revol uti on.
3
The ter m conventi on was al so used by the r evol uti onar i es i n
France i n September of 1792 to l aunch the radi cal phase of the Revo-
l uti on. R. R. Pal mer wr i tes: I t was cal l ed a conventi on fr om the
pr ecedent of consti tuti onal conventi ons i n the Uni ted States . 4
Under thi s Conventi on four months l ater, Loui s XVI was beheaded.
Thi s was surel y a transfer, of executi ve power. I t l ed to the ri se of a
new executi ve: Robespi erre. The Conventi on then wrote a new con-
sti tuti on, l ater cal l ed the sti l l born consti tuti on of 1793.5 The central i -
zati on of power i n Pari s escal ated under thi s new consti tuti on. To
accompl i sh thi s, the Jacobi ns i mi tated Madi sons tacti c: they had the
consti tuti on rati fi ed by pl ebi sci te.6
Madi son pl anned an i ni ti al coup the conventi ons i mmedi ate
scr appi ng of the Ar ti cl es to be fol l owed by a pl ebi sci te. The
pl ebi sci te, as the voi ce of the Peopl e, woul d consol i date and sancti on
the COUP. Thus, a bl oodl ess revol uti on coul d be achi eved a revol u-
ti on i n nati onal soverei gnty, testi fi ed to by a change i n judi ci al oaths.
Had there been no al terati on of the oath structure, there woul d have
been no r evol uti on.
2. Edmund S. Morgan, I nventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereign@ m England
and America (New York: Norton, 1988), pp. 94-95, 107-21.
3. I bid., p. 9i.
4. R. R. Pal mer, Twelve Who Ruled: The Year of the Tmror in the French Revolution
(Pri nceton, New Jersey: Pri nceton Uni versi ty Press, 1941), pp. 20-21.
5. Leo Gershoy, The French Revolution and Napoleon (New York: Appl eton-
Century-Crofts, 1933), p. 258.
6. I bid., p. 258.
Del i ber atel y Cr eati ng Rel i gi ous Facti ons
I t i s wel l known that Madi sons greatest fear was hi s fear of the
tri umph of any parti cul ar pol i ti cal facti on. Federalist 10 is devoted to
thi s theme. What Madi son wanted was pol i ti cal neutral i ty: a worl d
of pol i ti cal l y i mpotent facti ons, onl y as strong as necessary to cancel
out each other. I n the 1787 Vi ces essay, he i nserted thi s concl usi on
i mmedi atel y fol l owi ng the paragraph of state rel i gi ous oaths: The
great desi deratum i n Government i s such a modi fi cati on of the sov-
erei gnty as wi l l render i t suffi ci entl y neutral between the di fferent i n-
terests and facti ons, to controul one part of the soci ety from i nvadi ng
the ri ghts of another, and at the same ti me suffi ci entl y control l ed i t-
sel f, fr om setti ng up an i nter est adver se to that of the whol e
Soci ety.7 Thi s was hi s ar gument agai nst Montesqui eu, who had
ar gued that r epubl i cs can onl y functi on i n smal l nati ons. On the
contrary, argued Madi son i n Federalist 10, republ i cs can i nsul ate
themsel ves best from the effects of facti on by becomi ng so l arge that
the facti ons offset themsel ves. To control the power of any gi ven fac-
ti on, we must create l ots of facti ons. That he was argui ng agai nst
Montesqui eu i n Federalist 10 i s general l y recogni zed by hi stori ans of
the Federalist Papers.
What has not been emphasi zed suffi ci entl y by schol ars i s the de-
nomi nati onal context of Madi sons concerns about facti on. I t was re-
l i gi ous facti on that was on hi s mi nd from the begi nni ng, just as i t
had been on the mi nds of the Engl i sh Whi gs for a century. Li ke the
ei ghteenth-centur y Whi gs anti cl er i cal di ssent agai nst the Tory-
contr ol l ed Angl i can Chur ch and i ts pol i ti cal al l i ance wi th the
crown, s so Madi son hoped from the very outbreak of the Revol uti on
to fi nd some way to break up state-establ i shed churches. Hi s tacti c
was to cr eate mutual l y offsetti ng denomi nati onal facti ons. He
wanted the di sconti nui ty of sects, not the conti nui ty of state-supported
churches. He sai d thi s expl i ci tl y i n Federalist 51: I n a free govern-
ment, thi s securi ty for ci vi l ri ghts must be the same as for rel i gi ous
ri ghts. I t consi sts i n the one case i n the mul ti pl i ci ty of i nterests, and
i n the other, i n the mul ti pl i ci ty of sects. The degree of securi ty i n
both cases wi l l depend on the number of i nterests and sects; and thi s
7. Mind of the Found~, p. 91.
8. Henni ng Graf Reventl ow, The Authon~ of the Bible and the Rise of the Modem
World (London: SCM Press, [1980] 1984; Phi l adel phi a: Fortress Press, 1985), pp.
321-31.
may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of
peopl e comprehended under the same government.g Epstei n i s cor-
rect: I t i s cl ear from Madi sons previ ous versi ons of Federalist 10s ar-
guments that r el i gi ous facti ons wer e hi s pr i mar y concer n among
opi ni onated par ti es.
=
10 Epstei n unfortunatel y di d not fol l ow through
on thi s cogent observati on.
Madisons Fear of Trinitarian Socie~
Madi son expressed hi s concern over consol i dated churches i n a
l etter to Wi l l i am Bradford of Phi l adel phi a i n 1774:
I f the Church of Engl and had been the establ i shed and general rel i gi on
i n al l the northern col oni es as i t has been among us here, and uni nterrupted
tranqui l i ty had prevai l ed throughout the conti nent, i t i s cl ear to me that
sl avery and subjecti on mi ght and woul d have been gradual l y i nsi nuated
among us. Uni on of rel i gi ous senti ments begets a surpri si ng confi dence,
and eccl esi asti cal establ i shments tend to great i gnorance and corrupti on; al l
of whi ch faci l i tate the executi on of mi schi evous projects.
But away wi th pol i ti cs ! 11
Away wi th pol i ti cs? I t i s cl ear that pol i ti cs was the context of hi s
di scussi on of chur ches. Madi son was judicial~ unconcer ned about
rel i gi on as such; he was very concerned about pol i ti cs. I n thi s sense,
he was a consi stent secul ar humani st, and has been correctl y i den-
ti fi ed as such. 12 He rai l ed agai nst the pri de, i gnorance, and knavery
among the pri esthood, and vi ce and wi ckedness among the l ai ty. He
then sai d, I want agai n to breathe your free ai r.l s I n these sen-
ti ments, he reveal ed hi msel f as a true i ndependent Whi g di ssenter.
Sever al states had cr eated establ i shed chur ches. Pennsyl vani a
was an excepti on i n 1774 free ai r. Wi thi n any one state, a si ngl e
denomi nati on coul d gai n speci al power s or favor s. Rather than
merel y oppose compul sory state fi nanci ng of churches, as he di d i n
1779 and 178514 a wor thy and l egi ti mate pol i ti cal goal , bi bl i cal l y
9. The Federalist, edi ted by Jacob E. Cooke (Mi ddl etown, Connecti cut: Wesl eyan
Uni versi ty Press, 1961), pp. 351-52.
10. Davi d F. Epstei n, The Political TheoV of The Federaltit (Chi cago: Uni versi ty of
Chi cago Press, 1984), p. 76.
11. Madi son to Bradford (Jan. 24, 1774), Mind of the Founder, p. 3.
12. Robert A. Rutl and, James Madi sons Dream: A Secul ar Republ i c, Free Zn-
quiy (Spri ng 1983).
13. Mind of the Founder, p. 4.
14. I bid., p. 8
speaki ng, i n order to reduce the economi c dependence of the Church
on the State Madi son wanted to remove from ci vi l government al l
sources of pol i ti cal dependence on Chri sti ani ty. I n hi s Memorial and
Remonstrance of 1785, wri tten agai nst the move of Governor Patri ck
Henry and the l egi sl ature to provi de l i mi ted state ai d to churches
(not to any one chur ch), he wr ote: Dur i ng al most fi fteen cen-
tur i es, has the l egal establ i shment of Chr i sti ani ty been on tr i al .
What have been i ts frui ts? More or l ess i n al l pl aces, pri de and i n-
dol ence i n the Cl ergy; i gnorance and servi l i ty i n the l ai ty; i n both,
supersti ti on, bi gotry and persecuti on. 16 He conti nued i n thi s vei n:
What i nfl uence i n fact have eccl esi asti cal establ i shments had on Ci vi l
Soci ety? I n some i nstances they have been seen to erect a spi ri tual tyranny on
the rui ns of Ci vi l authori ty; i n many i nstances they have been seen uphol di ng
the thrones of pol i ti cal tyranny; i n no i nstance have they been seen the guard-
i ans of the l i berti es of the peopl e. Rul ers who wi shed to subvert the publ i c l i b-
erty, may have found an establ i shed cl ergy conveni ent auxi l i ari es. A just gov-
ernment, i nsti tuted to secure & perpetuate i t, needs them not. I T
What i s i nteresti ng i s hi s appeal to the bi bl i cal pri nci pl e of sanc-
tuary or asyl um, but dressed i n new secul ar garb: Because the pro-
posed establ i shment i s a departure from that generous pol i cy, whi ch,
offeri ng an asyl um to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nati on
and Rel i gi on, promi sed a l ustre to our country, and an accessi on to
the number of i ts ci ti zens.l B He equated asyl um wi th a r el i gi ousl y
neutral State, i gnori ng the truth of the Ol d Testaments exampl e: i t
i s onl y when a ci vi l gover nment i s expl i ci tl y God-honor i ng, and
when i t screens those from publ i c offi ce who refuse to pl ace them-
sel ves under Gods covenant oath as Hi s servants, that the sanctuary
can be mai ntai ned.
Natures God or Nature I s God?
Madi son cal l ed al l state-establ i shed r el i gi on an I nqui si ti on i n
15. Rober t Douthat Meade, Patrick Hemy: Practical RevolutionaV (New York: Li p-
pi ncott, 1969), p. 280. Henry had opposed the pre-Revol uti onary Angl i can
Churchs posi ti on whi ch prohi bi ted the free exerci se of worshi p by other Chri sti an
fai ths. As a l awyer, he had opposed Edmund Pendl etons acti ve ci vi l persecuti on of
non-conformi ng churches. Nori ne Di ckson Campbel l , Patrick Henry: Patriot and
Statesman (Ol d Greenwi ch, Connecti cut: Devi n-Adai r, 1969), pp. 100-1.
16. Mind of the Found~, p. 12.
17. I btd., p. 13.
18. I dem.
pri nci pl e. 19 He ended hi s pl ea wi th a prayer to the offi ci al l y nonspe-
ci fi c Supr eme Lawgi ver of the Uni verse.nzo He made i t cl ear who
thi s Lawgi ver i s: nature itself
Because, fi nal l y, the equal ri ght of every ci ti zen to the free exerci se of
hi s Rel i gi on accordi ng to the di ctates of consci ence i s hel d by the same
tenur e wi th al l our other ri ghts. I f we recur to i ts ori gi n, i t i s equal l y the gi ft
of nature; . ..21
A year and a hal f before the Consti tuti onal Conventi on, Madi son
and Jefferson combi ned forces to get passed i nto l aw the now-famous
Vi r gi ni a Statute of Rel i gi ous Li ber ty. The Act began wi th a sum-
mar y of l ate ei ghteenth-centur y Ar mi ni an and Dei sti c theol ogy:
Wher eas Al mi ghty God bath cr eated the mi nd fr ee; that al l at-
tempts to i nfl uence i t by temporal puni shments or burthens, or by
ci vi l i ncapaci tati ons, tend onl y to beget habi ts of hypocr i sy and
meanness, and are a departure from the pl an of the Hol y author of
our rel i gi on. . . . 2
2
Thi s preambl e i s the l ongest sentence I have
ever seen i n a pi ece of l egi sl ati on: approxi matel y 600 words wi thout
a peri od. I t represents the l i terary tri umph of the semi col on. I t i n-
cl udes thi s openl y Newtoni an senti ment r egar di ng ci vi l l i ber ti es:
u
. . . our ci vi l ri ghts have no dependence on our rel i gi ous opi ni ons,
any more than our opi ni ons i n physi cs or geometry; . . . 23 The Act
ends wi th a statement that those passi ng i t i nto ci vi l l aw recogni zed
that the l egi sl ature has no power to bi nd future l egi sl atures, so that
no pi ece of l egi sl ati on i s i rrevocabl e. Neverthel ess, they appeal ed to
permanent natural ri ghts: . . . the ri ghts hereby asserted are of the
natural ri ghts of manki nd, and that i f any act shal l hereafter be passed
to repeal the present, or to narrow i ts operati on, such act wi l l be an
i nfri ngement of natural ri ght .ZA A year and a hal f l ater, the Framers
establ i shed thi s provi si on for the nati onal government. Thi s was the
capstone of Madi sons 15-year war agai nst rel i gi ous test oaths.
19. I dem.
20. I bid., p. 16.
21. I bid., p. 15.
22. Vi rgi ni a Statute of Rel i gi ous Li berty (Jan. 16, 1786), i n Henry Steel e Com-
mager (cd.), Documents of Ameri can History (6th ed.; New York: Appl eton-Century-
Crofts, 1958), p. 125.
23. I bid., p. 126.
24. I dem.
Pol i ti cal Uni tar i ani sm: Rousseau Wi th Facti ons
By central i zi ng judi ci al power under a nati onal government that
prohi bi ted the use of rel i gi ous oaths as a test for hol di ng nati onal
offi ce, Madi son correctl y bel i eved that thi s woul d break up the abi l -
i ty of any si ngl e denomi nati on to i nfl uence l ocal pol i cy permanentl y
i n any questi on under the nati onal governments ul ti mate juri sdi c-
ti on. The doctri ne of judi ci al revi ew fi rst consi stentl y promoted i n
the Federalist 25 coupl ed wi th the abol i ti on of rel i gi ous test oaths,
guar anteed the l ong-ter m er adi cati on of the pr e-Revol uti onar y
Wars concept of oath-created ci vi l covenants under God. One judi -
ci al body the Supreme Court coul d overri de the oath-bound fac-
ti onal i sm of the var i ous state cour ts. As i t has tur ned out, the
Supreme Court can al so overturn the deci si ons of state l egi sl atures
and the federal l egi sl ature, al though thi s was not ful l y understood
by the authors of the Federalist.
Understand what Madi son assumed throughout: that rel i gi ous
facti ons i ndeed, al l facti ons are an essenti al l y surface phenome-
non; they di sturb an underl yi ng nati onal uni ty. I n other words, there
i s an inherent unity in man% political afai r s apart from factions. Al l that i s
needed to al l ow thi s underl yi ng pol i ti cal uni ty to fl ouri sh i s to ex-
pand the geographi cal boundari es of government i n order to absorb
(and therefore offset) more and more facti ons. I mpl i ci tl y, thi s i s a
one-worl d i mpul se, a vi ew not shared by the nati onal i sti c Framers.
Madison and Rousseau
Such an outl ook regardi ng facti ons makes Madi son an i mpl i ci t
fol l ower of Rousseau. I t i s thi s assumpti on of a uni tary real i ty
behi nd facti ons that undergi rds Rousseaus theory of the General
Wi l l . 26 I am not argui ng that Madi son was a stri ct fol l ower of
Rousseau. Rousseau thought of al l of l i fe as pol i ti cal . I ntermedi ary
i nsti tuti ons are to have no i nfl uence i n soci ety at al l because al l of l i fe
i s pol i ti cal . Man i s a ci ti zen and on~ a ci ti zen. Madi son was not
pol i ti ci zed to thi s extent. But the two men were agreed i n those
cases where the actual exerci se of pol i ti cal power was concerned.
25. Wri tes pol i ti cal theori st Gottfri ed Di etze: The Feahalists creati on of the doc-
tri ne of judi ci al revi ew cannot be eval uated too hi ghl y. Di etze, The Federalist: A
Classic on Federalism and Free Government (Bal ti more, Maryl and: Johns Hopki ns Uni -
26. Rober t A. Ni sbet, Tradition and Revolt: Historical and Sociological Essays (New
York: Random House, 1968), ch. 1: Rousseau and the Pol i ti cal Communi ty.
Rousseau sought the abol i ti on of al l i nsti tuti onal barri ers to the ex-
pressi on of the General Wi l l ; Madi son wanted total decentral i zati on
for the facti ons and nati onal central i zati on i n a l arge nati on.
Rousseau wanted no facti ons; Madi son wanted the mul ti pl i cati on
and pol i ti cal tri vi al i zati on of facti ons. The goal i n each case was the
same: the uni fi cati on of nati onal pol i cy apart from any meani ngful
speci al -i nterest group pressures. By creati ng a nati onal government
that coul d act judi ci al l y di rectl y on i ts ci ti zens, the Consti tuti on
achi eved thi s Rousseauvi an goal . 27
I n Federalist 51, Madi son descri bed hi s goal for the creati on of thi s
new pol i ti cal order, one whi ch woul d protect the ri ghts of mi nori ti es
and al so create ethi cal l y just government deci si ons. The key i s the
di ffusi on of i nterests: Di fferent i nterests necessari l y exi st i n di fferent
cl asses of ci ti zens. I f a majori ty be uni ted by a common i nterest, the
ri ghts of the mi nori ty wi l l be i nsecure. There are but two methods of
provi di ng agai nst thi s evi l : The one by creati ng a wi l l i n the commu-
ni ty i ndependent of the majori ty, that i s, of the soci ety i tsel fi the
other by comprehendi ng i n the soci ety so many separate descri pti ons
of ci ti zens, as wi l l render an unjust combi nati on of a majori ty of the
whol e, very i mprobabl e, i f not i mpracti cabl e.28 The fi rst approach
i s monarchy; the second i s the U.S. Consti tuti on.
Hi s assumpti on was that there i s justi ce avai l abl e, and pol i ti ci ans
can di scover i t; they need onl y to escape the noi se of the competi ng
facti ons. Thi s enabl es pol i ti ci ans to render just deci si ons, to escape
the tyranny of the majori ty by fi ndi ng out what the just i nterests of
soci ety are. Thi s was Rousseaus goal , too. The techni que i s di ffer-
ent: not the suppressi on of i nterests but the pri vati zi ng of them,
maki ng them pol i ti cal l y i rrel evant. Rousseaus goal was the pol i ti ci -
zati on of pri vate i nterests. But both men bel i eved that there i s justi ce
attai nabl e through the overcomi ng of facti ons.
I n thi s sense, Madi son was as utopi an and as messi ani c as Rousseau
was; the di fference l i es i n hi s approach. He was a man of the Scotti sh
Enl i ghtenment, a man i n revol t agai nst Presbyteri ani sm; Rousseau
was a man i n revol t agai nst pol i ti cal authori tari ani sm and the
Roman Cathol i c hi erarchy. Each mans system resembl ed hi s
enemys system. Madi son wanted to overcome Presbyteri ani sm by
maki ng the worl d soci al l y Congregati onal and pol i ti cs Uni tari an;
27. See Chapter 7, above: The Conventi ons Judi ci al Revol uti on: pp. 387-92.
28. Madi son, Federal i st 51, The Federalist, p. 351.
by maki ng the
by i nvi ti ng al l
Rousseau wanted to overcome Roman Cathol i ci sm
worl d soci al l y Uni tari an and pol i ti cs sal vati onal .
Anci ent Rome sought Madi sons pol i ti cal goal
conquered ci ti es of the Empi re to send thei r l ocal gods i nto the pan-
theon; Madi son tol d the conquered ci ti es of the republ i c to keep
thei r gods home and mul ti pl y them. He then empti ed the pantheon.
Thi s confi dence i n what shoul d be descri bed as a Uni tari an pol i ti cal
settl ement was based on some versi on of Newtoni an or Ci ceroni an
natural l aw. I t was al so the worl dvi ew of Freemasonry. Masons be-
l i eved that the rel i gi ous facti ons or tradi ti ons creeds, l i turgi es,
and uni que i nsti tuti onal hi stori es are peri pheral to the true spi ri -
tual uni ty of the Brotherhood under the Supreme Archi tect.
Factions for Stabili@s Sake
The Consti tuti on had not yet been rati fi ed when the Anti federal -
i sts began organi zi ng to capture Congress under the new Consti tu-
ti on. 29 Pol i ti cal facti ons and parti es had al ready sprung up duri ng
the Revol uti onary War era. 30 They devel oped even further duri ng
the Confederati on peri od. 31 They became entrenched after 1788.32
Madi sons dream was shattered before sunri se. There i s uni versal
agreement among hi stori ans: thi s Madi soni an fai th i n a worl d of off-
setti ng pol i ti cal facti ons was utopi an i n 1788, just as i t woul d be uto-
pi an today. What few schol ars are wi l l i ng to say forthri ghtl y i s that
the very presence of such a fai th marks Madi son as the most rati on-
al i sti c of pol i ti cal phi l osophers. He pai d no attenti on to the real i ti es
of pol i ti cs i n constructi ng the rati onal e for the Consti tuti onal bl ue-
pri nt. He bel i eved that the Consti tuti on woul d actual l y bal ance r eal -
worl d pol i ti cs i nto obl i vi on. Patri ck Henrys assessment of the man
was on target: a man of great acqui rements, but too theoreti cal as a
pol i ti ci an.33 Madi son and hi s peers were total l y nai ve on thi s poi nt,
29. Merri l l Jensen and Robert A. Becker (eds.), The Documental Histoty of the First
Federal Elections, 1788-1790, 2 vol s. (Madi son: Uni versi ty of Wi sconsi n Press, 1976).
30. Stephen E. Patterson, Political Parti es i n RevolutionaV Ma.wachusetts (Madi son:
Uni versi ty of Wi sconsi n Press, 1973). I fi nd i t i roni c that the publ i sher i s l ocated i n a
ci ty cal l ed Madi son.
31. Jackson Turner Mai n, Political Parties before the Constitution (Wi l l i amsburg,
Vi rgi ni a: I nsti tute for Earl y Ameri can Hi story and Cul ture, publ i shed by the Uni -
versi ty of North Carol i na Press, 1973).
32. Ri chard Ho fstadter, The I dea of a Party System: The Rise of Le~timate Opposition
in the United States, 1780-1840 (Berkel ey: Uni versi ty of Cal i forni a Press, 1969).
33. Quoted by Meade, Patrick Heny, p. 435.
al l hi stori ans agree. The hi stori ans tend to i gnore the ori gi ns of hi s
utopi an fai th. Madi son, al one among the Framers, had gone the
di stance wi th Newtoni ani sm. I n doi ng so, he became an i mpl i ci t i n-
ternati onal i st. I n hi s pol i ti cal phi l osophy, the i ntel l ectual i deal of
a pol i ti cal worl d of Newtoni an mechani sms and the rhetori c of
Ci ceroni an natural l aw had fused wi th the Masoni c i deal of a creed-
overcomi ng brotherhood to produce a pol i ti cal worl d i mmune to
mens passi ons and i nterests. I t was a sti l l born i deal by 1788.
Shopkeepers Millennium
By the ti me of the Conventi on, the Framers had begun to thi nk
commerci al l y. Adam Smi ths Walth of Nations had begun to move
wi thi n educated republ i can ci rcl es. The defenders of republ i can
l i berti es had begun to recogni ze that the ol d Roman republ i can vi r-
tues, whi l e l audabl e, were untrustworthy for bui l di ng a modern na-
ti on or mai ntai ni ng an ol d one successful l y. What was needed, they
steadi l y concl uded, was somethi ng l i ke Adam Smi ths promi sed
shopkeepers mi l l enni um. Commerce woul d bi nd men together i n a
common effort. 35 Men i n thei r pri vate efforts woul d produce a good
soci ety. 36
There was a fundamental di fference between the Framers
understandi ng of thei r sel f-appoi nted task and the Scotti sh Enl i ght-
enment rati onal i sts vi si on of the competi ti ve market order. Adam
Fergusons observati on summari zes the vi ew of the soci al framework
of the Scots: Nati ons stumbl e upon establ i shments, whi ch are i n-
deed the resul t of human acti on, but not the executi on of any human
desi gn.37 Thi s was a sel f-consci ousl y evol uti onary worl dvi ew. The
Framers, i n sharp contrast, were moti vated by the vi si on of the
Great Archi tect. They bel i eved that they coul d si t down together
and wri te an hi stori cal l y uni que document that woul d accompl i sh
for the pol i ti cal order what Smi ths mi ni mal l egi sl ati on free market
34. Loui s I . Bredvol d, The Brave New World of the Enlightenment (Ann Arbor: Uni -
versi ty of Mi chi gan Press, 1961).
35. Thomas L. Pangl e, The Spirit of Modem Republicanism: The Moral Vision of the
American Founding Fathers and the Philosophy of Locke (Chi cago: Uni versi ty of Chi cago
Press, 1988), ch. 9.
36. Mi chael Li enesch, New Order of th Ages: Time, the Constitution, and th Making of
Modern American Political Thought (Pri nceton, New Jersey: Pri nceton Uni versi ty
Press, 1988), pp. 172-73.
37. Adam Ferguson, An Essay on the HistoV of Civil Socie~ (1767); ci ted by F. A.
Hayek, The Resul ts of Human Acti on but not of Human Desi gn; i n Hayek,
Studi es i n Philoxoph~ Politics and Economics (Chi cago: Uni versi ty of Chi cago Press,
1967), p. 96n.
promi sed to accompl i sh: greater freedom for i ndi vi dual s, greater
weal th for nati ons. Ferguson, as an ordai ned Presbyteri an mi ni ster,
at l east had a l i beral Presbyteri an vi ew of God to undergi rd hi s soci al
evol uti oni sm. Smi th had a more Dei sti c vi ew of God as the founda-
ti on of moral i ty. He spoke of the al l -seei ng Judge of the worl d,
whose eye can never be decei ved, and whose judgments can never be
perverted.
38
He bel i eved i n fi nal judgment, i ncl udi ng negati ve sanc-
ti ons. 39 He di d not appeal to rel i gi on merel y as an i nstrumental
val ue for nati onal goal s. The Framers were much l ess cl ear about
such supernatural supports, except i nsofar as wi despread bel i ef i n
such a God woul d strengthen soci al order.
Wi th thei r fai th i n God as the cosmi c Archi tect of the moral
worl d, by tyi ng the operati ons of a competi ti ve market order to Gods
ul ti mate desi gn, the Scotti sh rati onal i sts coul d offer the suggesti on
that men can i ncrease thei r weal th by tri mmi ng away most l egi sl a-
ti on. The worl d works better when pol i ti ci ans remove themsel ves
from the market. The desi gni ng schemes of pol i ti ci ans are the source
of the poverty of nati ons. Whi l e Jefferson may have bel i eved i n such
an economi c worl d Hami l ton surel y di d not i t took a l eap of fai th
to bel i eve that a Conventi on coul d revol uti oni ze ci vi l government by
desi gni ng a total l y new experi ment i n nati onal government wi thout
fal l i ng i nto the trap that the Scots sai d that pol i ti ci ans al ways fal l
i nto: not seei ng the l ong-term consequences of thei r acti ons. The
Scots bel i eved i n a Grand Archi tect, but they were of the opi ni on
that a wi se pol i ti ci an wi l l l eave Gods handi work al one. The Framers
had a di fferent opi ni on, at l east regardi ng ci vi l government.
I n modern ti mes, the col l apse of fai th i n any underl yi ng uni ty
apart from ei ther coal i ti ons or the outri ght abol i ti on of ri val facti ons
has destroyed the Madi soni an paradi gm. Pol i ti cal Uni tari ani sm
has been repl aced by rel ati vi sm and the consequent cacophony of
si ngl e-i ssue pol i ti cs. The physi cal worl d of Newton has been re-
pl aced by the worl d of Hei senberg, at l east at the subatomi c l evel .
The soci al worl d of Newtoni ani sm has been repl aced by theori es of
pl ural i sm. The i ndi vi dual gods of the pl ural i st uni verse are unwi l l -
i ng to take no for an answer. Anarchy that great fear of the
Framers has once agai n reared i ts many heads. They had rel i ed on
a Tri ni tari an soci ety to preserve thei r Uni tari an settl ement, and the
38. Adam Smi th, The Theoy OJ Moral Sentiments (I ndi anapol i s: I ndi ana: Li berty
Cl assi cs, [1759] 1976), p. 228.
39. I bid., pp. 280-81.
From Coup to Resolution 455
resul t has been a war between anarchys pol ythei sm and tyrannys
monothei sm. To control the central government i s to control access
to the voi ce of authori ty. The new rul e of democracy, exhi bi ted best
i n pol ythei sti c tri bal Afri ca, i s si mpl e: one man, one vote, once.40
A Couj)
The i dea that the Consti tuti onal Conventi on was a ki nd of COUP i s
not new. I t had i ts ori gi ns i n the pamphl ets of the Anti federal i sts who
opposed the Consti tuti on. I t became popul ar agai n i n the years i m-
medi atel y precedi ng Worl d War I , when Charl es A. Beard publ i shed
hi s famous Economic I nterpretation of the Constitution (1913). The coup
thesi s was modi fi ed by Merri l l Jensen i n 1940 The Articles of Confed-
eration and agai n i n 1950, when he publ i shed The New Nation. Jen-
sen, unl i ke Beard, bel i eved that the peri od of the Arti cl es was not
r eal l y that cr i ti cal a per i od, that the basi c economy and pol i ti cal
structure of the nati on was sound. I am not enti rel y persuaded by al l
thi s; there were tari ffs between states, al though the tari ff wars had
begun to fade by 1787. There were debtors such as Dani el Shays who
wanted the states to i ssue more paper money, and states ready to
i ssue i t. There was no executi ve i n charge of the armed forces. There
was no taxati on power at the nati onal l evel . But Jensens assessment
of the pol i ti cal di vi si on i s accurate:
Pol i ti cal l y the domi nati ng fact of the Confederati on Peri od was the
struggl e between two groups of l eaders to shape the character of the states
and judi ci al branches subservi ent to them. The members of the col oni al
ari stocracy who became the Patri ots, and new men who gai ned economi c
power duri ng the Revol uti on depl ored thi s fact, but they were unabl e to
al ter the state consti tuti ons duri ng the 1780s. Meanwhi l e they tri ed per-
si stentl y to strengthen the central government. These men were the nati on-
al i sts of the 1780s.
On the other hand the men who were the true federal i sts bel i eved that
the greatest gai n of the Revol uti on was the i ndependence of the several
state; and th~ creati on of a central government subservi ent to them. The
l eaders of thi s group from the Decl arati on of I ndependence to the Conven-
ti on of 1787 were Samuel Adams, Patri ck Henry, Ri chard Henry Lee,
George Cl i nton, James Warren, Samuel Bryan, George Bryan, El bri dge
Gerry, George Mason and a host of l ess wel l known but no l ess i mportant
men i n each of the states. Most of these men bel i eved, as a resul t of thei r ex-
40. Paul Johnson, Modern Times: The Wwld Jrom the Twenties to the Eighties (New
York: Harper & Row, 1983), ch, 15: Cal i bans Ki ngdoms.
peri ence wi th Great Bri tai n before 1776 and of thei r readi ng of hi story, that
the states coul d be best governed wi thout the i nterventi on of a powerful
central government. 41
The Nati onal i sts
Who were the nati onal i sts? Men such as Robert Morri s, Al ex-
ander Hami l ton, Geor ge Washi ngton, James Wi l son, James
Madi son, and John Jay. Of them, Jensen wrote: Most of these men
were by temperament or economi c i nterest bel i evers i n executi ve
and judi ci al rather than l egi sl ati ve control of state and central gov-
ernments. . . .
~42 Thi s i s the key: judicial and executive controi. They
feared the popul ar majori ty. They feared the mob. They wanted to
put restrai nts on the voters. The tradi ti onal vi ew of thei r i ntenti on
focuses on the pol i ti cal and the economi c. They sought power and
money, i t i s sai d. Thus, say thei r cri ti cs, the Consti tuti onal Conven-
ti on was a coup dktat.
Perhaps the most i nteresti ng suggesti on was made by a pai r of
soci al sci enti sts whose 1961 arti cl e focused on age dt@mence.s among
the l eaders of both camps. Thi s essay was al most i mmedi atel y re-
pri nted by the Ameri can Hi stori cal Associ ati on as one of the publ i -
cati ons of i ts Servi ce Center for Teachers of Hi story. The two di scov-
ered that the Anti federal i st l eaders l i sted by Jensen were on average
10 to 12 years ol der than the nati onal i st l eaders. Of the nati onal i sts,
Washi ngton was the ol dest when the war broke out; he was 44. Si x
were under 35, and four were i n thei r twenti es. Al most hal f the na-
ti onal i sts had thei r car eer s l aunched dur i ng the Revol uti on. Thi s
was especi al l y tr ue of Madi son and Hami l ton. The car eer s of the
Anti federal i sts were state-centered. Thei r careers had begun before
the Revol uti on. The two author s concl ude that the ener gy of the
nati onal i sts had much to do wi th thei r percepti on of a true nati onal
i nterest, where they had fi rst reached the l i mel i ght. They had the
ambi ti on and dr i ve to over come the l ess or gani zed effor ts of the
Anti federal i sts .43
41. Merri l l Jensen, The New Nation: A HistoT of the United States Dursng the Con-
}dwation, 1781-1789 (New Yor k: Vi ntage, [1950] 1965), p. 424.
42. I bid., p. 425.
43. Stanl ey El ki ns and Eri c McKi tri ck, Thz Founding Fathers: Young Men of the
Revolution (Washi ngton, D. C.: Servi ce Center for Teachers of Hi story, [1961] 1962),
pp. 22-27.
Paradigm Sh~fts and Political Organization
The questi on remai ns: How di d they do i t? How di d they organ-
i ze the Conventi on, gai n Congress grudgi ng acceptance, and then
defeat the Anti federal i sts i n the state rati fyi ng conventi ons? There i s
reasonabl e evi dence that Anti federal i st senti ments were hel d by at
l east an equal number of ci ti zens i n 1788 as those favori ng rati fi ca-
ti on. 44 Was the vi ctory of the Federal i sts due to better organi zati on
or a better case phi l osophi cal l y? I n my vi ew, i t was both.
I n a paradi gm shi ft, those who are creati ng the new paradi gm
constantl y cal l to the attenti on of everyone the fact that the exi sti ng
paradi gm cannot sol ve major empi ri cal , factual , real -worl d prob-
l ems. The defenders of the ol der paradi gm cl i ng to the ol d system,
vai nl y tryi ng to show that the empi ri cal probl ems rai sed by the
cri ti cs are real l y not so threateni ng and are best sol ved by usi ng the
fami l i ar terms of the ol der system. But as the i ncongrui ti es between
the new facts meani ng ei ther newl y observed, recentl y re-di scovered,
or newl y emphasi zed facts and the ol d paradi gm conti nue to grow,
and as younger men ti re of putti ng up wi th these anomal i es, the next
generati on of l eaders shi fts i ts al l egi ance to the newer paradi gm.
45
The young men of the Revol uti on produced thi s paradi gm shi ft
i n 1787. The ol der pol i ti cal paradi gm of the Tri ni tari an col oni al
charters was very nearl y dead i n 1787. Bi bl i cal covenantal i sm at the
col on y l evel had steadi l y been repl aced after 1776 by hal fway cove-
nantal i sm; hal fway nati onal covenantal i sm at the nati onal l evel was
then unabl e to survi ve the onsl aught of apostate nati onal covenant-
al i sm.46 The Federal i sts successful l y portrayed the probl ems of the
l ate 1780s as bei ng of cri si s-l evel proporti ons, an argument deni ed
44. Jackson Turner Mai n, The Anti-Federalists: Critics of the Consti tuti on, 1781-88
(Wi l l i amsburg, Vi rgi ni a: I nsti tute of Earl y Ameri can Hi story and Cul ture, pub-
l i shed by the Uni versi ty of North Carol i na Press, 1961), Concl usi on.
45. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scwnt@ Revolutions (2nd ed.; Chi cago: Uni ver-
46. I expect an anal ogous repl ay of thi s 200-year-ol d battl e of the paradi gms be-
tween those younger Chri sti an schol ars and acti vi sts who see cl earl y what I am get-
ti ng at i n thi s book and those tradi ti onal Chri sti an pi eti sts and natmd l aw defenders
whose theol ogi cal l y compromi sed system vi si bl y di ed wi th Darwi n and the Four-
teenth Amendment, but who sti l l cl i ng to the Consti tuti onal paradi gm as i f i t were
not secul ar humani st to i ts core. Among the ol der men, onl y those, such as the Cov-
enantors, who never accepted the theol ogi cal I egi ti maty of the Consti tuti onal settl e-
ment, are l i kel y to accept my cri ti que of that settl ement, and probabl y notmany of
even the Covenantors. They wi l l see how radi cal my rejecti on i s, even though I am a
strategi c gradual i st. Hal fway covenant thi nki ng i s sti l l a way of l i fe for Chri sti ans.
by the defenders of the Arti cl es from 1787 unti l the present (e.g.,
Merri l l Jensen). I n the summer of 1787, most peopl e agreed wi th the
Anti federal i sts; there was l i ttl e sense of nati onal cri si s, l et al one an
unsol vabl e nati onal cri si s. 47 The Framers wanted to sei ze the mo-
ment , even i f they had to i nvent i t i n order to sei ze i t. (Beware of a
medi a-heral ded cri si s when there are qui et pl ans bei ng l ai d for a
Consti tuti onal conventi on; a moment sui tabl e for sei zi ng maybe i n
the process of creati on.)
There was a deci ded l ack of l eadershi p from Congress. Congress
i n some sense commi tted sui ci de by not cal l i ng a hal t to the Conven-
ti on when the rul e of secrecy was i mposed. Some members of Con-
gress sat i n the Conventi on; they di d not rebel agai nst the oath of
secrecy. Cl i nton Rossi ter di d not exaggerate when he wrote: Con-
gress was al ready fal l i ng when the Framers gave i t thei r famous
push.
48
The Arti cl es had requi red unani mi ty for the rati fi cati on of
any amendment (Arti cl e XI I I ); thi s provi si on had del i vered the des-
ti ny of the nati onal government i nto the hands of Rhode I sl and, and
Congress knew i t. They knew by 1787 that Arti cl e XI I I was wrong
when i t stated that the uni on shal l be perpetual . But they di d not
know how si mul taneousl y to escape both Rhode I sl and and di ssol u-
ti on. There was a fai l ure both of vi si on and nerve i n Congress. The
sancti oned representati ves of real -worl d voters di d not have suffi -
ci ent confi dence i n thei r own offi ces to chal l enge the sel f-desi gnated
representati ves of the metaphysi cal Peopl e. The magi strates of the
hal fway covenant coul d not muster suffi ci ent dri ve to defend i t suc-
cessful y i n the face of a more consi stent apostate covenant. They
had forgotten that God gi ves Hi s covenanted men confi dence onl y
when they obey Hi s reveal ed l aw.4g Thus, they meekl y acqui esced to
the transfer of soverei gnty that was goi ng on i l l egal l y i n thei r mi dst,
wi th the conni vance of some of thei r members. George Washi ngton
47. Jack P. Rakove, The Beginnings of National Politics: An I nterpretive HistoT of the
Continental Congress (New York: Knopf, 1979), p. 396.
48. Cl i nton Rossi ter, 1787: The Gr and Convention (New Yor k: Nor ton, [1966]
1987), p. 52.
49. Thi s book of the l aw shal l not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shal t
medi tate therei n day and ni ght, that thou mayest observe to do accordi ng to al l that
i s wri tten therei n: for then thou shal t make thy way prosperous, and then thou shal t
have good success. Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage;
be not afrai d, nei ther be thou di smayed: for the LORD thy God i s wi th thee whi ther-
soever thou goest (Josh. 1:8-9).
l %orn coup to Revolution 459
i n effect stared them down from Phi l adel phi a. so
The voters had not been wi l l i ng to requi re of thei r nati onal rep-
resentati ves what most states requi red of state representati ves: an
oath of al l egi ance to God and Hi s Bi bl e. The voters had been embar-
rassed by God. The Framers were not embarrassed by Hi m; they
si mpl y prohi bi ted any publ i c oath to Hi m i n thei r new covenant doc-
ument. They regarded Hi m as some sort of seni l e Uncl e who coul d
be trotted out on hol i days, counted on to make a toast or two judi -
ci al l y non-bi ndi ng, of course and then be sent back to Hi s reti re-
ment home. Li ke the Phi l i sti ne when they had gai ned mi l i tary
power i n I srael , the Framers di d not take God seri ousl y enough to be
embarrassed by Hi s presence.
The Anti federal i sts were pl aced i n the unenvi abl e posi ti on of
sayi ng that there was a need for reform, but not a great need, and
not a great reform. Al so, they coul d not show how these reforms
coul d be achi eved l egal l y, gi ven the l i mi tati ons i mposed by the Arti -
cl es. Li mi ted reform on the basi s of tradi ti onal foundati ons i s al ways
a di ffi cul t posi ti on to defend after decades of phi l osophi cal comprom-
i se wi th those who are pressi ng for ever-greater soci al change i n
terms of ever-greater phi l osophi cal consi stency. The Anti federal i sts
l earned the truth of pol i ti cs: You cant beat somethi ng consi stent i f
you dont offer anythi ng speci fi c.
Phi l osophi cal l y and theol ogi cal l y, the Anti federal i sts coul d not
and di d not match the Federal i sts wi th respect to fai thful conformi ty
to the spi ri t of the age. They coul d not successful l y appeal to the
great overarchi ng pri nci pl e of Newtoni an rati onal coherence, for
such coherence poi nted to uni versal i st. Newtons l aws appl i ed to
the whol e uni verse, even i ncl udi ng Rhode I sl and. I n an age of grow-
i ng uni versal i st, the Anti federal i sts cl ung to parti cul ari sm and
l ocal i sm.
For exampl e, they coul d not deal pol i ti cal l y wi th the i nter-col oni al
economi c probl ems that the Arti cl es had not sol ved. Adam Smi ths
Wealth of ~ations defended the wor l d of fr ee tr ade and open bor der s,
but thi s i s al ways a di ffi cul t i dea to sel l to tax-hungry pol i ti ci ans and
50. Wri tes McDonal d: I n an age i n whi ch most Ameri cans stood about fi ve feet
si x and measured nearl y three-fourths of that around the wai st, Washi ngton stood
si x feet and had broad, powerful shoul ders and sl i m hi ps; and he had l earned the
@i ck, when men sai d somethi ng beyond hi s ken, of l ooki ng at them i n a way that
made them feel i rreverent or even stupi d. Forrest McDonal d, E Pluribus Unum: The
Formation of the Ame%an Republic, 1776-1790 (I ndi anapol i s, I ndi ana: Li berty Press,
[1965] 1979), p. 262.
l ocal producers who face competi ti on from i mports. Smi ths vi ew,
l i ke that of Scotti sh rati onal i sm general l y, was systems-ori ented:
i ntel l ectual y speaki ng. I t was mechani cal rather than organi c.
Smi th had bui l t a toweri ng i ntel l ectual system i n defense of free
trade. He showed what shoul d be done the abol i ti on of pol i ti cal re-
strai nts on trade but he di d not show how a confederati on mi ght
achi eve thi s by pol i ti cal means. The Federal i sts di d: no more i nter-
nal tari ffs, no more provi nci al fi at money, no more beggi ng for fi nan-
ci al support. A nati onal central government woul d compel economi c
decentral i zati on. 51 Thus, the Anti federal i sts coul d not beat some-
thi ng wi th nothi ng, i .e., demonstrate publ i cl y how they coul d sol ve
the fundamental weaknesses pol i ti cal l y wi th more of the same .
The Federal i sts coul d appeal to the need for a new uni on that
woul d abol i sh these i nternal restrai nts on trade. Thi s was the nature
of Madi sons vi si on: pol i ti cal central i zati on for the sake of economi c
l i berty and decentral i zati on. Hami l ton had other i deas, as he proved
when he was Secretary of the Tl easury, but thi s was not known to hi s
col l eagues i n 1789. Madi son even went so far as to hope for an i nter-
nati onal economi c decentr al i zati on based on Amer i can for ce. He
thought that a strong central government coul d coerce Engl and i nto
openi ng up the West I ndi an por ts to U.S. commer ce. Amer i ca
woul d compel the wor l d to accept fr ee tr ade. 52 Thi s was very far
from the vi si on of the Anti federal i sts.
A Clean Break
The Federal i sts al so had made a nearl y cl ean break wi th the hal f-
way covenant Arti cl es. (I t took the Fourteenth Amendment to com-
pl ete i t.) The hal fway covenant of the Arti cl es was nei ther openl y
Chri sti an nor openl y secul ar. Col oni al soci al and pol i ti cal thi nkers
had steadi l y abandoned bi bl i cal covenantal i sm for wel l over a cen-
tury. The l awyers had won pol i ti cal control even i n formerl y Puri tan
New Engl and; the preachers had grown muddl ed i n offeri ng speci -
fi cs to col oni al pol i ti cal l eaders after the restorati on of Charl es 11 i n
51. Free market economi st Ludwi g von Mi ses argued the same way wi th respect
to i nternati onal government: Omnipotent Governmmt: The Rise of the Total State and Total
War (New Haven, Connecti cut: Yal e Uni versi ty Press, 1944), pp. 243-45. I f the bar-
ri ers to trade can be accompl i shed i ndi vi dual l y, nati on by nati on, fi ne (what the
state pol i ti ci ans coul d not understand or attai n i n 1786); i f not, then worl d govern-
ment i s an al ternati ve. Mi ses was bei ng fai thful to the vi si on of the Framers, but at
the next l evel up.
52. Pangl e, Spi ri t of Modern Republicanism, p. 101.
1660, and especi al l y after Ki ng Phi l i ps War (the I ndi an war) i n 1675-
76.
53
Step by step, Chri sti ans had compromi sed wi th Newtoni ani sm
and Dei sm, at l east wi th respect to soci al theor y. They had al so been
educated i n the pagan cl assi cs. The Anti federal i sts referred i n thei r
pamphl ets to anci ent Rome, not anci ent I srael . They had no pri nci -
pl e of transcendence, no voi ce of authori ty. The Federal i sts di d: the
voi ce of the soverei gn Peopl e.
But i t was not merel y the i ntel l ectual case for apostate covenant-
al i sm that won the day; tradi ti onal i sm al ways di es hard. I t was al so a
questi on of better pol i ti cal organi zati on. I f the Federal i sts were bet-
ter organi zed, as they surel y were,
54
then what was the basi s of thi s
better organi zati on? What was the source of the cooperati on these
l eader s r ecei ved fr om so many other s i n the state conventi ons?
Wher e di d the common vi si on come fr om? These events wer e not
random. Pol i ti cs i s not i mpersonal ei ther not the product of vast
soci al forces. The i ssues of pol i ti cs are organi zati onal .
What I argue i s very di fferent from what appears i n any textbook
on U.S. hi story. I argue that 1787 was i ndeed a COUP dAat. But thi s
COUP had a si de to i t that the hi story books refuse to menti on: religion.
The Consti tuti onal Conventi on was a successful attempt by a smal l
group of men whose most el oquent l eaders had l ong-si nce rejected
the doctri ne of the Tri ni ty. The voters were Chri sti ans; the Conven-
ti ons l eaders were what two decades l ater woul d be cal l ed Uni tari ans.
They had i mbi bed thei r theol ogy not from the creeds of the nati ons
churches but from di ssenti ng Whi g pol i ti cal theory Newtoni an to
the core and from the secret ri tes of the Masoni c l odges to whi ch
many of them bel onged, al so Newtoni an to the core. What the Con-
sti tuti onal Conventi on was al l about was thi s: a national political trans-
formation b a group of men who real~ believed in secre~ and oaths. That some
of them had taken Masoni c sel f-val edi ctory oaths i s at l east worth
consi deri ng when i t comes to assessi ng thei r personal moti vati ons.
53. Gary North, Puritan Economi c Ex~erinwnts (Tyl er, Texas: ,I nsti tute for Chri sti an
Economi cs, [1974] 1989), pp. 35-38; 54-55. For a more detaded study, see North,
From Medi eval Economi cs to I ndeci si ve Pi eti sm: Second-Generati on Preachi ng i n
New Engl and, 1661 -1690, J ournal of Christian Reconstruction, VI (Summer 1979); pp.
136-74; North, From Covenant to Contract: Pi eti sm and Secul ari sm i n Puri tan
New Engl and, 1691 -1720, ibid., VI (Wi nter 1979-80), pp. 155-94.
54. Thi s i s not to say that the Anti federal i sts were di sorgani zed. That myth has
been l ai d to rest by Steven R. Boyd: The Politics of Opposition: AntiJ ederalisti and &
Acceptance of the Comtitution (Mi l wood, New Yor k: Kraus-Thomson Organi zati on,
1979).
State Consti tuti ons
The col oni es state consti tuti ons wer e expl i ci tl y r el i gi ous. Thi s
was especi al l y true of the New Engl and consti tuti ons. The ol d Puri -
tan r i gor was sti l l vi si bl e at the outbr eak of the Revol uti on.
Vermonts 1777 consti tuti on begi ns wi th the natural ri ghts of man
(Secti on I ), goes to a defense of pr i vate pr oper ty (Secti on I I ), and
then sets forth the ri ght of rel i gi ous consci ence, regul ated by the
wor d of GOD. . . . There i s ful l rel i gi ous freedom for anyone to
worshi p any way he chooses, ~u.st so long as he is a protestant: . . . nor
can any man who professes the protestant rel i gi on, be justl y depri ved
or abri dged of any ci vi l ri ght, as a ci ti zen, on account of hi s rel i gi ous
senti ment. . . . The publ i c authori ti es have no authori zati on to i n-
terfere wi th peopl es ri ghts of consci ence; neverthel ess, every sect or
denomi nati on of peopl e ought to observe the Sabbath, or the Lords
day, and keep up, and support, some sort of rel i gi ous worshi p, whi ch
to them shal l seem most agreeabl e to the reveal ed wi l l of GOD.55
(Not reproduced i n thi s Ameri can Bar Associ ati on compi l ati on are
the cruci al l y i mportant cl auses regardi ng the requi red confessi onal
oath admi ni stered to state offi cers, such as those I have reproduced
i n Chapter 7 under the secti on, Before the Consti tuti on.)
The 1780 Massachusetts consti tuti on and the 1784 New Hampshi re
consti tuti on had al most i denti cal passages requi ri ng publ i c worshi p.
Secti on I of the Massachusetts document affi rms that Al l men are
born free and equal , and have natural , essenti al , and unal i enabl e
ri ghts, and then l i sts mens l i ves, l i berti es, and property ownershi p.
,U
Secti on I I says: I t i s the ri ght as wel l as the duty of al l men i n soci ety,
publ i cl y, and at stated seasons, to worshi p the SUPREME BEI NG,
the great Creator and Preserver of the uni verse. Thi s sounds uni -
versal i sti c and even Masoni c. But Secti on I I I establ i shes the ri ght of
the state to support the bui l di ng of churches and the payment of
mi ni sters sal ari es. Al l the denomi nati ons were pl aced on equal
status. Secti on I I I ends wi th these words: And every denomi nati on
of Chri sti ans, demeani ng themsel ves peaceabl y, and as good sub-
jects of the commonweal th, shal l be equal l y under the protecti on of
the l aw. . . .56 The same rel i gi ous provi si ons are found i n Secti ons
I -VI of the New Hampshi re consti tuti on, and Secti on VI repeats
55. Ri char d L. Per r y and John C. Co~per, The Sources of Our Liberttes (Chi cago:
Ameri can Bar Associ ati on, 1952), p. 365.
56. I bid., p. 375.
verbati m the statement from Massachusetts consti tuti on: And
every denomi nati on of Chri sti ans. . . . ST I n short, these state com-
monweal ths were expl i ci tl y desi gnated as Chri sti an.
The Vi rgi ni a consti tuti on of 1776 was l ess speci fi c. I t affi rmed
freedom of consci ence, and i t recommended Chri sti an forbearance,
l ove, and chari ty towards each other.58 Vi rgi ni a had a state-supported
church. Pennsyl vani as 1776 consti tuti on speci fi ed that a mans ci vi l
ri ghts coul d not be abri dged i f he acknowl edges the bei ng of a
God.5g The test oath had been removed through the i nfl uence of
Frankl i n.
Go
.
Del aware i n 1776 was more theol ogi cal l y expl i ci t. That al l persons
professi ng the Chri sti an rel i gi on ought forever to enjoy equal ri ghts
and pri vi l eges i n thi s state, unl ess, under col or of rel i gi on, any man
di sturb the peace, the happi ness or safety of soci ety.@ Maryl ands
1776 consti tuti on was si mi l ar to Del awares: . . . al l persons, pro-
fessi ng the Chri sti an rel i gi on, are equal l y enti tl ed to protecti on i n thei r
rel i gi ous l i berty. . . . Furthermore, the Legi sl ature may, i n thei r
di screti on, l ay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Chri sti an
rel i gi on. . . . 62 North Carol i na si mpl y affi rmed l i berty of consci ence.Gs
Most states had speci al confessi onal oaths for state offi ci al s.
The Short-Ci rcui ti ng of the State Consti tuti ons
The state governments of most of the col oni es al ways excl udi ng
Rhode I sl and combi ned l egi ti mate Chri sti an oaths and i l l egi ti mate
state-fi nanced churches. (I t i s one of the great i roni es of Ameri can
hi story that Rhode I sl and served as the rel i gi ous model of the Con-
sti tuti onal settl ement, yet i t was thi s states i ntransi gence after 1783
i n the area of commerci al pol i cy and i ts wave of paper money i nfl a-
ti on i n the mi d-1780s that persuaded the Framers to repl ace the Arti -
cl es. Rhode I sl and refused to rati fy the Consti tuti on unti l 1790. I t
was the outcast of Ameri ca i n the 1780s as surel y as i t had been the
57. I bid., p. 383.
58. I bid., p. 312.
59. I bid., p. 329.
60. Phi l i p Schaff, Church and State in the United States (New York: Arno Press,
[1888] 1972), p. 22.
61. Per r y and Cooper , op. cit., p. 338.
62. I bid., p. 349.
63. I btd., p. 356.
outcast of Puri tan New Engl and i n the 1640s and 1650s. ) G* The peo-
pl e of the col oni al era recogni zed that an oath to God and an affi rma-
ti on of the authori ty of the Bi bl e were basi c to the preservati on of
Chri sti an soci al order, pol i ti cal freedom, and economi c prosperi ty.
What the col oni sts di d not ful l y understand i s that the God-gi ven
functi on of ci vi l government i s i nherentl y negati ve: to i mpose sanc-
ti ons agai nst publ i c evi l . I t i s not the functi on of ci vi l government to
use coerci vel y obtai ned tax money i n order to promote supposedl y
posi ti ve causes. By usi ng tax revenues to fi nance speci fi c denomi na-
ti ons, the state governments created eccl esi asti cal monopol i es. Thi s
was a catastrophi c error one shared by the whol e Western worl d
from the begi nni ng of the West. Thi s error coul d have been sol ved
by the Consti tuti ons refusal to subsi di ze churches wi th di rect eco-
nomi c grants of any ki nd; i nstead, the Consti tuti on created a secul ar
humani st, anti -Chri sti an republ i c i n the name of rel i gi ous freedom.
I t was the l egi ti mate hosti l e reacti on of the vari ous non-establ i shed
churches to thi s mi suse of tax revenues that created the al l i ance be-
tween the Dei sts-Masons and the di ssenti ng churches. Church hi sto-
ri an Si dney Mead has descri bed thi s si tuati on wel l : . . . the struggl es
for rel i gi ous freedom duri ng the l ast quarter of the ei ghteenth cen-
tury provi ded the ki nd of practi cal i ssue on whi ch rati onal i sts and
sectari an-pi eti sts coul d and di d uni te, i n spi te of underl yi ng theol og-
i cal di fferences, i n opposi ti on to ri ght wi ng tradi ti onal i sts .GS The
creati on of posi ti ve economi c support of speci fi ed eccl esi asti cal
groups l ed pol i ti cal l y to the Consti tuti onal destructi on of the ex-
pl i ci tl y Tri ni tari an judi ci al foundati ons of the Uni ted States. The
federal exampl e remi nded men that nati onal l eaders were not
bound by any Tri ni tari an oath. Why shoul d state offi cers be si mi -
l arl y bound? The symbol of the oath was real ; the covenantal exam-
pl e coul d not be i gnored. The Dei sts who wrote thi s provi si on i nto
the Consti tuti on ful l y understood thi s; thei r opponents were not
equal l y al ert. A century of Newtoni an rati onal i sm and an anci ent
64. I rwi n H. Pol i shook, Rhode I sland and the Union, 1774-1795 (Evanston, I l l i noi s:
Northwestern Uni versi ty Press, 1969). Cf. Patri ck T. Conl ey, Fi rst i n War, Last i n
Peace: Rhode I sl and and the Consti tuti on, 1786-1790, i n Patri ck T. Conl ey and
John P. Kami nski (eds.), Tb Constitution and the States: The Role of the Ori@nal Thirteen
in the Framing of the Federal Constitution (Madi son, Wi sconsi n: Madi son House, 1988,
Ch. 13.
65. Si dney Mead, Ameri can Protestanti sm Duri ng the Revol uti onary Epoch, i n
Religion i n American HistoV, edi ted by John M. Mul der and John F. Wi l son (Engl e-
wood Cl i ffs, New Jersey: Prenti ce-Hal l , 1978), pp. 165-66.
heri tage of Stoi c natural l aw theory had bl i nded them to the i mpor-
tance and i nescapabl e nature of covenantal ci vi l oaths as surel y as
they have bl i nded Professors Nel l , Hatch, and Marsden. 66
The Framers who were the domi nant voi ces at the Consti tuti onal
Conventi on had a defi ni te goal : to make i l l egal at the nati onal l evel
the i mposi ti on of Rushdoonys thesi s that theocracy i s judi ci al l y
mandatory and there must not be tol erati on of non-Chri sti an rel i -
gi ons: The modern concept of total tol erati on i s not a val i d l egal
pri nci pl e but an advocacy of anarchi sm. Shal l al l rel i gi ons be tol er-
ated? But, as we have seen, every rel i gi on i s a concept of l aw-order.
Total tol erati on means total permi ssi veness for every ki nd of prac-
ti ce: i dol atry, adul tery, canni bal i sm, human sacri fi ce, perversi on,
and al l thi ngs el se. Such total tol erati on i s nei ther possi bl e nor desi r-
abl e. . . . And for a l aw-order to forsake i ts sel f-protecti on i s both
wi cked and sui ci dal . Z tolerate subversion ix itse~ a subversive actiuity.GT
Tol erati ng Chri sti ani tys subversi on: i t woul d be di ffi cul t to produce
a more accurate yet succi nct descri pti on from a bi bl i cal poi nt of vi ew
of the resul t of the Consti tuti onal Conventi on.
I t was the expl i ci tl y Chri sti an character of state consti tuti ons that
became the target of the del egates i n Phi l adel phi a.
Frankl i ns Theol ogy of Uni on
Benjami n Frankl i n has been regarded as a conservati ve Dei st.
He was not. When he di ed, a pri nted document was found i n hi s
pocket. He had carri ed i t around wi th hi m for many years: Arti cl es
of Bel i ef. I t decl ared hi s fai th i n the pl ural i ty of worl ds, a wi del y
hel d Renai ssance doctri ne. Gs The uni verse i s fi l l ed wi th many suns
l i ke ours, and many worl ds l i ke ours, the document sai d. I t al so an-
nounced hi s i dea that the I NFI NI TE has created many bei ngs or
Gods, vastl y superi or to Man. . . . I t may be that these created
Gods are i mmortal ; . . . Howbei t, I concei ve that each of these i s
exceedi ng wi se and good, and very powerful ; and that Each has
made for hi msel f one gl ori ous Sun, attended wi th a beauti ful and ad-
mi rabl e System of Pl anets. I t i s that parti cul ar Wi se and good God,
who i s the author and owner of our System, that I propose for the
66. See Chapter 5, above.
67. R. J. Rushdoony, Tiu I nstitutes of 13iblica[ Law (Nutl ey, New Jersey: Crai g
Press, 1973), p. 89.
68. Ar thur O. Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the HistoT of an I dea
(New Yor k: Har per & Row, [1936] 1965), ch. 4.
object of my prai se and adorati on.Gg Hi s rel i gi on was semi -dei sti c
and proto-Mormon. He was al so a member of Engl ands notori ous
and debauched Hel l Fi re Cl ub. 70
I n 1734, he was appoi nted as provi nci al Masoni c Grand Master
for the Provi nce of Pennsyl vani a. 71 He had been seeki ng a hi gh
Masoni c posi ti on for over a year.
I n 1754, Frankl i n had worked to create a nati onal government.
Thi s took pl ace at the Al bany Conventi on. Thi s was the fi rst attempt
at col oni al nati onal uni on. Some two dozen del egates from seven
states attended. The goal was to create a defense system agai nst the
French who were chal l engi ng Bri ti sh expansi on i n the Ohi o Val l ey.
A commi ttee of fi ve men was appoi nted to draw up a Pl an of Uni on,
and thr ee wer e Masons: Hutchi nson of Massachusetts, Frarddi n,
and Hopki ns of Rhode i sl and. Frankl i n on May 9, 1754, pri nted i n
hi s ~enn~l uani a Gazette a woodcut of a snake i n ei ght pi eces, l abel ed
Joi n or Di e. Then he submi tted hi s Pl an of Uni on. Wri tes Carter:
The pl an provi des for a presi dent-general to be appoi nted by the Crown,
and for a gr and counci l to be el ected by the col oni al assembl i es the i denti -
cal pl an of organi zati on of Ameri can Provi nci al Grand Lodges at that
ti me. . . . Frankl i n l eft no hi nt that he used the consti tuti on of Free-
masonry as a model for hi s Al bany Pl an but, si nce he had publ i shed An.der-
son.i Constitutions i n 1734 and had served as Grand Master of the Provi nci al
Lodge of Pennsyl vani a al so i n 1734, ther e can be no doubt that he was fa-
mi l i ar wi th the Masoni c consti tuti on. The fact that he cal l ed the counci l of
the representati ves of the several col oni es a grand counci l and that the
counci l of the representati ves of Masoni c l odges i s cal l ed a Grand Lodge i s
ci rcumstanti al evi dence that Masonry was i nfl uenci ng hi s thi nki ng. 72
Andersons Consti tuti ons
What was Andersons Constitutions? Thi s was the organi zati onal
handbook of Engl i sh specul ati ve Freemasonry, or at l east of the
branch that became known as the Moderns. (A r i val Masoni c
group, formed i n 1751, cal l ed themsel ves the Anci ents or Anti ents.
69. Ber nar d Fay, Revolution and Freemasomy, 1680-1800 (Boston: Li ttl e, Br own,
1935), pp. 160-61.
70. Dani el P. Manni x, The Hell Fire Club (New Yor k: Bal l anti ne, 1959).
71. Mel vi n M. Johnson, The Beginnings of Freema.sonT in Anwica (New York:
Doran, 1924), ch. 8.
72. James D. Car ter , Masonry in Texas: Background, HtitoV, and I n@ence to 1846
(Austi n: Uni versi ty of Texas Press, 1955), pp. 130-31.
Thei r organi zati on manual , the Ahiman Rezon, was heavi l y depend-
ent on Andersons. ) What was ori gi nal l y known as specul ati ve Free-
masonr y, as di sti ngui shed fr om the economi c gui l d of pr ofessi onal
masons, grew out of the earl y masons gui l ds. Several masons gui l ds
formed the Premi er Grand Lodge of London i n 1717.73 Non-masons
joi ned i t and i mmedi atel y captured i t. Wi thi n three years, the Grand
Lodge became the hear t of Engl i sh specul ati ve Masonr y, meani ng
moder n Fr eemasonr y.
James Ander son, a Pr esbyter i an cl er gyman and geneal ogi st,74
joi ned the Pr emi er Gr and Lodge i n 1720.75 He was al so a Fel l ow of
the Royal Soci ety, the presti ~ous sci enti fi c soci ety, as was hi s
Masoni c col l eague, Chur ch of Engl and cl er~man and sci enti st
John Desagul i ers. Desagul i ers had been hand-pi cked by Newton to
be the fi rst experi mental sci enti st of the Royal Soci ety. The l atter
became the fi rst pai d publ i c l ecturer i n sci ence hi story. He had been
i nducted i nto the Soci ety i n 1714. He and Anderson became the l i nks
between Newton, the Royal Soci ety, and Freemasonry.
I t shoul d not be supposed that they were not sel f-consci ous
agents. The Royal Soci ety was not si mpl y some l oose associ ati on of
sci enti sts and phi l osophers i n thi s era. Newton ran the Royal Soci ety
wi th an i r on gl ove. Wr i tes hi s bi ogr apher , Chr i sti ansen: Newton
pr otected hi s di sci pl es, advanced thei r car eer s, and, i n r etur n, de-
manded and recei ved total obedi ence al most to a man.76 Dr. Li pson
concurs: Newton, whose Philosophise Naturalis Principia Mathematical
(1686)
77
epi tomi zed the mathemati cal work of that century, l i ved
l ong enough to wel come Anderson and Desagul i ers to the fel l owshi p
of the Royal Soci ety. Thus the great i ntel l ectual revol uti on of the
precedi ng century was tel escoped i n the Royal Soci ety i nto the work
of two generati ons: progeni tors and hei rs. Among thei r hei rs were
the founder s of Freemasonry.7B Ander son wr ote the supposedl y
anonymous Constitutions of Free Ma-sons i n 1723.
Freemasonry i n London has been traced back by Masoni c hi sto-
ri ans to at l east the year 1620. There i s a reference from a 1665 Com-
73. Dorothy Ann Li pson, Freemasonry in Federalist Connecti cut (Pri nceton, New Jer-
sey: Pri nceton Uni versi ty Press, 1977), p. 14.
74. I dem.
75. I bid., p. 26.
76. Gale E. Chri sti ansen, I n the Presence of the Creator: I saac Newton and His Times
(New York: Free Press, 1984), p. 481.
77. Publ i shed i n 1687.
78. Li pson, Federalist Connecticut, p. 15.
pany record to the Old Charges, or Gothi c Consti tuti ons, al so known
as The Book of the Constitutions of the Accepted Masons. 79 A major change
had begun to take pl ace by the ti me of the centr al i zati on of the
l odges i n 1717, as Masoni c hi stori an Joseph Fort Newton poi nts out.
I n the Old Charges we read: The fi rst charge i s thi s, that you be true
to God and Hol y Church and use no error or heresy. J. F. Newton
i nstructs hi s readers to Hear now the charge of 1723 , meani ng
Andersons Constitutions. On thi s poi nt, I agree wi th Newton: pay
cl ose attenti on. Here i s Andersons charge:
A Mason i s obl i ged by hi s Tenure, to obey the mor al l aw; and i f he
ri ghtl y understands the Art, he wi l l never be a stupi d Athei st nor an i rrel i -
gi ous Li berti ne. But though i n anci ent ti mes Masons were charged i n every
country to be of the rel i gi on of that country or nati on, whatever i t was, yet
i t i s now thought more expedi ent onl y to obl i ge them to that rel i gi on i n
whi ch al l men agree, l eavi ng thei r parti cul ar Opi ni ons to themsel ves: that
i s, to be Good men and True, or Men of Honor and Honesty, by whatever
Denomi nati on or Persuasi on they maybe di sti ngui shed; whereby Masonry
becomes the Centre of Uni on and the Means of conci l i ati ng true Fri endshi p
ameng persons that must have remai ned at a perpetuaJ di stance. 80
The uni versal i st of the new posi ti on i s obvi ous. Thi s i s an i nsti -
tuti onal mani festati on of the ecumeni cal i mpul se of Newtoni ani sm,
whi ch was Soci ni an and monothei sti c. God the Archi tect was neces-
sary to hol d the or i gi nal Newtoni an system together; a bel i ef i n god
the Archi tect was al so necessary to hol d Freemasonry together. But,
l i ke the god of Newton, thi s god of Freemasonry was not marked by
attri butes that are i nvi si bl e to covenant-breaki ng rati onal men, un-
l i ke the God of the Bi bl e. Thus, thi s Masoni c god, uni ver sal i n
natur e, and mani fest onl y thr ough natur e, i s to repl ace mens l ess
uni versal , l ess rati onal , l ess mathemati cal , Tri ni tari an God.
We have i n Masonry a mani festati on of the Whi g i deal of a worl d
i n whi ch there i s denomi nati onal equal i ty thr ough denomi nati onal
i r r el evance; si mul taneousl y, we have an i ncar nati on of the Tor y
i deal of a worl d devoi d of powerful centri fugal rel i gi ous forces that
l ead to revol uti on and chaos. There i s an i nsti tuti onal fusi on of the
79. Joseph For t Newton, The Builders: A Stoy and Stuaj of Freemason (Ri chmond,
Vi rgi ni a: Macoy, [1914] 1951), p. 154.
80. I bid., p. 165. A more compl ete, though not ful l y compl ete, versi on of Ander-
sons Comtitutions is repri nted as an appendi x i n Margaret Jacob, Th Radi cal Enlight-
enment: Pantheists, Fkeenuuons and Republicans (London: George Al l en & Unwi n, 1981),
pp. 279-300.
one and the many, wi th uni ty provi ded by the common creed regard-
i ng an Archi tectural dei ty mani fested onl y i n hi s physi cal handi craft
the god of Newton and wi th di versi ty provi ded by the personal l y
l egi ti mate but Masoni cal l y i rrel evant creeds of the members.
Thi s i s the theol ogi cal foundati on of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm. I t i s the
revi val of the Roman pantheon. Al l that i s mi ssi ng i s pol i ti cal power.
That, however, coul d be taken care of through careful organi zati on
outsi de the offi ci al meeti ngs of the fraterni ty. Li ke Chri sti ans who
conducted wor shi p ser vi ces gener al l y devoi d of pol i ti cs, but who
then met together for ci vi c purposes after the worshi p servi ce had
formal l y ended, so were the Masons.
What must be cl earl y understood i s that these men agreed wi th
the senti ments arti cul ated by Wi l l i am Bl ackstone i n hi s comments
on the di sti ncti on between natural l aw and bi bl i cal revel ati on. I t i s
mans abi l i ty to percei ve cl earl y the sti pul ati ons of the ci vi l l aw that
supposedl y deter mi nes whi ch of the two l aws i s to be regarded as
domi nant for soci ety.el Bl ackstone sai d that bi bl i cal r evel ati on i s
cl earer to men, but i f he real l y bel i eved thi s, then he was John the
Bapti st cryi ng i n the ei ghteenth centurys Enl i ghtenment wi l derness.
No one, especi al l y the Framers, took hi m seri ousl y on thi s poi nt.
The Uni ver sal i st of Masonr y
The Chri sti an Church i s trans-hi stori cal . I t carri es forward i nto
eterni ty. I t i s one i n Jesus Ghri st. I t i s therefore i nternati onal . But i t
has, to the present, fai l ed to mani fest organi zati onal l y both i ts i nter-
nati onal i sm and a uni fi ed system of courts. I ts di sputes have repeat-
edl y l ed to bl oodshed. By the ei ghteenth century, these rel i gi ous wars
seemed unavoi dabl e unl ess there was a change i n nati onal cove-
nants; therefore, a handful of enl i ghtened men sought to base the
ci vi l order on somethi ng other than the Chri sti an rel i gi on.
There were precedents for thi s Enl i ghtenment hope. The devel -
opment of economi c sci ence i n the l ate seventeenth century was a
sel f-consci ous attempt to produce a sci enti fi c i nqui ry of soci ety wi th-
out any appeal to rel i gi on. 82 A growi ng mi nori ty of educated men
had begun a quest for pri nci pl es of soci al order beyond the di sputes
of reveal ed rel i gi on. So had advocates of a new pagani sm. Wri tes
Jacob: I n the earl y ei ghteenth century, the return to pagani sm,
81. See Chapter 6, above, pp. 321-23.
82. Wi l l i am Letwi n, The O~gitu of Scient#ic Economics (Cambri dge, Massachu-
setts: MI T Press, 1963).
. .
especi al l y of an i ndi genous vari ety, seemed to offer a sol uti on to the
rel i gi ous probl em bequeathed by the Engl i sh Revol uti on. Radi cal s
i n the 1690s who desi red a republ i can versi on of the consti tuti on,
true rel i gi ous tol erati on, soci al reform, a Parl i ament rul ed by gentl e-
men i n the i nterest of the peopl e, had to recogni se that those goal s
had been rejected i n 1660 at the Restorati on.
s3
They asked them-
sel ves: Why had the two Engl i sh Revol uti ons fai l ed? Rel i gi ous con-
fl i ct, concl uded a radi cal mi nori ty. They concl uded that what was
needed was a program of reform based on a new rel i gi ous consen-
sus, i n a ci vi l and uni versal rel i gi on. . . .
s4
Freemasonry was the
ei ghteenth-centurys i nsti tuti onal cul mi nati on of thi s quest. 85
Masonrys pri nci pl es, l i ke i ts organi zati onal structure, were por-
tabl e, to use Dr. Li psons term. Whi l e I understand that readers
have a tendency to ski p over l engthy bl ock quotati ons, I strongl y
suggest that thi s temptati on be resi sted at thi s poi nt. Wri tes Dr. Li pson:
The fi rst probl em on whi ch Freemasonry worked was how a soci ety
wi th an establ i shed church coul d accommodate both a growi ng rel i gi ous di -
versi ty and the rati onal i sti c uni versal i st that had attended the growth of
the new sci ences. The Masoni c response was to provi de a secret (arcane)
pseudo-rel i gi on by devel opi ng an el aborate mythol ogy and system of ri tual s
for teachi ng moral val ues that Masons cl ai med were uni versal . The l eaders
were not unaware of the paral l el s of Masonry and rel i gi on. Churches, how-
ever, requi red uni formi ty over a wi de range of bel i efs and val ues, from the
i mmedi ate to the ul ti mate, whi l e Masonry onl y requi red fi del i ty to a gener-
al l y accepted system of moral val ues rel ated to dai l y l i fe. As [Wel l i ns] Cal cott
remi nded hi s Engl i sh and Ameri can readers [i n 1769 and 1772, respecti vel y],
i n the i mpl i ci t anti cl eri cal i sm that pervaded Freemasoni c l i terature, the
churchs i nterpretati on of hi story was one of enmi ty and cruel ty.
Masonry, on the other hand, was a system of moral i ty based on the wi l l of
God and di scoverabl e to us by the l i ght of reason wi thout the assi stance of
revel ati on. Accordi ng to the Constitutions, a Mason was obl i ged to obey the
Moral l aw, or the Rel i gi on i n whi ch al l men agree, l eavi ng thei r parti cul ar
Opi ni ons to themsel ves; that i s to be good Men and true, or Men of Honour
and Honesty, by whatever Denomi nati ons or Persuasi ons they may be di s-
84. I bid., p. 155.
85, On the connecti ons of Commonweal thman John Tol ands panthei sm, re-
publ i cani sm, and Freemasonry, see Jacob, ibid., p. 153. Thi s connecti on has been
deni ed unconvi nci ngl y, i n my vi ew by Roger L. Emerson, Lati tudi nari ani sm
and the Engl i sh Dei sts , i n J. A. Leo LeMay (ed. ), Deis~ Masomy, and the Enlighten-
nwnt (Newark, New Jersey: Uni versi ty of Del aware Press, 1987), pp. 43-44.
ti ngui shed. Masonry was desi gned to encompass al l rel i gi ons, or as the
Anci ents put i t, to be the uni versal rel i gi on or the rel i gi on of nature as the
Cement whi ch uni tes men of the most di fferent Pri nci pl es i nto one Sacred
Band.. . . Masonry expressed another ki nd of uni versal i st, whi ch was
not rel i gi ous but humani sti c. BG
Masonry i s a ri val rel i gi on to Chri sti ani ty: uni versal i st i n scope, ra-
ti onal i st i n i ts ethi cs, and i nternati onal i st i n i ts i nsti tuti onal goal .
Silent M~orip, Secret Minori~
1 argue i n thi s book that most Ameri cans were Chri sti ans i n the
ei ghteenth century. Duri ng the Ameri can Revol uti on, especi al l y
through army Masoni c l odges, a subtl e change took pl ace. A smal l
but si gni fi cant mi nori ty wi thi n the army adopted ri val oaths to those
of thei r churches. Thi s new al l egi ance fused wi th a l ong tradi ti on of
republ i can i deol ogy that had been devi sed and promoted by the
Engl i sh Commonweal thmen, whose theol ogi cal commi tment was
not al ways orthodox. Thi s mi nori ty of freethi nkers, or at l east seri -
ousl y compromi sed Chri sti ans, i n the armed forces l ed to a pol i ti cal
transformati on of the nati on, especi al l y i n top nati onal l eadershi p
posi ti ons. A mi nori ty coul d l ater subvert the Ameri can Chri sti an
commonweal th, just as a mi nori ty di d i n revol uti onary Europe. The
year 1789 was the testamentary year for both revol uti ons. Thi s proc-
ess of subversi on had been goi ng on for al most a century, as Jacob
says, referri ng to the career of John Tol and, a panthei st and major
fi gure of the Commonweal thmen:
Most si gni fi cantl y, Engl i sh radi cal s l i ke Tol and pl ayed an essenti al rol e i n
transmi tti ng that ori gi nal l y Engl i sh form of soci al behavi our on to the Con-
ti nent, decades before that process began i n earnest. They l ai d roots that
fl ouri shed i n the peri od after 1730 when offi ci al Freemasonry, that i s
Masoni c l odges affi l i ated wi th the Grand Lodge of London, took hol d i n
vari ous European ci ti es and towns. I t now seems i ncreasi ngl y cl ear that
from i ts earl i est formati on as an i nternati onal cul ture, the soci al worl d of
the Radi cal Enl i ghtenment, al though not necessari l y al l of i ts adherents,
was Masoni c. Thi s mi l i eu reveal s a l i vi ng hi stori cal cul ture where the con-
necti ons between rel i gi on, natural phi l osophy and pol i ti cs take on a human
real i ty, where i deas about nature, soci al equal i ty, the new sci ence, as wel l as
the republ i can i deal produced a new ki nd of European (few i n number to be
sure) who worshi ped the natural worl d i n a new templ e and who found i n
86. Li pson, Freemuon~ i n Fedwalist Connecticut, pp. 37-38
the brotherhood of thel odge a pri vate, secret expressi on ofan egal i tari an-
i smthat i nthecourse of theei ghteenth century became, andremai ns to thi s
day, sovi tal totheprogramme andi deal s of Western reformers. I n purel y
demographi c terms, duri ng the ei ghteenth century the Enl i ghtenment had
few adAerents, and the Radi cal Enl i ghtenment had sti l l fewer. But i n assessi ng
the for ce or val i di ty of reformi ng i deal s, then or now, i t woul d be most di s-
couragi ng to rest ones fai th or programme on a mathemati cal reckoni ng .87
By the outbreak of the Revol uti on, there were about 200 l odges i n
the col oni es.as That was a si gni fi cant number for any i nter-col oni al
associ ati on i n the 1770s. By the ti me of the Consti tuti onal Conventi on,
Freemasonry had become the major i nter-col oni al organi zati on,
ri val l ed onl y by the Epi scopal Church and the Presbyteri an Church.sg
R i v a l C o v e n a n t
Masonry has al ways been a ri val i nsti tuti on to the Church,
despi te the fact that church members frequentl y bel ong to l odges.
Masonry i s sel f-consci ousl y a paral l el covenant i nsti tuti on. For ex-
ampl e, Matthew 18:20 reads: For where two or three are gathered
together i n my name, there am I i n the mi dst of them. The fol l ow-
i ng prayer i s attached to the Ameri can edi ti on of the Ahiman Rezon:
Most hi gh and gl ori ous Lord God, thou art the great archi tect of heaven
and earth, who art the gi ver of al l good gi fts and graces, and hast promi sed
that when two or three are gather ed together i n thy name, thou wi l t be i n
the mi dst of them: I n thy name we assembl e and meet together, most
humbl y beseechi ng thee to bl ess us i n al l our undertaki ngs, that we may
know and serve thee ari ght, that al l our doi ngs may tend to thy gl ory and
the sal vati on of our soul s. 90
I f thi s paral l el i sm i s the case, then Masonry ought to possess
the fi ve-poi nt covenant structure. I t does. Thi s was as true i n the
ei ghteenth-century as i t i s today.
1. Transcendence/ Presence
Fi rst, Masonry began wi th the doctri ne of the transcendent
87. Jacob, Radical Enlightenrmmt, p. 156.
88. Si dney Morse, Freemasonry in the American Revolution (Washi ngton, D. C.:
Masoni c Servi ce Associ ati on of the Uni ted States, 1924), p. 28.
89. Bai gent and Lei gh, Temple and Lodge, p. 260.
90. Ahi man Rezon Abridged and Digested (Phi l adel phi a: Hal l & Sel l ers, 1783), pp.
111-12. Publ i shed for the Grand Lodge of Phi l adel phi a.
Grand Archi tect. Thi s Archi tect, however, was not the creedal God
of the Bi bl e, and therefore not the covenantal l y di vi si ve God of
ei ther the Puri tans or the Angl i cans. Thi s uni versal i st or ecumen-
i sm can be seen cl earl y i n the Ahi r nan Rezon, the consti tuti onal hand-
book of Anci ent Masonry.
The wor l ds GREAT ARCHI TECT i s our su@me Master; and the un-
erri ng rul e he has gi ven us, i s that by whi ch we work; rel i gi ous di sputes are
never suffered wi thi n the Lodge; for, as Masons, we onl y pursue the uni -
versal rel i gi on, or the rel i gi on of nature. Thi s i s the centre whi ch uni tes the
most di fferent pri nci pl es i n one sacred band, and bri ngs together those who
were most di stant from one another.1
Thi s God was a ki nd of Kanti an l i mi ti ng concept that under-
gi rded the phenomenal real m of cause and effect. Thi s God was a
useful hypothesi s. He was as i mpersonal as a mathemati cal formul a.
I n fact, the Masons regarded the knowl edge of God i n man to be
essenti al l y the same as the knowl edge of geometry. 92 Gods mani fes-
tati on i n hi story i s i n Hi s Masoni c brotherhood. Masons i n fel l ow-
shi p mani fest hi s presence. Thi s quest for Gods presence i s why the
panthei sts coul d so easi l y capture exi sti ng Masoni c l odges and adapt
them for thei r own purposes.
2. Hierarchy/ Representation
Second, the theory of Masoni c hi erarchy was very much l i ke that
of Puri tan congregati onal i sm: a structured assembl y of moral equal s
wi th ranks i n terms of ordi nati on and functi on. A commoner outsi de
the Masoni c hal l coul d be el ected Grand Master i nsi de. Buck pri -
vates coul d rul e general s. There was a hi erarchy, but i t was offi ci al l y
egal i tari an. I t was offi ci al l y open to al l men, not just the el i te. More
to the poi nt, Masonry was a means by whi ch average men coul d
come i nto contact wi th the ri ch and famous. Unl i ke real -worl d
churches, whi ch offi ci al l y possess an egal i tari an worl dvi ew regardi ng
i ts members, but whose members sel dom di spl ay i t, Masonry ap-
peared to embody thi s ori gi nal l y Chri sti an i deal , expounded i n the
Epi stl e of James:
91. I bid., pp. 106-7.
92. [James Anderson], The Constitutions of Free-Masons, p. 7. Pri nted by Benjami n
Frankl i n, 1734.
My brethren, have not the fai th of our Lord Jesus Chri st, the Lord of
gl ory, wi th respect of persons. For i f there come unto your assembl y a man
wi th a gol d ri ng, i n goodl y apparel , and there come i n al so a poor man i n
vi l e rai ment; And ye have respect to hi m that weareth the gay cl othi ng, and
say unto hi m, Si t thou here i n a good pl ace; and say to the poor, Stand thou
there, or si t here under my footstool : Are ye not then parti al i n yoursel ves,
and are become judges of evi l thoughts? Hearken, my bel oved brethren,
Hath not God chosen the poor of thi s worl d ri ch i n fai th, and hei rs of the
ki ngdom whi ch he bath promi sed to them that l ove hi m? But ye have de-
spi sed the poor. Do not ri ch men oppress you, and draw you before the
judgment seats? Do not they bl aspheme that worthy name by the whi ch ye
are cal l ed? I f ye ful fi l the royal l aw accordi ng to the scri pture, Thou shal t
l ove thy nei ghbour as thysel f, ye do wel l : But i f ye have respect to persons,
ye commi t si n, and are convi nced of the l aw as transgressors (James 2 :1-9).
Masonry was l i ke the earl y Church i n another respect. Li ke the
Church, Masons were forbi dden to take other Masons to ci vi l court
unti l the l odge had heard the di spute. The earl y Churchs prohi bi -
ti on was total (I Cor. 6); i t was forbi dden to take a brother i nto ci vi l
court. The Masons prohi bi ti on was parti al ; i t was forbi dden unti l
the Masoni c court appeal s had been exhausted.g3
The fact i s, however, that the craft was di vi ded by the mi d-
ei ghteenth century between Anci ents (l odges started a generati on
after the formati on of Londons Grand Lodge i n 1717) and Moderns
(whi ch the Grand Lodge cal l ed i tsel f). Masoni c hi stori an Si dney
Morse says that the Anci ents were often l odges of sea-fari ng men.
These men were excl uded from membershi p i n the Grand Lodge-
connected l odges i n Boston and Phi l adel phi a because of thei r i nferi or
soci al status, so they started l odges of thei r own. 94 The St. Andrews
l odge of Boston, better known as the Green Dragon Tavern l odge,
headed by Joseph Warren at the ti me of the Tea Party affai r, was an
Anci ent l odge begun i n 1752, the year after the foundi ng of the fi rst
Anci ent l odges i n Engl and. The St. Andrews l odge coul d not settl e
i ts conti nui ng di spute wi th St. Johns, the ol der Boston l odge, whi ch
resented these upstarts. Onl y wi th the vi ctory of the Ameri cans i n
the war and the severi ng of ti es wi th the Grand Lodge di d the ori gi -
nal l odge make peace.95 Thus, the age-ol d di sti ncti ons of status and
93. Ahiman Re.zon, pp. 45-46.
94. Morse, FremonV i n the American Revolution, p. 19.
95. J . Hugo Tatsch, Freenusonty i n the Thirteen Colonies (New
pp. 33-36.
York: Macoy, 1929),
weal th began to undermi ne the ori gi nal egal i tari an goal of Masonry.
The fact that a si ngl e negati ve vote by a member coul d keep a pro-
posed member out al so i ndi cates that the l odge system was not al l
that egal i tari an. 96
Thi s Masoni c hi erarchi cal structure was gnosti c. The Masoni c
degrees were or rapi dl y became offi ci al mani festati ons of a seri es
of i ni ti ati ons i nto secret wi sdom. Thi s Gnosti ci sm was i nherent i n i ts
commi tment to secrecy. I n the Ahi marz Rezon, the consti tuti onal doc-
ument of the Anci ents, we are tol d regardi ng secrecy: The l ast qual -
i ty and vi rtue I shal l menti on, as absol utel y requi si te i n those who
woul d be Masons, i s that of SECRECY. . . . So great stress i s l ai d
upon thi s parti cul ar qual i ty or vi rtue, that i t i s enforced among
Masons under the strongest penal ti es and obl i gati ons. . . . 97 What
was seemi ngl y a verti cal hi erarchy was i n fact concentri c. I t was thi s
profound i mpetus to be el evated i nto a hi erarchy by means of access
to concentri c degrees of i l l umi nati on that i s the key to understandi ng
Masonry and al l other i l l umi ni st secret soci eti es. Every covenant re-
qui res a pri esthood, whoever the el ected Grand Master may be. The
pri ests were those wi th hi gher knowl edge who coul d sel ect whi ch of
the brethren woul d be al l owed to advance upward, i .e., i nward.
Masonry became an i deal recrui ti ng ground for future revol uti onari es.
Masonry cl oaks i ts operati ons by means of parti es and con-
vi vi al i ty. Most of i ts own members do not suspect that i t has ul teri or
moti ves, the mai n one bei ng the substi tuti on of a di fferent covenant
from that procl ai med by the Church. But the gnosti c organi zati on of
i ts hi erarchy i ni ti ati on i nto the i nner ci rcl esgs i s what di sti n-
gui shes Masonry from cl ubs. Masonry can easi l y become a recrui t-
i ng ground for those who are wi l l i ng to submi t uncondi ti onal l y to
others on the basi s of hi dden hi erarchi es. Secret soci eti es, despi te
possi bl e rhetori c to the contrary, i nherentl y tend to promote i nsti tu-
ti onal central i zati on and ri gorous hi erarchi cal obedi ence. 99
96. By-Laws or Regul ati ons (1733), Fi rst Lodge, Boston: repri nted i n Johnson,
Beginnings of Freetna.ronV, p. 104.
97. Ahiman Rezon, pp. 19-20.
98. Wrote the soci ol ogi st Georg Si mmel i n 1908 regardi ng secret soci eti es: The
contrast between exoteri c and esoteri c members, such as i s attri buted to the Pythag-
orean order, i s the most poi gnant form of thi s protecti ve measure. The ci rcl e composed
of those onl y parti al l y i ni ti ated formed a sort of buffer regi on agai nst the non-i ni ti ates.
Si mmel , The Secret Soci ety, i n The Sociology of Geor, Stmmel, edi ted by Kurt H.
Wol ff (New York: Free Press, [1950] 1964), p. 367.
99. I bid., pp. 370-72.
3. Ethics/ Law
We come now to poi nt three: l aw. Offi ci al l y, l aw was Newtoni an
natural l aw, accessi bl e to reason. Modern Freemasonry began as a
cul t of Newtoni an sci ence, i n the words of Margaret Jacob. 100
Newtoni an sci enti sts control l ed Freemasonry i n London; at l east 25
percent of the members of the Royal Soci ety were Masons i n the
1720s, duri ng the peri od when the soci ety was personal l y control l ed
by Newton. 101 The l i nk between the Royal Soci ety and Freemasonry
goes back to the very ori gi n of Scotti sh Freemasonry i n Engl and. .
The fi rst Engl i shman to be i ni ti ated i nto thi s anci ent form of Free-
masonry was Robert Moray, on May 20, 1641. 10Z He was kni ghted
by Ki ng Charl es I a year and a hal f l ater. Hi s brother Wi l l i am be-
came Master of Works, meani ng Master of operati ve masons, i m-
medi atel y after the restorati on of Charl es I I i n 1660. Among Robert
Morays associ ates i n the post-1660 peri od were sci enti st Chri sti an
Huygens and di ari st Samuel Pepys. He was a patron of the I nvi si bl e
Col l ege (pr e-Royal Soci ety). He was al so one of the founders of the
Royal Soci ety; Huygens sai d Moray was i ts SOUI .
1
0
3
He was the
Soci etys pri mary l i nk to the ki ng and hi s patronage. 104
The Royal Soci etys formal , reason-based goal of open sci enti fi c
i nvesti gati on, woul d appear to be i n confl i ct wi th the i nescapabl e
gnosti c i mpul se of Masonry. Thi s i s why so few schol ars unti l Fran-
ci s Yates made the connecti on. But the l i nks had been there from the
begi nni ng. These l i nks are essenti al l y pri estl y. Mathemati cs and
sci ence, whi l e offi ci al l y democrati c i mpul ses, are i n fact far cl oser to
pri estl y efforts, wi th membershi p cl osed to those who do not under-
stand the l anguage of mathemati cs, just as the Pythagorean pri est-
hood had been cl osed on thi s basi s. There i s an esoteri c aspect of
sci ence that i s not di scussed by standard textbook accounts of the
hi story of sci ence. They do not ci te Yates fi ndi ngs:
101. I bid., p. 112. See J. R. Cl arke, The Royal Soci ety and the Earl y Grand
Lodge Freemasonry; An @atuor Coronatorum, LXXX (1967), pp. 110-19.
102. Bai gent and Lei gh, Tmple and Lodge, p. 153.
103. I bid., p. 154.
104. Fr ances A. Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment (London: Routl edge &
Kegan Paul , 1972), p. 210. Another l i nk between the Royal Soci ety and the earl i er
I nvi si bl e Col l ege was El i as Ashmol e. Ashmol e owned an enormous l i brary of
al chemi cal and magi cal works, i ncl udi ng fi ve manuscri pts by the si xteenth-century
astrol oger John Dee. Ashmol e was a Rosi cruci an and a founder of the Royal Soci ety.
Zbid. , pp. 209-10.
The great mathemati cal and sci enti fi c thi nkers of the seventeenth century
have at the back of thei r mi nds Renai ssance tradi ti ons of esoteri c thi nki ng,
of mysti cal conti nui ty from Hebrai c or Egypti an wi sdom, of that confl a-
ti on of Moses wi th Hermes Tri smegi stus whi ch fasci nated the Renai s-
sance. These tradi ti ons survi ved across the peri od i n secret soci eti es, parti c-
ul arl y i n Freemasonry. Hence i t i s that we do not know the ful l content of
the mi nds of earl y members of the Royal Soci ety unl ess we take i nto ac-
count the esoteri c i nfl uences from the Renai ssance survi vi ng i n thei r back-
ground. Bel ow, or beyond, thei r normal rel i gi ous affi l i ati ons they woul d see
the Grand Archi tect of the Uni verse as an al l -embraci ng rel i gi ous con-
cepti on whi ch i ncl uded, and encouraged, the sci enti fi c urge to expl ore the
Archi tects work. And thi s unspoken, or secret, esoteri c background was a
heri tage from the Renai ssance, from those tradi ti ons of Magi a and Cabal a,
of Hermeti c and Hebrai c mysti ci sm, whi ch underl ay Renai ssance Neo-
pl atoni sm as fostered i n the I tal i an Renai ssance. 105
The possessi on of the knowl edge of the l aws of mathemati cs had
been one of the screeni ng devi ces Used by operati onal stonemasonry.
Offi ci al l y, geometry was to serve a si mi l ar functi on i n specul ati ve Free-
masonry, but the crafts ri tual s were offi ci al l y substi tuted for the
speci al i zed knowl edge of geometry and bui l di ng materi al s. Ei ghteenth-
century Freemasonry was ti ed to the l egend of Hermes Tri smegi stus,
the mythi cal teacher of the secret mathemati cal wi sdom of anci ent
Egypt and Greece. 10G The moti vati on of Freemasonry had been
esoteri c from at l east the 1690s, 107 and the roots of thi s esoteri ci sm
can be traced back to earl y fi fteenth century. 108 I t was not suffi ci ent
for a Mason to master mathemati cs and practi cal physi cs; a more oc-
cul t metaphysi cs was al ways present. Thei r ri tual s testi fy to thi s.
Modern hi stori ans sel dom take these ri tual s seri ousl y. (They take
very few ri tual s seri ousl y, except perhaps a funeral , that most demo-
crati c of ri tual s. ) Ri tual may have been fakery and fun at the l evel of
the outer r i ng, bu t r emov e th e r i tu a l s , a n d y ou di s embowel
Masonry. Ri tual i s fundamental to establ i shi ng any secret soci etys
boundari es. 109 As the grandfather says i n the movi e, Peggy Sue Got
105. I bid., p. 219.
107. I bid., p. 114.
108. Bai gent and Lei gh have traced back to a gui l d document of 1410 the l egend of
the ki ngs son of Tyr e whi ch associ ates hi m wi th an anci ent sci ence that sur vi ved
the Noachi c fl ood, transmi tted by Pythagoras and Hermes. Bai gent and Lei gh, Tm-
ple and Lodge, p. 129.
109. Wrote Si mmel : The stri ki ng feature i n the treatment of ri tual i s not onl y
the ri gor of i ts observance but, above al l , the anxi ousness wi th whi ch i t i s guarded as
Married: Wi thout the funny hats, there i snt any l odge. The hats
are not funny ha ha; they are funny pecul i ar. They are funny occul t.
Li ke ri tual , mathemati cs i s a uni versal l anguage, just as Lati n
was among educated men unti l the 1880s, when Harvard Uni versi ty
began i ts pace-setti ng curri cul um revi si on. (There i s another uni ver-
sal l anguage: i nternati onal money. ) I t was thi s quest for uni versal
l aws of natur e and soci ety that under gi r ded specul ati ve Fr ee-
masonry. Thi s quest i ncl uded uni versal moral l aw. I n the second edi -
ti on of Andersons Consti tuti on (1738), we read: A Mason i s obl i ged
by hi s tenure to observe the moral l aw as a true Noachi da. Thi s
word Noachida di d not appear i n the fi rst edi ti on. I n the Ahiman
Rezon, whi ch fol l ows Andersons l ead word for word, though not
comma for comma, we read: A Mason i s al so obl i ged, by hi s tenure,
to observe the moral l aw, as a true Noachide. 110 I n a note to thi s pe-
cul i ar word, we read: Sons of Noah; the fi rst name for Free-
Masons. The contri butor i n the lh-yclopaedaia of Freemasonry says
that Anderson was not the i nventor of the term; i t fi rst appeared, he
says, i n a l etter sent by the Grand Lodge of Engl and to the Grand
Lodge of Cal cutta i n 1735.111 One 1877 exampl e of the word appears
i n the Oxford English Dictionay, but onl y as an adjecti ve, not a noun.
The Noachi de i s the son of Noah who possesses the knowl edge of
geometry and al so a common moral i ty. Just as the Bi bl e i s not
needed i n order to grasp the l ogi cal pri nci pl es of geometry, so i s i t
not needed to grasp the pri nci pl es of moral i ty.
Thi s ori gi nal l y Masoni c word Noachite was used by the transl ator
of the medi eval Jewi sh commentator, Rabbi Moses ben Mai mon
(Rambam or Mai moni des), to descri be the genti l e sons of Noah.
The Tal muds concept of the sons of Noah i s even more hosti l e than
Masonry to the i dea of the need for bi bl i cal revel ati on as the basi s of
modern ci vi l l aw. The genti l e Noahide, accordi ng to at l east some of
the rabbi s, i s not supposed to study the Ol d Testament, especi al l y Ol d
Testament l aw. I f he does, he i s deservi ng of death. Mai moni des wrote:
a secret. . . . Under i ts characteri sti c categori es, the secret soci ety must seek to
create a sort of l i fe total i ty. For thi s reason, i t bui l ds round i ts sharpl y emphasi zed
purposi ve content a system of formul as, l i ke a body round a soul , and pl aces both
al i ke under the protecti on of secrecy, because onl y thus does i t become a harmoni ous
whol e i n whi ch one par t pr otects the other . Sociolo~ of Georg Simmel, p. 359.
110. Ahiman Rezon, p. 14.
111. Al bert G. Mackey, Wi l l i am J. Hughan, and Edward L. Hawki ns (eds.), An
Encyclopedia of Freemasomy and I tJ Kindred Sciences, 2 vol s. (rev. ed.; New York:
Masoni c Hi story Company, 1925), I I , p. 514: Noahi dae.
A heathen who busi es hi msel f wi th the study of the Law deserves death.
He shoul d occupy hi msel f wi th the (study) of the seven commandments
onl y. So too, a heathen who keeps a day of rest, even i f i t be on a weekday, i f
he has set i t apart as hi s Sabbath, i s deservi ng of death. I t i s needl ess to state
that he meri ts death i f he makes a new festi val for hi msel f. The general
pri nci pl e i s: none i s permi tted to i ntroduce i nnovati ons i nto rel i gi on or
devi se new commandments. The heathen has the choi ce between becomi ng
a true prosel yte by accepti ng al l the commandments, and adheri ng to hi s
own rel i gi on, nei ther addi ng to i t nor subtracti ng anythi ng from i t. I f there-
fore he occupi es hi msel f wi th the study of the Law, or observes a day of rest,
or makes any i nnovati on, he i s fl ogged, or otherwi se puni shed and advi sed
that he i s deservi ng of death, but he i s not put to death. 112
Suffi ci ent soci al or der wi thi n the genti l e wor l d i s supposedl y
achi eved through thei r adherence to the seven commandments spe-
ci fi cal l y gi ven to the heathen, meani ng genti l es. Si x of these l aws
were fi rst gi ven to Adam, accordi ng to Jewi sh l aw: the prohi bi ti ons
agai nst i dol atry, bl asphemy, murder, adul tery, and robbery, pl us the
command to establ i sh courts of justi ce. A seventh l aw was al so sup-
posedl y gi ven to Noah: the prohi bi ti on agai nst eati ng the l i mb of a
l i vi ng ani mal . 113 Beyond thi s mi ni mal l i st of seven l aws, the genti l es
Noahi des or Noahi tes, the descendants of Noah 114 are not
supposed to go i n thei r i nqui ry i nto the ethi cal requi rements of Ol d
Testament l aw, whi ch bel ongs excl usi vel y to the Jews. I n maki ng
thi s asserti on, Mai moni des was fai thful l y fol l owi ng the teachi ng of
the Tal mud. He was taki ng the rabbi s at thei r word: R. [Rabbi
G. N. ] Johanan sai d: A heathen who studi es the Torah deserves
death, for i t i s wri tten, Moses commanded us a law for an inheritance; i t i s
our i nheri tance, not thei rs.= 115 Resh Laki sh (thi rd century, A. D.) sai d
that a genti l e who observes the Sabbath deserves death. 116
The ethi cal goal of both Masonry and Tal mudi c Judai sm i s the
same: to keep genti l es fr om r eadi ng and appl yi ng Ol d Testament
l aw i n soci ety. (The tradi ti ons and l egends are al so si mi l ar, accord-
112. Moses Mai moni des, The Book ofJ udges, Book 14 of The Code of Maimonides, 14
vol s. (New Haven, Connecti cut: Yal e Uni versi ty Press, [1180] 1949), Laws Concer-
ni ng Ki ngs and Wars, X:9, p. 237.
,113. I bid., 1X:1, pp. 230-31.
114. I bid., 1X:2, p. 231.
115. Babyl oni an Tal mud, Sanhedrin 59a. I use the Sonci no Press edi ti on.
116. Sanhedrin 59b.
*
i ng to at l east one favorabl e student of Masonry.) 117 Masonry de-
fends a common-ground, non-revel ati onal moral i ty for al l members.
I n thi s, i t agrees enti rel y wi th r abbi ni c Judai sm regardi ng genti l es. 118
What i s remarkabl e i s that thi s same i dea of a common moral i ty
si nce Noah has been adopted by both modern Reformed theol ogy
and modern di spensati onal i sm. 119
Thi s l eaves Chri sti ans at the mercy of the wi sdom of fal l en man.
By defaul t, i t puts the covenant-breaker i n charge of soci ety. I t i m-
pl i ci tl y deni es that God bri ngs Hi s sancti ons i n hi story i n terms of
Hi s Bi bl e-reveal ed l aw. Thi s bri ngs us to poi nt four of the covenant
model .
4. Oath/ Sanctions
\
Here we come to the heart of Masonry: the sel f-val edi ctory
oath. What ci rcumci si on i s to the Jew, what bapti sm i s to the Chri s-
ti an, the oath i s to the Mason. I t i s the screeni ng ri tual whi ch al l ows
a man access to the ri tual meal s and l i bati ons i n Judai sm (Passover),
Chri sti ani ty (Hol y Communi on), and Masonrys fraternal meal s.
Here i s where the covenantal aspect of Masonry becomes mani fest.
Of course, thi s i s mani fest onl y to members of the craft, These
oaths are not publ i shed. The Ahiman Rezon, i n the secti on descri bi ng
the proper means of i ni ti ati ng the apprenti ce, refers crypti cal l y to
some other cer emoni es that cannot be wr i tten. . . . 120 Masoni c
oaths cal l down judgments on those who woul d vi ol ate the secr et
terms of the covenant (see bel ow, Ri val Oaths). But those i nsi de
the brotherhood are promi sed posi ti ve sancti ons: good connecti ons,
protecti on i n ci vi l sui ts, etc. Thi s i s why the Masoni c si gn or pass-
word i s supposed to open doors, and i t someti mes does. 121
117. E. Ceci l McGavi n, Mormonism and Mo..ronV (Sal t Lake Ci ty: Bookcrafter
Publ i shers, 1956), p. 195: The Jewi sh Tal mud furni shes many i l l ustrati ons of the
Masoni c system. Many of the tradi ti ons and l egends, especi al l y of the hi gher
degrees, are ei ther found i n or are corroborated by the Tal mud. The author, a Mor-
mon, connects Mor moni sm and Masonr y, but i s not hosti l e to Masonr y.
118. Gary North, The J udeo-Christian Tradttion: A Gui de for the Pnplexed (Tyl er,
119. John Murray, Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethtcs (Grand Rapi ds,
Mi chi gan: Eerdmans, 1957), pp. 118-19; H. Wayne House and Thomas I ce, Domi n-
i on Theolo~: Curse or Blessing? (Por tl and, Or egon: Mul tnomah, 1988), p. 130.
120. Ahiman Rezon, p, 34.
121. Pol i ti cal offi ce i n the Ameri can South has l ong been furthered by Masoni c
membershi p. Si mi l ar advantages exi st for members i n Engl and: Stephen Kni ght,
The Brotherhood: The Secret world of the Freemasons (London: Granada, 1984).
a
The bi bl i cal vi ew of the covenant oath i s that onl y three i nsti tu-
ti ons can l awful l y compel them: Church, State, and fami l y. God has
authori zed onl y these three monopol i es as Hi s covenantal organi za-
ti ons. By requi ri ng sel f-val edi ctory oaths for membershi p, Masonry
has set i tsel f up as a ri val Church and, i n ei ghteenth-century France
and i n l ate ni neteenth-century Mexi co, as a ri val State. I n the words
of Count Savi ol i (Brutus), a member of Wei shaupts I l l umi nate i n
the l ate ei ghteenth century: The Order must possess the power of
l i fe and death i n consequence of our Oath; and wi th propri ety, for
the same reason, and by the same ri ght, that any government i n the
worl d possesses i t: For the Order comes i n thei r pl ace, maki ng them
unnecessary.t22
5. Succession/ I nheritance
Fi nal l y, we come to poi nt fi ve of the covenant: conti nui ty or i n-
heri tance. Here i s where pol i ti cs enters the pi cture. Those i nsi de the
organi zati on are promi sed power outsi de the organi zati on. I ni ti ati on
and conti nued membershi p are the basi s of thi s i nheri tance. Those
who refuse to exami ne thi s conspi ratori al si de of secret soci eti es
mi ss the whol e poi nt. Those who see Masonry as cl ubbery mi ss the
poi nt. 123 Cl ubs are l ei sure-ori ented. They are establ i shed for revel ry
and compani onshi p; secret soci eti es are establ i shed to gai n power.
The goal of the secret soci ety i s anal ogous to the goal stated by Psal m
37:9: For evi l doers shal l be cut of
f
but those that wai t upon the
LORD, they shal l i nheri t the earth.
Who wi l l exerci se pol i ti cal power i n a democracy or a republ i c?
Those who gai n the support of those who can communi cate wi th and
mobi l i ze the party mechani sms, the medi a, and then the voters. I t i s
thi s aspect of Masonry that can be of cruci al i mportance. Those who
have been sancti oned by the conti nui ng brotherhood have a great
advantage i n the transfer of pol i ti cal power. 124 The conti nui ty of the
Masoni c order provi des a means of access to pol i ti cal conti nui ty,
even though Masonry i s offi ci al l y nonpol i ti cal . I t was not nonpol i ti -
cal i n 1776 or 1789 i n the col oni es, and not nonpol i ti cal i n 1789 i n
France.
122. Ci ted i n John Robi son, Proofs of a Cons@aV (4th ed.; New York: George
Forman, 1798), p. 170.
123. See, for exampl e, Robert Mi ckl us, The Secret Fal l of Masonry i n Dr. Al ex-
ander Hami l tons The History of the Tmday Club, i n Deisrn, Mmon~, and the Enlighten-
ment, pp. 127-36.
124. Kni ght, The Brotherhood.
Ri val Oaths
The average Chri sti an may not understand the i mportance of
oaths, except those taken i n marri ages and to the nati onal govern-
ment. They do not understand the functi on of the oath i n a secret so-
ci et y. Some cri mi nal secret soci eti es, and even seemi ngl y harml ess
secret soci eti es, requi re thei r members to i nvoke a sel f-val edi ctory
oath. Thi s i s why they frequentl y refer to themsel ves as fami l i es .
Masons are sel f-professed brothers, part of an i nternati onal
brotherhood. Theodore Graebners book, cri ti cal of Freemasonry, A
Treati se on Freemasorny, reports that Freemasons requi re the fol l owi ng
oath of thei r Apprenti ce Masons: a promi se not to reveal any of the
secrets of the craft . Kneel i ng i n front of the Grand Masters
pedestal , bl i ndfol ded, wi th a noose pl aced symbol i cal l y around hi s
neck, and the poi nt of a compass poi nted at hi s breast, he says: To
al l of thi s I most sol emnl y and si ncerel y promi se and swear, wi th a
fi rm and steadfast resol uti on to keep and perform the same wi thout
any equi vocati on, mental reservati on, or secret evasi on of mi nd
whatever, bi ndi ng mysel f under no l ess a penal ty than that of havi ng
my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by i ts roots and buri ed i n
the rough sands of the sea at l ow water mark, where the ti de ebbs
and fl ows twi ce i n twenty four hours, shoul d I ever knowi ngl y or
wi l l i ngl y vi ol ate thi s my sol emn oath or obl i gati on as an Entered
Apprenti ce Mason. So hel p me God, and keep me steadfast i n the
due performance of the same.
~ 125 A Masoni c thi rd-degree oath con-
tai ns: Bi ndi ng mysel f under no l ess a penal ty than that of havi ng
my body severed i n twai n, my bowel s taken from thence and burned
to ashes, the ashes scattered to the four wi nds of heaven, so that no
more trace of remembrance may be had of so vi l e and perjured a
wretch as I . . . .126 Thi s i magery i s strai ght out of the Ol d Testa-
ments account of Gods covenant wi th Abraham: the di vi di ng of the
125. A si mi l ar versi on of thi s oath i s reproduced i n part i n Secret Societies, edi ted by
Norman MacKenzi e (New York: Hol t, Ri nehart and Wi nston, 1967), p. 155.
126. Ci ted by Everett C. De Vel de, A Reformed Vi ew of Freemasonry, i n Chns-
tianity and Civilization, I (1982), p. 283. For reproducti ons of these oaths, pl us severaf
hi gher degr ee oaths, see John Ankerberg and John Wel don, Chrsstiani~ and the Secret
Tmhings of the Masonic Lodge: What Goes on Behind Closed Doors (Chattanooga, Tennes-
see: John Ankerberg Evangel i sti c Associ ati on, 1989), ch. 10.
ani mal s and the appearance of the consumi ng sacred fi re of God. 27
The Masons do not admi t publ i cl y that such oaths are requi red.
How coul d they? The oaths are secret. As the Encyclopedia of Free-
masonry admi ts, the consci enti ous Freemason l abors under great di s-
advantage. He i s at every step restrai ned by hi s honor from ei ther
the deni al or admi ssi on of hi s adversari es i n rel ati on to the mysteri es
of the Craft.l zs
Commenti ng on these oaths, Rev. Everett De Vel de, Jr., con-
cl udes: These oaths are a di rect breaki ng of the thi rd command-
ment. They take Gods name i n vai n by connecti ng Hi s Hol y Name
wi th murder.i 2g He i s too reserved. Taki ng such an oath i nvol ves
vi ol ati ons of the thi rd commandment other than merel y l i nki ng
Gods name wi th murder. Fi rst, the concept of Gods covenant i n the
Ol d Testament i nvol ved a severi ng of an ani mal i n two parts. The
use of thi s i magery i n an oath taken i n a non-Chri sti an secret soci ety
i s i l l egi ti mate. Second, the oath i s i nnatel y sel f-val edi ctory. I t cal l s
the judgment of man down upon onesel f, i f one reveal s the secrets of
the soci ety. Such a sel f-val edi ctory oath i s l egi ti mate onl y when
maki ng a covenant wi th one of Gods three soverei gn governments:
fami l y, Church, and ci vi l government.
/
A Separate Kingdom
The Masoni c l eadershi p unquesti onabl y has l ong recogni zed the
sel f-val edi ctory nature of oaths taken before l aw courts. To the ex-
tent that Masonry compri ses a sel f-procl ai med separate order or
ki ngdom, the oaths gi ven by i ni ti ates woul d have to be regarded by
the hi erarchy as comparabl e to oaths sworn before a ci vi l magi strate.
I n fact, the Masoni c oaths woul d have to supersede a ci vi l oath, for
the i ni ti ate i s prohi bi ted from reveal i ng the detai l s of hi s craft to the
127. And he sai d unto hi m, I am the LORD that br ought thee out of Ur of the
Chsddees, to give thee thi s l and to i nheri t i t. And he sai d, Lord GOD, wher eby shal l I
know that I shal l i nheri t i t? And he sai d unto hi m, Take me an hei fer of three years
ol d, and a she goat of three years ol d, and a ram of three years ol d, and a turtl edove,
and a young pi geon. And he took unto hi m al l these, and di vi ded them i n the mi dst,
and l ai d each pi ece one agai nst another: but the bi rds di vi ded he not (Gen. 15: 7-10).
And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and i t was dark, behol d a
smoki ng furnace, and a burni ng l amp that passed between those pi eces. I n the same
day the LORD made a covenant wi th Abram, sayi ng, Unto thy seed have I gi ven thi s
l and, from the ri ver of Egypt unto the great ri ver, the ri ver Euphrates (Gen.
15:17-18).
128. Oath; i n En@opaedia of Freemasomy and I ts Kindred Sciences, I I , p. 522.
129. De Vel de, p. 283.
ci vi l magi strate. The Mason, as an i ni ti ate, woul d face confl i cti ng
l oyal ti es when cal l ed on by the ci vi l magi strate to reveal detai l s of hi s
craft . Shoul d he reveal secrets to the magi strate or remai n fai thful
to hi s craft? I f he takes seri ousl y the termi nol ogy of the reported
oaths i n Masonry, then there woul d be a strong temptati on to refuse
to testi fy and suffer the ci vi l consequences, or el se to l i e. We woul d
expect to fi nd that Masoni c l i terature woul d public~ pl ace al l oaths
on equal par . I n secr et, of cour se, thi s publ i c neutr al i ty woul d
vani sh; the key l oyal ty woul d have to be to the gui l d. Thi s publ i cl y
reveal ed posi ti on of equal l y bi ndi ng oaths woul d tend to weaken
the i ni ti ates commi tment to the ci vi l magi str ate, l eavi ng hi m to
wor r y about the vi vi d ver bal ter ms of Masonr ys sel f-val edi ctor y
oaths. What we fi nd i s just such publ i c neutral i ty concerni ng the
equal i ty of al l oaths.
The oath of the thi rd-degree Mason refers to so vi l e and per-
jured a wretch as I . Usi ng thi s as a gui de, we can l earn just how wel l
Masoni c l eader s under stand the cl ose r el ati onshi p between sel f-
mal edi ctory oaths and Gods judgment. Under perjury, the Encyclo-
pedia of Freem.asomy decl ares:
I n the muni ci pal l aw perjury i s defi ned to be a wi l ful fal se sweari ng to a ma-
teri al matter, when an oath has been admi ni stered by l awful authori ty. The
vi ol ati on of vows or promi ssory oaths taken before one who i s not l egal l y
authori zed to admi ni ster them, that i s to say, one who i s not a magi strate,
does not i n l aw i nvol ve the cri me of perjury. Such i s the techni cal defi ni ti on
of the l aw; but the moral sense of manki nd does not assent to such a doc-
tri ne, and consi ders perjury, as the root of the word i ndi cates, the doi ng of
that whi ch one has sworn not to do, or the omi tti ng to do that whi ch he has
swor n to do. The ol d Remans seem to have taken a sensi bl e vi ew of the
cri me of perjury. Among them oaths were not often admi ni stered, and, i n
general , a promi se made under oath had no more bi ndi ng power i n a court
of justi ce than i t woul d have had wi thout the oath. Fal se sweari ng was wi th
them a matter of consci ence, and the person who was gui l ty of i t was re-
sponsi bl e to the Dei ty al one. The vi ol ati on of a promi se under oath and of
one not under such a form was consi dered al i ke, and nei ther was more
l i abl e to human puni shment than the other. But perjury was not deemed to
be wi thout any ki nd of puni shment. Ci cero expressed the Roman senti -
ment when he sai d perjuri i poena di vi na exi ti um; humana dedecus the
divine punishment of pe@y is destruction; the human, i nfamy. Hence every oath
was accompani ed by an execrati on, or an appeal to God to puni sh the
swearer shoul d he fal si fy hi s oath. . . .
Freemasons l ook i n thi s l i ght on what i s cal l ed the penal~; i t i s an i nvocati on
of Gods vengeance on hi m who takes the vow, shoul d he ever vi ol ate i t;
mens vengeance i s confi ned to the contempt and i nfamy whi ch the fore-
swearer i ncurs. 130
I f the human penal ty were merel y contempt and i nfamy, then
the perjurer woul d not fear for hi s property or l i fe. On the other
hand, oaths that are sel f-val edi ctory wi th respect to men as wel l as
God are doubl y fearful . I f Masons do take the oaths descri bed by
Graebner, then they have a human sword hangi ng over them the
i mi tati on covenantal oath whenever they are tempted to reveal the
soci et ys mysteri es. The l anguage of the reported oaths i s bl oody
covenantal~ bloody. There i s l i ttl e doubt that Masoni c l eaders under-
stand what an oath i s, as di sti ngui shed from a contract, and they re-
gard the verbal oaths of thei r members as oaths i n the same way that
a magi strate of a ki ngdom regards an oath i n one of the ki ngdoms
courts of l aw. An oath pl aces a person under a soverei gn, and thi s sov-
erei gn possesses power, at the very l east, and presumabl y a degree of
authori ty (l egi ti macy). I t i s easy to understand why orthodox Chri s-
ti ani ty y has been hosti l e to secret soci eti es over the years. A secret soci -
ety sets up a ri val ki ngdom wi th ri val oaths and therefore ri val gods.
Concl usi on
Henry Steel e Commager has remarked that The consti tuti onal
conventi on, whi ch has some cl ai m to be the most ori gi nal pol i ti cal
i nsti tuti on of modern ti mes, l egal i zed revol uti on .l sl Thi s comes
cl ose to the mark, but not dead center. What l egal i zed the revol uti on
were the mi ni -conventi ons at the state l evel . These i ndi vi dual repre-
sentati ve pl ebi sci tes sancti oned the coup i n Phi l adel phi a, and from
that poi nt on, the revol uti on was secured. Not the Ameri can Revo-
l uti on . . . the l awyers revol uti on.
The probl em wi th exposi ng the COUP i n Phi l adel phi a i s that i t was
such a successful COUP. Berman regards the Ameri can Revol uti on as
one of the si x successfi d revol uti ons i n Western hi story. 132 To be a true
revol uti on, he argues, a revol uti on must be a revol uti on i n l aw, and i t
must survi ve more than a generati on; otherwi se, i t i s just a coup. 133
130. Emyclopaedia, I I , pp. 555-56.
131. Henry Steel e Commager, The Empire of Reason: How Europe I magined and
America Realized the Enlightenment (New York: Oxford Uni versi ty Press, 1977), p. 182.
132. Harol d J. Ber man, Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal
Tradition (Cambri dge, Massachusetts: Harvard Uni versi ty Press, 1983), pp. 5, 18.
133. I bid., p. 20.
What transformed the COUP i n Phi l adel phi a i nto a revol uti on was
the nati onal pl ebi sci te. I t was a stroke of geni us to appeal to the vot-
ers i n state-wi de conventi ons rather than to exi sti ng l egi sl atures. I t
was a stroke of provi dence that they succeeded i n si l enci ng the one
man who mi ght have stopped them: Patri ck Henry. Henry knew the
whol e strategy was i l l egal . At the Vi rgi ni a rati fyi ng Conventi on, he
i ntroduced a moti on to thi s effect: the need to consi der the detai l s of
the ori gi nal 1786 Annapol i s Conventi on, whi ch had l ed to the revi -
si on Conventi on at Phi l adel phi a. Such a consi derati on woul d have
remi nded the attendees that the whol e procedure at Phi l adel phi a
had been i l l egal . Hi s moti on:
That the act of Assembl y appoi nti ng deputi es to meet at Annapol i s to
consul t from some other states, on the si tuati on of the commerce of the
Uni ted States the act of Assembl y appoi nti ng deputi es to meet at Phi l a-
del phi a, to revi se the Arti cl es of Confederati on and other publ i c papers
rel ati ve thereto shoul d be read.
To whi ch Edmund Pendl eton, Presi dent of the Conventi on, repl i ed:
Mr. Chai rman, we are not to consi der whether the federal Conven-
ti on exceeded thei r powers. I t stri kes my mi nd that thi s ought not to
i nfl uence our del i berati ons. Henry then wi thdrew the moti on. 134
For al l hi s el oquence at the rati fyi ng conventi on after that monu-
mental but seemi ngl y i nconsequenti al deci si on to wi thdraw hi s
moti on, Henry never agai n came cl ose to wi nni ng over the Vi rgi ni a
conventi on one conventi on that the nati onal i sts had to wi n, si nce i t
was a l arge state and the state i n whi ch so many of the Framers
l i ved. The Vi rgi ni a conventi on was cruci al to the Framers symbol i -
cal l y. Once Henry agreed to l et the Phi l adel phi a Conventi on wi th i ts
pl ebi sci te procedure pass wi thout cri ti ci sm, the coup became a revo-
l uti on. A Chri sti an nati on became, judi ci al l y and covenantal l y, a
pol i ti cal l y pl ural i st nati on.
The Conventi on had broken covenant wi th the Congress that
had del egated i t and wi th the Arti cl es of Confederati on that had
sancti oned Congress. Maryl ands Luther Marti n understood that
the Conventi ons appeal to the Peopl e i n mi ni -conventi ons was i tsel f
an act of revol uti on agai nst the exi sti ng Consti tuti on. He al so cor-
134. Jonathan El l i ot (cd.), The Debates in the Se.wal State Conventions on the Adoption
of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Conventi on at Phtladelphta i n 1787,
5 vol s. (Phi l adel phi a: Li ppi ncott, [1836] 1907), I I I , p. 6.
Prom Coup to Revolution 437
rectl y percei ved that thi s was an act of rebel l i on agai nst God, the
vi ol ati on of a covenantal oath.
Agreeabl y to the Arti cl es of Confederati on, entered i nto i n the most
solemn mann~, and for the observance of whi ch the states pl edged themsel ves to
each other, and cal l ed upon the Supreme Being as a wi tness and avenger be-
tween them, no al terati ons are to be made i n those Arti cl es, unl ess, after
they are approved by Congress, they are agreed to, and rati fi ed, by the l eg-
i sl ature of every state; but by the resol ve of the Conventi on, thi s Consti tu-
ti on i s not to be rati fi ed by the l egi sl ature of the respecti ve states, but i s to
be submi tted to conventi ons chosen by the peopl e, and, i f rati fi ed by them,
i s to be bi ndi ng.
Thi s resol ve was opposed, among others, by the del egati on of Mary-
and. Your del egates were of opi ni on that, as the form of government pro-
posed was, i f adopted, most essenti al l y to aher the Comti tuti on of this state,
and as our Consti tuti on had poi nted out a mode by whi ch, and by whi ch
onl y, al terati ons were to be made therei n, a conventi on of the peopl e coul d
not be cal l ed to agree to and rati fy the sai d form of government wi thout a
direct violation of our Consti tuti on, whi ch i t i s the duty of every i ndi vi dual i n
thi s state to protect and support. 133
Marti ns appeal fel l on deaf ears. He di d not admi t what the
Framers had i mpl i ci tl y recogni zed: the god of the Arti cl es was a hal f-
way covenant god, just as the Arti cl es were a hal fway nati onal cove-
nant. The fear of that god was mi ni mal by 1788; he coul d no l onger
bri ng sancti ons through Congress agai nst covenant-breakers. A new
god,
-
wi th new sti pul ati ons and vast new sancti ons, was ther efor e
necessary, they bel i eved. Thi s new god woul d be the Peopl e. Thi s
god woul d share authori ty wi th no other god, and he woul d remai n
di screetl y si l ent after one bri ef publ i c appearance. Thi s ti me, there
woul d be no cr eator -cr eatur e di sti ncti on: the cr eator woul d be the
creature. The Framers bel i eved that the ti me was ri pe for announci ng
thi s new god, who woul d offer hi msel f a new covenant for rati fi cati on,
rati fy i t, and then turn over al l ci vi l authori ty to hi s representati ves.
Here was a god that the nati onal i st pol i ti ci ans coul d enthusi asti cal l y
affi rm. So, natures god went the way of the dodo bi rd, repl aced by a
new evol uti onary force i n nature.
/
135. Letter from Luther Marti n, Attorney-General of Maryl and, to Thomas
C. Deye, Speaker of the House of Del egates of Maryl and (Jan. 27, 1788), ibid., I ,
pp. 386-87.
And here I woul d make thi s i nqui ry of those worthy characters who
composed a part of the l ate federal Conventi on. I am sure they were
ful l y i mpressed wi th the necessi ty of formi ng a great consol i dated gov-
ernment, i nstead of a confederati on. That thi s i s a consol i dated gover-
nment i s demonstrabl y cl ear; and the danger of such a government i s, to
my mi nd, very stri ki ng. I have the hi ghest venerati on for those gentl e-
men; but, si r, gi ve me l eave to demand, What ri ght had they to say, We,
the @o@? My pol i ti cal curi osi ty, excl usi ve of my anxi ous sol i ci tude
for the publ i c wel fare, l eads me to ask, Who authori zed them to speak
the l anguage of, We, the peopl e, i nstead of, W, the state~? States are the
characteri sti cs and the soul of a confederati on. I f the states be not the
agents of thi s compact, i t must be one great, consol i dated, nati onal
government, of the peopl e of al l the states. I have the hi ghest respect
for those gentl emen who formed the Conventi on, and, were some of
them not here, I woul d express some testi moni al of esteem for them.
Ameri ca had, on a former occasi on, put the utmost confi dence i n them
a confi dence whi ch was wel l pl aced; and I am sure, si r, I woul d gi ve
up any thi ng to them; I woul d cheerfi dl y confi de i n them as my repre-
sentati ves. But, si r, on thi s great occasi on, I woul d demand the cause
of thei r conduct. Even from that i l l ustri ous man who saved us by hi s
val or, I woul d have a reason for hi s conduct: that l i berty whi ch he has
gi ven us by hi s val or, tel l s me to ask thi s reason; and sure I am, were
he here, he woul d gi ve us that reason. But there are other gentl emen
here, who can gi ve us thi s i nformati on. The peopl e gave them no
power to use thei r name. That they exceeded thei r power i s perfectl y
cl ear. I t i s not mere curi osi ty that actuates me: I wi sh to hear the real ,
actual , exi sti ng danger, whi ch shoul d l ead us to take those steps, so
dangerous i n my concepti on. Di sorders have ari sen i n other parts of
Ameri ca; but here, si r, no dangers, no i nsurrecti on or tumul t have
happened; every thi ng has been cal m and tranqui l . But, notwi th-
standi ng thi s, we are wanderi ng on the great ocean of human affai rs.
I see no l andmark to gui de us. We are runni ng we know not whi ther.
Di fference of opi ni on has gone to a degree of i nfl ammatory resentment
i n di fferent parts of the country whi ch has been occasi oned by thi s
peri l ous i nn~vati on. The feder ~ Conventi on ought to have amended
the ol d system; for thi s purpose they were sol el y del egated; the object
of thei r mi ssi on extended to no other consi derati on. You must,
therefore, forgi ve the sol i ci tati on of one unworthy member to know
what danger coul d have ari sen under the present Confederati on,
and what are the causes of thi s proposal to change our government.
Patri ck Henry (1787)*
*Henry, i n Jonathan El l i ot (cd.), The Debates in the Several Stute Conventions on the
Adoption of the Federal Constitution m Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia
in 1787, 5 vols. (Phi l adel phi a: Li ppencott, [1836] 1907), I I I , Virginia, pp. 22-23.
10
WE THE PEOPLE : FROM
VASSAL TO SUZERAI N TO SERF
We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more pe~ect
Union, establish J ustice, insure dormwtic Tranqui!ip, prouide for the
common Deferue, promote the gener al Mlfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourseives and our Postmp, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.
Preamble, U! S. Constitution
How paradoxical that the first nation to base its political philosophy
on the principle that all political authorip derives from the people, and
that the people express their will through elected representatives, should
also be thejirst to embrace the principle that the ultimate interpretation of
the validi~ of the popul ar will should be lodged not i n the peopie them-
selves, or in their representatives, but in one non-elected and, therefore,
non-democratic branch of the governnwnt.
Herwy Steele Commager (1977) ~
I n Chapter 7, I noted that Warren Burger, who served as Chi ef
Justi ce of the U.S. Supreme Court i n the 1970s and hal f of the
1980s, says that We the peopl e are the Consti tuti ons most i mpor-
tant words. Z He sent me a one-sentence repl y when I questi oned hi m
about the meani ng of hi s statement, They are the key words con-
ceptual@3 Thi s gets ri ght to the poi nt.
At the ti me that I read hi s repl y, I di d not ful l y understand the
reason why hi s statement i s correct. I had not yet recogni zed the ex-
traordi nary constructi on of the Preambl e: i t preci sel y fol l ows the
1. Henry Steel e Commager, The Empire of Reazon: How Europe I maginzd and America
Realized the Enlightenment (New York: Oxford Uni versi ty Press, 1977), p. 229.
2. Orlando Sentinel (Sept. 8, 1988), p. A-2.
3. Letter to author: Sept. 26, 1988. Emphasi s hi s.
489
bi bl i cal covenant structure. The 1) soverei gn creati ng agency, We
the peopl e 2) acts i n hi story (hi stori cal prol ogue) to establ i sh a
uni on that wi l l 3) establ i sh justi ce and i nsure the common defense
(boundari es) to secure 4) the bl essi ngs of l i berty for oursel ves and 5)
our posteri ty.
When fi nal l y I recogni zed thi s fi ve-poi nt structure, I i mmedi -
ate y went to my l i brary to get a copy of Meredi th G. Kl i nes The
Structure of Biblical Authori~. I wanted to be sure I had part two cor-
r ect what he, fol l owi ng Geor ge Mendenhal l , cal l s the hi stor i cal
pr ol ogue. Lo and behol d, Kl i ne even uses the wor d preambl e i n
descri bi ng the Ten Commandments secti on of Exodus 20:
I am the Lord thy God, the openi ng words of the Si nai ti c procl ama-
ti on (Exod. 20: 2a), correspond to the preambl e of the suzerai nty treati es,
whi ch i denti fi ed the suzerai n or great ki ng and that i n terms cal cul ated to
i nspi re awe and fear. *
There i s no hi stori cal prol ogue i n the Preambl e to the Consti tu-
ti on. Why not? Because the Consti tuti on l i ter al l y was announci ng
the advent of a new covenantal di vi ni ty whose pri or exi stence had no
i ndependent l egal status i n Amer i can jur i spr udence. The Peopl e
had been referred to ti me and agai n i n col oni al pol i ti cal theory, but
the Peopl e had no i ndependent l egal status. The Uni tari an god of
Locke and Newton had previ ousl y al ways been menti oned i n cl ose
associ ati on wi th the god of the Peopl e. The Peopl e had heretofore
al ways been under a god of some ki nd. Thi s was about to change.
Thi s new i ndependentl y soverei gn di vi ni ty, the Peopl e, woul d
formal l y announce i ts advent as the sol e covenantal agent of nati onal
i ncorporati on by means of publ i c rati fi cati on. The Peopl e, the
Preambl e states, do ordai n and establ i sh thi s Consti tuti on for the
Uni ted States of Ameri ca. The new god of the Consti tuti on was both
suzerain and vassal somethi ng covenantal l y uni que i n the hi story of
man pri or to 1787. The Constitutions Preamble elevated the People from
point two in the couenant structure representation to point one: the creator.
Warren Burger i s absol utel y correct: We the peopl e are the key
words conceptual~.
4. Meredhh G. Kl i ne, Tb Structure of Biblical Authori~ (rev. ed.; Grand Rapi ds,
Mi chi gan: Eerdmans, 1972), p. 114.
We the People: From Vh.ssal to Suzerain to Serf 491
Covenant: An I nescapabl e Concept
The Preambl e i s structured usi ng the fi ve poi nts of the bi bl i cal
covenant model . The C onsti tuti ons fi ve parts wi th the Preambl e
as part one (the suzerai n) al so conform to the bi bl i cal fi ve-poi nt
covenant model , though not i n the same order. Do I thi nk that the
Consti tuti ons Framers were that sel f-consci ous? Were they the ori gi -
nal di scoverers of the covenantal i nsi ght that was fi rst, presented by
George Mendenhal l i n 1954?
5
I thi nk not. Were they operati ng wi th
the bi bl i cal model i n the back of thei r mi nds? Had they stol en the
model from the Puri tans? No, because the Puri tans never systemat-
i cal l y arti cul ated thei r model of the covenant, al though they wrote a
great deal about al l fi ve poi nts. We can fi nd di scussi ons of al l fi ve
poi nts scattered throughout thei r wri ti ngs, but these di scussi ons are
not systemati cal y arranged i n the fi ve-poi nt outl i ne.
What the Framers di d do was wri te a consti tuti on, and a consti -
tuti on i s a covenant document. Al l covenants must contai n or at
l east deal wi th the fi ve features of the bi bl i cal covenant model . There
i s no escape. Thi s fi ve-poi nt model i s an i nescapabl e concept for every
covenant i nsti tuti on. Neverthel ess, the fact that the Preambl e i s struc-
tured i n the same order as the bi bl i cal covenant model i s remarkabl e.
I n adopti ng thi s fi ve-poi nt model , the Framers were bei ng fai th-
ful to somethi ng wri tten by God i nto mans mi nd and hi s covenantal
i nsti tuti ons. They remai ned true to thei r sel f-assi gned cal l i ng: to
create a new nati onal covenant. Authori zed by Congress to go to
Phi l adel phi a i n order to revi se and renew the Arti cl es of Confedera-
ti on the by-l aws of the ol d nati onal covenant they substi tuted a
new covenant wi th a new God. The Preambl e was the new Decl ara-
ti on of I ndependence, and the remai ni ng four parts of the Consti tu-
ti on served as the covenants by-l aws.
The Framers al so broke the ol der state covenants by establ i shi ng
a new one outsi de of the oath provi si ons of most of the ori gi nal cove-
nant documents, and agai nst the express i ntenti on of the Congress.
But they coul d not beat somethi ng wi th nothi ng. They offered a new
covenant i n the name of a new soverei gn agent, the Peopl e.
A New Declaration of I ndependence
Thi s was the Conventi ons Decl arati on of I ndependence i nde-
pendence from the god of Newton. Unl i ke the Conti nental Congress
5. G. E. Mendenhal l , Covenant Stmcture i n I srael i te Tradi ti on, Biblical Archeol-
ogtit, XVI I (1954), pp. 50-76; ci ted i n ibid., p. l 14n.
publ i c Decl arati on of I ndependence from Great Bri tai n i n 1776,
whi ch al so i mpl i ci tl y broke covenant wi th the God of the Bi bl e i n
the name of the transcendent god of Newton,b thi s bri ef Preambl e-
Decl arati on publ i cl y i denti fi ed a new, i mmanent God: the Peopl e.
Al so unl i ke the ol der Decl arati on, thi s one woul d have to be rati fi ed
i n l egal l y open but wel l -managed state conventi ons. Thi s publ i c rati -
fi cati on coul d not be done by representati ves of the l egi sl atures, as
the ori gi nal Decl arati on had been rati fi ed, because unl i ke the Conti -
nental Congress i n 1776, the Conventi on of 1787 had no i ndependent
l egal status nati onal l y. Nati onal status bel onged sol el y to the exi sti ng
Congress, whose offi ci al subordi nate agent the Conventi on was.
The Conventi on broke covenant wi th Congress when i t broke
covenant wi th the Dei sti c god of the Decl arati on of I ndependence.
Thi s was the l egal meani ng of the shi ft from a hal fway nati onal cove-
nant to an apostate nati onal covenant. The voters i n state conven-
ti ons then rati fi ed the deci si on of the Conventi on.
I n short: new covenant, new god.
The representati ves of the Peopl e i n the state conventi ons then
voted to rati fy the Peopl es new-found di vi ni ty. They voted to move
the Peopl e from poi nt two representati ve up to poi nt one:
suzerai n. I n thei r l egal capaci ty as representati ves of the subordi nate
col oni al peopl e, who had previ ousl y been l egal subordi nates to the
god of Newton (nati onal covenant) and i n most cases al so the
God of the Bi bl e (state covenants), the state conventi ons decl ared the
corporate Peopl e as the sol e and excl usi ve suzerai n god of the na-
ti on. They forgot the exampl e of Herod:
And Herod was hi ghl y di spl eased wi th them of Tpe and Si don: but
they came wi th one accord to hi m, and, havi ng made Bl astus the ki ngs
chamberl ai n thei r fri end, desi red peace; because thei r country was nour-
6. Wri tes Davi d Hawke: Jeffersons Decl arati on had passed the scruti ny of some
fi fty conservati ve gentl emen who had wanted ol d and tested i deas to justi fy thei r
great revol uti on; and they had wanted nothi ng more. Ol d and tested i deas, appar-
entl y, are what Jefferson had handed them. Certai nl y they di d not thi nk they had
approved a paper that opened the door to a democrati c revol uti on. They had no
awareness that an ol d god had been di spl aced. . .. Hawke, A Tramaction of Free
Men: The Birth and Course of the Declaration of I nde@ndence (New York: Scri bners, 1964),
p. 203. Hawke pl aces ol d god i n quotati on marks. He does not real l y understand
that thi s was l i teral l y what the Decl arati on had done: i t broke covenant wi th a l i teral
God by breaki ng covenant wi th that Gods l i teral representati ves, the Ki ng and
Parl i ament together, whi ch l egal l y was and i s the onl y way that ci vi l government i n
Great Bri tai n coul d rul e.
We the People: From Visal to Suzerain to Se~ 493
i shed by the ki nds country. And upon a set day Herod, arrayed i n royal ap-
parel , sat upon hi s throne, and made an orati on unto them. And the peopl e
gave a shout, sayi ng, I t i s the voi ce of a god, and not of a man. And i mme-
di atel y the angel of the Lord smote hi m, because he gave not God the gl ory:
and he was eaten of worms, and gave upthe ghost (Acts 12:20-23).
The worms of humani sm have taken l onger to do thei r work, but
they have been at thei r jobs conti nuousl y si nce 1788.
From Covenant to Contract?
The essence of the shi ft i n the Framers thi nki ng appears to be a
shi ft from covenant to contract. Thi s expl anati on of ei ghteenth-
century pol i ti cal theory i s standard i n many hi stori cal studi es. The
l anguage of the marketpl ace was steadi l y i mported i nto pol i ti cal
theory through the concept of the soci al contract or soci al covenant.
Neverthel ess, the covenantal aspect of ci vi l government cannot be
evaded. Words can change, expl anati ons can change, formal pro-
cedures can change, but covenantal i sm i s an i nescapabl e concept.
A covenant i s a vol untary contract establ i shed under God, and i t i s
then seal ed by a sel f-val edi ctory oath, ei ther i mpl i ci t or expl i ci t. The
parti es to the covenant cal l down Gods negati ve sancti ons on them-
sel ves shoul d they vi ol ate the speci fi ed sti pul ati ons (l aws) of the cove-
nant. A contract, on the other hand, i s an agreement between two or
more parti es for attai ni ng speci fi ed objecti ves, the terms of whi ch are
enforceabl e i n a court of l aw. There are no sancti ons i nvol ved other
than those speci fi ed by the contractor i n the ci vi l l aw. The moti vati on
of the agreement i s personal sel f-i nterest or the attai nment of some
personal goal . Gods name i s not l awful l y i nvoked i n contracts.
7
Thi s shi ft i n l anguage from covenant to contract accel erated on
both si des of the Atl anti c after the Gl ori ous Revol uti on of 1688-89. s
7. Gary North, The Sinai Strategy: Economics and the Tm Commandments (Tyl er,
Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1986), ch. 3. Thi s i s what John Wi ther-
spoon forgot i n hi s di scussi on of oaths and vows. He di d not l i mi t use of the oath to
the three i nsti tuti ons of Church, State, and fami l y. Thi s destroyed the bi bl i cal con-
cept of covenantal i nsti tuti ons. The presence of an oath i mpl i ci tl y equal i zed al l other
vol untarv i nsti tuti ons wi th the thr ee covenantal i nsti tuti ons. whi ch i n the hands of
Madi so~ and the other vol untari sts and compact theori sts l ed to the secul ari zati on of
ci vi l government. W i therspoon, Lectures on Moral Philosophy, edi ted by Jack Scott
(Newark, New Jersey: Uni versi ty of Del aware Press), ch. 16.
8. C. B. McPherson, The Political Theo~ of Possessive I ndividualism: Hobbes to Locke
(New York: Oxford Uni versi ty Press, 1962). On the New Engl and devel opment, see
Gary North, From Covenant to Contract: Pi eti sm and Secul ari sm i n Puri tan New
Engl and, 1691 -1720, Journal ojChrzstian Reconstmction, VI (Wi nter 1979-80), pp. 155-94,
J
The ei ghteenth-century worl d steadi l y abandoned the earl i er vi ew of
the ci vi l covenant: government under God. I t became popul ar to
speak of a soci al contract between or among the peopl e, as the soverei gn
i ni ti ators. I t i s, i n Woods phrase, the equati on of rul ers and rul ed.g
Charl es Backus decl ared i n a 1788 sermon: But i n Ameri ca, the Peo-
ple have had an opportuni ty of formi ng a compact betwixt themselves;
from whi ch al one, thei r rul ers deri ve al l thei r authori ty to govern. 10
The heart of the judi ci al apostasy of the modern worl d i s found
here: the shi ft from the formal bi bl i cal covenant to a State-enforced
contract, so-cal l ed. The State, as the hi ghest court of appeal short
of revol uti on became the operati onal Soverei gn of the ci vi l cove-
nant, si nce i t was no l onger formal l y covenanted under God. As the
human agency wi th the greatest power, the State steadi l y has
asserted juri sdi cti on over churches and fami l i es. Si nce the State i s
regarded as beyond earthl y appeal , no other human covenant sup-
posedl y can be sai d to have a hi gher court of appeal than the State.
Thi s shi ft i n l anguage covenant to contract unl eashed the
State from i ts tradi ti onal shackl es under God and Gods l aw. Dar-
wi ni sm l ater compl eted the process of emanci pati on from God and
del i verance i nto the bondage of the State. But Darwi ni sm was si m-
pl y a worki ng out i n the fi el d of bi ol ogy of the judi ci al and cove-
nantal vi ewpoi nt of seventeenth-century Whi gs the phi l osophers of
the vol untary pol i ti cal contract and the ei ghteenth-century Scot-
ti sh Enl i ghtenment thi nkers the phi l osophers of the vol untary eco-
nomi c contract. 11
Neverthel ess, thi s shi ft i n l anguage i s mi sl eadi ng. There i s no
escape from covenantal i sm. Covenants are i nescapabl e concepts.
Many attempts have been made over the l ast three centuri es to con-
vert the three covenantal i nsti tuti ons i nto contractual ones, but the
bi bl i cal fact i s, men produce broken covenants when they speak of
Church, State, and fami l y as merel y contractual . Men are sel f-
decei ved when they speak thi s way. Ther e wi l l al ways be some new
9. Gor don S. Wood, The Creation of the Amaican Republic, 1776-1787 (Wi l l i ams-
burg, Vi rgi ni a: I nsti tute of Earl y Ameri can Hi story, publ i shed by the Uni versi ty of
North Carol i na Press, 1969), p. 600.
10. Charl es Backus, Sermon Preached at Long Meadow (1788); ci ted i n ibid., p. 601.
11. On thi s poi nt, see F. A, Hayek, The Constitution of Liber~ (Chi cago: Uni ver-
si ty of Chi cago Press, 1960), pp. 58-59. For my cri ti que of Hayeks evol uti oni sm,
see Gar y Nor th, The Dominion Covenant: Genesis (2nd ed.; Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute
for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1987), Appendi x B: The Evol uti oni sts Defense of the
Market .
We the People? From Vassal to Suzerain to S~f 495
soverei gn agent under whom these three covenants are rati fi ed and
seal ed. There wi l l al ways be a voi ce of authori ty who speaks i n the
name of the recogni zed soverei gn who has authori zed a covenant.
Thi s was not cl ear to those who rati fi ed the Consti tuti on. I t prob-
abl y was not cl ear to those who drafted i t, al though Madi son was
very cl ose to the truth. But one thi ng i s cl ear: the God of the Bi bl e
was formal l y removed from the Consti tuti on. Not even the l i ngeri ng
traces of Hi s name i n the Decl arati on of I ndependence were al l owed
to pass i nto the Consti tuti on. There was neverthel ess an i ncor-
porati ng authori ty: the Peopl e. There woul d therefore sti l l be a voi ce
i n hi story of thi s fi nal trans-hi stori cal authori ty. There have been
several cl ai mants for thi s ti tl e, but i n thi s century, one has tri umphed:
the Supreme Court.
The Voi ce of Authori ty
We have seen who the offi ci al authori ty i s. I n order to make the
resul ts of thei r cl osed-door conspi racy sound more authori tati ve and
l egi ti mate, the conspi rators added these three words i n the Pream-
bl e: We the Peopl e. The fact i s, the document woul d be more ac-
curate had i t announced, We the States,nl * for i t was submi tted to
the state-wi de conventi ons that were cal l ed by the states ci vi l au-
thori ti es. But the Framers took great care to make certai n that voters
percei ved the Consti tuti on as the work of the peopl e as a whol e, even
though i t was rati fi ed by state rati fyi ng conventi ons. The Conven-
ti on i n dr awi ng up the Consti tuti on was supposedl y acti ng i n the
name of the soverei gn Peopl e, as di sti ngui shed from the voters l egi s-
l atur es, ther eby gai ni ng l egi ti macy for a r evol uti on agai nst the
states-establ i shed Decl ar ati on of I ndependence and the Ar ti cl es of
Confeder ati on. They wer e deter mi ned to gai n l egi ti macy for the
Consti tuti on fr om a trans-hi stori cal sover ei gn i n a one-ti me event
that woul d be di ffi cul t to dupl i cate. Once the Peopl e had spoken i n
the rati fi i ng conventi ons, they were col l ecti vel y to go on a perma-
nent vacati on, as the textbook god of the Dei sts was supposed to do.
Unl i ke chi l dren, who were to be seen but not heard, the Peopl e were
to be nei ther seen nor heard after 1788.
12. We the States: An A nthology of Histon2 Documents and Commentaries thereon, Expound-
ing the State and Federal Relatiomhip, publ i shed by the Vi rgi ni a Commi ssi on on Consti -
tuti onal Government (Ri chmond, Vi rgi ni a: Wi l l i am Byrd Press, 1964).
Keeping the People in Their Place
I n Fiddler on the Roof, a stage pl ay and movi e about Jewi sh vi l l age
l i fe i n pre-Revol uti onary Russi a, the rabbi of a smal l vi l l age i s asked
publ i cl y i f he has a bl essi ng for the Czar. The rabbi , a wi se man, has
an appropri ate bl essi ng: May God bl ess the Czar . . . very far from
here. Thi s was essenti al l y the prayer of the nati onal i sts i n 1787 re-
gardi ng the Peopl e. The Peopl e, as the i ncorporati ng God, were to
bl ess the compl eted work of the Framers, and then go very far away.
The nati onal i sts had the Bi l l of Ri ghts forced on them by the Anti -
federal i sts, but thi s was the l ast ti me any whol esal e i mposi ti on on the
Consti tuti on was to take pl ace. The Peopl e were then to si t down
and shut up.
I n acknowl edgi ng the ori gi nal judicial soverei gnty of the Peopl e,
the Consti tuti on greatl y augmented the political soverei gnty of the
Nati on-State, whi ch i s the onl y i ncorporated i nsti tuti on i n soci ety that
has been offi ci al l y produced by the peopl e as a whol e, The Framers
ful l y understood that the Consti tuti ons transfer of judi ci al authori ty
from the Peopl e to the nati onal government was a uni que act of i n-
corporati on, and i t woul d be very di ffi cul t to dupl i cate i n the future.
They wanted i t thi s way. Madi son fl atl y rejected Jeffersons asserti on
that i t i s a good i dea to go to the peopl e whenever there i s any encroach-
ment of one department of government on another. Madi son appeal ed
to the power of the Peopl e al most as i f i t were a one-ti me event. But
fi rst he began wi th the fami l i ar theme of the soverei gnty of the Peo-
pl e, for the peopl e are the onl y l egi ti mate fountai n of power, and i t
i s from them that the consti tuti onal charter, under whi ch the several
branches of government hol d thei r power, i s deri ved; . . . 13 He
warned agai nst The danger of di sturbi ng the publ i c tranqui l i ty by
i nteresti ng too strongl y the publ i c passi ons. . . . 14 I n short, the ex-
pedi ents are of too ti ckl i sh a nature to be unnecessari l y mul ti pl i ed. 15
Madi son was concerned about the evi l s of payi ng too much at-
tenti on to the passi ons of temporary publ i c opi ni on. 16 Years l ater, he
di sti ngui shed between a consti tuti onal majori ty and a numeri cal
majori ty of the peopl e . The consti tuti onal mi nori ty, even i f a major-
13. Madi son, Federal i st 49, The Federalist, edi ted by Jacob E. Cooke (Mi ddl etown,
Connecti cut: Wesl eyan Uni versi ty Press, 1961), p. 339.
14. I bid., p. 34o.
15. I bid., p. 341.
16. Robert Ni sbet, Publ i c Opi ni on versus Popul ar Opi ni on, Public I ntewst (Fal l
1975), pp. 170-74.
We the People: From Vh-ssal to Suzerain to Serf 497
i ty of the peopl e, had to submi t to the consti tuti onal majori ty unti l
the Consti tuti on coul d be amended. The onl y remedy, therefore, for
the oppressed mi nori ty i s i n the amendment of the Consti tuti on or a
subversi on of the Consti tuti on. Thi s i nference i s unavoi dabl e .
The act of i ncorporati on was a uni que event, unl i kel y to be re-
peated, Madi son bel i eved. Thus, whi l e voters coul d reject candi -
dates for publ i c offi ce, i t was unl i kel y that they coul d reject the Con-
sti tuti on i tsel f. The states coul d, however, fi ght a ci vi l war when
major di sagreements arose, a possi bi l i ty he prudentl y decl i ned to
di scuss. Thus, the new nati onal government was vi rtual l y secure,
short of ci vi l war or i nvasi on. I ts very judi ci al securi ty transferred
unprecedented pol i ti cal soverei gn y to the nati onal government.
A New Theo~ of Constitutions
Madi sons vi ew of the future represented a break wi th the Whi g
theory of the ori gi n and fate of consti tuti ons. The Whi gs, i n turni ng
to cl assi cal pol i ti cal model s, were drawn i nto the cl assi cal worl ds
cycl i cal theory of hi story. Cycl i cal hi story had been redi scovered by
the Enl i ghtenment humani sts of ei ghteenth-century Ameri ca, and i t
had become wi despread. 1s The Whi gs bel i eved, as the Greeks had,
that new orders i nevi tabl y decl i ne. Hesi od sai d i n the Works and Day~
(ei ghth century B.C) that the ori gi nal age of gol d degenerated i nto
si l ver, then i nto bronze, then i nto the age of the heroes, and fi nal l y
i nto i ron. 19 Soci ety, the cl assi cal worl d bel i eved, needs peri odi c revo-
l uti ons to restore new orders; thi s i dea became common i n Whi g
pol i ti cal phi l osophy.zo Jefferson had reworked Ter tul l i ans comment
that the bl ood of martyrs i s the seed of the Church, turni ng i t i nto
the bl ood of patri ots and tyrants refreshi ng the tree of l i berty every
twenty year s21 a cl assi cal , cycl i cal concept of devel opment. Thi s
perspecti ve i s refl ected i n the Vi rgi ni a consti tuti on of 1776, whi ch
17. Madi son to [unknown] (1833), i n Marvi n Meyers (cd.), The Mind of the
Founden Sources of the Political Thought ofJ ames Madison (I ndi anapol i s, I ndi ana: Bobbs-
Merri l l , 1973), p. 529.
18. Stow Persons, The Cycl i cal Theory of Hi story i n Ei ghteenth Century Amer-
i ca, Ameri can @arter~, VI (Summer 1954), pp. 147-63.
19. He~iod, transl ated by Ri chmond Latti more (Ann Arbor: Uni versi ty of Mi chi -
gan Press, 1959), l i nes 109-201, pp. 31-43.
20. Mi chael Li enesch, New Order of the Ages: Time, the Constitution, and the Making of
Modern A mmcan Political Thought (Pr i nceton, New Jersey: Pri nceton Uni versi ty
Press, 1988), ch. 3.
21. Jefferson to Wi l l i am Stevens Smi th, Nov. 13, 1787.
authori zed the judi ci al pri nci pl e that a majori ty of the communi ty
bath an i ndubi tabl e, i nal i enabl e, and i ndefeasi bl e ri ght to reform,
al ter, or abol i sh i t [the government], i n such manner as shal l be
judged most conduci ve to the publ i c weal .zz
By 1787, the Framers preferred to avoi d such rhetori c. They
wanted l i near hi story, not cycl i cal . They hoped that consti tuti onal
bal ance woul d gi ve them thi s provi denti al frui t of Chri sti ani ty, but
wi thout the theol ogi cal or covenantal root. The Federal i sts had cri ed
cri si s i n 1787, even as the Whi gs of 1688 had done; and l i ke the vi c-
tori ous Whi gs of 1688, thereafter they wanted consol i dati on, stabi l -
i ty, and conti nui ty. They wanted the orderl y, consti tuti onal transfer
of power and l i berty to thei r posteri t y. They became court Whi gs ,
23
once they had created the new nati onal court.
Thi s permanent transfer of pol i ti cal soverei gnty to the nati onal
State was not obvi ous at fi rst, even to the Framers. The pol i ti cal
boundari es were vague, as i s testi fi ed to by Madi son and Jeffersons
Vi rgi ni a and Kentucky Resol ves i n 1798 and 1799, wri tten to protest
the Federal i st Partys Al i en and Sedi ti on Acts of 1798.24 They had i n-
vented the Peopl e. Furthermore, i t was not al ways cl ear just how the
Peopl e had reveal ed themsel ves judi ci al l y i n 1788: as a uni t or
through each state or through the States as a whole,n as Madi son
l ater put i t. 25
Patrick Hemy: By Whose Authori~?
Patri ck Henry had been i nvi ted to attend the Phi l adel phi a con-
venti on, but he had refused. A year l ater, he spoke out agai nst rati fi -
cati on. He had seen the meani ng of We the peopl e , and he warned
agai nst i ts i mpl i cati ons duri ng the debates over rati fi cati on: Gi ve
me l eave to demand, what ri ght had they to say, We the Peopl e, i n-
stead of We the States? States are the characteri sti cs, and the soul of
a confederati on. I f the States be not the agents of thi s compact, i t
must be one great consol i dated nati onal government of the peopl e of
al l the States. . . . Had the del egates, who were sent to Phi l adel phi a
22. Consti tuti on of Vi rgi ni a (June 12, 1776), i n Ri chard L. Cooper and John
C. Cooper (eds.), Sources of Our Liberties (Chi cago: Ameri can Bar Associ ati on, 1959),
p. 311.
23. Li enesch, New Order, p. 64.
24. Henry Steel e Commager (cd.), Documents of Ammcan Histoy (New York:
Appl eton-Century-Crofts, 1958), pp. 178-84.
25. See Madi sons l etter to the North Amaican Review (Aug. 28, 1830), i n Mind of
the Foundn, p. 540.
We the People: From Vassal to Suzerain to Serf 499
a power to pr opose a consol i dated government i nstead of a con-
federacy? Were they not deputed by States, and not by the peopl e?
The assent of the peopl e, i n thei r col l ecti ve capaci ty, i s not necessary
to the formati on of a federal government. The peopl e have no r i ght
to enter i nto l eagues, al l i ances, or confederati ons: they are not the
proper agents for thi s purpose: States and soverei gn powers are the
onl y proper agents for thi s ki nd of government. Show me an i n-
stance wher e the peopl e have exer ci sed thi s busi ness: has i t not
al ways gone through the l egi sl atures? . . . Thi s, therefore, ought to
depend on the consent of the l egi sl atures.
Henry sai d emphati cal l y of the del egates, The peopl e gave them
no power to use thei r name. That they exceeded thei r power i s per-
fectl y cl ear. He remi nded them of the ori gi nal authori zati on of the
conventi on: The federal conventi on ought to have amended the ol d
system; for thi s pur pose they wer e sol el y del egated: the object of
thei r mi ssi on extended to no other consi derati on.zG But si nce the
l egi sl atures authori zed the conventi ons, they i n effect had sancti oned
thi s publ i c transfer of the l ocus of soverei gnty.
Di vi ne Ri ght, Cl osed Uni ver se
Henr y coul d not over come Amer i cans commi tment to a new
theol ogy, the theol ogy of the di vi ne ri ght of the i nvi si bl e Peopl e. Thi s
theol ogy had now repl aced the di vi ne ri ght of ki ngs and the di vi ne
ri ght of Parl i ament. There coul d ul ti matel y be no appeal beyond the
soverei gn wi l l of the voters. The Peopl e as a col l ecti ve uni t are best
represented by the voters. The Peopl e col l ecti vel y are ori gi nal l y sov-
er ei gn; hence, the voter s ar e i nter mi ttentl y sover ei gn. Men can
bui l d i n i nsti tuti onal safeguards agai nst the mi suse of thi s authori ty
the Consti tuti on i s ful l of them but ul ti matel y the voters are sov-
erei gn. The Peopl e speak through the voters. Thi s was why the Con-
venti on appeal ed to a pl ebi sci te of voters, state by state, not as they
were l egal l y represented i n the establ i shed l egi sl atures, but i n state-
wi de conventi ons mi ni -conventi ons model ed al ong the l i nes of the
Phi l adel phi a Conventi on, and equal l y contr ol l ed by the same na-
ti onal pol i ti cal facti on. The l anguage of pol i ti cal phi l osophy i n 1787
26. I am usi ng the ver si on i n Nor i ne Di ckson Campbel l , Patrstk Hay: Patriot and
Statesman (Ol d Greenwi ch, Connecti cut: Devi n-Adai r, 1969), p. 338. Thi s appears i n
Jonathan El l i ot (cd.), The Debates i n the Sevnal State Conventions on the Adoption oj the
Fedmal Constitution m Recommended by the General Conventi on at Philadelphia in 1787, 5
vols. (Phi l adel phi a: Li ppi ncott, [1836] 1907), I I I , p. 22.
had made thi s appeal to the voters not onl y l ogi cal but covenantal l y
necessary. And bei ng necessary, Mr. Madi son di d hi s organi zati onal
homework wel l i n advance. He made sure that the Federal i sts woul d
speak for the Peopl e.
Let us not be nai ve. We are not cl assroom hi stori ans, after al l .
When we read of el ecti ons behi nd the I ron Curtai n pre-1989 el ec-
ti ons, that i s or el ecti ons i n some Afri can democracy, we are not
surpri sed to l earn that the exi sti ng nati onal admi ni strati on has been
re-el ected al most unani mousl y. We ar e not sur pr i sed because we
know that the el ecti ons were ri gged by those i n power. We know i t
was not a representati ve procedure. Yet how many Ameri can hi story
textbooks rai se the obvi ous questi on: How di d i t happen that ni ne
out of the fi rst ni ne state rati fyi ng conventi ons voted to rati fy, yet
from what we can determi ne from the documentary record, the ac-
tual voti ng publ i c was evenl y spl i t? The Man Who Hated Mono-
l i thi c Facti on organi zed one whal e of a monol i thi c facti on i n 1787-88.
The angr y young man got even.
Thi s theol ogy of the Peopl e had been pr omi nent i n pol i ti cal
theory si nce at l east the si xteenth century, but i t had been offset by the
Chri sti an doctri ne of the Creator God. He was seen as both the i ni ti -
ati ng authori ty and the fi nal authori ty. Men had l ong debated over
who hel d l awful cl ai m to be Gods fi nal earthl y authori ty, but there
had been no doubt that thi s fi nal earthl y authori ty was under God.
But i n the earl y ei ghteenth century, thi s assumpti on steadi l y di sap-
peared i n the wri ti ngs of the Commonweal thmen, especi al l y i n the
popul ar newspaper, Catos Letters. The l anguage of di vi ni ty i s appl i ed
to the Peopl e i n thi s 1721 essay on l i bel :
I have l ong thought, that the Worl d are very much mi staken i n thei r
I dea and Di sti ncti on of Li bel s. I t has been hi therto general l y understood
that there were no other Li bel s but those agai nst Magi strates, and those
agai nst pri vate Men: Now, to me there seems to be a thi rd Sort of Li bel s,
ful l as destructi ve as any of the former can possi bl y be; I mean, Li bel s
agai nst the Peopl e. I t was otherwi se at Athens and Rome; wher e, though par -
ti cul ar Men, and even great Men, were often treated wi th much Freedom
and Severi ty, when they deserved i t; yet the Peopl e, the Body of the Peopl e,
were spoken of wi th the utmost Regard and Reverence: The sacred Privileges
of the People, The inviolable Majesp of the People, The awfil Authonp of the People,
and The unappealable J udgment of the People. z?
27. Refl ecti ons upon Li bel l i n~ (June 10, 1721); repri nted i n The English Libertir-
&zn Heritage, edi ted by Davi d L. Jacobson (I ndi anapol i s, I ndi ana: Bobbs-Merri l l ,
1965), p, 75. I tal i cs i n ori gi nal .
We the People: From Vassal to Suzerain to Se~ 501
Noti ce the fi nal phrase: the unappeal abl e judgment of the Peo-
pl e. Thi s i s the essence of the di vi ne-ri ghts phi l osophy: a fi nal , wz.itay
court of earthl y appeal . But i n thi s case, there i s no heavenl y court of
tr anscendent appeal . Thi s doctr i ne of the cl osed uni ver se i s t h e
essence of humani sm, as Rushdoony poi nted out i n 1967:
Humani sti c l aw, moreover, i s i nescapabl y total i tari an l aw. Humani sm,
as a l ogi cal devel opment of evol uti onary theory, hol ds fundamental l y to a
concept of an evol vi ng uni ver se. Thi s i s hel d to be an open uni verse,
whereas Bi bl i cal Chri sti ani ty, because of i ts fai th i n the tr i une God and Hi s
eternal decree, i s sai d to be a fai th i n a cl osed uni verse . Thi s termi nol ogy
not onl y i ntends to prejudi ce the case; i t reverses real i ty. The uni ver se of
evol uti oni sm and humani sm i s a cl osed uni verse. There i s no l aw, no ap-
peal , no hi gher order, beyond and above the uni verse. I nstead of an open
wi ndow upwards, there i s a cl osed cosmos. Ther e i s thus no ul ti mate l aw
and decree beyond man and the uni verse. Mans l aw i s therefore beyond
cri ti ci sm except by man. I n practi ce, thi s means that the posi ti ve l aw of the
state i s absol ute l aw. The state i s the most powerful and most hi ghl y organ-
i zed expressi on of humani sti c man, and the state i s the form and expressi on
of humani sti c l aw. Because there i s no hi gher l aw of God as judge over the
uni verse, over every human order, the l aw of the state i s a cl osed system of
l aw. Ther e i s no appeal beyond i t. Man has no ri ght , no real m of justi ce,
no source of l aw beyond the state, to whi ch man can appeal agai nst the
state. Humani sm therefore i mpri sons man wi thi n the cl osed worl d of the
state and the cl osed uni verse of the evol uti onary scheme. 28
The Dar wi ni an phi l osophy of l aw that has domi nated Amer i can
l egal theory si nce at l east O. W. Hol mes, Jr.s The Common Law (1881)
had been made judi ci al l y enfor ceabl e by the Consti tuti on i tsel f. Dar-
wi ni an evol uti onary thought i s consi stent wi th the Preambl e. I t i s
nai ve I am tempted to say termi nal l y nai ve to regard the mod-
er n evol uti onar y vi ew of Amer i can Consti tuti onal l aw as bei ng a
devi ati on from the Consti tuti onal settl ement; on the contrary, i t was
guaranteed by that settl ement. I f we shoul d appeal to the i dea of the
Framers ori gi nal i ntent, we are dri ven strai ght to the worl dvi ew of
pol i ti cal Dar wi ni sm: a fi nal ear thl y pol i ti cal cour t of appeal fr om
whi ch no heavenl y appeal i s judi ci al l y warranted. Wel l , perhaps not
28. R. J. Rushdoony, Humani sti c Law, i ntroducti on to Hebden Tayl or, The
New Legali~ (Nutl ey, New Jersey: Crai g Press, 1967), vi -vi i . Cf. Cornel i us Van Ti l ,
The Doctrine of Scn@ure, vol . 1 of I n DeJ ense of Biblical Christianip (den Dul k Founda-
ti on, 1967), p. 5.
absol utel y fi nal . We can al ways cal l another Consti tuti onal Conven-
ti on. We the peopl e. Madi son set the precedent.
And Madi son was wel l organi zed years i n advance.
Judi ci al Sover ei gnty
The Consti tuti ons transfer of the l ocus of i ni ti ati ng soverei gnty
and therefore fi nal soverei gnty to the Peopl e has l ed to a speci al si t-
uati on, not foreseen by most of the Framers: the Supreme Courts
appr opr i ati on of near l y total judi ci al sover ei gnty. m Ther e was no
effecti ve, cl ear-cut check pl aced on the Courts authori ty because the
threat was not percei ved by the Framers. I nevi tabl y, the Courts au-
thori ty expanded, for i t can decl are the true l aw whi ch governs al l
l egi sl ati on.
The Framers bel i eved that Congress woul d possess the greatest
power because i t woul d make the l aws. But the bi bl i cal covenant
model tel l s us that i t i s the person who i n.ter@ets the l aw who i s sover-
ei gn. The Consti tuti on was wri tten on the assumpti on that there i s a
hi gher l aw that i s soverei gn. Thi s was a natural l aw theory versi on of
bi bl i cal l aw, but i t di d govern the thi nki ng of the Framers, and the
Consti tuti on refl ects thi s bel i ef. 30 Thus, the Supreme Court has at-
tai ned fi nal judi ci al soverei gnty, for i t judges the l egi ti macy of the
l aws of Congress i n terms of the hi gher l aw that the Consti tuti on
supposedl y embodi es, and voters are unwi l l i ng general l y to overturn
the Cour t by Consti tuti onal amendment. The Supr eme Cour t pr o-
vi des retroactive legitimacy to l egi sl ati on, just as the voters i n thei r
rati fyi ng conventi ons i n 1788 provi ded retroacti ve l egi ti macy to the
coup of 1787. Fi ve unel ected jurors for l i fe, i mmune from the retroac-
ti ve vengeance of voters, now speak fi nal l y i n the name of the sover-
29. As Consti tuti onal schol ar and hi stori an Forrest McDonal d poi nts out, Con-
gress was ori gi nal l y the most powerful branch, wi th the Supreme Court the weakest.
(Hami l ton certai nl y bel i eved thi s to be the case: Federal i st 78.) McDonal d says that
the Courts power to decl are acts of Congress unconsti tuti onal was exerci sed onl y
twi ce pri or to the Ci vi l War, and on both occasi ons the feroci ty of the ensui ng oppo-
si ti on caused the justi ces to fear, wi th some reason, that the court system woul d be
emascul ated i f not destroyed. McDonal d, I nterpreti ng the Consti tuti on: Judges-
versus Hi story, The J ohn M, Olin Lectures on the Bicentmnial of the US. Constitution
(Reston, Vi rgi ni a: Young Ameri cas Foundati on, 1987), p. 18. The second case was
the i nfamous Dred Scott deci si on of 1857. i n whi ch the Court forced a former sl ave
who was then r esi di ng i n a fr ee state to r etur n to hi s condi ti on of ensl avement i n a
sl ave state.
30. Edwi n S. Corwi n, The Higher Law Background of Ametican Constitutional Law
(I thaca, New York: Cornel l Uni versi ty Press, [1928] 1955).
We the People: From Vassal to Suzerain to Sefl 503
ei gn Peopl e. No wonder, i n the words of Forrest McDonal d regard-
i ng publ i c opi ni on i n 1787, that few Amer i cans except l awyer s
trusted a trul y i ndependent judi ci ary.31
Pol i ti cal conservati ves cry out agai nst the concentrati on of power
i n the hands of the Supreme Court. 32 Such compl ai ni ng does l i ttl e
good. Others have cal l ed the Courts authori ty judi ci al tyranny. 33
Thi s al so does l i ttl e good. The Courts power i s sti l l unchecked be-
cause of publ i c opi ni on. The voter s r eal l y do r egar d the Supr eme
Court as sacrosanct. Conservati ves for a generati on have appeal ed
to the Consti tuti ons expl i ci t l anguage and poi nt to the obvi ous fact
that the Framers expected Congress to be the domi nant branch. 34
Such appeal s are futi l e. They do no good. The Courts authori ty i s
untouched by such appeal s. What the Framers may have expected
or wanted i s here judi ci al l y i rrel evant; i t i s the structure of the Con-
sti tuti ons underl yi ng and fundamental pri nci pl e of~udicial declaration
that i s cruci al .
Legi sl ati on Through Declaration
The Court i s the l egi sl ator, for i t decl ares the true l aw of the
l and, and voters percei ve i t as possessi ng the l egi ti macy to do thi s.
Chi ef Justi ce John Marshal l s doctri ne of i mpl i ed powers was a cor-
rect vi ew of the Consti tuti on .35 These powers are i mpl i ed by the very
structure of al l covenantal i sm. The earthl y judge who decl ares the
true l aw and appl i es i t to speci fi c ci rcumstances i s the earthl y sover-
ei gn. He who decl ares the unchangi ng moral l aw i n i ndi vi dual cases
the casuist i s the true l awmaker. So i s he who decl ares the evol vi ng
amoral l aw. Chi ef Justi ce Burger has set forth thi s posi ti on cl earl y:
The cornerstone of our consti tuti onal hi story and system remai ns
the fi rm adherence of the Supreme Court to the Marbury pri nci pl e
of judi ci al revi ew that someone must deci de what the Consti tuti on
means.3G Cornerstone, i ndeed!
31. Forrest McDonal d, Novw Ordo Seclorum: The I ntellectual Origins of the Constitution
(Lawrence, Kansas: Uni versi ty Press of Kansas, 1985), p. 85.
32. Rosal i e Gordon, Nine Men Against America: The Suprenu Court and I ts Attack on
Amertcan Libmties (New York: Devi n-Adai r, 1958).
33. Carol l D. Ki l gore, J udicial Tyanny (Nashvi l l e, Tennessee: Thomas Nel son,
1977).
34. James Burnham, Congress and the American Tradition (Chi cago: Regnery, 1959).
35. Cf. Geral d Gunther (cd.), J ohn Marshall!! DeJ ense of McCulloch u. Ma@and
(Stanford, Cal i forni a: Stanford Uni versi ty Press, 1969).
36. Warren Burger, I ntroducti on, Wi l l i am E. Swi ndl er, The Constitution and Chief
J ustice Marshall (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1978), p. xi i i .
I t was what John Marshal l formal l y announced concerni ng the
soverei gnty of the Supreme Court, not what the Framers announced
about i t, even i n The Federalist, that has determi ned the hi story of
ci vi l government i n the Uni ted States. That the Court under Chi ef
Justi ce Earl Warren produced what Professor Al exander Bi ckel
cal l ed a web of subjecti vi ty
37
shoul d surpri se no one. Thi s web of
subjecti vi ty i s the i nevi tabl e product of a combi ni ng of two doc-
tri nes: the bi bl i cal doctri ne of hi erarchi cal representati on and the
Darwi ni an doctri ne of the autonomy of man i n a worl d of ceasel ess
fl ux. The mythi cal hi gher l aw of natural l aw theory was erased
from modern mans thi nki ng by Darwi n, as Rushdoony noted i n
1969.
3s
Thi s l eft the Voi ce of the Peopl e i n control . Thi s voi ce i n the
Uni ted States i s the l atest pronouncement of the ci vi l agency beyond
whi ch there i s no judi ci al appeal : the Supreme Court.
Point Two of the Covenant
Hi erarchy i s the second poi nt of the bi bl i cal covenant model . I t i s
the secti on that deal s wi th representati on. Some offi ce, agency, or i n-
di vi dual must represent the peopl e before the throne of God and
God before the peopl e. I n the church, thi s i s the l ocal pastor or el d-
ers. I n denomi nati ons, i t wi l l be the General Assembl y, or i n some
cases, the Synods or Presbyteri es acti ng as a consti tuti onal uni t. But
the agency, commi ssi on, or person wi th the authori ty to i ssue a bi nd-
i ng judgment on di sputed cases i s the ji nal earth~ authori~ for that
spher e of covenantal human government. I n the U.S. government,
thi s cl earl y i s the Supreme Court.
There i s no escape from the pri nci pl e of judi ci al authori ty. There
must al ways be a fi nal earthl y court of appeal . I t can i n theory be a
pl ural voi ce, however: l egi sl ature, court, and executi ve combi ned,
or any two of them. I n the twenti eth century, the U.S. Supreme
Court has become Ameri cas fi nal court of appeal . Fi ve justi ces
speak for the i nvi si bl e Peopl e through the judi ci al l y fl exi bl e words of
the Consti tuti on. The Framers di d not recogni ze thi s possi bi l i ty.
They di d not even bother to sti pul ate how many Supreme Court jus-
ti ces there shoul d be. They di d not understand poi nt two of bi bl i cal
covenantal i sm, al though the Consti tuti on i s structured i n terms of
37. Al exander M. Bi ckel , The Supreme Court and the I dea of Progress (New York:
Harper & Row, 1970), ch. 3: The Web of Subjecti vi ty.
38. R. J. Rushdoony, The Biblical Philosophy of History (Nutl ey, New Jersey: Pres-
byteri an and Reformed, 1969), p. 7.
We the People? From Vbsal to Suzerai n to Se# 505
the fi ve-poi nt bi bl i cal covenant model (wi th a di fferent order, how-
ever). They shoul d have seen that the doctri ne of judi ci al revi ew was
i nevi tabl e. Someone must speak defi ni ti vel y i n the name of the sov-
er ei gn Peopl e.
The onl y way that they coul d have overcome thi s transfer of ul ti -
mate soverei gnty to the Supreme Court woul d have been through the
creati on of some sort of i nsti tuti onal appeal s structure beyond the Court.
I f, for i nstance, the Courts decl arati on that a l aw i s unconsti tuti onal
coul d be consti tuti onal l y over tur ned by a vote of thr ee-quar ter s of
both houses of Congress pl us the si gnature of the Presi dent, a trul y
federal system of checks and bal ances woul d now exi st. 39 I nstead,
the Consti tuti on l odges theoreti cal judi ci al authori ty i n the Peopl e,
and fi nal practi cal authori ty i n the hands of fi ve peopl e: a fi ve-to-
four deci si on of the Court. I t i s si gni fi cant that thi s consti tuti onal
structure was the work of l awyers rather than common peopl e.
The Evolving Voice of Authori~
The fact i s that there must always be a voice that interprets the will of the
sovereign agent i n history. Today, the amorphous dei ty We the Peopl e
i s represented i n a soverei gn way by fi ve peopl e. Thi s was admi tted
casual l y and al most cyni cal l y by Chi ef Justi ce Burger:
CHI EF JUSTI CE BURGER: Consti tuti onal cases consti tuti onal juri s-
prudence i s open to the Court to change i ts posi ti on, i n vi ew of of chang-
i ng condi ti ons. And i t has done so.
MOYERS: And what does i t take for the Court to reverse i tsel f?
CHI EF JUSTI CE BURGER: Fi ve votes. m
Thi s i s process phi l osophy, a vi ew whi ch has steadi l y gai ned control
of the Court ever si nce justi ce Ol i ver Wendel l Hol mes, Jr. an-
nounced i ts pri nci pl es i n The Common Law i n 1881. (Hi s father, O. W.
Hol mes, Sr., was the author of the cl ever poem attacki ng the sup-
posed fragi l i ty and ri gi di ty of Cal vi ni sm, The Deacons Master-
pi ece; or the Wonderful One-Hess Shay.) Thi s i s process phi l osophy
39. The conservati ve pol i ti c~ phi l osopher Wi l mor e Kendrdl once sai d i n a 1962
speech at the Uni versi ty of C al i forni a, Ri versi de, that Madi son had consi dered pro-
posi ng thi s judi ci al opti on to the Conventi on, but had not done so. I have never seen
any documentary evi dence of thi s asserti on, but the i dea i s a good one.
40. The Bur ger Year s, p. 6.
%y the numbers. The Peopl e speak by way of fi ve votes out of a
maxi mum of ni ne.
The Court had reversed i tsel f i n 143 cases by 1972.41 Of thi s total ,
al l but seven i nstances came after the Ci vi l War.
42
Al l but 28 came
after 1913.43 Over hal f have come si nce 1941.44 Thi s process has been
accel erati ng. The el ement ofjudi ci al di sconti nui ty has now begun to
undermi ne the concept of the Consti tuti on as fundamental l aw, as
covenant. Legal schol ars have al l but abandoned such a vi ew of the
Consti tuti on. Respect for the i ntenti ons of the Framers, respect for
the i dea that the documents l anguage i s perpetual l y bi ndi ng, and
respect for the i dea of bi ndi ng judi ci al precedent are now al l but gone.
Thi s l oss of fai th has undermi ned the very concept of Consti tuti onal
l egi ti macy.
45
But wi thout fai th i n l egi ti macy to undergi rd a l egal s ys-
tem, sel f-government becomes anarchy, and the State asserts i ts wi l l
i n the name of power al one. Li ke the Persi an ki ngs of ol d, whose
word was l aw, but onl y for as l ong as thei r power coul d enforce thei r
word, so i s the modern State when the publ i cs confi dence i n i ts judi -
ci al l egi ti macy wanes i n response to the asserti ons of what Gl azer
has cal l ed the i mperi al judi ci ary.4G
The doctri ne of judi ci al revi ew was the onl y avai l abl e al ternati ve
to the i dea of conti nui ng pl ebi sci tes. Unti l the Ci vi l War, the
Supreme Court rei gned but di d not rul e. I t onl y asserted i ts author-
i ty to decl are a l aw unconsti tuti onal twi ce. But as i ts arrogance has
i ncreased, and i t has attempted to rul e, i t has become the ever-
changi ng pl ebi sci te that the Framers feared. But i t i s a pl ebi sci te of a
majori ty of ni ne rather than a majori ty of the voti ng publ i c. The
Consti tuti onal l y unavoi dabl e doctri ne of the Courts l egi ti mate rep-
resentati on cannot survi ve the publ i cs l oss of fai th i n the exi stence of
a stabl e, permanent, fundamental l aw whi ch i s bei ng represented by
the Court. There must be conti nui ty between the voi ce of the funda-
mental l aw and the l aw i tsel f over ti me. Thi s conti nui ty has been des-
41. Congressi onal Research Servi ce, Li brary of Congress, The Constitution of th
United States of Anwiia: An+is and inter~retation (Washi ngton, D. C.: Gover nment
Pri nti ng Offi ce, 1972), p. 1797.
42. I bid., p. 1790.
43. I bid., p. 1791.
44. I bid., p. 1793,
45. Robert Bork, Foreword, Gary L. McDowel l , The Constitution and ContemporaT
Comtitutional Theoy (Cumberl and, Vi rgi ni a: Center for Judi ci al Studi es, 1987),
. . . .
pp. Vm-l x.
46. Nathan Gl azer, Towards an I mperi al Judi ci ary? Publr2 I nterest (Fal l 1975).
,
We the People: From Vhssal to Suzerain to Serf 507
troyed i n theory by Darwi ni sm and i n fact by the twenti eth centurys
pol i ti cal wars to control appoi ntments to the Court. The i dea of the
l egi ti mate ear thl y sover ei gnty of the Cour t cannot be mai ntai ned
once the publ i c l oses fai th i n the heavenl y ori gi n of the l aw.
I n short, the i ncorporati on of legztimate earthl y soverei gnty was
destroyed by the voters i n 1788 when they rati fi ed the Consti tuti on,
wi th i ts deni al of the l egi ti macy of a covenantal oath to the cove-
nantal God who al one i s the source of al l l aw. Here i s what i s most
si gni fi cant covenantal l y about the Consti tuti on, and therefore most
si gni fi cant overal l . I t abandoned the source of l egi ti macy, the
Creator. The state consti tuti ons on the whol e were expl i ci tl y Chri s-
ti an. The Consti tuti on was expl i ci tl y non-Chri sti an: Arti cl e VI ,
Cl ause I I I on offi ci al federal oaths. The l anguage of natural l aw i n
the Decl arati on, the absence of any rel i gi ous test oath i n the Arti cl es,
and the concept of the rel i gi ousl y neutral ci vi l compact i n the Consti -
tuti on, began the formal judi ci al break nati onal l y wi th Chri sti ani ty.
The Fourteenth Amendment compl eted i t.
Then came Darwi ni sm. We can accuratel y date the comi ng of
wi despread unbel i ef i n the Uni ted States: 1865-90.
47
Wi th the rapi d
phi l osophi cal erosi on of the tradi ti onal ei ghteenth-century worl d-
vi ew, the l ong-term covenantal basi s of U. S. Consti tuti onal l aw was
undermi ned I bel i eve permanentl y.
The Anti federal i sts Warni ng
Patri ck Henry was one of the few cri ti cs who sensed the danger.
48
As menti oned earl i er, Hami l ton went so far as to say that the judi ci -
ary i s beyond compari son the weakest of the three departments of
power: and he assured hi s readers that i t can never attack wi th suc-
47. James Turner, Without God, Without Creed: The Origins of Unbelief in Amer i ca
(Bal ti more, Maryl and: Johns Hopki ns Uni versi ty Press, 1985), Pt. I I .
48. He warned that the i mpl i ci t doctri ne of judi ci al revi ew woul d eventual l y l ead
to a confl i ct wi th the common l aw pri nci pl e of tri al by jury: El l i ot, Debates, I I I , pp.
539-42. I t i s one of the strangest i roni es of Ameri can hi story that Chi ef Justi ce John
Marshal l , the man who fi rst decl ared openl y the doctri ne of judi ci al revi ew i n Mar-
bwy v. Madison (1803), was appoi nted Chi ef Justi ce by Adams i n the fal l of 1800. Hi s
predecessor, Ol i ver El l sworth, had as a U.S. Senator wri tten the Judi ci ary Act of
1789, whi ch permi tted the Court to overturn acts of state courts and l egi sl atures. He
l ater became Supreme Court Chi ef Justi ce. He resi gned i n ti me for outgoi ng Presi -
dent John Adams to appoi nt John Marshal l to the posi ti on. Had El l sworth wai ted
just a few weeks before resi gni ng, the l i kel y nomi nee by Jefferson woul d have been
Spencer Roane, Henrys son-i n-l aw, who was a defender of the states ri ghts posi -
ti on. Campbel l , Pattick Heny, pp. 367-68.
cess ei ther of the other two; and that al l possi bl e care i s requi si te to
enabl e i t to defend i tsel f agai nst thei r attacks .
49
Hami l ton was
wrong. At l east some of the Anti federal i sts saw what was comi ng.
The weakeni ng of the pl ace of the jury, the provi si on for a compl ete
system of nati onal courts, the extensi ve juri sdi cti on of the nati onal
judi ci ary, the provi si on for appeal to the Supreme Court on ques-
ti ons of fact as wel l as l aw, and the supremacy of the Consti tuti on
and the l aws and treati es made thereunder al l seemed to gi ve enor-
mous power over the dai l y concerns of men to a smal l group of i rre-
sponsi bl e judges.50 Stori ng then ci tes Brutus, whose Anti federal i st
wri ti ngs he regards as the best regardi ng the federal judi ci ary.51
Brutus prophesi ed that the supreme court under thi s consti tuti on
woul d be exal ted above al l other power i n the government, and sub-
ject to no controul .
fi 52 He forecast cl earl y what subsequentl y has
taken pl ace:
The power of thi s court i s i n many cases superi or to that of the l egi sl a-
ture. I have shewed, i n a former paper, that thi s court wi l l be authori sed to
deci de upon the meani ng of the consti tuti on, and that, not onl y accordi ng
to the natural and ob[vi ous] meani ng of the words, but al so accordi ng to
the spi ri t and i ntenti on of i t. I n the exerci se of thi s power they wi l l not be
subordi nate to, but above the l egi sl ature. For al l the departments of thi s
government wi l l recei ve thei r powers, so far as they are expressed i n the
consti tuti on, from the peopl e i mmedi atel y, who are the source of power.
The l egi sl ature can onl y exerci se such powers as are gi ven them by the con-
sti tuti on, they cannot assume any of the ri ghts annexed to the judi ci al , for
thi s pl ai n reason, that the same authori ty whi ch vested the l egi sl ature wi th
thei r powers, vested the judi ci al wi th thei rs both are deri ved from the
same source, both therefore are equal l y val i d, and the judi ci al hol d thei r
powers i ndependentl y of the l egi sl ature, as the l egi sl ature do of the
judi ci al . The supreme tort then have a ri ght, i ndependent of the l egi sl a-
ture, to gi ve a constructi on to the consti tuti on and every part of i t, and
there i s no power provi ded i n thi s system to correct thei r constructi on or do
i t away. I f, therefore, the l egi sl ature pass any l aws, i nconsi stent wi th the
sense the judges put upon the consti tuti on, they wi l l decl are i t voi d; and
therefore i n thi s respect thei r power i s superi or to that of the l egi sl ature. I n
49. Hami l ton, Federal i st No. 78: The Feo!zralist, p. 523.
50. Herbert J. Stori ng, What the Anti-Federalists W~c For (Chi cago: Uni versi ty of
Chi cago Press, 1981), p. 50.
51. Stori ng, i ntroductory remarks, Essays of Brutus, The Corn@ete Anti -Fed-
eralist, 7 vol s. (Chi cago: Uni versi ty of Chi cago Press, 1981), I I , p. 358.
52. I bid., I I , pp. 437-37.
We the People? From Vassal to Suzerain to Serf 509
Engl and the judges are not onl y subject to have thei r deci si ons set asi de by
the house of l ords, for error, but i n cases where they gi ve an expl anati on to
the l aws or consti tuti on of the country, contrary to the sense of the parl i a-
ment, though the parl i ament wi l l not set asi de the judgement of the court,
yet, they have authori ty, by a new l aw, to expl ai n a former one, and by thi s
means to prevent a recepti on of such deci si ons. But no such power i s i n the
l egi sl ature. The judges are supreme and no l aw, expl anatory of the consti -
tuti on, wi l l be bi ndi ng on them. 53
Today, onl y a handful of l egal schol ars sti l l argue that both Con-
gress and the Executi ve possess the authori ty to enforce and i nter-
pret the Consti tuti on. Consti tuti onal hi stori ans do not tel l thei r stu-
dents the truth, namel y, that John Marshal l had to grab at hi stori cal
straws i n hi s attempt to fi nd Consti tuti onal support for hi s concl u-
si on that the Supreme Court al one was charged wi th the duty of i n-
terpreti ng the Consti tuti on. He used the strange argument that the
judges take an oath to the Consti tuti on. As Gordon Tul l ock remi nds
us, the argument makes equal sense when appl i ed to al l other de-
partments of the federal government. S*
A Final I nt~preter
Never thel ess, Mar shal l s posi ti on, whi l e not gr ounded i n the
, words of the Consti tuti on, was ful l y grounded i n covenantal real i ty.
Ther e must al ways be a fi nal i nter pr eter of the ci vi l l aw, and by
refusi ng to speci fy a judi ci al appeal s system based on pl ural i nter-
pr eter s for i n s tan ce, th r ee-qu ar ter s of both br an ch es of Con gr es s
pl us the Presi dent vs. the Supreme Court the Framers i mpl i ci tl y
accepted the noti on of a uni tary i nterpreter. There are no obvi ous
Consti tuti onal checks and bal ances i n thi s cruci al task of ci vi l gov-
er nment, the task of decl ar i ng val i d l aw. The Fr amer s, by not
speci fyi ng a means of appeal beyond the deci si ons of the Supreme
Court, except the i nvol ved system of Consti tuti onal amendment, l eft
53. I bid., I I , pp. 440-41.
54. Gor don Tul l ock, Consti tuti onal Mythol ogy, New I ndividualist Review, 111
(Spri ng 1965), p. 584. Thi s has been repri nted i n one vol ume by Li berty Press,
I ndi anapol i s, I ndi ana. Tul l ock hol ds a l aw degree but i s a sel f-taught economi st,
and he i s one of the two devel opers of the economi cs subdi sci pl i ne known as publ i c
choi ce theory. Hi s col l eague James Buchanan recei ved the Nobel Pri ze i n economi cs
i n 1985; that Tul l ock di d not was probabl y because he has never taken a col l ege cl ass
i n economi cs. Thi s was too much of an embarrassment for the Nobel Commi ttee.
He i s Professor of Economi cs at the Uni versi ty of Ari zona, but for many years
taught at the Uni versi ty of Vi rgi ni a.
.
no i nsti tuti onal basi s for rejecti ng the Courts posi ti on as the fi nal
voi ce of authori ty. Over ti me, the Supreme Court gai ned suffi ci ent
l egi ti macy legitimacy by default to monopol i ze thi s soverei gn power
of judi ci al revi ew, especi al l y after the Ci vi l War.
Schol ars properl y regard as a Consti tuti onal aberrati on Presi -
dent Andrew Jacksons deci si on to i gnore the Supreme Courts deci -
si ons i n Cherokee Nation u. Georgia (1831) and Wbrchester u. Georgia
(1832), whi ch defended the I ndi ans tri bal l ands from encroachment
by the state of Georgi a. 55 The Presi dent was not i mpeached for hi s
deci si on, nor di d anyone i n Congress suggest that he shoul d be. The
fact remai ns that thi s i s the onl y peaceti me exampl e i n U.S. hi story
of a Presi dents successful l y denyi ng the authori ty of the Court. The
authori ty of the Court was establ i shed i mpl i ci tl y because of the
structure of the bi bl i cal covenant, whi ch the Consti tuti on i mi tates.
Fundamental Law
The Framers regarded the Consti tuti on as fundamental l aw.
Thi s, Paul Ei del berg argues persuasi vel y, i s the foundati on of the
concept of judi ci al revi ew. 56 Arti cl e VI , Cl ause 2 states that Thi s
Consti tuti on, and the Laws of the Uni ted States whi ch shal l be made
i n Pursuance thereofi and al l Treati es made, or whi ch shal l be made,
under the Authori ty of the Uni ted States, shal l be the supreme Law
of the Land; and the Judges i n every State to the Contrary notwi th-
standi ng i n the Consti tuti on or Laws of any State to the Contrary
not wi thstandi ng. But a fundamental l aw needs a fundamental i n-
terpreter, a fi mdamental casui st, a fi nal earthl y court of appeal . Some-
one must speak representative~ for the soverei gn source of l aw. Thi s i s
the U.S. Supreme Court. I t was not i ntended to be so by the Framers,
but i t has become so. As the Massachusetts Bay Col onys General
Court became the l egi sl ature, so has the modern Supreme Court be-
come the l egi sl ature. The di fference i s, the Puri tans of New Engl and
acknowl edged the transformati on and made thi s court el ecti ve.
The Consti tuti on i s a covenant, Ei del berg correctl y observes,
for thi s term denotes i ts juri di cal basi s as a permanent l aw.57 I f the
peopl e are the true source of l aw, as the Consti tuti on states i n the
55. Al fred H. Kel l y and Wi nfred A. Harbi son, The American Constitution: I ts
Origins and Development (rev. ed.; New York: Norton, 1955), pp. 302-3.
56. Paul Ei del berg, The Philosophy of the American Constitution: A Reinterpretation of
the I ntentions of the Founding Fathem (New York: Free Press, 1968), p. 216.
57. I bid., p. 225.
We the People: From Vassal to Suzerain to Swf 511
preambl e, then there i s onl y one al ternati ve to the doctri ne of judi -
ci al revi ew: conti nual pl ebi sci tes. But conti nual pl ebi sci tes woul d de-
stroy the concept of permanence the heart of a covenant. 58 Too
much pol i ti cal change, too much pol i ti cal passi on, and too many
shi fti ng majori ti es wi l l destroy the very i dea of a covenant. The
Framers recogni zed thi s, and sought ways to cool publ i c passi ons. 59
Thus, concl udes Ei del berg, the doctri ne of judi ci al revi ew was i m-
pl i ci t i n the Consti tuti on, whether the Framers saw thi s or not.
Appel l ate Juri sdi cti on
The Framers di d i nse~ a cl ause to l i mi t the Courts authori ty,
but i t has been used i nfrequentl y and i s i nherentl y not i n agreement
wi th the spi ri t of the Consti tuti on: the abi l i ty of Congress to remove
most i ssues from the Courts juri sdi cti on. Al l Congress has to do i s to
pass a resol uti on removi ng the Supreme Courts appel l ate juri sdi c-
ti on. That woul d do i t. Arti cl e I I I , Secti on 2, Cl ause 2, of the Con-
sti tuti on reads as fol l ows:
I n al l Cases affecti ng Ambassadors, and other publ i c Mi ni sters and
Consul s, and those i n whi ch a State shal l be a Party, the Supreme Court
shal l have ori gi nal Juri sdi cti on. I n al l other Cases before menti oned, the
Supreme Court shal l have appel l ate Juri sdi cti on, both as to Law and Fact,
wi th such Excepti ons, and under such Regul ati ons as the Congress shal l
make.
There i s no menti on of the Presi dent. Whether he must agree wi th
Congress on thi s removal of the Courts appel l ate juri sdi cti on has
never been deci ded. An i nteresti ng questi on i s: What i f the Court
were to say that the Presi dent must agree wi th Congress, but Con-
gress di sagrees? What i f Congress shoul d remove the juri sdi cti on of
the Court i n thi s parti cul ar area of di sagreement?
Ex Parte McCaTdle
The Supreme Court has ori gi nal juri sdi cti on onl y i n cases where
ambassadors and consul s are i nvol ved, or i n cases i n whi ch states
shal l be a party. The Supreme Court has i n the past acknowl edged
thi s l ong-negl ected judi ci al fact. Consi der the case of Ex Parte McCardle
(1868). I n the l ate 1860s, Congress i mposed a mi l i tary di ctatorshi p
58. I bid., p. 227.
59. I bid., pp. 229-32.
over the defeated South. Duri ng Reconstructi on, a man was con-
vi cted i n a mi l i tary court of certai n acts that were deemed by that
court as obstructi ng Reconstructi on. The Supreme Court deci ded to
revi ew the case. Here i s the anal ysi s of the case from the Li brary of
Congr ess:
Anti ci pati ng that the Court mi ght voi d, or at l east undermi ne, congres-
si onal reconstructi on of the Confederate States, Congress enacted over the
Presi dents veto a provi si on repeal i ng the act whi ch authori zed the appeal
McCardle had taken. Al though the Court had al ready heard argument on
ti e meri ts, i t then di smi ssed for want to juri sdi cti on. We are not at l i berty
to i nqui re i nto the moti ves of the l egi sl ators. We can onl y exami ne i nto i ts
power under the Consti tuti on; and the power to make excepti ons to the ap-
pel l ate juri sdi cti on of thi s court i s gi ven by express words.a
The Presi dent had been asked to si gn the measure, but the text of
the anal ysi s does not say why. The Consti tuti on surel y does not
menti on any such requi rement. Perhaps Congress submi tted i t to
Presi dent Johnson out of spi te; they knew hi s veto coul d be over-
ri dden. I n any case, the Court wi thdrew peaceful l y. I t had no
choi ce. The Consti tuti on i s cl ear, and previ ous cases had admi tted
such authori ty on the part of Congress.
I nitial J udicial Restraint
Obvi ousl y, thi s i s a very ti ckl i sh subject. Li ke the pri nci pl e of ju-
di ci al revi ew, i t was sel dom i nvoked i n the earl y days of the republ i c.
Judi ci al revi ew i s not a pri nci pl e wri tten i nto the Consti tuti on. Chi ef
Justi ce John Marshal l i nvoked i t i n the famous Marbuy u. Madison
> case i n 1803 when he decl ared an Act of Congress unconsti tuti onal .
The onl y other ti me pri or to the Ci vi l War that the Court i nvoked i t
was i n the Dred Scott u. Sandford case of 1857, whi ch more or l ess guar-
anteed the Ci vi l War. The Court determi ned that Dred Scott was the
property of hi s southern owner, even though he had been taken i nto
states that di d not recogni ze the l awful ness of chattel sl avery. He di d
not thereby become a ci ti zen, so he coul d not sue i n federal court,
the Supreme Court decl ared. The Court decl ared that Negroes
coul d not be ci ti zens of the U. S., al though they coul d become state
ci ti zens. That deci si on was overrul ed at the cost of 600,000 dead.
The 14th Amendment (1868) was the resul t.
60. Congressi onal Research Servi ce of tbe Li brmy of Congress, T/ u Comtitution of the
United Sties: An+is and I nie@retation (U.S. Government Pri nti ng Offi ce, 1972), p. 752.
We the People? From Vhssal to Suzerain to Serf 513
A si mi l ar sel f-restrai nt has been shown by Congress i n removi ng
the Courts appel l ate juri sdi cti on. I n fact, the decrease of such asser-
ti ons of authori ty has paral l el ed the i ncrease of the Courts wi l l i ng-
ness to decl are l aws unconsti tuti onal . I t i s cl ear why: Congress has de-
fined authorip to the Supreme Court. A power never announced by the
Consti tuti on (judi ci al revi ew) has tri umphed, and a power cl earl y
announced by i t Congress control over the Courts appel l ate juri s-
di cti on has dr opped from the memory of Congress and the vast
majori ty of ci ti zens.
The source of the Courts power i s the implied doctri ne of judi ci al
revi ew, the i dea that i n l aw, as i n pol i ti cs, there must be thi s si gn on
someones desk: The buck stops here. Agai n, ci ti ng former Chi ef
Justi ce Burger, who has set forth thi s posi ti on cl earl y: The corner-
stone of our consti tuti onal hi story and system remai ns the fi rm ad-
herence of the Supreme Court to the Marbury pri nci pl e of judi ci al
revi ew that someone must deci de what the Consti tuti on means .61
The Break Wi th the Col oni al Past
Soci ol ogi st Robert Bel l ah, i n hi s provocati vel y ti tl ed book, The
Broken Covenant, begi ns wi th a chapter ti tl ed, Ameri cas Myth of
Ori gi n. He speaks of the era of the Revol uti on, from the Decl ara-
ti on to Washi ngtons i naugurati on i n 1789, i n rel i gi ous terms: We
wi l l want to consi der the act of consci ous meani ng-creati on, of con-
sci ous taki ng responsi bi l i ty for onesel f and ones soci ety, as a central
aspect of Ameri cas myth of ori gi n, an act that, by the very radi cal -
ness of i ts begi nni ng, a begi nni ng ex nihilo as i t were, i s redol ent of
the sacred.b2 He refers to these databl e acts as mythi c gestures that
sti rred up i mages and symbol s of earl i er myths. The newness of
Ameri ca i s one such myth. So i s the wi l derness theme. So i s reform
and rebi rth. So i s the promi sed l and and the ci ty on a hi l l . These are
63 The book i s a col l ecti on of l ectures dean bi bl i cal i mages, he says. (
l i vered at Hebrew Uni on Col l ege and the Jewi sh I nsti tute of Rel i gi on.)
He recogni zes the Augusti ni an-Cal vi ni st-Puri tan roots of the Ameri -
can experi ment i n freedom. 64 The Revol uti on appropri ated these
bi bl i cal themes by reworki ng them i n a secul ar mol d.
61. Burger, I ntroducti on, Wi l l i am E. Swi ndl er, The Constitution and Chief J ustice
Marshall, p. xi i i .
62. Robert N. Behb, The Broken Covenant: American Civil Religion in Time of Ttial
(New York: Crossroad Book, Seabury Press, 1975), p. 4.
63. I bid., pp. 5-16.
64. I bid., pp. 17-18.
We can see thi s cl earl y i n a statement by James Madi son toward
the end of hi s l i fe. He appropri ated the postmi l l enni al eschatol ogy of
John Wi nthrops ci ty on a hi l l i n descri bi ng the posi ti on of Ameri ca
as the workshop of l i berty: The free system of government we have
establ i shed i s so congeni al wi th r eason, wi th common sense, and
wi th uni versal feel i ng, that i t must produce approbati on and a desi re
of i mi tati on, as avenues may be found for truth to the knowl edge of
nati ons. Our Country, i f i t does justi ce to i tsel f, wi l l be the workshop
of l i berty to the Ci vi l i zed Worl d, and do more than any other for the
unci vi l i zed .65 Thi s was nothi ng short of messi ani c. I t was al so a fal se
prophecy; no nati on has ever successful l y i mported and appl i ed our
Consti tuti on. At best, they have i mi tated our economi cs, not our
pol i ti cal structure. Bel l ah wri tes:
The men who consci ousl y fel t themsel ves to be foundi ng fathers had a
profound convi cti on of the sol emni ty and si gni fi cance of thei r rol e as l aw-
gi vers. John Adams wrote that he was grateful to have been sent i nto l i fe at
a ti me when the greatest l awgi vers of anti qui ty woul d have wi shed to l i ve.
. . . At the end of the 17th and the begi nni ng of the 18th centuri es Ameri -
cans had wavered about cl ai mi ng to be a ci ty set on a hi l l wi th the eyes of
the wor l d upon i t. But by the end of the 18th they wer e cer tai n once mor e. 66
Anticlmcal Moralism
What the hi stori ans fai l to di scuss i s the rel ati onshi p between the
anti nomi ani sm and anti cl eri cal i sm of the Great Awakeni ng and the
pseudo-cl assi ci sm of the Framers. The l oudl y professed moral i sm
was conspi cuousl y vague about detai l s. I n short, the moral i sm of the
Framers, l i ke the moral i sm of the pastors i nsi de the churches, was
devoi d of casui stry. The Framers had substi tuted undefi ned cl assi cal
vi rtue for the Great Awakeni ngs undefi ned Chri sti an pi ety; both
vi ews were sel f-consci ousl y opposed to bi bl i cal l aw.
The basi s of the Ameri can ci vi l rel i gi on was i ts abandonment of
1) bi bl i cal covenantal i sm, 2) the publ i c announcement of the hi stori c
creeds of the Church, and 3) the pre-Revol uti onary requi rement of
65. Ci ted i n Adri en Koch, Powo, Morals, and the Founding Fathers: Essays in the I n-
tzrfiretation of the American Enlightenment (I thaca, New York: Cornel l Uni versi ty Press,
[1961] 1975), p. 105.
66. Bel l ah, Broken Covenant, p. 33. I t i s cl ear that Ameri ca i n the l ate twenti eth
century i s far more l i ke the Ameri ca of the l ate seventeenth than the l ate ei ghteenth.
Thi s i s why a growi ng sense of radi cal spi ri tual change i s l i kel y to mani fest i tsel f as
the new mi l l enni um approaches.
We the People: From fissal to Suzerain to Serf 515
ci vi l magi strates to i nvoke Tri ni tari an oaths. Chri sti ani ty became
i nstrumental to the preservati on of the pol i ti cal order. I t became an
appendage of the State to the extent that i t retai ned any ci vi l func-
ti on at al l . The doctri ne of the separati on of Church and State be-
came i n practi ce subordi nati on of Chri sti ani ty to the State. Whi l e
the nati onal government was prohi bi ted by Arti cl e VI , Cl ause 3
from even recogni zi ng the ci vi l governments dependence on Chri sti -
ani ty, the churches were expected to become amateur cheerl eaders
for the Consti tuti on and the State. Thi s they have duti ful l y done
from the begi nni ng. There i s no escape from the pri nci pl e of the ci vi l
covenant; the churches have fai thful l y come to the al tar of the empty
pantheon to drop i ts pi nch of i ncense to the geni us of the soverei gn
Peopl e.
The covenants l aw-or der had al r eady been br oken by Jonathan
Edwards and hi s emphasi s on emoti onal i sm and sweetness.c7 The
Framers si mpl y worked out judi ci al l y what had been accepted mor-
al l y: the i rrel evance of bi bl i cal l aw for ci vi l government. The shat-
tered church covenants of the Great Awakeni ng, especi al l y Presby -
teri ani sm, l i ke the shattered ci vi l covenants of New Engl and that the
Great Awakeni ng produced,a coul d be restored onl y by an appeal to
the newl y emergi ng ci vi l rel i gi on, a rel i gi on devoi d of bi bl i cal l aw
and Tri ni tari an oaths. For over a century, the Cal vi ni sts had tal ked
about the l aw of God but never the l aws of God; they tal ked moral -
i sm, not covenantal i sm. They tal ked about the moral l aw of God but
not the ci vi l l aw. (They sti l l do. ) The resul t was a crabbed theol ogy
that di d not offer speci fi c standards for soci al transformati on, but
surel y burdened men wi th gui l t. I t was a theol ogy, as Haroutuni an
has descri bed i t, of a consi stent and unl ovabl e l egal i sm.@ And as
he shows, the Uni tari an revol t i n the 1770s steadi l y repl aced thi s
crabbed Cal vi ni sm i n the thi nki ng of i ntel l ectual and pol i ti cal l ead-
ers. 70 Bapti zed Uni tari ani sm had repl aced pi eti sti c Cal vi ni sm as an
operati onal soci al i deal by the l ate 1780s. The hei rs of the Common-
weal thmen repl aced the hei rs of the hol y commonweal th i n the
seats of authori ty.
67. Edwards, Treatise on the Reli@ow Affections (1746).
68. Ri chard L. Bushman, From Puritan to Yankee: Character and the Social Order in
Connecticut, 1690-1765 (Cambri dge, Massachusetts: Harvard Uni versi ty Press,
1967), Parts 4 and 5.
69. Joseph Haroutuni an, Pie~ VUSUS Morahsm: The Passing of the New England
Theology (New York: Hol t, 1932), p. 177.
70. I bid., ch. 8: The Uni tar i an Revol t.
Discarding Puratanism
Thomas Pangl e has emphasi zed the sharp covenantal break wi th
the past made by the Framers. He i nsi sts that there i s a stri ki ng di s-
conti nui ty, as regards underl yi ng consti tuti onal theory, between the
seventeenth-centur y char ter s or compacts and the gr oundi ng docu-
ments of the Revol uti on and the Foundi ng.
n
l We can see the di ffer-
ence i n the covenanti ng documents. The Mayfl ower Compact, for
exampl e, does not suggest a soci al contract of i ndependent and equal
men consti tuti ng by consent thei r own soverei gn and representati ve
government for the purpose of the protecti on of thei r own l i berti es
and property.72 They characteri zed themsel ves as l oyal subjects of
Ki ng James. Thei r purpose was twofol d: the gl ory of God and the
honor of k i ng and countr y. The Fundamental Ar ti cl es of New
Haven (1639) asked everyone to assent to the truth that The Scri p-
tures doe hol d forth a perfect rul e for the di recti on and government
of al l men i n al l duti es whi ch they are to perform to God and men as
wel l i n the gover nment of famyl yes and commonweal ths as i n mat-
ters of the church.s After sur veyi ng sever al other ear l y col oni al
l aws, Pangl e then states what shoul d be obvi ous to any Chri sti an
hi stor i an and any secul ar hi stor i an who has studi ed the pr i mar y
source documents of the two eras:
These were the consti tuti onal foundati ons of the fi rst Ameri can ci vi l so-
ci eti es, soci eti es that compri sed men who bel i eved, and ri ghtl y bel i eved,
that they were l i berati ng themsel ves from the oppressi ons and fanati ci sms
of the Ol d Worl d. This was the moral worl d, or the freest that the moral worl d
coul d concei ve i tsel f as bei ng, before the concepti ons of Thomas Hobbes,
Benedi ct Spi noza, and John Locke shattered i ts foundati ons. 74
Shatteredfoun&tions: thi s i s the covenantal l egacy of the U. S. Con-
sti tuti on i n the hi story of the Ameri can nati on. I t i s ti me for Chri s-
ti ans to stop l i vi ng i n the shadow of Whi g and Uni tari an hi stori ogra-
phy. l t i s ti me to admi t the obvi ous. The conspi racy i n Phi l adel phi a
was a success, and so was the revol uti on that fol l owed i n the rati fy-
i ng conventi ons. The subsequent events pr oceeded as outl i ned by
71. Thomas L. Pangl e, The Spint of Modem Republicanism: The Moral Vision of the
Ammcan Founding Fathem and the Philosophy of Locke (Chi cago: Uni versi ty of Chi cago
Press, 1988), p. 112.
72. I bid., pp. 112-13.
73. I bid., p. 113.
74. I bid., p. 114.
We the People: From Vassal to Suzerain to S~ 517
the Anti federal i sts: the central i zati on of power, the weakeni ng of
l ocal jur i es, 75 the Ci vi l War , the Four teenth Amendment, and a
Senate fi l l ed wi th athei sts.
Concl usi on
The Preambl e of the Consti tuti on and the pl ebi sci te of 1788 es-
tabl i shed a new covenantal foundati on for the Ameri can republ i c. I t
transferred ul ti mate soverei gnty from God to the Peopl e as a whol e,
and medi ator y pol i ti cal sover ei gnty fr om the states to the nati onal
gover nment. The questi on then became: Whi ch br anch speaks au-
thori tati vel y i n the name of the new di vi ni ty? Whi l e the Framers di d
not expect the Supreme Court to emerge as the Peopl es spokesman,
i t was i nherent i n the nature of the Consti tuti onal settl ement: 1) the
i nescapabl e doctri ne of judi ci al revi ew; 2) a uni tary revi ewer (i . e.,
no provi si on for an appeal to the pl ural soverei gnti es of Presi dent
and Congr ess); 3) l i feti me tenur e for feder al judges (conti nui ty of
the spoken word). The l awyers created a ci vi l government made i n
thei r own i mage, and they transferred penul ti mate soverei gnty to the
~awyers l awyers, those si tti ng permanentl y on the Supreme Court
unti l they di e or vol untari l y resi gn. Onl y the voters can overcome the
Court through the amendi ng process, or so i t has appeared.
There i s no escape from judi ci al authori ty. There must al ways be
a fi nal earthl y court of appeal . The Framers di d not ful l y recogni ze
thi s. They shoul d have seen that the Consti tuti onal doctri ne of judi -
ci al revi ew was i nevi tabl e. The onl y way that they coul d have over-
come thi s tr ansfer of ul ti mate sover ei gnty to the Supr eme Cour t
woul d have been the cr eati on of some sor t of appeal s str uctur e
beyond the Cour t, such as my thr ee-quar ter s vote suggesti on. I n-
stead, the Consti tuti on l odges theor eti cal judi ci al author i ty i n the
Peopl e, and fi nal practi cal authori ty i n the hands of fi ve peopl e (a
fi ve-to-four deci si on of the Cour t).
The fact i s that there must al ways be a uoice that intmprets the will of the
sovereign agent in histoy. Today, the amorphous dei ty We the Peopl e
i s represented i n a soverei gn way by fi ve peopl e. A Consti tuti onal
amendment can overri de the Court, as can a new Conventi on, but
these al terati ons are costl y to organi ze and i nfrequent. The Court
not onl y rei gns today; i t al so rul es.
75. I bid., p. 106.
The remarkabl e fact i s that thi s devel opment was foreseen cl earl y
by Brutus. Anal yzi ng the Preambl e, he recogni zed that a vast ex-
pansi on of nati onal pol i ti cal power was i nevi tabl e:
To di scover the spi ri t of the consti tuti on, i t i s of the fi rst i mportance to
attend to the pri nci pal ends and desi gns i t has i n vi ew. These are expressed
i n the preambl e, i n the fol l owi ng words, viz. We, the peopl e of the Uni ted
States, i n order to form a more perfect uni on, establ i sh justi ce, i nsure
domesti c tranqui l i ty, provi de for the common defence, promote the general
wel fare, and secure the bl essi ngs of l i berty to oursel ves and our posteri ty, do
ordai n and establ i sh thi s consti tuti on, &c. I f the end of the government i s
to be l earned from these words, whi ch are cl earl y desi gned to decl are i t, i t i s
obvi ous i t has i n vi ew every object whi ch i s embraced by any government.
The preservati on of i nternal peace the due admi ni strati on of justi ce and
to provi de for the defence of the communi ty, seems to i ncl ude al l the objects
of government; but i f they do not, they are certai nl y comprehended i n the
words, to provi de for the general wel fare. I f i t be further consi dered, that
thi s consti tuti on, i f i t i s rati fi ed, wi l l not be a compact entered i nto by
states, i n thei r corporate capaci ti es, but an agreement of the peopl e of the
Uni ted States, as one great body pol i ti c, no doubt can remai n, but that the
great end of the consti tuti on, i f i t i s to be col l ected from the preambl e, i n
whi ch i ts end i s decl ared, i s to consti tute a government whi ch i s to extend to
every case for whi ch any government i s i nsti tuted, whether external or i n-
ternal . The courts, therefore, wi l l establ i sh thi s as a pri nci pl e i n expound-
i ng the consti tuti on, and wi l l gi ve every part of i t such an expl anati on, as
wi l l gi ve l ati tude to every department under i t, to take cogni zance of every
matter , not onl y that affects the gener al and nati onal concer ns of the uni on,
but al so of such as rel ate to the admi ni strati on of pri vate justi ce, and to reg-
ul ati ng the i nternal and l ocal affai rs of the di fferent parts. 76
The means of thi s central i zati on of power, he predi cted, woul d
be the Supreme Courts power of judi ci al revi ew:
Perhaps nothi ng coul d have been better concei ved to faci l i tate the abol i -
ti on of the state governments than the consti tuti on of the judi ci al . They wi l l
be abl e to extend the l i mi ts of the general government gradual l y, and by i n-
sensi bl e degrees, and to accommodate themsel ves to the temper of the peopl e.
Thei r deci si ons on the meani ng of the consti tuti on wi l l commonl y take
pl ace i n cases whi ch ari se between i ndi vi duds, wi th whi ch the publ i c wi l l
not be general l y acquai nted; one adjudi cati on wi l l form a precedent to the
next, and thi s to a fol l owi ng one. These cases wi l l i mmedi atel y affect i ndi -
vi dual s onl y; so that a seri es of determi nati ons wi l l probabl y take pl ace be-
76. Brutus~ Com@ete Anti-Federalist, I I , p. 424.
We the People: From Vassal to Suzerain to Serf 519
fore even the peopl e wi l l be i nformed of them. I n the mean ti me al l the art
and address of those who wi sh for the change wi l l be empl oyed to make con-
verts to thei r opi ni on. . . .
Had the constructi on of the consti tuti on been l eft wi th the l egi sl ature,
they woul d have expl ai ned i t at thei r peri l ; i f they exceed thei r powers, or
sought to fi nd, i n the spi ri t of the consti tuti on, more than was expressed i n
the l etter, the peopl e from whom they deri ved thei r power coul d remove
them, and do themsel ves ri ght; and i ndeed I can see no other remedy that
the peopl e can have agai nst thei r rul ers for encroachments of thi s nature. A
consti tuti on i s a compact of a peopl e wi th thei r rul ers; i f the rul ers break the
compact, the peopl e have a ri ght and ought to remove them and do them-
sel ves justi ce; but i n order to enabl e them to do thi s wi th the greater faci l i ty,
those whom the peopl e chuse at stated peri ods, shoul d have the power i n
the l ast resort to determi ne the sense of the compact; i f they determi ne con-
trary to the understandi ng of the peopl e, an appeal wi l l l i e to the peopl e at
the peri od when the rul ers are to be el ected, and they wi l l have i t i n thei r
power to remedy the evi l ; but when thi s power i s l odged i n the hands of
men i ndependent of the peopl e, and of thei r representati ves, and who are
not, consti tuti onal l y, accountabl e for thei r opi ni ons, no way i s l eft to con-
troul them but with a high hand and an outstretched arm. 77
I f Ameri cas nati onal covenant remai ns broken, the Court wi l l
nei ther rei gn nor rul e forever. I n the l onger run, there i s no questi on
where we are headed:
(A Psal m of Davi d.) The LORD sai d unto my Lord, Si t thou at my ri ght
hand, unti l I make thi ne enemi es thy footstool . The LORD shal l send the rod
of thy strength out of Zi on: rul e thou i n the mi dst of thi ne enemi es. Thy
peopl e shal l be wi l l i ng i n the day of thy power , i n the beauti es of hol i ness
from the womb of the morni ng: thou hast the dew of thy youth (Ps. 110:1-3).
Then cometh the end, when he shal l have del i vered up the ki ngdom to
God, even the Father ; when he shal l have put down aJl rul e and ai l author i ty
and power. For he must rei gn, ti l l he bath put al l enemi es under hi s feet. The
l ast enemy that shal l be destroyed i s death. For he bath put al l thi ngs under
hi s feet. But when he sai th al l thi ngs are put under hi m, i t i s mani fest that he
i s excepted, whi ch di d put al l thi ngs under hi m. And when al l thi ngs shal l be
subdued unto hi m, then shal l the Son al so hi msel f be subject unto hi m that
put al l thi ngs under hi m, that God may be al l i n al l (I Cor. 15:24-28).
77. I bid., I I , pp. 441, 442
The natural l eaders of the Ameri can peopl e were at l ast assembl ed for
the purpose of del i berati ng upon the whol e questi on of the Ameri can
state. They cl osed the doors upon the i dl e curi osi ty and the crude cri t-
i ci sm of the mul ti tude, adopted the rul e of the majori ty i n thei r acts,
and proceeded to reorgani ze the Ameri can state and frame for i t an
enti r el y new centr aJ government. . . . Thi s was the transcendent re-
sul t of thei r l abors. I t certai nl y was not understood by the Confederate
Congress, or by the l egi sl atures of the commonweal ths, or by the publ i c
general l y, that they were to undertake any such probl em. I t was gen-
eral l y supposed that they were there for the purpose si mpl y of i mprov-
i ng the machi ner y of the Confeder ate gover nment and i ncr easi ng
somewhat i ts powers. There was, al so, but one l egal way for them to
proceed i n r e~r gani zi ng the Ameri can state as the ~ri gi n~ basi s of the
consti tuti on whi ch they were about to propose, ui z; they must send the
pl an therefore, as a prelimina~ proposition, to the Confederate Congress,
procure i ts adopti on by that body and i ts recommendati on by that body
to the l egi sl atures of the commonweal ths, and fi nal l y secure i ts approval
by the l egi sl ature of every commonweal th. The new soverei gnty, thus
l egal l y establ i shed, mi ght then be l egal l y and consti tuti onal l y appeal ed
to for the adopti on of any pl an of government whi ch the conventi on
mi ght choose to propose. The conventi on di d not, however, proceed
i n any such manner. What they actual l y di d, stri pped of al l fi cti on and
verbi age, was to assume consti tuent powers, ordai n a consti tuti on of
government and of l i berty, and demand the plebiscite thereon, over the
heads of al l exi sti ng l egal l y organi zed powers. Had Jul i us or Napol eon
commi tted these acts they woul d have been pronounced coup d6tat
[si c]. Looked at from the si de of the peopl e exerci si ng the plebiscite, we
term the movement revol uti on. The conventi on cl othed i ts acts and as-
sumpti ons i n more moderate l anguage than I have used, and professed
to fol l ow a more l egal course than I have i ndi cated. . . . Of course the
mass of the peopl e were not at al l abl e to anal yze the real character of
thi s procedure. I t i s probabl e that many of the members of the conven-
ti on i tsel f di d not ful l y comprehend just what they were doi ng. . . .
Real l y, however, i t depri ved the Congress and the l egi sl atures of al l
freedom of acti on by i nvoki ng the plebiscite. I t thus pl aced those bodi es
under the necessi ty of affronti ng the source of thei r own exi stence un-
l ess they yi el ded uncondi ti onal l y to the demands of the conventi on.
John W. Burgess (1893)*
*Burgess, Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law, vol. 1, Sovereign@ and
Liber~ (Boston: Gi nn & Co., 1893), pp. 104-6.
CONCLUSI ON, PART 3
And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew;
for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and
brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram (Gen. 14:13).
Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods (Ex.
23:32).
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessa~ for one
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
anothe~ and to assume among the Powers of earth, the separate and equal
station to which the Laws of Nature and of Naturet God entitle them. . .
What went wrong wi th the Ameri can experi ment i n Chri sti an
freedom? Essenti al l y, the same thi ng that has been goi ng wrong wi th
Chri sti ani ty si nce the earl y second century: a compromi se wi th fal se
gods. I t began i n the earl y Church wi th the assumpti on that the fal se
gods of Greek phi l osophy spoke to man wi th the same common l an-
guage and message that the God of the Bi bl e speaks. Thi s i ntel l ec-
tual error has conti nued to undermi ne al l attempts to construct
Chri sti an ci vi l i zati on ever si nce.
The i dea that there i s common ground i ntel l ectual l y wi th covenant-
breakers i s real l y a symptom of a much worse error: the i dea that
there i s common ethical gr ound between the bel i ever and unbel i ever .
Thi s i s not to say that there i s no possi bl e connecti on. There i s. I t i s
based on the fact that al l men are made i n Gods i mage. There can
therefore be l i mi ted cooperati on under some hi stori cal condi ti ons be-
cause of the work of the l aw wri tten on the hearts of al l covenant-
breakers (Rem. 2:15). Thi s does not refer to Gods l aw i tsel f, whi ch i s
the excl usi ve heart-engraved possessi on of Chri sti ans (Heb. 8:8-11). 1
1. John Murray, The Epistle to the Remans, 2 vol s. (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan:
Eerdmans, 1959), I , pp. 72-76.
521
522
The possi bi l i ty of such cooperati on decl i nes as covenant-breakers
and covenant-keepers begi n to act more consi stentl y wi th thei r
underl yi ng ri val rel i gi ous presupposi ti ons.
2
The i dea that there can be common ground ethi cal l y and i ntel -
l ectual l y between covenant-keepers and covenant-breakers then
l eads to the thi rd error: there can be common ground judi ci al l y (ci vi l
covenants). Thi s i s the assumpti on that offi ci al l y undergi rds the
common hi erarchi es, l aws, and courts of al l modern secul ar ci vi l
governments.
I t does not matter i f, for a ti me, subordi nate ci vi l governments
conti nue to mai ntai n a Chri sti an confessi on. The covenantal confes-
si on of the nati onal ci vi l government i nevi tabl y wi l l determi ne the
covenantal confessi on of the regi onal ci vi l governments under i t.
The central government must settl e regi onal di sputes and make na-
ti onal pol i cy i n terms of a si ngl e confessi on. Regi onal and l ocal ci vi l
governments have agreed to subordi nate themsel ves to a common
central government. The god of thi s central government then be-
comes the suzerai n of the l ocal governments. The nati onal pantheon
may be ful l or i t may be empty; the fact of the matter i s, the god of
the nati onal covenant i s the god of the composi te l ocal governments.
There i s no escape from the fi ve poi nts of the covenant. Thi ngs may
not appear to be thi s way when the covenant i s fi rst cut, but here i s
where the system must end up, unl ess the nati on: 1) changes i ts cove-
nant vol untari l y, 2) fal l s mi l i tari l y to another nati on, or 3) breaks
apart i nto smal l er juri sdi cti onal uni ts.
Two centuri es after the Uni ted States broke covenant wi th God,
very few Ameri can Chri sti ans have any i dea that thi s was what took
pl ace i n 1788. They see the growi ng evi l s that surround them, yet
they do not even suspect a connecti on between these events and the
events of 1785-89. They do not thi nk i n terms of sancti ons agai nst
covenantal apostasy. They do not thi nk covenantal l y.
James Madi son di d. So di d John Adams.
The Ameri can Revol uti on
Havi ng a common enemy i n 1776, i .e., Great Bri tai n, made i t
easy for the Chri sti an state commonweal ths to forget a bi bl i cal cove-
nantal requi rement: the prohi bi ti on of covenants between covenant-
2. Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace: The Biblical Bash of Progress (Tyl er,
keepi ng commonweal ths and covenant-breaki ng commonweal ths.
Thou shal t make no covenant wi th them, nor wi th thei r gods (Ex.
23: 32). Temporary pol i ti cal and mi l i tary al l i ances and confedera-
ti ons wi th covenant-breakers are l egi ti mate, as the exampl e of Abra-
ham shows (Gen. 14:13); ci vi l covenants are not.3 They forgot be-
cause the Uni tari an rel i gi on of I saac Newton had al ready success-
ful l y compromi sed the Tri ni tari an rel i gi on of Jesus Chri st.
Everyone i n col oni al Ameri ca assumed that there are common,
God-gi ven (natural ) l aws and ri ghts. Everyone assumed that a
publ i c acknowl edgment of the soverei gnty of the Uni tari an god of
Newton was the covenantal equi val ent of a publ i c acknowl edgment
of the soverei gnty of the Tri ni tari an God of the Bi bl e. They assumed,
as Chri sti an Masons assumed (and sti l l assume), that the Great
Archi tect of the Uni verse (G. A. O. T. U.) i s the Creator God of the
Book of Genesi s. Thus, when Great Bri tai n became percei ved as the
common enemy of al l the col oni es, the patri ots of the covenantal l y
Chri sti an states assumed that they coul d make a mi l i tary al l i ance
wi th the states that were not formal l y covenanted to the God of the
Bi bl e, or at l east l ess formal l y covenanted. They assumed that be-
cause the ci ti zens of al l the states were Chri sti ans, there was no
danger i n a confederati on among the state governments that pol i ti -
cal l y represented these Chri sti an ci ti zens. There was great danger,
as events soon proved. There was al so the thorn of Rhode I sl and.
The war escal ated rapi dl y, and sel f-defense appeared to requi re
more than a mere confederati on; i t requi red a covenant. The Decl a-
rati on of I ndependence was more than a statement of the creati on of
a new al l i ance; i t decl ared the creati on of a new nati on of soverei gn
states. I t was a cl assi c hal fway covenant. I n the words of Li ncol n i n
the Gettysburg Address, i t was a new nati on, concei ved i n l i berty,
and dedi cated to the proposi ti on that al l men are created equal .
Al l men are i ndeed created equal : equal l y gui l ty of transgressi ng
Gods covenant wi th Adam, equal l y under the negati ve sancti ons of
God. But a new bi rth i s possi bl e by Gods grace: adopti on by God
through Jesus Chri st i nto the househol d of God (John 1:12). Thi s
makes men covenantally unequal. I t creates an eternal di sti ncti on between
two ki nds of peopl e: covenant-keepers and covenant-breakers.
These ri val judi ci al condi ti ons must be reveal ed i n radi cal l y di fferent
3. Gar y North, Heal er of the Nations: Biblical Blueprints for I nternational Relations
(Ft. Worth, Texas: Domi ni on Press, 1987), ch. 9.
vi ews of thei r ci vi l judi ci al status. There wi l l be screeni ng. The ques-
ti on i s: By whose covenant?
The probl em i n understandi ng thi s judi ci al screeni ng process i s
easy to state but hard to comprehend, namel y, covenants arejudicialZy
binding under God. He takes them seri ousl y as seri ousl y as He takes
Chur ch covenants and fami l y covenants. The ci vi l and mi l i tar y
al l i ance of the Revol uti onary peri od, from Jul y 4, 1776, unti l the ra-
ti fi cati on of the Arti cl es by the state l egi sl atures i n 1781, was more
than an al l i ance; i t was a covenant. The Decl arati on of I ndepend-
ence was not heral ded as a covenantal document, but i t was one. I t
had to be; i t formal l y di ssol ved the previ ous ci vi l covenantal ti es wi th
Gr eat Br i tai n: When i n the Cour se of human events, i t becomes
necessary for one peopl e to di ssol ve the pol i ti cal bands whi ch have
connected them wi th another, and to assume among the Powers of
earth, the separate and equal stati on to whi ch the Laws of Nature
and of Natures God enti tl e them. . . . The sover ei gn of thi s new
ci vi l covenant was Newtons Uni tari an god of nature. Thus, the next
step establ i shi ng the by-l aws of a formal covenant was far easi er
to take.
4
A Unitarian Rebellion
I n thei r act of Uni tari an pol i ti cal rebel l i on, the col oni es commi tted
treason, not just agai nst Great Bri tai n, but agai nst God. Thi s i s
what the hei rs of the Ameri can Revol uti on never admi t, even i n pri -
vate. Nei ther the revol uti onari es nor thei r hei rs have taken bi bl i cal
covenant theol ogy seri ousl y, so the covenantal character of that ci vi l
rebel l i on has si mpl y been i gnored for over two centuri es.
The revol uti onary l eaders di d not cl earl y and formal l y appeal to
the Tri ni tari an God of the Bi bl e i n defendi ng thei r rebel l i on; i n-
stead, they appeal ed forthri ghtl y agai n and agai n to Newtons Uni -
tari an god. The Congress asked Jefferson to wri te the covenantal
document that formal l y broke the exi sti ng covenant wi th the Ki ng.
.Jeffer son became thei r covenantal representati ve, and therefore the
new nati ons representati ve (poi nt ~wo of the bi bl i cal covenant).
4. The Decl ar ati on i s someti mes r efer r ed to as havi ng establ i shed the nati ons
or gani c l aw. Thi s i s the l anguage of phi l osophi cal r eal i sm, r el i gi ous panthei sm,
secul ar conservati sm, and Roman Cathol i ci sm. The Decl arati on was a covenant
treaty under a god that bound the formerl y subordi nate Bri ti sh states i nto a new ju-
di ci al uni on. Covenants ar e juduial, not or gani c. We must abandon both nomi nal -
i sm (contractual i sm) and real i sm (organi ci sm) i n our thi nki ng.
Congr ess then sancti oned thi s act of ci vi l covenant-br eaki ng when
i ts members si gned the document (poi nt four). Had they made thei r
case for separ ati on i n ter ms of the monar chys 250-year -ol d br eak
wi th the Bi bl e Er asti ani sm, the theol ogy of the nati onal State
Church or wi th the growi ng Dei srn of the Parl i ament and the re-
sul tant corrupti on and tyranny, an unl i mi ted Parl i amentary power
asser ted by Par l i ament
5
and defended by Bl ackstone, they coul d
have justi fi ed thei r ci vi l rebel l i on bi bl i cal l y. But they chose to have
Chr i sti ani tys mor tal enemy wr i te the nati ons covenant-br eaki ng
document. And so John Wi nthr ops dr eam di ed.
There is no neutrali~. There i s no neutral l egal ground between a
ci vi l covenant under one soverei gn and a ci vi l covenant under
another. A new covenant and a new soverei gn i s substi tuted for an
earl i er covenant and soverei gn. To use the l anguage of the Armi ni an
and Dei sti c soci al contract theori sts, there i s never a return to the
state of nature . The col oni sts knew thi s much, even i f they di d not
understand bi bl i cal covenant theol ogy very wel l . They were neces-
sari l y creati ng a new ci vi l covenant when they broke the ol d one.
Thi s i s why Congress on Jul y 4 set up a commi ttee to create a na-
ti onal seal .
Church and State in 1776
Great Bri tai n had unquesti onabl y become bureaucrati c. I t was
no l onger the nati on i t had once been. But i t was sti l l a covenantal l y
Chri sti an nati on. I n fact, one of the major resentments that the Prot-
estants of the col oni es had agai nst Great Bri tai n was that they be-
l i eved that the Church of Engl and was pl anni ng to send a bi shop to
the col oni es, therefore maki ng i t much easi er to ordai n new Angl i can
pastors here. Previ ousl y, candi dates for the Angl i can mi ni stry had
been requi red to travel to London, where the Bi shop of London
woul d consi der ordai ni ng them. No one el se had thi s authori ty. Thi s
5. Parl i aments Decl aratory Act of Feb. 3, 1766, was announced i n preparati on
for Parl i aments repeal of the Stamp Act (taxes on formal sancti oni ng documents i n
the col oni es) two weeks l ater. The Decl aratory Act affi rmed the fol l owi ng: That the
Ki ngs Majesty, by and wi th the advi ce and consent of the Lords spi ri tual and tem-
poral and Commons of Great Bri tai n i n parl i ament assembl ed, had, bath, and of
ri ght ought to have, ful l power and authori ty to make l aws and statutes of suffi ci ent
force and val i di ty to bi nd the col oni es and peopl e of Ameri ca, subjects of the crown
of Great Bri tai n, i n al l cases whatsoever. Edmund S. Morgan and Hel en M.
Morgan, The Stamp Act Crisis: Prologue to Revolution (New York: Col l i er, 1963), pp.
347-48.
sea journey drasti cal l y reduced the suppl y of Angl i can pastors i n the
col oni es. (The Presbyteri ans faced a si mi l ar constrai nt: ei ther ad-
vanced educati on i n Scotl and or at the ti ny Col l ege of New Jersey.
Thi s restri cti on was l ater to cri ppl e thei r mi ssi ons program i n the
West, from whi ch the church never recovered. The Bapti sts and
Methodi sts captured the West and thereby the nati on for Roger
Wi l l i ams commonweal th vi si on. )6 The col oni sts suspected that thi s
move by the Angl i can Church was an attempt to strengthen Angl i can-
i sm and therefore the Engl i sh crown, for the Ki ng was the head of
the Church.
7
Thus, the ori gi nal Erasti an error of Reformati on Eng-
l and a nati onal church wi th the ci vi l soverei gn as i ts head had at
l ast l ed to a major pol i ti cal cri si s. Thi s, too, was an aspect of Gods
hi stori c sancti ons. When Saul had offered a sacri fi ce i nstead of Sam-
uel , he vi ol ated Gods l aw (I Sam. 13:9-15). The same was true of
Uzzi ah (I I Chr. 22:19). Saul l ost hi s ki ngdom; Uzzi ah was stri cken
wi th l eprosy. George I I I l ost a war and cl ai ms to most of a conti nent
Chri sti ans al l over the worl d i n the mi d-ei ghteenth century sti l l
bel i eved that i t was necessary for the State to fi nance the Church.
Thi s pl aced the Church economi cal l y under the State to some
degree. Chri sti ans, then as now, di d not understand that the State i s
a mi ni stry of God for the suppressi on of evi l a covenant i nsti tuti on
whi ch i s supposed to i mpose excl usi vel y negati ve sancti ons. By mak-
i ng the State i nto an organi zati on l i ke the fami l y or Church an i n-
sti tuti on i mposi ng posi ti ve sancti ons Chri sti ans created a perverse
i nsti tuti on that coul d masquerade as a bl essi ng. I t was a curse i n
di sgui se, a wol f i n sheeps cl othi ng. I t sti l l i s. (Fortunatel y, i t i s a
nearl y bankrupt wol f. )s
The Defection of the Pastors
A major i ty of col oni al patr i ot pastor s became Whi g Common-
weal thmen r ather than Hol y Commonweal thmen dur i ng the year s
of the Revol uti on. They became di ssenter s i n the sense of the Whi g
radi cal di ssenters. They saw the need to escape an Angl i can bi shop
6. Leonar d J. Tri nterucl , The Forming of an Amwican Tradition: A Re-examination of
Colonial Presbyterianism (Phi l adel phi a: Westmi nster Press, 1959), pp. 269-71.
7. Car l Bri denbaugh, Mitre and Sceptre: Transatlantic Faith, I deas, Personalities, and
Politics, 1689-1775 (New York: Oxford Uni versi ty Press, 1982); Tri nterud, Formi ng,
ch. 13.
8. Peter G. Peterson and Neal Howe, On Borrowed Time: How the Growth in Entitle-
ment Spending Threatens Ammcas Future (San Franci sco: I nsti tute for Contemporary
Studi es, 1988).
i n the col oni es, but they di d not see the enormous threat to Chri sti an
ci vi l i zati on posed by the Uni tari ans and Masons who were becom-
i ng the col oni al l eaders, and who were arti cul ati ng the ci vi l pri nci -
pl es of the Revol uti on. The pastors became the bl ack regi ment of
the Revol uti on,
g
but they di d not become i ts general offi cers. I n
1776, they became chapl ai ns at home and i n camp for an army that
was under the hi erarchi cal control of a dedi cated Mason of great
publ i c vi rtue. They preached thei r fast-day sermons and thei r regi -
mental sermons just as they had preached el ecti on-day sermons
si nce the I ndi an wars of 1675-76: as anoi nters of the State. Thei r
messages had been sel f-consci ousl y devoi d of speci fi c bi bl i cal judi ci al
content for a century by the ti me of the Revol uti onary War. 10 Thi s
di d not change, 1776-1788.
The pastors had l ong si nce deferred pol i ti cal l y to the l awyers.
The l awyers i nheri ted the ki ngdom of pol i ti cs duri ng the Ameri can
Revol uti on. They di d thi s i ngeni ousl y; i n fact, l i ke the ri se of the
empi re i n Rome, pol i ti cs fel l i nto thei r hands as a by-product of war.
The Chri sti ans made that most fundamental of forei gn pol i cy
mi stakes: The enemy of my enemy i s my fri end. They made i t
wi thi n each col ony when they al l owed Uni tari ans, Dei sts, and
Masons to make the ci vi l case for revol uti on, and they made i t agai n
i n the creati on of a new nati on that was formal l y subordi nate to the
Uni tari an god of Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Adams. When they broke
thei r state covenants wi th the Engl i sh Ki ng on the basi s of pol i ti cal
and economi c gri evances the sel f-i nterested compl ai nts of the l aw-
yers and the merchants when i n fact they needed to break cove-
nant wi th a moral l y corrupt Parl i ament and the Erasti an Angl i can
Church, they broke thei r covenant wi th the God of the Bi bl e. He i m-
medi ate y del i vered them i nto the hands of thei r theol ogi cal enemi es.
They wound up i n 1788 wi th a broken nati onal hal fway covenant
and a new covenantal bondage. We are i n that bondage sti l l .
From the day that John Wi therspoon si gned the Decl arati on of
I ndependence, as the symbol i c representati ve of the col oni al cl ergy,
wi th Chri sti an physi ci an Benjami n Rush al ongsi de, the new hal fway
9. Peter Olivers Otigin ~Progress of the American Rebellion: A Tory View, edi ted by
Dougl ass Adai r and John A. Schutz (Stanford, Cal i forni a: Stanford Uni versi ty
Pr ess, [1781] 1961), pp. 41-45.
10. Gary North, From Medi eval Economi cs to I ndeci si ve Pi eti sm: Second-Gen-
erati on Preachi ng i n New Engl and, 1661-1690 , J ournal of Christian Reconstruction, VI
(Summer 1979).
.528 POLI TI CAL POLYTHEI SM
covenant was seal ed. Rushs confi dence i n the wi sdom of thi s act
began to waver wi thi n a year; 11 Wi therspoons never di d. After Jul y
4, 1776, i t was then just a matter of extendi ng the apostate pri nci pl es
of the ori gi nal hal fway covenant i nto a ful l -scal e apostate covenant.
The New Nati onal i sm
The l anguage of the l aws of nature and natures god di sappeared
from the Consti tuti on. So di d the twi n doctri nes of natural l aw and
natural ri ghts. Hi stori an Cad Becker wrote i n 1922: I n the Decl ara-
ti on the foundati on of the Uni ted States i s i ndi ssol ubl y associ ated
wi th a theory of pol i ti cs, a phi l osophy of human ri ghts whi ch i s val i d,
i f at al l , not for Ameri cans onl y, but for al l men. Thi s associ ati on
gi ves the Decl arati on i ts perenni al i nterest .12 Yet a few pages l ater he
noted, al most as an asi de, that these i deas di sappeared i n ni neteenth-
century consti tuti ons. Natural ri ghts are absent, he sai d, even
where we shoul d perhaps most expect i t, i n the Consti tuti on of the
Uni ted States. . . .13
On the contrary, i f my theory of apostate covenantal i sm i s correct,
thi s i s exactl y where we shoul d not expect i t. When the Ameri can na-
ti on moved from bi bl i cal covenantal i sm to hal fway covenantal i sm, i t
remai ned open to a uni versal god, though Newtoni an-Uni tari an.
Arti cl e VI , Cl ause 3 of the Consti tuti on cl osed the door judi ci al l y to
any transcendent god beyond the pol i ti cal order i tsel f. The Consti tu-
ti on i s therefore an apostate covenant; a whol l y new god i s ordai ned
i n i t, a god acknowl edged by the Framers i n order to ordai n i t and
11. Wri tes Rushs bi ographer, Davi d Freeman Hawke: Rush had banked on the
Decl arati on to bri ng about a real revol uti on i n Ameri ca a puri fi ed peopl e march-
i ng as one i n a gl ori ous crusade whi l e the worl d l ooked on. A year wi th the real i ty of
i ndependence had darkened the dream. Rush sti l l hoped for a revol uti on i n the
hearts of the peopl e, sti l l dreamed the war woul d i ntroduce among us the same
temper ance i n pl easur e, the same modesty i n dr ess, the same justi ce i n busi ness,
and the same venerati on for the name of the Dei ty whi ch di sti ngui shed our
ancestors . But bv the summer of 1777 hoDes were tarni shed wi th doubts. and he saw
. ,
a gl oomY cl oud hi ngi ng over our states. He once feared Tori es woul d subvert the
cause; now he saw the corrosi veness of i nternal danger. I f we are undone at al l , he
sai d i n earl y August, it must be by the ari stocrati c, the mercenary, the persecuti ng,
and the arbi trary spi ri t of our own peopl e I mean the peopl e who are cal l ed
Whi gs. Hawke, Benjamin Rurh: Revol uti onaV GadJ y (I ndi anapol i s, I ndi ana: Bobbs-
Merri l l , 1971), p. 203.
12, Carl L. Becker, The Declaration of I ndependence: A Stdy in the HistoV of Political
I deas (New Yor k: Vi ntage, [1922] 1942), p. 225.
13. I bid., p, 234.
rati fy i t: the Ameri can Peopl e. Thi s i s not a uni versal god; i t i s a na-
ti onal god. Thi s nati onal god can nei ther offer nor defend any uni -
versal ri ghts of man. I t can onl y offer power to the nati onal State,
wi th deri vati ve power i n the states. The nati onal State becomes the
sol e defi ner and guarantor of Ameri can ri ghts, whi ch today means
fi ve peopl e on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Farewell to Christendom
Washi ngtons Farewel l Address of 1796 (a newspaper arti cl e, not
an actual verbal address) refl ected a major change i n the thi nki ng of
Ameri cans. A new nati onal i sm had al ready appeared. Washi ngtons
address merel y rati fi ed thi s shi ft i n popul ar thi nki ng. There must be
no covenants wi th other nati ons, Washi ngton sai d. He di d not use
the words, no entangl i ng al l i ances, but thi s i s what he meant. He
thereby announced the end of the ol der Puri tan vi si on of Tri ni tari an
uni versal i sm, the ki ngdom of God on earth. There can be no cove-
nanted communi ty of nati ons i n a wor l d mar ked by nati on-states
cr eated by excl usi vel y nati onal democr ati c gods. The new demo-
cr ati c nati onal i sm destr oyed the covenantal foundati on of Chr i s-
tendom when i t r emoved the covenantal foundati on of Tr i ni tar i an
nati onal covenants.
There is no neutrality. There are two ki ngdoms i n hi story. Both
ki ngdoms seek to establ i sh covenantal connecti ons. Satans ki ngdom
i s an empi re: a top-down, central i zed, bureaucrati c system. I n-
i ti ati ve i s at the top. Gods ki ngdom i s a bottom-up, decentral i zed,
appeal s court system. I ni ti ati ve i s at the bottom. I n Gods ki ngdom,
Chri sti an l ocal i sm i s supposed to l ead al so to Chri sti an regi onal i sm,
to Chri sti an nati onal i sm, and fi nal l y to Chri sti an i nternati onal i sm,
just as i t was supposed to do i n Ol d Covenant I srael . 14 I srael fai l ed
i n i nternati onal i zi ng Gods ki ngdom, so God gave the ki ngdom to a
new nati on, the Chur ch I nter nati onal (Matt. 21:42-43). Chr i sti an
ci vi l gover nments ar e supposed to i mi tate the chur ches, and the
churches are not to remai n the ti ny, fragmented, i sol ated i nsti tuti ons
that Madi soni an pol i ti cal nomi nal i sm and extr eme denomi nati onal
confessi onal i sm have made them. Li ke the Tr i ni ty who cr eated i t,
the i nternati onal Church of Jesus Chri st i s to be both one a uni ty
based on Athanasi an confessi onal i sm and many: tr adi ti onal de-
n omi n ati on al pr acti ces an d con fes s i on s . Th e pr obl em i s , th e
14. North, Heal er of the Nations.
churches for over three centuri es have i mi tated the nati onal State, a
di sastrous l egacy of Erasti ani sm: the nati onal Church-nati on State
al l i ance. I t was thi s that the Ameri can col oni es shoul d have revol ted
agai nst i n 1776; i nstead, they al l owed the merchants, the l awyers,
the Uni tari ans, and the Freemasons to set the agenda for covenant-
breaki ng revol uti on. The resul t i s todays apostate nati onal cove-
nantal i sm and denomi nati onal i mpotence, just as Madi son pl anned.
I n contrast to Gods ki ngdom, Satans empi re l eads to the reduc-
ti on of l ocal i sm through the i nvesti ture of total pol i ti cal power at the
top: the central i nternati onal state faci ng the l one, atomi zed i ndi vi d-
ual . Thi s i s Rousseaus nati onal i sm wri t l arge: the pol i ti cal el i mi na-
ti on of al l i ntermedi ary i nsti tuti ons. I t i s al so Madi sons and Hami l -
tons: the pol i ti cal tri vi al i zati on of al l i ntermedi ary i nsti tuti ons. Thi s
new nati onal i sm al so created the need for a new humani st i nterna-
ti onal pantheon, i .e., the revi val of I mperi al Rome: an i nternati onal
one-worl d order whi ch must be a one-State order, a worl d i n whi ch
the nati onal gods remai n forever si l ent except as rel i cs of the new
worl d order. ,
What I am argui ng i s that nati onal i sm i s an intermedia~ histo;cal
step in the progress of the two kingdoms. I t i s not the fi nal resti ng pl ace of
ei ther Chri sti an covenantal i sm or humani sti c covenantal i sm. We are
i nevi tabl y headed toward worl d government, both ci vi l and eccl esi -
asti cal . Worl d government i s an i nescapabl e concept, gi ven the uni -
versal i sti c cl ai ms of both God and Satan. Nei ther God nor Satan i s
about to back oH i n hi s cl ai ms for total al l egi ance. The questi on
therefore i s: By whose covenant will this world government be created?
I offer thi s l i tmus test or earl y warni ng system regardi ng the
comi ng of humani sms one-worl d order: Christian missions. The day
the churches stop sendi ng out mi ssi onari es i s the day we can mark
the next step of the extensi on of Satans one-worl d ki ngdom. The
mi ssi onary i s l i vi ng proof of the conti nui ng commi tment of Chri s-
ti ans to worl d government. He i s the representative of Chri sti an i nter-
nati onal i sm. The mi ssi onary del i vers a uni versal message: the ki ng-
dom of God. He del i ver s Gods announcement of Hi s sover ei gnty.
The mi ssi onary del i vers Go#s covenant i?awsuit to forei gn nati ons. He
al so bri ngs a denomi nati onal sl ant to the message. Unfortunatel y,
Chri sti an soci al thought has i gnored the mi ssi onary for so l ong as
i f the work of worl d mi ssi ons were some sort of peri pheral Church
acti vi ty that Chri sti ans have for two centuri es or more been en-
chanted by spur i ous nati onal i sm and spur i ous denomi nati onal i sm.
I n fact, these two spuri ous vi ews feed on one another. They keep
Chri sti ans thi nki ng smal l . They work together to l i mi t the bound-
ari es of Chri sti ani tys vi si on of vi ctory.
Meanwhi l e, Satan has nearl y compl eted the creati on of hi s one-
worl d pol i ti cal order. Wi thout the speci al grace of God i n the form of
a major i nternati onal revi val of Tri ni tari an fai th, onl y the common
grace of God through the i ntense ri val ri es of fal l en men wi l l be abl e
to cal l a hal t to thi s demoni c pol i ti cal process. One thi ng i s sure: i t
wi l l not be stopped by Chri sti an nati onal i sm. There are no l onger
any Chri sti an nati ons, covenantal l y speaki ng. Roger Wi l l i ams and
hi s spi ri tual hei rs di d thei r work very wel l .
From 1776 to 1787
Jeffersons Decl arati on of I ndependence compromi sed the ori gi -
nal Chri sti an covenantal i sm of the states by joi ni ng them together i n
an al l i ance of i ndependent states under the authori ty of nature and
natures god, a myth of Uni tari an theol ogy. The Arti cl es of Con-
federati on compl eted the Decl arati ons hal fway covenant by creati ng
the Uni ted States of Ameri ca: a true covenant document rather than
a mere al l i ance of judi ci al l y i ndependent states. The Consti tuti on
then el i mi nated al l references to the Newtoni an god and hi s sup-
posed grant of ri ghts to men. I t created a new nati onal god, one that
i s an affront to humani st i nternati onal i sm, but al so an affront to
Chri sti an i nternati onal i sm.
Nati onal i sm i s a dyi ng phi l osophy today. I t wi l l not be sustai ned
i nsti tuti onal l y forever. The questi on i s: What wi l l repl ace i t?
Pol i ti cal fragmentati on, a new humani st worl d order, or a new
Chri sti an worl d order?
So powerful i s the Consti tuti on i n the eyes of Ameri can Chri s-
ti ans that they have rejected Chri sti an i nternati onal i sm as i f i t were
a satani c phi l osophy. They have l ost the Puri tan vi si on. That was
preci sel y Madi sons agenda i n 1787. By tri vi al i zi ng the churches and
by exal ti ng the new nati onal government, he deal t a bl ow agai nst
Puri tani sm. Puri tani sm has yet to recover.
And sti l l the Chri sti ans cheer 15 even those who thi nk of them-
sel ves as neo-Puri tans. 16
15. Gene Fi sher and Gl en Chambers, The Revolution Myth (Greenvi l l e, South
Carol i na: Bob Jones Uni versi ty Press, 1981).
16. After I had del i vered a bri ef speech summari zi ng my book, Healm of the Natiom,
one Chri sti an Reconstructi oni st l eader qui pped: Have you joi ned the Counci l on
Forei gn Rel ati ons? Thi s mans theol ogy i s offi ci al l y Puri tan; hi s ki ngdom worl d-
vi ew, however, i s excl usi vi st and nati onal i st.
Mi ss Hal l s Di l emma
Verna Hal l i s wel l known to conservati ve Chri sti an school teachers
i n Ameri ca. Her red books serve as textbooks for many Chri sti an
day school s and home school s. Mi ss Hal l has arti cul ated the di l emma
we Chri sti ans face as Chri sti ans: the nature of sel f-government.
The fi rst l esson the Ameri can Chri sti an must l earn i f he woul d success-
ful l y devel op, mai ntai n or restore the Chri sti an republ i c, i s Chri sti an sel f-
government. Sel f-government wi thout the modi fi er Chri sti an i n i ts ful l
Bi bl i cal meani ng, i s nothi ng more than sel f-wi l l regardl ess of i ni ti al i ntent
to be or do good. Man wi thout Chri st cannot succeed i n produci ng l asti ng
good. 17
Never i n the hi story of the worl d has there been such an exampl e of
Chri sti an vol untary uni on i n ci vi l affai rs as was exhi bi ted by the col oni sts
between 1775 and 1783. Thi s costl y experi ence l ai d the groundwork for the
adopti on of our Nati onal Federal Consti tuti on si x years l ater i n 1789.18
I n these two statements, separated by three and a hal f paragraphs,
we see the reasons why Mi ss Hal l s task i s i nherentl y i mpossi bl e to
compl ete honestl y: to wri te a Chri sti an Consti tuti onal hi story of the
Uni ted States. Each of Mi ss Hal l s three vol umes ends no l ater than
1777. There i s surel y a reason for thi s, other than l ack of ti me or
money; the fi rst vol ume appeared i n 1960; the l ast, Consider and
Ponder, appeared i n 1975. I g She di ed over a decade l ater, her publ i sh-
i ng foundati on sti l l sol vent a remarkabl e achi evement, gi ven the
narrow i ntel l ectual focus of i ts publ i cati ons.
I si ngl e out her dedi cated efforts because she devoted her l i fe to
thi s project, yet i t never came cl ose to reachi ng i ts stated goal : the
Consti tuti onal Conventi on. Her books never even reached the for-
mal i ntroducti on of the Arti cl es of Confederati on i n 1777. These col -
l ected pri mary sources are useful , but they do not prove the thesi s of
her books ti tl es: the Chri~tian hi story of the Consti tuti on. Her books
do reveal the Chri sti an hi story of the col oni al Ameri can peri od, .@ to
1776. They do not show anythi ng after that. They end.
17. Verna M. Hafl , Pr eface (1978), The Chnktian Histo?y of the Constitution of the
United States of Am.eriia, Christian Se~-Govemnwnt With Union, edi ted by Joseph Al l en
Montgomery, Compi l ed by Verna M. Hal l (San Franci sco: Foundati on for Ameri -
can Chri 8ti an Educati on, [1962] 1979), pp. I I -I I I .
18. I bid., p, I I I .
19. Thi s gorgeousl y pri nted book adopted the general ti tl e, The Christian HistoV of
the Anwiian Revolution.
To escape the restri cti on of the copyri ght l aws, Mi ss Hal l i n-
cl uded extr acts fr om l ate ni neteenth-centur y textbooks and other
narrati ve sources. These narrati ves were frequentl y wri tten by Uni -
tar i ans and non-Tr i ni tar i ans, for non-Chr i sti ans contr ol l ed Amer i -
can publ i shi ng after the Ci vi l War. John Fi ske, 20 for exampl e, was
one of the great champi ons of evol uti oni sm. Hi stori ography i s not a
neutral enterpri se. I t i s shaped by the presupposi ti ons of the authors.
There was no market for expl i ci tl y Chri sti an hi stori es i n 1890; there
i s very l i ttl e demand even today, and even then what we get i s Nol l -
Hatch-Mar sden.
There are a l ot of conservati ve Chri sti ans who have seen the sets
ti tl e, but who have not read the contents. They take i t for granted
that the sets pr i mar y sour ce documents r eal l y do pr ove that the
Consti tuti on was or i gi nal l y Chr i sti an. Thi s i s a gr ave mi stake.
There are no pri mary source documents i n these books that extend
beyond the outbreak of the Revol uti onary War. What the post-1776
documents do show i s that after the War ended, Chri sti an i nfl uences
i n the country decl i ned for a decade or more. Thi s i s the argument
of Nel l , Hatch, and Marsden, and i t i s corroborated by most of the
pri mary sources that I am fami l i ar wi th. The pastors certai nl y com-
pl ai ned about thi s moral decl i ne i n thei r publ i shed sermons and pri -
vate cor r espondence and di ar i es.
Per haps the pr esentl y unpubl i shed vol umes compi l ed by Mi ss
Hal l and Mi ss Sl ater wi l l at l ast pr esent the mi ssi ng evi dence,
al though I doubt i t. I f so, then the books narrati ve needs to show
why i t was that from 1776 on, those who organi zed the Conventi on
were so determi ned to remove or overcome the bi ndi ng authori ty of
pre-Revol uti onary Tri ni tari an state oaths. That, of course, wi l l not
be possi bl e i f the books conti nue to rel y on ni neteenth-century hu-
mani st textbooks to suppl y the narrati ves.
The Unasked Questions
Mi ss Hal l says that she began her i ntel l ectual journey when she
was empl oyed by a federal bureaucracy whi ch she recogni zed was
soci al i sti c i n i ntent. 21 She wondered how thi s had come about, gi ven
the exi stence of the Consti tuti on. There i s a correct si mpl e answer,
20. Repri nt from Fi ske, i n Chti sti an Hi $tov of the Constitution (1966 edi ti on), pp.
271-82.
21. Ver na M. Hal l , Preface, Ghrislian HistoT of the Constitution (San Franci sco:
Ameri can Consti tuti on Press, 1960), p. I I I .
one whi ch woul d have pai ned her greatl y: because of the Constitution.
The Consti tuti ons Framers unquesti onabl y began thei r hi stori c
efforts wi th the presupposi ti on of the i ndi spensabi l i ty of moral sel f-
government. Neverthel ess, the document they produced catego-
ri cal y and formal l y rejects the concept of Christian sel f-government.
And, ci ti ng Mi ss Hal l agai n, Sel f-government wi thout the modi fi er
Chri sti an i n i ts ful l Bi bl i cal meani ng, i s nothi ng more than sel f-wi l l
regardl ess of i ni ti al i ntent to be or do good. Man wi thout Chri st can-
not succeed i n produci ng l asti ng good. The good that the Consti tu-
ti on was i ntended to do coul d not survi ve unscathed.
The hard questi on that i s never faced cl earl y and deci si vel y by
those who defend the theory of the Chri sti an ori gi ns of the Consti tu-
ti on i s thi s one:
Why were the Arti cl es of Confederati on i nherentl y l ess
Chri sti an than the Consti tuti on, and so i neffecti ve that a con-
spi racy had to be entered i nto, organi zed i ni ti al l y i n 1785-87 by
Freemasons, Dei sts, and proto-Uni tari ans, i n order to restore
i nherentl y Chri sti an pri nci pl es of nati onal government?
To put i t another way, why were the l awyers i n charge of the Con-
venti on and the pastors absent? Why were the pamphl et debates of
1787-88 conducted i n terms of Roman hi stori cal exampl es and not
bi bl i cal hi stori cal exampl es? Why was there never any appeal to spe-
ci fi c bi bl i cal l aws, but endl ess appeal s to natural l aws? Why were the
symbol s adopted by the Conti nental Congress, the Conventi on, and
the post-War nati on systemati cal l y non-Chri sti an? Why, i f the Con-
sti tuti on i s Chri sti an, i s the name of Jesus Chri st mi ssi ng?
There i s onl y one sensi bl e answer: the U.S. Consti tuti on i s not
Chri sti an.
Surpri ses
We shoul d not be surpri sed to l earn that Joseph Smi th, founder
of Mormoni sm, taught that the Consti tuti onal Conventi on was
ei ther di vi nel y i nspi red or very cl ose to i t. And for thi s purpose, he
has God say, have I establ i shed the Consti tuti on of thi s l and, by the
hands of wi se men whom I rai sed up unto thi s very purpose, and
redeemed the l and by the sheddi ng of bl ood .
22
Smi th prayed: Have
mercy, O Lord, upon al l the nati ons of the earth; have mercy upon
22. Doctrine and Covenanti, 101:80.
the rul ers of the l and; may those pri nci pl es, whi ch were so honorabl y
and nobl y defended, namel y, the Consti tuti on of our l and, by our
fathers, be establ i shed for ever .n23
The reason why we shoul d not be surpri sed at thi s i s because
Joseph Smi th was a Mason, and Mormoni sm adopts many Masoni c
symbol s, most notabl y the beehi ve, and al so adopts Masoni c ri tual s.
These facts are freel y admi tted by E. Ceci l McGavi n i n hi s book,
Mormoni sm and Ma.sony (1956), whi ch i s often sol d i n Mormon book-
stores. 24 Smi ths l ast words, O Lord my God, i s a Masoni c cry, and
he uttered i t because he hoped that the Masons i n the crowd that
ki l l ed hi m woul d i ntervene on hi s behal f. I nstead, they joi ned i n the
executi on. 25 (The spi ri t of fraterni ty has i ts l i mi ts, apparentl y.)
What is surpri si ng i s that so many conservati ve Chri sti ans today
are seeki ng the previ ousl y hi dden Chri sti an roots of the U.S. Consti -
tuti on. These are not hi dden roots; they are mi ssi ng roots. The roots
of the Consti tuti on ar e Rhode I sl and pol i ti cal theor y, Newtoni an
phi l osophy, Dei st-Uni tar i an-Whi g soci al theor y, Scotti sh Enl i ghten-
ment r ati onal i sm, and Masoni c uni ver sal i st. The Consti tuti ons
str uctur e was Chr i sti an-Pur i tan; i ts content was humani st. Ther e
may wel l be trappi ngs that are Chri sti an, for the Framers were men
of thei r era, and that era was at bottom Chri sti an. But the Chri sti an-
i ty of ei gh teen th -cen tu r y Amer i ca was deepl y s ch i zoph r en i c.
Newton was the favored model , not Paul on Mars Hi l l (Acts 17).
The pr i mar y pr obl em wi th Pr otestant Chr i sti ani ty i n the ei gh-
teenth century was i ts ethi cal and judi ci al dual i sm: bi bl i cal l aw vs.
natur al l aw. The pr obl em has been dual i sm for ei ghteen hundr ed
years. The two systems are ri val systems, yet Chri sti ans persi st i n
argui ng that they are at bottom the same, even when they si mul tan-
eousl y i nsi st that ther e i s no neutr al i ty. They affi r m, yet subse-
quentl y deny, that The fi r st l esson the Amer i can Chr i sti an must
l earn i f he woul d successful l y devel op, mai ntai n or restore the Chri s-
ti an r epubl i c, i s Chr i sti an sel f-gover nment. Sel f-gover nment wi th-
out the modi fi er Chri sti an i n i ts ful l Bi bl i cal meani ng, i s nothi ng
more than sel f-wi l l regardl ess of i ni ti al i ntent to be or do good. Man
wi thout Chr i st cannot succeed i n pr oduci ng l asti ng good.
23. I bid., 109:54.
24. Sal t Lake Ci ty: Bookcraft Publ i shers. The same ti tl e was used by Grand
Master S. H. Goode for hi s 1925 book, whi ch makes many of the same observati ons
regardi ng the paral l el s.
25. McGavi n, Mormonism and Maron~, ch. 3.
Constanti ne or Pharaoh?
I have argued that the Framers were general l y commi tted to a
speci fi c hi stori cal model : republ i can Rome. They used Roman
pseudonyms i n thei r pamphl et wars. (So di d thei r Anti federal i st ad-
versari es. ) They adopted Roman archi tecture for the nati ons
capi tol . But there was a probl em that they al l recogni zed and feared,
for good reason: republ i can Rome became i mperi al Rome. Ci cero
was no doubt el oquent; he al so di ed a fugi ti ve from justi ce, sl ai n by
agents of the authori ti es. 26 I f vox populi is i n fact vox dei, why di d
Ci cero di e a fugi ti ve of the peopl es justi ce?
The pantheon of Rome was pol ythei sti c i n appearance, but i t
was monothei sti c i n substance. The many gods of the expandi ng
Republ i c were uni ted by thei r pl ace i n Romes rel i gi ous order. They
publ i cl y mani fested the uni fyi ng power of the Roman State. By the
ti me of Chri st, the Republ i c had become the Empi re. The Roman
pantheon was then i nternati onal i n scope. Every god of every cap-
ti ve peopl e had a l awful pl ace i n the pantheon, testi fyi ng publ i cl y to
the subordi nati on of each gods ci ty to the Empi re.
One God was conspi cuousl y absent from thi s pantheon: the God
of the Bi bl e. Thi s God acknowl edged no other god and no other
ki ngdom but Hi s own. Rome was under the authori ty of thi s God,
not over i t. And so, there was from the begi nni ng an i nevi tabl e ci vi l
war between Chri st and Caesar, Church and State. Thi s war was
eventual l y won by the earthl y representati ves of the ascended Chri st. ~
Chri sti ans fi nal l y repl aced pagans i n the offi ces of ci vi l authori ty.
Thi s Constanti ni an settl ement sti l l outrages and embarrasses
pol i ti cal pol ythei sts i n th e moder n Ch u r ch : fu n damen tal i s ts ,
pi eti sts, neo-evangel i cal l i ber al s, and Chr i sti an col l ege pr ofessor s
ever ywher e. 28 They much prefer to see pagans occupy the seats of
ci vi l author i ty, so the exampl e of Constanti ne offends them. They
26. The l egacy of Rome conti nues today. Our mi l i tary adopts the names of
Greek and Roman gods for weapons systems. (The Thor mi ssi l e reveal s a tol erant
spi ri t of ecumeni sm: gi vi ng the Norse gods thei r due. ) The I srael i s cal l thei r battl e
tank the Davi d. Thi s sets a good exampl e.
27. Ethel ber t Stauffer, C/zn~t and the Cae$ars (Phi l adel phi a: Westmi nster Press,
1955).
28. A representati ve statement i s Leonard Verdui n, The Anatomy of a Hybrid: A
Study in Church-State Relationships (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Eerdmans, 1976). Thi s
has been the Anabapti st posi ti on ever si nce the mi l i tary defeat of the communi st
Anabapti st revol uti onari es at Munster i n 1535.
Conclusion, Part 3 .537
prefer a contemporary pol i ti cal pol ythei sm anal ogous to that of the
Roman pantheon, ei ther because they secretl y worshi p the mes-
si ani c monothei sm of the State (pol i ti cal l i beral s, humani sts, and
some neo-evangel i cal s) or because they refuse to acknowl edge that
stati sm i s al ways the pol i ti cal mani festati on of pol ythei sm (funda-
mental i sts, Lutherans, most Cal vi ni sts, and any remai ni ng neo-
evangel i cal s). Li ke the Hebrew sl aves i n Egypt, they prefer rul e by
pol ythei sti c taskmasters i n the servi ce of a di vi ne State to sel f-rul e
under Gods reveal ed l aw, admi ni stered i n terms of bi bl i cal cove-
nants. The end resul ts of thi s perverse preference are gri m: added
years of bondage i n Egypt, fol l owed by ai ml ess wanderi ng i n the wi l -
derness, or el se the fate of Korah and Dathan (Num. 16).
I t i s ti me to begi n maki ng pl ans for the conquest of Canaan.
Bi bl i cal Law or Natural Law
I n a percepti ve essay on the rel ati onshi p between the bi bl i cal
covenant and modern Consti tuti onal l aw, E. M. Gaffney presents a
subsecti on: Amer i can Consti tuti onal Law as a Cor r ecti ve to
Rel i gi on. He announces that The mai n burden of thi s essay has
been to show that secul ar l aw i nfl uenced the formati on and devel op-
ment of major themes of bi bl i cal rel i gi on. I t i s now my poi nt that
Ameri can consti tuti onal l aw can conti nue to serve thi s functi on by
correcti ng adherents to bi bl i cal rel i gi on when they fai l ei ther to ac-
cept the demands of bi bl i cal rel i gi on concerni ng justi ce and free-
dom, or when they fai l to acknowl edge that i n some major respects
bi bl i cal rel i gi on di d not adequatel y resol ve i ssues of justi ce and free-
dom.n He then appeal s to the Torah as a document promoti ng a
pl ural i sm of l egal tradi ti ons. Thi s i s proved, he says, by the con-
fl i cti ng i nterpretati ons of the Bi bl e. 30
He forthri ghtl y contrasts the Bi bl e and justi ce. Thi s i s standard
humani st fare, especi al l y humani sm wi thi n the churches. Bi bl i cal l aw
i s seen as offeri ng soci ety a potenti al threat of tyranny, a means of
unl eashi ng oppressi ve forces i n soci ety. The presumpti on here i s that
humani sti c l aw i s the proper correcti ve for bi bl i cal oppressi on. Chri s-
ti ani ty i s therefore desperatel y i n need of humani sm i n order to mai n-
tai n freedom. So runs the standard hal fway covenant party l i ne.
29. Edward McGl ynn GaKney, Jr., Of Covenants Anci ent and New: The I nfl uence
of Secul ar Law on Bi bl i cal Rel i gi on, J ournal of Law and Religion, I I (1984), pp. 137-38.
30. I bid., p. 138.
The hi stori cal probl em wi th such arguments i s that the Church
has al most al ways systemati cal l y avoi ded the i mpl ementati on of bi b-
l i cal l aw. We have not seen bi bl i cal l aw i n acti on i n Chri sti an soci -
eti es. I nstead, century after century, Church schol ars have i mported
the pr evai l i ng br ands of humani st phi l osophy, soci al theor y, and
jur i spr udence i nto the chur ches, al l i n the name of justi ce. And
when one soci ety di d i ts best to avoi d thi s error New Engl and Puri -
tani sm Roger Wi l l i ams appeared on the scene and started the fi rst
covenantal l y open soci ety to serve as the model .
Winthrop or Williams
I n the fi rst case, we have John Wi nthrop and the fi rst generati on
of Pur i tans, whose company Wi l l i ams had fl ed. Yal e hi stor i an
Edmund Mor gan descr i bes them:
Neverthel ess, the Puri tans di d make strong demands on human nature,
for they were engaged i n a mi ssi on that requ;ed great exerti on. They had
undertaken to establ i sh a soci ety where the wi l l of God woul d be observed
i n every detai l , a ki ngdom of God on earth. Whi l e sti l l aboard the Arbella,
Wi nthrop had expl ai ned to hi s fel l ow i mmi grants thei r sol emn commi tment
to thi s task. Every nati on, they al l knew, exi sted by vi rtue of a covenant
wi th God i n whi ch i t promi sed to obey Hi s commands. They had l eft Eng-
l and because Engl and was fai l i ng i n i ts promi se. I n hi gh hope that God was
gui di ng them and woul d fi nd thei r efforts acceptabl e, they had proposed to
form a new soci ety. Now God had demonstrated Hi s approval . He had
made way for them by a speci al overrul i ng provi dence . By stayi ng Hi s
wrath so l ong and al l owi ng them to depart i n peace, by del i veri ng them safe
across the water, He had seal ed a covenant wi th them and gi ven them a spe-
ci al responsi bi l i ty to carry out the good i ntenti ons that had brought them
i nto the wi l derness. Thei rs was a speci al commi ssi on. And when God gi ves
a speci al commi ssi on, Wi nthrop warned them, He l ookes to have i t
stri cktl y observed i n every Arti cl e.31
Wi l l ard Sperry, Dean of the Harvard Di vi ni ty School , has
pai nted an accurate pi cture of Wi l l i ams, who took for hi s soci al
model natural l aw rather than covenant theol ogy.
He l i ved onl y some forty mi l es from Boston; but between Provi dence and
Boston a great gul f was fi xed, theol ogi cal l y and eccl esi asti cal l y. Wi l l i ams
31. Edmund S. Morgan, The Puntan Dilemma: The StoV of J ohn Winthrop (Boston:
Li ttl e, Brown, 1958), pp. 69-70.
Concl usi on, Part 3 539
bel i eved that the sources of the state shoul d be sought and found i n the sec-
ul ar rather than i n the spi ri tual order. The ri ght of magi strates i s natural ,
human, ci vi l , not rel i gi ous. The offi cer of the state gai ns nothi ng and l oses
nothi ng by bei ng a Chri sti an, or by not bei ng. Li kewi se, the Chri sti an mer-
chant, physi ci an, l awyer, pi l ot, father, master are not better equi pped for
ful fdl i ng thei r soci al functi on than are the members of any other rel i gi on.
There can be no such thi ng as a Chri sti an busi ness, or a Chri sti an profes-
si on of l aw or medi ci ne. These vocati ons stand i n thei r own ri ght. No state
may cl ai m superi ori ty over any other state by vi rtue of bei ng, or professi ng
to be, Chri sti an. The state i s not i rrel i gi ous; i t i s si mpl y non-rel i gi ous. As
for the church, Wi l l i ams sai d i t was l i ke a col l ege of physi ci ans, a company
of East I ndi a merchants, or any other soci ety i n London, whi ch may con-
vene themsel ves and di ssol ve themsel ves at pl easure. Roger W i l l i amss
i deas i n these matters were and sti l l are overstatements and oversi mpl i fi ca-
ti ons of the probl em. I ndeed, he fol l owed the l ogi c of hi s own thi nki ng so
far that he outgrew the vi si bl e organi zed church, even of hi s own i ndepend-
ent ki nd, and fi nal l y parted wi th al l i nsti tuti onal rel i gi on. Yet hi s overstate-
ments were so true to Bapti st convi cti ons that one can readi l y see how thi s
strongest si ngl e sect i n the col oni es, advocati ng rel i gi ous l i berty for al l , was
i n enti re good consci ence prohi bi ted by i ts own fai th from any sl i ghtest i n-
ter est i n a uni on of chur ch and state. 32
But thi s does not answer the more fundamental covenantal prob-
l em: What about the uni on of rel i gi on and State? No State can l i ve
wi thout a rel i gi on. There is no neutrality. The questi on i s: Which r el i -
gi on? There i s no questi on whi ch rel i gi on the Bapti sts chose for thei r
State: Jeffersoni an Uni tari ani sm. Thi s remai ns the conti nui ng pol i t-
i cal mani festati on of the fai l ure of the Ameri can Bapti st Cul ture. 33
The choi ce for Chri sti ans i n Ameri ca has been thi s one si nce
1636: John Wi nthrop or Roger Wi l l i ams, Gods l aw or mans l aw,
ci vi l covenant-keepi ng or ci vi l covenant-breaki ng. For over three
centuri es, Ameri cans have made the wrong choi ce. So has vi rtual l y
everybody el se on earth.
Ci vi l Compacts Are Broken Covenants
I have not di scussed i n detai l i n thi s book what I regard as the
great myth of modern l i beral i sm, from Locke to the present: the
32. Wi l l ard L. Sperry, The Separati on of Church and State: I ts Causes, i n
Phi l l i p E. Hammond and Benton Johnson (eds. ), Ameri can Mosaic: Social Patterm of
Religion in the United State$ (New York: Random House, 1970), pp. 121-22.
33. James B. Jordan (cd.), The Failure of the American Baptist Cul ture, I ssue No. 1 of
Chr-istiani~ and Civilization (1982).
myth that out of correctl y devi sed procedural arrangements, coupl ed
wi th an undefi ned personal and ci vi l vi rtue, soci ety can produce, or
at l east encourage, the creati on of a good soci ety. Thi s myth was the
foundati on of ei ghteenth-century Enl i ghtenment humani sm, both
ri ght wi ng and l eft wi ng. The vi rtuous humani st l eader, whether
Washi ngton or Robespi erre, i s not a defender of expl i ci tl y Chri sti an
vi rtues. The theoreti cal foundati ons of thi s myth col l apsed wi th the
comi ng of Darwi ni sm, but the myths rhetori c sti l l persi sts whenever
the covenantal remai ns of that l ost worl d are procl ai med as the l aw
of the l and, i .e., whenever Chri sti ans are tol d that the i dea of bi bl i -
cal theocracy i s moral l y perverse and the i dea of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i s
Gods preferred pl an for the New Covenant era.
To bui l d a good soci ety there must fi rst be an accurate vi si on of
the good soci ety: a fi xed vi si on unal tered by the fl ux of hi story.
There must al so be a permanent concept of personal moral i ty that
remai ns constant despi te changi ng ci rcumstances. These two vi si ons
must rei nforce each other: the good soci ety and the ri ghteous i ndi -
vi dual . Thi s combi nati on i s what was l acki ng i n Greek pol i ti cal phi -
l osophy. The r i ghteous phi l osopher , who was to be a master of
doubt, was seen both by the Socrati c phi l osophers and by the ci vi l
authori ti es as a threat to the stabi l i ty and peace of conventi onal soci -
ety, whi ch i s one reason though i n my vi ew not the onl y r eason
why the phi l osopher-ki ng was supposed to resort to mi sl eadi ng rhet-
ori c and nobl e l i es .W
There must al so be an i nsti tuti onal arrangement to bri dge the
gap between the mutual l y r ei nfor ci ng soci al and i ndi vi dual i deal s
wi thi n the fl ux of hi stor y. Humani sm offer s no consi stent, wi del y
agr eed-upon sol uti on to these pr obl ems.
Thi s i s why the vol untary ci vi l contract between men or among
men i s no val i d substi tute for the ci vi l covenant between or among
men under the soverei gn Creator God of the Bi bl e. We must never
forget that there i s no such thi ng as a ci vi l compact; al l such hypo-
theti cal compacts are i n fact covenants under God, whether the par-
ti ci pants bel i eve thi s or not. (The same i s true of marri age contracts.)
Such a contractual vi ew of soci ety,, deni es that God has created soci -
ety, establ i shed hi erarchi es, decl ared Hi s permanent l aw, and en-
forces thi s l aw i n hi story through posi ti ve and negati ve sancti ons,
34. Thomas L. Pangl e, The Spirit of Modern Republicanism: The Moral Vision of the
Amt%an Founding Fathms and the Philosophy of Locke (Chi cago: Uni versi ty of Chi cago
Press, 1988), p. 60.
di recti ng hi story so that Hi s peopl e progressi vel y i nheri t the earth.
Thi s vi ew deni es the real i ty of Psal m 37:9: For evi l doers shal l be cut
OK but those that wai t upon the LORD, they shal l i nheri t the earth .
I t repl aces the personal God of the Bi bl e wi th the god of the State.
The State, as the judge and enforcer, becomes the agent that de-
cl ares the wi l l of the Peopl e.
Modern ci vi l justi ce i s vi ewed by l i beral s as the product of pro-
cedural l y preci se confrontati ons between trai ned speci al i sts i n the
l aw the rul e of the l awyers. The al most pathol ogi cal and poten-
ti al l y bankrupti ng quest for procedural perfecti on i n the modern
Ameri can court system i s a consi stent devel opment of thi s seven-
teenth- and ei ghteenth-century l i beral phi l osophy. 35 But there i s no
way for the humani st to prove that procedural preci si on duri ng the
l awyers confrontati on can i n fact produce justi ce, except by dejining
justi ce as the product of a procedural l y preci se outcome. There i s
no hi gher l aw to appeal to, and no sancti oni ng agency other than the
State, except duri ng a revol uti on.
The Expansion of the Autonomous State
When men abandon bi bl i cal covenantal i sm, they must fi nd a
substi tute. There i s no escape from covenantal i sm; the questi on
al ways i s: W%ose covenant? Modern l i beral i sm became steadi l y sta-
ti st, except for a bri ef i nterl ude duri ng the ni neteenth century
(pre-1890),36 because the State, as the soverei gn enforcer of the Peo-
pl es covenant, has attai ned the posi ti on of di vi ne-ri ght status: there
i s no appeal beyond i t. I t al one supposedl y speaks authori tati vel y for
the soverei gn Peopl e. Revol uti on al one can l egi ti matel y overturn the
State, but thi s must al ways be i n the name of the true soverei gn, the
Peopl e. Thi s worl dvi ew i s the l egacy of John Locke.
The pol i ti cal compact among autonomous men has repl aced the
bi bl i cal covenant as the agreed-upon source of soci al conti nui ty.
Therefore, the pri mary goal of pol i ti cs today (and just about every-
thi ng el se) i s to gai n control over the monopol i sti c voi ce of authori ty,
the State. Cl ai mants today for the cruci al posi ti on of voi ce of the
soverei gn Peopl e are surel y as numerous as the defenders of con-
tract theory assert wi th regard to thei r tradi ti onal opponents, the
35. On the extent of the cri si s, see Macl di n Fl emi ng, The Price of PerJ ect J ustzce
(New York: Basi c Books, 1974).
36. I n the Uni ted States, from the Consti tuti on unti l the Progressi ve era; i n Eng-
l and, from the repeal of the Corn Laws i n 1846 unti l the mi d-1870s.
theocrati c Chri sti ans. The Whi g l i beral s, i nreacti on to the Puri tan
Revol uti on of 1640-60, successful l y ri di cul ed the churches and sects
on thi s basi s: surel y they coul d not al l have represented God. But the
same accusati on can be made agai nst the cri ti cs today: surel y not al l
the cl ai mants to the offi ce of Offi ci al Spokesman are accuratel y rep-
r esenti ng the sover ei gn Peopl e. When i t comes to number s of
cl ai mants, i n fact, the humani sts today are far more numerous than
theocrati c cl ai mants who say they are the voi ce of the soverei gn God
of the Bi bl e. I n thi s day and age, Chri sti ans are al most compl etel y
pol i ti cal l y humbl ed; they are terri fi ed of the thought they mi ght i n
fact real l y be Gods l awful desi gnated authori ti es i n speaki ng for God
i n the real m of ci vi l l aw. They do not even want to thi nk about the
possi bi l i ty that Gods reveal ed l aws i n the Bi bl e are Gods requi red
standar ds for moder n jur i spr udence. They do not want to br i ng
Gods covenant l awsui t agai nst any nati on. They have been steadi l y
browbeaten on thi s poi nt si nce at l east 1660.
The Religion of Procedure
Contractual i sm i s evol uti onary when honored and revol uti onary
when transcended. I t i s an empty ethi cal shel l . Leni n once remarked
about maki ng omel ettes, that you have to break a l ot of eggs. I f there
are no ethi cal standards i nsi de the contractual shel l s, then we shoul d
expect to see a l ot of broken shel l s as ti me goes by, as peopl e conti nue
thei r search for ri ghteous ci vi l government.
Ther e i s no sover ei gn God i n contractual i sm who wi l l judge the
ri ghteousness of mens contracts, i n ti me or eterni ty. Man i s offi ci al l y
on hi s own. Thus, there i s onl y procedure. I n cases of ci vi l di spute,
the onl y questi on i s: Whi ch of the parti es best honored the formal
terms of the contract, meani ng the l etter of the contract? Thi s means
the trtumph ofjine print and the l awyers who al one can i nterpret i t. To
the extent that questi ons of ethi cs enter i nto the judges deci si on
substanti ve questi ons the resul t i s judi ci al arbi trari ness. Such judi -
ci al arbi trari ness erodes the very foundati on and justi fi cati on of con-
tractual i sm: procedural predictabili~. Thi s creates an i ntel l ectual at-
mosphere favorabl e to revol uti on. Every woul d-be spokesman for
the Peopl e wants to be sure that hi s versi on of gods word i s enforced.
The i nherent, i nevi tabl e dual i sm or di al ecti ci sm between formal
procedure and ethi cs, 37 between the l etter of humani st l aw and the
37. Gary North, Max Weber: Rati onal i sm, I rrati onal i sm, and the Bureaucrati c
Cage, i n Gar y Nor th (cd.), Foundations ~Christian Scholars+: Essays in the Van Til
Pe@ective (Val l eci to, Cal i forni a: Ross House Books, 1976), ch. 8.
spi ri t of humani st l aw, offers no permanent sol uti on to the perpetual
questi on: What i s the ri ghteous deci si on of the ci vi l magi strate, jury,
or judge? And thi s means there i s no humani st answer to the questi on:
What procedural arrangement can be devi sed to i ncrease the l i kel i -
hood that ri ghteous deci si ons wi l l be made by those i n authori ty?
The Framers attempted to devi se such a system, but thei r en-
deavor was doomed from the begi nni ng, for they deni ed the l egi ti macy
of the bi bl i cal covenant. They broke the hal fway nati onal covenant,
and we appear to be l i vi ng i n the era of Gods cumul ati ve negati ve
sancti ons i n response to thi s act of covenantal r ebel l i on.
The Forgotten Meeti ng
Before we end thi s di scussi on of the Consti tuti on, we need to
take note of a forgotten event. On Fri day, May 25, 1787, the fi rst
meeti ng of the Consti tuti onal Conventi on began i n Phi l adel phi a.
George Washi ngton was el ected presi dent of the Conventi on. A
secretary was el ected, Major Jackson. The meeti ng then adjourned.
The Conventi on began i ts fi rst ful l sessi on on Monday, May 28.
Across town, another meeti ng was endi ng that fateful Monday.
The uni ted Presbyteri an Synods of New York and Phi l adel phi a had
met together. What they di d at that fi nal sessi on, and at the meeti ng
exactl y one year l ater, was to change the course of Protestanti sm i n
Ameri ca. I t al so paral l el ed to a remarkabl e degree the pol i ti cal
events bei ng engi neered by James Madi son. The i ssues were al so
si mi l ar: the rel ati on of Church and State, and the i ssue of central -
i zed authori ty.
7%e Problem of Geography
Li ke Madi son and hi s associ ates, between 1785 and 1789, a qui et
group of churchmen i n the Presbyteri an Church had been prepari ng
for a major reorgani zati on. Even today, i t i s not enti rel y cl ear from
the hi stori cal records just who was behi nd thi s push. There was no
sense of i mmi nent eccl esi asti cal cri si s, but there was a sense of fai l ure
i n the face of conti nui ng probl ems that never seemed to get resol ved.
War weari ness had ti ected al l the denomi nati ons, Presbyteri ans i n-
cl uded. What had begun as a sacred cause of l i berty had produced un-
foreseen negati ve resul ts, as war al ways does. The l oose moral s that the
war had unl eashed made the churchs work that much more di ffi cul t. 38
38. Tri nterud, Formi ng of an Ameriian Tradition, pp. 258-61.
Power shi fts were taki ng pl ace wi thi n the denomi nati on. I ncreased
i mmi grati on from Scotl and, was maki ng the church more theol ogi -
cal l y conservati ve, l ess enthusi asti c about the heri tage of the Great
Awakeni ng. 39 At the same ti me, these i mmi grants were headi ng
West, where there were no wel l -organi zed presbyteri es. w There was
al so a growi ng reacti on agai nst Dei sm, skepti ci sm, and the i ncreas-
i ngl y l i beral rati onal i sm of the remnants of Jonathan Edwards ra-
ti onal i sti c theol ogy, the New Si de heri tage.
Attendance at the annual synod meeti ngs had decl i ned duri ng
the war and had not recovered. The expandi ng geography of the
Ameri can nati on by 1780 had overthrown the theory of a si ngl e an-
nual synod meeti ng that coul d handl e al l busi ness not capabl e of
bei ng handl ed at the presbytery l evel .41 Changes were needed. A
commi ttee was appoi nted i n 1785 to draw up a new form of Presby-
teri an di sci pl i ne. Then, l ater i n the day, another overture was sug-
gested: the creati on of a General Assembl y, al ong the l i nes of the
Scotti sh church, and the creati on of three synods. The records do not
i ndi cate who made thi s overture. AZ
On the face of i t, thi s overture was hi ghl y pecul i ar. I f the i nsti tu-
ti onal probl em faci ng the denomi nati on was geographi cal , why
woul d anyone propose the creati on of a General Assembl y? The an-
swer shoul d have been obvi ous: to centralize thz denomination once andfor
all. I f the regi onal presbyteri es were becomi ng more di stant from the
center, then there woul d have to be a central representative body as wel l
as central~udicial body that coul d hol d the Churchs governmental sys-
tem together . (Thi s was exactl y what Madi son had concl uded r e-
gar di ng Amer i can ci vi l gover nment.) The Commi ttee on Over tur e
took over; a second study on Church government began. As i s usual
for Pr esbyter i ani sm, no offi ci al deci si on was made at that ti me.
(Thi s was paral l el ed by the l ate-March meeti ng at Mount Vernon at
whi ch Maryl and and Vi rgi ni a commi ssi oners proposed ways of settl -
i ng trade di sputes. And l i ke the Synod meeti ng, the records of what
took pl ace are uncl ear.)qs
39. I bid., pp. 263-64.
40. I bid., pp. 268-72.
41. I bid., pp. 281-82.
42. I bid., p. 283.
43. Wri tes Burton K. Hendri ck: The gatheri ng attracted l i ttl e attenti on at the
ti me, and has not fi gured extensi vel y i n hi story si nce. Yet i ts outcome, two years
afterward, was the Consti tuti on of the Uni ted States . Hendri ek, Bulwark of the
Republic: A Biography of the Constitution (Boston: Li ttl e, Brown, 1937), p. 11.
A poorl y attended Synod i n 1786 resol ved to create 16 new pres-
byteri es. Acti on on the creati on of four synods was postponed.~ The
report of the commi ttee on di sci pl i ne was di scussed, but no acti on
was taken. A new commi ttee was set up to conti nue the study. A
meeti ng i n September of 1786 l ed to a draft of a whol e new consti tu-
ti on, to whi ch the presbyteri es general l y pai d l i ttl e attenti on. 45
(These events were paral l el ed by Madi sons and Hami l tons i n-
concl usi ve Annapol i s conventi on i n September, whi ch i n turn l ed to
the cal l for the Conventi on i n Phi l adel phi a.)
Then came the Synod of 1787. From May 16 to May 28, the
Synod met i n Phi l adel phi a to di scuss the formati on of a new church
structure. On the l ast day of the Synod, May 28, the Synod voted to
create yet another commi ttee to pri nt a thousand copi es of the draft
of the proposed form of government to be sent to the presbyteri es for
consi der ati on. The pr esbyter i es woul d have to confi r m the pl an.
(Thi s was paral l el ed by the Consti tuti onal Conventi ons deci si on to
have state rati fyi ng conventi ons vote on the proposed new pl an of
government. One di fference: the presbyteri es were the l egal equi va-
l ent of the establ i shed state l egi sl atures, rather than conventi ons.)
The changes recommended by the commi ttee were approved by
the joi nt Synod meeti ng exactl y one year l ater i n Phi l adel phi a: May
28, 1788. Thi s judi ci al act establ i shed a new consti tuti on, 46 pages
l ong, for the Presbyteri an Church i n Ameri ca. The form of govern-
ment r adi cal l y centr al i zed power i n the Gener al Assembl y. Fr om
that ti me on, i t woul d take a two-thi rds vote of the presbyteri es pl us
the assent of the General Assembl y to make further changes, The
Synod di d thi s on i ts own authori ty; after consul tati on wi th ~he pres-
byteri es; the presbyteri es di d not vote.4G (On June 21, New Hamp-
shi re became the ni nth state conventi on to rati fy the Consti tuti on;
the new nati on came i nto bei ng.)
Tri nterud tri es to make thi s-sound as i f i t was not a monumental
central i zati on of power. After al l , he says, the General Assembl y
coul d not i ni ti ate any further changes; onl y the presbyteri es coul d. 47
Thi s i s hardl y persuasi ve. Try to organi ze presbyteri es that are scat-
tered across a growi ng country. Get them to i ni ti ate and then organ-
i ze fundamental change. The whol e di scussi on of the change i n
44. Tri nterud, Forming, p. 285.
45. I bid., p. 288.
46. I bzd, , p. 295.
47. I bid., p. 296,
church government had ari sen i n 1785 because of the supposed need
to escape the annual meeti ngs i n Phi l adel phi a.
The new pl an al so enti tl ed the General Assembl y to i ssue stand-
i ng rul es, whi ch a majori ty of the presbyteri es woul d have to rati fy.
Any student of bureaucracy can see what the resul ts woul d be. The
General Assembl y woul d normal l y be attended by the acti vi sts i n the
presbyteri es. Thus, any organi zed resi stance by over hal f of the pres-
byteri es woul d be unl i kel y. To change thi s new system, i t woul d take
a two-thi rds vote of the presbyteri es.
Church and ,State
The restructured form of government i ncl uded a revi si on of the
Westmi nster Confessi on of Fai th: speci fi cal l y, Chapter XX (cl osi ng
paragraph), XXH1:3, and XXXI :l , 2. These were the secti ons deal -
i ng wi th the rel ati onshi p of Church and State, i n whi ch the ci vi l mag-
i strate was charged wi th certai n tasks, such as defendi ng the Church
and cal l i ng assembl i es. The mai n fi gure on the commi ttee was New
Si de l eader John Rogers, who had served on al l of them si nce 1785.
He became an eccl esi asti cal l eader i n the l ate 1760s duri ng the col oni al
battl e agai nst the sendi ng of an Angl i can bi shop to the col oni es. 4s He
bel i eved so greatl y i n the separati on of Church and State that he
thought mi ni sters shoul d not vote i n ci vi l el ecti ons.49 The Synod was
adjourned. I n 1788, i t reconvened, and the recommended changes i n
the Confessi on were approved. Church hi stori an Phi l i p Schaff de-
scri bes these al terati ons:
The changes consi st i n the omi ssi on of those sentences whi ch i mpl y the
uni on of Church and State, or the pri nci pl e of eccl esi asti cal establ i shments,
maki ng i t the duty of the ci vi l magi strate not onl y to protect, but al so to
support rel i gi on, and gi vi ng to the magi strate power to cal l and rati fy eccl e-
si asti cal synods and counci l s, and to puni sh hereti cs. I nstead of thi s, the
Ameri can revi si on confi nes the duty of the -ci vi l magi strate to the l egal pro-
tecti on of rel i gi on i n i ts publ i c exerci se, wi thout di sti ncti on of Chri sti an
creeds or organi zati ons. I t thus professes the pri nci pl e of rel i gi ous l i berty
and equal i ty of al l denomi nati ons befor e the l aw. Thi s pr i nci pl e has been
fai thful l y and consi stentl y adhered to by the l arge body of the Presbyteri an
Church i n Ameri ca, and has become the common l aw of the l and.50
48. Carl Bri denbaugh, Mitre and Sce@e: Transatlantic Faiths, I deas, Personalities, and
Politics, 1689-1775 (New York: Oxford Uni versi ty Press, 1962), p. 281.
49. Tri ntemd, Forming, p. 260.
50. Phi l i p Schaff, The Creeds of Chnstindom, 3 VOI S. (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan:
Baker Book House, [1877] 1977), I , p. 807.
The synod of 1788, i n i ts l ast offi ci al act as a Synod, appoi nted
John Wi therspoon to address the new General Assembl y before i t
el ected a moderator, whi ch was John Rogers. Thi s seemed appropri -
ate, for i t was Wi therspoon who al most certai nl y had wri tten the
Preface to the proposed new form of government back i n 1786. The
Preface stated:
God al one i s Lord of the consci ence; and bath l eft i t free from the doctri ne
and commandments of men, whi ch are i n any thi ng contrary to hi s word,
or besi de i t i n matters of fai th or worshi p; Therefore they [Presbyteri ans]
consi der the ri ghts of pri vate judgment, i n al l matters that respect rel i gi on,
as uni versal and i nal i enabl e: they do not even wi sh to see any rel i gi ous con-
sti tuti on ai ded by the ci vi l power, further than may be necessary for protec-
ti on and securi ty, and, at the same ti me, be equal and common to others. 51
The End of the Ho~ Commonwealth I deal
Thus ended the i deal of the theocrati c republ i c i n mai nstream
Presbyteri ani sm and Ameri can Protestanti sm i n general . That thi s
offi ci al posi ti on had been arti cul ated by the presi dent of the Col l ege
of New Jersey was fi tti ng. I ts predecessor, the Log Col l ege, had been
the l eadi ng l i ght i n the battl e agai nst what Tri nterud cal l s the narrow
spi ri t of denomi nati onal i sm .
52
Founded i n 1746, i ts trustees had i n-
vi ted newl y appoi nted Governor Jonathan Bel cher onto the Boar d of
Trustees i n 1748. They i mmedi atel y voted hi m presi dent of the Board.
Governor Bel cher saw to i t that the col l ege was granted a new charter,
and he worked hard to create a new board fi l l ed (wi th three excep-
ti ons) wi th graduates of Harvard and Yal e. Thi s i s understandabl e; he
had been Governor of Massachusetts from 1730-41. The col l ege was
moved to Newark; i n 1755, i t was moved to Pri nceton. 53
That Jonathan Bel cher became the dri vi ng force of the devel op-
ment of the Col l ege of New Jersey i s representati ve of what was tak-
i ng pl ace throughout the col oni es. Bel cher was not a Presbyteri an.
Neverthel ess, he found i t easy to cooperate wi th Presbyteri ans. Hi s
theol ogy was expressl y geared to cooperati on. Jonathan Bel cher was
51. Ci ted i n James H. Smyl i e, A Cloud of Witnesses: A Histoty of the Presbyterian
Church in the United States (Ri chmond, Vi rgi ni a: Covenant Li fe Curri cul um, 1965),
p. 26. The Presbyteri an Church i n the U.S. was the Southern Presbyteri an Church
unti l i t merged wi th the P.C .U. S.A. (Northern) i n 1983.
52. Tri nterud, Forming, p. 131.
53. Jacob Harri s Patton, A Popular Histo~ of the Presbyterian Church in the United
States of Ammca (New York: Mi ghi l l , 1900), pp. 118-19.
a Freemason. But thi s puts i t too mi l dl y. Jonathan Bel cher was the
ori gi nal Freemason i n the col oni es, havi ng been i ni ti ated i n London
i n 1704.5A He was l i teral l y the pi oneer. One Masoni c hi stori an refers
to hi m as the Seni or Freemason of Ameri ca.55 After hi s i ni ti ati on,
he experi enced rapi d success as a merchant. 56 Hi s son became the
Deputy Grand Master of the Provi nci al Grand Lodge of Massachu-
setts at i ts foundi ng i n 1733.57 I n 1741, the brethren of the Fi rst Lodge
read a message to Mr. Bel cher, who had been succeeded by a new
governor the previ ous spri ng. The l odge thanked hi m for the many
favours You have al ways shared (when i n Power) to Masonry i n
General . . . . 5
8
The spi ri t of nondenomi nati onal i sm at the Col l ege
of New Jersey was not goi ng to be overturned by Brother Bel cher!
I t shoul d be no surpri se to l earn what Presi dent Wi therspoon re-
veal ed i n 1776, i n hi s quest for nondenomi nati onal money from
donors i n Bermuda, namel y, that no di scussi on of church government
was tol erated at the col l ege. Every questi on about forms of church
government i s so enti rel y excl uded that . . . i f they [the students] know
nothi ng more of rel i gi ous controversy than what they l earned here,
they have that Sci ence whol l y to begi n.5g Thus, concl udes Ti i nterud,
James Madi son di d not l earn about Presbyteri an pol i ty from Wi thers-
peon. The theol ogi cal doctri ne of natural l aw and the pol i ti cal theory
of natural ri ghts provi ded the meeti ng pl ace for Presbyteri an and ci ti -
zen rather than the Presbyteri an form of Church government. New
Engl and Congregati onal i sts and Vi rgi ni a Epi scopal i ans stood wi th
Ameri can Presbyteri an l aymen i n thi s pol i ti cal theory, and wi th thi s
common heri tage they were abl e to work together al though thei r
heri tages i n eccl esi asti cal pol i ty sti l l separated them wi del y.
fr o
Brother Bel cher woul d have been proud.
Whi gs Eccl esi asti cal
Three weeks after Wi therspoon del i vered hi s speech, on June 21,
1788, New Hampshi res conventi on became the ni nth state conven-
54. J. Hugo Tatsch, Freema.ronT in the Thirteen Colonies (New York: Macoy, 1929),
p. 27.
55. Mel vi n M. Johnson, The Beginnings of Freemaromy in Ameri ca (New York:
Doran, 1924), p. 49.
56. Hi s father had been a successful merchant, too, but not on Jonathans scafe.
57. Tatsch, Freemason, p. 30.
58. Ci ted i n Johnson, Beginnings, p. 255.
59. Ci ted i n Tri nterud, Forming, p. 256.
60. I bid., p. 257.
ti on to r ati fy the U.S. Consti tuti on, whi ch i mmedi atel y went i nto
force as the new covenant of the nati on. Thus, the Whi gs pol i ti cal
and the Whi gs eccl esi asti cal had at l ast overturned the covenantal
foundati ons that had been establ i shed by thei r seventeenth-century
Puri tan enemi es, and had done so i n a peri od of sl i ghtl y l ess than
thi r teen months.
Gover nor Wi l l i am Li vi ngston of New Jer sey was cor r ect when
he observed i n 1790 that the cl ergy of Ameri ca were al most al l uni -
versal l y good Whi gs.61 He hi msel f had been the Ameri can Whi g
i n 1768, when he wrote or at l east organi zed a seri es of New Yin-k
Gazette and Pennsylvania J ournal arti cl es agai nst sendi ng an Angl i can
bi shop to the col oni es, a step regarded by many col oni sts as bei ng
the fi rst step i n Parl i amentary control over col oni al rel i gi on.2 Yet i t
was the Ameri can Whi g hi msel f who had asked rhetori cal l y the
most i mportant questi on i n Ameri can hi story: . . . why mi ght not
Chri sti ani ty have been al l owed the honor of bei ng cal l ed the Na-
ti onal Re1i gi on?G3 The answer shoul d be cl ear by now: because the
Uni tari ans di d not want i t that way, and the Whi gs eccl esi asti cal di d
not real l y thi nk that the i mpl i ci t Chri sti ani ty of the nati on was
threatened by the i dol atry of the new nati onal covenant, i .e., the
Peopl e as the new nati onal god.
A year after the 1788 Synod, i n May of 1789, the General Assem-
bl y had John Wi therspoon agai n chai r a commi ttee, thi s ti me to pre-
pare an address to the newl y el ected Presi dent of the Uni ted States.
The al ternate chai rman was John Rogers. The commi ttee drafted a
l engthy report i n whi ch i t expressed those senti ments that have been
passed down from textbook to textbook. Echoi ng Washi ngtons
Masoni c rhetori c, the address announced: Publ i c vi rtue i s the most
certai n means of publ i c fel i ci ty, and rel i gi on i s the surest basi s of vi r-
tue. We therefore esteem i t a pecul i ar happi ness to behol d i n our
Chi ef Magi strate a steady, uni form, avowed fri end of the Chri sti an
rel i gi on, and who on the most publ i c and sol emn occasi ons devoutl y
61. Wi l l i am Li vi ngston, Observati ons on the Support of the Cl ergy, Ammcan
Museum, VI I I (1790), p. 254; ci ted i n Al an Hei mert, Religion and the American Mind:
From the Great Awakening to the Revolution (Cambri dge, Massachusetts: Harvard Uni -
62. Br i denbaugh, Mitre and Sceptre, pp. 297-98.
63. Col oni al Cri ti ci sm of the Appeal (1768), i n John F. Wi l son and Donal d L.
Drakeman (eds. ), Church and State i n American HistoV: The Burden of Religious Pluralism
(2nd ed.; Boston: Beacon Press, 1987), p. 57.
acknowl edges the gover nment of Di vi ne Pr ovi dence . The address
then i denti fi ed the rol e of the Presbyteri an Church i n the Ameri can
pol i ti cal rel i gi on: We shal l consi der oursel ves as doi ng an acceptabl e
servi ce to God i n our professi on when we contri bute to render men
sober, honest, and i ndustri ous ci ti zens, and the obedi ent subjects of
a l awful government .&
The Grand Master from Vi rgi ni a pol i tel y responded i n ki nd. 65
I have ar gued el sewher e that the Chur ch sets the patter n for
what the State does. 66 That pai r of consti tuti onal assembl i es hel d on
May 28, 1787 one ci vi l , the other eccl esi asti cal ; one begi nni ng, the
other endi ng are the best representati ve exampl es i n Ameri can hi s-
tory of how a change i n the thi nki ng of Chri sti ans paral l el s a change
i n the thi nki ng of pol i ti ci ans. As the Presbyteri ans cl osed thei r meet-
i ng and the Framers opened thei rs, the nati on was turned down a
path that woul d have been covenantal l y unthi nkabl e anywher e on
ear th a gener ati on ear l i er (except, of cour se, i n Rhode I sl and). I n
thi s case, the change i n mens thi nki ng transformed the consti tuti onal
(covenantal ) foundati ons of both Church and State i n Ameri ca. What
had been cal l ed the Pr esbyter i an Rebel l i on by i ts enemi es i n Eng-
l and became a Presbyteri an revol uti on judi ci al l y. The Presbyteri ans
and the Fr amer s ended the hol y commonweal th i deal i n Amer i ca.
The Presbyteri ans of Phi l adel phi a, l i ke the l awyers of Phi l adel phi a,
removed the covenantal foundati ons of the Ameri can Chri sti an ex-
per i ment i n Chr i sti an sel f-gover nment. Wi thout these covenantd
cor ner stones to suppor t i t, the Amer i can Tr i ni tar i an edi fi ce col -
l apsed. We l i ve today i n i ts rui ns.
Concl usi on
By 1800, the myth of the nati onal covenant was just about over.
The churches, i n the words of Perry Mi l l er, were forced to recog-
ni ze that i n fact they now deal t wi th the Dei ty onl y as parti cul ar i ndi -
vi dual s gathered for hi stori cal , capri ci ous reasons i nto thi s or that
communi on. They had to real i ze, at fi rst pai nful l y, that as a uni ted
peopl e they had no contractual rel ati onshi p wi th the Creator, and
that consequentl y a nati onal controversy wi th Hi m coul d no l onger
64. Ci ted i n Patton, Popular Histoy, p. 209.
65. I dem.
66. Nor th, Healer of the Nations, especi al l y pp. 4-5.
exi st .67 He wrote contractual , but he cl earl y meant covenantal. 68 Mi l l er
saw what the key i ssue was: sanctions. There woul d be no more nati onal
controversi es wi th God. He woul d no l onger threaten the nati on
wi th Hi s negati ve sancti ons. 69
I f i t were not for the conti nui ng presence of the remnant Church
(Chapter 11), Mi l l er woul d be correct. God woul d have washed Hi s
hands of thi s nati on l ong ago. He woul d have i mposed Hi s negati ve
sancti ons.
Despi te the hi stori cal facts both theol ogi cal and Consti tuti onal
that I have surveyed i n thi s study, from the begi nni ng of the Con-
sti tuti onal era, Chri sti an hi stori ans have promoted the myth of the
Chri sti an ori gi n of the Consti tuti on. Phi l i p Schaff, the most promi -
nent Ameri can evangel i cal Church hi stori an of the l ate ni neteenth
century, summari zed thi s vi ew, and the l anguage of hi s i mi tators has
not devi ated i n any si gni fi cant respect:
We may go further and say that the Consti tuti on not onl y contai ns
nothi ng whi ch i s i rrel i gi ous or unchri sti an, but i s Chri sti an i n substance,
though not i n form. I t i s pervaded by the spi ri t of justi ce and humani ty,
whi ch are Chri sti an. . . . The Consti tuti on, moreover, i n recogni zi ng and
requi ri ng an offi ci al oath from the Presi dent and al l l egi sl ati ve, executi ve,
and judi ci al offi cers, both of the Uni ted States and of the several States,
recogni ses the Supreme Bei ng, to whom the oath i s a sol emn appeal . . . .
And, fi nal l y, the framers of the Consti tuti on were, wi thout excepti on, be-
l i evers i n God and i n future rewards and puni shments, from the presi di ng
offi cer, General Washi ngton, who was a communi cant member of the Epi s-
copal Church, down to the l east orthodox, Dr. Benjami n Frankl i n. . . . TO
There are mi nor vari ati ons, of course. Rushdoony argues that
the Consti tuti on i s neutral both i n substance and i n procedure. (See
Appendi x B.) But on the whol e, Schaffs statement i s representati ve
of two centuri es of i ncomparabl e hi stori cal mi srepresentati on a
myth that i s taken seri ousl y by vi rtual l y al l conservati ve Ameri can
Chri sti ans. The conspi rators were successful beyond thei r wi l dest
67. Perry Mi l l er, Natures Nation (Cambri dge, Massachusetts: Bel knap Press of
Harvard Uni versi ty Press, 1967), p. 113.
68. Hi s chapter i s ti tl ed, From the Covenant to the Revi val .
69. What i s needed today i s a detai l ed study of how the Ameri can churches coul d
conti nue to procl ai m Gods posi ti ve hi stori cal sancti ons for the nati on. Di d they re-,
i nterpret the covenants sancti ons? Di d they real l y teach such vi ews?
70. Phi l i p Schai 7, Church and State in the United Stutes or the American I dea of Religious
Liber~ and I ts Practical Effects (New York: Arno Press, [1888] 1972), pp. 40-41.
dreams. Thei r vi cti ms sti l l do not know what happened to them.
That a seri ous hi stori an coul d wri te about the oath i n thi s manner
the oath that i s i n fact the exact opposi te of what Schaff cl ai ms i t i s
i s nothi ng short of mi nd-boggl i ng. I t i s sel f-decepti on on a scal e not
normal l y encountered, even i n academi a. The oath does i ndeed rec-
ogni ze the Supreme Bei ng, to whom the oath i s a sol emn appeal ;
that Supreme Bei ng i s the soverei gn i ncorporati ng Peopl e. And Arti -
cl e VI , Cl ause 3 announces, theol ogi cal l y speaki ng: Thou shal t
have no other gods before me.
Missing Pieces
I t i s now the ti me and pl ace to admi t that I have negl ected a very
i mportant i nsti tuti onal questi on. I have not yet done the necessary
research. Thi s much seems cl ear: i f we properl y begi n our i nqui ry
i nto the ori gi ns of the Consti tuti on wi th the foundi ng of the Royal
Soci ety (1661), the publ i shi ng of Newtons Principia (1687), and the
creati on of the Grand Lodge (1717), we shoul d not ski p over the for-
mati on of the Bank of Engl and (1694). We need to ask: W%at i s the re-
lationship between the Bank of England and subsequent events in England, the
Netherlands, France, and the new American nati on? The path broken by
P. G. M. Di ckson needs to be wi dened beyond Bri tai n and extended
beyond 1756.71 Few hi stori ans have even taken a strol l down thi s path.
Thi s key questi on regardi ng central banki ng and ci vi l govern-
ment l eads to a subordi nate group of questi ons regardi ng col oni al
hi story and earl y Ameri can hi story. Our i nvesti gati on shoul d begi n
wi th Hami l tons statement i n Federalist 30: Money i s wi th propri ety
consi dered as the vi tal pri nci pl e of the body pol i ti c; as that whi ch
sustai ns i ts l i fe and moti on, and enabl es i t to perform i ts most essen-
ti al functi ons .7
2
Was he usi ng hyperbol e, or was he seri ous? Di d
money repl ace the soverei gnty of God i n hi s thi nki ng? I f so, he was
not al one, and woul d not be al one were he al i ve today.
Thi s questi on l eads to other questi ons. What i s the rel ati onshi p
between the i ssui ng of fi at money and the creati on of nati onal sover-
71. P. G. M. Di ckson, The Financial Revolution in England: A Study i n the Development
of Public Credit, 1688-1756 (New York: St. Marti ns, 1967). John Brewer has taken i t
to 1783, but thi s i s sti l l not far enough: The Sinews of Power: Waq Mon~, and the English
State (New York, Knopf, 1989). Let me at thi s poi nt al so ask another burni ng ques-
ti on that has eati ng at me for twenty-fi ve years: Why doesnt Knopf ever tri m i ts
books pages?
72. Hami l ton, Federal i st No. 30; The Federalist, edi ted by Jacob E. Cooke (Mi d-
dl etown, Connecti cut: Wesl eyan Uni versi ty Press, 1961), p. 188.
ei gnty? Where di d Hami l ton get the revol uti onary i dea that the best
way to ti e the jeal ous states together was by means of consol i dati ng
state debts i nto a common nati onal debt? Why was Hami l tons ma-
jor act as Secretary of the Treasury to gai n a nati onal charter for the
forei gn-owned Bank of the Uni ted States? I f nati onal debt i s wi thout
l egal l i mi ts, then what about taxati on to sustai n the debt? Why di d
the Framers i nsi st that the states be prohi bi ted from i ssui ng coi ns
even gol d and si l ver coi ns and that onl y gol d and si l ver coi ns coul d
be decl ared l egal tender by a state (Art. I , Sect. 8), even though they
pl aced no such restri cti ons on the nati onal government? I f i nfl ati on
was trul y regarded by the Framers as the scourge of the states, why
shoul d they have regarded i nfl ati on as l ess of a scourge nati onal l y?
And why have professi onal hi stori ans i gnored these monetary ques-
ti ons for so l ong?
These are questi ons for another study, another ti me. But the rul e
hol ds good: when we are tryi ng to fi nd the hi stori cal ori gi ns of any-
thi ng men do, start with how and where people take the sacraments, and then
jind out where thty lend or borrow their monty. The covenantal sancti ons of
God i n hi story are ti ed to debt: l endi ng i s a bl essi ng and borrowi ng i s
a curse.
The LORD shal l open unto thee hi s good treasure, the heaven to gi ve the
rai n unto thy l and i n hi s season, and to bl ess al l the work of thi ne hand: and
thou shal t l end unto many nati ons, and thou shal t not borrow (Deut. 28:12).
He shal l l end to thee, and thou shah not l end to hi m: he shal l be the
head, and thou shal t be the tai l (Deut. 28:44),
Part 4
RESTORING THE
NATIONAL COVENANT
Your words have been stout agai nst me, sai th the LORD. Yet ye
say, What have we spoken so much agai nst thee? Ye have sai d, I t i s
vai n to serve God: and what profi t i s i t that we have kept hi s or-
di nance, and that we have wal ked mournful l y before the LORD of
hosts? And now we cal l the proud happy; yea, they that work wi ck-
edness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are even del i vered.
Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and
the LORD hearkened, and heard i t, and a book of remembrance was
wri tten before hi m for them that feared the LORD, and that thought
upon hi s name. And they shal l be mi ne, sai th the LORD of hosts, i n
that day when I makeup my jewel s; and I wi l l spare them, as a man
spareth hi s own son that serveth hi m. Then shal l ye return, and di s-
cern between the ri ghteous and the wi cked, between hi m that
serveth God and hi m that serveth hi m not. For, behol d, the day
cometh, that shal l burn as an oven; and al l the proud, yea, and al l
that do wi ckedl y, shal l be stubbl e: and the day that cometh shal l
burn them up, sai th the L ORD of hosts, that i t shal l l eave them
nei ther root nor branch.
But unto you that fear my name shal l the Sun of ri ghteousness
ari se wi th heal i ng i n hi s wi ngs; and ye shal l go forth, and grow up as
cal ves of the stal l . And ye shal l tread down the wi cked; for they shal l
be ashes under the sol es of your feet i n the day that I shal l do thi s,
sai th the LORD of hosts. Remember ye the l aw of Moses my servant,
whi ch I commanded unto hi m i n Horeb for al l I srael , wi th the stat-
utes and judgments (Mal . 3:13-4:4).
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours on~, but also
for the sins of the whole world. And hereby we do know that we know
him, f we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and
keepeth not his commandments, is a liaq and the truth is not in him. But
whoso keepeth his word, in him veri~ is the love of Godpe~ected: hereby
know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought him-
self also so to walk, even as he walked (I J ohn 2:2-6).
Men can publ i cl y profess Jesus Chri st as Lord and Savi or, but i f
they do not obey Hi s commandments, thei r confessi on merel y con-
demns them. They can make a publ i c oath to God, but i f they di s-
obey the sti pul ati ons attached to thi s oath, they can and shoul d ex-
pect to recei ve Gods negati ve sancti ons. They can expect them i n
hi story, and they surel y can expect them i n eterni ty. When thou
shal t vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shal t not sl ack to pay
i t: for the LORD thy God wi l l surel y requi re i t of thee; and i t woul d be
si n i n thee (Deut. 23:21).
I bel i eve i n the judi ci al necessi ty of establ i shi ng a nati onal state-
ment of consti tuti onal fai th that confesses the God of the Bi bl e as the
Lord of the nati onal covenant. Thi s wi l l requi re a Consti tuti onal
amendment. (Thi s assumes, of course, that the Consti tuti on i s sti l l
i ntact at the ti me that the nati on i s ready to confess the l ordshi p of
the God of the Bi bl e. Thi s i s a major assumpti on. I f i t i s no l onger i n
force, then whatever nati onal covenant document i s i n pl ace wi l l
have to be modi fi ed or repl aced.)
Such an amendment i s not enough. I t woul d settl e onl y poi nts
one and two of the bi bl i cal covenant: the soverei gn y of God and the
subordi nati on of the peopl e. The Peopl e must be demoted from the
soverei gn god that establ i shed the covenant as suzerai n to become
once agai n the vassal that compl i es wi th the true Suzerai ns cove-
nant. We need to stop capi tal i zi ng peopl e. But thi s woul d be onl y
557
the begi nni ng. The thi rd poi nt of the covenant sti l l woul d have to be
deal t wi th: What about Gods reveal ed ci vi l l aw? Wi l l the whol e
Bi bl e be establ i shed as the fi nal l aw of the l and, the common l aw of
the nati on? Poi nt four: What about a nati onal oath requi red of al l
ci ti zens and al l ci vi l magi strates? Wi l l peopl e who are not under eccl e-
si asti cal covenant sancti ons be al l owed to serve as ci vi l magi strates or
agents who sancti on ci vi l magi strates? Fi fth poi nt: What about a sys-
tem of adopti on: the natural i zati on (meani ng de-natural i zati on) 1 of
future ci ti zens? Wi l l al l i mmi grants be al l owed to take the nati onal
and eccl esi asti cal Tri ni tari an oaths, thereby becomi ng ful l ci ti zens?
Wi l l the nati on have open geographi cal borders, but cl osed pol i ti cal
bor der s?
I n short, whi l e i t i s certai nl y i mportant to preach the necessi ty of
re-establ i shi ng the abandoned Tr i ni tar i an state confessi ons of the
col oni al Ame~i can peri od, thi s i s not enough. We need to renew the
ori gi nal ci vi l covenant, thi s ti me on a nati onal basi s. Gods covenant
i s comprehensi ve. We have al ready seen what happens to hal fway
nati onal covenants. We do not need a repl ay of the l ast two cen-
turi es. We need a ful l covenant, not a hal fway covenant. Newtons
god was buri ed by the Framers i n 1787; there i s no need to seek to
resurrect hi m.
Thi s does not mean that the ci vi l magi strate i s requi red by God
to l aunch a wave of rel i gi ous persecuti ons. What i t means i s that the
long-term goal of Chri sti ans shoul d be the preachi ng of the compre-
hensi ve gospel of sal vati on, i ncl udi ng the supernatural heal i ng of al l
i nsti tuti ons. Chri sti ans shoul d al so pray for and expect a huge re-
vi val , so that a vast majori ty of Ameri cans wi l l convert to savi ng
fai th i n Jesus Chri st. I f thi s future postmi l l enni al revi val does not
take pl ace, then any attempt to establ i sh a nati onal covenant wi l l
fai l , l ong-term. I t i s not our job as Chri sti ans to ram rel i gi on down
everyones throat. We must recogni ze that i f postmi l l enni al i sm i s
wrong, then the pursui t of the nati onal covenant real l y i s utopi an.
Worse; i t woul d requi re massi ve coerci on or decepti on. We dare not
i mi tate the decepti ve strategy of James Madi son and hi s nati onal
covenant-breaki ng accompl i ces. We al so dare not be premature, as
Cromwel l was.
1. But the natural man recei veth not the thi ngs of the Spi ri t of God: for they are
fool i shness unto hi m: nei ther can he know them, because they ar e spi r i tual l y di s-
cerned (I Cor. 2:14).
A Covenantal Strategy
The fi rst step i s to adopt a sl ogan. Every revol uti on needs sl ogans.
Here i s mi ne: politicsfourth. Fi rst comes personal fai th i n Jesus Chri st
as Lord and Savi or (not just Savi or). Z Second comes Church renewal .
There can be no successful reformati on of soci ety wi thout fi rst begi n-
ni ng a reformati on of the Church. s Thi rd comes fami l y renewal . Thi s
i nvol ves pul l i ng your chi l dren out of the publ i c school s. Fourth comes
l oczd pol i ti cs. At a mi ni mum, thi s woul d i nvol ve publ i c protests
agai nst aborti on. From there we go to state and nati onal pol i ti cs.
Before nati onal pol i ti cal renewal can begi n, we must fi rst do what
we can to make i t cl ear to the pol i ti ci ans and the nati onal government
that a major rel i gi ous transformati on has al ready taken pl a~e. Wi thout
the wi despread movement of the Hol y Spi ri t, thi s cannot happen. Thus,
the nati onal confessi on movement i s ei ther goi ng to shi ft forthri ghtl y
to postmi l l enni al i sm or el se remai n a ki nd of sectari an game for psy-
chol ogi cal outsi ders, a monumental pretence that wri ti ng forever-
i gnored mani festo on the need for a nati onal covenant i s anythi ng
more than a way to keep Chri sti ans vi si on focused on an unattai nabl e
utopi a. Ami l l enni al i sm coupl ed wi th the goal of nati onal confessi on i s
an experi ment i n psychol ogi cal masochi sm and sectari ani sm. Passi ng
out si mpl e gospel tracts on street corners woul d be more producti ve
for the ki ngdom of God; at l east someone mi ght get saved. Better to
experi ence the joy of seei ng si nners get saved from hel l than to condemn
onesel f and ones church to a l i feti me of eschatol ogi cal l y guaranteed
di sappoi ntment. I f one defi nes hi msel f i n terms of an eschatol ogi cal l y
l ost cause, he i s sure to suffer mental l y and spi ri tual l y. He wi l l al so have
i denti fi ed hi msel f as a sel f-professed l oser i n a church of sel f-professed
l osers. Outsi ders wi l l normal l y avoi d joi ni ng such denomi nati ons.
Where shoul d Chri sti ans begi n? What i s requi red by God today
i s for Hi s peopl e to pr ess for compr ehensi ve covenant r enewal at
every l evel of ci vi l government? Chri sti ans must bri ng a covenant law-
mit agai nst thi s present soci al order.
We must fi ght to wi n. We dare not make a l ost cause our eschato-
l ogi cal goal , ei ~her eccl esi asti cal l y or personal l y. As God tol d Joshua:
Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be
not afrai d, nei ther be thou di smayed: for the LORD thy God i s wi th
thee whi ther soever thou goest (Josh. 1:9).
2. John MacArthur, Jr., The Gospel Accordin~ to J esus (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan:
Zondervan Academi e, 1988).
3. James B. Jordan (cd.), The Reconstructi on of the Church, No. 4 of Christian@ and
Ci vi l i zati on (1985).
Shoul d the provi si ons of the Consti tuti on as here revi ewed be
found not to secure the Government & ri ghts of the States agai nst
usurpati ons & abuses on the part of the U.S. the fi nal resort wi thi n
the purvi ew of the Consti tuti on l i es i n an amendment of the Consti -
tuti on accordi ng to a process appl i cabl e by the States.
And i n the event of a fai l ure of every consti tuti onal resort, and
an accumul ati on of usurpati ons & abuses, renderi ng passi ve obedi -
ence & non-resi stance a greater evi l , than resi stance & revol uti on,
there can remai n but one resort, the l ast of al l , an appeal from the
cancel l ed obl i gati ons of the consti tuti onal compact, to ori gi nal ri ghts
& the l aw of sel f-preservati on. Thi s i s the ul ti ma rati o under al l Gov-
ernment whether consol i dated, confederated, or a compound of
both; and i t cannot be doubted that a si ngl e member of the Uni on,
i n the extremi ty supposed, but i n that onl y, woul d have a ri ght, as an
extra & ul tra consti tuti onal ri ght, to make the appeal .
James Madi son (1830)*
*Letter to the North Ameri can Review (Aug. 28, 1830), i n Marvi n Meyers (cd.), The
Mind of the Founder: Sources of the Political Thought of J ames Madison (I ndi anapol i s, I ndi -
ana: Bobbs-Merri l l , 1973), p. 529.
11
A NEW NATI ONAL COVENANT
I f I shall be in theminori~, I shallhave those painzl sensations
which anse from. a conviction of bei ng over power ed i n a good
cause. Yet I will be a peaceable citizen. My head, my hand, and my
hart, shall be at liberp to retrieve the loss of liberp, and remove the
&fects of that system in a constitutional way. I wish not to go to violence,
but will wait with hopes that the spirit which predominated in the revo-
lution is notyet gone, nor the cause of those who are attached to the revo-
lutionyet lost. I shall therejore patient~ wait in expectation of seeing that
government changed, so m to be compatible with the safe~, liber~, and
happiness of the people.
Patrick HenT (1788)1
Chri sti ans l ost the battl e i n 1788. The l awyers i n Phi l adel phi a
won i t. Chri sti ans accepted the rati fi cati on of the Consti tuti on, not
just as good l osers, but as enthusi asti c cooperators. They have yet to
i denti fy thei r probl em, as decade by decade, the Ameri can republ i c
has grown ever-more consi stent wi th the apostate foundati on of the
Consti tuti on. Chri sti ans fi nd themsel ves besi eged today, and they
vai nl y expect to get ri d of thei r probl ems by a return to the ori gi nal
i ntent of the Framers. On the contrary, what we have today i s the
pol i ti cal outcome of that ori gi nal i ntent, as Henry warned so l ong
ago. Darwi ni sm, soci al i sm, and several major wars speeded up the
process of moral di si ntegrati on, but the judi ci al foundati on of thi s
di si ntegrati on had been establ i shed i n 1787-88.
The pol i ti cal questi on faci ng Ameri can Chri sti ans today i s thi s:
How much l onger wi l l the Consti tuti on serve as the protector of our
1. Jonathan El l i ot (cd.), Th Debatis in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of
the Federal Constitution as Recommded by the GenmaC Conventi on at Philadelphia i n 1787, .5
vols. (Phi l adel phi a: Li ppi ncott, [1836] 1907), I I I , p. 652. Henry remai ned true to
hi s word. He remai ned l oyal to the Uni ted States, even when he opposed the Federal -
i st Partys Al i en and Sedi ti on Acts at the end of hi s l i fe. He was opposed to anarchy.
Nori ne Di ckson Campbel l , Patrick Hemy: Patriot and Statesrrum (Ol d Greenwi ch, Con-
necti cut: Devi n-Adai r, 1969), pp. 426-28.
561
l egal i mmuni ti es from State i nterference? At some poi nt i n ti me, the
Consti tuti on wi l l become too great a threat to one si de or the other:
to covenant-breakers who resent any resi due of Consti tuti onal re-
strai nt or to covenant-keepers who have been pushed to the l i mi ts of
thei r endurance by the cul mi nati on of the ori gi nal apostate cove-
nant. The Consti tuti ons provi si ons were wri tten by sel f-consci ousl y
apostate men and conspi ratori al Chri sti an col l eagues whose under-
standi ng of the bi bl i cal covenant had been eroded by a l i feti me of
Newtoni an phi l osophy and trai ni ng i n the pagan cl assi cs. Neverthe-
l ess, these men were under restrai nts: phi l osophi cal (natural ri ghts
doctri nes) and pol i ti cal (a Chri sti an el ectorate). Both of these re-
strai nts have al most compl etel y di sappeared i n the twenti eth cen-
tury. Thus, the evi l s i mpl i ci t i n the rati fi ed nati onal covenant have
grown more evi l over ti me.
Decl i ni ng Restrai nts
The fi rst set of restrai nts on the Framers was phi l osophi cal : natu-
ral rights philosophy. Offi ci al l y, the Consti tuti on does not recogni ze
natural ri ghts. I t was from the begi nni ng far more i n tune wi th the
Darwi ni an worl d to come than the worl d of ei ghteenth-century
Whi g moral phi l osophy. Today, al most no one i n a pl ace of i ntel l ec-
tual i nfl uence or pol i ti cal authori ty defends the ol der natural ri ghts
vi ewpoi nt. Take the case of the man who i s perhaps the most di sti n-
gui shed and best-known l egal schol ar and judge i n Ameri can conser-
vati sm, Robert Bork. Because of hi s conservati ve judi ci al vi ews,
Bork was refused confi rmati on to the Supreme Court by the U.S.
Senate i n 1987. We mi ght expect hi m to be a defender of natural
ri ghts. Not so. He was the author of a 1971 essay denyi ng the natural
ri ghts foundati on of judi ci al deci si ons. He deni ed that moral consi -
derati ons can properl y enter i nto judi ci al deci si ons, except i nsofar as
the pol i ti cal deci si on of the l egi sl ature has col ored a l aw.z Judges, he
i nsi sted, must remai n moral l y neutral . The ol der, pre-Darwi n moral
framework for Ameri can Consti tuti onal l aw i s dead. I t was a l ong
ti me dyi ng, both phi l osophi cal l y and judi ci al l y.
3
2. Robert Bork, Natural Pri nci pl es and Some Fi rst Amendment Probl ems,
I ndiana Law J ournal (Fal l 1971). I n thi s essay, Bork cal l ed on judges to adopt a pri nci -
pl e of moral neutral i ty i n maki ng judi ci al deci si ons. Cri ti cal of Bork was Chri sti an
Reconstructi on col umni st John Lofton, Soft on Natural Ri ghts? Washington Times
(jdy 8, 1987).
3. Gary Jacobsohn, The Su@me Court and the Decline of Constitutional Aspiration
(Totowa, New Jer sey: Rowman and Li ttl efi el d, 1986).
A New National Covenant 563
The humani sts have abandoned natural l aw; so have the theono-
mi sts. The Marxi sts never di d accept the theory. Thus, whether the
case l aw approach of the Harvard Law School i s adopted or the case
l aw approach of the Bi bl e, natural l aw or natural ri ghts phi l osophy
no l onger provi des ei ther covenantal l egi ti macy or judi ci al restrai nt;
the phi l osophi cal -moral foundati on of the ori gi nal Consti tuti onal
settl ement but not the actual document has di sappeared. I t i s
therefore just a matter of ti me and escal ati ng cri ses for the U.S. Con-
sti tuti on to go the way of the Arti cl es of Confederati on. I t can be re-
defi ned i nto somethi ng new by the courts, as has been done for over
a century, or el se i t can be repl aced by a seri es of amendments over
many years or overni ght by a Consti tuti onal conventi on. I f the fi nal
opti on i s sel ected by those who make l ong-term pol i ti cal pl ans, i t i s
not the Chri sti ans who are the l i kel y candi dates to achi eve a vi ctory.
Strangers in Their Own Land
The second set of restrai nts on the Framers was pol i ti cal : Chris-
tian uoters. They sti l l control l ed or heavi l y i nfl uenced state pol i ti cs.
They had l ost onl y the battl e i n Phi l adel phi a. For a ti me, they re-
mai ned a threat to the humani sts who ran the country, but i t was a
downhi l l battl e after 1788. Li beral theol ogi an and Uni versi ty of
Chi cago professor of Church hi story Marti n Marty waxes el oquent
regardi ng Frankl i n and hi s Dei st peers. Fortunatel y for l ater Amer-
i cans, the Foundi ng Fathers, fol l owi ng the exampl e of Frankl i n, put
thei r publ i c rel i gi on to good use. Whi l e church l eaders usual l y
forayed onl y bri efl y i nto the publ i c arena and then scurri ed back to
mi nd thei r own shops, men of the Enl i ghtenment worked to form a
soci al fabri c that assured freedom to the several churches, yet stressed
common concerns of soci ety.4 Today, however, the common con-
cerns of soci ety l egal i zed pornography and prosti tuti on, for i n-
stance have come i nto confl i ct wi th l ocal church freedom.
What Marty and vi rtual l y al l contemporary hi stori ans fai l to di s-
cl ose i s that vi rtual l y al l of these l eaders of the Ameri can Enl i ghten-
ment had a worki ng model for thi s common soci al fabri c: the
Masoni c l odges of Ameri ca (and i n Frankl i ns case, of France).
Some were actual members, bound by i ts oaths; others were si mpl y
l i terate men of thei r ti me, and Masonry was the rel i gi on of the New-
4. Marti n E. Marty, Pilgrims in Their Own Land. 500 Years of Religion in Arnerka
(Boston: Li ttl e, Brown, 1984), p. 158.
toni an era. I ts worl dvi ew spread far beyond i ts cl osed doors i n the
back rooms of l ocal taverns. Thi s fact the hi stori ans fai l to menti on.
Publ i c rel i gi on, conti nues Marty, l ooked for i nsti tuti onal em-
bodi ment. A few enterpri si ng dei sts thought they shoul d make churches
of thei r movement for enl i ghtenment and publ i c rel i gi on, but l i ttl e
came of thei r efforts .5 Then he adds thi s non-i l l umi nati ng note:
Masoni c l odges embodi ed some of the teachi ngs of publ i c rel i gi on,
but the publ i c who were not thei r members di d not see them doi ng
SO.G Thi s i s l i teral l y true, but hardl y rel evant. Of course the publ i c
coul d not see i nsi de the l odges; that was the whol e poi nt of l odge
secrecy. Had the Chri sti ans who voted for the Consti tuti on i n 1788
understood what was bei ng done to them, and why i t was bei ng
done, the Consti tuti on woul d not have been rati fi ed. But secrecy
prevai l ed: i n the l odges and i n Phi l adel phi a. Chri sti ans became, to
ci te the stunni ng ti tl e of Martys book, pi l gri ms i n thei r own l and.
But are Chri sti ans sti l l i n thei r own l and? I f we are, then thi s
means that there i s some sort of conti nui ty between the ori gi nal ci vi l
covenants and todays wi l derness condi ti on. I f we are strangers i n
our own l and, then thi s i s because we have l ost out to i nterl opers.
Thi s, of course, i s exactl y what the Bi bl e predi cts for those who
break covenant wi th God: The stranger that i s wi thi n thee shal l get
up above thee very hi gh; and thou shal t come down very l ow (Deut.
28:43). What was l ost can be regai ned. The means of re-conquest i s
to press toward a new nati onal covenant, and a better nati onal cove-
nant, wi th God.
Conti nui ty Despi te Di sconti nui ty
I have stressed the covenantal di sconti nui ty between the Arti cl es
of Confederati on and the Consti tuti on. I have argued that the Con-
sti tuti on was the product of a COUP. Thi s coup was rati fi ed by the vot-
ers and thereby gi ven l egi ti macy retroacti vel y. The covenantal ques-
ti on i s: I s the Uni ted States now a Chri sti an nati on? How can i t be,
i f the Consti tuti on i s, as I have argued, judi ci al l y anti -Chri sti an?
I s the Uni ted States a Chri sti an nati on? The answer l i es i n the
bi bl i cal i dea of a covenant. Once formal l y under the terms of Gods
personal covenant, there i s no escape for the i ndi vi dual . The sanc-
ti ons wi l l eventual l y be appl i ed, both posi ti ve and negati ve. The
5. I bid., pp. 164-65.
6. I bid., p. 165.
same i s true for eccl esi asti cal and nati onal covenants. Some nati ons
have departed compl etel y from the Chri sti an fai th i n the past, most
notabl y northern Afri ca, whi ch fel l mi l i tari l y to the Mosl ems i n the
seventh and ei ghth centuri es. Chri sti ans were defeated i n hi story,
and thei r Musl i m descendants have suffered from poverty and back-
wardness ever si nce. There i s no trace of that ori gi nal Chri sti ani ty.
But what about Europe? Worl d War I , the Nazi s, Worl d War I I , and
the fal l of Eastern Europe to the Communi sts i ndi cate the presence
of negati ve hi stori cal sancti ons, not an escape from Gods covenant.
The State Covenants Stipulations Remain in Force
When Jeroboam pul l ed the ten tri bes out of the ki ngdom of
I srael , he di d not escape the terms of I srael s covenant. He created a
hal fway covenant pol i ti cal order. He i mposed hal fway covenant
ri tual i sm: Jehovah worshi p wi th Baal i sms ri tual s. He set up the
gol den cal ves and hi red the l owest el ements of the soci ety to become
pri ests (I Ki . 12:28, 31). Neverthel ess, Northern I srael di d not escape
the negati ve sancti ons of the nati onal covenant. The nati on dri fted
i nto apostasy. Ahab l ater i mposed pure Baal i sm. But even under
Ahab, there remai ned 7,000 i n I srael i n El i jahs day who had not
bowed the knee to Baal (I Ki . 19:18). The presence of this remnant church
provided the historical continui~ with the original covenant. Thei r pr esence
al l owed God to i mpose hi s sancti ons. The resul t was the capti vi ty
under Assyri a. Jeroboam and Ahab had not escaped the covenant.
They onl y brought the hi stori c sancti ons of God on I srael .
The conti nui ng presence of the Church i n the Uni ted States pro-
vi des the covenantal conti nui ty wi th the true founders of thi s nati on,
those bands of Cal vi ni sti c Chri sti ans who fl ed from Europe i n the
seventeenth century and came here to bui l d a ci ty on a hi l l . The
Foundi ng Fathers were the nearl y forgotten men l i ke Wi l l i am Brad-
ford of Pl ymouth Col ony and John Wi nthrop of the Massachusetts
Bay Col ony.
7
Li ke Jeroboam before them, and al so l i ke Roger Wi l l i ams, Pro-
fessors Nel l , Hatch, and Marsden l ook to the outward symbol s of
Amer i can ci vi l r el i gi on and the detai l s of the nati ons ci vi l
contracts . They bel i eve that there never real l y had been a nati onal
covenant Ahabs covenantal perspecti ve and that i n any case, the
Consti tuti ons pl ural i sm i s today the true rel i gi on of thi s soci ety.
7. John Adai r, Founding Fathers: The Puritans in England and Amia (Grand Rap-
i ds, Mi chi gan: Baker, [1982] 1986).
They are i ncorrect. There i s covenantal conti nui ty i n the Uni ted
States as surel y as there was i n the Northern Ki ngdom i n El i jahs
day. I t is the continuing presence of people who a~rm the gospel that provides
covenantal continuity with the past, as well as with the>ture. I t i s thi s cove-
nantal conti nui ty that wi l l bri ng forth (and has brought forth) Gods
hi stori c sancti ons sancti ons l eadi ng ei ther to nati onal obl i vi on, as
they di d i n North Afri ca i n the seventh century, or to covenantal res-
torati on. Let us pray that i t wi l l be the l atter.
J eroboam~ Priesthood
The U.S. Consti tuti on i s one step beyond Jeroboams gol den
cal ves, but not yet the covenant of Ahab and Jezebel . Todays pol i ti -
cal l eaders are the judi ci al equi val ent of Jeroboams pri esthood.
They are moral l y superi or to Ahabs 450 pri ests of Baal and 450
pri ests of the groves (Asherah). Chri sti ans therefore shoul d defend
the gol den cal f of the Consti tuti on as a temporary devi ce that gi ves
us freedom to work for an eventual return to Jerusal em.
We now face the threat of a transi ti on to the Ahab and Jezebel
school of ci vi l rel i gi on, i f the pl ans for a new Consti tuti onal Conven-
ti on go through. One thi ng i s cl ear, however: Jeroboams hal fway
covenant worl d di d not survi ve. Nei ther di d the Arti cl es of Con-
federati on. Jeroboams hal fway covenant moved forward i nto Ahabs
Baal i sm. We al so l i ve under a transi ti onal covenantal settl ement.
Ei ther thi s nati on wi l l return to i ts pre-Consti tuti on orthodoxy or
el se i t heads i nto outri ght pagani sm. Judi ci al l y speaki ng, the l atter i s
more l i kel y than the former. We are al ready judi ci al l y pagan.
Covenant Sancti ons: Church and Fami l y
The Angl o-Saxon Masons of the ei ghteenth century ri di cul ed
athei sm, but the athei sts have tri umphed, just as a handful of Anti -
federal i sts predi cted i n state rati fyi ng conventi ons and pamphl ets.
The Masons used the wi del y accepted doctri ne of neutral natural
l aw to undergi rd thei r appeal to rel i gi ous tol erati on. They took thei r
Uni tari an Masoni c oaths i n secret, and they took thei r secul ar pol i ti -
cal oaths, and they thought that al l was wel l . I t wasnt. The worst
el ements have i nheri ted the supposedl y neutral ki ngdom.
The Ameri can Ci vi l Li berti es Uni on has few supporters wi thi n
the l odges of the deepl y Masoni c South. The good ol d boys wi th
thei r fezes and Shri ner regal i a do not cheer when the ACLU gets a
federal i njuncti on agai nst havi ng a Chri stmas manger scene on the
l ocal court house l awn. But such i s the i nevi tabl e resul t of hal fway
ci vi l covenants. The opponents of the Consti tuti on saw i t comi ng i n
earl y 1788, but coul d not get the votes to stop i t. Mercy Warrens
Anti federal i st l ament a decade and a hal f after rati fi cati on has
proven propheti c: . . . most of the i nhabi tants of Ameri ca were too
proud for monarchy, yet too poor for nobi l i ty, and i t i s to be feared,
too sel fi sh and avari ci ous for a vi rtuous republ i c .
s
When men see
themsel ves rather than God as the source of thei r weal th (Deut. 8:17),
they have adopted the fundamental pri nci pl e of humani sm. The i n-
evi tabl e resul t i s the advent of negati ve sancti ons from God i n hi story
(Deut. 8:19-20). Thi s i s the threat of retai ni ng We the Peopl e.
The questi on i s, can we reverse the dri ft i nto pol i ti cal Baal i sm
before these sancti ons escal ate not arri ve: escal ate? They have
al ready arri ved, as AI DS i ndi cates. Can we return to Jerusal em
wi thout bei ng i nvaded by the Assyri ans? Can we avoi d the Ahab
covenant? I f so, how?
I know the ji mt step: churches must excommuni cate anyone who
r emai ns a Mason. Ever y Mason i n ever y Bi bl e-bel i evi ng chur ch
shoul d be asked to choose between the two i mpl acabl y r i val cove-
nants he has sworn to uphol d. The doubl e-mi nded Masons must not
make the chur ches doubl e-mi nded. Chur ches must publ i cl y br eak
thi s covenant wi th evi l . At l east i n our churches, i f not yet i n our ci vi l
courts, we must not retai n the servi ces or the ti thes of anyone who
sacri fi ces i n the groves of Masonry. Bi bl e-bel i evi ng churches got us
i nto thi s mess by r efusi ng to cast out Fr eemasons begi nni ng 250
years ago. They set the pattern. That pattern has now l ed to the sec-
ul ari zati on of the republ i c.
Step two i s al so cl ear: Chri sti ans must pul l thei r chi l dren out of
the publ i c school s. I t i s no wonder that Freemasonry i s so suppor ti ve
of the publ i c school s; the publ i c school s are the State-establ i shed
churches of the modern worl d. They are based on the same theol ogy
that Masonr y pr omotes: common-gr ound ethi cs and gover nment.
Parents must break wi th the publ i c school s as surel y as ch u r ch es
must excommuni cate Fr eemasons. Unti l thi s i s done, thi s soci ety
wi l l remai n i n i ts present broken covenant status. Gods negati ve
sancti ons wi l l escal ate.
8. Mercy Warren, Hi story of the Ri se, Progress and Termi nati on of the Ameri -
can Revol uti on (1805), i n The Com@-ts Anti-Fedma/ ist, 7 vol s. (Chi cago: Uni versi ty
of Chi cago Press, 1981), edi ted by Herbert J. Stori ng, VI , p. 216; ci ted by Stori ng,
ibid., I , p. 76.
These steps are both posi ti ve and negati ve. Excommuni cati ng
Freemasons puri fi es the body of Chri st. I t makes pl ai n the cove-
nantal choi ces i nvol ved i n taki ng sel f-val edi ctory oaths. Pul l i ng
chi l dren out of government school s means putti ng them i nto Chri s-
ti an school s. But these steps are onl y the begi nni ng. Much more
needs to be done. The l ong-term nati onal pol i ti cal goal has to be the
substi tuti on of a Tri ni tari an nati onal oath for the present prohi bi ti on
agai nst rel i gi ous test oaths. We need to fi ght nothi ng (no test oaths)
wi th somethi ng (Tri ni tari an test oaths). So far, Chri sti ans have ac-
cepted nothi ng on pri nci pl e. I n the worl d of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm, noth-
i ng (no test oaths) i s somethi ng (judi ci al athei sm).
Cl osi ng the Consti tuti ons Open End
The Consti tuti on i s presentl y a judi ci al l y open-ended document.
I am hereby aski ng: What t~ someday a mqorz~ of citizens should vote to
close this open end? The Consti tuti on cl earl y al l ows amendments, I t
al l ows an amendment to revoke one or more past amendments, as
the twenty-fi rst amendment proves: i t abol i shed the ei ghteenth
amendment (Prohi bi ti on). I f voters change thei r mi nds about any
Consti tuti onal provi si on of the past, they possess the authori ty to
rewri te i t. To ci te Justi ce Burger regardi ng the authori ty of the
Supreme Court: But when we deci de a consti tuti onal i ssue, ri ght or
wrong, thats thats i t unti l we change i t or the peopl e change i t.
Dont forget that. The peopl e made i t, and the peopl e can change i t.
The peopl e coul d abol i sh the Supreme Court enti rel y.g The Court
has never accepted as l egal l y val i d any argument that woul d chal -
l enge the substanti ve content of an amendment. 10
The questi on of the possi bi l i ty of l egal l y amendi ng the U. S. Con-
sti tuti on i n order to remove al l traces of i ts pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i s a
questi on that none of the pl ural i st defenders of todays anti -Chri sti an
pl ural i sti c republ i c cares to di scuss i n pri nt. I can hardl y bl ame
them. Rai si ng thi s questi on exposes to the voti ng publ i c the exi st-
ence of the Achi l l es heel of al l pol i ti cal pl ural i sm: i ts fi rst pri nci pl e
the soverei gnty of the voters 11 al l ows pl ural i sm to commi t sui ci de.
9. Transcri pt, CBS News Speci al , The Burger Years: June 9, 1986, p. 11.
10. Congressi onal Research Servi ce, Li brary of Congress, The Constitution of the
United States of Ameri i a: Ana@is and I nte@etation (Washi ngton, D. C.: Gover nment
Pri nti ng Offi ce, 1972), p. 856.
11. Pri or to rati fi cati on, i t was not cl ear where pol i ti cal soverei gnty l ay. The
framers of the Consti tuti on stated that i t was i n the peopl e, but speci fi cal l y peopl e as
At any ti me, and for any reason, a suffi ci ent number of voters can
l egal l y amend the U.S. Consti tuti on to abol i sh i ts character as a rel i -
gi ousl y or even pol i ti cal l y pl ural i sti c document.
My poi nt shoul d be cl ear enough: once the pol i ti cal pl ural i st
opens the judi ci al door to the pol i ti cal expressi on of al l possi bl e
vi ews, rel i gi ous and i deol ogi cal , thi s has to i ncl ude the vi ews of those
who say that no one hol di ng a ri val vi ew wi l l be al l owed to vote, once
those hol di ng thi s covenantal vi ew l egal l y amend the Consti tuti on.
The voters al ready say thi s to convi cted fel ons. They are never agai n
al l owed to vote. Why not say i t al so to those who hol d rel i gi ous or
i deol ogi cal vi ews that woul d threaten the very foundati ons of Chri s-
ti an ci vi l i zati on? (When I ask, Why not? I have i n mi nd pl ural i sms
formal l egal pri nci pl es, not substanti ve reasons.) Thi s i s the i nesca-
pabl e di l emma of democrati c pl ural i sm. Pluralism oji%ial~ allows the
pluralistic system to make subsequent pluralism illegal. Pl ural i sts do not tal k
about thi s very often. The pol i ti cal pl ural i st cannot escape hi s own
tradi ti onal l i turgy: The peopl e gi veth, and the peopl e taketh away;
bl essed be the name of the peopl e.
The Humani sts Conspi racy to I nheri t
Certai n groups of l i beral humani sts are doi ng thei r best to make
a transi ti on to a new consti tuti onal order. Begi nni ng i n 1964, the
Center for the Study of Democrati c I nsti tuti ons began to produce
pl ans for a new consti tuti on. Rexford Guy TugWel l wrote a pre-
l i mi nary consti tuti on for the Newstates of Ameri ca whi ch he pres-
ented for consi derati on to the Center. 12 Thi s proposed consti tuti on
ci ti zens of states. As hi stori an Forrest McDonal d says, When the framers of the
Consti tuti on referred the proposed supreme l aw to the peopl e of the states, i n thei r
capaci ti es as peopl e of states rather than havi ng i t rati fi ed i n any of several ways
they were i n fact asserti ng that was where soverei gnty l ay. The Congress, the state
governors, the state l egi sl atures, and the voters i n every state, each i n thei r turn, had
oppormni ty to reject thi s asserti on;
when they unani mousl y confi rmed the pro-
cedure, they necessari l y confi rmed the asserti on . Forrest McDonal d, E Pluribus
Unum: The Fortnation of the Anwrican Republic, 1776-1790 (I ndi anapol i s, I ndi ana:
Li berty Press, [1965) 1979), p. 311n.
12. The 1964 proposal recommended breaki ng up the exi sti ng states i nto new
pol i ti cal uni ts. I t al so i ncl uded a restructuri ng of the branches of the federal govern-
ment i nto the El ectoral Branch, Pl anni ng Branch, Presi dency, Legi sl ati ve Branch,
Regul atory Branch, and Judi ci al Branch. I ni ti ati ng the amendment process woul d
become the work of the Judi ci al Counci l , and wi th the approval of the Presi dent and
Senate, the proposed amendment woul d be voted on by the el ectorate. A majori ty
vote woul d rati fy i t (Arti cl e XI ).
kept getti ng revi sed. 13 Tugwel l , one of the ori gi nal members of Presi -
dent Frankl i n Roosevel ts l eft wi ng brai ns trust , 14 i ssued the for-
ti eth draft of these di scussi ons i n The Emerging Constitution i n 1974.15
Another group proposi ng a new consti tuti on i s the Commi ttee on
the Consti tuti onal System. 16 Sti l l another i s the Jefferson Commi ttee.
There i s a growi ng fear among conservati ves that a Consti tuti onal
Conventi on wi l l be cal l ed the fi rst si nce 1787 and then captured
by the humani st Left. They are qui te properl y fearful of any such
move to amend the Consti tuti on. 17 Some tradi ti onal l i beral s are al so
skepti cal about any major tamperi ng wi th the Consti tuti on. I s
A New Covenant Document?
I n mi d-1986, Chi ef Justi ce Burger resi gned from the Supreme
Court to take over the di rectorshi p of the Bi centenni al Consti tu-
ti onal Commi ssi on, whose meeti ngs are cl osed to the publ i c, despi te
bei ng funded by the federal government. 19 Thi s was a vi si bl y
strange move: from the hi ghest judi ci al posi ti on i n the l and to the
head of an obscure del i beratel y obscure cl osed-door educa-
ti onal organi zati on. A pol i ti cal cartoon by Ol i phant i n l ate June,
1986, featured a drawi ng of Burger seated behi nd a l i ttl e gi ft stand
whi ch was l ocated di rectl y i n front of the Supreme Court. The si gn
on the stand sai d: Consti tuti onal Bi centenni al Souveni rs. Smal l er
si gns sai d: Gi fts! Buttons, Ashtrays. The capti on sai d: warren
Burgers most confusi ng deci si on.
13. Consti tuti on for a Uni ted Republ i cs of Ameri ca: A Model for Di scussi on,
Versi on XXXVI I (1970), i n Center Magasine (Sept./Ott. 1970).
14. R. G. Tugwel l , The Brains T~t (New York: Vi ki ng, 1968); Bernard Stem-
sher, Rexjord T~well and the New Deal (New Brunswi ck, New Jersey: Rutgers Uni -
versi ty Press, 1964).
15. New York: Harper & Row Publ i shers.
16. Marvi n Stone, A Better Consti tuti on? The Edi tors Page, U. S. News and
World Report (Apri l 9, 1984), p. 84.
17. Phyl l i s Schl atl y, Plotting to Rewrite the Cor@itution, br ochur e (Feb. 1987); W.
Cl eon Skousen, What I s Behind the Frantic Dtive for a New Constitution (Pr ovo, Utah:
Freeman I nsti tute, n.d. ).
18. Leave the Consti tuti on al one suggests Arthur M. Schl esi nger, Jr., who re-
jects the pl ans of the Commi ttee on the Consti tuti onal System: Associ ated Press story
by Donal d M. Rothberg, Nov. 3, 1985.
19. Ral ph Naders organi zati on, Publ i c Ci ti zen, sued the Commi ssi on i n October
1985 because of thi s cl osed-door pol i cy. Uni ted Press I nternati onal story, October 11,
1985. The i njuncti on was di smi ssed that year by the Federal di stri ct court on the
grounds that these heari ngs were not advi sory heari ngs but operational meeti ngs, and
therefore not subject to the open door cl ause of the Advi sory Act. The meeti ngs re-
mai n cl osed.
Perhaps i t i s not so confusi ng after al l . Fol l owi ng a ti p gi ven to
me, I had a year earl i er predi cted Burgers deci si on to resi gn i n ex-
change for control of the Bi centenni al Commi ssi on. 20 The Bi centen-
ni al of the Consti tuti on i s al most over as I wri te thi s. We shal l see
what ti me bri ngs. What I expect i s that sooner or l ater there wi l l be a
seri es of major nati onal cri ses. These coul d then be orchestrated by
the medi a to create publ i c pressure to have a Consti tuti onal Conven-
ti on. The Consti tuti on coul d easi l y be scrapped, just as the Arti cl es
of Confeder ati on wer e scr apped. I t does no l egal good to tel l the del -
egates that they are not al l owed to offer a new Consti tuti on. That
strategy was taken by Congress i n 1786. I t fai l ed.
Thi s substi tuti on coul d very easi l y destroy the one source of l e-
gi ti macy remai ni ng to the U.S. nati onal ci vi l government. A new
covenantal experi ment, I predi ct, wi l l not gai n wi despread publ i c
support once the headl i nes fade. There woul d be a growi ng con-
frontati on between Chri sti ans and humani sts who run the vari ous
ci vi l governments. Chri sti ans wi l l see the openl y humani st nature of
the new Consti tuti on; they are presentl y bl i nded by tradi ti on and
wi shful thi nki ng regardi ng the present Consti tuti on. Thus, the hu-
mani st powers that be wi l l l ose the one thi ng that they desperatel y
need: the l egi ti macy i mparted by the nati onal soverei gn, We the
Peopl e. Coupl e thi s wi th a Hol y Spi ri t-di rected revi val , and you
coul d get a total transformati on of the Ameri can pol i ti cal order. But
thi s wi l l take ti me. I t wi l l al so take a recogni ti on of the nature of the
Masoni c COUP &&tat of 1787-88.
Concl usi on
We cannot expect to go back to the Arti cl es of Confederati on, nor
do I bel i eve that the Arti cl es were capabl e i n 1781 of sol vi ng the cove-
nantal probl em of the one and ,the many, uni ty and di versi ty. Thi s
document was a hal fway covenant. The Arti cl es needed major revi -
si ons, as al l men of the day knew. I t may wel l be that the U.S. Con-
gress i n 1787 woul d not have agreed to the necessary revi si ons: the
strengtheni ng of the executi ve, the abol i ti on of the unani mous state
agreement rul e, the abol i ti on of al l i nternal tari ffs, and the abol i ti on
of state government fi at (unbacked) paper money. What I object to
as a Chri sti an i s the conti nui ng si l ence regardi ng the two fundarnen-
20. Hi jacki ng the Consti tuti on, Phase One, Remnant Review (May 24, 1985), pp.
2-3. The man who fi rst predi cted thi s i s Jeffrey St. John.
tal fl aws of the U.S. Consti tuti on: 1) the prohi bi ti on of a Tri ni tari an
oath for al l U.S. offi ci al s; and 2) the removal of the affi rmati on of the
Bi bl e as the reveal ed, soverei gn, excl usi ve, and authori tati ve Word
of God. Not al l of the state governments had made these two cove-
nantal mi stakes i n 1787.
The Consti tuti on wi l l eventual l y be amended, so that the rel i -
gi on of the nati on i s at l ast consi stentl y mani fested i n i ts i ncor-
porati ng covenant document. Ei ther the soci ety wi l l be remade by
the pol i ti ci ans, bureaucrats, and hi dden hi erarchi es i nto a secul ar
soci ety, top to bottom, or el se i t wi l l become a Chri sti an soci ety, bot-
tom to top. A hal fway covenant Chri sti ani ty cannot survi ve thi s
cl ash of i rreconci l abl e worl dvi ews. Nei ther can a hal fway covenant
secul ar humani sm. One or the other wi l l tri umph, or el se l ose to a
thi rd uni fi ed worl dvi ew.
Thi s suggesti on wi l l be attacked as i mmoral , un-Ameri can, and
tyranni cal . I t wi l l be attacked as bei ng undemocrati c the greatest
pol i ti cal si n of thi s dyi ng era. But the cri ti cs wi l l not admi t the truth,
namel y, that the U.S. Consti tuti on i s onl y the judi ci al l y offi ci al
aspect of the story of pol i ti cal rul e i n Ameri ca. The system of el i ti st
control over nati onal affai rs i n Ameri ca whi ch Georgetown Uni ver-
si tys Carol l Qui gl ey wrote about favorabl y i n Tragedy and Hope
(1966),
2
and whi ch George Washi ngton Uni versi tys Arthur Sel wyn
Mi l l er wrote about favorabl y just before he di ed i n 1988,22 i s never
menti oned i n pol i te academi c ci rcl es. Thi s system of hi dden hi erar-
chi es i s nonethel ess the way our worl d works today.
The i nescapabl e pol i ti cal fact i s thi s: there must al ways be repre-
sentati on. Thi s representati on can be open or hi dden, or more l i kel y,
hi dden wi th the i l l usi on of bei ng open. I t i s ti me for Chri sti ans to
cease del udi ng themsel ves about the hi dden hi erarchi es of the mod-
ern democrati c worl d. There wi l l al ways be hi erarchi es; the questi on
i s: Wi l l they be open or hi dden? I n modern democracy, where the
pol i ti cal hi erarchy i s formal l y open, i t i s i n fact secretl y cl osed. I t was
pl anned that way, begi nni ng no l ater than 1787.
21. Carol l Qui gl ey, Tragedy and Hope. A Histoy of the World i n Our Time (New York:
Macmi l l an, 1966), especi al l y Chapter 17. Thi s textbook i s extremel y rare, avai l abl e
(i f at al l ) onl y i n a pi rate edi ti on.
22. Arthur Sel wyn Mi l l er, The Secret Constitution and the Need for Constitutional
Change (Westport, Connecti cut: Greenwood Press, 1987).
But i s thi s contemporary Western cul ture l i kel y to conti nue for
l ong? The answer, i t seems to me, must be i n the negati ve i f we
take any stock i n the l essons of the human past. One cannot be cer-
tai n, of course; there i s no sure way of catapul ti ng oursel ves i nto the
future; no way of bei ng confi dent that even the hardi est or most
promi si ng of current trends wi l l conti nue i ndefi ni tel y. But we can
take some reasonabl e gui dance, I bel i eve, fi rst from the fact that
never i n hi story have peri ods of cul ture such as our own l asted for
very l ong. They are destroyed by al l the forces whi ch consti tute thei r
essence. How can any soci ety or age l ast very l ong i f i t l acks or i s
steadi l y l osi ng the mi ni mal requi rements for a soci ety such re-
qui rements bei ng the very opposi te of the egocentri c and hedoni sti c
el ements whi ch domi nate Western cul ture today?
Second, i t i s i mpossi bl e to overl ook at the present ti me a phe-
nomenon that as recentl y as the 1940s we thought so i mprobabl e as
to be unworthy of seri ous thought or di scussi on. I refer to the fai nt,
possi bl y i l l usory, si gns of the begi nni ng of a rel i gi ous renewal i n
Western ci vi l i zati on, notabl y i n Ameri ca. Whatever thei r future, the
si gns are present vi si bl e i n the currents of fundamental i sm, pente-
costal i sm, even mi l l enni al i sm found i n certai n sectors of Judai sm
and Chri sti ani ty. Even the spread of the occul t and the cul t i n the
West coul d wel l be one of the si gns of a rel i gi ous renascence, for, as i s
wel l known, the bi rth of Chri sti ani ty or rather i ts genesi s as a worl d
rel i gi on i n Rome duri ng and after the preachi ng of Paul was sur-
rounded by a myri ad of bi zarre fai ths and devoti ons.
Rober t Ni sbet (1980)
*Ni sbet, HistoT of the I dea of Progress (New York: Basi c Books, 1980), p. 256.
12
THE RESTORATI ON OF BI BLI CAL PLURALI SM
I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies
are my meditation. I understand more than the anci ents, because I keep
thy precepts (Psalm 119:99-100).
We need to take Davi ds words seri ousl y. He defi ned personal
progress i n hi story i n terms of a better understandi ng of Gods re-
veal ed l aws. He coul d measure hi s progress beyond anythi ng achi eved
by those who had preceded hi m, not i n terms of better study tech-
ni ques or i mproved means of communi cati on or greater per capi ta
weal th, but i n terms of hi s mastery of Gods precepts. Put another
way: without Go&s precepts, we cannot measure our progress in personal sanc-
t$cation. Wi thout a measure, we cannot make personal compari sons
over ti me. Thi s i s equal l y true of i nsti tuti ons.
Covenant-breaki ng man regards as preposterous any such vi ew
of bi bl i cal l aw as the onl y val i d standard of moral progress i n hi story.
Sad to say, so does the modern Chri sti an. Modern men worshi p at
thei r own shri nes i n the hope of achi evi ng unbroken compound eco-
nomi c growth per capi ta, but wi thout covenantal conformi ty to God.
We the peopl e are the sel f-i denti fi ed gods of thi s age. We propose
and we di spose. Moral l y, autonomous man refuses to change; eco-
nomi cal y, he expects and demands progress. He i s l i ke the drunk-
ards descri bed by I sai ah: Come ye, say they, I wi l l fetch wi ne, and
we wi l l fi l l oursel ves wi th strong dri nk; and to morrow shal l be as
thi s day, and much more abundant (I sa. 56: 12). Thi s i s why modern
soci ety i s headed for ei ther an enormous seri es of di sasters or an
enormous and cul tural l y comprehensi ve revi val or perhaps the
cri ses, fol l owed by the revi val . God wi l l not be mocked.
What Chri sti ani ty needs today i s a revi val of casui stry: the appl i -
cati on of consci ence to moral deci si ons. The consci ence needs a rel i -
abl e gui de: bi bl i cal l aw. Casui stry has not been a popul ar academi c
575
576 PC) I . I T I CA1, P(}l ,YT}I EI SM
endeavor wi thi n Bi bl e-bel i evi ng Protestanti sm si nce the l ate seven-
teenth century. I am thi nki ng of Ri chard Baxters enormous study, A
Christian DirectoV, wri tten i n 1664-65 and fi rst publ i shed i n 1673, and
Samuel Wi l l ards equal l y massi ve commentary on the Westmi nster
Lar ger Catechi sm, publ i shed posthumousl y, A Com@eat Bo@ of
Diuini~ (1726). I am al so thi nki ng of the work of the Angl i can theo-
l ogi an Jeremy Tayl or. Ri chard Baxters goal was basi cal l y the same
as mi ne: I do especi al l y desi re you to observe, that the resol vi ng of
practical Cases of Consci ence, and the reduci ng of Theol ogi cal knowl -
edge i nto serious Christian Practice, and promoti ng a skilfulfacility i n the
fai thful exerci se of uni versal obedi ence and Hol i ness of heart and
l i fe, i s the great work of thi s Treati se; . . .]
Bi bl i cal Pl ural i sm
Domi ni on Chri sti ani ty teaches that there are four covenants
under God, meani ng four ki nds of vows under God: personal (i ndi -
vi dual ), and the three i nsti tuti onal covenants: eccl esi asti cal , ci vi l ,
and fami l i al .
2
Al l other human i nsti tuti ons (busi ness, educati onal ,
chari tabl e, etc. ) are to one degree or other under the juri sdi cti on of
one or more of these four covenants. No si ngl e human covenant i s
absol ute; therefore, no si ngl e human i nsti tuti on i s al l -powerful .
Thus, Chri sti an l i berty i s liber~ under God and Gods law, admi ni ster ed
by pl ural l egal authori ti es.
There i s no doubt that Chri sti ani ty teaches pl ural i sm, but a very
speci al ki nd of pl ural i sm: plural institutions under Gods si ngl e com-
prehensi ve l aw system. I t does not teach a pl ural i sm of l aw struc-
tures, or a pl ural i sm of moral i ti es, for thi s sort of hypotheti cal l egal
. pl ural i sm (as di sti ngui shed from institutional pl ural i sm) i s al ways
ei ther pol ythei sti c or humani sti c.
3
Chri sti an peopl e are requi red to
take domi ni on over the earth by means of al l three God-ordai ned i n-
sti tuti ons, not just the Church, or just the State, or just the fami l y.
1. Ri char d Baxter , A Ctwrsttan DirectoV 0~ A Summ of Pradical Theologie, and Cases
of Consci ence (London: Robert Whi te for Nevi l Si mmons, [1673] 1678), unnumbered
page, but the second page of Adverti sements.
2. Ray. R. Sutton, That You May Pro~pm: Dominion By Covenant (Tyl er, Texas: I n-
sti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1987), ch. 4. I t was the fai l ure to acknowl edge the
uni que pr esence of God i n these covenantal i nsti tuti ons that under mi ned the Chr i s-
ti an case for state consti tuti onal covenantal i sm i n the l ate ei ghteenth century. See
John Wi ther spoons Lectures on Moral philosophy, Lecture 16, On Oaths and Vows.
3. Gary DeMar, Ruler of the Nati ons: The Biblical Blueprints for Government (R.
Worth, Texas: Domi ni on Press, 1987), ch. 3.
The Restoration of Biblical Pluralism .577
The kingdom of God includes eveV human institution, and evey aspect of lfe,
for all oflfe is under God and is governed by His unchanging princ+le.s. Al l of
l i fe i s under God and Gods l aw because God i ntends to judge al l of
l i fe i n terms of Hi s l aw. ~
I n thi s structure of plural governments, the i nsti tuti onal churches
serve as advisors to the other i nsti tuti ons (the Levi ti cal functi on), but
the churches can onl y pressure i ndi vi dual l eaders through the threat
of excommuni cati on. As a r estr ai ni ng factor on unwar r anted
Church authori ty, an excommuni cati on by one l ocal church or de-
nomi nati on i s al ways subject to revi ew by another, i f and when the
excommuni cated person seeks membershi p el sewhere. Thus, each of
the three covenantal i nsti tuti ons i s to be run under God, as i nter-
preted by i ts l awful l y el ected or ordai ned l eaders, wi th the advi ce of
the churches, not thei r compul si on.
Al l Chri sti ans are i n pri nci pl e theocrats. Al l Chri sti ans say that
God rul es the uni verse. God (theos) rul es (kratos). Theocracy means
si mpl y that God rules. He r ul e.i i n every area of l i fe: Church, State,
fami l y, busi ness, sci ence, educati on, etc. There i s no zone of neu-
tral i ty. There i s no Ki n<s X from God. Men are responsi bl e for
everythi ng they thi nk, say, and do. God exerci ses total juri sdi cti on.
Juri sdi cti on means l aw (jui s) and speaki ng (diction). God speaks Hi s
Word. I t i s a comprehensi ve Word. Anyone who says that Gods l aw
does not appl y to some area of l i fe i s thereby sayi ng that God does
not have juri sdi cti on i n that area. No l aw no juri sdi cti on.
Revol uti on and Law
I am convi nced that both the West and the Far East are about to
experi ence a major transformati on. I t has al ready begun. The pace
of soci al change i s al ready rapi d and wi l l get faster. The technol ogi -
cal possi bi l i ty of a successful Sovi et nucl ear stri ke agai nst the Uni ted
States grows dai l y;s so does the possi bi l i ty of chemi cal and bi ol ogi cal
warfare; G so does the threat of an AI DS epi demi c. None of these
threats to ci vi l i zati on may prove i n retrospect to be devastati ng, but
4. I bid., &. 4.
5. Angel o Codevi l l a, While Othem Build: The Commonsense Approach to the Strate{ic
Dg%nse I nitiative (New York: Free Press, 1988); Quenti n Crommel i n, Jr., and Davi d
S. Sul l i van, Soviet Military Suprstwq (Washi ngton, D. C.: Ci ti zens Foundati on,
1985).
6. Joseph D. Dougl as and Nei l C. Li vi ngston, America the Vulnerable: The Threat of
Chm.ical and Biological Wa#are (Lexi ngton, Massachusetts: Lexi ngton Books, 1987).
they are certai nl y percei ved today as threats. Added to these gri m
possi bi l i ti es i s the much more predi ctabl e threat of an i nternati onal
economi c col l apse as a resul t of the vast bui l d-up of i nternati onal
debt; thi s i n turn coul d produce domesti c pol i ti cal transformati ons.
Al so possi bl e i s the spread of terrori sm and Marxi st revol uti on.
Drug addi cti on i s spreadi ng l i ke a pl ague. Changes i n the weather as
a resul t of the use of fossi l fuel s (the greenhouse effect) are i n the
newspapers because of i nternati onal drought. Agri cul tural output
may be endangered, l ong term, by weather changes and al so by soi l
erosi on. We are not sure. What Chri sti ans shoul d be certai n of i s
thi s: God has been plowing up our ethical~ erosion-prone world since World
War I , and this process is accelerating.
Thi s has created a uni que opportuni ty for Chri sti an revi val , but
thi s ti me the revi val coul d l ead to a broad-based cul tural transforma-
ti on. I n short, revi val coul d produce an i nternati onal revol uti on:
fami l y by fami l y, church by church, nati on by nati on. For a true so-
ci al revol uti on to take pl ace, there must be a transformati on of the
l egal order. Thi s transformati on takes several generati ons, but wi th-
out i t, there has been no revol uti on, onl y a COUP ditat.
7
There i s today
an i nternati onal cri si s i n the Western l egal tradi ti on.
8
Thi s, far more
than the bui l d-up of nucl ear weapons or the appearance of AI DS,
testi fi es to the l i kel i hood of a comprehensi ve, i nternati onal revol uti on
not necessari l y vi ol ent, but a revol uti on nonethel ess. The Hol y
Spi ri t coul d produce such a revol uti on wi thout fi ri ng a shot or l aunch-
i ng a mi ssi l e. Thi s i s my prayer. I t shoul d be every Chri sti ans prayer.
Harol d Bermans poi nt i s correct: without a trantiormation of the legal
system, there is no resolution. Thi s i s why I have devoted so much space
to expl ai n the case l aws of Exodus.
g
I t i s these l aws, and thei r ampl i fi -
cati on i n the Book of Deuteronomy, that must serve as the foundati on
of any systemati cal l y, sel f-consci ousl y Chri sti an revol uti on. Once the
myth of neutral i ty i s abandoned real l y abandoned, not just verbal l y
admi tted to be a myth then the i nevi tabl e questi on ari ses: By what
standard? Chri sti ans who have abandoned fai th i n the myth of neutral -
i ty have onl y one possi bl e answer: By thi~ standard: bi bl i cal l aw.1
7. Harol d J. Berman, Law and Revol uti on: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradi-
tion (Cambri dge, Massachusetts: Harvard Uni versi ty Press, 1983), p. 20.
8. I bid., pp. 33-41.
9. Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Cme Laws of Exodw (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute
10. Gr eg L. Bahnsen, By This Standard: The Authori~ of GOSS Law Today (Tyl er,
The Restoration of Biblical Pluralism 579
Natural Law Theory: A Dead Mul e
Natural l aw theory i s a dead mul e; i t was al ways a steri l e hybri d,
and Darwi ni sm has l ong-si nce ki l l ed the l ast known l i vi ng speci mens. 11
Neverthel ess, anti -thei sti c conservati ve phi l osophers and a handful
of tradi ti onal Roman Cathol i c and Protestant col l ege i nstructors and
magazi ne col umni sts sti l l vi si bl y cl i ng to one or another of these tax-
i dermi c speci mens, each procl ai mi ng that hi s moti onl ess speci men i s
sti l l al i ve. They sti l l pretend that Ci cero i s al i ve and wel l phi l oso-
phi cal l y, and that Newtons god i s sti l l out there somewhere, protect-
i ng manki nds natural ri ghts even as he occasi onal l y shores up the
decl i ni ng uni verse. Chri sti ans have al so been unwi l l i ng to accept
bi bl i cal l aw as a repl acement for the expi red hybri d of natural l aw.
They have cl ung to Lockes worl dvi ew as i f Hume and Kant had not
destroyed i t. They have cl ung to a Newtoni an worl dvi ew as i f i t had
not been both Uni tari an and Dei sti c from the begi nni ng, as i f Hume 12
and Darwi n and quantum physi cs had not made fai th i n i t unten-
abl e. They refuse to admi t that there i s nowhere for them to turn for
gui dance i n devel opi ng a bi bl i cal l y bel i evabl e soci al theory and
workabl e soci al programs except to the case l aws of the Ol d Testament.
And so, Chri sti ans remai n cul tural l y i mpotent. Thei r onl y psy-
chol ogi cal sol uti on to thi s vi si bl y unpl easant condi ti on has been to
devel op eschatol ogi es of defeat that announce thi s cul tural i m-
potence as Gods i nevi tabl e, predesti ned way. Even the Armi ni ans
i nsi st that the cul tural defeat of Chri sti ani ty i n thi s, the Church
Age, i s predesti ned by God. They may bel i eve i n free wi l l for i ndi -
vi dual s, but they are adamant regardi ng the predesti ned defeat of
Chri sti ani ty i n Church Age cul ture. 13 They do not bother to
preach the speci fi cs of Chri sti an ci vi l i zati on, for they nei ther bel i eve
11. R. J. Rushdoony wri tes: Darwi ni sm destroyed thi s fai th i n nature. The
process of nature was now portrayed, not as a perfect worki ng of l aw, but as a bl i nd,
unconsci ous energy worki ng profl i gatel y to express i tsel f. I n the struggl e for sur-
vi val , the fi ttest survi ve by vi rtue of thei r own adaptati ons, not because of natural
l aw. Nature produces many mi stakes whi ch fai l to survi ve and become exti nct
speci es and fossi l s. The desti ny of the uni verse i s exti ncti on as i ts energy runs
down. Rushdoony, The Biblical Philosophy of HistoT (Nutl ey, New Jersey: Presbyter-
i an & Reformed, 1969), p. 7.
12. Ri chard Kuhns, Humes Republ i c and the Uni verse of Newton, i n Peter F.
Gay (cd.), Eighteenth- CentuV Studies Pres&tted to Arthur M. Wilson (Hanover, New
Hampshi re: Uni versi ty Press of New Engl and, 1972), pp. 75-95.
13. Dave Hunt, Whatever Happened to Heaven? (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House,
1988)
i n Chri sti an ci vi l i zati on (Nel l , Hatch, Marsden, as wel l as al l di s-
pensati onal fundamental i sts) nor regard i t as a good use of ones gi fts
to promote i t. As di spensati onal i st Peter Lal onde sai d: I ts a ques-
ti on, Do you pol i sh brass on a si nki ng shi p? And i f theyre worki ng
on setti ng up new i nsti tuti ons, i nstead of goi ng out and wi nni ng the
l ost for Chri st, then theyre wasti ng the most val uabl e ti me on the
pl anet earth ri ght now. . . .14
Tom Pai nes Demon: The Bi bl e
We know wher e anti nomi an (anti -covenantal ) theol ogy has
headed i n the past: to Uni tari ani sm, athei sm, pl ural i sm, moral
debauchery, nati onal bankruptcy, and bl oody revol uti on. I t wi nds
up wi th the theol ogy of Tom Pai ne: that i n consi derati on of the
obscene stori es, the vol uptuous debaucheri es, the cruel and tor-
turous executi ons, the unrel enti ng vi ndi cti veness, wi th whi ch more
than hal f the Bi bl e i s fi l l ed, i t woul d be more consi stent that we
cal l ed i t the word of a demon, than the word of God . 15
I s the Ol d Testament the word of a demon? I f not, then why do
anti nomi an Chri sti ans l i beral s and conservati ves, neo-evangel i cal s
and fundamental i sts conti nue to ri di cul e Ol d Testament l aw?
They sti ck thei r fi sts i n the face of the God of Psal m 119, and shout i n
defi ance of Hi s l aw: I s God real l y nothi ng more than the abstract,
i mpersonal di spenser of equal l y abstract and i mpersonal l aws? G
Yes, He i s much more than thi s. Among other thi ngs, He i s the Eter-
nal Sl avemaster over those who rebel agai nst Hi m, the di spenser not
of abstract l aw but of personal l y experi enced agony forever and ever.
Hel l i s real . The l ake of fi re i s real . God i s therefore not to be mock-
ed. But He has many mockers, and many of these mockers cal l
themsel ves by Hi s name. They do not fear Hi m. For now. But even-
tual l y God wi l l sti ck Hi s fi st i n thei r faces. Peopl e may choose to i g-
nore Gods l aw; they wi l l not be abl e to i gnore AI DS.
Another major al ternati ve to Pai nes sort of outri ght apostasy i s
some vari ati on of Marci ons second-century heresy of the two-gods
14. Dominion: A Dangerous New ThologY, Tape One of Domi ni on: The Word and the
New World Order, a 3-tape set di stri buted by the Omega-Latter, Ontari o, Canada,
1987.
15. The Age of Reason, Pt. 1; ci ted by Davi d Bri on Davi s, The Problem of Slav~ in the
Age of Revolution, 1770-1823 (I thaca, New York: Cornel l Uni versi ty Press, 1975), p. 525.
16. Rodney Cl app, Democracy as Heresy, Christiani~ Today (Feb. 20, 1987),
p. 23.
theory of hi story: that an evi l god operated i n the Ol d Testament,
but a ni ce god runs the worl d today. (For more detai l s, see bel ow:
The Conti nui ng Heresy of Dual i sm.) Robert Davi son i s correct
when he says that a Marci oni te tendency may be fai rl y traced i n
much modern di scussi on of Chri sti an ethi cs, nor i s thi s tendency
confi ned to schol arl y di scussi on. 1
The thi rd al ternati ve i s di spensati onal i sm: God used the reveal ed
l aws of the Bi bl e to govern peopl e before the advent of Chri st, but to-
day we have new l aws i n operati on, or wi sdom, meani ng vague,
undefi ned personal l aws, and no speci fi cal l y New Testament cul tural
l aws at al l . The road to cul tural i mpotence i s paved wi th neat (and
ul ti matel y unworkabl e) sol uti ons to di ffi cul t bi bl i cal probl ems.
The Search for Under~ing Principles
What we must search for i s the moral pri nci pl e that undergi rds
each Ol d Testament l aw. When we fi nd i t, we can then begi n to di s-
cuss how or to what extent God expects the ci vi l government or some
other government to enforce i t today. Those who begi n wi th the pre-
supposi ti on that a parti cul ar Ol d Testament l aw or God-requi red
Hebrew practi ce was i nnatel y evi l have al ready taken the fi rst step
toward Pai nes vi ew: that the Bi bl e i s the word of a demon.
Chri sti ans today are afrai d of the l aws i n the Bi bl e. They are ac-
tual l y embarrassed by them. They do not recogni ze that bi bl i cal l aw
i s a two-edged sword of Gods judgment: bl essi ng for the ri ghteous,
but cursi ng for the unri ghteous (Rem. 13:1-7). They do not under-
stand that Gods law-order for society is mercz~ul. For exampl e, God re-
qui res the death penal ty for ki dnappers (Ex. 21:16). The death penal ty
used to be i mposed on ki dnappers i n the Uni ted States, and ki dnap-
pi ng was rare. I t i s no l onger i mposed regul arl y, and ki dnappi ng has
become a bl i ght. Ki dnappi ng by terrori sts i n Europe i s common-
pl ace. Who says that Gods l aw regardi ng ki dnappi ng i s too harsh?
Harsher than ki dnappi ng i tsel f? So i t i s wi th all of Gods ci vi l l aws.
They are merci ful compared wi th the effects of unpuni shed evi l . The
modern worl d i s I earni ngjust how unmerci ful a soci ety can be that i s
not governed by bi bl i cal l aw.
17. Robert Davi son, Some Aspects of the Ol d Testament Contri buti on to the
Pattern of Chri sti an Ethi cs, Scottish J ournal of Theol o~, 12 (1959), p. 374; ci ted by
Wal ter Kai ser, Toward Old T~tamast Ethtis (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Zondeman
Academi e, 1983), p. 23.
Theocr aphobi a : Fear of Gods Rul ershi p
When, i n a court of l aw, the wi tness puts hi s hand on the Bi bl e
and swears to tel l the truth, the whol e truth, and nothi ng but the
truth, so hel p hi m God, he thereby swears on the Word of God the
whole Word of God, and nothing but the Word of God. The Bi bl e i s a
uni t. I t i s a package deal . The New Testament di d not overturn the
Ol d Testament; i t i s a commentay on the Ol d Testament. I t tel l s us
how to use the Ol d Testament properl y i n the peri od after the death
and resurrecti on of I srael s messi ah, Gods Son.
Jesus sai d: Thi nk not that I am come to destroy the l aw, or the
prophets: I am come not to destroy, but to ful fi l . For veri l y I say unto
you, Ti l l heaven and earth pass, one jot or one ti ttl e shal l i n no wi se
[way] pass from the l aw, ti l l al l be ful fi l l ed. Whosoever therefore
shal l break one of these l east commandments, and shal l teach men
so, he shal l be cal l ed the l east i n the ki ngdom of heaven: but whoso-
ever shal l do and teach them, the same shal l be cal l ed great i n the
ki ngdom of heaven (Matt. 5:17-19). Chri st took the Ol d Testament
seri ousl y enough to di e for those condemned to the second death
(Rev. 20:14) by i ts provi si ons. The Ol d Testament i s not a di scarded
fi rst draft of Gods Word. I t i s not Gods Word (emeri tus).
I f anythi ng, the New Testament l aw i s more stri ngent than the
Mosai c l aw, not l ess stri ngent. Paul wri tes that an el der cannot have
more than one wi fe (I Ti m. 3:2). The ki ng i n the Ol d Testament was
forbi dden to have mul ti pl e wi ves (Deut. 17:17). Thi s was not a gen-
eral l aw, unl ess we i nterpret the prohi bi ti on of Levi ti cus 18:18 as appl y-
i ng to al l addi ti onal wi ves, and not just to marryi ng a womans si ster,
as ethi ci st John Murray i nterprets i t. 18 I f we attempt to i nterpret
Levi ti cus 18:18 i n Murrays way, the questi on i nevi tabl y ari ses: Why
speci fy ki ngs as bei ng prohi bi ted from becomi ng pol ygami sts i f the
same l aw appl i ed to al l men anyway? Possi bl y to prohi bi t the system
of pol i ti cal covenanti ng through marri age (Sol omon i s a good exam-
pl e here). I n any case, there i s no equal l y cl ear-cut Ol d Testament
prohi bi ti on agai nst pol ygamy comparabl e to I Ti mothy 3:2, whi ch
18. John Mur r ay, Pnnc@es of Conduct (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Eerdmans,
1957), Appendi x B. Cathol i c theol ogi an Angel o Tosato agrees wi th hi m: The Law
of Levi ti cus 18:18: A Reexami nati on , Catholic Biblical Quarter~, Vol . 46 (1984), pp.
199-214. They are not fol l owed i n thi s vi ew by most Protestant commentators, nor
by Nachmani des, who sai d that the verse appl i es onl y to a womans si ster: Rabbi
Moshe ben Nachman [Ramban], Commentay on the Torah: Leviticus (New York:
Shi l o, [1267?] 1973), p. 255.
i ndi cates a ti ghteni ng of the l egal requi rements for at l east church
offi cers. The New Testament appears to be more ri gorous than the
Ol d i n thi s i nstance.
Another al terati on i n marri age l aws that we fi nd i n the New Tes-
tament i s the abol i ti on of concubi nage that resul ted from Chri sts
ful fi l l ment of the terms of the Ol d Testaments bri de pri ce system.
There are no more second-cl ass wi ves.
A Scare Word
The word theocracy i s a scare word that humani sts and fri ght-
ened Chri sti ans use to chase dedi cated Chri sti ans away from areas
of thei r God-gi ven responsi bi l i ty. The cri ti cs focus on pol i ti cs and
ci vi l government as i f Gods rul e i n thi s area were somehow evi l . Be-
cause al most al l humani sts today bel i eve i n sal vati on through l egi s-
l ati on, 19 they necessari l y bel i eve that pol i ti cs i s the pri mary means of
soci al heal i ng.
ZO The Marxi sts are the most consi stent defenders of
human transformati on through pol i ti cal acti on: the rel i gi on of revo-
l uti on. 21 Because Chri sti ans are today so used to thi nki ng i n these
humani sti c terms, they sel dom thi nk to themsel ves: Wai t a mi nute.
I know that God rul es the fami l y, and the government of my fami l y
shoul d refl ect thi s fact. God al so rul es the Church, and the govern-
ment of my church i s supposed to refl ect thi s fact. I know that God
rul es al l ci vi l governments, too. So why shoul d i t be evi l for Chri s-
ti ans to work hard to see to i t that the ci vi l government refl ects thi s
fact, just as they do i n thei r fami l i es, churches, and busi nesses? I n
short, why shoul d pol i ti cs be outsi de the real m of God-honori ng
Chr i sti an acti on? 22
Humani st cri ti cs present Chri sti ans wi th a ki nd of mental i mage:
a scarecrow that i s l ocked i n the stocks of Puri tan New Engl and.
Every ti me a Chri sti an wal ks by thi s scarecrow, a tape recorded
message bl ares out: Beware of theocracy! Beware of theocracy! I f
19. The excepti ons to thi s r ul e ar e cl assi cal l i ber al s and fr ee mar ket economi sts
l i ke F. A. Hayek and Mi l ton Fri edman, tradi ti onal conservati ves l i ke Russel l Ki rk
and Wi l l i am F. Buckl ey, neo-conservati ves l i ke I rvi ng Kri stol , and outr i ght anar -
chi sts l i ke Murray N. Rothbard.
20. R. J. Rushdoony, The One and the Many: Studies i n the Philosophy of Order and
UlttmaU (Fai rfax, Vi rgi ni a: Thoburn Press, [1971] 1978), chaps. 2-5, 8, 9, 11.
21. Gary North, Marxs Religion of Revolution: Regeneration Through Chaos (rev. ed.;
Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1989).
22. George Grant, The Changin~ of the Guard: The Biblical Blueprint for Politics (Ft.
the cri ti cs meant, Beware of eccl esi ocracy, meani ng ci vi l rul e by the
i nsti tuti onal Church, they woul d have a val i d poi nt, but they mean
somethi ng di fferent: Beware of Chri sti ans i n every area of l i fe who
seek to exerci se bi bl i cal domi ni on under God by obeyi ng and enforcing
Gods hol y l aw.
What Beware of theocracy! real l y means i s, Beware of Gods
ri ghteous rul e!
The Di smantl i ng of the Wel fare-Warfare State
Those who reject the theocrati c i deal are ready to accuse Cal vi n-
i sts of bei ng tyrants. Hi stori an Ronal d Wel l s of Cal vi n Col l ege has
wri tten an attack on Franci s Schaeffer, whi ch appears i n a col l ecti on
of essays that i s best descri bed as a neo-evangel i cal ti rade. He poi nts
to the unfootnoted and unmenti oned l i nks between certai n aspects of
Schaeffers soci al thought and Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sr
n
, and
then observes: Thi s tendency to promote ones own vi ew by l aw
has al ways been the dangerous part of Cal vi ni sm: one sees Cal vi n-
i sts i n power as tri umphal and di ctatori al . . . . Cal vi ni sts i n power
have wi el ded that power oppressi vel y.zs
I suspect that we Reconstructi oni sts were Mr. Wel l s target, for
we are the onl y Chri sti ans on earth cal l i ng for the bui l di ng of a bi bl i -
cal theocracy. What I al so suspect i s that what real l y di sturbs our
neo-evangel i cal academi c cri ti cs i s that we percei ve thi s theocracy as a
system of decentral i zed power. We cal l for a vast purgi ng of present-
day nati onal power, both pol i ti cal and economi c. We cal l for the
di smantl i ng of the wel fare-warfare State, most notabl y every aspect
of taxpayer-fi nanci ng for educati on (except for the nati onal mi l i tary
academi es . . . maybe). Z* I have cal l ed for a reducti on of aggregate
taxes to the l evel requi red by I Samuel 8: where al l l evel s of ci vi l gov-
ernment combined are al l owed to col l ect l ess than 10 percent of peopl es
annual i ncome. 25 I support the abol i ti on of the l ocal property tax,
as wel l as al l state and nati onal di rect taxati on of i ndi vi dual s and
corporati ons, whi ch i ncl udes the graduated i ncome tax, the Soci al
23. Ronal d A. Wel l s, Schaeffer on Ameri ca, i n Ronal d W. Ruegsegger (cd.),
Rejections on Franci s Schae& (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Zondervan Academi e,
1986), p. 237.
24. Rober t L. Thoburn, Tb Children Trap: Biblical Blueprints for Education (Ft.
25. Gary North, Healer of the Nations: Biblical Blueprintijor I nternational Relations (Ft.
Worth, Texas: Domi ni on Press, 1987), p. 61.
Securi ty tax, the corporate i ncome tax, the capi tal gai ns tax, and al l
sal es taxes. I recommend the abol i ti on of al l di rect taxati on by any
agency of ci vi l government above the l ocal townshi p or county;
every other l evel of ci vi l government woul d be forced to seek i ts reve-
nues by taxi ng the l evel of ci vi l government i mmedi atel y bel ow i t.
Ci vi l governments above the most l ocal woul d have to l i ve off the
revenues col l ected from other ci vi l governments. Thi s woul d decen-
tral i ze power wi th a vengeance. The Reconstructi oni sts versi on of
theocracy i s a decentral i zed system of mul ti pl e competi ng govern-
ments i n whi ch the modern messi ani c State and i ts economi c subsi -
di es woul d be di smantl ed. By modern pol i ti cal standards, such a
vi si on of the shri nki ng of the central i zed power of ci vi l government i s
nothi ng short of utopi an.
I n short, i f the Reconstructi oni sts versi on of theocracy were to
be voted i nto operati on, the tenured, subsi di zed i ntel l ectual cl ass to
whi ch our academi c cri ti cs bel ong woul d experi ence the end of i ts
taxpayer-fi nanced bonanza. An enti re cl ass woul d have to enter the
competi ti ve free market and seek producti ve empl oyment. Con-
sumers woul d reward former col l ege professors i n terms of what con-
sumers want to buy, not what state l egi sl atures want to buy. There
woul d be no more compul sory educati on and no more tax support of
exi sti ng school s. Thi s fear, rather than the fear of theocrati c tyranny,
may wel l be the true underl yi ng concern of our cri ti cs. I f not, i t
shoul d be.
Majori@ Rule
The Bi bl e does not al l ow the i mposi ti on of some sort of top-down
bureaucrati c tyranny i n the name of Chri st. The ki ngdom of God re-
qui res a bottom-up soci ety. The bottom-up Chri sti an soci ety rests
ul ti matel y on the doctri ne of se~-government under God, wi th Gods
l aw as the publ i cl y reveal ed standard of performance. G I t i s the hu-
mani sts vi ew of soci ety that promotes top-down bureaucrati c power.
The basi s for bui l di ng a Chri sti an soci ety i s evangel i sm and
mi ssi ons that l ead to a wi despread Chri sti an revi val , so that the
great mass of earths i nhabi tants wi l l pl ace themsel ves under Chri sts
protecti on, and then vol untari l y y use Hi s covenantal l aws for sel f-
government. Chri sti an reconstructi on begi ns wi th personal conver-
si on to Chri st and sel f-government under Gods l aw; then i t spreads
26. Gar y DeMar , Ruler of the Natiom, ch. 2.
to others through revi val ; and onl y l ater does i t bri ng comprehensi ve
changes i n ci vi l l aw, when the vast majori ty of voters vol untari l y
agree to l i ve under bi bl i cal bl uepri nts.
Lets get thi s strai ght: Christian reconstruction depends on mqori~ rule.
More than thi s; i t depends on overwhel mi ng acceptance of the bi bl i cal
covenant, perhaps as hi gh as the 80~0 range of adul t acceptance. 27
I n the i ni ti al stages of the Consti tuti onal reform movement, such as
today, Chri sti ans are under the ci vi l rul e of the majori ty. We must
work wi thi n a covenantal l y al i en system, and we must do so peace-
ful l y. We expect posi ti ve feedback i n hi story for covenantal fai thful -
ness. Over a l ong peri od of ti me or i n a shorter peri od i n the mi dst
of a massi ve revi val and nati onal cri si s the majori ty of the soci ety
then becomes Chri sti an. After the Chri sti ans have had decades of
experi ence i n many areas of l eadershi p and fol l owershi p, they wi l l
have proven to themsel ves and to non-Chri sti ans that they are com-
petent to rul e because the l aw of God i s rel i abl e. Peopl e wi l l have
seen bi bl i cal casui stry i n acti on for generati ons. Onl y then can a
broad consensus ari se i n both Chri sti an and non-Chri sti an segments
of the popul ati on that a theocrati c republ i c i s the best way to organ-
i ze the decentral i zed, l i mi ted-State system of ci vi l government.
Eschatol ogy Matters
Leaders of the Chri sti an Reconstructi on movement expect a
l arge majori ty of ci ti zens worl dwi de eventual l y to accept Chri st as
savi or. We bel i eve i n postmi l l enni al i sm. 2s Those who do not share
our confi dence concerni ng the future success of the gospel , as em-
powered by the Hol y Spi ri t, bel i eve that an earthl y ki ngdom must be
i mposed by force from the top down (premi l l enni al i sm), 29 or el se
27. The l egendary 80-20 rul e real l y k a r ecur r i ng phenomenon i n human
ti ai rs. I use i t onl y as an exampl e. Perhaps 75% i s suffi ci ent.
28. Davi d Chi l ton, Paradise Restored: A Biblical Theology of Dominion (Ft. Wor th,
Texas: Domi ni on Press, 1985); Roderi ck Campbel l , I srod and the New Covenant (Phi l -
l i psburg, New Jersey: Presbyteri an & Reformed, [1954] 1981); R. J. Rushdoony,
Thy Kingdom Come. Studi es i n Daniel and Revelation (Fai rfax, Vi rgi ni a: Thoburn Press,
[1971] 1978).
29. Dave Hunt wri tes: Duri ng Hi s thousand-year rei gn, Chri st wi l l vi si bl y rul e
the worl d i n perfect ri ghteousness from Jerusal em and wi l l i mpose peace on al l na-
ti ons. Satan wi l l be l ocked up, robbed of the power to tempt. Justi ce wi l l be meted
out swi ftl y. Hunt, Beyond Sedwdion: A Return to Biblical Christianity (Eugene, Oregon:
Harvest House, 1987), p. 250. I f Satan i s unabl e to tempt manki nd, then any evi l
that cal l s forth Chri sts justi ce must be man-based evi l . I n a taped i ntervi ew wi th
they do not bel i eve i n an earthl y i nsti tuti onal ki ngdom at al l (ami l -
I enni al i sm). so Postmi l l enni al i sts di sagree, for several reasons.
Premi l l enni al i sm and ami l l enni al i sm both deny that the preach-
i ng of the gospel can ever bri ng a majori ty of peopl e to fai th i n
Chri st, thereby bri ngi ng i n the earthl y ki ngdom of God i n hi story on
a vol untary basi s, person by person, cul ture by cul ture. Premi l l en-
ni al i st author Dave Hunt has gone so far as to argue that such a
person-by-person extensi on of Gods ki ngdom i s l i teral l y i mpossi bl e
for God to achi eve. 31 Premi l l enni al i sts have al ways mai ntai ned that
i n order to produce uni versal peace on earth, Jesus wi l l have to i m-
pose a top-down bureaucracy when He comes to rei gn i n person. 32
Peter Lal onde, rel eased i n earl y 1987, Hunt sai d: Chri st hi msel f i s physi cal l y here.
And He has us, the redeemed i n our resurrecti on bodi es, that nobody can ki l l us.
And we are hel pi ng Hi m to mai ntai n order. He i sjorci ng thi s worl d to behave, and
He gi ves a restorati on of the Edeni c state, so that the desert bl ossoms l i ke a rose, and
the l i on l i es down wi th the l amb, and youve got paradi se on earth, once agai n, wi th
Chri st Hi msel f mai ntai ni ng i t and, even better than the garden of Eden, Satan i s
l ocked up for a thousand years. Dominion and the Cross, Tape Two of Domi ni on: The
Word and the New World Ordm, op. cit., 1987.
I t shoul d be poi nted out that Hunts argument that resurrected sai nts wi l l return
to rul e wi th Jesus duri ng the earthI y mi l l enni um has l ong been rejected by di spensa-
ti onal theol ogi ans at Dal l as Theol ogi cal Semi nary. Resurrected sai nts wi l l be dwel l -
i ng i n a pl ace cal l ed the heavenl y Jerusal em, argues J. Dwi ght Pentecost: The
Rel ati on between Li vi ng and Resurrected Sai nts i n The Mi l l enni um, Bibliotheca
Sacr a, Vol . 117 (October 1960), pp. 335-37. See al so John F. Wal voord, The Rapture
@estion (rev. cd.; Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Zondervan Academi e, 1979), pp. 86-87.
30. Oddl y enough, Hunt al so deni es that there can ever be an earthl y ki ngdom,
even i n the di spensati onal mi l l enni um. He says i n hi s taped i nter vi ew: What hap-
Dens at the end of thi s ti me. when Satan i s l oosed? He decei ves the nati ons and l i ke
he sand of the seashore, somany a mul ti tude. They gather thei r armi es and come
agai nst Chri st i n Jerusal em. And, of course, that i s when they fi nal l y have to be
bani shed from Gods presence forever. I bel i eve i ts the fi nal proof of the i ncorri gi bl e
nature of the human heart. So, Chri st Hi msel f cannot make humani ty behave. He
cannot by l egi sl ati on, or by pol i ti cal or mi l i tar y or coer ci ve means, establ i sh thi s
ki ngdom. Tape Two, Dominion and the Gloss.
31. I n fact, domi ni on taki ng domi ni on and setti ng up the ki ngdom for Chri st
i s an impossibility, even for God. The mi l l enni al rei gn of Chri st, far from bei ng the
ki ngdom, i s actual l y the fi nal proof of the i ncorri gi bl e nature of the human heart,
because Chri st Hi msel f cant do what these peopl e say they are goi ng to do New
Agers or Mani fested Sons. (Verbal emphasi s i n the ori gi nal i ntervi ew.) Dominion and
the Cross.
32. They have not taught, as popul ari zers l i ke Hunt teach today, that resurrected
Chri sti ans of the Church Age get to return to earth i n perfect bodi es to ki ck heads
(or whatever) for Jesus. Thi s i s a new doctri ne, one whi ch Rev. Thomas I ce has
adopted enthusi asti cal l y: My bl essed hope, however, conti nues to be that Chri st
wi l l soon rapture hi s Bri de, the church, and that we wi l l return wi th hi m i n vi ctory to
rul e and exerci se domi ni on wi th hi m for a thousand years upon the earth. Even so,
come Lord Jesus! I ce, Preface, i n H. Wayne House and Thomas D. I ce, Dominion
Theology: Blzssing or Curse? (Por tl and, Or egon: Mul tnomah Press, 1988), p. 10.
I n opposi ti on to thi s vi ew, ami l l enni al i sts deny the premi l l enni al
doctri ne that Jesus wi l l ever physi cal l y return i n hi story. They i nsi st
(as postmi l l enni al i sm al so i nsi sts) that Jesus wi l l physi cal l y appear
onl y at the end of hi story at the fi nal judgment. They therefore deny
(i n contrast to postmi l l enni al i sm) the possi bi l i ty of an earthl y mani -
festati on of Gods comprehensi ve ki ngdom i n hi story.
Because of thei r deni al of the wi despread acceptance of the gos-
pel at any poi nt i n hi story, premi l l enni al i sts and ami l l enni al i sts al i ke
i nvari abl y associ ate the word theocracy wi th some sort of top-
down, power-i mposed, wi del y resi sted rul e that i s i mposed by an
el i te. Premi l l enni al i sts accept thi s as a val i d system of ci vi l rul e, but
onl y i f Chri st personal l y and physi cal l y runs i t from the top of the
bureaucrati c pyrami d. Ami l l enni al i sts deny that Chri st wi l l ever do
thi s i n hi story, so they deny bureaucrati c theocracys l egi ti macy at
any poi nt i n the pre-fi nal judgment future.
The Wwk of the Ho~ Spirit
Fi rst, we Cal vi ni sti c postmi l l enni al i sts di sagree wi th both groups
concerni ng the supposed i mpotence of the gospel i n hi story i n changi ng
whol e soci eti es, person by person, covenant i nsti tuti on by covenant
i nsti tuti on. We bel i eve that the Hol y Spi ri t wi l l i mpose Hi s wi l l on the
recal ci trant hearts of huge numbers of peopl e, just as He has al ways
i mposed Hi s wi l l on each recal ci trant heart every ti me He has saved
anyone from hi s si ns. God i s utterl y soverei gn i n el ecti on and sal va-
ti on. He changes peopl es hearts, transformi ng them so that they can
respond i n fai th to the free offer of the gospel . The ki ngs heart i s i n
the hand of the LORD, as the ri vers of water: he turneth i t whi ther-
soever he wi l l (Prov. 21:1). Thi s i s the onl y way anyone has ever
been saved, for the natural man does not recei ve the thi ngs of the
Spi ri t, for they are fool i shness to hi m (I Cor. 2:14). The natural man
does not parti al l y recei ve the thi ngs of the Spi ri t i n hi s unsaved state;
he rejects the very i dea that such a wrathful God exi sts or that hi s
own condi ti on warrants such negati ve sancti ons. Thus, the unsaved
person needs to be transformed b~ore he or she can accept the gospel .
Fi rst comes Gods i rresi sti bl e savi ng grace; then comes mans
response: i nternal fai th i n Jesus Chri st. I n short, man does not have
free (autonomous) wi l l . Paul was correct. 33 Augusti ne was therefore
33. (For the chi l dren bei ng not yet born, nei ther havi ng done any good or evi l ,
that the purpose of God accordi ng to el ecti on mi ght stand, not of works, but of hi m
that cal l eth;) I t was sai d unto her, The el der shal l serve the younger. As i t i s wri tten,
correct agai nst Pel agi us; Luther was correct agai nst Erasmus; Cal vi n
was correct agai nst Pi ghi us; and the Puri tans were correct agai nst
the l ati tudi nari ans. Mans l ack of free wi l l i s why God can easi l y
change the spi ri tual condi ti on of thi s worl d i n order to gi ve the
human race freedom.
Second, because we Cal vi ni sti c Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sts be-
l i eve that the Hol y Spi ri t forces hearts to change the doctri ne of i r-
resi sti bl e grace we al so bel i eve that human i nsti tuti ons are not
al l owed to seek to coerce mens hearts and mi nds. Such coerci on o~the
human will i ts transformati on pri or to the permi ssi on of the i ndi vi d-
ual whose wi l l i s bei ng transformed i s a monopo~ that belongs exclu-
sive~ to God.
Men must recogni ze that coerci on i s an i nescapabl e concept i n
hi story. I t i s never a questi on of coerci on vs. no coerci on. I t i s al ways
a questi on of whose coerci on. Reconstructi oni sts affi rm the power of
the Hol y Spi ri t to change mens soul s to decl are judi ci al l y that they
are saved, and therefore possess Chri sts ri ghteousness and to change
them ethi cal l y at the poi nt of thei r ethi cal transformati on. Those
who deny thi s excl usi ve power of the Spi ri t i n transformi ng the l i ves
of covenant-breakers i nsti ncti vel y expect to fi nd coerci on some-
where el se: i n human i nsti tuti ons ei ther humani st or theocrati c-
bureaucrati c or i n a future personal ki ngdom rul ed by Chri st i n
Person.
Thi rd, because we postmi l l enni al i sts fi nd i t taught i n the Bi bl e
that there wi l l be a future outpouri ng of thi s soul -transformi ng Hol y
Spi ri t the onl y possi bl e basi s of the Bi bl es prophesi ed mi l l enni al
bl essi ngs we di sagree wi th premi l l enni al i st and ami l l enni al i sts
concerni ng the l i mi ted extent of the Spi ri ts work i n the future. The
ki ngdom wi l l not be brought i n by a bureaucrati c theocrati c regi me,
but by the heart-transformi ng work of the Hol y Spi ri t. We therefore
Jacob have I l oved, but Esau have I hated. What shal l we say then? I s there unri ght-
eousness wi th God? God forbi d. For he sai th to Moses, I wi l l have mercy on whom I
wi l l have mercy, and I wi l l have compassi on on whom I wi l l have compassi on. So
then i t i s not of hi m that wi l l eth, nor of hi m that runneth, but of God that sheweth
mercy. For the scri pture sai th unto Pharaoh, Even for thi s same purpose have I rai sed
thee up, that I mi ght shew my power i n thee, and that my name mi ght be decl ared
throughout al l the earth. Therefore bath he mercy on whom he wi l l have mercy, and
whom he wi l l he hardeneth. Thou wi l t say then unto me, Why cl oth he yet fi nd
faul t? For who bath resi sted hi s wi l l ? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repl i est
agai nst God? Shal l the thi ng formed say to hi m that formed i t, Why hast thou made
me thus? Hath not the potter power over the cl ay, of the same l ump to make one
vessel unto honour, and another unto di shonor? (9:11-21).
di sagree wi th them concerni ng the supposed necessi ty of defi ni ng
theocracy as a top-down soci al transformati on. I f Gods ki ngdom
rul e i s to be wi despread i n i ts i nfl uence i n soci ety, thi s transforma-
ti on must be from the bottom-up: se~-government under God. So, we do
not cal l for a theocrati c bureaucracy, ei ther now or i n the future.
Such a top-down bureaucracy i s not cal l ed for i n the Bi bl e, i s i mpos-
si bl e to mai ntai n wi thout unl awful coerci on, and i s not necessary to
i mpose to bri ng i n the ki ngdom. Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sts cal l
i nstead for a decentral i zed, i nternati onal , theocrati c republic. 34 Such
a republ i c i s ethi cal l y necessary, now and i n the future, and i t wi l l be
hi stori cal l y possi bl e i n the future, when the Hol y Spi ri t begi ns Hi s
vi si bl y tri umphant sweep of the nati ons.
I f postmi l l enni al i sm i s i ncorrect, and the Hol y Spi ri t does not act
to bri ng huge numbers of peopl e to eternal l i fe, then Chri sti ans must
be content wi th onl y parti al soci al reconstructi on, and onl y parti al
external bl essi ngs from God. The earthl y mani festati ons of Gods
heavenl y ki ngdom wi l l necessari l y be l i mi ted. When we pray, Thy
ki ngdom come, thy wi l l be done i n earth, as i t i s i n heaven: we
shoul d expect God to answer thi s prayer. Not al l Chri sti ans pray thi s
prayer. Many di spensati onal i sts do not, sayi ng that i t i s a Jewi sh-era
prayer of Jesus, not a Church Age prayer. They at l east are consi st-
ent. Many l ess consi stent Chri sti ans teach that God wi l l never answer
thi s prayer before Jesus comes agai n physi cal l y to rul e the worl d i n
person (ami l l enni al i sts and premi l l enni al i sts), yet they sti l l ri tual l y
pray thi s prayer i n church. I f they are correct about the earthl y ki ng-
dom of God, then we wi l l not see the pre-second comi ng advent of a
hol y commonweal th i n whi ch Gods l aws are honored. We must con-
tent oursel ves wi th l ess.
I t i s not possi bl e to ramrod Gods bl essi ngs from the top down,
unl ess you are God. (I f you are God, thi s ramroddi ng i s the onl y sys-
tem that works, convert by convert. ) Onl y humani sts bel i eve that
man i s God. They do i ndeed bel i eve i n soci al sal vati on through ram-
roddi ng by the State. Chri sti ans are si mpl y tryi ng to get the ramrod
away from them and mel t i t down. Thi s mel ted ramrod coul d then
be used to make a great grave marker for humani sm: The God That
Fai l ed.
34. E. C. Wi nes, The Hebrew Republic (Rt. 1, Box 65-2, Wr i ghtstown, New Jer -
sey: Ameri can Presbyteri an Press, 1980). Thi s i s a repri nt of a short secti on of
Wi nes l ate ni neteenth-century book, Commmtaty on the Laws of the Ancient Hebrews,
Book I I .
The Conti nui ng Heresy of Dual i sm
Dual i sm teaches that the worl d i s i nherentl y di vi ded: spi ri t vs.
matter, or l aw vs. mercy, or mi nd vs. matter, or nature vs. grace.
What the Bi bl e teaches i s that thi s worl d i s di vi ded ethical~ and per-
sonal@ God vs. Satan, ri ght vs. wrong, freedom vs. tyranny. The
confl i ct between God and Satan wi l l end at the fi nal judgment.
Whenever Chri sti ans substi tute some other form of dual i sm for ethi -
cal dual i sm, they fal l i nto heresy and suffer the consequences. That
i s what has happened today. We are sufferi ng from revi ved versi ons
of anci ent heresi es.
Marciont Dualism
The Ol d Testament was wri tten by the same God who wrote the
New Testament. There were not two Gods i n hi story, meani ng there
was no dual i sm or radi cal spl i t between the two testamental peri ods.
There i s onl y one God, i n ti me and eterni ty.
Thi s i dea has had opposi ti on throughout Church hi story. An an-
ci ent two-gods heresy was fi rst promoted i n the Church about a cen-
tury after Chri sts cruci fi xi on, and the Church has al ways regarded i t
as just that, a heresy. I t was proposed by a man named Marci on.
Basi cal l y, thi s heresy teaches that there are two compl etel y di fferent
l aw systems i n the Bi bl e: Ol d Testament l aw and New Testament
l aw (or non-l aw). But Marci on took the l ogi c of hi s posi ti on al l the
way. He argued that two l aw systems means two gods. The god of
wrath wrote the Ol d Testament, and the god of mercy wrote the
New Testament. I n short: two l aws-two gods.
You woul d be surpri sed how many Chri sti ans sti l l bel i eve some-
thi ng dangerousl y cl ose to Marci oni sm: not a two-gods vi ew, ex-
actl y, but a God-who-changed-al l -Hi s-rul es sort of vi ew. They
begi n wi th the accurate teach;ng that the ceremoni al l aws of the Ol d
Testament were ful fi l l ed by Chri st, and therefore that the unchanging
princ@es of worshi p are applied d$erent~ i n the New Testament, bu~
then they erroneousl y concl ude that the whol e Ol d Testament sys-
tem of ci vi l l aw was dropped by God, and nothing biblical was put in its
place. I n other words, God created a sort of vacuum for State l aw.
Thi s i dea turns ci vi l l aw-maki ng over to Satan. I n our day, thi s
means that ci vi l l aw-maki ng i s turned over to humani sm. Christians
haue unz.witting~ become the philosophical allies of the humanists with respect to
civil law. Wi th respect to thei r doctri ne of the State, therefore, most
Chri sti ans hol d what i s i n effect a two-gods vi ew of the Bi bl e.
Gnostic Dualism
Another anci ent heresy that i s sti l l wi th us i s Gnosti ci sm. I t be-
came a major threat to the earl y Church al most from the begi nni ng.
I t was al so a form of dual i sm, a theory of a radi cal spl i t. The gnosti cs
taught that the spl i t i s between evi l matter and good spi ri t. Thus,
thei r goal was to escape thi s materi al worl d through other-worl dl y
exerci ses that puni sh the body. They bel i eved i n retreatfrom the world
of human consicts and responsibili~. Some of these i deas got i nto the
Church, and peopl e started doi ng ri di cul ous thi ngs. So-cal l ed pi l l ar
sai nts became temporari l y popul ar i n the fi fth century, A. D. A
sai nt woul d si t on a pl atform on top of a pol e for several decades
wi thout comi ng down. Thi s was consi dered very spi ri tual . 35 (Who
fed them? Who cl eaned up after them?)
Thus, many Chri sti ans came to vi ew the worl d as somethi ng
permanentl y outsi de the ki ngdom of God. They bel i eved that thi s
hosti l e, forever-evi l worl d cannot be redeemed, reformed, and
reconstructed. At best, i t can be subdued by power (maybe). Jesus
di d not real l y di e for i t, and i t cannot be heal ed. Thi s dual i sti c vi ew
of the worl d vs. Gods ki ngdom narrowl y restri cted any earthl y man-
i festati on of Gods ki ngdom. Chri sti ans who were i nfl uenced by
Gnosti ci sm concl uded that Gods ki ngdom refers onl y to the i nsti tu-
ti onal Church. They argued that the i nsti tuti onal Church i s the on~
mani festati on of Gods ki ngdom.
Thi s l ed to two opposi te and equal l y evi l concl usi ons. Fi rst,
power rel i gi oni sts who accepted thi s defi ni ti on of Gods ki ngdom
tri ed to put the i nsti tuti onal Church i n charge of everythi ng, si nce i t
i s supposedl y the onl y mani festati on of Gods ki ngdom on earth. To
subdue the supposedl y unredeemabl e worl d, whi ch i s forever outsi de
the ki ngdom, the i nsti tuti onal Church has to rul e wi th the sword.
The i nsti tuti onal Church must gi ve orders to the State, and the State
must enforce these orders wi th the sword. 36 The i nsti tuti onal Church
must therefore concentrate pol i ti cal and economi c power. What then
becomes of liber~?
35. Kenneth Scott Latourette, A Histoy of Chri sti ani ~ (New York: Harper & Row,
1953), pp. 228, 298.
36. The i nnovator here was Pope Gregory VI I i n the l ate el eventh century. He
l aunched a major. revol uti on i n the West. Harol d J. Berman, Law and Revolution: The
Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (Cambri dge, Massachusetts: Harvard Uni ver-
si ty Press, 1983), ch. 2. Cf. Wal ter Ul mann, The Growth of Papal Government in the
Middle Ages: A study in the ideological relation of clmcal to lay power (2nd ed.; London:
Methuen, 1962), ch. 9.
Second, escape rel i gi oni sts who al so accepted thi s narrow defi ni -
ti on of the ki ngdom sought refuge from the evi l worl d of matter and
pol i ti cs by fl eei ng to hi de i nsi de the i nsti tuti onal Church, an excl u-
si vel y spi ri tual ki ngdom, now narrowl y defi ned. They abandoned
the worl d to evi l tyrants. What then becomes of liberty? What becomes of
the i dea of Gods progressi ve restorati on of al l thi ngs under Jesus
Chri st ? What, fi nal l y, becomes of the i dea of bi bl i cal domi ni on?
When Chri sti ans i mproperl y narrow thei r defi ni ti on of the ki ng-
dom of God, the vi si bl e i nfl uence of thi s comprehensi ve ki ngdom
(both spi ri tual and i nsti tuti onal at the same ti me) begi ns to shri vel
up. The fi rst heresy l eads to tyranny by the Church, and the second
heresy l eads to tyranny over the Church. Both of these narrow defi ni -
ti ons of Gods ki ngdom destroy the l i berty of the responsi bl e Chri s-
ti an man, sel f-governed under God and Gods l aw.
Manichaean Dualism
The l ast anci ent pagan i dea that sti l l l i ves on i s al so a vari ant of
dual i sm: matter vs. spi ri t. I t teaches that God and Satan, good and
evi l , are forever l ocked i n combat, and that good never tri umphs
over evi l . The Persi an rel i gi on of Zoroastri ani sm has hel d such a
vi ew for over 2,500 years. The i ncredi bl y popul ar Star Wars
movi es were based on thi s vi ew of the worl d: the dark si de of the
force agai nst i ts l i ght si de. I n modern versi ons of thi s anci ent dual -
i sm, the force i s usual l y seen as i tsel f i mpersonal : i ndi vi dual s person-
al i ze ei ther the dark si de or the l i ght si de by pl uggi ng i nto i ts power.
There are mi l l i ons of Chri sti ans who have adopted a very pessi -
mi sti c versi on of thi s dual i sm, though not i n an i mpersonal form.
Gods ki ngdom i s battl i ng Satans, and Gods i s l osi ng. Hi story i s not
goi ng to get better. I n fact, thi ngs are goi ng to get a l ot worse exter-
nal l y. Evi l wi l l vi si bl y push good i nto the shadows. The Church i s
l i ke a band of sol di ers who are surrounded by a huge army of I n-
di ans. We cant wi n boys, so hol d the fort unti l Jesus and the angel s
come to rescue us!
That does not sound l i ke Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Gi deon, and
Davi d, does i t? Chri sti ans read to thei r chi l dren the chi l drens favor-
i te story, Davi d and Gol i ath, yet i n thei r own l i ves, mi l l i ons of Chri s-
ti an parents real l y thi nk that the Gol i aths of thi s worl d are the un-
beatabl e earthl y wi nners. Chri sti ans have not even pi cked up a
stone.
Unti l very recentl y.
Athanasi an Pl ural i sm
What I am tal ki ng about i n thi s book i s a republ i c i n whi ch l egal
access to the franchi se and seats of el ected and appoi nted pol i ti cal
authori ty are open onl y to those who take a Tri ni tari an ci vi l oath of
al l egi ance and who are al so communi cant members i n good stand-
i ng i n churches that profess a Tri ni tari an creed. I cal l thi s Ath.anasi an
pluralism. The basi c covenant i ssue i s the Tri ni ty. The earl i est
Church creeds wi l l do qui te wel l as judi ci al screeni ng devi ces, at
l east for the fi rst few centuri es of the mi l l enni um. I t i s not my opi n-
i on that i n a system of Athanasi an pl ural i sm, i n the words of House
and I ce, heresy i s apparentl y transformed from a puni shabl e cri me
i nto treason.
37
Apparentl y? Apparent to whom? What they are do-
i ng here i s superi mposi ng thei r vi ew of the comi ng premi l l enni al bu-
reaucrati c ki ngdom on top of Reconstructi ons bl uepri nt for a theo-
crati c republ i c. Thi s sort of swi ft justi ce i s how they expect Jesus to
run thi ngs from hi s throne i n Jerusal em. I t i s our vi ew that utteri ng
hereti cal opi ni ons yes, even theol ogi cal opi ni ons as utterl y wrong-
headed as those that House and I ce procl ai ms woul d not be ci vi l
cri mes at al l . The ci vi l government woul d have nothi ng to say about
i t. Those who say that Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sts woul d ki l l any-
one who i s not a Reconstructi oni st ar e bl owi ng smoke. They ar e
beari ng fal se wi tness agai nst thei r nei ghbors. Where are thei r foot-
notes provi ng such an accusati on? There are none.
What Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sts are sayi ng i s that the mark of
judi ci al soverei gnty i n a Chri sti an ci vi l i zati on wi l l be membershi p i n
a Ti -i ni tari an church. The i ssue here i s ci vi l sanctions. Those not for-
mal l y under Gods eternal sancti ons the eccl esi asti cal marks of
bapti sm and regul ar hol y communi on i n a Tri ni tari an soci ety
woul d not be bi bl i cal l y authori zed to i mpose Gods negati ve ci vi l
sancti ons. Everyone el se woul d have the same ci vi l l i berti es guaran-
teed to strangers wi thi n the gates i n Ol d Covenant I srael , begi nni ng
wi th equal i ty before the ci vi l l aw (Ex. 12:49). Those Chri sti ans who
bel i eve that Ol d Covenant I srael was a tyranny whenever bi bl i cal
l aw was bei ng honored wi l l have to argue about thi s wi th God on
judgment day.
37. House and I ce, Dominion TheologY, p. 79.
38. See Kenneth L. Gentr y and Gr eg L. Bdmsen, House Divided: The Break-Up of
Dispensational Theolo~ (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1989).
What i s the mi ni mal requi red confessi on i n order to parti ci pate
as a ci ti zen-judge? I thi nk the best way to understand thi s pri nci pl e
of the mi ni mal confessi on i s to consi der the case of the concentrati on
camp. A Chri sti an l i vi ng as a pri soner i n such a camp woul d be i n
need of fel l owshi p and the sacraments. The questi on he woul d have
to ask hi msel f i s thi s one: What i s the mi ni mal confessi onal requi re-
ment pl aced on me by God that woul d enabl e me to l ocate another
communi cant church member? I see no al ternati ve: to defend the
Church i n the concentrati on camp, i t woul d have to be a Ti -i ni tari an
confessi on. To make i t l ess than Tri ni tari an woul d be to destroy the
i ntegri ty of the Church; to make i t more woul d be to l i mi t the au-
thori t y of the Church and reduce the judi ci al i mpact of i ts sancti on,
the Lords Supper.
We are therefore once agai n brought back to the questi on ofjudi -
ci al sancti ons, the stumbl i ng bl ock of the Protestant era. We need to
understand that the sacraments are judi ci al , not merel y memori al
(nomi nal i sm) and not i nfusi onal (real i sm). They are judi ci al and
covenantal . They i denti fy the person who acknowl edges that he or
she i s under Gods hi stori cal and eternal sancti ons, both posi ti ve and
negati ve. By pl aci ng onesel f under these sancti ons, the person i s en-
abl ed to bri ng Gods domi ni on covenant i nto effect. He works out hi s
fai th i n fear and trembl i ng under God (Phi l . 2:12). He executes
judgment i n hi story as a covenant-keeper under Gods sancti ons.
We acknowl edge that a person under Gods sacramental cove-
nant obl i gati ons ai d bl essi ngs has i mpl i ci tl y and vi si bl y affi rmed the
covenants sancti ons i n hi story. I f a person has l awful access to the
sacraments, what woul d l awful l y keep hi m from exerci si ng the
church franchi se? Onl y hi s refusal to pay the requi red ti the. Thi s
rai ses the questi on of the suffrage and taxati on.
J udicial Sanctions and Tuation
Bei ng a communi cant church member shoul d not automati cal l y
gi ve that person the ri ght to vote i n church el ecti ons. For i nstance,
bapti zed communi cant chi l dren do not vote i n church el ecti ons; chi l -
dren al so do not vote i n humani st democraci es. Presumabl y, seni l e
and retarded peopl e are not al l owed to vote i n church el ecti ons; i t
woul d be strange i f they were al l owed to vote i n democraci es,
al though these days, i t i s probabl y i l l egal to excl ude them. There are
addi ti onal church qual i fi cati ons for voti ng besi des access to the
Lords Tabl e. So there shoul d al so be for access to the pol i ti cal fran-
chi se i n a theocrati c republ i c.
Those who refuse to pay thei r ti thes to thei r l ocal church shoul d
not be al l owed to vote i n church el ecti ons. Why not? Because of the
covenantal pri nci pl e of sancti ons. I f a person refuses to be under the
negati ve sancti ons of membershi p (payi ng ti thes), he shoul d not be
al l owed to i mpose church judi ci al sancti ons.
3g
The same i s true of
ci vi l government. The al ternati ve vi ew of the franchi se l eads strai ght
to soci al i sm and communi sm. Karl Marx decl ared i n 1843 that once
a soci ety has accepted the pol i ti cal pri nci pl e that the franchi se need
not be restri cted to property owners and taxpayers, i t has i n pri nci -
pl e al ready accepted the abol i ti on of pri vate property. The state as a
state annul s, for i nstance, private property, man decl ares by political
means that pri vate property i s abolished as soon as the property qualt#i-
cation for the ri ght to el ect or be el ected i s abol i shed, as has occurred
i n many states of North Ameri ca. . . . I s not pri vate property abol -
i shed i n i dea i f the non-property owner has become the l egi sl ator for
the property owner? The Propdy qualification for the suffrage i s the
l ast political form of gi vi ng recogni ti on to pri vate property.w
Thi s pri nci pl e of voti ng apart from equal -percentage taxpayi ng
i s i nherentl y demoni c. God i s the Creator and Owner of the worl d.
He del egated to man certai n deri vati ve ri ghts of ownershi p-steward-
shi p. Satan i s a trespassi ng thi ef. He therefore procl ai ms the pol i ti cs
of pure democracy, the pol i ti cs of open access to the bal l ot box by
those who do not pay an equal share of taxes. He al so procl ai ms the
graduated i ncome tax: ri cher peopl e pay a hi gher percentage of thei r
i ncome to the State. Thus, Marx was consi stent; as a God-hater, he
procl ai med hi s hatred of pri vate property. He al so procl ai med hi s
hatred of the property qual i fi cati on for voti ng.
The pri nci pl e of suffrage i s covenantal : one must be formal l y
under the eternal sancti ons of God i n order l awful l y to execute the
sancti ons of God, i n both Church and State. *i One must be under
the penal ti es of equal -percentage taxati on i n order to have authori ty
39. Gary North, Two-Ti ered Church Membershi p, Christianip and Civihkation,
4 (1983), pp. 120-31.
40. Karl Marx, On the Jewi sh Questi on (1843), i n Karl Marx and Frederi ck
Engel s, Collected Works (New York: I nternati onal Publ i shers, 1975), vol . 3, p. 153.
41. Thi s i s not true of the fami l y. The fami l y was created before ei ther Church or
State, and the domi ni on covenant was i mposed on the fami l y above al l . The domi n-
i on covenant i s a gener al covenant; i t i s gi ven to manki nd i n gener al (Gen. 1:26-28;
9:1-17). Thi s, above al l , i s why the fami l y i s nei ther a Church nor a State. Thus, l aw-
ful l y exer ci si ng covenantal sancti ons i n a fami l y does not r equi r e the head of the
househol d to be a Chur ch member . The Bi bl e menti ons no publ i c, ci vi l di sti ncti ons
between non-Chri sti an fami l i es and Chri sti an fami l i es.
i n al l ocati ng the revenues from taxati on. The bi bl i cal model for a
theocrati c republ i c woul d restri ct voti ng to those who are voti ng
(i .e., ti the-payi ng) members of l ocal churches, and who are al so tax-
payi ng ci ti zens. The payment of taxes i s not suffi ci ent to gai n a per-
son access to the bal l ot box; resi dent al i ens pay taxes today, but they
do not l egal l y vote. There must be somethi ng more: a vol untary
acceptance of the nati onal covenant. So i t i s wi th theocrati c republ i c-
ani sm, but wi th thi s added provi si on: there must al so be a vol untary
acceptance of the Church covenant. Stri ct vol untari sm means judi -
ci al i ndependence, i .e., adul t status. I n Ol d Testament I srael , thi s
occurred at age 20, when a man became el i gi bl e for mi l i tary num-
beri ng (Ex. 30:14). There seems to be no New Testament reason to
change thi s age standard.
Modern humani st pol i ti cal l i beral s and thei r Chri sti an academi c
accompl i ces hate such a concl usi on of covenantal pol i ti cs wi th a pas-
si on because they hate covenant theol ogy wi th a passi on. They hate the
idea of covenant sanctions.
The Theocrati c Strategy I s Not Pri mari l y Pol i ti cal
Bi bl i cal theocracy i s not pri mari l y pol i ti cal , so the bi bl i cal theo-
crati c strategy shoul dnt be, ei ther. Theocracy means God rul es .
God rul es theocrati cal l y over everythi ng. I n Gods ki ngdom, pol i ti cs
i s supposed to be onl y a smal l part of l i fe. Taxes are to be l ow; the
States i nfl uence i s to be mi ni mal . I t shoul d onl y i mpose negati ve
sancti ons; i t i s not to remai n a modern wel fare State. Fami l y l i fe,
busi ness, educati on, the arts, l ei sure, and just about everythi ng el se
shoul d be removed from State fi nanci ng and therefore from di rect
State control . I t i s the humani st who bel i eves i n sal vati on by l aw, not
the Chri sti an. The humani st bel i eves i n the messi ani c State, not the
Chri sti an. The onl y reason that theocracy appears today to be pri -
mari l y a pol i ti cal i ssue i s that the bi bl i cal theocrat wants to shri nk
the State drasti cal l y. Thi s i s an affront to the modern humani st, who
equates pol i ti cs wi th rel i gi on.
The cri ti cs of Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sm sel dom read any of
the books wri tten by Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sts. Onl y a few have
been wi l l i ng to read ten or fi fteen, whi ch i s the mi ni mum requi red,
si nce we have about a hundred avai l abl e, i f you count the journal s.
Readi ng what we have actual l y wri tten woul d be too di ffi cul t and .
ti me-consumi ng a task, as honori ng the Ni nth Commandment so
often i s. Sl ander and mi srepresentati on are easy. Therefore, I have
not wri tten thi s book for thei r benefi t; they wi l l not read a book as
l ong as thi s book i s. I am wri ti ng for those who take seri ousl y thi s
books covenantal theol ogy, but who may be confused about where
to begi n a program of appl i ed covenantal i sm.
The way to gai n a Tri ni tari an nati onal covenant i s fi rst to suc-
ceed vi si bl y and undeni abl y i n the other areas of l i fe. Men must see
the posi ti ve frui ts of Chri sti ani ty before they commi t themsel ves to
i ts negati ve sancti ons. They must see, Deuteronomy 4:5-8 says, that
bi bl i cal justi ce and not just bi bl i cal ci vi l justi ce i s the best avai l -
abl e al ternati ve to tyranny and mi sery.
There are three covenantal i nsti tuti ons: Church, fami l y, and
State. Therefore, I propose prel i mi nary reforms i n these three i nsti -
tuti ons based on the major area of theol ogi cal confusi on and rebel -
l i on duri ng the Protestant era: the questi on of sancti ons. I begi n
wi th the Church because the Church i s Gods model for the other
two i nsti tuti ons. I t extends i nto eterni ty; the other two do not. God
begi ns bri ngi ng Hi s hi stori cal sancti ons, posi ti ve and negati ve, to
those who are formal l y covenanted wi th Hi m eccl esi asti cal l y. For
the ti me i s come hat judgment must begi n at the house of God: and
i f i t fi rst begi n at us, what shal l the end be of them that obey not the
gospel of God? (1 Pet. 4:17).
Church Sanctions
Thi s i s the area of the sacraments. Church di sci pl i ne must be i m-
posed i n terms of the sacraments of bapti sm and the Lords Supper.
Because the churches have not taken seri ousl y bapti sm, the Lords
Supper, membershi p rol l s, and excommuni cati on for wel l over two
centuri es, the ci vi l government has had no cl ear model . When the
churches do start taki ng these thi ngs seri ousl y, persecuti on and
l awsui ts agai nst Church l eaders wi l l begi n. Our enemi es who now
control ci vi l government wi l l i nsti ncti vel y percei ve the threat to thei r
power, and they wi l l take steps to stop i t. They cannot safel y al l ow
the Church to begi n i mposi ng sancti ons agai nst the si ns of thi s age.
Thi s i s not the pl ace to debate bapti sm. Bapti sm i s the ri te by
whi ch the dual judi ci al sancti ons of the covenant bl essi ngs and
cursi ngs are i mposed on peopl e: ei ther di rectl y on adul ts or repre-
sentati vel y on chi l dren through a bapti zed parent. Thi s representa-
ti on pri nci pl e i s val i d. Just as the centuri ons servant was heal ed
through the centuri ons fai th i n Jesus Chri st and hi s wi l l i ngness to
submi t to Chri st publ i cl y, even though the servant was absent and
had no knowl edge of what was goi ng on (Luke 7), so i s the judi ci al au-
thori ty of Chri st transferred through the sacrament i n i nfant bapti sm.
Bapti sm does not save anyone; i t merel y pl aces peopl e under the
formal , l egal , covenantal sancti ons of God. Those l egal l y under a
Chri sti ans covenantal authori ty i n a fami l y shoul d be bapti zed when
the head of the househol d i s, even i f the subordi nate i s not a bel i ever.
The i ssue i s not savi ng fai th for those under l awful covenantal au-
thori ty; the i ssue i s obedience to God3 law within a covenantal hierarchy.
Bapti sm of i nfants i s therefore mandatory.4z Obvi ousl y, chi l dren of
non-communi cant members have no ri ght to the sacrament of bap-
ti sm a deni al of ori gi nal hal fway covenantal i sm i n New Engl and.
But i f thi s i s true, then i nfant communi on or very young chi l d
communi on i s equal l y mandatory, a fact that has not been accepted
by modern hal f Way covenant Presbyteri ani sm.
43
Churches gi ve
communi on to retarded and seni l e peopl e who do not know what i s
goi ng on or what i s bei ng symbol i zed; churches have the same obl i -
gati on to i ntel l ectual l y i mmature chi l dren of a communi cant mem-
ber. Thi s i s so obvi ous that onl y hal fway covenant theol ogy bl i nds
the modern Church to the nature of communi on. The modern
Church i s sti l l hypnoti zed by the Greek i deal of the pri macy of the
i ntel l ect rather than the pri macy of the covenant. Any church that
refuses to gi ve communi on based on bapti sm and church member-
shi p al one, and then justi fi es i tsel f i n terms of the i ntel l ect, i s con-
demni ng i tsel f by endangeri ng the soul s of i ntel l ectual l y i ncompetent
retarded and seni l e peopl e i f i t conti nues to serve them communi on.
The churches must move to i nfant bapti sm and weekl y commun-
i on. (Weekl y communi on was John Cal vi ns choi ce, but the ci vi l
magi strates of Geneva prohi bi ted thi s practi ce. They saw the threat
to thei r authori ty.) Churches may have to do thi s i n steps, just as the
defenders of theocrati c republ i cani sm shoul d move onl y as the pol i ti -
cal envi ronment al l ows. We are not to become revol uti onari es. But
the l ong-term goal i s cl ear: infant baptism and also week~ communion for
all baptized church members. I f Gods peopl e reject the l egi ti macy and
necessi ty of the sancti ons of covenant theol ogy i n the churches, then
surel y they wi l l not persuade anyone el se regardi ng the sancti ons of
covenant theol ogy i n ci vi l government.
Once thi s i s done, the negati ve sancti on of publ i c excommuni ca-
ti on wi l l become meani ngful . Peopl e must be consi gned to hel l ver-
42. Sutton, That You May Prosper, Appendi x 9.
43. I dm.
bal l y from the pul pi t after excommuni cati on. Thi s i s not done today.
Other churches must honor these excommuni cati ons. Thi s i s al so
not done today. The modern Church si mpl y pays no attenti on to
Gods eccl esi asti cal sancti ons. Therefore, pagans pay very l i ttl e at-
tenti on to the churches. Why shoul d they? The church i s l i ke an ar-
my wi thout hi erarchi cal order and wi thout sancti ons agai nst muti ny.
Such an ar my cannot wi n a battl e. Pagans i nsti ncti vel y r ecogni ze
thi s; Chri sti ans may al so sense i t, but then they bl ame eschatol ogy
rather than thei r own judi ci al cowardi ce.
Reform must begi n wi th sel f-government under Gods l aw.
l?ami~ Sanctions
Anyone who gets a di vorce wi thout bi bl i cal justi fi cati on shoul d
be brought under publ i c sancti ons, up to and i ncl udi ng excommuni -
cati on. Fi rst, however, Church l eaders need to know what si ns are
grounds for di vorce. They do not know the answer here, so the
churches refuse to enforce sancti ons agai nst di vorce and remar-
ri age. 44 These sancti ons are pri mari l y Church sancti ons brought
agai nst devi ant fami l y members i n order to protect the i nnocent vi c-
ti ms. What about the i mposi ti on of sancti ons by the fami l y?
The major areas of open rebel l i on here i nvol ve sancti ons as they
rel ate to i nheri tance: parents compromi se wi th taxpayer-fi nanced
educati on and thei r compromi se wi th mi xed marri ages.
The second case i s most obvi ous. Be ye not unequal l y yoked
together wi th unbel i evers: for what fel l owshi p bath ri ghteousness
wi th unri ghteousness? and what communi on bath l i ght wi th dark-
ness? (I I Cor. 6:14). Thi s appl i es i mmedi atel y to the two vol untary
covenantal i nsti tuti ons Church and fami l y and i t ought to appl y
eventual l y to the area of ci vi l government wi th respect to voti ng. 45
Parents shoul d not fi nance, attend, or i n any way sanction a marri age
of a communi cant member chi l d to anyone who i s not a communi -
cant member of a Tri ni tari an church. That Chri sti an parents refuse
to honor thi s requi rement i s one reason why they are l osi ng thei r
chi l dren. They are afrai d to appl y sancti ons. They thi nk thi s woul d
44. Ray R. Sutton, Second Chance: Biblical Blueprints for Divorce and %nuamage (Ft.
45. I do not mean that Chri sti ans shoul d not vote. They shoul d. Thei r l ong-term
task i s to create a theocrati c republ i c i n whi ch onl y voti ng church members are
al l owed to vote i n ci vi l el ecti ons, as thi s chapter seeks to prove. Thi s i s the l egi ti mate
appl i cati on i n ci vfi government of I I Cori nthi ans 6:14.
not be l ovi ng. So thei r chi l dren concl ude that God real l y does n ot
care i f they mar r y pagans, si nce Gods l awful r epr esentati ves over
them, parents and churches, do not care enough to threaten publ i c
sancti ons. Church l eaders shoul d prohi bi t parents from parti ci pati ng
i n such weddi ng ceremoni es. When a father symbol i cal l y del i vers hi s
daughter to the covenantal authori ty of a pagan husband, he i s cove-
nantal l y sendi ng her i nto bondage, a symbol of hel l . Chri sti an par-
ents are so utterl y i gnorant of covenant theol ogy and the concept of
authori ty and sancti ons that they do thi s wi thout a thought.
The second ar ea of fami l y r esponsi bi l i ty i s al so fl agr antl y i g-
nor ed: the r esponsi bi l i ty of par ents to educate thei r chi l dr en. 46
Chr i sti an par ents send thei r chi l dr en i nto the judi ci al l y and sel f-
consci ousl y pagan envi r onment of the publ i c school s. Par ents ar e
not acti ng fai thful l y as representati ves when they do thi s. They are
ti thi ng thei r chi l dren to the State. They are tempti ng God to break
the covenantal i nheri tance of thei r chi l dren. Unti l the vast majori ty
of Chri sti ans pul l thei r chi l dren out of the publ i c school s, there wi l l
be no possi bi l i ty of creati ng a theocrati c r epubl i c. The Uni tar i ans
who i nvented modern publ i c educati on i n the 11330s and the Masons
i n chur ches today who r el i gi ousl y suppor t the publ i c school s have
done thei r covenantal work wel l .
Refor m must begi n wi th sel f-gover nment under Gods l aw.
Civil Sanctions
Ther e i s no questi on wher e the most fl agrant vi ol ati on of Gods
covenantal standards i s i n modern pol i ti cs: the l egal i zati on of abor-
ti on. The pagans have attacked the fi fth poi nt of the covenant con-
ti nui ty and i nheri tance at i ts most vul nerabl e poi nt: the mothers
womb. The pagans know exactl y what they are doi ng. 47 I t i s not ran-
dom that i n the Uni ted States, support for aborti on on demand was
onl y 2470 among those who regard rel i gi on as a major aspect of thei r
l i ves, 42 YO among those who sai d rel i gi on i s somewhat i mportant,
4570 among those who sai d i t is somewhat uni mpor tant , and 6670
among those who sai d r el i gi on i s ver y uni mpor tant .
48
Chr i sti ans
46. Thoburn, The Parent Trap.
47. Geor ge Gr ant, Grand I llusions: Tb Lega~ of Planned Parenthood (Br entwood,
Tennessee: Wol gemuth & Hyatt, 1988).
48. Wi l l i am Schnei der, Troubl e for the GOP [i .e., the Republ i can Party
G.N.], Public Opi ni on, XI I (May-June 1989), p. 2.
real l y do not ful l y understand thi s rel ati onshi p between humani sm
and murder, so onl y a handful of them are wi l l i ng to chal l enge abor -
ti on publ i cl y. But they sense that aborti on i s wr ong.
Pastor s stay away fr om thi s topi c i n dr oves. They are afr ai d to ,
bri ng sancti ons, such as pi cketi ng aborti on cl i ni cs. They are mor e
afrai d of the empl oyment sancti ons or decl i ni ng membershi p s anc-
ti ons that pro-death or anti -i nv ol v ement congr egati ons can bri ng
agai nst them. I t i s l i ke pastors i n the Ameri can South i n 1859: they
refused to preach agai nst sl avery. So, God brought negati ve mi l i tary
sancti ons from the north. He had done thi s before. Then the LORD
sai d unto me, Out of the north an evi l shal l break forth upon al l the
i nhabi tants of the l and (Jer. 1:14).
When the U.S. Supreme Court i n 1973 made i l l egal al l state and
l ocal ci vi l sancti ons agai nst the practi ce of aborti on, i t thereby sanc-
ti oned murder. There is no neutrality. Thi s ethi cal fact i s cl earer on the
aborti oni sts tabl e than anywhere el se i n Ameri ca. Thi s i s why a
growi ng number of Chri sti ans have been mobi l i zed on thi s poi nt.
But thi s i s sti l l a mi nori ty of Chri sti ans i n Ameri ca.
We need prayer i n the churches that God wi l l wi thhol d Hi s judg-
ments i n hi story agai nst the Uni ted States so that Chri sti ans can
gai n more ti me to fi ght thi s i ntol erabl e evi l . I f Chri sti ans do thi s,
they wi l l step by step be l ed to the phi l osophy of Tri ni tari an pol i ti cs
and away from pol i ti cal pl ural i sm. Thi s i s what the aborti oni sts fai l ed
to recogni ze i n ti me. The ti de has begun to turn. I t i s ti me for each
Chri sti an regul arl y to pi cket a l ocal aborti on cl i ni c or even stand to-
gether wi th others (under publ i cl y stated church sancti ons) i n the door-
ways of aborti on cl i ni cs to cl ose them for a day or more (i f possi bl e) .49
Concl usi on
We must not come to the Ol d Testament wi th a sense of fear and
l oathi ng. The Ol d Testament provi des us wi th a vi si on of vi ctory and
the tool s of domi ni on, namel y, Gods l aws. These l aws are not a
threat to us as Chri sti ans; they are the foundati on of our efforts to
reconstruct soci ety.
Chri sti ans have not wanted to thi nk about Gods l aw. I t remi nds
them of thei r si ns of commi ssi on. I t al so remi nds them of thei r si ns of
49, Gary North, When J usttce I s Aborted: Biblical Standards for Non- Violent Resistance
(Ft. Worth, Texas: Domi ni on Press, 1989).
omi ssi on. They have fai l ed to press the cl ai ms of Jesus Chri st i n
every area of l i fe. They have fai l ed to chal l enge the si ns of thi s age.
They have refused to tel l the worl d that God real l y does have speci fi c
answers for every area of l i fe, i ncl udi ng economi cs and pol i ti cs.
Chri sti ans have preferred to comfort themsel ves as they have sat i n
thei r rocki ng chai rs i n the shadows of hi story, rocki ng themsel ves
back and forth, and sayi ng over and over: I am not a theocrat. I am
not a theocrat. What thi s phrase means i s si mpl e: God does not govern
the world, so Christians are of the hook.
But what i f God does rul e? What i f He has gi ven us the unchang-
i ng l aws by whi ch He expects Hi s peopl e to rul e? What i f He has
gi ven us the tool s of domi ni on, and we have l eft them i n the rai n to
rust? What wi l l He do wi th our generati on?
Just what He di d wi th Moses generati on: He wi l l l eave them
behi nd to di e i n the wi l derness.
Chri sti ans i n the Protestant era have not wanted to thi nk about
Gods sancti ons i n hi story. Thi s has been the number-one ethi cal ,
theol ogi cal , and i nsti tuti onal probl em ever si nce the Protestant Ref-
ormati on: the nature of l egi ti mate sancti ons i n Church and State.
(The Roman Church abandoned bi bl i cal l aw earl y i n the Mi ddl e
Ages; thi s rejecti on of poi nt three of the bi bl i cal covenant has been
an ecumeni cal si n of omi ssi on ever si nce. ) Because Chri sti ans have
sel f-consci ousl y refused to exerci se Gods sancti ons i n hi story i n
Church, State, and fami l y we are now faci ng an escal ati ng seri es of
cri ses i n Church, State, and fami l y. Onl y repentance and reform wi l l
change the modern worl ds course toward a head-on col l i si on wi th
Gods hi stori cal sancti ons.
A worl d wi thout judgment i s a worl d wi thout val ues and hence
wi thout meani ng. To deny judgment i s to deny val ue and meani ng.
Without judgment, there can be no cultural progress, and the onl y val i d
form of judgment i s that whi ch i s grounded i n the word of God. The
general revel ati on of God to manki nd enabl ed some cul tures to prog-
ress to a poi nt, unti l the rel ati vi sm i nherent i n mans ori gi nal si n,
hi s desi re to be hi s own god (Gen. 3:5), subverted judgment i n hi s
soci ety. Wi th rel ati vi sm came stagnati on and deteri orati on.
Moreover, judgment and sal vati on cannot be separated from one
another. Those theol ogi es whi ch hol d to judgment, whi l e havi ng a
l i mi ted vi ew of sal vati on, as wi tness premi l l enni al and ami l l enni al
theol ogi es, cut the vi tal nerve of both doctri nes. Onl y as man has a
total concept of sal vati on, of vi ctory i n ti me and eterni ty, can he appl y
a total concept of judgment to every sphere of l i fe. Judgment i s of ne-
cessi ty total wherever i t i s hel d that every sphere of l i fe must be brought
i nto capti vi ty to Chri st, because every sphere must mani fest Hi s sal -
vati on as an aspect of Hi s new creati on. A doctri ne of sal vati on whi ch
cal l s for mans redempti on, and l i mi ts that redempti on to hi s soul now
and hi s body i n the general resurrecti on, i s defecti ve. The redeemed
man wi l l of necessi ty, because i t i s basi c to hi s l i fe, work to bri ng re-
dempti on to every sphere and area of l i fe as an aspect of hi s creati on
mandate. The redeemed mans warfare agai nst the powers of evi l i s
not after the fl esh, i .e., does not rel y on human resources, but rel i es
rather on the supernatural power of God. Ewrything that exal ts i tsel f
agai nst the knowl edge of God, St. Paul tel l s us, shal l be cast down. I n
the words of Arthur Ways renderi ng of I I Cori nthi ans 10:3-5,
Very human as I am, I do not fi ght wi th merel y human weapons.
No, the weapons wi th whi ch I war are not weapons of mere fl esh and
bl ood, but, i n the strength of God, they ar e mi ghty enough to r aze al l
strong-hol ds of our foes. I can batter down bul warks of human reason,
I can scal e every crag-fortress that towers up bi ddi ng defi ance to the
true knowl edge of God. I can make each rebel purpose my pnsoner-
of-war, and bow i t i nto submi ssi on to Messi ah.
R. J. Rushdoony (1983)
* Rushdoony, Sal vati on and God~ Ru& (Val l eci to, Cal i forni a: Ross House Books,
1983), pp. 22-23.
13
WI NNERS AND LOSERS I N HI STORY
A Psalm of David. The LORD saidunto my Lord, Sitthou at my
tight hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The LOm shall
send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine
enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy poweL in the
beauties of holinessfiom the womb of the morning: thou ha.st the dew of
thy youth (Ps, 110:1-3).
There shall be no mor e thence an infant of days, nor an old man that
bath not)lled his days: for the child shall die an hundredyears old; but
the sinner being an hundredyears old shall be accursed (I sa. 65:20).
For he must reign, till he bath put all enemies under his feet. The
last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he bath put all things
under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is man -
t$est that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when
al l things shall be subdued unto him, then sha~~ the Son also himself be
sub~~ct unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in
all (I COZ 15:25-29).
The Bi bl e i s cl ear: Jesus Chri st si ts at Gods ri ght hand unti l the
fi nal judgment, at whi ch ti me He wi l l l eave the throne, return i n
gl ory, and end the curse of bodi l y death. Premi l l enni al i sm deni es
thi s; Jesus i s supposed to l eave the throne i n heaven to rei gn on earth
for a thousand years a di sconti nui ty not taught i n Psal m 110.
Second, before the fi nal judgment takes pl ace, the worl d wi l l experi -
ence i ncreased l i fe spans far beyond what i s common today. Thi s ex-
tensi on of l i fe has to take pl ace before the fi nal judgment, si nce there
are sti l l si nners operati ng i n hi story (I sa. 65:20). Thus, there has to
be a l i teral era of earthl y bl essi ngs ahead of us before Jesus returns to
earth at the fi nal judgment: a conti nui ty marked by Gods vi si bl e
605
bl essi ngs forthecul ture at l arge, i nresponse tocovenantal fai thful -
ness. Ami l l enni al i sm deni es thi s; the conti nui ty of hi story for ami l -
l enni al i sm i s downward, spi ri tual l y, for the cul ture at l arge.
*
shor t,
postmi l l enni al i sm i s the onl y possi bl e val i d eschatol ogy. Al l other es-
chatol ogi es are i ncorrect. (Why beat around the bush? , I al ways
say.) Onl y postmi l l enni al i sm affi rms and expl ai ns both the bi bl i cal
doctri ne of hi stori c ki ngdom conti nui ty (Matt. 13:24-30; 36-43), whi ch
premi l l enni al i sm deni es, and al so the bi bl i cal doctri ne of Gods ex-
ternal covenant sancti ons i n hi story, whi ch ami l l enni al i sm deni es. 1
I do not hol d my eschatol ogy because of i ts by-products, such as
psychol ogi cal moti vati on to work hard for God. I hol d i t because i t i s
what the Bi bl e teaches. Thi s does not mean that I do not appreci ate
the by-products. I do. I refer to them frequentl y i n my wri ti ngs.
Men do need moti vati on, and thi s i s why God gi ves us sancti ons i n
hi story and eterni ty: posi ti ve (bl essi ngs) and negati ve (cursi ngs).
What I am attempti ng to do wi th my l i fe i s to publ i sh Chri sti an
worl dvi ew materi al s that wi l l l ead to the steady repl acement of the
humani st i ntel l ectual foundati ons of modern ci vi l i zati on. The arena
of confl i ct i s nothi ng l ess than worl d ci vi l i zati on. The i ssue i s the
ki ngdom of God, both i n heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18). There
are many books that deal wi th the ki ngdom of God, but my vi ew of
the ki ngdom of God as i t i s vi si bl y mani fested i n hi story i s si mpl e: i t i s
Gods authori zed and moral l y requi red civilization. I t i s si mul taneousl y
i nternal (worl d-and-l i fe vi ew), ethi cal (a moral l aw-order), and i nsti -
tuti onal (covenantal judi ci al rel ati onshi ps). Thi s i s deni ed, ei ther ex-
pl i ci tl y or i mpl i ci tl y, by al l those who deny postmi l l enni al i sm.
Ami l l enni al Vi ctor y
Archi bal d Hughes, an ami l l enni al i st, has wri tten xl New Heaven
and a New Earth. He subti tl es thi s, An I ntroductory Study of the Second
Aduent.z One woul d thi nk that i n a book wi th thi s ti tl e, the author
woul d devote at l east a chapter to I sai ah 65 and 66, si nce these two
chapters deal speci fi cal l y wi th the New Heaven and New Earth.
Hughes di d not devote even a paragraph to thi s secti on of the Ol d
Testament, despi te the fact that i t i s one of onl y three passages i n the
Bi bl e that deal s wi th the New Heaven and the New Earth. Hughes
1. Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace: The Biblical Basis of Progress (Tyler,
2. Phi l adel phi a: Presbyteri an & Reformed, 1958.
Winners and Losers in HistoV 607
eschatol ogy cannot not deal wi th the fact that the posi ti ve bl essi ngs
of the covenant wi l l be mani fested i n hi story, when si nners wi l l sti l l
be al i ve. He woul d have to come out and say that al l the hi stori cal l y
speci fi c l anguage i s real l y symbol i c. To argue such a posi ti on i s to argue
nonsense i n publ i c; thus, he si mpl y refused to di scuss the passage.
I t i s thi s passage, more than any other i n the Bi bl e, that catego-
ri cal l y refutes ami l l enni al i sm. Thi s passage deserves a whol e vol -
ume; i nstead, i t recei ves the si l ent treatment. I nstead of deal i ng wi th
the text that speaks of tke posi ti ve sancti on of the ki ngdom of God i n
hi story, Hughes removes Gods ki ngdom enti rel y from hi story: Fur-
ther, the Ki ngdom i s no l onger of the earth, earthl y, but of God and
heavenl y, bei ng the Ki ngdom of God and Heaven.
3
The bl essi ngs
of God are equal l y ethereal : At present spi ri tual bl essi ngs are en-
joyed by fai th wi thout si ght, but i n the New Heavens and the New
Earth al l wi l l be vi si bl e, but that whi ch wi l l be seen wi l l not be that of
the past ol d order but the transformed gl ori fi ed creati on a trul y l i t-
eral spi ri tual creati on.4 I n short, there is no continui~ between historys
blessings and heavent blessings. Thi s i s why ami l l enni al i sm, for al l i ts
publ i c deni al of premi l l enni al i sms ki ngdom di sconti nui ty bl ess-
i ngs i n hi story and Gods ci vi c negati ve sancti ons i n hi story i s i tsel f
radi cal l y di sconti nuous. There are no positive kingdom sanctions in histo~
for amillennialism. Because of thi s radi cal di sconti nui ty of sancti ons,
the ami l l enni al i st al so asserts a radi cal di sconti nui ty of ethi cs: no
Ol d Testament ci vi l sti pul ati ons for the New Testament era.
The Cal yi ni st ami l l enni al i st affi rms one hal f of poi nt one of the
bi bl i cal covenant: the transcendent soverei gnty of God. Thi s sover-
ei gn y, however, i s supposedl y not mani fested i n New Covenant
ki ngdom hi story, i .e., there i s no vi si bl e si gn of Godsjudicial presence
i n thi s era of hi story. We see thi s posi ti on arti cul ated cl earl y i n the
book by Raymond Zorn on the ki ngdom of God. Zorn begi ns hi s
ami l l enni al study wi th these words: I n the broadest sense Gods
Ki ngdom refers to the most extended reaches of Hi s soverei gnty. As
Psal m 103:19 puts i t, The Lord bath prepared hi s throne i n the heav-
ens; and hi s ki ngdom r ul eth over al l .5 The ki ngdom of God i s al l -
3. Hughes, New Heaven, p. 160.
4. I bid., p. 161.
5. Raymond O. Zorn, Church and Kingdom (Phi l adel phi a: Presbyteri an and Re-
formed, 1962), p. 1. Zorn, an ami l l enni al i st, stresses the ki ngdom as the rei gn of
God rather than the sphere or domai n of Hi s rul e (p. 1). Greg Bahnsens response to
thi s sort of argument i s correct: i t i s ri di cul ous to speak of the rei gn of a ki ng whose
ki ngdom has few i f any hi stori cal mani festati ons that are as comprehensi ve i n scope
encompassi ng, i n the same sense that a ci vi l i zati on i s al l -encompassi ng. G
Zorns mai n probl em i s that he does not expect thi s theocrati c ki ng-
dom ever to mani fest i tsel f extensi vel y outsi de of the i nsti tuti onal
Church, and even i n thi s case, i t wi l l be a contracti ng Church wi th
decl i ni ng i nfl uence. I n hi s vi ew, God remai ns throughout hi story a
ki ng wi th uni versal cl ai ms and decl i ni ng terri tory. Zorn speaks of
hi stori cal vi ctory onl y wi th respect to the i nternal real m of the spi ri t
of the Chri sti an and the narrowl y defi ned i nsti tuti onal Church; exter-
nal l y, ki ngdom vi ctory takes pl ace onl y when hi story ends, after the
fi nal judgment.
So, what Zorn gi ves us i n the l arge pri nt ki ngdom uni versal i st
and the l anguage of opti mi sm he takes away i n the fi ne pri nt. Thi s
sel f-consci ous and utterl y decepti ve tacti c i s adopted by most Cal vi n-
i sti c ami l l enni al i sts, who recogni ze how depressi ng i t i s to thi nk
about the hi stori cal i mpl i cati ons of thei r eschatol ogy, so they di sgui se
these i mpl i cati ons i n the l anguage of opti mi sm.
7
(Van Ti l i s the mai n
excepti on; he tel l s us i n hi s book, Common Grace, that there i s no pos-
si bl e earthl y hope for Chri sti ans, cul tural l y speaki ng; i t has been al l
downhi l l si nce the cross, and thi s wi l l conti nue. )
Neverthel ess, the tradi ti onal Cal vi ni sti c ami l l enni al i st i s correct
i n hi s assessment of the transcendent extent of Gods ki ngdom. I t i s
i ndeed uni versal . Orthodox Jews al so share somethi ng l i ke thi s vi ew.
as hi s sel f-procl ai med soverei gnty. Such a l i mi ted defi ni ti on of Gods ki ngdom and
ki ngshi p i s i n fact a deni al of Gods ki ngdom. Bahnsen, The Worl d and the Ki ng-
dom of God (1981), repri nted as Appendi x Di n Gary DeMar and Peter J. Lei thart,
The Redudion of Christianity: A Biblical Respome to Dave Hunt (Ft. Worth, Texas:
Domi ni on Press, 1988).
6. The reader shoul d not mi si nterpret what I am sayi ng. I am not sayi ng that the
ki ngdom of God i s the pri mary theme i n the Bi bl e, or i n the message of Jesus. Hi s
pri mary theme i s the same as the whol e Bi bl es pri mary theme: the gloy of God. I
agree wi th Geerhardus Vos statement: Whi l e thus recogni zi ng that the ki ngdom of
God has an i mportance i n our Lords teachi ng second to that of no other subject, we
shoul d not go to the extreme i nto whi ch some wri ters have fal l en, of fi ndi ng i n i t the
onl y theme on whi ch Jesus actual l y taught, whi ck woul d i mpl y that al l other topi cs
deaft wi th i n hi s di scourses were to hi s mi nd but so many corol l ari es or subdi vi si ons
of thi s one great truth. . . Sal vati on wi th al l i t contai ns fl ows from the nature and
subserves the gl ory of God. . . . Vos, The Tubing ofJ esw Concerning the Kingdom and
the Church (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Eerdmans, 1958), p. 11. I am sayi ng onl y that
the ki ngdom of God i s i nherentl y al l -encompassi ng cul tural l y. I n fact, I am con-
vi nced that the best bi bl i cal defi ni ti on of ki ngdom i s civilization. The ki ngdom of
God i s the ci vi l i zati on of God i nternal , external , heavenl y, earthl y, hi stori cal , and
eternal .
7. R. B. Kui pers book, The Glorious Body of Christ (1958), is another exampl e of
thi s tacti c. See North, Dominion and Common Grace, pp. 123-26.
I agree i n pri nci pl e wi th the Jewi sh schol ar, 1. Grunfel d, when he
wri tes that true rel i gi on and true ci vi l i sati on are i denti cal . I t i s the
vi ew of the Torah as the ci vi l i sati on of the state of God where
Torah i s coextensi ve wi th l i fe i n al l i ts mani festati ons, personal , eco-
nomi c, pol i ti cal , nati onal .s
Covenant Sanctions and Millennialism
The probl em wi th ami l l enni al i sm i s that i t has no doctri ne of
covenant sancti ons i n New Testament era hi story. I t therefore has no
way of cal l i ng fal l en mans attenti on to Gods judi ci al presence i n
New Testament era hi story. The best that the ami l l enni al i st can say
about ki ngdom sancti ons i s that God used to bri ng temporal sanc-
ti ons i n hi story, but onl y i n ti ny I srael , nowhere el se (except at the
Fl ood, a one-ti me event unti l the fi nal judgment). Ami l l enni al i sm
therefore deni es the second hal f of poi nt one of the bi bl i cal covenant:
Gods covenantal presence i n hi story. Because of thi s vi ew of sanc-
ti ons, ami l l enni al i sm judi ci al l y turns over hi story to the devi l , and i t
does so expl i ci tl y. Ami l l enni al i sms eschatol ogy i s a product of i ts
vi ew of covenant sancti ons i n hi story. Evi l men become more power-
ful as ti me goes on, whi l e covenant-keepers become cul tural l y i mpo-
tent. Amillennialism therefore preaches postmillennial victo~ for covenant-
breakers. I ts advocates refuse to say thi s publ i cl y, for obvi ous reasons,
but thi s i s exactl y what they preach. I t-i s not that the ami l l enni al i st
deni es postmi l l enni al i sm. He affi rms postmi l l enni al i sm whol eheart-
edl y. He just says that i t i s a mani festati on of Satans ki ngdom i n hi s-
tory rather than Gods ki ngdom i n hi story.
9
TV to recrui t a vol unteer army of Chri sti an sol di ers wi th this es-
chatol ogy. Try to sel l defeat wi thout a Rapture to peopl e who are
not theol ogi cal masochi sts. The Greek Orthodox Church has such a
8. Grunfel d, Samson Raphael Hi r sch the Man and Hi s Mi ssi on, Judai sm Etw-
nul, I , p. xi v. Obvi ousl y, I do not agree wi th Grunfel ds next sentence: Thi s concept
i s appl i cabl e, of course, onl y when there i s a Jewi sh State, or at l east an autonomous
Jewi sh Soci ety, whi ch can be enti rel y rul ed by the Torah. Thi s statement provi des
evi dence of the accuracy of Vos anal ysi s of Jewi sh teachi ng concerni ng the Ki ng-
dom of heaven: The emphasi s was pl aced l argel y on what the expected state woul d
bri ng for I srael i n a nati onal and temporal sense. Hence i t was preferabl y thought of
as the ki ngdom of I srael over the other nati ons. Vos, Kingdom and the Church, p. 19.
9. I t i s ti me for students at ami l l enni al semi nari es to start aski ng some very speci -
fi c eschatol ogi cal questi ons i n cl ass, over and over, unti l they get some strai ght an-
swers. They had better get some strai ght answers about Gods reveal ed l aw and
Gods hi stori cal sancti ons, too.
vi ew of hi story; so does the Russi an Orthodox Church. Both
churches have a fal se vi ew of the Hol y Ghost: kenoti c theol o~, a
theol ogy of vi ctory i n eterni ty through i nevi tabl e Chri sti an sufferi ng
throughout hi story. 10 What thi s vi ew got them was, respecti ve y,
I sl ami c tyranny and Communi st tyranny.
We need to do better than thi s.
Compr ehensi ve Revi val
Nothi ng l ess than a comprehensive replwement of humani sm and oc-
cul ti sm wi th Chri sti ani ty wi l l suffi ce to pl ease God. We are cal l ed to
work for the progressi ve repl acement of humani st ci vi l i zati on by
Chri sti an ci vi l i zati on, a repl acement that was defi ni ti vel y achi eved
wi th the death, resurrecti on, and ascensi on of Jesus Chri st, and
mani fested by the comi ng of the Hol y Spi ri t at Pentecost. We are to
repl ace Satans humani sti c ki ngdoms. Ki ngdom i s an i nescapabl e
concept. I t i s never a questi on of ki ngdom vs. no ki ngdom; i t i s
al ways a questi on of whose ki ngdom. Rushdoony i s correct i n hi s
eval uati on of manki nds i nevi tabl e quest for utopi a, the fi nal order,
whi ch onl y God can i naugurate and bri ng to pass: The church ac-
cordi ngl y has never been al one i n hi story but has rather faced a
mul ti pl i ci ty of ei ther anti -Chri sti an or pseudo-Chri sti an churches
fi ercel y resentful of any chal l enge to thei r cl ai m to represent the way,
truth and l i fe of that fi nal order. The modern state, no l ess than the
anci ent empi re, cl ai ms to be the vehi cl e and corporate body of that
true estate of man. As the i ncarnati on of that fi nal order, i t vi ews
fami l y, church, school and every aspect of soci ety as members and
phases of i ts corporate l i fe and subject to i ts general government. I t
i s i n terms of thi s fai th, therefore, that the state cl ai ms pri or or ul ti -
mate juri sdi cti on over every sphere, and steadi l y encroaches on thei r
acti vi ty. 11
Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sts are sel f-consci ousl y attempti ng to
l ay new i ntel l ectual foundati ons for a comprehensi ve moral and
therefore i ntel l ectual , soci al , pol i ti cal , and economi c transformati on
of the worl d. Not unti l at l east the prel i mi nary steps i n thi s theol ogi -
cal and i ntel l ectual transformati on are accompl i shed can we expect
10. R. J . Rushdoony, Foundations of Social Order: Studies in the Creea3 and Counci l s of
the Ear @ Church (Fai rfax, Vi rgi ni a: Thobum Press, [1969] 1978), pp. 125-27.
11. R. J. Rushdoony, Foreword, i n Zorn, Church and Ki ngdom, pp. xi x-xx. Rush-
doony, a postmi l l enni al i st, rejects Zorns vi ew that the enemi es of Chri st wi l l be pro-
gressi vel y vi ctori ous i n hi story, but thi s i s not made cl ear i n thi s Foreword.
Wi nners and LOWTJ i n HistoV 611
God to send worl dwi de revi val . I f the comi ng revi val i s not compre-
hensi ve i n i ts effects, i t wi l l no more change the worl d permanentl y
than earl i er revi val s have changed i t permanentl y. The regenerati on
of peopl es soul s i s onl y the fi rst step on the road to comprehensi ve
redempti on. Cornel i us Van Ti l , who di ed i n 1987, has i ssued thi s
profound warni ng: The temptati on i s very great for the bel i evers i n
these ti mes when the Church i s i n apostasy, and i ts conquest of the
worl d for Chri st seems to be l osi ng out, that they shal l spend a great
deal of thei r ti me i n passi ve wai ti ng i nstead of i n acti ve servi ce.
Another danger that l urks at a ti me of apostasy i s that the few fai th-
ful ones gi ve up the comprehensi ve i deal of the ki ngdom and l i mi t
themsel ves to the savi ng of i ndi vi dual soul s. 12 We need a compre-
hensi ve revi val that wi l l produce comprehensi ve redempti on. 13
We must understand from the begi nni ng that the message of the
ki ngdom of God rests on a concept of salvation which is supernatural~
imparted, not pol i ti cal y i mparted. The ki ngdom of God i s catego-
ri cal l y not a narrow pol i ti cal program of soci al transformati on; i t i s
rather a supernatural l y i mposed sal vati onal program that i nevi tabl y
produces worl d-changi ng pol i ti cal , soci al , l egal , and economi c
effects. Geerhardus Vos was correct: The ki ngdom represents the
speci fi cal l y evangel i cal el ement i n our Lords teachi ng. . . . Jesus
doctri ne of the ki ngdom as both i nward and outward, comi ng fi rst i n
the heart of man and afterwards i n the external worl d, uphol ds the
pri macy of the spiritual and ethical over the physi cal . The i nvi si bl e worl d
of the i nner rel i gi ous l i fe, the ri ghteousness of the di sposi ti on, the
sonshi p of God are i n i t made supreme, the essence of the ki ngdom,
the ul ti mate real i ti es to whi ch everythi ng el se i s subordi nate. The i n-
herentl y ethi cal character of the ki ngdom fi nds subjecti ve expressi on
i n the demand for repentance. ~~
The pri mary need, today as al ways, i s the need for wi despread
personal repentance before God. We therefore need a Hol y Spi ri t-
i ni ti ated Chri sti an revi val to extend the ki ngdom of God across the
face of the earth. I f we do not get thi s revi val soon, my work and the
work of those who are i nvol ved i n the Bi bl i cal Bl uepri nts project 15
12. Cornel i us Van Ti l , Chrirtian Theistic Ethics, Vol . I I I of I n DeJ ense of Biblical
Christiani~ (Phi l l i psburg, New Jersey: Presbyteri an & Reformed, [1958] 1980), p. 122.
13. Gary North, Comprehensi ve Redempti on: A Theol ogy for Soci al Acti on, i n
North, 1s the Wiwld Running Down? Cri si s i n the Chriitian Worldview (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti -
tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1988), Appendi x C.
14. Vos, Kingdom and the Church, pp. 102-3.
15. Ten vol umes, 1986-87: Ft. Worth, Texas: Domi ni on Press.
6i 2 POLI TI CAL POLYTHEI SM
wi l l remai n curi osi ti es, and then become anti quari an curi osi ti es, un-
ti l the revi val comes.
A Questi on of Confi dence
Wi thout a bottom-up rel i gi ous transformati on of ci vi l i zati on, the
publ i c pol i ci es that Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sts recommend wi l l at
best have onl y a peri pheral i nfl uence on soci ety. The reader shoul d
understand, however, that we expect the revi val and thi s bottom-up
transformati on, i f not i n our own l i feti mes, then eventual l y. The
Bi bl es bl uepri nts for soci ety wi l l eventual l y be uni versal l y adopted
across the face of the earth as the waters cover the sea (I sa. 11:9).16
Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sts regard thi s as hi stori cal l y i nevi tabl e.
(Thi s i s why most Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sts and al l of the
author s are Cal vi ni sts; we deepl y bel i eve i n predesti nati on: hi stor-
i cal i nevi tabi l i ty. ) Thi s confi dence i s what makes the theonomi c
postmi l l enni al worl dvi ew so hard-nosed and uncompromi si ng. We
annoy al most every Chri sti an who has doubts about the earthl y
tri umph of Gods ki ngdom, whi ch means that we i ni ti al l y al i enate
just about everyone who reads our materi al s. Our anti nomi an
Chri sti an cri ti cs cal l us arrogant. Bear i n mi nd that the word arro-
gant usual l y means a confi dent asserti on of somethi ng I dont ap-
prove of.
Chri sti ans who doubt the future earthl y tri umph of Gods ki ng-
dom tend to be l ess confi dent and l ess sure about the practi cal
rel i abi l i ty of the Bi bl es bl uepri nts. Someti mes they even deny that
the Bi bl e offers such bl uepri nts. I f i t real l y does offer such bl ue-
pri nts, then evangel i cal Chri sti ans have major responsi bi l i ti es out-
si de the comfortabl e sanctuari es of church and fami l y.
Thi s prospect of worl dwi de, cul ture-wi de responsi bi l i ty fri ghtens
mi l l i ons of Chri sti ans. They have gone so far as to adopt eschatol -
ogi es that assure them that God does not hol d them personal l y or
corporatel y responsi bl e for anythi ng so comprehensi ve as the ethi cal
and i nsti tuti onal transformati on of todays si n-fi l l ed worl d. They do
not bel i eve that God offers to Hi s Church the tool s, ski l l s, and ti me
necessary for such a generati ons-l ong project of soci al transforma-
ti on. Therefore, they adopt the phi l osophy that says that Chri sti ans
shoul d not even try to reform soci ety, for such efforts are futi l e, waste-
16. J. A. De Jong, As the Waters Cover the Sea: Millennial Expectations i n the Rise of
Ang[o-Am~ican Missions, 1640-1810 (Kampen, Netherl ands: J. H. Kok, 1970).
Winners and Losers in HistoT 613
fi .d, and shi ft preci ous resources from the onl y l egi ti mate tasks of the
Church: preachi ng i ndi vi dual sal vati on to the l ost, and sustai ni ng
the converted spi ri tual l y i n a ti me of i nevi tabl e cul tural decl i ne.
They equate soci al reform programs wi th pol i shi ng brass on a si nk-
i ng shi p. As di spensati onal i st newsl etter wri ter Peter Lal onde re-
marked concerni ng Chri sti ans who possess such a vi si on of Gods
worl d-transformi ng ki ngdom i n hi story, I ts a questi on, Do you
pol i sh brass on a si nki ng shi p? And i f theyre worki ng on setti ng up
new i nsti tuti ons, i nstead of goi ng out and wi nni ng the l ost for
Chri st, then theyre wasti ng the most val uabl e ti me on the pl anet
earth ri ght now, and that i s the seri ous probl em. . . .17
Doubt vs. Domi ni on
Chri sti ans, paral yzed by thei r own versi ons of eschatol ogi cal
pessi mi sm, have not taken advantage of the growi ng sel f-doubt that
i s progressi vel y paral yzi ng thei r humani sti c opponents. Chri sti ans
shoul d recogni ze the extent of the despai r that has engul fed those
who have rejected the i dea that the Bi bl e i s the i nfal l i bl e word of
God. An exampl e of such despai r i s the fol l owi ng:
We l i ve i n a ti me i n whi ch ol d perspecti ves i nformi ng our understand-
i ng of the worl d have been seri ousl y shaken by events of modern ti mes. I n
many cases these ol d perspecti ves have col l apsed; they no l onger hol d as
our centers. . . . Agai nst the backdrop of such events, an erosi on of tradi -
ti onal val ues has taken pl ace an erosi on whi ch has l eft us feel i ng that we
[are] adri ft i n a sea of rel ati vi ty i n whi ch anythi ng, i ncl udi ng such evi l s as
the hol ocaust or nucl ear war mi ght be rati onal i zed as necessary. I t i s wi th
thi s experi ence that we know that the cul tural foundati ons have been
shaken. We know that we are no l onger gui ded by a vi si on of coherence and
rel atedness concerni ng our i ndi vi dual exi stence. We know that we are no
l onger bound together by a set of val ues i nfused wi th a common sense of
des~i ny. Our sei se of desti ny, i f any, i s domi nated by an uneasi ness and
sense of forebodi ng about the future. The future i tsel f i s now feared by
many as the ul ti mate danger to the fragi l e hol d we have on whatever secur-
i ty we have achi eved i n the present. Al l of thi s has l eft some to questi on the
meani ng of thei r endeavors, whi l e i t has l eft many wi th a sense of i sol ati on
and l onel i ness. The i rony i s that thi s new sense of i nsecuri ty has come at a
17. Tape One, Dominion: A Dangerous New Theology, i n Dominion: The Word and th
New World Order, a 3-tape set di stri buted by the Omega-Latter, Ontari o, Canada,
1987.
ti me when the materi al wel l -bei ng of those i n the advanced i ndustri zd na-
ti ons has reached a hei ght hi therto undreamed of. 18
Thi s i s preci sel y what the Book of Deuteronomy predi cts for a so-
ci ety that has covenanted wi th God, has been bl essed wi th external
weal th, and then has forgotten God i n i ts humani sti c confi dence
(Deut. 8:17): . . . the LORD shal l gi ve thee there a trembl i ng heart,
and fai l i ng of eyes, and sorrow of mi nd: And thy l i fe shal l hang i n
doubt before thee; and thou shal t fear day and ni ght, and shal t have
none assurance of thy l i fe (Deut. ~8:65b-66). Thi s sort of wi de-
spread pessi mi sm l eads ei ther to cul tural col l apse or mi l i tary defeat,
or el se to revi val . The fi rst i s taki ng pl ace vi si bl y, the second i s a
growi ng possi bi l i ty, 19 and the thi rd, revi val , i s al so becomi ng more
l i kel y. Soci ol ogi st Robert Ni sbet asks thi s questi on: [W]hat i s the
future of the i dea of progress? Any l ogi cal answer must be that the
i dea has no future whatever i f we assume the i ndefi ni te, prol onged
conti nuati on of the ki nd of cul ture that has become al most uni versal
i n the West i n the l ate twenti eth century. I f the roots are dyi ng, as
they woul d appear to be at the present ti me, how can there be shrub
and fol i age?zo But, he then asks, i s thi s contemporary Western cul -
ture l i kel y to conti nue for l ong? The answer, i t seems to me, must be
i n the negati ve i f we take any stock i n the l essons of the human
past . He makes no absol ute propheci es much of hi s academi c ca-
reer has been devoted to remi ndi ng us that such comprehensi ve cul -
tural propheci es are al ways overturned by the facts of the future 21
but he i s correct when he says that never i n hi story have peri ods of
cul ture such as our own l asted for very l ong. He sees si gns of the
begi nni ng of a rel i gi ous renewal i n Western ci vi l i zati on, notabl y i n
Ameri ca.2
2
Gui l t and Soci al Paral ysi s
Thi s shoul d not be a ti me for pessi mi sm among Chri sti ans. Yet i t
i s. The y are mi ssi ng an opportuni st y that has not been seen si nce the
18. Howard J. Vogel , A Survey and Commentary on the New Li terature i n Law
and Rel i gi on, J ournal of Law and Religion, I (1983), p. 151.
19. Ar thur Robi nson and Gar y Nor th, Fighting Chance: Tm Feet to Survival (Ft.
Worth, Texas: Ameri can Bureau of Economi c Research, 1986).
20. Robert A. Ni sbet, Hi stoy of the I dea of Progress (New York: Basi c Books, 1980),
p. 355-56.
21. Ni sbet, The Year 2000 And Al l That, Commentay (June 1968).
22. Ni sbet, History, p. 356.
l ate ei ghteenth century, and possi bl y si nce the resurrecti on of Chri st.
A uni ~er sal worl d ci {l l i zati on now exi sts for the fi rst ti me si nce the
Tower of Babel . I t i s di si ntegrati ng moral l y as i t grows weal thy. I t i s
ri pe for the harvest.
A successful harvesti ng operati on requi res tool s. To take advan-
tage of thi s uni que hi stori cal opportuni ty, Chri sti ans need tool s of
domi ni on bl uepri nts for the reconstructi on of the worl d. But
Chri sti ans today do not see that God has gi ven them the tool s of do-
mi ni on, Hi s reveal ed l aw.23 They agree wi th the humani sts who i n
turn agree among themsel ves, above al l , that the Bi bl e offers soci ety
no speci fi c l egal standards for comprehensi ve reform and reconstruc-
ti on. They agree wi th such statements as the one made by the edi tor
of The J ournal of Law and Religion, who i s al so a professor of C onsti tu-
ti onal l aw at a Cathol i c l aw school :
Fi rst, I assume that the Bi bl e i s not a detai l ed hi stori cal bl uepri nt for
Ameri can soci ety, and that i t does not contai n much concrete gui dance for
the resol uti on of speci fi c pol i ti cal confl i cts or consti tuti onal di ffi cul ti es such
as sl avery and raci sm, sexi sm and equal opportuni ty to parti ci pate i n soci -
ety. The bi bl i cal tradi ti ons are not to be vi ewed as an arsenal of prooftexts
for contemporary di sputes. Contextual l eaps from the si tuati ons i n whi ch
the bi bl i cal authors wrote to the si tuati ons wi th whi ch we fi nd oursel ves
faced are l i kewi se to be avoi ded .24
Thi s hatred of Gods l aw has affected mi l l i ons of Chri sti ans who
si ng the ol d hymn, O How Love I Thy Law. Even when they do
not acti vel y hate i t (and most do), they are si mpl y afrai d of Gods
l aw. They have not studi ed i t, and they have been beaten i nto i ntel -
l ectual submi ssi on by humani sts, Chri sti an anti nomi ans, and those
who fear personal and cul tural responsi bi l i ty.
The Whol e Covenantal Counsel of God
When we preach covenant theol ogy, we need to preach al l of cov-
enant theol ogy, not just the soverei gnty of God, not just bi bl i cal hi er-
archi es (representati on), not just bi bl i cal l aw (theonomy), not just
Gods sancti ons (l et al one merel y Gods fi nal sancti ons), and not just
i nheri tance and di si nheri tance (postmi l l enni al i sm). Covenant theol -
23. Gar y Nor th, Tools ojDomi ni on: The Cme Laws of Exodus, (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti -
tute for Chrsi ti an Economi cs, 1989).
24. Edward McGl ynn Gaffney, Jr., Of Covenants Anci ent and New: The
I nfl uence of Secul ar Law on Bi bl i cal Rel i gi on, ~ownal of Law and Religion, I I (1984),
pp. 117-18.
ogy i s a package deal . We have been si detracked for far too l ong by
hal fway covenant theol ogi es.
To expect men to sacri fi ce thei r l i ves, fortunes, and reputati ons
for the sake of a predesti ned l ost cause i s nai ve. There i s no surer
way to shri nk churches and thei r cul tural i nfl uence than to combi ne
Cal vi ns doctri ne of predesti nati on wi th Luthers doctri ne of ami l l en-
ni al i sm. Thi s i s what Conti nental (Dutch) Cal vi ni sm has done for
three centuri es, and the resul t has been di sastrous: the creati on of a
ghetto mental i ty.
25
I t i s the mental i ty of the besi eged fortress or
wagon trai n. I f Noah had been tol d by God that no dove woul d ever
return wi th an ol i ve branch i n i ts beak, he woul d have become a
pri me candi date for membershi p i n the Protestant Reformed
Church.
The Ameri can Presbyteri an tradi ti on, both Nor ther n2c and
Southern,z7 up unti l Worl d War I or perhaps the Great Depressi on,
general l y rejected thi s ami l l enni al vi ew of eschatol ogy. I t was post-
mi l l enni al i sm that had domi nated both Great Awakeni ngs. 25 I t was
postmi l l enni al i sm whi ch was characteri sti c of the Scotti sh Cove-
nanted movement. Presbyteri an Chri sti ans bel i eved i n the crown
ri ghts of Ki ng Jesus, not just i n heaven but on earth, too. They be-
l i eved that hi story woul d refl ect a progressi ve extensi on of Gods
ki ngdom. When they began to doubt thi s, ami l l enni al Ameri can
Cal vi ni sts devel oped an i nward-l ooki ng ghetto mental i ty. Premi l l enni al
Cal vi ni sts al so adopted thi s same ghetto mental i ty, but they added to
thi s a typi cal l y fundamental i st outl ook: We dont smoke, and we
dont chew, and we dont date the boys who do! Fi rst, Prohi bi ti on-
i st repl aced evangel i sm. Then anti -Communi sm repl aced the cul -
tural mandate. The resul t was the Bi bl e Presbyteri an Church. The
onl y premi l l enni al Presbyteri an al ternati ve offered so far has been a
vague evangel i cal i sm, di sdai nful of Gods cul tural mandate:
And God sai d, Let us make man i n our i mage, after our l i keness: and
l et them have domi ni on over the fi sh of the sea, and over the fowl of the ai r,
25. The exi stence of thi s mental i ty was admi tted by R. B. Kui per: To Be or Not Be
Rsjiid: Whi ttb the Christian Rsfomwd Church? (Grand Rapi ds, Mi ti l gan, 1959), p. 186.
26. North, Dominion and Common Graze, Appendi x: Warfi el ds Vi si on of Vi ctory:
Lost and Found.
27. James B. Jordan, A Survey of Southern Presbyteri an Mi l l enni al Vi ews
Before 1930, J ournal of Christian Reconstruction, I I I (Wi nter 1975-76), pp. 106-21.
28. The fi rst Great Awakeni ng (1740-50) was essenti al l y Cal vi ni st; the second
Great Awakeni ng (1800-40) was Armi ni an; both were postmi l l enni al .
Winners and Losers in Histo~ 617
and over the cattl e, and over al l the earth, and over every creepi ng thi ng
that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man i n hi s own i mage, i n the
i mage of God created he hi m; mal e and femal e created he them. And God
bl essed them, and God sai d unto them, Be frui tful , and mul ti pl y, and
repl eni sh the earth, and subdue i t: and have domi ni on over the fi sh of the
sea, and over the fowl of the ai r, and over every l i vi ng thi ng that moveth
upon the earth. And God sai d, Behol d, I have gi ven you every herb beari ng
seed, whi ch i s upon the face of al l the earth, and every tree, i n the whi ch i s
the frui t of a tree yi el di ng seed; to you i t shal l be for meat. And to every
beast of the ear th, and to ever y fowl of the ai r , and to ever y thi ng that creep-
eth upon the earth, wherei n there i s l i fe, I have gi ven every green herb for
meat: and i t was so (Gen. 1:26-30).
Concl usi on
The goal of bri ngi ng al l ci vi l covenants under the offi ci al juri sdi c-
ti on of the God of the Bi bl e i s too terri ~i ng a task for those who thi nk
i t i s i nherentl y i mpossi bl e. Chri sti ans wi th thi s atti tude want to
achi eve somethi ng far more l i mi ted. Thi s i s why a few of them have
adopted the goal of a Consti tuti onal amendment to have Jesus
Chri st acknowl edged i n that systemati cal l y apostate document. We
do not need a perfunctory admi ssi on that such a restructured cove-
nant i s judi ci al l y mandatory but hi stori cal l y i mpossi bl e. We need a
vi si on of vi ctory to undergi rd a comprehensi ve, Bi bl e-based, l aw-
based program of comprehensi ve reconstructi on. Men wi l l not
affi rm the oath before they see the benefi ts (Deut. 4:5-8). They must
fi rst l earn to trust those who procl ai m the judi ci al necessi ty of the
oath. Thus, to procl ai m the formal necessi ty of the Tri ni tari an na-
ti onal oath wi thout al so worki ng i n every area of l i fe to mani fest the
hi stori c benefi ts of Gods covenant i s an exerci se i n futi l i ty. I t wi l l
l ead to the creati on of psychol ogi cal and eschatol ogi cal justi fi cati ons
for fai l ure.
God does not expect excuses for fai l ure; He expects vi ctory, i n
ti me and on earth. We are Hi s representati ves (poi nt two of the cove-
nant model ). Therefore, we are expected to wi n i n hi story. Let us
not downpl ay Gods expectati ons or our capaci ti es. We can do al l
thi ngs through Chri st who strengthens us: governed by Gods l aw,
empowered by the Hol y Spi ri t, and bl essed by Gods external , vi si -
bl e, hi stori c posi ti ve sancti ons.
Chri st i s Ki ng i n the most compl ete Bi bl i cal sense of the word
ki ng, whi ch means soverei gnty, rul ershi p, and authori ty, i n the
hi ghest possi bl e sense of each of these terms (Phi l . 2:9-11; Eph. 1:17-23;
1 Ti m. 6:15; Heb. 1:8-14; 1 Peter 3 :22; Rev. 1:5). Thi s soverei gnty, or
ki ngdom, exi sts i n the sense that al l the resources necessary for i ts
wo~l d-wi de, vi ctori ous mani festati on are even now avai l abl e to be-
l i evi ng men and the fai thful church (Mat. 28:18-20; Rem. 8:28; Eph.
1:10-11). Chri st now occupi es the true throne of whi ch the ol d throne
of Davi d was but a vi si bl e and temporary symbol (Luke 1:32-33;
Acts 2:29-36). The ol d I srael has been expanded to i ncl ude al l the
nati ons of men (Mat. 8:11; Acts 3:24-26; 5:30-32; I Cor. 12:12-13).
The ki nd of power present i n and mani fested by the ki ngdom i s
seen i n i ts redempti ve aspects at Pentecost and i n the subsequent
conversi on of mul ti tudes of Jews and Genti l es to the Chri sti an fai th
(cf. Acts 1:8). The suppl ementary aspect of judgment i s cl earl y vi si -
bl e i n al l human hi story, and especi al l y i n the destructi on of .Jer u-
sal em and the templ e, and the fi nal di spersal of nati onal I srael ~ The
ki ngdom i s not patterned after the ki ngdoms of thi s worl d (i n pomp,
pageantry and abundance of materi al possessi ons). I t i s a ki ngdom
of truth, ri ghteousness, peace and joy. I ts ci ti zens are recogni zed by
thei r chi l d-l i ke humi l i ty, brotherl y l ove, and sel f-sacri fi ci ng devoti on
to Chr i st (Mat. 5:3, 10; 18:1-5; John 18:36-37; Rem. 14:17).
The ul ti mate functi on of the Ki ngdom i n ti me i s the redempti on
of a mul ti tude whi ch no man can number out of al l nati ons of earth,
and thei r restorati on to the favour and fel l owshi p of God (John 3 :16;
17:20-23; 2 Cor. 5:19-20; Eph. 1:8-14; Rev el a ti on 7:9). Wh en th e
ki ngdom shal l have achi eved i ts desti ned purpose on earth i t wi l l be
transferred to the eternal worl d (1 Cor. 15:24-25).
The true nature of Messi ahs ki ngdom cannot be ri ghtl y seen un-
ti l we understand what i s someti mes spoken of as the rei gn of the
sai nts . I n one of Dani el s vi si ons of the comi ng ki ngdom, we read
I saw . . . one l i ke the Son of man come wi th the cl ouds of heaven, . . .
And there was gi ven hi m domi ni on, and gl ory, and a ki ngdom, that al l peo-
pl e, nati ons, and l anguages, shoul d serve hi m: . . . And the ki ngdom and
domi ni on, and the greatness of the ki ngdom under the whol e heaven, shal l be
gi ven to the peopl e of the sai nts of the most Hi gh, . . . (Dan. 7:13, 14, 27).
Roderi ck Campbel l (1954)*
Campbel l , I smd and the New Covenant (Phi l l i psburg, New Jersey: Presbyteri an &
Reformed, [1954] 1981), pp. 132-33.
CONCLUSI ON, PART 4
The LORD shall cause thine enemies that rise up against thee to be
smitten before thy face: they shall comz out against thee one way, andjee
bt$ore thee seven ways. The LORD shall command the bl essi ng upon thee
in thy storehouses, and in all that thou settest thine hand unto; and he
shall bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. The
LORD shall establish thee an ho~ people unto him.selJ as he bath sworn
unto thee, t~ thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God,
and walk in his ways. And all people of the earth shall see that thou art
called by the name of the LORD; and they shall be afraid of thee. And the
LORD shall make thee plenteous in goods, in the fruit of thy body, and i n
the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy ground, in the land which the
LORD sware unto thy fathers to give thee. The LORD shall open unto thee
his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season,
and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many
nations, and thou shalt not borrow (Deut. 28:7-12).
God gi ves Hi s peopl e bl essi ngs i n hi story when they obey Hi m.
Thi s i s a testi mony to Hi s rel i abi l i ty as the God of the covenant. But
thou shal t remember the LORD thy God: for i t i s he that gi veth thee
power to get weal th, that he may establ i sh hi s covenant whi ch he
sware unto thy fathers, as i t i s thi s day (Deut. 8:18).
Thi s confi dence i n Gods covenant shoul d be the basi s of Chri s-
ti ans confi dence about the earthl y future. God wi l l progressi vel y ex-
tend Hi s vi si bl e ki ngdom on earth i n response to the covenantal
fai thful ness of Hi s peopl e. The end resul t wi l l be the creati on of an
i nternati onal theocrati c ki ngdom i n whi ch al l nati ons and peopl es
wi l l be formal l y covenanted to God. 1
Chri sti ans have al l the ti me i n the worl d to accompl i sh thi s task.
I n fact, the ti me al l otted to us for thi s task i s how the Bi bl e defi nes
1. Gary North, Healer of the Nati om: Biblical Blueprints for I nternational Relations (Ft.
619
al l ,the ti me i n the worl d. So shal l my word be that goeth forth out
of my mouth: i t shal l not return unto me voi d, but i t shal l accom-
pl i sh that whi ch I pl ease, and i t shal l prosper i n the thi ng whereto I
sent i t (I sa. 55: 11). Thus, we can devi se short-term tacti cs i n terms
of Gods l ong-run strategy, a strategy whi ch i s covenantal i s nature.
I t i s ti me to adopt a vi si on of vi ctory regardi ng the ki ngdom of
God i n hi story. To do l ess i s to betray the God of the covenant. As
Hi s sol e, l awful , del egated agents i n hi story, Chri sti ans must make
vi si bl e i n hi story the ki ngdom of God whi ch exi sts al ready i n eterni ty
and exi sts judi ci al l y. The ascensi on of Jesus to the ri ght hand of God
was the defi ni ti ve hi stori cal mani festati on of Chri sts ki ngdom rei gn;
i t i s our task to make Hi s rei gn mani fest i n hi story. Thi s i s the re-
qui rement of the Great Commi ssi on (Matt. 28:18 -20).2 Thi s spi ri -
tual and cultural commi ssi on must not be evaded or defi ned out of ex-
i stence by Hi s peopl e.
To do thi s, we must break from the mental chai ns of the present
humani st order whi ch cl ai ms to represent al l the peopl e. Thi s i s a
fal se cl ai m. I t represents onl y some of the peopl e. I t surel y does not
publ i cl y and sel f-consci ousl y represent anyone before the judgment
throne of God, whi ch i s what ci vi l government i s supposed to do.
Paul cal l ed ci vi l magi strates ministers OJ God. For rul ers are not a ter-
ror to good works, but to the evi l . Wi l t thou then not be afrai d of the
power? do that whi ch i s good, and thou shal t have prai se of the
same: For he i s the mi ni ster of God to thee for good. But i f thou do
that whi ch i s evi l , be afrai d; for he beareth not the sword i n vai n: for
he i s the mi ni ster of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon hi m that
doeth evi l (Rem. 13:3-4).
Chri sti ans are ci ti zens of at l east two nati ons: an earthl y one and
a heavenl y one. Paul wrote: For our ci ti zenshi p i s i n heaven (Phi l .
3: 20a, New Ameri can Standard Bi bl e). Our pri mary al l egi ance i s to
the second nati on. I t i s our task to begi n to devel op i n hi story the
pri nci pl es of ci ti zenshi p i n the heavenl y ki ngdom. We are to seek to
persuade our fel l ow earthl y ci ti zens of the benefi ts of hol di ng dual
ci ti zenshi p papers. I n the Uni ted States, bi rth i nsi de the nati onal
boundari es pl us ei ghteen years of l i fe gi ves one ful l ci ti zenshi p. Bap-
ti sm, professi on of fai th, taki ng the sacrament of the Lords Supper,
and l i vi ng a l i fe i n outward conformi ty to Gods reveal ed l aws gi ves
2. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., The Greatness of the Great Commi ssi on; Jour nal of
Christtim Reconstruction, VI I (Wi nter 1981), pp. 19-47.
one ful l church ci ti zenshi p, whi ch i s covenantal l y representati ve of
heavenl y ci ti zenshi p (Matt. 18:18).
God wants every nati on to have i ts pol i ti cal ci ti zenshi p match i ts
peopl es heavenl y ci ti zenshi p. Thi s goal can be achi eved posi ti vel y:
by wi despread conversi ons of pol i ti cal ci ti zens to savi ng covenantal
fai th i n Jesus Chri st. Thi s new pol i ti cal order can subsequentl y be
mai ntai ned though not wi thout conti nui ng wi despread conversi ons
on a judi ci al l y negati ve basi s: by removi ng l egal access to the fran-
chi se and ci vi l offi ces from those who refuse to become communi cant
members of Tri ni tari an churches. Very few Chri sti ans bel i eve that
the former strategy i s possi bl e, and even fewer of them bel i eve that
the l atter strategy i s moral .
Chri sti ans therefore conti nue to l i ve under apostate ci vi l cove-
nants. They conti nue to affi rm i mpl i ci tl y and even expl i ci tl y that
there i s one area of l i fe whi ch i s i mmune to the gospel , and requi red
by God to remai n i mmune from the gospel : ci vi l government. They
real l y bel i eve that i f every voter on earth were a Chri sti an, al l ci vi l
consti tuti ons shoul d remai n rel i gi ous y neutral on pri nci pl e.
Meanwhi l e, they i nsi st: there i s no neutrali~. They i gnore James
warni ng: A doubl e mi nded man i s unstabl e i n al l hi s ways (James
1:8).
CONCLUSION
The cri si s of the Western l egal tradi ti on i s not merel y a cri si s i n
l egal phi l osophy but al so a cri si s i n l aw i tsel f. Legal phi l osophers
have al ways debated, and presumabl y al ways wi l l debate, whether
l aw i s founded i n reason and moral i ty or whether i t i s onl y the wi l l of
the pol i ti cal rul er. I t i s not necessary to resol ve that debate i n order
to concl ude that as a matter of hi stori cal fact the l egal systems of al l
the nati ons that are hei rs to the Western l egal tradi ti on have been
rooted i n certai n bel i efs or postul ates: that i s, the l egal systems them-
sel ves have presupposed the val i di ty of those bel i efs. Today those
bel i efs or postul ates such as the structural i ntegri ty of l aw, i ts on-
goi ngness, i ts rel i gi ous roots, i ts transcendent qual i ti es are rapi dl y
di sappeari ng, not onl y from the mi nds of phi l osophers, not onl y
from the mi nds of l awmakers, judges, l awyers, l aw teachers, and
other members of the l egal professi on, but from the consci ousness of
the vast majori ty of ci ti zens, the peopl e as a whol e; and more than
that, the y are di sappeari ng from the l aw i tsel f. The l aw i s becomi ng
more fragmented, more subjecti ve, geared more to expedi ency and
l ess to moral i ty, concerned more wi th i mmedi ate consequences and
l ess wi th consi stency or conti nui ty. Thus the hi stori cal soi l of the
Western l egal tradi ti on i s bei ng washed away i n the twenti eth cen-
tury, and the tradi ti on i tsel f i s threatened wi th col l apse.
Harol d J. Berman (1983)
*Berman, Law and Revolution: The Formation of the W~tern Legal Tradition (Cam-
bri dge, Massachusetts: Harvard Uni versi ty Press, 1983), p. 39.
CONCLUSI ON
There is no neutrali~.
You cant beat something with nothing.
We see a confl i ct goi ng on today i n every area of l i fe. I t i s a war
over fi rst pri nci pl es. I t i s ul ti matel y a war over the covenant. Whose
covenant wi l l i ndi vi dual s affi rm, Gods or Satans? Bei ng covenantal ,
thi s confl i ct al so necessari l y i nvol ves the al l egi ance of three corporate
covenantal i nsti tuti ons: Church, State, and fami l y. Whi ch covenant
wi l l these God-authori zed corporate monopol i es affi rm, Gods or
Satans? Whi ch covenant wi l l be the source of l aw for them?
The humani st has made hi s choi ce agai nst Gods covenant. He
has made thi s choi ce personal l y, and he sees to i t that al l those cove-
nantal i nsti tuti ons i n whi ch he has authori ty have al so made the
same choi ce. The probl em today i s that Chri sti ans refuse to make
thi s choi ce. They pretend that such a choi ce i s unnecessary to thei r
sal vati on, even uncal l ed for bi bl i cal l y. They refuse to thi nk i n terms
of the fi ve poi nts of the covenant. They want Jesus as Savi or but not
as Lord, meani ng cozsenantal Lord. 1 They thi nk they can take part of
Jesus offi ce and l eave the rest. They thi nk they are not under the ful l
covenantal obl i gati ons of God when they accept Jesus Chri st as thei r
savi or. They do not real l y bel i eve that God i mposes Hi s covenantal
standards on professed Chri sti ans to test the val i di ty of thei r publ i c
confessi on. They say that they bel i eve i n the Book of Gal ati ans, the
book that frees Chri sti ans from the l aw of God. Gal ati ans, Gal a-
ti ans , they cry, conveni entl y forgetti ng Paul s warni ng i n Gal ati ans:
Now the works of the fl esh are mani fest, whi ch are these; adul tery,
forni cati on, uncl eanness, l asci vi ousness, i dol atty, wi tchcraft, hatred,
vari ance, emul ati ons, wrath, stri fe, sedi ti ons, heresi es, envyi ngs, murders,
1. For a defense of the Lordshi p of Chri st, see John MacArthur, Jr., The Gospel
According to J ssus (Grand Rapi ds, Mi chi gan: Zondervan Academi e, 1988).
625
drunkenness, revel l i ngs, and such l i ke: of the whi ch I tel l you before, as I
have al so tol d you i n ti me past, that they whi ch do such thi ngs shal l not i n-
heri t the ki ngdom of God (Gal . 5:19-21).
The adul tery, forni cati on, uncl eanness, and l asci vi ousness of
major Armi ni an, anti nomi an, di spensati onal l eaders have been
spread al l over the front pages (and back pages) of the newspapers i n
the l ast few years. Why? Because thqy have lived consistent with thir theol-
ogy! They have publ i cl y despi sed Cal vi ni st covenant theol ogy. They
have sai d thi s theol ogy i s of the devi l . They have done whatever pos-
si bl e to di scredi t i t. And then they unzi pped thei r trousers to prove
thei r personal consi stency to thei r publ i cl y stated fai th. They have
testi fi ed under bedcovers that they are under anti nomi an grace, not
bi bl i cal l aw.
The sancti ons have come. Extra, extra, read al l about i t !
Detai l s at el even! But these sancti ons have not been i mposed by
thei r denomi nati ons unti l l ong after the sancti ons have been i mposed
publ i cl y by the secul ar humani st medi a. And so the curse of Nathan
burdens the Church today just as i t di d i n Davi ds day: . . . by thi s
deed thou hast gi ven great occasi on to the enemi es of the LORD to
bl aspheme . . . (H Sam. 12:14). These pastors, l i vi ng fai thful l y and
consi stentl y i n terms of thei r publ i cl y stated theol ogy, have gi ven
great occasi on to the enemi es of the Lord to bl aspheme.
For thi s they may get suspended by thei r denomi nati ons for two
whol e years. Or transferred to a di fferent presbytery. When they
refuse to submi t even to thi s, thei r denomi nati ons qui etl y erase thei r
names from the l i st of offi ci al pastors. Nothi ng more. The three-ri ng
ci rcus wi l l therefore go on. The scandal s wi l l conti nue; the enemi es
of God wi l l be conti nue to bl aspheme. And l augh.
God wi l l therefore escal ate Hi s sancti ons agai nst the churches.
Count on i t. Prepare for i t. God wi l l not be mocked.
Modern Chri sti ans are l i ke the I srael i tes of El i jahs day: they
stand between two covenants and two covenant sacri fi ces, and they
wai t. And El i jah came unto al l the peopl e, and sai d, How l ong hal t
ye between two opi ni ons? i f the LORD be God, fol l ow hi m: but i f
Baal , then fol l ow hi m. And the peopl e answered hi m not a word
(I Ki . 18:21). They wai ted then, and they wai t today. And wai t.
They want to see whi ch way the fi re fal l s. After vi si bl e judgment
comes, they thi nk to themsel ves, then they wi l l deci de. Unti l i t
comes, they wi l l hedge thei r bets.
Conclusion 627
El i jah wanted the peopl e to make thei r deci si on before the fi re
fel l . He wanted them to accept the covenant on i ts own meri ts, not i n
terms of power. But they bel i eved i n the power rel i gi on. So di d the
pri ests of Baal .
The probl em today i s that Davi ds prayer to God i s sti l l worth
prayi ng, and someday i t wi l l be answered, just as i t was answered on
Mt. Carmel : I t i s ti me for thee, LORD, to work: for they have made
voi d thy l aw (Ps. 119:126).
The Ki ngdom as K-Mart
What we have today i s a generati on of Chri sti ans who thi nk of
Gods ki ngdom as i f i t were a gi ant di scount chai n store. You take a
l i ttl e of thi s, some of that, and expect a 30 % di scount or more. Men
want sal vati on, but they do not want di sci pl i ne. They want a sense
of freedom but not a sense of duty. Save soul s, not cul tures! i s thei r
cry to God.
They want a personal covenant wi th God, but not a fami l y cove-
nant. They send thei r chi l dren to the publ i c school s because i ts
free. They woul d be outraged i f thei r churches di sci pl i ned them for
thi s publ i c mark of rebel l i on. I ts a fami l y deci si on. I ts none of the
churchs busi ness. And after twel ve or more years of educati on at
taxpayers expense, thei r chi l dren then rebel . They l eave the fai th.
They turn to another covenant. They head strai ght for hel l . How
di d thi s happen? the parents wai l . The answer i s obvi ous, so they
avoi d i t l i ke the pl ague. The parents sent them there. I t was free .
Chri sti an women abort thei r unborn chi l dren, and they fi nd
theol ogi ans, pastors, and especi al l y profi t-seeki ng Chri sti an physi -
ci ans who support them i n thi s deci si on.
2
I f anyone were to suggest
that these women shoul d be excommuni cated, al ong wi th those who
advi sed them to abort thei r chi l dren, l et al one publ i cl y executed,
they al l woul d repl y, wi th the chorus of the U.S. Supreme Court,
Thi s i s a personal deci si on between women and thei r physi ci ans.
The Church and the State shoul d mi nd thei r own busi ness. No bi b-
l i cal covenants here!
Gods ki ngdom? Yes, i ndeed; justnot Gods l aw. Just not Gods
covenant sancti ons i n hi story. Just not Gods i nsti tuti onal , hi erar-
2. Wal ter O. Spi tzer and Carl yl e L. Sayl or (eds.), Birth Control and the Chri$tian: A
Protestant Symposium on The Control of Human Reproduction (Wheaton, I l l i noi s: Tyndal e
House, 1969), especi al l y Secti ons 2, 4; D. Gareth Jones, Brave New People. Ethical
I ssues at the Commencement of L@e (Downers Grove, I l l i noi s: I nterVarsi ty Press, 1984).
chi cal di sci pl i ne. A l i ttl e bi t of ki ngdom, but not too mucha di s-
count ki ngdom. We can al most hear i t over the stores i ntercom:
Shoppers, today K-Mart has a fantasti c deal on Gods ki ngdom.
Si xty percent off! Not just 60% off the pri ce; 60% off the ki ngdom
i tsel f.
I nvisible Kingdom; Silent God
Does God act i n hi story? Yes, but He supposedl y never tel l s us
when. He honors Hi s covenant, no doubt, but supposedl y thi s has
no publ i c mani festati ons.
3
Thi s way, God i s ni cel y si l ent, whi ch then
al l ows us Chri sti ans to make a permanent cease-fi re agreement wi th
Satans covenanted fol l owers, who are forever to be our l awful earthl y
empl oyers and masters. We need thei r respect, you understand. We
need to buy thei r respect wi th our si l ence. As hi stori an Mark Nel l
says so pl ai nl y, Chri sti an hi stori ans themsel ves made a strategi c ad-
justment that both opened the door to thei r parti ci pati on i n the uni -
versi ty worl d and encouraged more respectful treatment of rel i gi on.
Thi s adjustment was to abandon at l east whi l e worki ng wi thi n uni -
versi ty preci ncts the tradi ti on of provi denti al hi stori ography stretch-
i ng to Constanti nes Eusebi us. I t marked a wi l l i ngness to consi der
hi story wri ti ng i n the sphere of creati on rather than i n the sphere of
grace, a mani festati on of general rather than speci al revel ati on.A I n
other words, none of Gods covenant sanctions in histo~ are to be acknowl-
edged by Chriktian historians. Not those who expect tenure, anyway.
What these peopl e want i s discount salvation. Low, l ow pri ces, but
wi th al l the fri l l s removed. The y want personal heal i ng but wi thout
any personal responsi bi l i ty for extendi ng the ki ngdom of God i nto
every area of l i fe. They want a Creator God who i s not a ful l -scal e
Redeemer God. They want a God who tel l s them, Look, thi s worl d
i s fal l en, but not that fal l en. I t i s corrupt, but not that corrupt. You
can fi nd a degree of peace here. Just thi nk of me as the God who
created the worl d, who then watched Adam pol l ute the worl d wi th
si n, yet who real l y i snt i nterested i n redeemi ng the worl d com-
pl etel y, cause I m just good ol d God the Creator, not God the
Redeemer. I am God the Sustai ner of l i mi ted perversi on i n hi story,
3. Thi s i s the theol ogy of Meredi th G. Kl i ne, George M. Marsden, and just
about every other Chri sti an i ntel l ectual over the l ast century. I n thei r theol ogy,
AI DS i s just another random event, humanl y speaki ng.
4. M. Nel l , Contemporary Hi stori cal Wri ti ng: Practi ce and Presupposi ti ons,
Christiani& and HistoT Nswslettm (Feb. 1988), p. 17.
Conclusion 629
not God the Judge of perversi on i n hi story. When these peopl e
speak of God the Creator, they do not mean the God who created the
worl d i n si x l i teral days; they mean a hypotheti cal god of thei r i magi -
nati on who does not bri ng ful l -scal e covenant judgments i n hi story.
God the Creator i n the theol ogy of ethi cal dual i sm and natural l aw
means God the Stand-Patter. Thi s i s the God of the rescue mi ssi on,
wi th free meal s, hot showers, and cl ean sheets for burned-out Chri s-
ti an schol ars hol di ng advanced academi c degrees. They woul d, to a
man, rewri te Genesi s 25, for they have al ready done so i n thei r own
tenured l i ves:
And Esau sod pottage: and Jacob came from the fi el d, and he was fai nt:
And Jacob sai d to Esau, Feed me, I pray thee, wi th that same wheat and
barl ey pottage; for I am fai nt: therefore was hi s name cal l ed Wheaton. And
Esau sai d, Sel l me thi s day thy bi rthri ght. And Jacob sai d, Behol d, I am at
the poi nt to di e: and what profi t shal l thi s bi rthri ght do to me? And Esau
sai d, ,Swear to me thi s day; and he sware unto hi m: and he sol d hi s bi rth-
ri ght unto Esau. Then Esau gave Jacob bread and pottage of I enti l es; and
he di d eat and dri nk, and rose up, and went hi s way: thus Jacob despi sed
hi s bi rthri ght (Gen. 25:29-34; Ki ng Saul Edi ti on).
The pi eti st decl ares, God saves soul s, not cul tures. God judges
soul s i n eterni ty, not cul tures i n hi story. And even i f He may occa-
si onal l y judge a cul ture, we Chri sti ans must attri bute thi s to the
forces of hi story, i .e., the l atest fad theory of hi stori cal change that
has captured the hi stori cal gui l d. Any theory of hi stori cal causati on
i s open for di scussi on by Chri sti ans, except one: Gods provi dence.
Any theory of ci vi l government i s open for di scussi on by Chri sti ans,
except one: Gods theocracy. These two opi ni ons are l i nked together,
and the common thread i s a rejecti on of Eusebi us and Constanti ne,
for Constanti ne, the head of ci vi l government i n Rome, publ i cl y
pl aced an enti re ci vi l i zati on under the sancti ons of Gods ci vi l cove-
nant, as di d hi s successors (except Jul i an the apostate, a two-year
retrogressi on who fai l ed). Thi s was a bad, bad precedent i n the eyes
of pi eti sts, whether they are fundamental i st pol i ti cal conservati ves or
tenured neo-evangel i cal pol i ti cal l i beral s. No creed but the New
Testament pastoral epi stl es and no l aw but l ove!
Thi s same di scount ki ngdom syndrome exi sted i n Davi ds day,
too. I ts promoters i nfuri ated Davi d. He cri ed out to God: I hate the
doubl e-mi nded, but I l ove your l aw (Ps. 119:113, New Ki ng James
Ver si on).
Permanent Cease-Fi res Are Conceal ed Surrenders
At the ti me of the Ameri can Revol uti on, there were three mi l l i on
peopl e l i vi ng i n the U. S.; of these, 20,000 were Roman Cathol i cs
and about 3,000 were Jews.
5
Who i nheri ted the country? The
Uni tari ans and thei r spi ri tual hei rs. They used the myth of neutral -
i ty to capture the nati onal government covenantal l y whi ch Rush-
doony has al ways deni edG and therefore pol i ti cal l y, whi ch Rush-
doony has al ways affi rmed.7 So deepl y i s the myth of neutral i sm i m-
bedded~ he wri tes, that to deal real i sti cal l y and honestl y wi th i t i s
tantamount to pol i ti cal sui ci de. Pol i ti ci ans must assure every l ast
pl underi ng facti on of i ts sancti moni ous neutral i sm whi l e i nsi sti ng on
i ts own. Each parti cul ar facti on, of course, i nsi sts on i ts own i mpar-
ti al , neutral and objecti ve stance whi l e depl ori ng the parti san and
subjecti ve posi ti on of i ts adversari es. Al l are equal l y commi tted to
the great modern myth that such neutral i ty i s possi bl e. Thi s myth i s
basi c to cl assi cal l i beral i sm and to most school s of thought, conserva-
ti ve and radi cal , whi ch are deri ved from i t .
8
Thi s myth of neutral i ty
steadi l y l eads to the concept of humani st worl d government; l ocal
l oyal ti es are not suffi ci entl y broad; true neutral i ty can onl y be
achi eved through i nternati onal pol i ti cs and i nternati onal moral i t y.g
The Consti tuti onal capture of Ameri ca by the Uni tari ans i n 1788
was based on the myth of neutral i ty. They destroyed the bi bl i cal
State covenant 10 at the nati onal l evel , and then qui etl y, unobtrusi vel y
substi tuted apostate state and l ocal covenants. Thi s was al so done i n
the name of neutral i ty, as Rushdoony has sai d so wel l . I n short, new
covenant, new god. Thi s new god i s reveal ed by hi s l aw-order i n Amer-
i can soci ety.
Rushdoony wri tes that i n any cul ture the source of the law is the god
of that society. 11 The source of bi bl i cal l aw i s the God of the Bi bl e. Hi s
moral character i s reveal ed i n Hi s l aws al l Hi s l aws, not just the
Ten Commandments. Wi thout bi bl i cal l aw at the center of a
5. R. J. Rushdoony, The Nature of the American System (Fai rfax, Vi rgi ni a: Tho-
burn Press, [1965] 1978), p. 67.
6. See Appendi x B.
7. I bid., ch. 5: Neutral i ty.
8. I bid., p. 68.
9. I bid., p. 69.
10. Ray R. Sutton, That You May Prosper: Dominion By Covenant (Tyl er, Texas: I n-
sti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1987), ch. 12: The Bi bl i cal State Covenant.
11. R. J. Rushdoony, The I n.rtitutes of Biblical Law (Nutl ey, New Jersey: Crai g
Press, 1973), p. 4.
Conclusion 631
soci etys l egal order, z i ts l egal order testi fi es fal sel y regardi ng the
true source of al l moral l y val i d l aws, namel y, the God of the Bi bl e. I t
testi fi es fal sel y regardi ng God. A soci ety i s i n rebel l i on agai nst God
to the extent that i ts peopl e refuse to acknowl edge i n the ci vi l real m
the terms of the ci vi l covenant. There i s a speci fi c l egal order whi ch
God requi res i n Hi s Word. God i s total l y soverei gn, as mani fested by
the presence of Hi s requi red l aws and sancti ons. A soci ety that
deni es the conti nui ng judi ci al val i di ty of Ol d Testament ci vi l l aw i n
general thereby refuses to acknowl edge that thi s worl d was, i s, and
ever shal l be a theocracy. God rules. How does a nati on testi fy i n hi s-
tory to thi s fact? Gods rules. To the extent that the l egal order does
not conform to the l egal standard that God announces i n Hi s Bi bl e,
to that extent i s a soci ety i n rebel l i on agai nst God.
Judi ci al Evangel i sm
That God requi res Tri ni tari an evangel i sm to be l aw-ori ented i s
deni ed by vi r tual l y al l Chr i sti an denomi nati ons and congr egati ons
today. They deny that God reveal s hi msel f i n New Testament ti mes
as cl earl y through Hi s l aw as He di d i n the Ol d Testament. Chri s-
ti ans shoul d ask themsel ves: Why woul d God choose to reveal hi m-
sel f l ess cl earl y i n the New Testament era by al l owi ng every soci ety
except Puri tan New Engl and to adopt a l aw-order other than what
He reveal ed i n the Ol d Testament? The theonomi sts have an answer
to thi s i ntri gui ng questi on. God al l ows thi s onl y to prove a poi nt: the
vi si bl e fai l ure i n hi story of al l l aw-orders compared to the vi si bl e suc-
cess of Hi s reveal ed l aw-order. Thi s vi si bl e fai l ure can then become a
tool of evangel i sm.
Behol d, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my
12. At the center of I srael was the Ark of the Covenant. I n the Ark was the l aw:
the two tabl ets.
The fact that God has al l owed thi s judi ci al evangel i cal testi mony
to fade, ti me after ti me, when Hi s peopl e have fai l ed to mai ntai n Hi s
l aws whenever they have gai ned pol i ti cal i nfl uence, does not mean
that Hi s permanent norm for al l soci eti es i s a si mi l ar abandonment
of Ol d Testament l aw. I t onl y means that so far i n hi story, He has re-
peatedl y al l owed Hi s peopl e to depart from Hi s l aw, just as I srael
di d, onl y to fi nd themsel ves as sl aves to thei r God-hati ng enemi es.
God does not annul Hi s sancti ons i n hi story; He conti nues to en-
force them.
The questi on of questi ons for Chri sti an appl i ed theol ogy, ethi cs,
and soci al theory i s thi s one: Why shoul d Chri sti ans accept as thei r
l ong-term earthl y goal the establ i shment of any system of ci vi l l aw
other than the one set forth i n the Bi bl e? I n other words, why shoul d
Chri sti ans affi rm in principle the acceptabi l i ty of any l aw-order other
than bi bl i cal l aw? Why shoul d they enthusi asti cal l y choose second-
best, thi rd-best, or even total i tari an ci vi l order i n preference to bi bl i -
cal l aw? Why i s thei r l ast choi ce al ways bi bl i cal l aw? We coul d
search for answers i n psychol ogy, soci ol ogy, educati on, and i n any
other academi c speci al ti es. I prefer to begi n l ooki ng for the answer i n
the area of ethi cs: Christians prefer irresponsibili~.
The Suppression of Go&s Eternal Sanctions
I t i s not just bi bl i cal l aw that modern evangel i cal i sm rejects.
Where i s any cl earl y stated doctri ne of hel l and eternal torment i n
most of todays evangel i sm programs? The doctri ne of hel l has stead-
i l y di sappeared from mass evangel i sm ever si nce D. L. Moody an-
nounced: Terror never brought a man i n yet . 13 Campus Crusade
for Chri st i s todays model : not a word about eternal puni shment i n
thei r pri mary evangel i sm materi al s. The questi on of evangel i cal
questi ons, Are you saved? does not have a forthri ght, open answer
to the obvi ous response, Saved from what? 14
The doctri ne of covenantal sancti ons has been the weakest poi nt
of the theol ogy of the Protestant Reformati on. Protestanti sm has
never been cl ear on exactl y what the sacraments are: ~udicial sanc-
13. Ci ted by Stanl ey N. Gundry, Loue Them I n: Th Proclamation Theology of Dwight
L. Mooaj (Chi cago: Moody Press, 1976), p. 99.
14. The Evangel i sm Expl osi on program i s an excepti on to thi s rul e. I ts founder,
D. James Kennedy, has publ i cl y preached that modern preachi ng sel dom menti ons
hel l . Kenneth Kantzer of Christiani~ Toa&y and Wheaton Col l ege remarked i n the l ate
1980s that he had not heard a sermon on hel l i n a quarter of a century. I bel i eve hi m.
Conclusion 633
ti ons. I nstead, the sacraments are seen as ei ther pure memori al s (phi -
l osophi cal nomi nal i sm) or semi -Cathol i c (phi l osophi cal r eal i sm). 15
Step by step, Protestants have retreated from any concept of publ i c
sancti ons agai nst unbel i ef, i ncl udi ng the outward worki ngs of unbe-
l i ef (e. g., aborti on), unti l today, even the doctri ne of hel l i s cal l ed
i nto questi on. 16
Academi c Chri sti an theol ogy today has been stri pped of al most
al l i ts di sti ncti ve i n the name of anti -covenantal i sm. The covenant
i s a package deal , whether you are for i t or agai nst i t. When peopl e
abandon i t, they i n pri nci pl e have abandoned al l of i t. Over ti me,
thi s abandonment forces peopl e to restructure thei r theol ogi es i n al l
fi ve poi nts. Some peopl e catch on earl i er than others, but the di rec-
ti on away from the covenant i s cl ear: away from Cal vi ni sm. Consi s-
tent theol ogi ans cannot hang onto onl y part of the bi bl i cal covenant. 17
15. As i n Lutherani sms consubstanti ati on doctri ne, where Jesus i n Hi s perfect
humani ty i s i n some way present i n or near the sacrament of the Lords Supper. For
a phi l osophi cal cr i ti que, see Cor nel i us Van Ti l , A Survey of Christian Epi~temology, VOI,
I I of I n D@se of Biblical Christiani~ (den Dul k Foundati on, 1969), ch. 6.
16. A recent exampl e of thi s 40-year dri ft away from the Bi bl e took pl ace i n May,
1989, at Tri ni ty Evangel i cal Di vi ni ty School , near Chi cago, I l l i noi s. Tri ni ty, wi th as-
si stance from the Nati onal Associ ati on of Evangel i cal , hel d a conference of 385
theol ogi ans, Chri sti an l eaders, and l aymen: Evangel i cal Affi rmati ons/89 . The goal
of conference organi zers Cad F. H. Henry and Kenneth Kantzer was to devel op a
document defi ni ng the word evangel i cal . (Better four decades l ate than never! )
Henrys 1947 book, The Troubled Consci ence of Fundamentali&n, i s accuratel y descri bed
as one of the foundi ng documents of neo-evangel i caf i sm. That he l ater wrote Evan-
gelical in Search of Zdenti~ (Word, 1976) i s al so worth menti oni ng. They are sti l l
searchi ng. The di l emma of neo-evangel i cal i sm today i s acute; i ts advocates do not
know what they bel i eve i n, except for thei r si ngl e creedal formul ati on: Fundamen-
tal i sm i s too restri cti ng on our career goal s.
At the Tr i ni ty confer ence, a debate br oke out over the doctr i ne of anni hi l a-
ti oni sm, al so known as condi ti onal i sm, a doctri ne hel d by Seventh-Day Adven-
ti sts, Jehovahs Wi tnesses, Chri stadel phi ans, etc. I t teaches that there i s onl y an-
ni hi l ati on for unr egener ate si nner s i n eter ni ty no hel l or l ake of fi r e. Theol ogi an
J. I . Packer adamantl y pressed the assembl y to adopt a statement affi rmi ng the tra-
di ti onal creedal posi ti on of eternal puni shment, but to no avai l . The vote was spl i t,
but the chai rman d~cl ared that those refusi ng to i ncl ude a posi ti ve statement on such
a negati ve i dea had been i n the majori ty. Neo-evangel i cal i sm, l i ke the cul ts, i s now
prepared to shrug i ts col l ecti ve shoul ders to the questi on of Gods sancti ons wi th a
noncommi ttal What the hel l ? Lacki ng fi re i n i ts eschatol ogy, i t l acks fi re i n i ts bel l y.
Short on ortho in i ts doxy, neo-evangel i cal i sm i s i ncreasi ngl y bent out of shape. For an
account of thi s confer ence, see World (J une 3, 1989), p. 9.
17. A good exampl e of thi s reacti onary shi ft i s the magazi ne that i n the 1970s was
cal l ed Present Troth. I t was offi ci al l y Cal vi ni sti c. I n r eacti on agai nst Chr i sti an Recon-
structi on, i ts edi tor i n the earl y 1980s swi tched hi s theol ogy to Barthi ani sm and out-
r i ght theol ogi cal l i ber al i sm. I t i s now cal l ed Virdtct. At l east he sti l l bel i eves i n judg-
i ng: mans judgi ng Gods eternal l y present truth. A si mi l ar shi ft has taken pl ace i n
The hi story of Massachusetts from Governor John Wi nthrop i n 1630
to Governor Mi chael Dukaki s (a Harvard Law School grad) today,
or of Harvard Col l ege from 16361s to today, can be seen as a step-by-
step rejecti on of the bi bl i cal covenant. The hi story of Connecti cut
from i ts founder Thomas Hooker i n 1639 to Connecti cut sci on
George Bush (a Yal e grad) 19 today, or the hi story of Yal e Col l ege
from 1740
20
to today, can al so be vi ewed i n the same way. The hi s-
tory of Ameri ca has paral l el ed the devel opment of Massachusetts
and Connecti cut. That Dukaki s ran agai nst Bush for Presi dent i n
1988 i s representati ve of the i nfl uence of anti -covenantal i sm i n
Ameri can hi story. Harvard and Yal e sti l l domi nate the Ameri can
Establ i shment; onl y thei r theol ogi es have changed.
A Preference for I rresponsi bi l i ty
I n the Northern Ki ngdom from the days of Jeroboams revol t,
there were onl y two publ i cl y acceptabl e operati ng rel i gi ous systems:
tbe worshi p of Jehovah by means of Baal i st i cons and practi ces (the
gol den cal ves: I Ki . 12:28) and the worshi p of Baal by means of Baal i st
i cons and practi ces (1 Ki . 18). El i jah chal l enged representati ves of the
peopl e of I sr ael to choose between Baal and Jehovah, but they an-
swered not a word (I Ki . 18:21). Even when they at l ast decl ared them-
sel ves i n favor of God (I Ki . 18:39), i t was onl y as a resul t of Gods di s-
pl ay of greater supernatural and vi si bl e power, and thei r commi tment
di d not l ast l onger than El i jahs abi l i ty to repeat such di spl ays on a
regul ar, i nvari abl e basi s. I n thei r deepest apostasy, they became di s-
ci pl es of the power rel i gi on. They returned spi ri tual l y to Egypt.
the l i fe of anti nomi an Jon Zens, who used to publ i sh a Cal vi ni st magazi ne, Ba@d
Reformation Review, who i s now a sel f-consci ous Anabapti st as a resul t of hi s reacti on
to Chri sti an Reconstructi on. He changed the name of hi s magazi ne to Searching
Together. Roger Wi l l i ams l egacy l i ves on. Both edi tors fi nal l y recogni zed that Cal vi n-
i sm i s covenantal , and the bi bl i cal covenant i s a uni tar y system. They then aban-
doned Cal vi ni sm. Thi s connecti on between Cal vi ni sm and the bi bl i cal covenant
may al so eventual l y occur to semi nar y pr ofessor s at Cal vi ni st i nsti tuti ons, though
not i n the near future, I suspect.
18. Samuel El i ot Mori son, The Founding of Harvard College (Cambri dge, Massa-
chusetts: Harvard Uni versi ty Press, 1935).
19. He i s al so a member of Yal es Skul l and Bones secret soci ety. On Skul l and
Bones, see Antony Sutton, Ameri ca? Secret Establishment (Bi l l i ngs, Montana: Li berty
House, 1986).
20. Loui s Leonard Tucker, Puritan Protagonist: President Thomas Clapp of Yale College
(Wi l l i amsburg, Vi rgi ni a: I nsti tute of Earl y Ameri can Hi story and Cul ture; pub-
l i shed by the Uni versi ty of North Carol i na Press, 1962).
Conclusion 635
The Northern Ki ngdom was worse i n thi s regard than the South-
ern Ki ngdom was. Judah had the Templ e. I t had ri tual l y acceptabl e
rel i gi on. I t never adopted pure Baal i sm. God ther efor e del i ver ed
I srael i nto capti vi ty to the Assyri ans more than a century before He
del i vered Judah (and Assyri a) to the Babyl oni ans. Even so, He had
wai ted several centuri es before He abandoned I srael to Assyri a. The
Northern Ki ngdoms rel i gi ous practi ces had been corrupt from the
very begi nni ng, but there are degrees of corrupti on. For a ti me, God
graci ousl y del ays bri ngi ng Hi s negati ve sancti ons i n hi story. I t i s not
that He honors corrupti on; i nstead, He honors the absence of ful l
corrupti on. But corrupti on, l i ke i ncorrupti on, does not remai n
i dl e. Corrupti on grows or contracts. Both corrupti on and ri ghteous-
ness are ki ngdom pri nci pl es. I t depends upon whi ch ki ngdom we are
di scussi ng: Gods or Satans. Each ki ngdom seeks extensi on geo-
graphi cal l y, temporal l y, i nsti tuti onal l y, and psychol ogi cal l y. Each
serves as l eaven. 21 Each recogni zes that i n pri nci pl e, there can be no
neutral i ty. Each therefore recogni zes that as ti me goes on, there wi l l
be l ess and l ess cooperati on possi bl e between covenant-keepers and
covenant-breakers. There can be no combi nati on of l eavened and
unl eavened bread. The same i s true of soci ety.
Progressive Ethical Se~- Consciousness
Covenant-breakers general l y recogni ze the nature of thi s ethi cal
and i nsti tuti onal confl i ct earl i er than covenant-keepers do. They see
what wi l l happen when covenant-keepers at l ast become sel f-consci ous
i n thei r commi tment to Gods Bi bl e-reveal ed ki ngdom pri nci pl es.
Li ke the l eaders of the Jews who understood that Jesus had prophe-
si ed that He woul d ri se agai n i n three days, and so put a stone and ~
guards at the tomb, so are the covenant-breakers i n hi story. Si mi l arl y,
l i ke the di sci pl es who di d not understand what Jesus had sai d, and
who therefore fl ed i n despai r, so Chri sti ans have been i n thei r mi s-
understandi ng of Chri sts comprehensi ve chal l enge to non-Chri sti an
soci ety. They have not understood the comprehensi ve chal l enge of
the gospel .22 But eventual l y a few di sci pl es returned to the tomb,
onl y to fi nd i t empty. Eventual l y, a few more recogni zed that Jesus
21. Gary North, Unconditional Surrender: Gods Program for Victo~ (3rcl ed.; Tyl er,
Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1987), pp. 315-19, 325-26.
22. Gar y Nor th, I s the World Running Down? Crisis in the Chriitian Worldview (Tyl er,
Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1988), Appendi x C: Comprehensi ve
Redempti on: A Theol ogy for Soci al Acti on.
words were true. The word of Hi s resurrecti on spread among the
cal l ed-out ekklesia. Then the war between the ki ngdoms began i n
earnest earnest i n the sense of seri ous, and al so earnest i n the sense
of Gods down payment i n hi story of a future ful fi l l ment. When
Chri sti ans at l ast begi n to see the comprehensi ve i mpl i cati ons of the
resurrecti on, the war wi l l escal ate. (Thi s escal ati on has been goi ng
on si nce the resurrecti on, but i t has been a process marked by many
hi stori cal di sconti nui ti es.)
Once a-new phase of the war begi ns, both si des become i ncreas-
i ngl y consi stent. The cul tural advantage swi ngs to the covenant-
keepers whenever th~ honor the external laws of Gods covenant. Thei r obe-
di ence bri ngs vi si bl e, external bl essi ngs (Deut. 28:1-14), whi l e the re-
bel l i ous recei ve vi si bl e bl essi ngs more and more i n terms of thei r
publ i c honori ng of the ki ngdom pri nci pl es announced by the cove-
nant-keepers. I f they refuse to adapt, they grow weak and eventual l y
di sappear i n hi story. 23 Those who survi ve become i ncreasi ngl y de-
pendent on the good behavi or and good works of covenant-keepers.
Thi s dependence tends to persuade them to reduce thei r persecuti on
of covenant-keepers. They hi re them because covenant-keepers
when the latter are adhering to the external laws of Gods covenant ar e hon-
est, effecti ve workers. They buy from them for the same reason. Ser-
vi ce l eads to domi ni on.
The l aw of God i s the pri mary tool of domi ni on that God offers to
al l men, i rrespecti ve of thei r personal fai th. He gi ves the Hol y Spi ri t
to Hi s peopl e, but i f Hi s peopl e r efuse for a season to honor the
terms of the covenant, whi l e God-rejecti ng men wi l l i ngl y adopt the
external terms of the covenant, then the l atter wi l l prosper external l y.
The best exampl e of thi s process i n recent hi story i s the reversal of
economi c power between Japan and the Uni ted States, 1945-1988.
The Japanese, not bei ng Protestants, neverthel ess adopted the Prot-
estant ethi c of thei r Amer i can conquer or s. The Amer i cans, havi ng
become the ri chest peopl e on earth by thei r adherence to thi s ethi c,
steadi l y abandoned i t i n the post-War er a. They concl uded i ncor -
r ectl y that the mi ght of thei r hands had gotten them thi s weal th
23. My favori te exampl e i s the di si ntegrati on of the cul ture of the I k, a thor -
oughl y perverse Kenyan tri bal peopl e. See Col i n Tur nbul l , The Mountain Peopk
(New York: Touchstone, 1972). The author i n the Preface attempts to deny that thi s
soci ety i s i nhuman, by denyi ng the exi stence of common standards of what mi ght be
termed true humani ty. Once you deny the i mage of God i n man, as both Turnbul l
and the I k do, anythi ng goes. Eventual l y, ci vi l i zati on goes.
Conclusion 637
(Deut. 8:17). Worse; they concl uded that publ i c educati on had got-
ten them thi s weal th. They began to worshi p at the templ e of the
State. They began to put more fai th i n formal tests than i n actual on-
the-job producti vi ty. I n thi s sense, Confuci ani sm progressi vel y con-
quered Ameri ca, and one of the worst aspects of Confuci ani sm: the
worshi p of bureaucrati c status based on exami nati ons. z~
Long-term, i t requi res that God grant speci al grace (regenera-
ti on) to l arge numbers of peopl e i n order for a soci ety to adhere to
the external terms of the covenant. 25 But i n the short run, whi ch can
l ast several generati ons, the appropri ate vi si bl e bl essi ngs of the cove-
nant can go to those who are commi tted onl y external l y to parti cul ar
terms of the covenant. Japan, for exampl e, was the fi rst nati on to
adopt aborti on as a nati onal pol i cy. Why shoul d the Japanese be
uni quel y bl essed? I t i s a case of comparati ve obedi ence: the Sovi et
Uni on and the Chi nese al so began to promote aborti ons as nati onal
pol i cy; the Uni ted States accepts i ts l egal i ty, and i ts i ntel l ectual l ead-
ers are overwhel mi ngl y pro-aborti on. So, God l ooks at other aspects
of the covenant, those rel ated to the economi cs of domi ni on: hon-
esty, hard work, preci se work, ri gorous educati on, thri ft, future-
ori entati on, etc. I n these areas, the Japanese excel . They therefore
recei ve the l i ons share of the external bl essi ngs. I f they refuse to con-
vert to fai th i n Jesus Chri st, however, they wi l l fi nd i t i mpossi bl e to
adhere as a nati on to the external terms of the covenant. The ri si ng
sun wi l l set.
The Supposed Perversi~ of HistoV
The modern Church has abandoned fai th i n the covenantal cause-
and-effect rel ati onshi p between nati onal external conformi ty to
Gods l aw and Hi s external bl essi ngs. The Church therefore does not
bel i eve i n Gods sancti ons i n hi story. I n Ol d Testament ti mes, yes,
but not i n New Testament ti mes. The Church bel i eves that God
gave a cl earer revel ati on of Hi s ethi cal standards before Chri st came
to redeem the worl d. They bel i eve wi th Van Ti l that Gods vi si bl e
sancti ons i n hi story were a mark of Hi s condescensi on to Hi s peopl e
i n an earl i er era. 26 I n short, they concl ude that Chri sti ans do not
24. James Fal l ows, More Like Us: Making Amerka Great Again (Boston: Houghton
Mi ffl i n, 1989), ch. 10: Confuci ani sm Comes to Ameri ca.
25. Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace: The Btb[ical Basis of Progress (Tyl er,
26. He wri tes: I n the New Testament God expects hi s peopl e to l i ve more ful l y
i nto the absol ute future than i n the Ol d Testament. He expects of them that they wi l l
need such a vi si bl e revel ati on of the ethi cal character of God, so He
has removed thi s revel ati on of Hi msel f by removi ng Hi s hi stori cal
sancti ons. Covenant-breakers rejoi ce at thi s thought, for such a
removal of Gods sancti ons i n hi story l eaves Satans sancti ons i ntact:
cursi ng for the ri ghteous and bl essi ng for the unri ghteous. Thi s i s
what Van Ti l taught, and i t i s what al l non-theonomi c pessi mi l l en-
ni al i sts i mpl i ci tl y bel i eve.
Van Ti l al ways i nsi sted that there can be no neutral i ty. He meant
i ntel l ectual neutral i ty and ethi cal neutral i ty. But because he di d not
affi rm al l fi ve poi nts of the bi bl i cal covenant, he separated ethi cs
from hi stori cal sancti ons. Thus, as far as hi story i s concerned, he di d
affi rm neutral i ty. And yet he di dnt. Van Ti l real l y affi rmed satani c
sancti ons. He i mpl i ci tl y recogni zed (but never expl i ci tl y) that i f God
does not i mpose Hi s sancti ons, then Satan wi l l i mpose hi s. Meredi th
Kl i nes vi ew of hi stori cal sancti ons affi rms neutral i ty random sanc-
ti ons, humanl y speaki ng but Van Ti l , as a consi stent ami l l enni al -
i st, affi rmed reverse sancti ons: the bad get ri cher and the good get
poorer. Chri sts second comi ng i s a total reversal of thi s worl d of per-
verse sancti ons. Thus, nei ther the covenant-keeper nor the covenant-
breaker has an earnest of the fi nal judgment to come. Nei ther i s
gi ven a warni ng i n hi story of the eternal consequences of hi s re-
specti ve covenant. Hi story for the ami l l enni al i st i s not a tal e tol d by
an i di ot, si gni fyi ng nothi ng; i t i s a tal e tol d by a decei ver, conceal i ng
everythi ng.
Rarel y do modern Chri sti ans take seri ousl y the i dea of Thy
ki ngdom come. Thy wi l l be done i n earth, as i t i s i n heaven. For
exampl e, ful l y consi stent di spensati onal i sts refuse to pray Jesus
Jewi sh ki ngdom prayer i n thi s, the Church Age. As far as the di s-
pensati onal i st i s concerned, the Church Age mani fests al l the char-
acteri sti cs of ami l l enni al i sms psychol ogi cal l y i nternal and shri nki ng
eccl esi asti cal ki ngdom: the progressi ve defeat and i sol ati on of Chri s-
ti ans and Chri sti ani ty. They affi rm wi th Van Ti l the ethi cal perversi ty
of Gods hi stori cal sancti ons, at l east duri ng the Church Age.
Thus, they reject the l egi ti macy of Gods Ol d Testament l aw-order.
be abl e to sustai n the unevenness of the present revel ati on to the day of thei r death,
si nce thev have a cl ear er r evel ati on of the new heavens and the new ear th. I n the
Ol d Test~ment, on the contrary, God condescends to gi ve an external mani festati on
of the pri nci pl e that ri ghteousness, hol i ness and bl essedness bel ong together. Cor-
nel i us Van Ti l , Chrktian Theistic Ethics, vol . I I I of I n Defense of Biblical Chrz>tianity
(Phi l l i psburg, New Jersey: Presbyteri an& Reformed, 1980), p. 104.
Concision 639
Even i n the comi ng mi l l enni um, they i nsi st, thi s Ol d Testament,
~ewi sh ki ngdom l aw-order wi l l not i n and of i tsel f produce appro-
pri ate sancti ons; onl y Jesus physi cal presence i n Jerusal em wi l l pro-
duce them. Sancti ons then, unl i ke today, wi l l be swi ft. 27
Ki ngdom and Case Laws
Rarel y i n the hi story of the Church have l eaders or l aymen taken
the Ol d Testament case l aws seri ousl y. Chri sti ans have assumed that
Jesus mi ni stry, or at l east Paul s, di d away enti rel y wi th the case l aws.
Neverthel ess, when pressed to defend some tradi ti onal practi ce of any
parti cul ar denomi nati on, the groups i n-house theol ogi ans turn to the
Ol d Testament i n search of a l egal precedent. Thi s i s an aspect of what
Rushdoony has cal l ed smorgasbord religion: sel ecti vel y pi cki ng what you
l i ke out of a l arge sel ecti on of rul es and doctri nes. The best exampl e
of such New Testament sel ecti ve shoppi ng i s the stri ct sabbatari ans
appeal to al l but one verse i n the Ol d Testament requi ri ng Gods
peopl e to keep hol y the sabbath. The excepti on i s Exodus 35:2, the
verse to whi ch the capi tal sancti on i s attached: Si x days shal l work
be done, but on the seventh day there shal l be to you an hol y day, a
sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therei n shal l be
put to death. When i t comes to the i mposi ti on of thi s most ri gorous
of Ol d Testament ci vi l sancti ons, capi tal puni shment, the Church
fl ees i n hol y terror. Keep the sabbath hol y, but not that hol y!
A requi red sancti on cl earl y i denti fi es Gods atti tude toward a
parti cul ar i nfracti on. The sancti on tel l s us just how i mportant the
i nfracti on i s i n the overal l operati on of the ki ngdom of God. Wi thout
sancti ons, there can be no ci vi l l aw, and wi thout ci vi l l aw there can
be no ci vi l i zati on, meani ng no i denti fi abl e ki ngdom. But there i s
al ways some form of ci vi l i zati on. There are no hi stori cal vacuums.
There are therefore no pol i ti cal or judi ci al vacuums. Thus, we ought
to concl ude that God has requi red Hi s peopl e to decl are Hi s re-
qui red ci vi l sancti ons, whi l e sel f-procl ai med autonomous man has a
di fferent set of ci vi l l aws and sancti ons. God has reveal ed Hi s re-
qui red sancti ons i n Hi s Bi bl e-reveal ed l aw; sel f-procl ai med autono-
mous man has reveal ed hi s requi red sancti ons i n hi s vol umi nous
l egi sl ati on. For as l ong as there are i nfracti ons of a judi ci al standard,
there wi l l be sancti ons. The questi on i s: Whose? Whose standards
and whose sancti ons?
27. See footnote 29, Chapter 12, p. 586.
The Church has not wanted to face the stark contrast between
the two ki ngdoms. I t has wanted to fi nd some agreeabl e hal fway po-
si ti on. Chri sti an schol ars have endl essl y asserted the exi stence of
neutral , natural l aws that can serve as the Churchs earthl y hope of
the ages, an agreeabl e mi ddl e way that wi l l mi ti gate the confl i ct i n
hi story between the ki ngdom of God and the ki ngdom of man. The
wi nner of such a nai ve quest wi l l al ways be the ki ngdom of man.
Theoretical neutrali~ means mans operational autonomy: men do not have
to consi der what God requi res or threatens i n hi story.
God bri ngs Hi s sancti ons i n hi story, posi ti ve and negati ve. He
can do thi s through Hi s peopl e, who act representati vel y as Hi s
agents, or He can do i t through pagan armi es or seemi ngl y i mper-
sonal envi ronmental forces. He can choose war, pesti l ence, or fam-
i ne. He can even choose al l of the above. But He does bri ngs Hi s
sancti ons i n hi story. There i s no escape from these hi stori cal sanc-
ti ons, any more than there i s an escape from Hi s eternal sancti ons.
The former poi nt to the l atter. Hi story has coherence and meani ng
on~ because of these sancti ons and the decrees of God.
Gods hi stori cal sancti ons serve as evi dence of Hi s theocrati c sov-
erei gnty over the creati on. Thi s i s why Chri sti ans who rebel at the
i dea of theocracy al so must rebel agai nst the i dea of Gods temporal
sancti ons. The i dea of the nati onal covenant repel s them, for such a
covenant testi fi es to the exi stence of a Chri sti an ci vi l hi erarchy,
Chri sti an ci vi l l aws, Chri sti an ci vi l sancti ons, and Chri sti an ci vi l
conquest i n hi story by means of Gods sancti ons of bl essi ngs and
cursi ngs. Thus we fi nd a tri o of Chri sti an hi stori ans, safe and
tenured i n thei r humani st-accredi ted col l eges and uni versi ti es, who
i nsi st on pl aci ng the word Christian i n i tal i cs when they speak of
Ameri cas Chri sti an ori gi ns or Chri sti an cul tures i n general . (See
Chapter 5.)
28
Ki ngdom and Sancti ons
I n order to establ i sh a Chri sti an cul ture, there woul d have to be
i denti fi abl y Chri sti an l aws bi bl i cal bl uepri nts, i n other words by
28. Mark A. Nel l , Nathan O. Hatch, and George M. Marsden, The Search@
Christian America (Westchester, I l l i noi s: Crossway, 1983), p. 28. Noti ce that the pub-
l i sher al so publ i shes Franci s Schaeffers Complete Worh and three of Franky
Schaeffefl s books. I t al so ceased publ i shi ng my book, Con.rpi ra~: A Biblical View
(1986), shortl y after Rodney Cl apps essay appeared i n Chrzstiani~ Today i n
February, 1987. The companys owners coul d no l onger mai ntai n a compromi se be-
tween i ts hal fway covenant worl dvi ew and Chri sti an Reconstructi on.
Conclusion 641
whi ch the nati onal covenant coul d be judged by God and other na-
ti ons. Onl y one i dea i s more repugnant to modern Chri sti an i ntel l ec-
tual s than the i dea of judi ci al l y bi ndi ng bi bl i cal ci vi l bl uepri nts. 29
That i dea i s the doctri ne of each persons predesti ned eterni ty. The
two i deas are l i nked judi ci al l y: san.cti om. Men do not l i ke to be
remi nded by Paul that the scri pture sai th unto Pharaoh, Even for
thi s same purpose have I rai sed thee up, that I mi ght shew my power
i n thee, and that my name mi ght be decl ared throughout al l the
earth. Therefore bath he mercy on whom he bath mercy, and whom
he wi l l he hardeneth (Rem. 9:17-18). I f God di d thi s wi th Pharaoh,
He can do i t to anyone. This means sanctions.
The mi l d and gentl e negati ve ci vi l sancti ons of the Ol d Testa-
ment whi ppi ng, resti tuti on, sl avery, bani shment, and publ i c exe-
cuti on are l i ght taps on the wri st compared to eternal screami ng
agony i n the l ake of fi re. Covenant-breaki ng men easi l y understand
thi s di sti ncti on i n i ntensi ty. They know what i s comi ng i n eterni ty.
They resent i t. Thus, i n order to bani sh from thei r consci ousness the
thought of eternal torture at the hand of an outraged, i mpl acabl e
God, they feel compel l ed to bani sh al so the i dea that God has estab-
l i shed ci vi l covenants i n hi story whi ch authori ze and requi re Hi s
l awful representati ves to appl y the Ol d Testaments mi ni mal negati ve
sancti ons. I nstead, they have i mpl i ci tl y adopted two other doctri nes,
the doctri ne of autonomous man and the concomi tant doctri ne, the
autonomous State.
The State becomes the sol e agency authori zed by autonomous
man to i mpose compul sory sancti ons. (The onl y al ternati ve to thi s
vi ew i s the doctri ne of zero ci vi l government, meani ng zero compul -
29. That no such bl uepri nts exi st i n the fi el d of economi cs was the asserti on of al l
three of the other authors i n the book, Wealth and Pouetiy: Four Christian Views, edi ted
by Robert G. Cl ouse (Downers Grove, I l l i noi s: I nterVarsi ty Press, 1984). The
fourth vi ew the expl i ci tl y, sel f-consci ousl y, bl uepri nt-i nsi stent Chri sti an one was
mi ne. 1, of course, chal l enged al l three of the others, cal l i ng attenti on to thei r sel f-
consci ous r ejecti on of any expl i ci tl y bi bl i cal standar ds i n economi c anal ysi s. Not
sur pr i si ngl y, i n l ess than a year, wi th the book sel l i ng wel l and our royal ti es ade-
quate, the neo-evangel i cal l i beral s who run I nterVarsi ty pul l ed the book off the mar-
ket and sol d my company the remai ni ng 6,000 copi es at 25 cents per copy, just to
wash thei r hands of the whol e project. That was when I knew who had won the de-
bate. Li beral s woul d never be so crass as to burn conservati ve books; they si mpl y
refuse to publ i sh them or, once the mi stake has been made, dump them. But thei r
name i s sti l l on the books, and I am maki ng an astoundi ng pr ofi t mar gi n on each
sal e. And I was abl e to add thk choi ce footnote, too. Li beral s are real l y sui ci dal
(Pr ov. 8:36).
sory sancti ons, a consi stent but sel dom arti cul ated vi ewpoi nt. )30 l TZ
order to assert his autonomy from God, the covenant- breaker places himself
under theauthority ofaxelf-proclaimed autonomous State. He prefers to be-
l i eve that the States sancti ons are fi nal . The States sancti ons must
be seen as al ternati ves to Gods fi nal judgment, not evi dence for i t.
He must assert thi s i f Gods fi nal sancti ons are to be deni ed effec-
ti vel y. I n order to make such an assumpti on bel i evabl e, the State
must be gi ven power to i mpose sancti ons far worse than those au-
thori zed by the Ol d Testament.
Leaky Christians
I t i s my vi ew that there are three subordi nate tests for orthodoxy,
once a person has affi rmed the obvi ous: the vi rgi n bi rth of Jesus, the
Tri ni ty, and the bodi l y resurrecti on of Chri st. These three tests are:
affi r mi ng the si x-day cr eati on, affi r mi ng the wor l dwi de Noachi c
fl ood, and affi rmi ng the doctri ne of hel l (l ake of fi re). There are other
tests, but anyone who waffl es on one of these shoul d be exami ned far
more careful l y; he l eaks. He i s goi ng to l eak a l ot more. A Chri sti an
who i s unwi l l i ng to affi rm publ i cl y the i nescapabi l i ty of Gods eternal
negati ve covenant sancti ons i s al so unl i kel y to be wi l l i ng to i nsi st on
the temporal , negati ve, and covenantal sancti ons, for such temporal
sancti ons are an earnest down payment on Hi s fi nal sancti ons.
Such sancti ons-denyi ng Chr i sti ans eventual l y fi nd themsel ves
under the ci vi l (and al so i ntel l ectual ) authori ty of covenant-breakers
who al so deny the conti nui ng val i di ty of bi bl i cal l aw, meani ng Ol d
Testament sancti ons. Those who asser t thei r defi ance of covenant
l aw the most i nsi stentl y are covenant-breakers who affi rm the auton-
omy of man, or who at l east deny the exi stence of the God of the
Bi bl e. Thus, i n thei r quest to avoi d thi nki ng about Gods eternal tor-
ture chamber beyond the grave, Chri sti ans have wi l l i ngl y submi tted
i n principle to temporal rul e by those covenant-breakers who deny the
l ake of fi re wi th the greatest sel f-confi dence. You cannot beat some-
thi ng wi th somethi ng l ess.
On the other hand, those Chri sti ans who i n hi story were most
wi l l i ng to affi rm Gods predesti nated, i nescapabl e, eternal sancti ons
were al so the onl y ones ready to i nsi st on the covenantal necessi ty of
l egi sl ati ng the most feared of Gods negati ve sancti ons, publ i c execu-
30. Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liber@: The Libertarian Manifesto (rev. ed.;
New York: Col l i er, 1978); Rothbard, The Ethics of Liber~ (Atl anti c Hi ghl ands, New
Jersey: Humani ti es Press, 1983).
Concl usi on 643
ti on, for every cri me i denti fi ed as a capi tal cri me i n the Ol d Testa-
ment. 1 am speaki ng of the Puri tans, who di d exactl y thi s when they
were gi ven the l egal authori ty i n hi story to do so, i n New Engl and:
the Massachusetts Body of Li ber ti es (1641). The Pur i tans under -
stood that ci vi l l i ber ty begi ns wi th the ci vi l gover nments enfor ce-
ment of Gods requi red sancti ons. Thei r successors have not under-
stood thi s, and they have deepl y resented the Puri tans publ i c testi -
mony i n thi s regard.
Ki ngdom and Educati on
The Consti tuti on made rel i gi ous test oaths i l l egal . I t al so made i t
i l l egal for Congress to make any l aws regardi ng rel i gi on, though of
course i t coul d not and di d not prohi bi t rel i gi ous l aws, si nce al l law
is religious.
Thi s precedent obvi ousl y made i t i l l egal to establ i sh any church
by l aw at the federal l evel . But unti l the Fourteenth Amendment be-
came the l aw of the l and, thi s restri cti on on Congress di d not appl y
to the states. Steadi l y, however, the states abandoned the support of
churches wi th tax money. Connecti cut ended the practi ce i n 1813;
Massachusetts ceased i n 1833.
31
Thi s di sestabl i shed the Tri ni tari an churches; i t di d not di sestab-
l i sh Uni tari ani sm. The Uni tari ans were wi se men; they knew that
they were strangers i n a general l y Chri sti an cul ture. They real i zed
that they had to di sgui se thei r program to establ i sh thei r rel i gi on.
They knew that they coul d not, and shoul d not, recei ve tax money
for thei r l i ttl e group of churches i n Boston. That woul d have gi ven
the game away. I nstead, thei r agent, Horace Mann, devi sed and
then successful l y sol d the i dea of rel i gi ousl y neutral but uni versal l y
moral educati on to the taxpayers of Massachusetts. He di d thi s by
adopti ng the same doctri ne of rel i gi ous neutral i ty and common-ground
knowl edge that had worked so wel l from 1687 (Newtons Pri nc@i a) to
1787 (the Consti tuti on). Wi th thi s, Mann created a new concept of
publ i c educati on. Thi s was the great fl i m-fl am, the establ i shment of
a new nati onal denomi nati on and a new nati onal pri esthood.
I t took wel l over a century for any Chri sti an schol ar to sound the
al arm on both evi l s: taxpayer-fi nanced educati on and rel i gi ousl y
neutral educati on. There had been many opponents of Mann, but
31. Phi l i p SchatT, Church and State in the United States (New York: Arno Press, [1888]
1972), p. 46.
they al l to some degree accepted the pri nci pl e of taxpayer-fi nanced
educati on. Rushdoony fi r st sounded the al ar m among Chr i sti an
schol ars: that 1) al l state-suppor ted, taxpayer -fi nanced educati on i s
i nherentl y i mmoral and anti -Chri sti an, si nce i t removes the author-
i ty over educati on from parents, and 2) the Uni tari ans had i nvented
the publ i c school system to further thei r own messi ani c and sal va-
ti onal agenda. 32 Si dney Mead al so admi tted i t i n 1963: . . . the
publ i c-school system of the Uni ted States i s i ts establ i shed church.3
3
Mann bui l t hi s case on the doctr i ne of natur al l aw, natur al
ri ghts, and Provi dence, and he stated thi s forthri ghtl y, i n the l an-
guage of Geor ge Washi ngton and the Fr amer s, whose theol ogy he
shared. I bel i eve i n the exi stence of a great, i mmortal , i mmutabl e
pri nci pl e of natural l aw, or natural ethi cs a pri nci pl e antecedent to
al l human i nsti tuti ons, and i ncapabl e of bei ng abrogated by any or-
di nance of man, a pri nci pl e of di vi ne ori gi n, cl earl y l egi bl e i n the
ways of Provi dence as those ways are cl earl y mani fested i n the order
of Nature and i n the hi story of the race, whi ch proves the absol ute
rzght to an educati on of every human bei ng that comes i nto the worl d;
and whi ch, of course, proves the correl ati ve duty of every government
to see that the means of educati on are provi ded for al l .w
Manns pr ogr am of educati on was a consi stent devel opment of
Madi sons system of fi cti onal i zi ng Chr i sti ani ty. The goal i s to
remove facti on meani ng sectarzani.wn from every publ i c i nsti tuti on
and from al l publ i c pol i cy. Manns program rel i ed on the Madi so-
ni an r emoval of Tr i ni tar i an oaths and cr eeds fr om publ i c i nsti tu-
ti ons, a pol i cy that had been copi ed by Massachusetts l aw i n 1833.
Hi s strategy i nvol ved the substi tuti on of creedl ess moral i ty for Tri ni -
tari an moral i ty. I t therefore i nvol ved the substi tuti on of common-
ground rel i gi on for Tri ni tari an rel i gi on. Hi s was the moral i ty of the
pr ocedur al l y empty but substanti vel y Uni tar i an, ful l y Consti tu-
ti onal , Madi soni an pantheon. He arti cul ated thi s Madi soni an strat-
egy i n 1848, at the end of hi s career.
I bel i eved then (1837), as now, that sectari an books and sectari an i n-
structi on, i f thei r encroachment were not resi sted, woul d prove the over-
throw of the school s.
32. R. J . Rushdoony, The Messianic Character of Anwican Education: Studi es in the
HistoV and Philosophy of Edzuation (Nutl ey, New Jersey: Crai g Press, 1963). Repri nted
by Presbyteri an & Reformed, Phi l l i psburg, New Jersey.
33. Si dney E. Mead, The Live~ Experiment: The Shaping of Ghristiani@ in Ammca
(New York: Harper & Row, 1963), p. 68.
34. Mann, The Tenth Annual Repor t (1846), ci ted by Rushdoony, Messianic
Character, p. 21.
Conclusion 645
I bel i eved then, as now, that rel i gi ous i nstructi on i n our school s, to the
extent whi ch the Consti tuti on and the l aws of the state al l owed and
prescri bed, was i ndi spensabl e to thei r hi ghest wel fare, and essenti al to the
vi tal i ty of moral educati on. 35
The Puri tans of Massachusetts had enacted l egi sl ati on i n 1638
that requi red l ocal town governments to appropri ate tax money to
support l ocal Congregati onal churches. 36 Thi s was an i mpl i ci t deni al
of the bi bl i cal concept of ci vi l government as a negati ve i nsti tuti on
that bri ngs negati ve sancti ons agai nst publ i c evi l . The New Engl and
Puri tans vi ewed the State as an agency of posi ti ve good, as di d al l
Chri sti ans i n 1638, and to that extent they adopted to some degr ee
the Greco-Roman vi ew of the messi ani c State. Thi s mi suse of Mas-
sachusetts publ i c funds was stopped i n 1833.
The Puri tans al so used l ocal tax money to support l ocal school s.
Thi s practi ce began i n 1642 and was rei nforced by a new l aw i n
1647.37 I n the state consti tuti ons of Massachusetts, New Hampshi re,
Connecti cut, and Maryl and of the 1780s, the publ i c support of
school teachers was reaffi rmed. w Not onl y was thi s l egacy of New
Engl and Puri tani sm not abandoned i n the 1830s, i t accel erated, cul -
mi nati ng i n the post-Worl d War I modern publ i c school system.
Those Chri sti ans who adamantl y oppose taxpayer-fi nanced edu-
cati on because of i ts humani sm understand that the myth of educa-
ti onal neutr al i ty i s i ndeed a myth. Never thel ess, the theol ogi cal
roots of the publ i c educati on system are the same as the theol ogi cal
r oots of the U.S. Consti tuti on: the doctr i ne of mor al neutr al i ty i n
ci vi l gover nment. That Chr i sti an Fr eemasons have suppor ted the
publ i c school s and opposed Chr i sti an school s system shoul d be no
more surpri si ng than the fact that Chri sti an Freemasons supported
35. Ci ted i n AnSon Stokes Phel ps and Leo Pfeffer, Church and State in the United
States (New Yor k: Har per & Row, [1950] 1964), p. 267.
36. Lawrence A. Cremi n, Amrican Education: The Colonial Experience, 1607-1783
(New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1970), p. 152.
37. I bid., p. 264; cf. on the 1642 l aw, see Cremi n, Ammcan Education, pp. 124-25.
For some reason, Rushdoony got i t i nto hi s head that the col oni al Puri tans di d not
have taxpayer-supported l ocal educati on, and that the practi ce was i nvented by
Mann. He wrote i n 1961: Al though, i n the Uni ted States, thi s transfer of educati on
to the state began earl y i n the 1800s, i n actual i ty i t was not i n ful l effect unti l after
Worl d War I . Pri or to the 1800s, school s had been operated by churches, I oczd par-
ents, or by the teacher s , Rushdoony, I ntellectual Schizophrenia: Culture, Crisis and
Education (Phi l adel phi a: Presbyteri an & Reformed, 1961), p. 56.
38. James Hasti ngs Ni chol s, John Wi therspoon on Church and State,Journal of
Presbytwian Hi$toy, XLVI I (Sept. 1964), p. 172.
the U.S. Consti tuti on i n 1787 and opposed rel i gi ous test oaths. That
Chri sti an opponents of the publ i c school system support wi thout
hesi tati on the Consti tuti onal provi si on of prohi bi ti ng rel i gi ous test
oaths i s surpri si ng. Madi sons theory of the neutral State undergi rds
both i nsti tuti ons. Publ i c money goes to both systems i n the name of
ci vi c rel i gi ous neutral i ty and common-ground moral i ty.
Educati on i s the worki ng out of a rel i gi ous worl dvi ew. I t cannot
be neutral . I t wi l l refl ect ei ther the ki ngdom of God or the ki ngdom
of man. I t i s the outworki ng of ki ngdom pri nci pl es. But we shoul d
not make the mi stake of thi nki ng that educati on i s i tsel f a separate
covenantal cal l i ng. I t i s not on the same l evel that the Church, State,
and fami l y are. I t i s not marked by a sel f-val edi ctory oath. I t i s anal o-
gous to a Chri sti an busi ness, not a church. We mwt be uey wa~ OJ in-
vesting education with smrarrwntal or covenantal language. Thi s l eads back
down the path of humani sm: educati on as sal vati omd and messi ani c.sg
Ki ngdom and Ci vi l i zati on
Ki ngdom means ci vi l i zati on. I t means ei ther the l awful or
unl awful exerci se of authori ty i n hi story. I n short, ki ngdom means
sancti ons. Gods ki ngdom can operate wi th mi ni mal ci vi l sancti ons
i n hi story, meani ng ami ni mal State, onl y because i t i s authori zed by
God and accepted covenantal l y by peopl e who bel i eve i n Gods
hor r i fyi ng negati ve sancti ons beyond the gr ave. Se~-government can
then replace ciuil governnwnt. The wi despread bel i ef i n hel l and the l ake
of fi re i s one of the foundati ons of Western l i berty. I t made l ess neces-
39. Rushdoony made thi s mi stake earl y when he sai d that Educati on was thus
i nevi tabl y a covenantal act, an i ncorporati on of the person i nto the l i fe of a ri ch and
vi tal body. . . . I ntellectual Schizophrenia, p. 8. The l anguage of i ncorporati on i s
sacramental . Thi s i s why he coul d argue years l ater that Chri sti an educati on, as an
extensi on of the fami l y, i s someti mes deservi ng of the ti the rather than the Church.
Rushdoony, Tithing and Domi ni on (Val l eci to, Cal i forni a: Ross House, 1979), p. 9.
Rushdoony has l ong i gnor ed what shoul d be obvi ous: sacramental i sm i s an i nesca-
pabl e concept; some i nsti tuti on must be sacramental i zed. Some i nsti tuti on has to
admi ni ster the sacraments. Man must meet hi s soverei gn master to renew the cove-
nant on a regul ar basi s. Rushdoony deni es that ei ther the Church or the State
shoul d be sacramental i zed: Law and Socie~ (Val l eci to, Cal i forni a: Ross House,
1982), p. 128. Then, three pages l ater, he wri tes: The fami l y, as we have seen, i s the
most powerful i nsti tuti on i n soci ety, control l i ng as i t does, i n terms of Bi bl i cal l aw,
the three key areas of soci ety, chi l dren, property, and i nheri tance (p. 131). The sac-
raments do not appear at al l i n hi s di scussi on, nor does he take the sacrament of the
Lords Supper or bel ong to a l ocal churck. This inevitab~ leads to the soaamentalizing of
the fami~ by default. As such, educati on becomes covenantal i n hi s thi nki ng, for i t i s
an adjunct of the fami l y.
Conclusion 647
sary for soci al order mens fai th i n a State that possesses i mi tati on
fi nal sancti ons.
What the case l aws provi de i s an al ternati ve to the messi ani c
State. The case l aws provi de sancti ons that match the magni tude of
the cri me. The basi c penal ty for cri mes agai nst property ai d body i s
some form of resti tuti on. Capi tal cri mes are cri mes agai nst the i n-
tegri t y of God: those convi cted of such i nfracti ons are del i vered i nto
Gods court for Hi s di rect judgment. As hi story moves cl oser to the
day of fi nal judgment, covenantal postmi l l enni al i sm teaches, soci ety
wi l l progressi vel y be conformed to these standards. Democrati cal l y,
meani ng a bottom-up mouement initiated by the Ho~ Spirit, voters wi l l
progressi vel y enact the whol e l aw-order of God. Thi s wi l l probabl y
take several centuri es. Chri sti an maturi ty i s costl y and ti me-consumi ng.
Thus, what the Puri tans attempted to do i n Engl and, 1640-60, was
moral l y wrong and strategi cal l y sel f-destructi ve because i t was a top-
down i mposi ti on of Gods l aw. What the New Engl and Puri tans at-
tempted to do was val i d; there was general agreement about bi bl i cal
ci vi l l aw when the soci ety was founded i n the wi l derness. But i mmi -
grati on and defecti ons, coupl ed wi th the restorati on of Ki ng Charl es
I I i n 1660, changed the r el i gi ous envi r onment i n New Engl and. The
er a of the hal fway covenant began .40
The Spirit and Democracy
Democracy l i teral l y means peopl es rul e. The soverei gnty of the
peopl e i s the basi s of the modern democrati c order. I n anci ent
Greece, democracy was a product of fami l y gods; mal e representa-
ti ves of househol d gods spoke i n cl an counci l s; and as the ci ty-state
devel oped, they spoke i n the counci l s of the poli.s. The i dea i s that
man speaks i n the name of a rul i ng dei ty; i n modern ti mes, the rul -
i ng dei ty i s the peopl e as a whol e, who of course remai n pol i tel y
si l ent. A di sti ncti on i s made between the wi l l of the si l ent, repre-
sented peopl e and the present deci si on of the representati ves. The
peopl e can retroacti vel y bri ng sancti ons agai nst the representati ves,
ei ther at el ecti ons or i n revol uti on. Thus, those speaki ng for the peo-
pl e at any ti me cannot be sai d to represent the peopl e perfectl y at
any gi ven ti me, si nce i t i s not cl ear preci sel y who the peopl e are, and
how (or i f) they di ffer from thei r present representati ves. As Si r
Henry Mai ne put i t over a century ago:
40. Edmund S. Morgan, Visible Saints: The HistoV of a Puritan I dea (New York:
New York Uni versi ty Press, 1963), pp. 130-38.
The greatest, most permanent, and most fundamental of al l the di ffi -
cul ti es of Democracy, l i es deep i n the consti tuti on of human nature.
Democracy i s a form of government, and i n al l governments acts of State
are determi ned by an exerti on of wi l l . But i n what sense can a mul ti tude ex-
erci se vol i ti on? The student of pol i ti cs can put to hi msel f no more perti nent
questi on than thi s. No doubt the vul gar opi ni on i s, that the mul ti tude
makes up i ts mi nd as the i ndi vi dual makes up hi s mi nd. A host of popul ar
phrases testi fy to thi s bel i ef. The wi l l of the Peopl e: publ i c opi ni on: the
soverei gn pl easure of the nati on, Vox Popul i , Vox Dei , bel ong to thi s
cl ass, whi ch i ndeed consti tutes a great part of the common stock of the pl at-
form and the press. But what do such expressi ons mean? They must mean
that a great number of peopl e, on a great number of questi ons, can come to
an i denti cal concl usi on, and found an i denti cal determi nati on upon i t. But
thi s i s mani festl y true onl y of the si mpl est questi ons .41
Vox Popul i may be Vox Dei , but very l i ttl e attenti on shows that there never
has been any agreement as to what Vox means or as to what Popul us means.
. . . I n real i ty, the devotee of Democracy i s much i n the same posi ti on as
the Greeks wi th thei r oracl es. Al l agreed that the voi ce of an oracl e was the
voi ce of a god; but everybody al l owed that when he spoke he was not as i n-
tel l i gi bl e as mi ght be desi red, and nobody was qui te sure whether i t was
safer to go to Del phi or Donona. 42
The di screpancy between the hypotheti cal soverei gn Peopl e and
the representati ves of the Peopl e i s why we have consti tuti ons: to
hol d i n check those who cl ai m to speak for peopl e who have not yet
had ti me to bri ng sancti ons or the threat of sancti ons agai nst thei r
spokesmen. Of course, even thi s i s too l i mi ted; consti tuti ons exi st i n
order to pl ace restri cti ons on a temporary majori ty, even a huge ma-
jori ty, at any poi nt i n ti me. As Ni sbet says, Of al l the heresi es afl oat
i n modern democracy, none i s greater, more steeped i n i ntel l ectual
confusi on, and potenti al l y more destructi ve of proper governmental
functi on than that whi ch decl ares the l egi ti macy of government to be
di rectl y proporti onal to i ts roots i n publ i c opi ni on or, more ac-
curatel y, i n what the dai l y pol l s and surveys assure us i s publ i c opi n-
i on. I t i s thi s heresy that accounts for the constantl y augmenti ng
propaganda that i ssues forth from al l government agenci es today
the i nevi tabl e effort to shape the very opi ni on that i s bei ng so
assi duousl y courted and for the frequent craven abdi cati on of the
41. Si r Henry Sumner Mai ne, Popular Government (I ndi anapol i s, I ndi ana: Li berty
Cl assi cs, [1885] 1976), p. 104.
42. I bid., p. 187.
Conclusion 649
responsi bi l i ti es of offi ce i n the face of real or i magi ned expressi on of
opi ni on by the el ectorate .
43
The voi ce of the peopl e i s not the voi ce of God. The voi ce of
pol i ti cal r epr esentati ves i s supposed to be medi ator y j udi ci al l y.
Judges ar e to decl ar e Gods l aw and appl y i t to speci fi c ci r cum-
stances. There i s supposed to be a progressi ve maturati on of mens
abi l i ty to make formal judgments i n terms of Gods l aw as ti me goes
on. Representati ves are supposed to thi nk anal ogousl y to God. God
i s not a si l ent God; He has spoken i n Hi s Word. Hi s representati ves
are supposed to teach Hi s Word to the peopl e, so that they can exer-
ci se sel f-gover nment under God.
And Moses commanded them, sayi ng, At the end of every seven years,
i n the sol emni ty of the year of rel ease, i n the feast of tabernacl es, When al l
I srael i s come to appear before the LORD thy God i n the pl ace whi ch he shal l
choose, thou shah read thi s l aw before al l I srael i n thei r heari ng. Gather the
peopl e together, men, and women, and chi l dren, and thy stranger that i s
wi thi n thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may l earn, and fear the
LORD your God, and observe to do al l the words of thi s l aw: And that thei r
chi l dren, whi ch have not known any thi ng, may hear, and l earn to fear the
LORD your God, as l ong as ye l i ve i n the l and whi ther ye go over Jordan to
possess i t (Deut. 31:10-13).
What the cri ti cs of theocracy al ways assume i s that the i mposi -
ti on of Gods l aw i n ci vi l government has to be anti -democrati c, i .e.,
opposed to the pri nci pl e of pol i ti cal representati on. I t assumes that
ci vi l rul ers i mpose Gods l aw on recal ci trant ci ti zens, who are some-
how depri ved of thei r ri ght or actual abi l i ty to bri ng negati ve pol i ti -
cal sancti ons agai nst thei r rul ers. But i f the Spi ri t of God moves a
vast majori ty of men to confess Jesus Chri st as Lord and Savi or, and
i f they return to the Ol d Testament i n search of bi bl i cal bl uepri nts,
then the resul ti ng theocrati c republ i c wi l l be l egi ti mate i n terms of
democrati c theory. That thi s i dea i s anti theti cal to the eschatol ogi cal
vi si ons and schemes of humani sts, ami l l enni al i sts, and premi l l en-
ni al i st does not refute the theory. Neverthel ess, humani sts, ami l l en-
ni al i sts, and premi l l enni al i sts conti nue publ i cl y to mi si nterpret the
posi ti on of Chri sti an Reconstructi on because these cri ti cs are i ntel -
l ectual l y i ncapabl e of equati ng theocracy wi th democracy. They do not
43. Robert Ni sbet, Publ i c Opi ni on versus Popul ar Opi ni on, Public Zntmest (Fal l
1975), p. 166.
bel i eve that i t i s possi bl e for l arge numbers of peopl e vol untari l y to
become theonomi sts; after al l , they havent !
When that theocrati c consensus appears, you can bet your l i fe
(perhaps l i teral l y) that the humani sts wi l l then try to subvert i t by an
el i ti st conspi racy. We read about such a revol t agai nst Moses and
Aaron i n Numbers 16. I t was done i n the name of the Peopl e: And
they gathered themsel ves together agai nst Moses and agai nst Aaron,
and sai d unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seei ng al l the con-
gregati on are hol y, every one of them, and the LORD i s among them:
wherefore then l i ft ye up yoursel ves above the congregati on of the
LORD? (v. 3). We read about the fi nal such attempt i n Revel ati on ,
20:8-9, at the very end of hi story. These voi ces of the Peopl e are i n
favor of democracy for onl y so l ong as they can control a majori ty of
voters by means of a hi erarchi cal el i te that pretends to l i sten to the
Peopl e an el i te far more subtl e than the Communi sts one-party
di ctatorshi p i n the name of the peopl e.
A soverei gn agent al ways acts through spokesmen i n a hi erarchy.
There wi l l al ways be an el i te: i ntel l ectual , educati onal , mi l i tary, and
so forth. The questi on i s never el i te or no el i te. I t i s al ways a ques-
ti on of whi ch el i te. I t i s a questi on of the judi ci al terms of authori ty,
i nternal and ci vi l , governi ng the el i te. I t i s therefore a questi on of
whi ch souerei gn agent authori zes the elite. The Bi bl e i s cl ear: God i s com-
pl etel y, absol utel y soverei gn over the creati on, and men are subordi -
natel y, i nescapabl y responsi bl e for thei r acti ons. Thus, the goal of
covenant-keepers i s to work toward a soci al order i n whi ch every i n-
sti tuti on refl ects thi s dual soverei gn y, absol ute and del egated. I t i s
the creati on of an enti re worl d order that prays, Thy ki ngdom
come. Thy wi l l be done i n earth, as i t i s i n heaven (Matt. 6:10).
As a subset of thi s broad soci al goal i s pol i ti cs. Pol i ti cal l y, the
onl y l egi ti mate l ong-term bi bl i cal goal i s the creati on of a worl dwi de
theocrati c republ i c. * I t i s the creati on of a bottom-up pol i ti cal order
whose ci vi l courts enforce the l aw of God, and whose peopl e rejoi ce,
not because such a l aw-order i s natural but because i t i s supernatural .
A Christian National Covenant
Thi s rai ses a val i d questi on: Shoul d Chri sti ans who are cove-
nanted to God personal l y and eccl esi asti cal l y seek to persuade thei r
44. Gary North, Healer of the Nations: Biblical Blue/ mintifor I nternational Relations (N.
Worth, Texas: Domi ni on Press, 1987), ch. 2: Al l Nati ons Under God.
Conclusion 651
own nati ons to affi rm Gods nati onal covenant? The vast majori ty of
al l soci al phi l osophers say no. They hate the very thought of a na-
ti onal covenant, l et al one an i nternati onal covenant. 45 We are tol d
that pl ural i sm i s Gods pl an for the ages, at l east si nce the death and
resurrecti on of Jesus Chri st. They argue that pol i ti cal and rel i gi ous
pl ural i sm are moral l y bi ndi ng forever, and not just l egal l y bi ndi ng
today.
To whi ch I respond: Who says so? Certai nl y not the phi l osophy
of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i tsel f. Pol i ti cal pl ural i sm, uni que among al l
pol i ti cal phi l osophi es, al l ows for i ts own i nsti tuti onal sui ci de. I t
al l ows peopl e to repeal judi ci al pl ural i sm. And i n fact, thi s i s pre-
ci sel y what i s bei ng done today by humani sts i n the Uni ted States,
l ed by the neutral U.S. Supreme Court. They are destroyi ng
Chri sti an judi ci al standards. The myth of pl ural i sm i s now bei ng ex-
posed for what i t has al ways been: a phi l osophi cal coveri ng for soci -
ety duri ng temporary peri ods when no one pol i ti cal group can gai n
the al l egi ance, or at l east the compl i ance, of the voters.
The judi ci al mark of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm i s the ri ght to amend the
theol ogi cal character of the nati onal judi ci al contract. Thi s i s what
the humani sts di d nati onal l y i n 1787-88. Thi s i s what they have been
doi ng to state covenants i n the Uni ted States si nce at l east the ti me of
the Ci vi l War. They used to be subtl e about thi s; confi dent of thei r
power today, they no l onger are subtl e i n the l east. Neverthel ess, i t
has onl y begun to occur t~ a mi nori ty of Chri sti an acti vi sts that the
nati onal judi ci al system i s systemati cal l y stacked agai nst them. What
they need to understand i s thi s: i t al ways has been. From 1789 to the
present, the Ameri can pol i ti cal system has been stacked agai nst
Chri sti ani ty, for i t rests on a pai r of myths: the myth of pol i ti cal pl u-
ral i sm and the myth of neutral natural l aw.
Fortunatel y, the Ameri can pol i ti cal system can be changed
peaceful l y, through the amendi ng process. Pol i ti cal pl ural i sm can be
reversed through amendment when sel f-consci ous Chri sti ans have
the experi ence, the worl dvi ew, and the votes. I f thi s takes two or
three centuri es to accompl i sh, fi ne. Chri sti ans have ti me; humani sts
dont. I f the great reversal takes pl ace i n the aftermath of a col l apsed
humani st cul ture, equal l y fi ne. Humani sm does not work. I t wi l l
fai l . When i t fai l s, Chri sti ans must fai thful l y pi ck up the pi eces and
rebui l d accordi ng to bi bl i cal bl uepri nts.
45. Gary DeMar, Ruler of the Natiom: Biblical Blue#vints for Government (Ft. Worth.,
But what i f Ameri cans refuse to change ei ther thei r thi nki ng or
the Consti tuti on? Then the representati ve l eadershi p of Gods ki ng-
dom on earth wi l l be transferred. God wi l l not put up wi th pol i ti cal
pl ural i sm forever. There i s far l ess excuse for procl ai mi ng the bene-
fi ts of ethi cal and judi ci al neutral i ty today than there was two cen-
turi es ago. The French Revol uti on and the Russi an Revol uti on have
i ntervened. We can expect the vi si bl e judgments of God. What ki nds
of judgments? Pol i ti cal and judi ci al catastrophes. Perhaps even a
mi l i tary catastrophe.
Because thou servedst not the LORD thy God wi th joyful ness, and wi th
gl adness of heart, for the abundance of al l thi ngs; Therefore shal t thou
serve thi ne enemi es whi ch the LORD shal l send agai nst thee, i n hunger, and
i n thi rst, and i n nakedness, and i n want of al l thi ngs: and he shal l put a
yoke of i ron upon thy neck, unti l he have destroyed thee. The LORD shal l
bri ng a nati on agai nst thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swi ft as
the eagl e fl i eth; a nati on whose tongue thou shal t not under stand; A nati on
of fi erce countenance, whi ch shal l not regard the person of the ol d, nor
shew favour to the young: And he shal l eat the fi wi t of thy cattl e, and the
frui t of thy l and, unti l thou be destroyed: whi ch al so shal l not l eave thee
ei ther corn, wi ne, or oi l , or the i ncrease of thy ki ne, or fl ocks of thy sheep,
unti l he have destroyed thee. And he shal l besi ege thee i n al l thy gates, unti l
thy hi gh and fenced wal l s come down, wherei n thou trustedst, throughout
al l thy l and: and he shal l besi ege thee i n al l thy gates throughout al l thy
l and, whi ch the LORD thy God bath gi ven thee (Deut. 28:47-52).
Ameri cans thi nk that they are mi l i tari l y i mmune to the fi rst-
stri ke technol ogy of the Sovi et Uni on. They do not real i ze that from
a stri ctl y technol ogi cal and strategi c standpoi nt, the Uni ted States
has al ready l ost Worl d War I I I .% I t i s onl y the grace of God that
keeps thi s from bei ng made publ i c i n a fi ery (or chemi cal -bi ol ogi cal )
demonstrati on of thi s technol ogi cal real i ty. The Sovi ets bel i eve that
they can accompl i sh more through i nternati onal di pl omacy and per-
haps, i n a few years, chemi cal and bi ol ogi cal warfare.AT We shoul d
46. Quenti n Crommel i n, Jr. and Davi d S. Sul l i van, Sovi et MilitaV Supremacy
(Washi ngton, D. C.: Ci ti zens Foundati on, 1985); Ar thur Robi nson and Gar y
North, Fighting Chance: Tm Feet to Survival (Ft. Worth, Texas: Ameri can Bureau of
Economi c Research, 1986), ch. 1.
47. Joseph D. Dougl as and Nei l C. Li vi ngstone, A~ca the Vulnoable: The Threat
of Chemical and Biological W~are (Lexi ngton, Massachusetts: Lexi ngton Books,
1987). Dr. Dougl as i nforms me that at l east a dozen sci enti sts who have been acti ve
worl dwi de i n devel opi ng a space-based defense agai nst Sovi et bal l i sti c mi ssi l es have
di ed mysteri ousl y i n the l ast few years.
Conclusion 653
not presume upon God to mai ntai n Hi s grace i rrespecti ve of the cov-
enantal unfai thful ness of those who cal l themsel ves by Hi s name.
What i s needed i s a very si mpl e modi fi cati on of the U.S. Consti -
tuti on. Fi r st, the Pr eambl e shoul d begi n: We the peopl e of the
Uni ted States, as the l awful del egated agents of the Tr i ni tar i an
God of the Bi bl e, do ordai n and establ i sh. . . . 48 Second, Ar ti cl e
VI , Cl ause 3, shoul d state The Senators and Representati ves before
menti oned, and the Members of the several State Legi sl atures, and
al l the executi ve and judi ci al Offi cers, both of the Uni ted States and
of the several States, shal l be bound by Oath or Affi rmati on, to sup-
port thi s Consti tuti on; and a Tri ni tari an rel i gi ous Test shal l be re-
qui r ed as a Qual i fi cati on to any Offi ce or publ i c Tr ust under the
Uni ted States. These mi ni mal steps woul d mark the overthrow of
the Masoni c revol uti on of 1787 -88.
National J udgments and False Theolo~
God al ways bri ng judgments that are part and parcel of the spe-
ci fi c si ns of the cul ture. Thi s i s the l esson of the Book of Judges,
James Jordan wri tes:
I srael had become ensl aved to the Canaani te gods; i t was therefore
l ogi cal and necessary that they al so become ensl aved to the Canaani te cul -
ture. I n effect God sai d, So you l i ke the gods of Ammon? Wel l then, youre
goi ng to just l ove bei ng under Ammoni te cul ture! Oh, you dont l i ke bei ng
i n bondage to Ammon? Youd l i ke to have Me as your God once agai n?
Wonderful , I T send a judge, who wi l l have My Son as hi s Captai n, and set
you free from Ammon. Yet, i n a few years God woul d be sayi ng thi s: So
you l i ke the gods of Phi l i sti a? Wel l , I gather then that you wi l l be extremel y
happy under Phi l i sti ne cul ture! And so i t woul d go.
Gods judgments are never arbi trary. God chasti ses and curses peopl e
by gi vi ng them what they want. I srael wanted Baal i sm as a phi l osophy, so
God gave them i nto the hands of Baal i sti c ci vi l i zati ons. Si nce they were
sl aves of the gods of these cul tures, i t was onl y proper that they shoul d be
sl aves of the cul tures themsel ves as wel l . ~
Modern Ameri cans have worshi ped at the templ e of pol i ti cal
neutral i ty. The progressi ve di si ntegrati on of Ameri can ci vi l i zati on i s
48. I t i s not suffi ci ent to cal l for an amendment that names Jesus Chri st as Lord
of the nati onal covenant. There are cul ts that procl ai m Jesus Chri st as Lord. They
are anti -Tri ni tari an, however, and the i ncl usi on of a statement i denti fyi ng God as a
Tri ni ty i s necessary.
49. James B. Jordan, J@es: (%dk Wm Against Humani sm (Tyl er, Texas: Geneva
Mi ni stri es, 1985), p. 41.
the predi ctabl e resul t, the franti c chasi ng after ethi cal and judi ci al
stabi l i ty i n a worl d of moral chaos and arbi trary courts. The so-
cal l ed soverei gn peopl e, the gods who are supposed to l egi ti mi ze the
pol i ti cal order, have l ost fai th i n the prevai l i ng pol i ti cal order, refus-
i ng even to vote. They have been repl aced by permanent pol i ti ci ans,
permanent bureaucrats, and nearl y permanent judges. The peopl e,
the supposed soverei gns, have been pl aced at the mercy of thei r own
publ i c servants. The myth of neutral i ty i s expl odi ng i n peopl es
faces, but sti l l they refuse to bel i eve i t. Li ke a vampi re bat that i s
sucki ng the l i fe out of a sl eepi ng ani mal whose nerve endi ngs have
been l ocal l y anestheti zed by the bat, so i s the Chri sti an Ameri can
voter today. Worse; he has persuaded hi msel f that he i s recei vi ng a
bl ood transfusi on from the bat.
The theol ogy of pol i ti cal pl ufal i sm i s the chosen l ocal anestheti c
of the humani sts who seek to destroy Chri sti ani ty. Chri sti an
apol ogi sts for pol i ti cal pl ural i sm are thei r enthusi asti c assi stants who
hel p admi ni ster the anestheti c.
A Loss of Nati onal I denti fi cati on
Harol d O. J. Brown wri tes: The Uni ted States of Ameri ca i s a
generi c name and strangel y non-reveal i ng. Ameri ca basi cal l y does
not know what i t i s. The Uni ted States i s not a nati on i n the tradi -
ti onal sense, because i t l acks a common ethni c heri tage and spi ri tual
tradi ti on. A vi abl e al ternati ve to nati onhood i s an empi re, but to
consti tute an empi re a soci ety must have a sense of mi ssi on that
transcends di fferences of race, l anguage, and cul ture. The Uni ted
States currentl y seems to be a ki nd of pol i ti cal l i mi ted l i abi l i ty hol d-
i ng company, and thi s i s not enough to sustai n i ts exi stence.50
Professor Brown has rai sed a fundamental probl em i n Ameri can
l i fe. I t i s my contenti on that thi s probl em i s the resul t of deci si ons
made i n 1787-88. Thi s l ack of Ameri can i denti ty was not al ways the
case. The col oni es possessed a common rel i gi ous heri tage when the
Revol uti on broke out i n 1775-76: Cal vi ni sm mi xed wi th varyi ng
degrees of natural -l aw phi l osophy. But the rati fi cati on of the U.S.
Consti tuti on i n 1787-88 created a new nati on based on a new cove-
nant. At that poi nt, the nati on broke wi th i ts previ ousl y Chri sti an
50. Harol d O. J. Brown, Chri sti an Ameri ca Posi ti on, i n Gary Scott Smi th
(cd.), God and Politics: Four Vzews on the Reformation of Civil Government (Phi l l i psburg,
New Jersey: Presbyteri an & Reformed, 1989), p. 136.
Conclusion 655
judi ci al roots by covenanti ng wi th a new god, the soverei gn Peopl e.
There woul d be no other God tol erated i n the new pol i ti cal order.
Ther e woul d be no appeal beyond thi s sover ei gn god.
Thi s col l ecti ve god, speaki ng thr ough the feder al gover nment,
began i ts i nevi tabl e expansi on, pr edi cted by the Anti feder al i sts,
most notabl y Patr i ck Henr y. The secul ar i zati on of the r epubl i c
began i n earnest. Thi s process has not yet ceased. Brown i s correct:
The most revol uti onary aspect of the foundi ng of the Uni ted States
was nei ther i ndependence nor democracy, but the new governments
offi ci al neutral i ty on rel i gi on, whi ch has gradual l y turned i nto a mi l d
to severe antagoni sm toward rel i gi on. Lamentabl y, thi s antagoni sm i s
now hel pi ng to under mi ne al l the foundati ons of a humane Ameri ca.51
Never thel ess, thi s sur r ender to secul ar humani sm was not an
overni ght process. The ri se of Uni tari an abol i ti oni sm, 52 the comi ng of
the Ci vi l War, the advent of Darwi ni sm, the expansi on of i mmi gra-
ti on, the spread of the publ i c school system, the ri se of state l i censi ng
and the concomi tant growth of uni versi t y certi fi cati on, and a host of
other soci al and pol i ti cal i nfl uences have al l worked to transform the
i nterdenomi nati onal Ameri can ci vi l rel i gi on i nto a rel i gi on not fun-
damental l y di fferent from the one that Jeroboam set up, so that the
peopl e of the Northern Ki ngdom mi ght not journey to Jerusal em i n
Judah to offer sacri fi ces (I Ki . 12:26-31). The gol den cal ves may not
be on the hi l l tops, but the theol ogy i s the same: rel i gi on exi sts to
serve the needs of the State, and the State i s soverei gn over the mater-
i al thi ngs of thi s worl d. There are many forms of i dol worshi p. The
worshi p of the U.S. Consti tuti on has been a popul ar form of thi s an-
ci ent practi ce, especi al l y i n conservati ve Chri sti an ci rcl es. I t i s not
seen as a fl awed tool i n need of revi si on but as a hol y wi tness to the
truth of the moral val i di ty of permanent pol i ti cal pl ural i sm.
Pre-Constitutional Covenants
The covenantal sancti ons of the pre-Consti tuti onal col oni al cove-
nants are sti l l i n force. Those oaths were taken i n good fai th before a
God who does not forget. One cannot break covenantal conti nui ty
wi th the Great Ki ng at zero pri ce. He wi l l bri ng addi ti onal negati ve
sancti ons unl ess those ori gi nal covenants are renewed. Thi s, how-
51. I bid., p. 134.
52. Chr i sti ans di d yeoman ser vi ce i n the househol d of thei r theol ogi cal enemi es.
Cf. J3ertram Wyatt-Brown, Lewis Tappan and the Evangelical War Against SlaveT
(Cl evel and, Ohi o: Case Western Reserve Uni versi ty Press, 1969).
ever, requi res that men break covenant wi th the present god of thi s
age, the Peopl e. The Peopl e ar e under God as l egal l y pr otected
vassal s. I f thi s i s not acknowl edged covenantal l y and formal l y, then
the common peopl e wi l l fi nd eventual l y themsel ves under tyrants as
l egal l y unprotected vassal s,
Thus, I cannot agree wi th the statement of Kevi n Cl auson, pres-
ented at the end of an otherwi se i nsi ghtful essay: . . . there i s noth-
i ng i n the or i gi nal U.S. Consti tuti on (when not mi si nter pr eted by
modern noni nterpreti vi sts), the Bi l l of Ri ghts, and the Consti tuti ons
subsequent amendments that i s anti theti cal to the pr i nci pl e or
outworki ng of theonomy.5q 1 can thi nk of three features of the Con-
sti tuti on whi ch, i n and of themsel ves, broke the Chri sti an ci vi l oaths
of the pre-Consti tuti on states: We the Peopl e, Arti cl e VI , Cl ause 3,
and the Fourteenth Amendment: ci ti zenshi p by physi cal bi rth al one.
These three are suffi ci ent to destroy the l ong-run possi bi l i ty of estab-
l i shi ng theonomy as the l aw of the l and. Al l three are based on the
i dea of the l egi ti macy of general revel ati on as suffi ci ent for estab-
l i shi ng a ci vi l covenant before God. H. B. Barri ngtons observati on
i s correct: Throughout the hi story of ethi cs whenever general revel -
ati on has been the starti ng poi nt, the resul ti ng ethi cal systems have
not been reconci l abl e wi th bi bl i cal pri nci pl es .54 The hi story of once-
Chri sti an Ameri ca stands as a gri m pi ece of evi dence for hi s concl u-
si on. I t i s ti me to reverse thi s covenantal dri ft before the evi dence be-
comes even mor e gr i m.
The establ i shment of a Chr i sti an amendment i s mer el y a fi r st
step. To procl ai m the Tri ni tari an God of the Bi bl e as the Soverei gn
Lord of the nati on wi l l not sol ve the probl em of ci vi l ri ghteousness.
There i s no covenant wi thout hi erarchy (representati on), l aw, sanc-
ti ons, and a system of transfer for ci vi l offi ce-hol ders. A statement of
Chri sts judi ci al soverei gnty at best provi des a bi bl i cal answer to onl y
one of the fi ve covenantal r equi r ements. Thi s i s not enough to
pl acate the God of the Bi bl e. We dare not forget the warni ng of I sai ah:
Therefore as the fi re devoureth the stubbl e, and the fl ame consumeth
the chaff, so thei r root shal l be as rottenness, and thei r bl ossom shal l go up
as dust: because they have cast away the l aw of the LORD of hosts, and de-
spi sed the word of the Hol y One of I srael (I sa. 5:24).
53. Kevi n L. Cl auson, The Chri sti an Ameri ca Response to Theonomy, i n i bi d.,
p. 66.
54. H. B. Barri ngton, The Nati onal Confessi onal Response to Theonomy,
ibid., p. 69.
Conclusion 657
Covenantal l y Tr i ni tar i an
Nel l , Hatch, and Marsden argue that the Puri tans di d not estab-
l i sh a trul y Chri sti an soci ety because they put Ol d Testament case
l aws and sancti ons i nto thei r cri mi nal codes. But these posi ti ve ac-
compl i shments were offset by more dubi ous practi cal consequences.
Ol d Testament l aw was di rectl y i f not excl usi vel y i ncorporated i nto
the l egal systems of New Engl and.n55 Thi s supposedl y proves that
the Puri tan hol y commonweal ths were not Chri sti an. Thi s vi ew i s
wi del y shared by al most al l Chri sti ans today.
Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sts woul d i ni ti al l y appear to be among
those who reject such a vi ew of ci vi l government. Not necessari l y so.
Rushdoonys vi ew of the Consti tuti on i ndi cates that he hol ds a very
si mi l ar vi ew. He accepts and passi onatel y defends the l egi ti macy of
the i dea that a Chri sti an nati onal government shoul d not be al l owed
to menti on the God of the Bi bl e i n i ts Consti tuti on. (See Appendi x
B.) Other Chri sti an defenders of the Consti tuti on argue si mi l arl y:
the very presence of a Tri ni tari an cl ause i n the Consti tuti on woul d be
i nnatel y anti -Chri sti an. So compl etel y di d the Masoni c worl dvi ew
tri umph i n 1787-89 that the vi cti ms of that revol uti on sti l l regard i t as
a great l eap forward. Thi s i s why i t was a successful revol uti on.
Shoul d the Consti tuti on be amended to make thi s nati on formal l y
Chri sti an? Let us return to my proposed scenari o i n Chapter 5: the
conversi on of a l arge majori ty of voters to Chri sti ani ty. The three
pl ural i st Chri sti an schol ars who wrote The Search for Chri~tian America
may bel i eve that such a wi despread conversi on to Chri st wi l l never
happen i n hi story. No doubt they do bel i eve thi s. Most Chri sti ans
do. They are not postmi l l enni al i st. But i f they take thi s approach i n
denyi ng the ti ture pol i ti cal l egi ti macy of my scenari o, thty have switched
the debate from politics to eschatoio~. I n doi ng so, they have deni ed the
fundamental pri nci pl e of pol i ti cal pl ural i sm: the l egal ri ght to
change the system to non-pl ural i sm.
The pl ural i st i s stuck, i n fact and i n pri nci pl e. What he affi rms as
a mandatory procedural requi rement the open-ended nature of de-
mocracy can bacl cfn-e on hi s substanti ve goal : the mai ntenance of a
permanent hal fway covenant pol i ti cal order. Those who want to es-
tabl i sh a bi bl i cal covenant can l egal l y work to reverse permanentl y
the prevai l i ng pl ural i st pol i ti cal order. So can those who favor apos-
55. Nel l , Hatch, and Marsden, The Search for Christian America, p. 35.
tate pol i ti cal covenants. I n fact, the pl ural i st cannot successful l y de-
fend the l egi ti macy of the pl ural i st order once the anti -pl ural i sts have
persuaded the voters of the i mpossi bi l i ty of mai ntai ni ng a hal fway
covenant pol i ti cal order. And pl ural i sm, because i t encourages open
debate and l ots of di al ogui ng, opens the pol i ti cal door to i ts deadl y
enemi es. Pl ural i sts have i n pri nci pl e l eft wi de open the pol i ti cal door
to fhture Consti tuti onal amendments, as they must do i f they are to
remai n true to thei r pl ural i st pri nci pl es. Those of us who are theo-
nomi c postmi l l enni al i st can then respond: We wi l l l i ve peaceful l y
wi th thi s open-door pol i cy for the present, but we do not i ntend to
l i ve wi th i t forever. Someday, we or our spi ri tual hei rs wi l l cl ose that
door. We wi l l vote i t shut by popul ar accl amati on.
I n short, we covenanted Chri sti ans can presentl y rejoi ce: O @u-
ralism, where is thy long-run sting?
Chri sti an pl ural i sts are hypnoti zed by thei r apostate enemi es be-
cause thei r enemi es have l earned to pl ay the game by mouthi ng pl u-
ral i st rhetori c even whi l e they are substi tuti ng pol i ti cal ol i garchy and
bureaucracy for pl ural i sm. The theonomi sts refuse to pl ay thi s rhe-
tori cal game or i n cases where they do pl ay i t, they pl ay i t
abomi nabl y so they draw the wrath of the pl ural i sts. How dare
you peopl e break wi th our rhetori c? Better to suffer tyranny at the
hands of bureaucrati c humani sts who say what we l i ke to hear whi l e
they are sendi ng us i nto the cul tural gul ag rather than l i ve under the
i deol ogy of theocracy! And so, as al ways, substance progressi vel y
tri umphs over procedure i n the name of procedure. The pl ural i sts
never know what i s happeni ng to them. Even when they do, they
prefer i t to l i vi ng under Gods ci vi l l aw. And they met Moses and
Aaron, who stood i n the way, as they came forth from Pharaoh: And
they sai d unto them, The LORD l ook upon you, and judge; because
ye have made our savour to be abhorred i n the eyes of Pharaoh, and
i n the eyes of hi s servants, to put a sword i n thei r hand to sl ay us
(Ex. 5:20-21).
I real i ze that very few Chri sti ans bel i eve thi s today. I am wri ti ng
for the handful who do. I am not wri ti ng a mani festo to be used i n
todays el ecti ons. I am wri ti ng a mani festo for the more di stant
future. I real i ze that a Chri sti an pol i ti ci an or acti vi st who i s l i vi ng on
thi s si de of the l oomi ng cri ses, and on thi s si de of the great work of
the Hol y Spi ri t, wi l l probabl y prefer to di sassoci ate hi msel f from
these senti ments. I was i n a meeti ng of Chri sti an pol i ti cal acti vi sts i n
the fal l of 1987. Duri ng that meeti ng, a number of Armi ni an chari s-
Concl usi on 659
mati c Chr i sti ans wanted a defi ni ti on of Chr i sti an Reconstr ucti on
that woul d enabl e them to joi n the ranks wi thout gi vi ng up thei r
di sti ncti ve. Sever al obj ected to the fact that Chr i sti an Recon-
structi on had been defi ned too narrowl y meani ng, I thi nk, escha-
tol ogi cal l y and suggested that the defi ni ti on shoul d be broadened.
One astute chari smati c parti ci pant objected to thi s objecti on, how-
ever, a former state-wi de pol i ti cal organi zer. He sai d thi s: The defi -
ni ti on of what Chri sti an Reconstructi on i s shoul d be offered by those
who devel oped the posi ti on. We ought to do our best not to be
brought under the defi ni ti on. We want to be abl e to di sti ngui sh our
work from thei rs. Each of us needs to be abl e to say to the publ i c,
No, I am not a Chri sti an Reconstructi oni st. He was a wi se short-
term Armi ni an pol i ti cal strategi st. He wi l l l ose the war, of course,
but he wi l l not automati cal ~ l ose the next battl e. I commend hi s sug-
gesti on to others who are al so short-term strategi sts. Stay away from
l ong-term theocracy. You wi l l not l i ke i t unti l you swi tch your cove-
nantal posi ti on. (And eventual l y you wi l l swi tch, or your spi r i tual
hei rs wi l l . I snt postmi l l enni al i sm great?)
What 1 am doi ng here i s to l ay down the foundati on for a future
comprehensi ve revol uti on. I want men to l ook back at my books and
say, He l ai d down the theol ogi cal , moral , and pol i ti cal pri nci pl es of
a decentr al i zed, i nter nati onal theocr acy. No Pr otestant befor e hi m
ever di d. Somebody has to set forth the i deal the covenantai i deal
for pol i ti cs. Somebody has to tel l Chri sti an acti vi sts where they are
i nevi tabl y headed i f they take an i mpl i ci tl y pro-covenantal posi ti on
regardi ng such i ssues as aborti on and pri vate educati on, and then
try to defend themsel ves theol ogi cal l y. I mi ght as wel l be the one to
do i t. They will either beconw theocrats or quiet~ drop out of thejght. I have
been sayi ng thi s throughout the 1980%,56 and l eader by fundamen-
tal i st l eader, my predi cti on i s comi ng true. They are droppi ng out.
They no l onger even attempt to wri te a theol ogi cal rati onal e for thei r
pol i ti cal vi ews. They know that i f they do, they wi l l wi ndup sound-
i ng too much l i ke the Reconstructi oni sts (dangerous) or l i ke Nel l ,
Hatch, and Marsden (wi mpy l i beral ). So they stay si l ent.
Thi s l eaves the Chri sti an i ntel l ectual battl efi el d to a ti ny handful
of theonomi sts and a l arge, theol ogi cal l y i ncoherent, mental l y soft
through di suse group of Chri sti an humani sts. Meanwhi l e, sel f-
.
56. Gary North, The I ntel l ectual Schi zophreni a of the New Chri sti an Ri ght;
Chri sti ani ~ and Civilization, 1 (1982), pp. 1-40.
procl ai med pl ural i sti c humani sts wi l l conti nue to remove al l traces of
Chri sti ani ty from the publ i c square, i ssue by i ssue, confrontati on by
confrontati on. Li ke the Ameri can Ci vi l Li berti es Uni on, whi ch can-
not bear the si ght of a Chri stmas scene on the front l awn of the
courthouse, 57 so are the i ncreasi ngl y sel f-consci ous pl ural i sts pl u-
ral i sts who are i n fact steadi l y abandoni ng the phi l osophy of pol i ti cal
pl ural i sm. They woul d l i ke to do to al l of l i fe what they have done
wi th the publ i c school s: make the name of God i l l egal .
The war agai nst Chri sti ani ty that began behi nd cl osed doors i n
Phi l adel phi a i n 1787 (or at Mount Vernon i n 1785) i s now begi nni ng
to become vi si bl e to formerl y nai ve Chri sti ans. They can no l onger
count on bei ng abl e to use the Consti tuti on to defend thei r hoped-for
autonomy from the now-humani sti c State, for the humani sti c State
wants autonomy from the covenants of God. I t cannot achi eve thi s
i f Chri sti ans are pursui ng i nherentl y Chri sti an pol i ti cal or judi ci al
objecti ves.
There i s now onl y one way for Chri sti ans to get back i nsi de that
offi ci al l y naked publ i c square: theocrati cdy. There i s no naked publ i c
square. Natural l aw phi l osophy di ed as an i ntel l ectual force at l east
by 1900. I ts bastard hei r, pol i ti cal pl ural i sm, i s now dyi ng. I t wi l l soon
be dead. Thus, the Chri sti ans task i s to begi n to recapture the publ i c
square for God. Chri sti ans must decl are the crown ri ghts of Ki ng
Jesus i n every nook and cranny of the l and, i ncl udi ng pol i ti cs. But we
need not al l come to thi s controversi al concl usi on prematurel y. Just
one step at a ti me, one confl i ct at a ti me, one confrontati on at a ti me.
A Tri ni tari an Refuge
The worl d desperatel y needs a sanctuary. I t needs dozens of
them. There are none l eft.w They al l cl osed after Worl d War I . They
cl osed because the nati ons that had been sanctuari es as a resul t of
thei r ori gi nal Chri sti ani ty swi tched to ful l -scal e democracy. The
threat of i mmi grants wi th the vote scared them too much. They are
unwi l l i ng to gi ve the power to i mpose sancti ons to outsi ders. So
these outsi ders remai n outsi de. 59
57. The best response I have heard was from one mayor who had l ost hi s towns
manger scene to the ACLU. They resented a scene that depi cted what the ACLU
doesnt have: three wi se men and a vi rgi n.
58. Cl osi ng the Doors; Tinw (Jul y 3, 1989).
59. The most fl agrant exampl e on earth today i s Bri tai ns unwi l l i ngness to grant
entry vi sas to Hong Kongs ci ti zens, some of the most producti ve peopl e on earth. Bri t-
Conclusion 661
I t i s understandabl e that men do not want to grant to forei gners
the sancti on of the suffrage. They bel i eve that i f someone has fl ed
from another pl ace of resi dence, the refugee shoul d not expect to tel l
hi s hosts how to run thei r country. I t takes generati ons to l earn the
ways of a forei gn nati on, unl ess the immigrant has already accepted the reli-
gious views thut undergird that nation. I f he accepts the rel i gi on of the
host nati on, then he has made the transi ti on. He i s ready for ci ti zen-
shi p. I f he i s wi l l i ng to come under the sancti on of the sacraments,
then he i s ready to exerci se ci vi l judgment i n terms of the l aw of the
covenant.
Because modern democraci es honor onl y the ci vi l sacrament of
voti ng, they resi st turni ng over thi s authori ty to i mmi grants who
can, i n a mass democracy, vote thei r way i nto the pocketbooks and
bank accounts of those who now resi de i n the hos~ nati on. So, the
resi dents want to l i mi t i mmi grants to those who have equal l y l arge
pocketbooks and bank accounts. Canada wel comes Hong Kongers
who can bri ng l arge sums of money wi th them. Nati ons al l ow i m-
mi grants to buy thei r way i n. Cl osed borders are the pri ce of pol i ti cal
open communi on one man, one vote.
Unti l Chri sti ans understand the pri nci pl e of cl osed communi on
and excommuni cati on i n the Church (poi nt four of the Church cove-
nant), and unti l they l i nk thi s by ci vi l l aw wi th the exerci se of the
fkanchi se (poi nt four of the State covenant), they wi l l not understand
the bi bl i cal pri nci pl e of open borders and sanctuary. I t wi l l take a
paradi gm shi ft of hi stori c proporti ons to accompl i sh thi s transforma-
ti on. Chri sti ans wi l l fi rst have to abandon both Wi therspoon and
Madi son, and for over two centuri es, they have been unwi l l i ng to
thi nk about thi s, l et al one do i t.
Concl usi on
I t i s not enough to know what to do; i t i s requi red that those who
know do i t. Therefore to hi m that knoweth to do good, and doeth i t
not, to hi m i t i s si n (James 4:17). The probl em today and for the
ai n has agreed to del i ver Hong Kong to the Chi nese Communi sts i n 1997. Hong
Kongs ci ti zens are bei ng deni ed access to a l egal escape route to Bri tai n, despi te the
fact that Hong Kong had been part of the Bri ti sh Empi re and sti l l i s part of the Com-
monweal th. Bri tai ns voters are raci sts, but no pol i ti ci an dares say thi s i n publ i c.
They remember what happened to Enoch Powel l , M. P., who di d say thi s, i n the
earl y 1970s. He was attacked i n the press by every l i beral i n Engl and, who today re-
mai n si l ent regardi ng Hong Kong.
l ast three centuri es i s not just Chri sti ans i gnorance about Gods
l aw; i t i s that they do not want to know about i t, for i f they knew,
they woul d have to obey i t. They do not want to obey i t. They al so
do not want the added responsi bi l i ty that such knowl edge i nevi tabl y
bri ngs. Thi s i s a psychol ogi cal reason why Chri sti ans are general l y
premi l l enni al and ami l l enni al . I t i s not because they have personal l y
spent a great deal of ti me exami ni ng the three major vi ews of escha-
tol ogy. I t i s because they do not want to bel i eve that God hol ds Hi s
peopl e accountabl e for usi ng Hi s l aw to heal thi s worl d. I f such heal -
i ng i s possi bl e, then Chri sti ans are responsi bl e. Such heal i ng i s pos-
si bl e; Chri sti ans are responsi bl e.
I n Ameri ca, there i s a sl ogan: Ei ther si nk or swi m. Premi l l enni al -
i sm and ami l l enni al i sm are eschatol ogi es based on treadi ng water. I f
the Church of Jesus Chri st treads water l ong enough, we are assured,
Jesus wi l l come and throw i t a l i fe preserver, ei ther just before the mi l -
l enni um (premi l l enni al i sm), just before the great tri bul ati on (pre-tri b
di spensati onal i sm), or at the end of hi story (arni l l enni al i sm).
The premi l l enni al fundamental i sts and the ami l l enni al i st
Lutherans are content wi th treadi ng water cul tural l y; they are ethi -
cal dual i sts who bel i eve i n natural l aw and the l egi ti macy of pol i ti cal
rul e by the devi l s di sci pl es duri ng the era of the Church. The Cal vi n-
i sti c Dutch fol l owers of Kuyper, Dooyewewerd, and Schi l der, how-
ever, have a probl em wi th thi s Armi ni an dual i sm. Unl i ke thei r
water-treadi ng brethren, they bel i eve that there i s an as-yet undi s-
covered Chri sti an theory of swi mmi ng. So, as they tread furi ousl y,
decade after decade, they worry a l ot about di scoveri ng thi s mi ssi ng
theory of swi mmi ng. I s i t just a theory or i s i t real ? Does i t have spe-
ci fi cal l y y bi bl i cal content or i s i t cosmonomi c, i .e., an empty box that
fl oats on top of the water unti l you open i t, whereupon i t i mmedi -
atel y fi l l s wi th water and si nks l i ke a stone?w Dutch Cal vi ni sti c
schol ars worry a l ot about thi s.
Meanwhi l e a ti ny handful of postmi l l enni al i sts have begun
swi mmi ng toward shore. I f they di dnt have l i nes ti ed around thei r
wai sts attached to fi fty pessi mi l l enni al i sts each, they coul d go a l ot
faster.
There i s not much ti me remai ni ng for treadi ng water for Jesus .
The storm i s comi ng, and the waves are getti ng hi gher. The di spen-
60. L. Kal sbeek, Contours of a Christian Philosofihy: An introduction to Harnan Dooye-
weerds thought (Toronto, Canada: Wedge, [1970] 1975).
Conclusion 663
sati onal response i s to assure everyone that Jesus i s comi ng soon
wi th hi s l i fe preservers, but that promi se i s weari ng thi n. Mean-
whi l e, the humani sts are comi ng to us, one by one, wi th an anchor
to ti e around our ri ght l egs. And every ti me they attach an anchor to
some facul ty member from ei ther Wheaton Col l ege or Cal vi n Col -
l ege, the vi cti m cri es out: Look, everyone: i t fl oats! Two mi nutes
l ater, al l we can see i s bubbl es.
We have l ess and l ess breathi ng room. To swi tch metaphors, the
l i nes between Chri sti ani ty and humani sm are bei ng drawn more
sharpl y. We have l ess room to maneuver. C. S. Lewi s fi cti onal col -
l ege professor sai d i t wel l : I f you di p i nto any col l ege, or school , or
pari sh, or fami l y anythi ng you l i ke at a gi ven poi nt i n i ts hi story,
you al ways fi nd that there was a ti me before that poi nt when there
was more el bow room and contrasts werent qui te so sharp; and that
theres goi ng to be a ti me after that poi nt when there i s even l ess
room for i ndeci si on and choi ces are even more momentous. Good i s
al ways getti ng better and bad i s al ways getti ng worse: the possi bi l i -
ti es of even apparent neutral i ty are al ways di mi ni shi ng. The whol e
thi ng i s sorti ng i tsel f out al l the ti me, comi ng to a poi nt, getti ng
sharper and harder.Gl
Sooner or l ater, the real i ty of thi s Vanti l l i an-styl e prophecy wi l l
dawn on both si des of the two-edged sword of Gods covenant: there is
no neutrali~. And when i t does, both si des wi l l gi ve pol i ti cal pl ural i sm
the buri al i t deserves, before i t sti nks up the commonweal th even
more. And after pol i ti cal pl ural i sm has been i n the grave for a cen-
tury or so, peopl e wi l l l ook back i n amazement at the peri od that
began i n Rhode I sl and i n 1636, expanded nati onal l y i n 1789, and i n-
ternati onal l y i n the twenti eth century. They wi l l ask: How coul d
seri ous peopl e have bel i eved such nai ve dri vel that i t i s possi bl e to
operate a pol i ti cal order apart from a publ i c acknowl edgment of God?
The i ntermedi ate strategy questi on faci ng Chri sti ans today i s
thi s: Whi ch God wi l l they have i n mi nd? z
61. C. S. Lewi s, That Hideous Strength: A Modem Faity - Tale for Grown-Ups (New
York: Macmi l l an, 1946), p. 283.
62. Edward Morti mer, Faith and Power: The Politics of I slam (New York: Vi ntage,
1982).
APPENDIXES
I t i s cl ear that, though many men, i ncl udi ng many l eaders of the
modern church, wi l l al l ow for the i dea of authori ty, i t i s not bi bl i cal
authori ty that they accept. The y wi l l accept onl y such an authori ty
as i s consi stent wi th man as ul ti mate and as the fi nal poi nt of refer-
ence i n al l human asserti on.
The questi on of the poi nt of contact may therefore agai n be noted
bri efl y. I s there no val ue then i n the fact that men recogni ze thei r need
of authori ty? Does thei r recogni ti on of absol ute dependence mean
nothi ng at al l ? I s mans recogni ti on of the need of gods above hi m as
wel l as hi s recogni ti on of wrong that he has done of no val ue for the
questi on of poi nt of contact? I s i t onl y a head-on col l i si on that you
seek wi th the natural man i n tryi ng to wi n hi m over to the fai th?
We answer as we di d above on the questi on of the necessi ty of
Scri pture. I n thei r recogni ti on of thei r si n and i n thei r expressed
need of authori t y men d: recogni ze, but i n spi te of themsel ves, that
they are real l y not so sel f-suffi ci ent as thei r pri nci pl e requi res them
to be. They are l i ke the prodi gal son whose pri nci pl e requi res hi m to
deny that he i s a son of hi s father whom he has l eft, but who cannot
forget hi s fathers voi ce. Gods authori tati ve Word does not speak i n
a vacuum. I t speaks to such as are unabl e ever to escape the cal l of
hi s voi ce. They have to mai ntai n thei r own pri nci pl e arti fi ci al l y by
bui l di ng dams anew each day agai nst the overwhel mi ng evi dence of
the presence of thei r Creator and Judge. Men therefore try to natu-
ral i ze the i dea of authori ty as wel l as the i dea of si n; they say i t i s to
be expected that fi ni te men do not know al l thi ngs and do not do
ful l y ~hat whi ch i s ri ght and true. Even so they cannot ful l y natu-
ral i ze these concepts. They wi l l not be natural i zed. I n thei r refusal to
be natural i zed these concepts testi fy to man to the effect that he
ought to accept that whi ch hi s adopted pri nci pl e requi res hi m to re-
ject. Thus the futi l i ty of hi s struggl e wi th the probl em of authori ty as
wel l as wi th the probl em of evi l i s i tsel f a means by whi ch God bri ngs
hi s pressure to bear upon men. Havi ng a consci ousness of thei r crea-
turehood and wi th i t a consci ousness of good and evi l , thei r need of
authori ty i s the soundi ng board agai nst whi ch the gospel comes to
man. But the gospel s i dea of authori ty i s not a mere conti nuati on of
the i dea of authori t y such as the natural man admi ts that he needs.
Cornel i us Van Ti l (1969)
*Van Ti l , A Chnktian Theo~ of Knowledge ([ Phi l l i psburg, New Jersey]: Presbyter-
i an & Reformed, 1969), pp. 63-64.
Appendi x A
THE AUTHORI TY OF H. RI CHARD NI EBUHR
As ye have ther~ore received Christ J esus the Lord, so walk ye in
him: Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, a.sye haue
been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any man
spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men,
after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ (Col. 2:6-8).
What Nel l , Hatch, and Marsden reject i s the i dea of bi bl i cal
bl uepri nts. Thi s rejecti on i s basi c to al l modern academi c Chri sti an-
i ty. (I f anyone wonders why I sel ected Bi bl i cal Bl uepri nt Seri es for
the set of books I edi ted on Chri sti an real -worl d acti vi sm, cease won-
deri ng. 1 For years, neo-evangel i cal s and even some fundamental i sts
have repeated thei r l i tany: There are no bi bl i cal bl uepri nts. There
are no bi bl i cal bl uepri nts . Yes there are. ) Thei r rejecti on of the i dea
of bi bl i cal bl uepri nts means that they al so had to reject the Ol d Tes-
tament case l aws. To do thi s wi th respect to Ameri can hi story, they
ci te an i nsi ght from Ni ebuhrs book, Christ and Culture. We may
speak, as many Chr i sti ans do, of that tr ansfor mati on whi ch H .
Ri char d Ni ebuhr descr i bed as Chr i st the tr ansfor mer of cul tur e.
But as we do, we must retai n a real i sti c vi ew of the l i mi ted and often
ambi guous accompl i shments of Chri sti ans i n the past. We shoul d be
remi nded al so that we oursel ves do not have the fi nal bl uepri nts for
establ i shi ng the Ki ngdom of Heaven on earth.z
No fi nal bl uepri nts? Wel l , we hardl y need fi nal bl uepri nts. Al l we
need are Gods reveal ed judi ci al bl uepri nts. These are the fi nal bl ue-
pri nts. They are cal l ed case l aws. We have those at our fi ngerti ps i n
the Ol d Testament. But our authors di smi ss the case l aws as i f they
were part of a di scarded fi rst draft of the Bi bl e. They are not i m-
1. Ten vol umes as of 1989: Ft. Worth, Texas: Domi ni on Press, 1986-87.
2. Mark A. Nel l , Nathan O. Hatch, and George M. Marsden, The Search for
Christian Amwi ca (Westchester, I l l i noi s: Crossway, 1983), p. 46.
667
pr essed wi th the case l aws. What they ar e i mpr essed wi th i s H.
Ri char d Ni ebuhr. They conti nue: We shoul d recogni ze that we are
no more careful students of Gods wi l l than were the Puri tans, and
we are no more exempt from mi sreadi ng that wi l l than they were.
Th e r el a ti on s h i p between Ch r i s ti a n i ty a n d cu l tu r e i s al way s
reci procal . The cul ture transforms the Chri sti an at the same ti me
the Chri sti an transforms the cul ture. Hence as we assume our re-
sponsi bi l i ti es for the transformati on of cul ture, we shoul d do so wi th
an equal appreci ati on for the vi ew that Ni ebuhr descri bes as Chri st
and cul tur e i n par adox. 3
Why woul d any Bi bl e-bel i evi ng Chri sti an take seri ousl y even for
a moment Ni ebuhrs concepts of Chri st the transformer of cul ture
or Chri st and cul ture i n paradox? Ni ebuhrs Chri st was a fi gment
of hi s Barthi an i magi nati on, a force, not a person. But the tri o coul d
not resi st referri ng to hi m, for thei r vi ew of the absence of the cove-
nant and its cownant sanctions i n Ameri can hi story i s far, far cl oser to
Ni ebuhrs fal se Chri st than to the covenant God of the Bi bl e. For thi s
r eason, we need to r evi ew Ni ebuhrs theol ogi cal vi ews, for he ex-
pressed the ethi cal vi ewpoi nt of vi rtual l y al l reputabl e hi stori ans
wri ti ng today. He was one of thi s centurys major apostl es of rel ati v-
i sm, yet he cl oaked thi s rel ati vi sm i n bi bl i cal termi nol ogy. Thi s has
been the demoni c and hi ghl y successful strategy of many generati ons
of covenant-breakers, but the practi ce has accel erated si nce the ad-
vent of Karl Barth.
Our Sour ce, the Anti nomi an Apostate
Who was H. Ri char d Ni ebuhr? Fi rst and foremost, he was an
apostate. He was al so an anti nomi an. He was as forthri ght a rel ati v-
i st as has ever wal ked i nto a semi nary cl assroom. He saw Chri sti an-
i ty as al l good evol uti oni sts see everythi ng, i n terms of process rather
than per manent ethi cal standar ds. He was qui te outspoken about
thi s. I n the Preface to hi s enormousl y i nfl uenti al hi story, 2% ~i ng-
o?om of God in America, Ni ebuhr wrote: May I underscore some con-
vi cti ons whi ch thi s study has foster ed i n me and whi ch ar e even
stronger than appears i n the book? Fi rst i s the convi cti on that Chri s-
ti ani ty, whether i n Amer i ca or anywher e el se but par ti cul ar l y i n
Pr otestanti sm and i n Ameri ca, must be understood as a movement
rather than as an i nsti tuti on or seri es of i nsti tuti ons. I t i s gospel
3. Zdem.
The Authori~ of H. Richard Niebuhr 669
rather than l aw, i t i s more dynami c than stati c. The geni us of Chri s-
ti ani ty does not appear i n i ts ethi cal programs any more than i n i ts
doctr i nal cr eeds, i mpor tant as they may be at ti mes; these ar e
abstracti ons from i ts l i fe and become fetters when they are not recog-
ni zed as abstracti ons. The true church i s not an organi zati on but the
or gani c movement of those who have been cal l ed out and sent. q
Thi s i s the standar d l i ber al , apostate, God-hati ng, covenant-
d e n y i n g mu mbo-j u mbo t h a t h a s be e n a d op t e d by covenant-
br eak er s, especi al l y Ger man-tr ai ned covenant-br eak er s, for two
centuri es. Nothi ng excepti onal here! These men hate the i dea of per-
manent bi bl i cal l aw (ethi cs) wi th the same passi on that they hate the
creeds of Chri sti ani ty. They are at war wi th the God who has spoken
i n cogni ti ve l anguage that can be under stood by men and acted
upon. why? Because, above al l , they hate the idea of~nal~udgment, for
they wi l l be hel d eternal l y accountabl e for every word that has come
out of thei r mouths, as wel l as for every deed. And so they mumbl e.
And mumbl e.
The Rel ati vi sm of Fai th
Do I exagger ate? Not at al l . Here i s a typi cal sel ecti on from
Ni ebuhr. I t i s a defense of r el ati vi sm by means of matchi ng l an-
guage. He cal l s the secti on, The Rel ati vi sm of Fai th. Warni ng: you
are about to enter the swamps of modern theol ogi cal di scourse. Take
a deep breath and pray for a speedy del i verance.
The concl usi ons at whi ch we arri ve i ndi vi dual l y i n seeki ng to be Chri s-
ti ans i n our cul ture are rel ati ve i n at l east four ways. They depend on the
parti al , i ncompl ete, fragmentary knowl edge of the i ndi vi dual ; they are rel -
ati ve to the measure of hi s fai th and hi s unbel i efi they are rel ated to the hi s-
tori cal posi ti on he occupi es and to the duti es of hi s stati on i n soci ety; they
are concerned wi th the rel ati ve val ues of thi ngs. s
.,. Everyone has some ki nd of a phi l osophy, some general worl d vi ew,
whi ch to men of other vi ews wi l l seem mythol ogi cal . That phi l osophy or
mythol ogy affects our acti ons and makes ~hem rel ati ve. They are not l ess
r el ati ve when affected by the mythol ogy of the twenti eth centur y than when
i nfl uenced by the mythol ogy of the fi rst. We do not dare to act on the basi s
4. H. Ri chard Ni ebuhr, The Kingdom of God in Ameri ca (New York: Harper Torch-
books, [1937] 1959), pp. xi i i -xi v.
5. H. Ri chard Ni ebuhr, Chri st and Culture (New York: Harper Col ophon, [1951]
1975), p. 234.
of the l atter, and deal wi th mental pati ents by exorci si ng demons; we shal l
endeavor to use our best understandi ng of the nature and rel ati ons of spi ri t
and body, yet we shal l know what i s rel ati vel y true for us al so contai ns
mythol ogi cal el ements. 6
Fi nal l y, there i s a rel ati vi ty of val ues that we must take i nto account i n
al l our choi ces. Everythi ng wi th whi ch we deal has many val ue rel ati ons; i t
has val ue for oursel ves, for other men, for l i fe, for reason, for the state, and
so on. Though we start wi th the bol d affi rmati on of fai th that al l men have
sacred val ue, because al l are rel ated to God, and that they are therefore
equal i n val ue, yet we must al so consi der that al l men are i n rel ati ons to
other fi ni te bei ngs, and that i n these rel ati ons they do not have equal val ue.
. . . Though truth has eternal val ue, val ue for God, i t al so stands i n val ue
rel ati ons to human reason, to l i fe, to soci ety i n i ts order, to the sel f. Our
work i n cul ture i s concerned wi th al l these rel ati ve val ues of men, i deas,
natural objects and processes. I n justi ce we deal wi th the rel ati ve val ues of
cri mi nal s and honest men for thei r fel l ow men; i n economi cs we are con-
cerned about the rel ati ve val ues of thi ngs and acti ons that are rel ated to mi l -
l i ons of bei ngs i n mul ti pl e rel ati ons to each other. I n every work of cul ture
we rel ati ve men, wi th our rel ati ve poi nts of vi ew and rel ati ve eval uati ons,
deal wi th rel ati ve val ues; thus we make our deci si ons.
7
Then he adds: The r ecogni ti on and ack nowl edgment of our
rel ati vi ty, however, does not mean that we are wi thout an absol ute .B
What absol ute? Bi bl i cal l aw? Har dl y. The Westmi nster Confessi on
of Fai th, perhaps? Are you mad, si r? No, we must have fai th i n the
absol ute fai thful ness of GQd-i n-chri st.9 Coul d you be a bi t mor e
speci fi c, Dr . Ni ebuhr? After al l , we ar e tal ki ng of l i fe-and-death
i ssues here eternal l i fe-and-death i ssues. And the answer dri fts i n
l i ke London fog.
So al so the performance of our rel ati ve duti es i n our parti cul ar ti mes,
pl aces, and cal l i ngs i s far from bei ng rel ati vi sti c and sel f-asserti ve when i t i s
carri ed out i n obedi ence to the command of the Absol ute. I t does become
rel ati vi sti c and fal sel y absol ute when I requi re that what i s ri ght for me be
the whol e ri ght and nothi ng but the ri ght; when I , i n my rel ati vi ty, demand
that what I do i n obedi ence be worthy of bei ng regarded by mysel f, by other
men and God, as ri ght apart from al l the compl ementary acti ons, the
precedents and consequences i n my own acti vi ty, the acti vi ty of my fel l ow
6. I bid., p. 235.
7. I bid., pp. 237-38.
8. I bid., p. 238.
9. I bid., p. 239.
The Authori~ of H. Richard Niebuhr 671
men, and, above al l , the acti vi ty of Chri st. For fai th i n the Absol ute, as
known i n and through Chri st, makes evi dent that nothi ng I do or can do i n
my rel ati ve i gnorance and knowl edge, fai thl essness and fai th, ti me, pl ace,
and cal l i ng i s ri ght wi th the ri ghtness of compl eted, fi ni shed acti on, ri ght
wi thout the compl eti on, correcti on, and forgi veness of an acti vi ty of grace
worki ng i n al l creati on and i n the redempti on. 10
Got that? He went on l i ke thi s for another two pages, but you
pr obabl y cannot stand much mor e of i t. I can thi nk of no mor e
fi tti ng eval uati on of the l i terary styl e, not to menti on theol ogi cal con-
tent, of H. Ri chard Ni ebuhr, theol ogi an of the Absol utel y Rel ati ve,
than H. L. Menckens descri pti on of the oratori cal styl e of Presi dent
warren G. Har di ng: He wri tes the worst Engl i sh that I have ever
encountered. I t remi nds me of a stri ng of wet sponges; i t remi nds me
of tattered washi ng on the l i ne; i t remi nds me of stal e bean soup, of
col l ege yel l s, of dogs barki ng i di oti cal l y through endl ess ni ghts. I t i s
so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps i nto i t. I t drags i tsel f out of the
dark abysm (I was about to wri te abscess!) of pi sh, and crawl s i n-
sanel y up to the topmost pi nnacl e of posh. I t i s rumbl e and bumbl e.
I t i s fl ap and doodl e. I t i s bal der and dash.l l
What was Ni ebuhr getti ng at? Si mpl e. He di d not want to face
the thought of a personal God who judges al l men i n terms of thei r
per sonal commi tment to Hi s l i vi ng, bodi l y r esur r ected, physi cal l y
I ncarnate Son. He di d not want to accept the fact that Gods Son
came i nto hi stor y i n or der to ful fi l l per fectl y the speci fi c ter ms of
Gods covenant l aw, and that anyone who refuses to accept the work
of Jesus Chri st as hi s personal sacri fi ci al substi tute wi l l spend eter-
ni ty i n screami ng agony.
Escape to the Noumenal
To avoi d thi nki ng of these unpl easant thi ngs, Ni ebuhr the Apos-
tate al so abandoned al ong the way other unpl easant thoughts, such
as covenant l aw, an i nfal l i bl e Bi bl e, cogni ti ve revel ati on from God to
man, prayer that works, exorci sm of real demons, creeds that ac-
curatel y refl ect the theol ogi cal and ethi cal standards of God, and the
10, I bid., pp. 239-40.
11. Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun (March 7, 1921). Ci ted by Mi ri an Ri ngo,
Nobocij Sai d I t Betted (Chi cago: Rand McNal l y, 1980), p. 201. Wi l l i am Al l en Whi te
al most matched Mencken, and di d so i n one sentence: I f ever there was a he-harl ot,
i t was thi s same Warren G. Hardi ng. I dem. He-harl otry i s the very core of
Ni ebuhrs theol ogy.
i dea of a l i near hi story that i s movi ng progressi vel y toward fi nal judg-
ment progressi vel y bei ng defi ned as 1) l i near temporal movement
i n ti me toward the fi nal judgment, and al so as 2) l i near temporal
movement i n terms of fi xed standards of God-ordai ned ethi cal per-
formance, both i ndi vi dual and corporate. Abandoni ng al l thi s,
Ni ebuhr adopted the l anguage of Barthi an l i beral i sm, a l anguage
whi ch refl ects a personal commi tment to anti -creedal i sm. Hi s l an-
guage resembl ed Kants nozsmenal real m of i ncoherence whi ch i s i n no
cogni ti ve way connected to Kants phenomenal real m of predi ctabl e
cause and effect. Hi s phi l osophi cal dual i sm nearl y destroyed hi s
abi l i ty to wri te a coherent paragraph. At l east hi s brother Rei nhol d
wrote better prose.
Wri ti ng of the brothers Ni ebuhr, al ong wi th several other Barthi an
theol ogi ans, Van Ti l comments: I n thei r theol ogy, as i n that of
Barth i t i s i n the l ast anal ysi s the rel i gi ous consci ousness that di vi des
i tsel f i nto two secti ons after the styl e of Dr. Jekyl l and Mr. Hyde.
The hi gher aspect wi l l then address the l ower aspect and i nsi st upon
obedi ence to i ts voi ce. And thus man wi l l tel l hi msel f that he has
been l i steni ng to God or to Jesus.12 Thei r Chri st i s the Chri st of
Kant, by way of Ki erkegaard. 13 H. Ri chard was qui te sel f-consci ous
about thi s: he defended what he cal l ed soci al exi stenti al i sm i n
terms of the heri tage of Ki erkegaard. Thi s secti on of Chrzst and
Culture i s i ts concl usi on. 14
Yet i t i s to Chri st and Culture that Nel l , Hatch, and Marsden ap-
peal to hel p support thei r concl usi on that there i s no hi stori cal Chri s-
ti an Ameri ca at the end of the academi c quest. They bel i eve that thi s
supposed absence of a covenant-bound Chri sti an past has rel i eved
them of the moral burden of l abori ng to bui l d a covenant-bound
Chri sti an Ameri ca i n the future. To bui l d such an Ameri ca woul d
requi re the use of bl uepri nts God-reveal ed covenant standards
and thi s, above al l , i s what thi s tri o of hi ghl y respectabl e Chri sti an
hi stori ans despi ses: the very i dea of God-requi red bl uepri nts. The
members of the tri o have al l read thei r Bi bl es, and they know exactl y
where such an i dea l eads: strai ght i nto the camp of the unrespectabl e
Chri sti an Reconstructi oni sts. So they prefer to obscure the ethi cal
12. Cornel i us Van Ti l , A Chriktian TheoV of Knowledge (Nutl ey, New Jersey: Pres-
byteri an & Reformed, 1969), p. 63.
13. Van Ti l , Th Great Debate Today (Nutl ey, New Jersey: Presbyteri an & Re-
formed, 1971), p. 109.
14. Ni ebuhr, Christ and Culture, pp. 241-56.
The AuthoripofH. Richard i?iebuhr 673
i ssue for ki ngdom-bui l di ng: . . . we oursel ves do not have the fi nal
bl uepri nts for establ i shi ng the Ki ngdom of Heaven on earth.
No fi nal bl uepri nts? Wel l , they are suffi ci entl y fi nal to be used by
God to consi gn covenant-breakers to eternal agony. But thi s, i n the
eyes of academi cal l y respectabl e peopl e, i s the case l aws chi ef
offense: they poi nt to the God who bri ngs Hi s sancti ons.
Al l created real i ty i s revel ati onal i n character; i ts revel ati on of
God i s unavoi dabl e and unescapabl e. But the natural man seeks to
suppress thi s wi tness as wel l as that of hi s own nature. As a resul t,
the onl y poi nt of contact he tol erates i s one whi ch concedes hi s cl ai m
to autonomy. The onl y way the Chri sti an can deal wi th thi s stub-
born and wi l ful bl i ndness i s by head-on col l i si on, by an al l -out
chal l enge to the natural man. He must reason by presupposi ti on,
and the ontol ogi cal tri ni ty, as taught i n the Scri ptures, i s the presup-
posi ti on of al l human predi cati on.
Al l reasoni ng i s by presupposi ti on, but too l i ttl e reasoni ng i s con-
si stentl y and sel f-consci ousl y presupposi ti onal . Some years ago, a
Western trader found hi s work vastl y enhanced by hi s hal f-whi te,
hal f-I ndi an status. Among the I ndi ans, he natural l y and easi l y spoke
hi s mothers tongue, acted as one of them, and reasoned i n terms of
thei r cul ture and fai th. Among the whi te mi ners and ranchers, he
readi l y fel l i nto hi s fathers ways, hi s fathers skepti ci sm of I ndi an
myth, and the whi te mans sense of superi ori ty. Al though often ac-
cused of hypocri sy, a si n not uncomm~n among such m-i xed bl oods
and a source of advantage to them, thi s was not enti rel y true i n hi s
case. He shared i n both ;utl ooks and l i ved i n unresol ved tensi on and
frustrati on. I n a sense, thi s i s the posi ti on of the natural man today.
A creature, created i n Gods i mage, hi s enti re bei ng i s revel ati onal of
God. To thi nk coherentl y, he must presuppose God. I n order to have
sci ence, he must begi n wi th Chri sti an assumpti ons and presuppose
the uni ty of sci ence and of knowl edge. But, bei ng fal l en, he now pre-
supposes hi s autonomy and attempts to suppress, wherever he be-
comes consci ous of i ts i mpl i cati ons, thi s basi c presupposi ti on of God.
As a resul t, hi s thi nki ng i s i nconsi stent, reveal s hi s tensi on and frus-
trati on, and l acks an ep-i stemol ogi cal sel f-consci ousness. To l i ve con-
si stentl y i n terms of hi s autonomy woul d pl unge hi m i nto the shore-
l ess and bottoml ess ocean of rel ati vi ty, but to l i ve and thi nk consi st-
entl y i n terms of the sel f-contai ned God woul d i nvol ve a total surren-
der to Hi s soverei gnty. The natural man tri es, as i ndeed too many
regenerate men do al so, to l i ve i n terms of both presupposi ti ons, to
have a foot i n both camps and have the advantages offered by both
God and Satan, but the resul ts of thi s consci ous and subconsci ous
effort i s tensi on and frustrati on.
R. J. Rushdoony (1959)
Rushdoony, By What Standard? An Ana@is of the Philosophy of Cornelius Van Til
(Tyl er, Texas: Thoburn Press, [1959] 1983), pp. 103-4.
Appendi x B
RUSHDOONY ON THE CONSTI TUTI ON
The Constitution gives usprocedural law, notasubstantive moral-
i~, soanyone canusethe Constitution forgoodor ill. Sothe Constitution
gives usagoodprocedural manual, andison thewhole avaygood one.
But it ha-s to be the people as th~ change and govern themselves; the Con-
stitution cannot save this country.
R. J . Ru.shdoony (1987) ~
The church . . . was thrown out into the street by the lawyers of
Philadelphia, who decided not to have a Christian county . . . [I ]n
e~ect, they took all the promises of religion, the pursuit of happiness,
safety, securip, all kinds of things, and they set up a lawyers paradise,
and the church was disenfranchised total~.
Otto Scott (1988)
2
Otto Scott, i n a percepti ve essay on the ever-changi ng U. S. Con-
sti tuti on, warns us agai nst becomi ng del uded by a sl ogani zed hi s-
tor y of thi s nati on and i ts Consti tuti on. He tr aces the hi stor y of
growi ng tyranny i n the Uni ted States i n terms of the steady transfor-
mati on and rei nterpretati on of the Consti tuti on. The hi story of the
Consti tuti on of the Uni ted States, l i ke al l other aspects of our na-
ti onal hi story, refl ects the changes i n Ameri can soci ety and govern-
ment through the years. To understand these changes i t i s essenti al
to understand that hi story as i t was, and oursel ves as we are. Yet we
have as a nati on fai l ed to confront the truth of our hi story i n many
1. Rushdoonys response to Bi l l Meyers: Transcri pt, God and Pol i ti cs: On Earth
as I t I s i n Heaven, Publ i c Affai rs Tel evi si on (broadcast date: Dec. 23, 1987), p. 4.
2. Easy Chai r audi otape #165 (March 10, 1988), di stri buted by the Chal cedon
Foundati on, P. O. Box 158, Val l eci to, Cal i for ni a 95251.
675
676
i mportant respects.3 He then cal l s for the restorati on of Chri sti ani ty
to i ts earl y promi nence among us. Let us, therefore, abandon the
l egend that the Consti tuti on i s i ntact, and set about the task of
Chri sti an Reconstructi on and Consti tuti onal restorati on.4
Sti rri ng words, i ndeed! But what he fai l s to note i n thi s percep-
ti ve essay i s somethi ng he cal l ed to R. J. Rushdoonys attenti on dur-
i ng a taped di scussi on they had regardi ng the theol ogi cal foundati on
of the Consti tuti on. Scott, over Rushdoonys protest, i denti fi ed the
Consti tuti onal Conventi on accuratel y: a successful effort by l awyers
to overcome Chri sti ani ty.
5
Thus, i f we are to achi eve Scotts two-fol d
goal the restorati on of Chri sti ani ty as i t once prevai l ed i n thi s na-
ti on and Consti tuti onal restorati on we must return to the expressl y
Chri sti an oaths of the state consti tuti ons of 1787, the consti tuti ons
that prevai l ed before the Phi l adel phi a l awyers di spl aced them by
means of a new nati onal oath, an oath that refused to acknowl edge
the soverei gn God of hi story who had made possi bl e thi s nati ons ex-
peri ment i n freedom. We must no l onger i gnore Scotts anal ysi s:
The Uni ted States i s the onl y government i n the hi story of the worl d
that has been establ i shed wi thout a god . . . wi thout speci fi cal l y
acknowl edgi ng any defi ni ti on of any rel i gi on. The Consti tuti on of
1789 was uni que i n that respect. No soci ety had ever done that .6 Ac-
tual l y, Rhode I sl and had, but that experi ment i n pl ural i sm was pro-
tected by a l arger commonweal th.
Begi nni ng i n the ei ghteenth century i n Northern Europe, anti -
Tri ni tari an humani sts combi ned wi th di ssenti ng (non-State-establ i shed)
churchmen and Dei sts
7
to restructure the exi sti ng basi s of ci ti zen-
shi p, whi ch had previ ousl y been expl i ci tl y Chri sti an. The two wi ngs
of the Enl i ghtenment, Scotti sh empi ri ci sm and French a Pnorz rati on-
al i sm, both procl ai med a new concept of ci ti zenshi p: ci ti zenshi p
wi thout a requi red professi on of fai th i n the God of the Bi bl e. I t was
thi s new concept of ci ti zenshi p whi ch was rati fi ed i nto l aw i n the
Uni ted States i n 1788.
3. Otto Scott, The Legend of the Consti tuti on, Journal of Christian Reconstruction,
XI I (1988), p. 59.
4. I bid., p. 59.
5. Easy Chai r audi otape #165.
6. Otto Scott, questi on and answer sessi on, message on Levi ti cus 8:1-13 by R. J.
Rushdoony (Jan. 30, 1987).
7. A detai l ed study of thei r movement i s found i n Carol i ne Robbi ns, The Eightanth-
Centuy Commonwealthman (Cambri dge, Massachusetts: Harvard Uni versi ty Press,
1959).
Rushdoony on the Constitution 677
The Ameri can Enl i ghtenment
Rushdoony, as a di sci pl e of Van Ti l , shoul d have been more al ert
to thi s cruci al and earl y Enl i ghtenment i nvasi on of Ameri ca, but he
has done hi s best i mpl i ci tl y to deny i ts i mpl i cati ons. He vi ews earl y
Ameri can thought as a mi xture of Chri sti ani ty and natural l aw,
whi ch i t was, but not as bei ng at bottom domi nated by the key foun-
dati on of Enl i ghtenment thought: the doctri ne of the autonomy of
mans reason. He has al ways refused to say of the Consti tuti on, as he
sai d i n Chapter 1 of By What Standard? regardi ng every other hybri d
worl d-vi ew, every other compromi se wi th the i ntel l ectual systems of
sel f-professed autonomous man: Behol d i t was Leah! He assumed
that the col oni sts fai th i n the Chri sti an God was more fundamental
than thei r fai th i n Enl i ghtenment thought. Thi s was no doubt true of
consi derabl e segments of the popul ati on, especi al l y after the revi val s
of the second quarter of the century. But thi s was not true of the intel-
lectual leaders of the Revol uti onary War era, who were overwhel m-
i ngl y Dei st (proto-Uni tari an) i n outl ook. On thi s poi nt, at l east wi th
respect to those men who wrote defenses of the War, C, Gregg
Si ngers vi ew of the Ameri can Revol uti on i s correct. 6 I thi nk that
Mays assessment i s fai r: . . . most forms of the Enl i ghtenment de-
vel oped among the mi ddl e and upper cl asses of European ci ti es,
spread mai nl y among si mi l ar groups i n Ameri ca, and fai l ed to reach
the agrari an majori ty. On the whol e, vari ous forms of Protestant
Chri sti ani ty served the emoti onal needs of most Ameri cans better .g
But when we i nqui re about the bel i efs of the arti cul ate l eadershi p of
the nati on, especi al l y the tri umphant nati onal i sts of 1789, we fi nd
that the phi l osophy of the Scotti sh wi ng of the Enl i ghtenment was
domi nant.
The Two Wings of the Enlightenment
Rushdoony repeatedl y refers to the anti -French Revol uti on atti -
tude that prevai l ed i n the l ast decade of ei ghteenth-century Ameri ca.
He offers thi s as evi dence of an atti tude hosti l e to the Enl i ghten-
ment. What he never says i s that he i s defi ni ng Enl i ghtenment
sol el y i n terms of i ts l eft-wi ng i deol ogy: the philosopher of France.
8. Si nger, A Theological I ntop?etation of Ameri can HistoT (Nutl ey, New Jersey:
Crai g Press. 1964). ch. 2: Dei sm i n Col oni al Li fe.
. .,
9. Henry F. May, The Enlightenment in Amenca (New York: Oxford Uni versi ty
Press, 1976), p. xvi i i .
Thi s i s onl y hal f of the story of the Enl i ghtenment. That i n 1798 we
fi nd an anti -Jeffersoni an, anti -French Re~ol uti on outl ook among many
Ameri cans 10 those who agreed wi th Edmund Burke regardi ng the
horrors of the French Revol uti on shoul d be no more surpri si ng than
the fact that we al so fi nd pro-French, pro-Jefferson sym-pathi ~ers. 11
The mere presence of an anti -French Revol uti onary outl ook i n the l ate
ei ghteenth century was no guarantee of Enl i ghtenment-free wi sdom.
Edmund Burke had been the most el oquent opponent of the
French Revol uti on from the very begi nni ng, and ni neteenth-century
European conservati ve i ntel l ectual thought was overwhel mi ngl y
Burkean. Yet Burke was surel y a representati ve thi nker of the ri ght
wi ng of the Enl i ghtenment. He was a correspondent wi th Adam
Smi th, Davi d Hume, and other Scotti sh Enl i ghtenment fi gures. Hi s
conservati ve phi l osophy of pl ural i sm and soci al tradi ti onal i sm
agreed wi th thei r cl assi cal l i beral doctri ne of soci al evol uti oni sm.
Thi s outl ook i s refl ected i n Burkes statement that The sci ence of
constructi ng a commonweal th, or renovati ng i t, or reformi ng i t, i s,
l i ke every other experi mental sci ence, not to be taught a pnori. Nor i s
i t a short experi ence that can i nstruct us i n that practi cal sci ence, be-
cause the real effects of moral causes are not al ways i mmedi ate; . . .12
Burke had been a supporter of the Ameri can Revol uti on, actual l y
servi ng as the pai d London agent-l obbyi st of the New York Legi sl a-
ture ri ght up unti l the War broke out. 13 Hi s defense was that the
Bri ti sh Parl i ament shoul d l eave the Ameri cans as they anci entl y
stood. 14 Was thi s opi ni on i nherentl y conservati ve, l i beral , or
10. Vernon Stauffer, New England and the Bavari an I lluminate (New York: Russel l &
Russel l , [1918] 1967); Zol tan Haraszti , J ohn Adams and the Prophets of Progress (New
York: Grosset & Dunl ap, [1952] 1964); Davi d Hackett Fi scher, The Revolution of
Ameri i an Conservatism: The Feds-alist Par@ in the Era ofJ #ersonian Democrmy (New York:
Harper & Row, 1965).
11. On the confl i ct, see John C. Mi l l er, Tlu Fe&-alist Era, 1789-1801 (New York:
Harper Torchbooks, [1960] 1963); Dani el Si sson, The American Revolution of 1800
(New York: Knopf, 1974); Ri chard Buel , Jr., Securi ng the Revolution: I deology in Am-
can Politics, 1789-1815 (I thaca, New York: Cornel l Uni versi ty Press, 1972). For an
i nteresti ng monograph on one such Jeffersoni an, Nathani el Ames, see Charl es
Warren, J acobin and J unto (New York: Bl om, [1931] 1968). Ames was Fi sher Ames
br other .
12. Edmund Burke, R@ectiom on the Resolution in France (I ndi anapol i s, I ndi ana:
Bobbs-Merri l l , [1790] 1955), p. 69.
13. Robert B. Di shman, Prel ude to the Great Debate, Burke and Paine: On Revo-
lution and tfu Rights of Man (New York: Scri bners, 1971), pp. 27-28.
14. I saac Kramni ck (cd.), Edmund Burke (Engl ewood Cl i ffs, New Jersey: Prenti ce-
Hal l , 1974), ch, 2.
radi cal ? Thi s i s why he i s such a di ffi cul t man to i nterpret. 15 But he
was cl earl y a man of hi s age: an Enl i ghtenment thi nker.
We shoul d never forget that the Scotti sh Enl i ghtenments soci al
evol uti oni sm served as the model for ni neteenth-century bi ol ogi cal
evol uti oni sm, i ncl udi ng Darwi ni sm. 16 F. A. Hayek, as a representa-
ti ve of the cl assi cal l i beral posi ti on, sti l l cl ai ms al l egi ance to the
Scots, especi al l y Adam Ferguson, 17 and he has made thei r soci al
evol uti oni sm the foundati on of hi s l egal and economi c anal ysi s. 18
(Hayeks phi l osophi cal and i nsti tuti onal target i s the other hal f of the
Enl i ghtenment heri tage: top-down, a #ri ori , French soci al pl an-
ni ng. ) 19 Thus, i t i s not surpri si ng to fi nd that James McCosh, presi -
dent of Presbyteri an Pri nceton Col l ege from 1868-88, i nvoked a ver-
si on of Chri sti an apol ogeti cs based on Scotti sh Enl i ghtenment phi -
l osophy, and he al so adopted a nai ve, pre-Darwi ni an, purposeful
(tel eol ogi cal ) system of geol ogi cal evol uti on.20 Two presi dents l ater,
Pri nceton got Woodrow Wi l son. That deci si on fi rml y establ i shed
Pri nceton Uni versi tys academi c reputati on and al so ended i ts previ -
ous publ i c commi tment to evangel i cal Chri sti ani ty. 21
15. Cf. I saac Kramni ck, The Rage of Edmund Burke: Portrait of An Ambivalent Conser-
vative fNew York: Basi c Books, 1977).
16. F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberp (Chi cago: Uni versi ty of Chi cago Press,
1960), pp. 58-59.
17. F. A. Hayek, Studies in Philosophy, Politicx and Economics (Uni versi ty of Chi cago
Press, 1967), ch. 6: The Resul ts of Human Acti on but not of Human Desi gn. Thi s
phrase i s taken from Fergusons Esxay on the llisto~ of Civil Sociep (1767), p. 187.
for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1987), Appendi x B: The Evol uti oni sts Defense of the
Market.
19. F. A. Hayek, The Counter-Revolution in Science: Studies of the Abu.re of Reason
(I ndi anapol i s, I ndi ana: Li berty Press, [1952] 1979).
20. James McCosh, The Super natur al i n Relation to the Natural (1862). Cf. J. Davi d
Hoevel er, Jr., James McCosh and the Scottish I ntellectual Tradition: From Glasgow to Prince-
ton (Pri nceton, New Jersey: Pri nceton Uni versi ty Press, 1981), pp. 194-211.
Hoevel ers descri pti on of McCosh appl i es as wel l to members of the Ameri can
Sci enti fi c Affi l i ati on as it does to McCosh: . . . a l i teral adherence to the Word
forced a fool i sh and wrongheaded consi stency on Chri sti an bel i evers. McCosh
therefore chasti sed fel l ow bel i evers who resi sted the geol ogi sts evi dence respecti ng
the age of the earth. When expert study of fossi l remai ns conti nued to i ncrease the
age of the worl d, even i nto the mi l l i ons of ages, i t was usel ess to be cal cul ati ng the
generati ons of Adam as a rel i abl e gui de to thi s essenti al l y sci enti fi c questi on.
Rel i gi on woul d surel y be the l oser i n such an unnecessary contest. Hoevel er, p.
203. After Darwi ns Ori gi n of Species took hol d of hi s thi nki ng, McCosh abandoned
hi s previ ous strong defense of purposeful ness i n the process of evol uti on, accepti ng
i n i ts pl ace natural sel ecti on as the mode of devel opment: pp. 204-5.
21. Henry Wi l ki nson Bragdon, Wwdrow Wilson: The Academic Ymrs (Cambri dge,
Massachusetts: Harvard Bel knap, 1967).
After 1789, the battl e i n Ameri can i ntel l ectual thought was be-
tween the two ri val wi ngs of the Enl i ghtenment; Protestant Chri sti -
ani ty had no separate worl dvi ew. I t was much the same i n Northern
Europe. The di vi si on i n soci al phi l osophy keyed on the French Rev-
ol uti on. The conservati ves cl ung to Burke; 22 the anti -revol uti onary
l i beral s cl ung to Lamennai s and Tocquevi l l e; *S the revol uti onari es
cl ung to Babeufi 24 and most dynasti c pol i ti ci ans hoped and prayed
i f they prayed at al l that the ri si ng ti de of Napol eoni c nati onal i sm
coul d be contai ned at home by patri oti sm and kept from turni ng i nto
revol uti on. I t coul dnt. My poi nt i s thi s: the i ntel l ectual confl i ct was
between the two si des of the Enl i ghtenment, the decentral i zi ng so-
ci al pl ural i sts vs. the central i zi ng pol i ti cal Revol uti oni sts. The terms
of the debate were establ i shed by the presupposi ti ons of the Enl i ght-
enment. Conservati ve Protestant Chri sti ans si mpl y l i ned up behi nd
Burke. 25
The Denial of Natural Law
I roni cal l y, i t was wi th Rushdoonys wri ti ngs of the 1960s that a
separate, anti -natural l aw, Bi bl e-based Protestant soci al phi l osophy
fi rst began to emerge. Rushdoony di d not understand i n 1964 the ex-
tent to whi ch hi s vi ew and Van Ti .1s had broken wi th the Ameri can
i ntel l ectual and pol i ti cal tradi ti on. That tradi ti on was grounded i n
natural l aw and natural ri ghts theory. Rushdoony di d not recogni ze
i n 1964 what ought to be obvi ous to any person who has read the
tracts and treati ses of that Consti tuti onal generati on: the Ameri can
Dei sts of the second hal f of the ei ghteenth century adopted the same
strategy of i nfi l trati on that the fol l owers of neo-orthodox theol ogi ans
Karl Barth and Emi l Brunner adopted i n the twenti eth century,
22. Russel l Ki rk, Edmund Bur/ w:-A Genius Reconsidered (New Rochel l e, New York:
Arl i ngton House, 1967); Ki rk, The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Santayana (rev.
cd.; Chi cago: Regnery, 1954); Robert Ni sbet, The Social Philosopher: Communi @ and
Conti ct i n Wktem Thought (New York: Crowel l ), pp. 407-18.
23. Ni sbet, Soci al Philosophers, pp. 418-29.
24. Jsmes Bi l l i ngton, Fi re in the Minds ofMen: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith (New
York: Basi c Books, 1980).
25. The devel opment of the Cal vi ni sti c Anti -Revol uti onary Party i n Hol l and was
a reacti on to the French Revol uti on. Out of thi s came the wri ti ngs on soci al phi l oso-
phy of Green van Pri nsterer and Abraham Kuyper (who served as Pri me Mi ni ster
i n 1896); theol ogi cal l y, Kuyper and Herman Bavi nck were the l eadi ng Cal vi ni st
thi nkers; and from Bavi nck we arri ve at Cornel i us Van Ti l , by way of Geerhardus
Vos, who had l eft the Netherl ands to teach i n the Uni ted States. But none of them
devel oped an expl i ci tl y Bi bl e-based soci al phi l osophy. The domi nant i nfl uence was
sti l l Burke.
namel y, importing alien religious and philosophical principles under the cover
of language that had long been considered Chri>tian. I n fact, thi s process of
i nfi l trati on has been goi ng on i n Chri sti ani ty si nce the second cen-
tury, as Van Ti l argued throughout hi s career. The di fference by
1770, however, was that the anti -Chri sti ans i n Ameri ca were sel f-
consci ousl y usi ng these al i en Greek and Roman Stoi c concepti to
undermi ne the rel i gi ous and especi al l y the judi ci al foundati ons of
what was then cl earl y a Chri sti an soci ety. Earl i er Chri sti ans had ap-
peal ed to natural l aw phi l osophy as a support for orthodoxy; the
mai n Fr amer s of Consti tuti onal nati onal i sm Washi ngton,
Frankl i n, Jefferson, Hami l ton, John Adams, and Madi sonZG used
natural l aw phi l osophy as a tool to undermi ne orthodoxy. Hi stori an
Davi d Hawke i s correct regardi ng Jeffersons wri ti ng of the Decl ara-
ti on of I ndependence: He di d more than summari ze i deas accepted
by al l thoughtful Ameri cans of the ti me. He i ntenti onal l y gave new
i mpl i cati ons to ol d terms.zz
Rushdoonys Error: Judi ci al Conti nui ty
I thi nk Rushdoonys error has been both emoti onal and i ntel l ec-
tual . He sees hi msel f as one who i s cal l i ng for a return to the theol og-
i cal and judi ci al foundati ons of the Ameri can experi ment i n free-
dom. Thi s experi ment was grounded i n the Bi bl e. But i n hi s attempt
to trace hi s own worl dvi ew back to the Framers, he has negl ected to
adhere to the pri nci pl es he l earned from Van Ti l . He has not
acknowl edged the extent of the rel i gi ous war that was i n pri nci pl e
goi ng on i n the ei ghteenth-century Ameri can col oni es. Thi s i s i n
di rect contrast to anti -covenantal hi stori ans l i ke Nel l , Hatch, and
Marsden, who have chosen to i gnore the expl i ci tl y Chri sti an cove-
nantal foundati ons of pre-Consti tuti on Ameri ca, because they can
poi nt to the U.S. Consti tuti on as the covenanti ng document of the
nati on. They understand what Rushdoony has l ong refused to ad-
mi t: the US. Constitution i$ judicial~ anti-Christian. I t i s an expl i ci tl y
covenantal document; i t i s al so expl i ci tl y not Chri sti an. I t was de-
si gned that way. But i f i t i s not Christian, then i t must be anti- Christian..
There i s no neutral i ty, after al l .
26. Sel ecti ons from the wri ti ngs of the l ast fi ve men compri se Kochs The American
Enlightenment. See Adri enne Koch (cd.), The Ammcan Enlightenment: The Shaping of the
Anwrican Experiment and a Free Socie& (New York: Brazi l l er, 1965).
27. Davi d FI awke, A Transadion of Free Men: The Birth and Course of the Declaration of
I ndependence (New York: Scri bners, 1964), p. 3.
Rushdoony has argued that i t was agai nst just such a noti on of
an earth-bound fi nal judi ci al soverei gnty that the Ameri can Revol u-
ti on was fought. Such a vi ew of judi ci al soverei gnty, he says, had
been forei gn to Ameri can pol i ti cal phi l osophy pri or to 1789, for
Ameri can pol i ti cal phi l osophy had been pri mari l y Chri sti an and
Cal vi ni st. He admi ts, however, that the termi nol ogy of popul ar sov-
erei gnty had been i nfl uenced by the doctri ne of the political sover-
ei gnty of the peopl e. 28
The probl em wi th thi s l i ne of reasoni ng i s that there i s no way to
di sti ngui sh judi ci al soverei gnty from pol i ti cal soverei gnty i n the doc-
uments of the Revol uti onary War era. The Del aware Decl arati on of
Ri ghts of 1776 begi ns wi th thi s decl arati on: That al l governments of
ri ght ori gi nates from the peopl e, i s founded i n compact onl y, and i n-
sti tuted sol el y for the good of the whol e.m The state consti tuti ons
usual l y began wi th a statement of natural ri ghts. Whi l e no other
state consti tuti on began wi th a formal decl arati on of popul ar sover-
ei gnty, they al l had a secti on stati ng thi s pri nci pl e. Secti on V of Mas-
sachusetts spoke of Al l power resi di ng ori gi nal l y i n the peopl e, and
bei ng deri ved from them. . . .
30
Thi s means, i t conti nued, that al l
publ i c offi ci al s are answerabl e to the peopl e. The same decl arati on of
the peopl es soverei gnty was i n Secti on VI I I . Offi ci al s are at al l
ti mes accountabl e to the peopl e. 31
By formal l y announci ng the wi l l of the peopl e as pol i ti cal l y sov-
erei gn, the consti tuti onal documents reveal ed the extent to whi ch the
ol der theocrati c foundati ons had been steadi l y undermi ned si nce
John Lockes Second Treatise on Government. The supposedl y rel i gi ousl y
neutral common-ground phi l osophy of natural l aw was bel i eved i n
by al l parti ci pants. The l anguage of pol i ti cal soverei gnty i s found i n
al l the state consti tuti ons of the Revol uti onary War era. I t i s al so
found i n Bl ackstones Commentaries on the Laws of England, the com-
mon l egal textbook of Engl i sh common l aw, whi ch was read wi del y
i n the col oni es just before the outbreak of the Revol uti on. Rush-
doony notes that nearl y 2,500 copi es of the Commentaries were sol d i n
the col oni es i n the decade pri or to the Revol uti on. 32 Neverthel ess,
28. R. J. Rushdoony, This I ndependent Republic, ch. 4: Soverei gnty.
29. Ri chard L. Perry and John C. Cooper, The Sources of Our Liberties (Chi cago:
Ameri can Bar Associ ati on, 1952), p. 338.
30. I bid., pp. 375.
31. I bid., pp. 383.
32. Rushdoony, This I ndependent Republic, p. 32.
Rushdoony never ci tes Bl ackstone di rectl y; and the one quotati on he
ci tes from secondary sources i s hi s defense of the absol ute sover-
ei gnty of Parl i ament. 33 Had he read Bl ackstone, he woul d have had
great di ffi cul ty i n defendi ng hi s chapter on soverei gnty. Consi der
Bl ackstones general statement that Soverei gnty and l egi sl ature are
i ndeed converti bl e terms; one cannot subsi st wi thout the other.~
He went on to speak of the natural , i nherent ri ght that bel ongs to
the soverei gnty of a state, wherever that soverei gnty i s l odged, of
maki ng and enforci ng l aws.s5 Thi s i s surel y the l anguage of pol i ti cal
soverei gnty.
Rushdoonys chapter on soverei gnty I regard as the weakest i n
This I ndependent Republic. He makes i t l ook as though the Consti tu-
ti on possessed a judi ci al conti nui ty wi th Chri sti ani ty. I t di d not. I t
represented a fundamental break from Chri sti ani ty, a break that the
Lockean concept of humani sti c soverei gnty and ci vi l compact had
been prepari ng for al most a century. Rushdoony sti l l bel i eves that a
restorati on of Consti tuti onal order i s the best strategy for Chri sti an
Reconstructi on i n the Uni ted States. Not onl y i s thi s i mpossi bl e es-
chatol ogi cal l y ti me does not move backward but i t i s nai ve judi -
ci al l y. I n hi s desi re to make the case for Chri sti an Ameri ca, he cl osed
hi s eyes to the judi ci al break from Chri sti an Ameri ca: the rati fi cati on
of the Consti tuti on. The Chri sti an cul tural conti nui ty of Ameri ca
was not abl e to be sustai ned by subsequent generati ons; the judi ci al
break wi th Chri sti ani ty had been defi ni ti ve.
G
Rushdoonys Rewri ti ng of Consti tuti onal Hi story
I t i s thi s covenantal fact whi ch Rushdoony, i n hi s 30-year defense
of the Consti tuti on as an i mpl i ci tl y Chri sti an document, has refused
to face. I ndeed, he has created a whol e mythol ogy regardi ng the
oath i n order to buttress hi s case. To an audi ence of Austral i an
Chri sti ans, who coul d not be expected to be fami l i ar wi th the U.S.
Consti tuti on, he sai d i n 1983: I n every country where an oath of
offi ce i s requi red, as i s requi red i n the Uni ted States by the Consti tu-
ti on, the oath has reference to sweari ng to al mi ghty God to abi de by
Hi s covenant, i nvoki ng the cursi ngs and bl essi ngs of God for obedi -
33. I bid., pp. 18 (from a book by Cl arence Mani on), 29 (from Tocquevi l l e).
34. Wi l l i am Bl ackstone, Commentari es on the Lauu of Engl and, 4 vol s. (Chi cago:
Uni versi ty of Chi cago Press, [1765] 1979), I , The Rights of Pe=nons, p. 46.
35. I bid., I , p. 47.
ence and di sobedi ence. sc But what does the Consti tuti on actual l y
say? Exactl y the opposi te: no rel i gi ous Test shal l ever be requi red as
a Qual i fi cati on to any Offi ce or publ i c Trust under the Uni ted
States. To put i t mi l dl y, thi s was del i berate decepti on. Rushdoony i s
determi ned not to face the facts of the U.S. Consti tuti on, and he
does not want hi s audi ence to do so, ei ther.
To hi s own Ameri can audi otape audi ence, Rushdoony i nsi sted:
The Consti tuti on requi red an oath of offi ce. To us thi s doesnt mean
much. Then i t meant that you swore to Al mi ghty God and i nvol ved
al l the curses and bl essi ngs of Deuteronomy 28 and Levi ti cus 26 for
obedi ence and di sobedi ence. Nobody knows that anymore.37
Nobody knew i t then, ei ther. Deuteronomy 28 was about as far from
George Washi ngtons mi nd as mi ght be i magi ned. Rushdoony has
never offered so much as a footnote supporti ng such a cl ai m wi th
respect to the U.S. Constitution. The story i s mythi cal . What he has
done i s to pretend that the Tri ni tari an oath-taki ng that di d take pl ace
at the state l evel had become a Chri sti an oath-taki ng ceremony at
the federal l evel . The opposi te i s the case, and i t was the stati st el e-
ment of the federal oath whi ch steadi l y repl aced the thei sti c oaths i n
the states.
How, i n good consci ence, coul d he announce thi s to hi s fol -
l owers? An oath to the men who wrote the Consti tuti on was a Bi bl i -
cal fact and a soci al necessi ty.3s I f thi s was true, then why di d they
excl ude God from the mandatory oath? They wel l understood the
i mportance of oaths. 39 They i ~si sted on a requi red oath as the judi -
36. Rushdoony, The 14theism of the Ea+Church (Bl ackheath, New South Wal es:
Logos Foundati on, 1983), p. 77.
37. Rushdoony, questi on and answer sessi on at the end of hi s message on Levi ti -
CUS 8:1-13 (Jan. 30, 1987).
38. Rushdoony, The Uni ted States Consti tuti on, J ournal of Chrzstian Recon-
$trudion, XI I , No. 1 (1988), pp. 28-29.
39. Wri tes Al bert G. Mackey, the Masoni c hi stori an: I t i s objected that the oath
i s attended wi th a penal ty of a seri ous or capi tal nature. I f thi s be the case, i t does
not appear that the expressi on of a penal ty of any nature whatever can affect the
purport or augment the sol emni ty of an oath, whi ch i s, i n fact, an attestati on of God
to the truth of a decl arati on, as a wi tness and avenger; and hence every oath i n-
cl udes i n i tsel f, and as i ts very essence, the covenant of Gods wrath, the heavi est of
al l penal ti es, as the necessary consequence of i ts vi ol ati on. Al bert G. Mackey (cd.),
An Emyclo@edia of Freema.sony and I ts KindTed Sciences, 2 vols. (New York: Masoni c
Hi story Co., [1873] 1925), I I , p. 523. On the i l l egi ti macy of such sel f-val edi ctory
oaths except i n Church, State, or fami l y, see Gary North, The Sinai Strate~: Economics
and the Tm Commandmen~(Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1986), ch.
3.
ci al (and psychol ogi cal ) foundati on of a federal offi cers al l egi ance to
the U.S. Consti tuti on. Thei r i nsi stence on the i mportance of oaths
was not because they were al l Chri sti ans; i t was because so many of
the l eaders were Freemasons. w They had sworn to a Masoni c sel f-
mal edi ctory bl ood oath, for there was (and i s) no other way to become
a Mason. Thi s i s the most cruci al negl ected topi c i n the hi stori o-
graphy of the Revol uti onary War era, and especi al l y the Consti tu-
ti onal Conventi on, whi ch Rushdoony has known about from the be-
gi nni ng of hi s publ i shed career, 41 but whi ch he has categori cal l y
refused to di scuss publ i cl y. The reader must search hi s footnotes for
the appropri ate bi bl i ographi cal l eads, and very few readers do thi s.
He onl y di scusses Freemasonry i n rel ati on to the French Revol uti on,
whi ch he knows was pagan to the core, and i n rel ati on to New Eng-
l and i n the ni neteenth century. He i nsi sts that Thi s decl i ne came
l ater. At the ti me of the Revol uti on and much l ater, New Engl and
and the rest of the country shared a common fai th and experi ence.4
2
Mytho-Histo~
Absol utel y cruci al to hi s i nterpretati on of Consti tuti onal hi story
i s what he never menti ons: the l egal l y secul ar (neutral ) character of
Arti cl e VI , Cl ause 3. He pretends that i t does not says what i t says,
and i t does not mean what i t has al ways meant: a l egal barri er to
Chri sti an theocracy. I nstead, he rewri tes hi story:
40. James D. Car ter , A4asony i n Texm: Background, History and I n@ence to 1846
(Austi n: Uni versi ty of Texas Press, 1955), chaps. 2,3, Appendi x 2; Dorothy Ann
Li pson, Freemason i n Federalist Connecticut (Pri nceton, New Jersey : Pri nceton Uni -
versi ty Press, 1977), ch. 1; Si dney Morse, Freemasomy in the Ammcan Revolution
(Washi ngton, D. C.: Masoni c Servi ce Associ ati on, 1924); J. Hugo Tatsch, Free-
mason i n the Thirteen Colonr2s (New York: Macoy, 1929); Tatsch, The Frets About
George Wmhington m a Freenraon (New York: Macoy, 1931); Phi l i p A. Roth, MaSony i n
the Formation of our Government, 1761-1799 (Wi sconsi n: Masoni c Servi ce Bureau, 1927).
A comparati ve study of freemasonry i n both the Ameri can and French revol uti ons i s
Be~nard Fay, Freemason and Revolution, 1680-1800 (Boston: Li ttl e, Brown, 1935).
A non-Masoni c hi stor i an who i s fami l i ar wi th Masoni c hi stor i cal r ecor ds needs
to produce a detai l ed study of the l odge membershi p of si gners of both the Decl ara-
ti on of I ndependence and the Consti tuti on. Wi l l i am J. Whal en says that a certai n
Gen. John C. Smi th di scovered that onl y si x si gners of the Decl arati on were l odge
members, rather than the 55 cl ai med by Masons, but Whal en does not footnote thi s
sour ce nor menti on i t i n hi s bi bl i ogr aphy. Wi l l i am J. Whal en, Chri~tianity and A meri-
can Freemason (Mi l waukee: Bruce, 1958), p. 6. See Appendi x C, bel ow.
41. See hi s reference to Fay i n hi s book, The Nature of the Ameri can System (Fai rfax,
Vi rgi ni a: Thoburn Press, [1965] 1978), p. 143n.
42. Rushdoony, This I ndependent Republic: Studies i n the Nature and Meaning of Amm-
can History (Fai rfax, Vi rgi ni a: Thoburn Press, [1964] 1978), p. 60.
Forces for secul ari zati on were present i n Washi ngtons day and l ater,
French sympathi zers and Jacobi ns, dei sts, I l l umi nate, Freemasons, and
soon the Uni tari ans. But the l egal steps towards secul ari zati on were onl y
taken i n the 1950s and 1960s by the U.S. Supreme Court. For the sake of
argument [!! ! ! ! G.N. ], we may concede to the l i beral , and to some ortho-
dox Chri sti an schol ar s,43 that Dei sm had made extensi ve i nroads i nto
Amer i ca by 1776, and 1787, and that the men of the Consti tuti onal Conven-
ti on, and Washi ngton, were i nfl uenced by i t. The fact sti l l remai ns that
they di d not attempt to create a secul ar state. The states were Chri sti an
states, and the federal uni on, whi l e barred from i nterventi on i n thi s area,
was not i tsel f secul ar. The ci ti zens were ci ti zens of thei r respecti ve states
and of the Uni ted States si mul taneousl y. They coul d not be under two sets
of rel i gi ous l aw. 44
Thi s i s mytho-hi story desi gned to cal m the fears of Bi bl e-bel i evi ng
Chri sti ans as they l ook back to the ori gi n of the Consti tuti on. Of
course the Framers created a secul ar state. The secul ar character of
the federal uni on was establ i shed by the oath of offi ce. Pol i ti cal l y, the
Framers coul d not i n one fel l swoop create a secul ar state i n a Chri s-
ti an country; judi ci al l y and covenantal l y, they surel y di d. Hami l ton
made i t cl ear i n Federalist 27 that the oath of al l egi ance to the Consti -
tuti on superseded al l state oaths. That was why he i nsi sted on i t. Yet
Rushdoony substi tutes the l anguage of Church worshi p when speak-
i ng of earl y Ameri can pol i ti cs: Offi cers of the federal government,
pr esi dent and congr ess, wor shi ped as an 05ci al body, but wi thout
preference extended to a si ngl e church.45 Thi s was true enough, but
i t i mpl i ed a great deal more than denomi nati onal neutral i ty; i t i m-
pl i ed secul ari sm. I t l ed di rectl y to the ri se of rel i gi ous pl ural i sm, i n
whi ch Chri sti ani ty recei ves no noti ce as the nati ons rel i gi on.
Todays secul ari sm i s not si mpl y the product of Chi ef Justi ce Earl
Warren and hi s court, l et al one the theol ogy of Madal yn Murray
OHai r. I t was i mpl i ci t from 1789. I t was made offi ci al i n February,
1860, when the House of Representati ves i nvi ted the fi rst rabbi to
gi ve the i nvocati on, onl y a few years after the fi rst synagogue was es-
tabl i shed i n Washi ngton. They i nvi ted a New York rabbi , si nce no
43. He seems to have i n mi nd here C. Gregg Si ngers A Theological I nterpretation of
Ammican Histoy (Nutl ey, New Jersey: Crai g Press, 1964), ch. 2: Dei sm i n Col oni al
Li fe.
44. Rushdoony, Nature of the American System, p. 48.
45. I dem.
offi ci al l y ordai ned rabbi was yet i n Washi ngton. 46 I t took no Supreme
Court deci si on to make thi s covenanta.1 deni al of a judi ci al l y Chri sti an
cul ture a real i ty. Thi s was not the product of ni neteenth-century Free-
masonry. I t was the product of l ate ei ghteenth-century Freemasonry.
I t was an outworki ng of Arti cl e VI , Cl ause 3.
That a Presi dent mi ght, as Washi ngton di d (and George Bush
di d two centuri es l ater) swear hi s non-rel i gi ous oath of offi ce wi th hi s
hand on a Masoni c Bi bl e, i s l egal l y and covenantal l y i rrel evant.
(That thi s same copy of the Bi bl e was used by four other Presi dents
at thei r i naugurati ons i s surel y symbol i cal l y si gni fi cant. )
47
An oath,
to be judi ci al l y bi ndi ng, must be verbal. I t must cal l down Gods
sancti ons on the oath-taker. Thi s i s what i s speci fi cal l y made i l l egal
by the U.S. consti tuti on. Any i mpl i ed sancti ons are secul ar, not
di vi ne. Wi thout thi s sel f-val edi ctory aspect, a symbol i c gesture i s
not a val i d bi bl i cal oath. Rushdoony knows thi s, whi ch i s why he has
i nvented the myth of the Levi ti cal and Deuteronomi c al most-oath.
The Presi dents have thrown a sop of a symbol to the Chri sti ans
one hand on a Bi bl e whi l e taki ng an expl i ci tl y and l egal l y non-Chri sti an
oath and the Chri sti ans have accepted thi s as bei ng somehow
pl easi ng i n Gods eyes.
Covenants and Sancti ons
Every covenant has sancti ons. Wi thout sancti ons, there i s no
covenant. Rushdoony knows thi s, whi ch i s why he i nvokes Levi ti cus
26 and Deuteronomy 28: they set forth Gods sancti ons i n hi story.
The Consti tuti on i s a covenant document. He wri tes that the Con-
sti tuti on i s not onl y a l aw but al so a contract or covenant.48 The
questi on i s: Whose sancti ons are i nvoked by thi s covenant docu-
ment ? Cl earl y, autonomous mans sancti ons. Rushdoony knows
thi s. So he has restructured U. S. pol i ti cal theory to create a justi fi ca-
ti on of thi s absence of any reference to Gods l aw or Gods sancti ons:
Second, we must remember that the Consti tuti on can make no man
46. Bertram W. Kern, Rabbi s, Prayers, and Legi sl atures, Hebrew Uni on College
Annual, XXI I I , Part I I (1950-51), pp. 95-108. Part of the reason for thi s del ay was
that there had not been a Jewi sh congregati on i n Washi ngton, D. C. unti l 1852, and
they worshi ped i n homes unti l 1855. Those pastors asked to pray before Congress
were usual l y l ocal pastors (p. 109). The rabbi who gave the prayer was Dr. Morri s J.
Raphal l of New York Ci ty.
47. Lye (Feb. 1989), p. 8.
48. Rushdoony, U.S. Consti tuti on; p. 21.
nor nati on good; i t i s not a mor~ code. I t does not gi ve us a substan-
ti ve moral i ty, but i t does refl ect a procedural moral i ty.4g
Noti ce, fi rst, that thi s i s basi cal l y the same l anguage he fi rst i n-
troduced on hi s i ntervi ew wi th Bi l l Meyers on nati onal tel evi si on.
Thi s essay uses terms that are found i n techni cal l egal di scussi ons;
we do not fi nd anythi ng l i ke ~i s l anguage i n hi s earl i er wri ti ngs.
Perhaps he consul ted a l aw professor. I f so, he weakened hi s theol og-
i cal case. Law professors are concerned wi th procedure because of
the nature of the adversari al system of Ameri can l aw. Modern l egal
theory assumes that substanti ve (ri ghteous) judgment i s the resul t of
procedural l y ri gorous but moral l y neutral confrontati ons between
l awyers. Contrast thi s outl ook wi th what Rushdoony wrote i n 1975:
I n the Angl o-Ameri can tradi ti on of juri sprudence, the Bi bl i cal rev-
el ati on has been deci si ve. The purpose of l aw i s to codi fy and enforce
the moral system of Bi bl i cal fai th. The common l aw embodi ed thi s
purpose.50 Chri sti an consti tuti onal l aw i s codj$ed biblical law, not
procedural neutral i ty.
What he refuses to ask i s thi s: What #judicial procedure is not reli-
gious~ neutral? It shoul d be an obvi ous questi on for Rushdoony; he
has made i t hi s standard practi ce i n al l other areas of hi s wri ti ngs to
deny the possi bi l i ty of rel i gi ous neutral i ty i n any area of l i fe. I f judi -
ci al procedure i s not rel i gi ous y neutral , then i t i s ei ther covenant-
keepi ng or covenant-breaki ng procedure. Covenant-breaki ng pro-
cedure wi l l tend to produce i mmoral outcomes. I t i s not some neu-
tral judi ci al tool . Thi s shoul d be obvi ous to anyone who has studi ed
Van Ti l ; i t i s not obvi ous to Rushdoony, or even a questi on to be
consi dered, when he di scusses the U.S. Consti tuti on. He adopts the
epi stemol ogi cal posi ti on of ei ghteenth-century humani sm whenever
he di scusses the Consti tuti on.
Making People Good
Second, noti ce the shi ft i n hi s argument: the Consti tuti on cannot
make anyone good. Thi s i s the standard humani st l i ne agai nst al l
Chri sti an l egi sl ati on: You cant l egi sl ate moral i ty! What Rush-
doony has al ways mai ntai ned i s that you cant l egi sl ate anything except
moral i ty. As he wrote i n the I nstitutes of Biblical Law (1973), But, i t
must be noted, coercion agai nst evil-doers is the required and inescapable du~
49. I bid., p. 22.
50. R. ,J . Rushdoony and Fred Andr.4, The Adversary Concept, Journal of Chnk-
tian Reconstruction, I I (Wi nter 1975-76), pp. 29-30.
Rush.doony on the Constitution 689
of the ci vi l authori ty.
51 Again, law is a for m of war far e. BY ]Ztw, cer-
tai n acts are abol i shed, and the persons commi tti ng those acts ei ther
executed or brought i nto conformi ty to l aw.52
Of course the Consti tuti on cannot make anyone good; the func-
ti on of bi bl i cal ci vi l l aw i s not to make anyone good; i t i s to suppress
public evil. Rushdoony has sai d thi s cl earl y: I t i s i mpossi bl e to sepa-
rate moral i ty from l aw, because ci vi l l aw i s si mpl y one branch of
moral l aw, and moral i ty i s the foundati on of l aw. Laws cannot make
men good; that i s the work of the Hol y Spi ri t. But l aws can prevent
men from doi ng evi l .53 Agai n, whi l e man can be restrained by stri ct
l aw and order, he cannot be changed by l aw; he cannot be saved by
l aw.54 For 30 years, Rushdoony previ ousl y had argued that any
other vi ew of ci vi l l aw i s the works doctri ne of al l non-Chri sti an re-
l i gi on: salvation by law. Thi s i s humani sms vi ew, he al ways i nsi sted:
Humani sti c l aw ai ms at savi ng man and remaki ng soci ety. For hu-
mani sm, sal vati on i s an act of state .5
5
Agai n, Man fi nds sal vati on
through pol i ti cal programs, through l egi sl ati on, so that salvation is an
enactment of the state.5G What i s the Chri sti an al ternati ve? To enforce
Gods l aw and Gods sancti ons i n hi story, and on.~ Gods l aw and
Gods sancti ons.
The second aspect of man under law is that mans rel ati onshi p to l aw be-
comes mi ni steri al , not legislative, that i s, man does not create l aw, does not
decree what shal l be ri ght and wrong si mpl y i n terms of hi s wi l l . I nstead,
man seeks, i n hi s l aw-maki ng, to approxi mate and admi ni ster fundamental
l aw, l aw i n terms of Gods l aw, absol ute ri ght and wrong. Nei ther majori ty
nor mi nori ty wi shes are of themsel ves ri ght or wrong; both are subject to
judgment i n terms of the absol ute l aw of God, and the l argest majori ty can-
not make val i d and true a l aw contrary to the word of God. Al l mans l aw-
maki ng must be i n conformi ty to the hi gher l aw of God, or i t i s fal se. 57
51. Rushdoony, The I nstitutes of Biblical Law (Nutl ey, New Jersey: Crai g Press,
1973), p. 292. Contrast thi s statement wi th the fol l owi ng posi ti on taken i n the J ournal
of Christ tan Reconstruction: God di d not make sal vati on coerci ve. Nei ther i s moral i ty
coerci ve. . . . Puni shi ng si n i s not a rol e del egated to ci vi l government. Tommy W.
Rogers, Federal i sm and Republ i can Government: An Appl i cati on of Bi bl i cal l y
Deri ved Cul tural Ethos to Pol i ti cal Economy; vol . XI I , No. 1 (1988), p. 95.
52. I bid., p. 191. See al so pp. 92-95.
53. Rushdoony, Bread Upon tb Wtis (Nutl ey, New Jersey: Crai g Press, 1969), p. 15.
54. Rushdoony, Law and Liber~ ([ Nutl ey, New Jersey]: Crai g Press, 1971), p. 3.
55. I dern.
56. Rushdoony, Politics of Guilt and Pi~ (Fai rfax, Vi rgi ni a: Thoburn Press, [1970]
1978), p. 145.
57. I bid., p. 143.
A fourth aspect ofmanunder l aw i s that law means trworder as justice.
The l aw i s justi ce, and i t i s order, godl y order, and there can be nei ther true
order nor true l aw apart from justi ce, and justi ce i s defi ned i n terms of
Scri pture and i ts revel ati on of Gods l aw and ri ghteousness. The l aw cannot
be made more than justi ce. I t cannot be made i nto an i nstrument of sal va-
ti on wi thout destructi on to justi ce. Sal vati on i s not by l aw but by the grace
of God through Jesus Chri st. 5s
The i ssue i s justice, not salvation. So, why does he now rai se the
spuri ous i ssue that the Consti tuti on can make no man nor nati on
good; i t i s not a moral code? Thi s i s utter nonsense; eve~ law-order is
a moral code. Unti l he got on nati onal tel evi si on, thi s had been Rush-
doonys refrai n for 30 years! As he wrote i n the I nsti tutes, there i s an
absol ute mor al or der to whi ch man must conform.59 He i nsi sted
therefore that there can be no tol erance i n a l aw-system for another
rel i gi on. Tol erati on i s a devi ce used to i ntroduce a new l aw-system
as a prel ude to a new i ntol erance .60 I n thi s sentence, he l ai d the
theol ogi cal foundati on for a bi bl i cal cri ti que of the U.S. Consti tuti on
as a gi ganti c rel i gi ous fraud, a ri val covenant, a devi ce used to i n-
troduce a new l aw-system as a prel ude to a new i ntol erance , whi ch
i t surel y was and has become. But he has been bl i nded for 30 years
by hi s l ove of the Consti tuti on. I n a showdown between hi s theocrati c
theol ogy and the U.S. Consti tuti on, he chose the Consti tuti on.
Prohibiting J udicial Evil
He says that i t wi l l do no good for Chri sti ans to appeal to the
Consti tuti on. The Consti tuti on can r estor e nothi ng, nor can i t
make the courts or the peopl e just .61 The courts are the enforci ng
arm of the Consti tuti on, yet i t supposedl y cannot make the courts
good. Of course i t cannot; but a consti tuti on can and must prohibit
evil, lawless decisions by lower courts. I t must reverse al l l ower court de-
ci si ons that are not i n conformi ty to the fundamental l aw of the l and.
Thi s i s the doctr i ne of judi ci al r evi ew. Thi s i s the whol e i dea of
Amer i can Consti tuti onal l aw. Rushdoony knows thi s. I n 1973, he
appeal ed to that cruci al covenantal and l egal concept: sanctions. He
warned Chri sti ans that the concept of treason i s i nescapabl y rel i gi ous:
58. I bid. , p. 144.
59. Rushdoony, I mtitutes, p. 18.
60. I bid., p. 5.
61. Rushdoony, U.S. Consti tuti on, p. 39.
But no l aw-order can survi ve i f i t does not defend i ts core fai th by ri gorous
sancti ons. The l aw-order of humani sm l eads onl y to anarchy. Lacki ng ab-
sol utes, a humani sti c l aw-order tol erates everythi ng whi ch deni es absol utes
whi l e warri ng agai nst Bi bl i cal fai th. The onl y l aw of humani sm i s ul ti -
matel y thi s, that there i s no l aw except sel f-asserti on. I t i s Do what thou
Wi l t.
n
. . . To tol erate an al i en l aw-order i s a very real subsi dy of i t: i t i s a
warrant for l i fe to that al i en l aw-order, and a sentence of death agai nst the
establ i shed l aw-order. 62
The Death Warrant
The Framers at the Consti tuti onal Conventi on i ssued a death
warrant agai nst Chri sti ani ty, but for tacti cal reasons, they and thei r
spi ri tual hei rs refused for several generati ons to del i ver i t to the i n-
tended vi cti ms. They covered thi s covenanta.1 death sentence wi th a
l ot of pl ati tudes about the hand of Provi dence, the need for Moral i ty,
the grand desi gn of the uni verse, and si mi l ar Masoni c shi bbol eths.
The death sentence was offi ci al l y del i ver ed by the Four teenth
Amendment. I t has been car r i ed out wi th escal ati ng enthusi asm
si nce the 1950s. But Rushdoony dares not admi t thi s chai n of cove-
nantal events. He wri tes as though everythi ng humani sti c i n Ameri -
can l i fe i s the product of a conspi racy of New Engl ands Uni tari ans
and the radi cal Republ i cans of the Ci vi l War era. To admi t the hi s-
tori cal truth of 1787-89 woul d mean that a restorati on of so-cal l ed
or i gi nal Amer i can Consdtuti onal i sm woul d change nothi ng cove-
nantal l y. The nati on woul d sti l l rest judi ci al l y on an apostate covenant.
The Consti tuti on must prevent treason. Every consti tuti on must.
Treason i s al ways a rel i gi ous i ssue. The questi on must be rai sed: I n
terms of the U.S. Consti tuti on, what consti tutes treason, Chri sti an-
i ty or pl ural i sm (secul ar humani sm)? I f you want to see the change
i n Rushdoonys thi nki ng, consi der these obser vati ons:
[1973: ] The questi on thus i s a basi c one: what consti tutes treason i n a
cul ture? I dol atry
j
i .e., treason to God, or treason to the state? 63
[1973:] Because for Bi bl i cal l aw the foundati on i s the one true God, the
central offense i s therefore treason to that God by i dol atry. Every l aw-order
has i ts concept of treason. . . . Basi c to the heal th of a soci ety i s the i ntegri ty
of i ts foundati on. To al l ow tamperi ng wi th i ts foundati on i s to al l ow i ts total
subversi on. Bi bl i cal l aw can no more permi t the propagati on of i dol atry
62. Rushdoony, I nsti tutes, pp. 66, 67.
63. I bid., p. 68.
than Marxi sm can permi t counter-revol uti on, or monarchy a move to exe-
cute the ki ng, or a republ i c an attempt to destroy the republ i c and create a
di ctatorshi p. 64
[1973:] The commandment i s, Thou shal t have no other gods before
me. I n our pol ythei sti c worl d, the many other gods are the many peopl es,
every man hi s own god. Every man under humani sm i s hi s own l aw, and
hi s own uni verse. bs
[1988: ] The Consti tuti on i s no defense agai nst i dol atry; . . . cc
The Probl em of Dual i sm
Here i s a basi c dual i sm of al l humani sti c thought: ethi cs vs. pro-
cedure i n the judi ci al system. Max Weber, the great German soci ol o-
gi st, spent consi der abl e space deal i ng wi th thi s dual i sm, and I de-
voted a secti on of my essay on Weber to just thi s topi c i n Chal cedons
book of essays honor i ng Van Ti l . 67 I concl uded that di scussi on wi th
thi s war ni ng: Weber s vi si on of the i ncr easi ngl y bur eaucr ati c, r a-
ti onal i zed soci ety hi nged on the very real probabi l i ty of such a subor-
di nati on of substanti ve l aw to formal l aw. . . . He hated what he
saw, but he saw no escape. Bureaucracy, whether soci al i sti c or capi -
tal i sti c, i s here.~
Today, reversi ng hi s enti re i ntel l ectual career (except for hi s earl y
vi ew on the Consti tuti on as somehow an i mpl i ci tl y Chri sti an docu-
ment), i ncl udi ng hi s commi tment to Van Ti l s presupposi ti onal apol -
ogeti cs, as wel l as hi s commi tment to bi bl i cal l aw, Rushdoony says
that the Consti tuti ons procedural moral i ty can be and is l egi ti matel y
rel i gi ousl y neutral , and that any i nterest group can adopt the Con-
sti tuti ons pr ocedur al mor al i ty to cr eate whatever l aw-or der i t pre-
fer s, wi thout vi ol ati ng the text of the nati ons covenanti ng docu-
ment. But the text k all there is of the under~ing religious foundation. I f the
text were si l ent, then there woul d be no formal underpi nni ng. But
the text i s not si l ent. The text categori cal l y prohi bi ts the i mposi ti on
of the bi bl i cal covenant oath i n ci vi l l aw. Let us put i t covenantal l y:
what the text of the L? S. Constitution prohibits is covenantal Christianity.
64. I bid., pp. 38-39.
65. I bid., p. 40.
67. Gar y Nor th (cd.), Foundations of Chndian Scholars+: Essays in the Van Til
Pempectiue (Val l eci to, Cal i forni a: Ross House Books, 1976), pp. 141-46.
68. I bid., p. 146.
Ru.shdoony on the Constitution 693
There can be no permanent ul ti mate dual i sm i n a covenantal
document, I t ei ther serves the God of the Bi bl e or some other god.
There can be no neutral i ty. Consti tuti ons ar e i nherentl y substanti ve;
thei r ethi cal foundati ons are mani fested i n thei r procedural sti pul a-
ti ons. Rushdoony bui l t the case for bi bl i cal l aw i n soci ety by argui ng
that every covenant requi res a uni que l aw structure that refl ects i ts
concept of ul ti mate authori ty, i .e., sovereignty. Rushdoony rejected as
hereti cal nonsense@ Cal vi ns guarded affi rmati on i n the I nstitutes of
a uni versal l aw of nati ons i n preference to Mosai c l aw a posi ti on
whi ch Cal vi n rejects i n hi s sermons on Deuteronomy 28.70 (Rush-
doony has never been a shr i nki ng vi ol et when i t comes to pronounc-
i n g an ath emas of v ar y i n g degr ees of i n ten s i ty agai n s t i mpor tan t
Chri sti an fi gures, past and present. )71
Rushdoony5 Dualism
So, fol l owi ng hi s l ead, I cannot but concl ude that hi s di sti ncti on
i ndeed, dual i sm between the Consti tuti ons supposedl y neutral
69. Rushdoony, I mti tute$, p. 9.
70, Cal vi n wrote: I woul d have preferred to pass over thi s matter i n utter si l ence
i f I were not aware that here many dangerousl y go astray. For there are some who
deny that a commonweal th i s dul y framed whi ch negl ects the pol i ti cal system of
Moses, and i s rul ed by the common l aw of nati ons. Let other men consi der how
peri l ous and sedi ti ous thi s noti on i s; i t wi l l be enough for me to have proved i t fal se
and fool i sh. Zmtitutes of the Christian Religion, I V: 20:14. Ford Lewi s Battl es transl a-
ti on (Phi l adel phi a: Westmi nster Press, 1960), p.. 1502. He was speaki ng here of revo-
l uti onary Anabapti sts who deni ed the l egi ti macy of non-Hebrai c pol i ti cal com-
monweal ths. A few pages l ater, he referred to the noti on of equity, whi ch he l eft con-
veni entl y devoi d of speci fi c judi ci al content: I t i s a fact that the l aw of God whi ch we
cal l the mor al l aw i s nothi ng eke than a testi mony of natural l aw and of that con-
sci ence whi ch God has engraved upon the mi nds of men. Consequentl y, the enti re
scheme of thi s equi ty of whi ch we are now speaki ng has been prescri bed i n i t. . . .
Whatever l aws shal l be framed to that rul e, di rected to that goal , bound by that
l i mi t, there i s no reason why we shoul d di sapprove of them, howsoever they may
di fer from the Jewi sh l aw, or among themsel ves. . . , For the statement of some,
that the l aw of God gi ven through Moses i s di shonored when i t i s abrogated and new
l aws preferred to i t, i s utterl y vai n. For others are not preferred to i t when they are
more approved, not by a si mpl e compari son, but wi th regard to the condi ti on of
ti mes, pl ace, and nati on; or when that l aw i s abrogated whi ch was never enacted for
us. For the Lord through the hand of Moses di d not gi ve that l aw to be procl ai med
among al l nati ons and to be i n force everywhere. . . , I bid., pp. 1504-5. Neverthe-
l ess, i n hi s sermons on Deuteronomy 28, he reaffi rmed the Ol d Testaments penal
sancti ons: The Covenant Enforced: Sermons on Deuteronomy 27 and 28, edi ted by James B.
Jordan (Tyl er, Texas: I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, 1989).
71. Anathemas wi thout sancti ons are, of course, expressi ons of personal opi ni on
rather than actual covenantal statements. Onl y a person who expects the Church to
enforce hi s anathemas i n hi story, and God to enforce them at the day of judgment,
shoul d i ssue them publ i cl y.
procedural l aw and the supposedl y i mpl i ci t Chri sti an rel i gi ous foun-
dati ons of Ameri ca i s si mpl y nonsense. I t i s an affi rmati on of neu-
tral i ty that cannot possi bl y exi st, i f Van Ti l i s correct. Consti tuti onal
procedure i s the covenantal devel opment of the rel i gi ous foundati on
of that covenant: i n Church, State, and fami l y. To argue that a system
of covenantal procedural sancti ons i s anythi ng but a judi ci al devel -
opmen t of th e u n der l y i n g covenantal l aw-or der i s to adopt a
domesti c versi on of the natural l aw (equi ty) of nati ons, and we know
what Rushdoony used to thi nk of that i dea! 72
Rushdoony today admi ts that there i s nothi ng i n the U.S. Con-
sti tuti on to protect i tsel f from the transformati on from substanti ve
(ethi cal ) l aw to pr ocedur al (bur eaucr ati c) l aw. The U.S. Consti tu-
ti on gi ves us no substanti ve moral i ty, onl y a procedural one .
73
Thi s
worl dwi de l egal transformati on i s the cri si s of Western ci vi l i zati on,
wri tes Harvard l egal hi stori an Harol d J. Berman, 74 yet Rushdoony
says that the U.S. Consti tuti on i s i nherentl y powerl ess to do any-
thi ng about i t. Sayi ng thi s of the U.S. Consti tuti on that i t i s onl y a
pr ocedur al document i s the same as sayi ng that l ogi c i s onl y pro-
cedural , or l i turgy i s onl y procedural , or Church government i s onl y
procedural , or that fami l y government i s onl y procedural . I n short,
he i s sayi ng what Van Ti l deni ed: that form can be segregated from
content, ethi cal l y speaki ng. Rushdoony wr ote i n the l n~ti tutes that
The basi c premi se of the modern doctri ne of tol erati on i s that al l re-
l i gi ous and mor al posi ti ons ar e equal l y tr ue and equal l y fal se.75
Thi s i s exactl y the worl dvi ew whi ch the Framers wrote i nto the Con-
sti tuti on when they abol i shed a rel i gi ous test oath for hol di ng federal
offi ce.
I cannot avoi d the obvi ous concl usi on: i f a defense of the U.S.
Consti tuti on as bei ng somehow i nherentl y Chri sti an, or i n some way
fundamental l y confor mabl e to Chr i sti ani ty, i s the posi ti on of the
Chr i sti an Reconstr ucti on movement, thi s means the sui ci de of
Chr i sti an Reconstructi oni sm. Rushdoony sai d i t best: The modern
concept of total tol erati on i s not a val i d l egal pri nci pl e but an ad-
vocacy of anarchi sm. Shal l al l rel i gi ons be tol erated? But, as we have
seen, ever y r el i gi on i s a concept of l aw-order. Total tol erati on means
74. Harol d J. Berman, Law and Revolution: The Formation of tb Western Legal Tradi-
tion (Cambri dge, Massachusetts: Harvard Uni versi ty Press, 1983), I ntroducti on.
Rushdoony on the Comtitution 695
total per mi ssi veness for ever y ki nd of pr acti ce: i dol atr y, adul ter y,
canni bal i sm, human sacri fi ce, perversi on, and al l thi ngs el se. Such
total tol erati on i s nei ther possi bl e nor desi rabl e. . . . And for a l aw-
order to forsake i ts sel f-pr otecti on i s both wi cked and sui ci dal .76
Defendi ng Madi son
Rushdoony correctl y observes that pol i ti ci ans understand that
each group votes i ts consci ence andl or i ts pocketbook; the pol i ti ci ans
know that there i s no neutral i ty. Facti ons are a deni al of the myth of
neutral i ty, he argues. 77 Thi s i s a correct observati on. He cal l s the
pol i ti ci ans hypocri tes. Thi s i s an unfai r accusati on. I f they are hypo-
cr i tes, then anyone who defends the U.S. Consti tuti on whi l e al so
denyi ng neutr al i ty i s equal l y vul nerabl e to thi s accusati on of hypo-
cr i sy. I n the Amer i can pol i ti cal tr adi ti on, facti ons ar e an i nsti tu-
ti onal affi rmati on of neutral i ty.
Rushdoony knows very wel l where the theory of the pol i ti cs of
facti on comes from: James Madi sons Federalist J O. But hi s l ove of
the Consti tuti on makes hi m a necessary supporter of Madi son. I n
one of the most startl i ng about-faces i n i ntel l ectual hi story page 68
vs. page 73 he assures us that Madi son di d not bel i eve i n neutral -
i ty.rs Fi rst of al l , Madi son deni ed the doctr i ne of neutr al i sm. He
deni ed the Enl i ghtenment fai th i n the objecti vi ty of reason, whi ch,
i n Chri sti an terms, he saw as i nal i enabl y ti ed to sel f-l ove. Mans rea-
soni ng i s thus not objecti ve reasoni ng; i t i s personal reasoni ng and
wi l l thus be governed by the nature of man rather than an abstract
concept of rati onal i ty.g Thi s, qui te frankl y, makes no sense. I f you
doubt me, read i t agai n. I f taken l i teral l y, i t woul d l ead to a dead end
for al l publ i c pol i cy, i nsti tuti onal paral ysi s i n the name of Consti tu-
ti onal l aw. I f a ci vi l government makes any deci si on, i t must do so i n
terms of a parti cul ar moral and l egal framework. I t usual l y does so
i n the name of the common good. There i s no such thi ng as neutral
common good. Madi son hated the churches, hated Chri sti ani ty, and
sel f-consci ousl y devi sed the Consti tuti on to create mul ti pl e facti ons
that woul d cancel each other out. But he obvi ousl y had to make a
cruci al though unstated assumpti on: that whatever remai ns after the
76. I bid., p. 89.
77. Rushdoony, Nature of the American System, p. 68.
78. I bid., pp. 73.
79. I bid., p. 73.
facti ons have cancel l ed themsel ves out i s the common good the rel i -
gi ot+ neutral common good.
The fact that Madi son di d not appeal to an abstract concept of
rati onal i st y i s i rrel evant; the Framers, both i ndi vi dual l y and as a fac-
ti on, al ways bal anced thei r appeal s to abstract rati onal i ty wi th an
appeal to hi stori cal experi ence. Thi s, as Van Ti l argues, i s what cov-
enant-br eaki ng men have done fr om the begi nni ng. Thi s i s the ol d
Parmeni des-Heracl i tus dual i sm. Madi son appeal ed to reason, expe-
ri ence, common sense, moral i ty, and any other sl ogan he coul d get
hi s hands on. The free system of government we have establ i shed i s
so congeni al wi th reason, wi th common sense, and wi th uni versal
feel i ng, that i t must produce approbati on and a desi re of i mi tati on,
as avenues may be found for truth to the knowl edge of nati ons .
80
So
di d hi s col l eagues. There men were pol i ti ci ans, fi rst and foremost. I f
a sl ogan woul d sel l the Consti tuti on, good; i f an br i l l i ant i dea woul d,
excel l ent; i f a convol uted or i mpr obabl e ar gument woul d, fi ne. I t
was al l gri st for thei r Uni tari an mi l l . Chri sti ans shoul d not be de-
cei ved, especi al l y sel f-decei ved.
James Madi son was a covenant-breaki ng geni us, and the heart
and soul of hi s geni us was hi s commi tment to rel i gi ous neutral i sm.
He devi sed a Consti tuti on that for two centuri es has fool ed even the
most percepti ve Chri sti an soci al phi l osophers of each generati on i nto
thi nki ng that Madi son was not what he was: a Uni tari an theocrat
whose goal was to snuff out the ci vi l i nfl uence of the Tr i ni tar i an
churches whenever they di d not support hi s brai nchi l d. For two cen-
turi es, hi s demoni c pl an has worked.
Rushdoonys equati ng of Enl i ghtenment rati onal i sm wi th a priori
rati onal i sm, and then hi s deni al that the Ameri cans ever affi rmed a
priori rati onal i sm, i s at the heart of hi s general myth that there was
never a seri ous Enl i ghtenment i n col oni al Ameri ca. I t i s al so at the
hear t of the tr adi ti onal conser vati ves myth that Bur kean conser -
vati sm was not part of the Enl i ghtenment. Both vi ews are myths.
Burke adopted and promoted the soci al evol uti onary worl dvi ew of the
Scotti sh Enl i ghtenment. The Scots were al l i ntel l ectual col l eagues.
They were al l members of the ri ght wi ng of the Enl i ghtenment, just
as F. A. Hayek i s. There was no one l eft on ei ther si de of the Atl anti c
who was publ i cl y preachi ng the Puri tan vi ew of the covenant, meani ng
80. Ci ted i n Adri en Koch, Powq Morals, and the Founding Fathers: Essays in the I n-
terpretation of the Anwiian Enlightennwnt (I thaca, New York: Cornel l Uni versi ty Press,
[1961] 1975), p. 105.
covenant l aw and covenant oaths. They had al l returned to the l eeks
and oni ons of Egypt.
The poi nt i s, i n order to make publ i c pol i cy, there must be a con-
cept of the common good. Bi bl i cal l y, ther e ar e onl y two choi ces
avai l abl e: a covenant-keepi ng common good or a covenant-breaki ng
common good. The best that can be sai d for a covenant-br eaki ng
common good i s that i t may correspond outwardl y to Gods reveal ed
l aws standards for publ i c pol i cy. I t i s therefore a common grace com-
mon good. But as Chri sti ani ty fades i n i nfl uence, and as covenant-
breakers become more consi stent, thi s el ement of common grace wi l l
necessari l y fade. Thi s i s what has happened al l over the worl d as
Chri sti ani ty has been repl aced by ei ther ri ght wi ng Enl i ghtenment
empi ri ci sm-experi mental i sm or l eft wi ng Enl i ghtenment a pri ori sm.
I t does not make any l ong-term di fference whether the l egal system
i s based on humani sti c common l aw or humani sti c Napol eoni c l aw;
the end resul t i s humani sm. There is no neutrality.
The Questi on of Soverei gnty
Rushdoonys rewri ti ng of U. S. hi story has gone on from the be-
gi nni ng. I n the I nstitutes, he says that The presi denti al oath of offi ce,
and every other oath of offi ce i n the Uni ted States, was i n earl i er
years recogni zed preci sel y as comi ng under the thi rd command-
ment, and, i n fact, i nvoki ng i t. By taki ng the oath, a man promi sed
to abi de by hi s word and hi s obl i gati ons even as God i s fai thful to
Hi s word. I f he fai l ed, by hi s oath of offi ce, the publ i c offi ci al i nvoked
di vi ne judgement and the curse of the l aw upon hi msel f.8i Thi s i s
Presi denti al mytho-hi story.
Rushdoonys vi ew of U. S. pol i ti cal hi story i s heavi l y i nfl uenced
by a bi zarre i dea that he pi cked up i n a speech by Presi dent John
Qui ncy Adams, who shared hi s Presi dent fathers Uni tari an theol -
ogy. So far as I know, no one el se has mai ntai ned the fol l owi ng i nter-
pretati on: the U.S. Consti tuti on rests on no concept of God because the
Framers bel i eved that onl y God has l egal soverei gnty. I n hi s bri ef
chapter on Soverei gnty, Rushdoony wri tes of Ameri can thought i n
the 1780s, Legal soverei gnty was defi ni tel y deni ed. . . .
83
He says
thi s di strust of l egal soverei gnty was both earl y medi eval and Cal -
81. Rushdoony, I nsti tutes, p. 111.
82. Ci ted i n Rushdoony, This I nde@ndmt Republic, p. 38.
83. I bid., p. 33.
vi ni st . He offers no evi dence for thi s statement. The thesi s i s suffi -
ci entl y pecul i ar that some reference to pri mary source documenta-
ti on i s mandatory, but none i s offered. He refuses to defi ne what he
means by qegal soverei gnty, whi ch makes thi ngs even more di ffi -
cul t. He ci tes some hi stori ans on Ameri cans opposi ti on to the sover-
ei gn State, but i t i s cl ear from the context that thei r hosti l i ty was to a
central i zed, monopol i sti c soverei gnty, whi ch i s not the poi nt Rush-
doony i s tryi ng to make.
The questi on Rushdoony has been attempti ng for three decades
to avoi d answeri ng from the hi stori cal record i s thi s one: Why di d
the Framers refuse to i ncl ude a Tri ni tari an oath? I f the states had
such oaths and they di d and the Patri ot party regarded the col -
oni es as l egal , soverei gn ci vi l governments under the Ki ng, whi ch i s
the thesi s of This I ndependent Republic, then why not i mpose the oath
requi rement nati onal l y? The presence of an oath i s basi c to any cov-
enant, as Rushdoony knows. The questi on i s: Who i s the i den-
ti fi abl e soverei gn i n the federal covenant? And the answer of the
Framers was cl ear, We the Peopl e. Not we the states, but We the
peopl e. I t i s ri ght there i n the Preambl e.
We the People
Patri ck Henry had been i nvi ted to attend the Phi l adel phi a con-
venti on, but he had refused. He recogni zed what was i mpl i ci tl y
bei ng asserted i n the Preambl e. I n the Vi rgi ni a debate over rati fi ca-
ti on i n 1788, he spoke out agai nst rati fi cati on. He warned agai nst the
i mpl i cati ons of We the Peopl e:
Gi ve me l eave to demand, what ri ght had they to say, We the Peopl e, i n-
stead of We the States? States are the characteri sti cs, and the soul of a
confederati on. I f the States be not the agents of thi s compact, i t must be one
great consol i dated nati onal government of the peopl e of al l the States. . . .
Had the del egates, who were sent to Phi l adel phi a a power to propose a con-
sol i dated government i nstead of a confederacy? Were they not deputed by
States, and not by the peopl e? The assent of the peopl e, i n thei r col l ecti ve
capaci ty, i s not necessary to the formati on of a federal government. The
peopl e have no ri ght to enter i nto l eagues, al l i ances, or confederati ons: they
are not the proper agents for thi s purpose: States and soverei gn powers are
the onl y proper agents for thi s ki nd of government. Show me an i nstance
where the peopl e have exerci sed thi s busi ness: has i t not al ways gone
through the l egi sl atures?. . . . Thi s, therefore, ought to depend on the con-
sent of the l egi sl atures.
Henry sai d emphati cal l y of the del egates to the Phi l adel phi a
Conventi on, The peopl e gave them no power to use thei r name.
That they exceeded thei r power i s perfectl y cl ear .84 Rushdoony, for
al l hi s prai se of Henrys Chri sti ani ty, has steadfastl y refused to di s-
cuss the rel i gi ous and judi ci al foundati on of Henrys opposi ti on to
rati fi cati on. Thi s i s not an oversi ght on Rushdoonys part. He knows
exactl y why Henry objected. Henry recogni zed that the Consti tu-
ti on rested on a revol uti onary break from Ameri can l aw. I t was a
broken covenant.
The Consti tuti on was r ati fi ed under the pr esumpti on of the SOV-
erei gnty of the peopl e. But thi s was more than mere presumpti on: i t
i s ri ght there at the begi nni ng of the document. Here i s why there i s
no Tri ni tari an oath i n the Consti tuti on: the Framers were operati ng
under the l egal fi cti on that the soverei gn Peopl e, not the God of the
Bi bl e, had authori zed the new nati onal covenant .
85
We the Peopl e
were not the vassal s of the Great Ki ng i n thi s treaty; We the Peopl e
were the great ki ng, and there shal l be no other gods besi de We the
Peopl e. Thus, the Framers outl awed rel i gi ous oaths. Outlawed ! Yet
thi s cruci al Consti tuti onal provi si on i s rarel y menti oned today. The
humani st defenders of the Consti tuti on automati cal l y assume i t, and
the Chri sti an defenders ei ther do not recogni ze i ts i mportance or el se
do not want to face i ts obvi ous i mpl i cati ons. I nstead, the debate has
focused on Congress and the freedom of rel i gi on. Thi s provi si on i s
not the heart of the Consti tuti onal covenant; i t i s merel y an appl i ca-
ti on of i t. The oath i s central i n any covenant.
On~ Earth~ Sovereign~
I t was hardl y the case that the Framers had no concept of earthl y
l egal soverei gnty. I t was that they had on@ a concept of earthl y l egal
soverei gn y. They announced a di vi ne ri ght not of ki ngs, not of l eg-
i sl atures, but of the Peopl e. The di vi ne ri ght of ki ngs doctri ne meant
that no one and no i nsti tuti on coul d appeal any deci si on of the ki ng;
he was excl usi ve~ soverei gn under God. Thi s was exactl y what the
oath of Arti cl e VI , Cl ause 3 was i ntended to convey: no appeal. The
nati onal government was the fi nal voi ce of the peopl e, for i t operated
84. I am usi ng the ver si on i n Nor i ne Di ckson Campbel l , Patriik Heny: Patriot and
Statesman (Ol d Greenwi ch, Connecti cut: Devi n-Adai r, 1969), p. 338. Thi s statement
appxs i n The Debates i n the Sevmal State Conventi ons on the Adoption of the Federal Consti-
tution 0.s Recommended by the Gener al Convention at Philadelphia in 1787, edi ted by
Jonathan El l i ot, 5 vol s. (Phi l adel phi a: Li ppencott, [1836] 1907), I I I , p. 22.
85. Edmund S. Morgan, I nventing the People: The Rise of Popul ar Soverei gnty i n Eng-
l and and America (New York: Norton, 1988).
under the treaty of the great col l ecti ve ki ng: the Consti tuti on. Thi s
was why the Framers i nsi sted on requi ri ng an oath of al l egi ance to
the Consti tuti on that made i l l egal any judi ci al al l egi ance to God by
federal offi cers. The oath made the federal government soverei gn.
Thi s i s exactl y what Hami l ton announced i n Federalist 27.s6 Yet
Rushdoony i s sti l l usi ng thi s bi t of mytho-hi story regardi ng the i dea
of soverei gnty i n the earl y Ameri can peri od i n order to justi fy hi s
defense of the Consti tuti on. The Consti tuti on i s uni que i n worl d
hi story i n that there i s no menti on of soverei gnty, because soverei gnty
was recogni zed as bei ng an attri bute of God.
s
I ndeed, i t trul y was
seen as an attri bute of God, and the Framers i denti fi ed thi s god: the
Peopl e.
The transformati on of Rushdoonys bi bl i cal judi ci al theol ogy of
the earl y 1970s i nto a theol ogi cal defense of judi ci al neutral i ty i n the
l ate 1980s was accuratel y predi cted . . . by Rushdoony: I f a doc-
tri ne of authori ty embodi es contradi cti ons wi thi n i tsel f, then i t i s
eventual l y bound to fal l apart as the di verse strai ns war agai nst one
another. Thi s has been a conti nui ng part of the vari ous cri ses of
Western ci vi l i zati on. Because the Bi bl i cal doctri ne of authori ty has
been compromi sed by Greco-Roman humani sm, the tensi ons of au-
thori ty have been sharp and bi tter.ss No sharper and no more bi tter
than i n the remarkabl e case of Rushdoony u. Rushdoony.
86. Rushdoony has poi nted to an i nci dent l ate i n Hami l tons career that i ndi cates
Chr i sti an fai th, Hami l tons cafl to create a Chri sti an pol i ti cal party just before he
was ki l l ed. He rel ates thi s i n hi s taped l ecture on Levi ti cus 8:1-13.
What Rushdoony i s referri ng to i s Hami l tons 1802 cal l for a Chri sti an Consti tu-
ti onal Soci ety. Thi s soci ety was not to be a separate pol i ti cal party, but a means of
chal l engi ng athei sm i n pol i ti cs general l y, especi al l y the Jeffersoni ans. I t was to be a
network of pol i ti cal cl ubs. He al so proposed the creati on of chari tabl e soci eti es, a
Chri sti an wel fare program. Hami l tons bi ographer Jacob Cooke poi nts out that thi s
concern for Chri sti ani ty came onl y after he had l ost al l pol i ti cal i nfl uence nati onal l y.
Per haps never i n al l Amer i can pol i ti cal hi stor y has ther e been a fal l from power so
rapi d, so compl ete, so fi naf as Hami l tons i n the peri od from October, 1799, to
November , 1800 . Cooke, Akxander Hamilton: A Projle (New York: Hi l l & Wang,
1967), p. 246. Whi l e Cooke bel i eves that Hami l ton was actual l y transformed i nter-
nal l y, he ti es thi s to thi s to hi s l oss of pol i ti caf i nfl uence. I n short, when he had
power, Hami l ton was not a Chri sti an, and he hel ped to destroy the remai ni ng
Chr i sti an ci vi l foundati ons of the nati onal gover nment.
87. Thi s was hi s repl y to Otto Scotts comment about the U.S. bei ng the fi rst
nati on to establ i sh i tsel f wi thout reference to God. Q & A, Levi ti cus sermon, Jan.
30, 1987.
Rushdoony on the Consti tuti on
701
Concl usi on
Rushdoony begi ns The Nature of the American System wi th thi s ob-
servati on: The concept of a secul ar state was vi rtual l y non-exi stent
i n, 1776 as wel l as i n 1787, when the Consti tuti on was wri tten, and no
l ess so when the Bi l l of Ri ghts was adopted. To r ead the Consti tuti on
as the charter for a secul ar state i s to mi sread hi story, and to mi sr ead
i t radi cal l y. The Consti tuti on was desi gned to perpetuate a Chri sti an
or der .89 He has never retreated from thi s posi ti on; i ndeed, he has
escal ated hi s commi tment to i t so much so, that he has now under-
cut the covenantal foundati on of The I nstitutes of Biblical Law.
The probl em wi th the U.S. Consti tuti on was and i s pol ythei sm.
Rushdoony has descr i bed the pr obl em of pol i ti cal pol ythei sm:
Modern pol i ti cal orders are pol ythei sti c i mperi al states, but the
churches are not much better. To hol d, as the churches do, Roman
Cathol i c, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran, Cal vi ni st, and al l others vi r-
tual l y, that the l aw was good for I srael , but that Chri sti ans and the
chur ch ar e under gr ace and wi thout l aw, or under some hi gher ,
newer l aw, i s i mpl i ci t pol ythei sm .
90
But he has al ways refused to
i denti fy the obvi ous pol ythei sm of the Consti tuti on. Thus, he has
had to expl ai n modern pol i ti cal pl ural i sm as a devi ati on from the
Consti tuti on rather than i ts i nevi tabl e product.
The rati fi cati on of the U.S. Consti tuti on i n June of 1788 created
a new nati on based on a new covenant. I t pl aced the new nati on
under a hi gher, newer l aw. The nati on had broken wi th i ts Chri s-
ti an judi ci al roots by covenanti ng wi th a new god, the soverei gn Peo-
pl e. There woul d be no other God tol erated i n the pol i ti cal or der .
There woul d be no appeal beyond thi s soverei gn god. That col l ecti ve
god, speaki ng through the federal government, began i ts i nevi tabl e
expansi on, pr edi cted by the Anti feder al i sts, most notabl y Patr i ck
Henr y. The secul ar i zati on of the r epubl i c began i n ear nest. Thi s
process has not yet ceased.
Never thel ess, the sur r ender to secul ar humani sm was not an
over ni ght pr ocess. The ri se of abol i ti oni sm, the comi ng of the Ci vi l
War , the advent of Darwi ni sm, the gr owth of i mmi gr ati on, the
spread of the franchi se, the devel opment of the publ i c school system,
and a host of other soci al and pol i ti cal i nfl uences have al l worked to
transform the i nterdenomi nati onal Ameri can ci vi l rel i gi on i nto a re-
89. Rushdoony, Nature, p. 2.
90. I bid., p. 18.
l i gi on not fundamental l y di fferent from the one that Jeroboam set
up, so that the peopl e of the Northern Ki ngdom mi ght not journey
to Jerusal em ,i n Judah to offer sacri fi ces (I Ki . 12:26-31). The gol den
cal ves may not be on the hi l l tops, but the theol ogy i s the same: rel i -
gi on exi sts to serve the needs of the State, and the State i s soverei gn
over the materi al thi ngs of thi s worl d. There are many forms of i dol
worshi p. The worshi p of the U.S. Consti tuti on has been a popul ar
for m of thi s anci ent pr acti ce, especi al l y i n conser vati ve Chr i sti an
ci r cl es.
The sancti ons of the pre-Consti tuti ona.l col oni al covenants are sti l l
bi ndi ng i n Gods court. One cannot break covenant wi th the Great
Ki ng. He wi l l bri ng addi ti onal negati ve sancti ons unl ess those ori gi -
nal covenants are renewed. Thi s, however, requi res that we break
covenant wi th the present god of thi s age, the Peopl e. The Peopl e are
under God as l egal l y protected vassal s. I f thi s i s not acknowl edged
covenantal l y and formal l y, then the common peopl e wi l l eventual l y
fi nd themsel ves under tyrants as l egal l y unprotected vassal s.
Anabaptism or Couenantalism
Why has Rushdoony steadfastl y refused to see thi s? The easi est
expl anati on i s covenantal . He has al ways refused to acknowl edge the
eccl esi asti cal aspects of theocrati c ci vi l government. He has correctl y
seen that the i nsti tuti onal Chur ch shoul d not gi ve or der s to the
State, but he has never faced the hard questi on of the suffrage: How
can non-Tri ni tari ans be al l owed to vote i n a theocrati c nati on? Obvi -
ousl y, they woul d not be al l owed to vote. Those not under the cove-
nant cannot be al l owed to i mpose ci vi l sancti ons.
Thi s rai ses the questi on of whi ch covenantal authori ty, or more to
the poi nt, authorities? Who i s to determi ne whether a person i s a
Chri sti an? There can be onl y one Bi bl e-based answer: a Tri ni tari an
l ocal assembl y or synod. A person can be regarded as a Chri sti an
onl y i f he i s a member i n good standi ng i n a l ocal assembl y or pres-
bytery. Everyone el se i s outsi de a church covenant and therefore cut
off fr om the sacr aments and the di sci pl i ne of excommuni cati on.
Judi ci al l y speaki ng, a person who does not have l egal access to the
sacraments i s not a Chri sti an, nor i s someone who refuses to take the
sacr aments. Men cannot l awful l y sear ch other mens hear ts; they
must make publ i c deci si ons and judgments i n terms of other mens
professi ons of fai th and thei r outward obedi ence to Gods l aw. Gods
l aw requi res peopl e to be bapti zed, to subordi nate themsel ves to a
church, and to take the sacrament of the Lords Supper on a regul ar
basi s. Those who refuse are outsi de the Church covenant. Therefore,
i n a theocrati c republ i c, they woul d not be enti tl ed to i mpose ci vi l
sancti ons.
Thi s rai ses the other questi on that he has al ways avoi ded: the
State must i denti fy whi ch chur ches ar e Tr i ni tar i an and ther efor e
whose members are authori zed to vote. A Chri sti an republ i c i n-
evi tabl y must face the questi on anal ogous to the one today di sturb-
i ng the state of I srael : Who i s a Jew?
On thi s dual poi nt the questi on of ci vi l sancti ons and eccl esi as-
ti cal sancti ons Rushdoony has remai ned conspi cuousl y si l ent
throughout hi s career, but hi s acti ons i n recent years i ndi cate that he
si des wi th the Bapti sts and Anabapti sts i n Ameri can hi story: Church
membershi p has nothi ng to do wi th voti ng or hol di ng ci vi l offi ce.
Thi s concl usi on l eads hi m strai ght i nto the pl ural i sti c arms of Roger
Wi l l i ams. There i s no permanent hal fway house between John Wi n-
throp and Roger Wi l l i ams. There i s no permanent hal fway cove-
nant. There i s no neutral i ty.
I nstead, there are Church sacraments. These are the foundati on
of Chri sti an ci vi l i zati on not the franchi se, not the gol d standard,
not the patri archal fami l y, not the ti the to parachurch mi ni stri es,
and not i ndependent Chri sti an educati on. The sacraments.1 Deny
thi s, and you necessari l y deny the bi bl i cal Church covenant as wel l
as the bi bl i cal ci vi l covenant. Rushdoony has, at the very l east, i m-
pl i ci tl y deni ed both. The si gn of thi s deni al i s hi s l i fe-l ong desi gna-
ti on of the U.S. Consti tuti on as an i mpl i ci tl y Chri sti an covenant,
meani ng a hal fway nati onal covenant. That was what the Arti cl es of
Confed~rati on consti tuted; the Consti tuti on i s apostate.
91. Understand, I mean the sacraments as covenant seal i ng (bapti sm) and covenant-
renewi ng (Lords Supper). I see the sacraments as judi ci al , i n opposi ti on to both
Protestant nomi nal i sm (memori al s) and Roman Cathol i c real i sm (i nfusi ons of
grace).
The nature of the Masoni c God i s best seen i n thei r favori te ti tl e
for hi m: the Supreme Archi tect. The Masoni c God i s fi rst of al l a
dei sti c God who i s found at the top of the l adder of Masoni c wi sdom.
From God emanates a rati onal order for the uni verse, whi ch i n-
cl udes a moral order for the affai rs of humani ty:
Nature i s order rul ed by i mmutabl e and absol ute l aws l ai d down
at the begi nni ng of the uni verse as i t i s so ordai ned by the Supreme
Archi tect. Ci vi l i zati ons, so l ong as they are i n compl ete accord wi th
nature and i ts l aws, can survi ve.
The di vi ne desi gn for pol i ti cal l i fe i s summed up perfectl y i n the
Consti tuti on and Bi l l of Ri ghts whi ch represent the order of l aw by
whi ch al l other governments and hi stori cal peri ods are judged. The
Decl arati on of I ndependence, whi l e of great i mportance, pl ays a sec-
ondary rol e i n the New Age i nterpretati on of the foundi ng of the na-
ti on. There are substanti al l y more New Age arti cl es referri ng to the
Consti tuti on (160) than to the Decl arati on of I ndependence (96).
Correspondi ng to the i mportance attached to the Consti tuti on i s
the pre-emi nent posi ti on gi ven George Washi ngton, cl earl y the most
renowned of al l Ameri can Masons. He i s gi ven exhausti ve coverage
i n The New Age whi l e proporti onatel y l i ttl e attenti on i s pai d to
Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Decl arati on of I ndependence.
Al most thi rteen arti cl es are devoted to Washi ngtons personal l i fe,
mi l i tary career, Farewel l Address, Masoni c acti vi ti es, and Presi dency.
The onl y other Foundi ng Father who recei ves even hal f as much at-
tenti on as Washi ngton i s Benjami n Frankl i n, another Mason.
Pamel a M. Jol i coeur and Loui s L. Knowl es (1978)*
*Jol i coeur and Knowl es, Fraternal Associ ati ons and Ci vi l Rel i gi on: Scotti sh
Ri te Freemasonry, Review of Re[igiou Research, XX (Fal l 1978), pp. 14-15.
Appen di x C
MASONS I N THE AMERI CAN REVOLUTI ON
Thi s i s not an easy topi c to sort out. Masoni c hi stori ans di sagree
among themsel ves. Two books deal i n detai l wi th thi s questi on, one
by Ronal d Heaton and the other by Phi l i p Roth.
Ronal d Heaton
The Masoni c Servi ce Associ ati on publ i shed Ronal d Heatons
Masonic Membership of the Foundin~ Fathers i n 1965.1 Thi s book contai ns
detai l ed bi ographi es of about two hundred men of the Revol uti on, of
whom about a thi rd were Masons, and a thi rd may have been. He i s
judi ci ous i n nami ng the l odges and source documents for attri buti ng
membershi p to anyone.
He says that ten of the si gners of the ori gi nal conti nental Arti cl es
of Associ ati on were Masons, ni ne of the si gners of the Decl arati on of
I ndependence, ni ne of the si gners of the Arti cl es of Confederati on,
thi rteen of the si gners of the Consti tuti on, thi rty-three general offi -
cers of the Conti nental Army, and ei ght of Washi ngtons 29 ai des or
mi l i tary secretari es (p. xvi ).
Hi s l i st of Masons i ncl udes the fol l owi ng men:
Thomas Adams
Benedi ct Arnol d
Hodi jah Bayl i es
Gunni ng Bedford, Jr.
Edwar d Bi ddl e John Bl ai r
Davi d Brearl ey
Jacob Broom
Dani el Carrol l
1. Address: 8120 Fenton St., Si l ver Spri ng, MD 20910; repri nted i n 1974 and
1988.
705
706
Ri char d Gar y
Ri char d Caswel l
James Cl i nton (father of DeWi ttj
Jonathan Dayton
El i as Dayton
John Di ckenson
Wi l l i am El l ery
John Fi tzger al d
Benjami n Fr ankl i n
Joseph Fr ye
Ni chol as Gi l man
Mor decai Gi st
John Gl over
John Gr eaton
John Hancock
Edwar d Hand
Cor nel i us Har nett
Joseph Hewes
James Hogun
Wi l l i am Hooper
Char l es Humphr eys
Davi d Humphr eys
Rufus Ki ng
Henr y Knox
La Fayette
Henr y Laur ens
Benjami n Li ncol n
James McHenry
Wi l l i am Maxwel l
Hugh Mer cer
Ri char d Montgomer y
J. P. G. Muhl enber g
John Ni xon
Rober t Tr eat Pai ne
Wi l l i am Pal fr ey
S a m u e l H ol d e n Pa r s on s
John Patter son
Wi l l i am Patter son
I srael Putnam
Rufus Putnam
Masons in the American Revolution 707
Edmund Randol ph
Peyton Randol ph
Dani el Roberdeau
Arthur St. CI ai r
Jonathan Bayard Smi th
John Stark Baron von Steuben
Ri chard Stockton
John Sul l i van
Jethro Sumner
Wi l l i am Thompson
James Mi tchel l Varnum
John Wal ker
George Wal ton
George Washi ngton
Geor ge Weedon
Wi l l i am Whi ppl e
Otho Hol l and Wi l l i ams
Wi l l i am Woodfor d
Davi d Wooster
To thi s shoul d be added Joseph Warren and Paul Revere of Bos-
ton, whose l odge was cl osel y associ ated wi th the Boston Tea Party.
James Oti s i s mi ssi ng. So i s Robert Li vi ngston of New York and John
Paul Jones. Above al l , so i s John Mar shal l , who i n the mi d-1790s was
Grand Master of Vi rgi ni a (Beveri dge, Marshall, I I , 176-77).
Phi l i p Roth
Phi l i p A. Roth sel f-publ i shed Masomy in the Formation of our Gov-
ernment i n 1927. He was the Past Master of Henry L. Pal mer Lodge
No. 301 and was at the ti me manager of the Masoni c Servi ce Bureau
i n Washi ngton, D. C. The book provi des bi ographi es of key fi gures
i n the Ameri can Revol uti on, i ncl udi ng Engl i sh fi gures, and al so i n-
cl udes some bri ef summari es of key events, such as the i naugurati on
of Presi dent Washi ngton. Roth was judi ci ous; he di d not cl ai m that
anyone was a Mason unl ess he coul d document the actual Lodge i n
whi ch he was a member or was i ni ti ti ated. Thi s l i st i s probabl y l ess
rel i abl e than Heatons, who had access to more compl ete records.
Hi s l i st of Masons i ncl udes the fol l owi ng men:
Gen. Benedi ct Ar nol d
Col . Wi l l i am Bar ton
708
John Bl ai r
Edmund Bur ke (Br i ti sh)
Ri char d Caswel l
Geor ge Cl i nton
Gen. James Cl i nton
Gen, Johann DeKal b
Gen. Wi l l i am Davi e
Gen. Mor decai Gi st
Benjami n Fr ankl i n
Nathani el Gr eene
Ri char d Gri dl ey
Nathan Hal e
Al exander Hami l ton (pr obabl y)
John Hancock
Gen. Edwar d Hand
Ni chol as Her ki mer
Gen. James Jackson
John Paul Jones
Jean Paul Lafayette
Henr y (Li ght Hor se Har r y) Lee
Ri char d Henr y Lee
Mor gan Lewi s
Gen. Benjami n Li ncol n
Rober t Li vi ngston
John Mar shal l
Gen. Hugh Mer cer
Jacob Mor ton
Rev. John Peter Muehl enber g
James Oti s
Gen Sam Par sons
Wi l l i am Pi tt (Bri ti sh)
Gen. Thomas Pr octor
I srael Putnam
Rufus Putnam
Edmund Randol ph
Peyton Randol ph
Paul Rever e
Maj. Gen. Phi l i p Schuyl er
Roger Sherman (probabl y)
Gen. John Stark Baron von Steuben
Masons in the American Revolution
Gen. John Sul l i van
Joseph Warren
George Washi ngton
Gen. Anthony Wayne (probabl y)
Gen. Otho Wi l l i ams
Gen. Davi d Wooster
709
One of the great poi nts of controversy between [Abraham] Kuyper
and [P. J.] Hoedemaker was the questi on whether the state can
know and recogni ze the church as church; i n other words, whether the
church as such i s a publ i c juri di cal i nsti tuti on. Hoedemaker an-
swered thi s questi on affi rmati vel y. When he observed that the state
recogni zes onl y three ki nds of l egal bodi es associ ati ons, founda-
ti ons, and corporati ons he found no category for the church among
these. And he whol eheartedl y agreed wi th Kuyper who wrote:
That same God who i nsti tuted the Government and cl othed the Gov-
ernment wi th authori ty as hi s servant, that same God has, by vi rtue
of hi s soverei gn omni potence, brought the Church of Chri st i nto thi s
worl d and di stri buted her over al l nati ons and peopl es. That Church
i s not the product of human vol i ti on but Gods own creati on. C onse-
quentl y the Government i s not asked i f i t wi shes to tol erate the
Church; she exi sts jure divino (by di vi ne ri ght).
Excel l ent , sai d Hoedemaker. I t coul d not have been sai d bet-
ter. But then he wanted Kuyper to go one step further by sayi ng that
the state must recogni ze the fact that God has formed the church. The
cri teri on for determi ni ng whether a state i s chri sti an i s thi s: do the
government and the states consti tuti on (i f we are deal i ng wi th a con-
sti tuti onal state) grant a publ i c-l egal exi stence to the church as revel -
ati on of the Body of Chri st? Hoedemaker fel t that to depri ve the
church of i ts publ i c juri di cal status woul d be a deni al of Chri st by the
gover nment.
L. Kal sbeek (1970)
Kakbeek, Contours of a Christian Philosophy: An introduction to Hennan Dooyeweer#s
thought (Toronto: Wedge, 1975), p. 231.
Appendi x D
TESTI MONY OF THE REFORMED PRESBYTERI AN
CHURCH OF NORTH AMERI CA (1980)
Chapter 23: Of the Ci vi l Magi strate
1. We reject the bel i ef that ci vi l government i s unnecessary or
essenti al l y evi l .
2. God has gi ven the exerci se of al l authori ty to the Lord Jesus
Chri st. Chri st i s the Di vi ne Lawgi ver, Governor and Judge. Hi s wi l l
concerni ng the purpose of ci vi l government and the pri nci pl es re-
gardi ng i ts functi ons and operati on are reveal ed i n the wri tten Word
of God. The Hol y Spi ri t enabl es even unregenerate rul ers to ful fi l l
thei r proper functi ons. A true recogni ti on of the authori ty and l aw of
Chri st i n nati onal l i fe can onl y be the frti i t of the Spi ri ts regenerat-
i ng power i n the l i ves of i ndi vi dual s.
Deut. 4:39; Dan. 4:25, 32, 35; Matt. 28:18; Phi l . 2:10; Eph. 1:22; I sa.
33:22; Deut. 17:18-19; I sa. 45:1-7; Ezek. 36:27.
3. God has assi gned to peopl e, both i ndi vi dual l y and col l ecti vel y,
the responsi bi l i ty for establ i shi ng and mai ntai ni ng ci vi l government,
and the peopl e are accountabl e to Jesus Chri st for the proper exer-
ci se of thi s responsi bi l i ty.
Deut. 1:13-14; Deut. 17:15; 1 Sam. 8:22; 2 Sam. 5:3; Hos. 8:1, 4; Eccl .
10:16-17.
4. Every nati on ought to recogni ze the Di vi ne i nsti tuti on of ci vi l
government, the soverei gnty of God exerci sed by Jesus Chri st, and
i ts duty to rul e the ci vi l affai rs of men i n accordance wi th the wi l l of
God. I t shoul d enter i nto covenant wi th Chri st and servi ce to ad-
vance Hi s Ki ngdom on earth. The negl i gence of ci vi l government i n
any of these parti cul ars i s si nful , makes the nati on l i abl e to the wrath
711
712
of God, and threatens the conti nued exi stence of the government
and nati on.
Phi l . 2:10; Rem. 13:4; Ps. 132:12; Ps.103:17-19; Ps. 2:10-12,
5. We reject the vi ew that nati ons have no corporate responsi bi l -
i ty for acknowl edgi ng and obeyi ng Chri st.
6. I t i s the duty of every Chri sti an ci ti zen to l abor and pray for hi s
nati ons offi ci al and expl i ci t recogni ti on of the authori ty and l aw of
Jesus Chri st, Preserver and Rul er of nati ons, and for the conduct of
al l governmental affai rs i n harmony wi th the wri tten Word of God.
1 Ti m. 2:1-2; Phi l . 2:9-10; Acts 2:1-39; Ps. 2:8-12; Esther 4:14.
7. We deny that consti tuti onal recogni ti on of Jesus Chri st means
uni on of church and state.
8. We reject the teachi ng that Chri sti ans shoul d not seek the es-
tabl i shment of Chri sti an ci vi l government.
9. No parti cul ar form of ci vi l government i s commanded i n the
Scri ptures. Any form of ci vi l government whi ch observes the duti es
and l i mi tati ons set upon i t by God i n Hi s reveal ed Word i s accept-
abl e to God.
Ex. 18:21-24; Pr ov. 29:14; Deut. 1:16-17.
10. We deny that si mpl y havi ng a democrati c or republ i can form
of government i nsures Gods approval and bl essi ng.
11. Al l offi cers and empl oyees of a ci vi l government are to be ser-
vants of God for good. They are responsi bl e to God for the di scharge
of l awful duti es ri ghtful l y assi gned to them by human authori ty.
Nei ther thei r offi ci al posi ti on, however, nor the orders of thei r supe-
ri ors, nor the wi l l of the peopl e, exonerates them from bl ame for any
unscri ptural acti on or i nacti on.
Rem. 13:3-4; 2 Chron. 19:6-7; Prov. 29:26.
12. We reject the vi ew that i t i s wrong to wage war i n defense of
l i fe, l i berty or rel i gi on.
Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North Ameri ca 713
13. Ci ti zens cannot abdi cate thei r responsi bi l i ty to determi ne the
moral l egi ti macy of a parti cul ar war and to govern thei r parti ci pa-
ti on accordi ngl y. Such deci si ons shoul d be made prayerful l y i n the
l i ght of Scri pture and wi th the counsel of the church.
Acts 5:29; 1 Sam. 14:44-45.
14. When justl y admi ni stered, capi tal puni shment i s a scri ptural
appl i cati on of ci vi l authori ty.
Rem. 13:4; Gen. 9:6; Acts 25:11; Num. 35:29-34.
15. The Chri sti an, when such acti on i nvol ves no di sl oyal ty to
Chri st, ought to be i nvol ved i n the sel ecti on of and to vote for ci vi l
rul ers who fear God, l ove truth and justi ce, hate evi l , and are pub-
l i cl y commi tted to scri ptural pri nci pl es of ci vi l government.
Ex. 18:21; Deut. 16:18, 2 Sam. 23:3; Rem. 13:3,
16. I t i s si nful for a Chri sti an to take an oath whi ch compromi ses
hi s supreme al l egi ance to Jesus Chri st. I t i s al so si nful to vote for offi -
ci al s who are requi red to take an oath whi ch a Chri sti an hi msel f
coul d not take i n good consci ence. Voti ng i nvol ves the voter i n re-
sponsi bi l i ty for any act requi red of the offi ci al as a condi ti on of hol d-
i ng hi s offi ce.
Deut. 10:20; I sa. 45:22-23; 2 John 1:11; 1 Ti m. 5:22.
17. The Chri sti an must profess publ i cal l y and the Church must
wi tness, that Chri st i s the Rul er of every nati on. Whatever the offi -
ci al acti on of the ci vi l government of a nati on may be, the Chri sti an
i n hi s ci vi l acti ons must al ways exhi bi t hi s l oyal ty to Chri st. The
Chri sti an must rel i nqui sh every ri ght or pri vi l ege of ci ti zenshi p
whi ch i nvol ves hi m i n si l ence about, or deni al of the supreme au-
thori ty of Jesus Chri st.
Matt. 5:13-14; Prov. 3:5-6; Ps. 37:7; Matt. 22:21; John 17:14-15; Mark 13:9.
18. We reject the porti on of paragraph 3 after the col on. 1
1. Thi s i s the secti on i n the Westmi nster Confessi on regardi ng the authori ty of the
ci vi l magi strate to puni sh bl asphemi es and heresi es. I t i s thi s secti on that was repeal ed
by the Presbyteri an Church i n Ameri ca on May 28, 1788 G.N.
19. Both the government of the nati on and the government of the
vi si bl e church are establ i shed by God. Though di sti nct and i nde-
pendent of each other, they both owe supreme al l egi ance to Jesus
Chri st. The governments of church and state di ffer i n sphere of au-
thori ty i n that due submi ssi on to the government of the vi si bl e
church i s the obl i gati on of members thereof, whi l e due submi ssi on to
ci vi l government i s the obl i gati on of al l men. The governments of
church and state al so have di fferent functi ons and prerogati ves i n the
advancement of the Ki ngdom of God. The means of enforcement of
the ci vi l government are physi cal , whi l e those of church government
are not. Nei ther government has the ri ght to i nvade or assume the
authori ty of the other. They shoul d cooperate to the honor and gl ory
of God, whi l e mai ntai ni ng thei r separate juri sdi cti ons.
Rem. 13:1; Matt. 22:21; Col . 1:18; Acts 15:10; Ezra 7:10, 25-26; 2 Chr on.
26:18-19; Matt. 5:25; 1 Cor. 5:12-13.
20. Though responsi bl e for mai ntai ni ng condi ti ons favorabl e to
the spread of the Gospel , ci vi l government shoul d never attempt to
convert men to Chri st by the use of force or by persecuti on. I t shoul d
guarantee to al l i ts subjects every human ri ght gi ven by God to men.
I t shoul d, however, restrai n and puni sh i ts subjects for those si nful
acti ons whi ch fal l under i ts juri sdi cti on.
1 Ti m. 2:1-4; 1 Pet. 2:13-14; Rem. 13:4; Ezra 7:26; Neh. 13:17-21.
21. No ci vi l government whi ch depri ves men of ci vi l or rel i gi ous
l i berty, fai l s to protect human l i fe, or proposes to force men to do
vi ol ence to the spi ri t and precepts of the Chri sti an rel i gi on or i nter-
feres unjustl y wi th pri vate ownershi p of property, can i n such mat-
ters ri ghtful l y expect the submi ssi on of i ts ci ti zens or the bl essi ngs of
God promi sed for obedi ence to Hi m.
Acts 4:17,19,33; Deut. 27:19; I sa. 10:1-2; Ex. 20:15; I sa. 1:23-26; Dan. 6:13;
Heb. 11:23.
22. Both the Chri sti an and the Church have a responsi bi l i ty for
wi tnessi ng agai nst nati onal si ns and for pr omoti ng justi ce.
Amos 2:6-8; Amos 5:14-15.
23. The fai l ure of a ci vi l government, through negl i gence, i gnor-
ance, or rebel l i on, to recogni ze the authori ty of Jesus Chri st does not
Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America 715
cancel i ts just authori ty. A ci vi l government, though gui l ty of many
si ns, sti l l has authori ty i n so far as i t furthers some of the scri ptural
ends of ci vi l government.
Matt. 22:21; Rem. 13:1; Rem. 2:14; Acts 23:5; Ex. 22:28.
24. Due submi ssi on of al l persons, cheerful l y rendered, to ci vi l
offi cers and to ci vi l government i n general , i s pl easi ng to God. No
person, however, i s requi red by God to obey ci vi l authori ty when
such authori ty demands that the ci ti zen or subject do that whi ch i s
cl earl y contrary to the l aw of God as reveal ed i n the Scri ptures. I n
such cases the duty of the Chri sti an i s to obey God rather than men.
The Chri sti an has a speci al obl i gati on to render due submi ssi on to
ci vi l authori ty i n order to express hi s l oyal ty to Jesus Chri st, to prove
hi s concern for the wel fare of al l men, and to bri ng honor to the
name of Chri st.
1 Pet. 2:13-14; Rem. 13:5; Acts 5:29; Ti tus 3:1.
25. The onl y submi ssi on whi ch a Chri sti an may promi se to any
ci vi l government i s due submi ssi on i n the Lord. Any promi se of sub-
mi ssi on or oath of al l egi ance beyond thi s i s si nful . I f and when the
ci vi l government of a nati on requi res, as a condi ti on of ci vi l servi ce
or of hol di ng offi ce, an oath whi ch i mpl i es that ci vi l al l egi ance
transcends the swearers convi cti ons of consci ence and obedi ence to
God, i t i s the Chri sti ans duty to refuse such an oath. I t i s wi thi n the
corporate power of the Church, acti ng through i ts courts, to decl are
that facts or ci rcumstances whi ch may exi st i n a speci fi c si tuati on
render the taki ng of a ci vi l oath si nful .
Gen. 25:33; Matt. 22:21; Eph. 6:12; Matt 4:10; Deut. 10:20.
26. I t i s the duty of the Chri sti an to ascertai n whether any
prescri bed oath of al l egi ance to the ci vi l authori ty i nvol ves accep-
tance of unchri sti an pri nci pl es stated or i mpl i ed i n i ts consti tuti on of
government. I f the oath of al l egi ance to ci vi l authori ty expl i ci tl y or
by cl ear i mpl i cati on requi res support of anti -Chri sti an, athei sti c, or
secul ar pri nci pl es, then the Chri sti an must refuse on these grounds
to take the oath of al l egi ance.
Acts 5:29; Acts 4:18-20.
27. I n the matter of taki ng oaths requi red by ci vi l authori ty, the
Chri sti an shoul d seek the gui dance and support of the Church.
28. I t i s the duty of the Chri sti an Church to testi fy to the author-
i ty of Chri st over the nati ons, agai nst al l anti -Chri sti an, athei sti c,
and secul ar pri nci pl es of ci vi l government, and agai nst al l si nful
oaths of al l egi ance to ci vi l governments. When the Church by or-
derl y processes i n her own courts determi nes that the oath of
al l egi ance to a ci vi l government compromi ses the Chri sti ans l oyal ty
to Chri st or i nvol ves the Chri sti an i n the support of si nful pri nci pl es
of ci vi l government, the Church must requi re her members to refuse
such si nful oaths.
Acts 4:24-29; Eph. 5:11; Rev. 3:15-16; Acts 15:28-29; Rev. 2:13-14.
29. When parti ci pati ng i n pol i ti cal el ecti ons, the Chri sti an shoul d
support and vote onl y for such men as are publ i cal l y commi tted to
scri ptural pri nci pl es of ci vi l government. Shoul d the Chri sti an seek
ci vi l offi ce by pol i ti cal el ecti on, he must openl y i nform those whose
support he seeks of hi s adherence to Chri sti an pri nci pl es of ci vi l gov-
ernment.
1 Chr on. 16:31; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; 2 Chr on. 19:6-7; Dan. 2:48; Eph. 4:25.
30. God al one i s Lord of the consci ence, and the deci si ons of ci vi l
courts cannot determi ne for the Chri sti an what i s moral l y ri ght and
what i s si nful . However, si nce ci vi l government i s an i nsti tuti on of
God, i t i s wi thi n the l egi ti mate provi nce of the ci vi l courts of a nati on
to determi ne what the nati ons l aws and requi red oaths of al l egi ance
mean or do not mean. A deci si on of a ci vi l court cannot l egi ti mi ze
si nful conduct, but i t can pl ace before a Chri sti an a factual si tuati on
upon whi ch a moral judgement can be made. I t cannot be proper for
the Chri sti an to assume that an oath of al l egi ance i mpl i es si nful re-
qui rements, when the ci vi l courts have expl i ci tl y contradi cted such
i mpl i cati on. Every oath must be understood i n the sense i ntended by
the authori ty requi ri ng the oath. I t i s for the Chri sti an and the
Church to deci de whether thi s sense i nvol ves si nful requi rements.
Ma tt. 22:21b; Rom 13:5; Eccl . 8:4; 1 Thess. 5:21.
31. We reject any i nference that ci vi l government has juri sdi cti on
over consci ence.
Our mental i mage of the rel i gi ous patri ot i s di storted because
modern accounts do treat the pol i ti cal paragraphs as a seri es of
theoreti cal exposi ti ons of Locke, separated from what precedes and
fol l ows. When these orati ons are read as whol es, they i mmedi atel y
reveal that the soci ol ogi cal secti ons are structural parts of a rhetori -
cal pattern. Embedded i n thei r contexts, these are not abstracti ons
but i nherent parts of a theol ogy. I t was for thi s reason that they had
so energi zi ng an effect upon thei r rel i gi ous audi tors. The Ameri can
si tuati on, as the preachers saw i t, was not what Pai ne presented i n
Common Sense a communi ty of hard-worki ng, rati onal creatures
bei ng put upon by an i rrati onal tyrant but was more l i ke the recur-
rent predi cament of the chosen peopl e i n the Bi bl e. As Samuel
Cooper decl ared on October 25, 1780, upon the i naugurati on of the
Consti tuti on of Massachusetts, Ameri ca was a new I srael , sel ected
to be a theatre for the di spl ay of some of the most astoni shi ng di s-
pensati ons of hi s Provi dence. The Jews ori gi nal l y were a free repub-
l i c founded on a covenant over whi ch God i n pecul i ar favor to that
peopl e, was pl eased to presi de. When they offended Hi m, He pun-
i shed them by destroyi ng thei r republ i c, subjecti ng them to a ki ng.
Thus whi l e we today need no revel ati on to i nform us that we are al l
born free and equal and that soverei gnty resi des i n the peopl e
these are the pl ai n di ctates of that reason and common sense wi th
whi ch the common parent has i nformed the human bosom sti l l
Scri pture al so makes these truths expl i ci t.
Once thi s l i ght i s al l owed to pl ay on the scene, we percei ve the
shal l owness of that vi ew whi ch woul d treat the rel i gi ous appeal as a
cal cul ated propaganda maneuver. The mi ni sters di d not have to
sel l the Revol uti on to a publ i c sl uggi sh to buy. They were spel l i ng
out what both they and the peopl e si ncerel y bel i eved, nor were the y
di stracted by worri es about the probabi l i ty that Jefferson hel d al l
thei r constructi ons to be nonsense. A pure rati onal i sm such as hi s
mi ght have decl ared the i ndependence of these fol k, but i t coul d
never have i nspi red them to fi ght for i t.
Perry Mi l l er*
*Mi l l er, From the Covenant to the Revi val , i n The Shaping of American Reli~on, 4
VOI S., edi ted by James Ward Smi th and A. Lel and Jarni son (Pri nceton, New Jersey:
Pri nceton Uni versi ty Press, 1961), I , pp. 342-43.
Appendi x E
THE MASSACHUSETTS CONSTI TUTI ON OF 1780
Thi s state consti tuti on was the product of over four years a open
debate, suggesti ons from towns, and suggesti ons from John Adams.
Here I reproduce i ts secti on on oaths for publ i c offi ci al s. I t i s taken from
The Popular Sources of Political Authorip: Documents on the Massachusetts
Constitution 0J 17W, edi ted by Oscar and Mary Handl i n (Cambri dge,
Massachusetts: Bel knap Press of Harvard Uni versi ty Press, 1966),
pp. 467-69. The oath was offi ci al l y Chri sti an, i t i nvoked the name of
the Congress of the Uni ted States, and i t was supposedl y an un-
breakabl e covenant, al l of whi ch became i mportant wi th respect to
the Consti tuti onal Conventi on of 1787 and i ts outcome.
Chapter VI
Oaths and Subscriptions; I ncompatibili~ of and Exclusion from O@ces;
Pecuniay Qualifications; Commissions; Writs; Con~rmation of Laws;
Habeas Corpus; The Enacting S@e; Continuance of O@cers; Prouision for a
future Reuisal of the Constitution, etc.
ART. I . Any person chosen Governor, Li eutenant-Governor,
Counsel or, Senator, or Representati ve, and accepti ng the trust,
shal l , before he proceed to execute the duti es of hi s pl ace or offi ce,
make and subscri be the fol l owi ng decl arati on, vi z.
I , A. B. do decl are, that I bel i eve the chri sti an rel i gi on, and have
a fi rm persuasi on of i ts truth; and that I am sei zed and possessed, i n
my own ri ght, of the property requi red by the Consti tuti on as one
qual i fi cati on for the offi ce or pl ace to whi ch I am el ected.
AND the Governor, Li eutenant-Governor, and Counsel ors,
shal l make and subscri be the sai d decl arati on, i n the presence of the
two Houses of Assembl y; and the Senators and Representati ves fi rst
el ected under thi s Consti tuti on, before the Presi dent and fi ve of the
719
Counci l of the former Consti tuti on, and, forever afterwards, before
the Governor and Counci l for the ti me bei ng.
AND every person chosen to ei ther of the pl aces or offi ces afore-
sai d, as al so any person appoi nted or commi ssi oned to any judi ci al ,
executi ve, mi l i tary, or other offi ce under the government, shal l , be-
fore he enters on the di scharge of the busi ness of hi s pl ace or offi ce,
take and subscri be the fol l owi ng decl arati on, and oaths or affi rma-
ti ons, vi z.
I , A. B. do trul y and si ncerel y acknowl edge, profess, testi fy and
decl are, that the Commonweal th of Massachusetts i s, and of ri ght
ought to be, a free, soverei gn and i ndependent State; and I do swear,
that I wi l l bear true fai th and al l egi ance to the sai d Commonweal th,
and that I wi l l defend the same agai nst trai torous conspi raci es and
al l hosti l e attempts whatsoever: And that I do renounce and adjure
al l al l egi ance, subjecti on and obedi ence to the Ki ng, Queen or Gov-
ernment of Great Bri tai n, (as the case may be) and every other for-
ei gn power whatsoever: And that no forei gn Pri nce, Person, Prel ate,
State or Potentate, bath, or ought to have, any juri sdi cti on, superi -
ori ty, pre-emi nence, authori ty, di spensi ng or other power, i n any
matter, ci vi l , eccl esi asti cal or spi ri tual , wi thi n thi s Commonweal th;
except the authori ty and power whi ch i s or may be vested by thei r
Consti tuents i n the Congress of the Uni ted States: And I do further
testi fy and decl are, that no manor body of men bath or can have any
ri ght to absol ve or di scharge me from the obl i gati on of thi s oath, dec-
l arati on or affi rmati on; and that I do make thi s acknowl edgement,
professi on, testi mony, decl arati on, deni al , renunci ati on and abjura-
ti on, hearti l y and trul y, accordi ng to the common meani ng and ac-
ceptati on of the foregoi ng words, wi thout any equi vocati on, mental
evasi on, or secret reservati on whatsoever. So hel p me GOD.
I , A.B. do sol emnl y swear and affi rm, that I wi l l fai thful l y and
i mparti al l y di scharge and perform al l the duti es i ncumbent on me as
; accordi ng to the best of my abi l i ti es and understandi ng, agree-
abl y to the rul es and regul ati ons of the Consti tuti on, and the l aws of
thi s Commonweal th. So hel p me GOD.
PROVI DED al ways, that when any person, chosen or ap-
poi nted as aforesai d, shal l be of the denomi nati on of the peopl e
cal l ed Quakers, and shal l decl i ne taki ng the sai d oaths, he shal l
make hi s affi rmati on i n the foregoi ng form, and subscri be the same,
omi tti ng the words I do swea~ %nd ad~ure, oath o~ and ab~uration, i n
the fi rst oath; and i n the second oath, the words %wear and; and i n
The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 721
each of them the words So help me GOD ; subjoi ni ng i nstead thereof,
U
This I do under the pains and penalties of perjugt
AND the sai d oaths or affi rmati ons shal l be taken and subscri bed
by the Governor, Li eutenant Governor, and Counsel ors, before the
Presi dent of the Senate, i n the presence of the two Houses of Assem-
bl y; and by the Senators and Representati ves fi rst el ected under thi s
Consti tuti on, before the Presi dent and fi ve of the Counci l of the for-
mer Consti tuti on; and forever afterwards before the Governor and
Counci l for the ti me bei ng: And by the resi due of the offi cers afore-
sai d, before such persons and i n such manner as from ti me to ti me
shal l be prescri bed by the Legi sl ature.
SCRI PTURE I NDEX
OLD TESTAMENT
Genesi s
1:1
1:26-28
1:26-30
3:3
3:5
9:1-17
14:13
15:7-10
15:17-18
Exodus
5:19-21
5:20-21
5:21
7:13
10:28
12:49
18
19:7-8
20:2
21:16
21:22-23
22:1
22:28
23:32
30:14
35:2
40:34
Leviticus
7:13
18:18
23:17
26:44
36
39, 596n
616-17
40
43, 604
596n
521, 523
483
483
32
658
245-46
36
32
63,68, 594
39
374
490
581
226
63
68
115, 521, 523
597
639
103
87n
582
87n
115
Numbem
16
16:3
4
4:5-6
4:5-8
8:17
8:18
8:19-20
17
17:17
23:21
28
28:1-14
28:7-12
28:12
28:18-28
28:15-68
28:43
28:43-45
28:44
28:47-52
28:65-66
29:18-20
30
30:9
31:10-13
J oshua
1:9
537
650
244
34
xi i i , 31, 90, 146, 598,
617, 631
567, 614, 637
33, 619
299, 567
197, 294
582
557
51-52
50, 130, 154,
209, 636
619
553
1
50
564
63, 75
553
652
614
2
244
74n
649
559
14:10 10
J udges
5:20 71n
723
724
I Samuel
8
13:9-15
11 Samuel
12
12:14
16:5-14
I Kings
2:8-10
8:1
10:1-3
12:26-31
12:28
12:31
16:29-33
18:21
18:39
19:18
I I Chronicles
7:14
22:19
J ob
42:12
Psalms
2:9-12
19:7
,24:1
25:12-13
37:9
-,
37:37
82:1-5
101:2
101:6
110:1-3
110:1-3
119:37-46
119:46
119:99-100
119:113
119:126
139:7-8
294
526
46
626
275
275
103
76
655, 702
565, 634
565
64
46, 64, 626, 634
634
565
122
526
144
xi i
54
41
41-42
481, 541
54
67
54
54
518
605
67
72
575
629
627
66
Proverbs
8:36
21:1
Ecclesiizstes
12:12
Ezekiel
13:10-16
I saiah
5:24
19:18-26
32
45:7
45:8
45:9-1o
45:12
45:14
45:18
45:22-23
45:23
45:25
46:10
55:8-9
55:11
65:20
J eremiah
1:14
5:22-24
5:25
6:13-17
11:1-15
42:19
Lamentati ons
1:9
Daniel
5:23
7:13-14
12:1-3
Micah
7:6
2:17-3:12
156
588
i x
92
656
47
153
36
40
36
36
39
36
39
40-41
41
38
296
620
605
602
40
41
1
306
215
58
80
618
69n
181-82
.
Vm
3:13-4:4 556
Scr@re I ndex
NEW TESTAMENT
725
Matthew
5:3
5:13-17
5:14
5:15
5:17-19
6:10
6:24
7:7
8:11
10:28
10:34-35
10:34-37
12:24-30
13:13
13:24-30
13:33
13:36-43
16:32-36
18:1-5
18:15-18
18:18
18:20
21:42-43
21:43
27:62-66
28:18
28:18-20
Mark
10:29-30
16:3
Luke
22:22
J ohn
1:12
3:16
12:4-6
14:12
16:7
16:33
618
90
244
245
582
182, 650
xi i , 46
182
618
299
181-82
288
xvi i
157
606
86
606
83
618
39
72, 621
472
529
160
295
207, 606
117, 160, 618
140
347
38
50, 523
618
358n
150
149
89
J ohn
17:20-23
18:36-37
21:25
Acts
1:8
2:29-36
3:24-26
4:26-28
5:30-32
7:38
12:20-23
17
17:27
Remans
1:18
1:18-22
2:11-16
2:14-15
2:15
8:28
8:37
9:11-21
9:17
9:17-18
9:19-21
12:17-13:7
12:20
13:1-5
13:1-6
13:1-7
13:3-4
14:17
I Connthian~
1:18-2:5
2:14
6
12:12-13
15:24-25
618
618
xi
618
618
618
38
618
68
492-93
535
83
147
171, 184
301
31
521
618
158
588n
36
641
37
130
152
270
197
101, 581
620
618
120
70, 558n, 588
474
618
618
15:24-26 89
726
I Corinthians
15:24-28 518
15:25-29 605
I I Corinthians
5:19-20
6:14
6:14-18
10:3-5
Galatians
5:19-21
Ephesians
1:4-5
1:8-14
1:10-11
1:14
1:17-23
2:8-10
Philippians
2:9-11
2:10-11
2:12
3:20
Colossians
1:16-17
2:6-8
I Timothy
1:9-10
3:2
6:5
618
xi i i , 600
86
604
625-26
37
618
618
41
618
20
618
225
595
620
37
667
270
582
618
I I Timothy
1:9
Hebrews
1:8-14
8:8-11
J ames
1:5-8
1:8
1:17
1:25
2:1-9
4:17
I Peter
3:15-17
3:22
4:17
11 Peter
1:20-21
2:22
I J ohn
2:2-6
Revelation
1;5
6:12-13
7:9
20:8-9
20:9-10
20:14
365n
618
521
121
621
33
54
474
661
27
618
598
296
239
557
618
71n
618
650
148, 156,227
582
Abercrombi e, James, 420
abol i ti oni sm, 655
aborti on
Chri sti an women, 627
common cause, 55
Japan, 637
Koop, 199-201
l i fe-and-death i ssue, 228
no neutral i ty, xi x, 178, 265
pi eti sm, 246
rel i gi ous vi ews, 601
Schaeffers on, 176, 178
screeni ng ~i mmi grati on), 190
stati sti cs, 106
subsi di zed, 202-3
Supreme Court, 226, 292,396
ACLU, 288, 392, 566, 572, 660
acti vi sm, 21-22, 176, 198, 659, 667
Adai r, Dougl ass, 307, 369
Adam, 40, 135 (we al so Eve)
Adams, John
archi tect, 382-83, 514
Chri sti ani ty, 329
Decl arati on, 409
Dei st, 406
Father of Consti tuti on, 428
hatred of Cal vi ni sm, 406
publ i c moral i ty, 329-30
rel i gi on as i nstrumental , 329-30
secul ar Consti tuti on, 382
Uni tari an, 406
Vi truvi us, 382-3
Adams, John Qui ncy, 697
Adams, Sam, 414, 435
adul tery, 209-10
agenda, 55
agreement, 126
Ahab, 565, 567
Ahiman Rezon, 425, 467, 472-73, 475
AI DS, 14, 200-1, 203, 205, 567,
577, 628n
Al bany Pl an of Uni on, 466
al chemy, 335-39
al i ens, 68, 72, 106 (we al so
strangers i n the gate)
ambi ~i ty, 229-30, 231-32,
236, 240-43, 261
amendi ng process, 101, 224, 293,
364, 395, 411, 444, 560, 568-69,
651, 657
Ameri ca
athei sti c government, 676
Chri sti an nati on, 235, 238, 241,
256-57, 277, 284, 296, 564-66
ci vi l rel i gi on, 514-15
Enl i ghtenment, 677-81
fai l ure of Chri sti ans, xi v
l i mi ted l i abi l i ty corporati on, 654
nati onal i denti ty, 654
natural l aw, 680
neutral i ty, 655
Protestant pl ural i sm, 280
sancti ons are gone, 59, 298
secul ari zati on of, 367, 655
Ameri can Ci vi l Li berti es Uni on
($ee ACLU)
Ameri can Revol uti on
army l odges, 471
bi bl i cal i mages, 513
%I ack regi ment, 526
727
Chri sti an, 37o
Church cri si s, 533
common ground, 522-28
covenant needed, 523-24
ecl ecti c, xvi
Enl i ghtenment, xvi
fi ve sources, 321
gri evances, 527
justi fi cati on of, 524-25, 530
pastors, 525-26
Rushs hopes, 528n
soverei gnty, 378-79
state covenants, 526
Uni tari an, 524-25
war weari ness, 543
Ameri can Whi g, 549
ami l l enni al i sm
hi story, 638
i nheri tance, 42
nati onal confessi on, 559
no sancti ons, 609
postmi l l enni al ; 139
predesti nati on &, 616
qui cksand, 153
sancti ons, 141-53, 638
Van Ti l , 136-39, 141-47
vi ctory; 141-46, 153, 606-10
amnesi a (covenantal ), 294
Anabapti sm, 702-3
anarchi sm, 454, 641-42
Andersons Constitutions, 466-69
angel s, 71n
ani mi sm, 350
Ankerberg, John, 431n
Anti federal i sts
Bi l l of Ri ghts, 496
cl assi cal references, 461
fear of judi ci ary, 508
l ocal i sm, 459
ol der men, 456
Roman pseudonyms, 327
weak posi ti on, 459
Whi gs, 366
anti nomi ani sm
assumpti ons, 158
Chri sti an ci vi l i zati on deni ed, 178,
542 (we al so Marsden, pol i ti cal
pl ural i sm, pol i ti cal pol ythei sm)
defi ned, 43-52
deni al s, 51
Edwards, 367
fi ve poi nts, 27-28
free wi l l , 45
l eaders, 626
l egal i sm, 209
nati onal covenant, 35
Ni ebuhr, 668-69
pessi mi l l enni al i sm, 51
pol i ti cal pl ural i sm &, 158
predesti nati on &, 44-45
resuhs of, 580
soci al , 49, 153-54, 186
Van Ti l , 130-31
see al so pro-nomi ani sm
Anti -Rev~l uti onary Party, 680n
a p oca l y p t i ci s m, 138
appeal s court, 39, 99-100, 401, 494,
501, 504-5, 509-13, 529
Aqui nas, Thomas, 333
Arbella, 244
archi tecture, 536
Ari ani sm, 349
Ark of Covenant, 103-4, 342, 631n
Arkansas, 288
Armi ni ani sm, 19, 155, 167, 334, 357,
359, 626, 658-59
army (Masoni c i nfl uences), 423-24,
471
Arti cl e VI (oaths), 385-91
central provi si on, 410
eternal sancti ons vs., 403
fear of, 390-91
god of pol i ti cs, 528
states ri ghts, 392
see al so test oath
Arti cl es of Confederati on
by-l aws, 407, 416, 491, 531
covenant, 531
el ecti on, 384
fai l ure of, 379, 384, 571
gone forever, 571
hal fway covenant, 379, 458, 460-61
Jensen on, 455
l ag; 397
l ess Chri sti an?, 534
I ndex
oath, 379, 459
perpetual uni on, 407, 416
representati ves, 384
sancti ons, 380
scrapped, 379, 414-15
soverei gnty, 378
unani mi ty, 458
arrogance, 612
assassi nati on of Emperors, 79-80
Assyri a, 635
Athanasi an ph.rral i sm,332, 339, 529,
594-97
athei sm, 334-35, 348, 369, 376, 392,
394, 400,403-10,566
Athens, 62, 83
Augusti ne, 5,12, 14, 513, 588-89
authori ty
doctri ne of, 91
evol vi ng, 505
fi nal , 504
humani sm, 666
i nterpretati on, 381
rel i gi ous, 225
Rushdoony on, 700
Wi l l i ams vs., 245
see al .ro hi erarchy
autonomous man
antinomian institutions, 40
autonomous State, 641-42
chaos or tyranny, 302
democracy, 102
enthronement of, 102
humani sms god, 208
judge of hi story, 33-34
moral i ty of, 575
natural l aw, 131, 376
pol i ti cal pl ural i sm, 85, 105-6
pol ythei sm of, 82
pri ests of, 2
procedural rel i gi on, 542
rati onal i sm vs. i rrati onal i sm, 334
sancti ons, 639
shri ne of, 575
subordi nati on of, 46
Tower of Babel , 106
autonomy
chance, 45
contract theory, 82
creati oni sm VS, 37
Enl i ghtenment, 677
ethi cs, 352
free wi l l , 36
frustrati on, 674
God or man?, 110
Gods sancti ons, 640
humani sm, 158
Ki ng% X, 298
l aw, 131
neutral i ty, 640
Newtoni ani sm, 362
parti al , 37
pl ural i sm, 102
pol i ti cal pl ural i sm, 85, 292
pol i ti cal pol ythei sm, 82, 158
rel ati vi sm, 158, 674
State, 158, 641-42
theocracy, 208
Baa], 107, 421, 634-35
Baal i sm, 565, 653
Babel (ws Tower of Babel )
Babyl oni ans, 635
Backus, Charl es, 494
Baehr, Ted, 176-77
Bahnsen, Gr eg L.
Hol y Spi ri t, 150-51
pol i ti cal pol ythei sm, xi i
postmi l l enni al i sm, 50n, 56, 59
Van Ti l , 134n
Bai l yn, Bernard, 331-32, 378
Bank of Engl and, 21
banki ng, 552-53
Bakker, Ji m, 209n
bapti sm, 598-99
Bapti sts, 526, 539
Barl ow, Joel , 364
Barth, Karl , 53, 128n, 233-34, 680-81
bat, 654
Baxter, Ri chard 107, 576
Beard, Charl es A., 455
Becker, Carl , 369, 528
Bel cher, Jonathan, 547-48
Bel l , Dani el , 263
Bel l ah, Robert, 513-14
730
Ber ger , Raoul , 395
Berman, Harol d, 485, 578,624
besti al i ty, xvi i
Beveri dge, Al bert, 412
Bi bl e
ambi guous?, 229-232, 537
bl uepri nts, 615
ci vi l i zati on, 230
demons work?, 580-81
justi ce&, 537
l aw of l and, 558
Masoni c, 423, 687
Pai ne on, 580
pl ural i sm vs., 93
sel f-authenti cati ng, 92
see also Word of God
Bi bl e Presbyteri an Church, 166-67,
616
bi bl i cal l aw
abandoned (18th c.), 356
barri er to theocracy, xxi i i
boundari es, 40
center of I srael , 103-4
center of soci ety, 630-31
Church i gnores, 538, 542, 579,
591, 662
confi dence &, 458
covenantal , 43
domi ni on &, 576-77
evangel i sm tool , xi i i , 31, 164,
244, 631-34
fear of, 615
gospel &, 90
heart, 521
Hol y Spi ri t, 151
i mpotent?, 52
i nternati onal , 89-90
i rrel evant (ci vi l )?, 515
l ast choi ce, 632
l i berty, 66-67
mark of vi ctory, xi i i
maturi ty &, 649
merci ful , 581
moral l aw, 48
necessi ty of, 666
New Testament, 582-83
pl ural l egal authori ti es, 576
progress, 230, 575
representati on, 542, 649
resi dent al i ens, 69, 72, 75
responsi bi l i ty, 38, 662
resti tuti on, 647
Roman Church, 603
tool of domi ni on, 76, 158-59, 636
(see al so domi ni on)
tyranni cal ?, 537
Wi therspoon vs., 403
work of, 31
see al so case l aws
bi bl i cal pri nci pl es, 223-24
Bi centenni al Commi ssi on, 571
Bi l l of Ri ghts, 381, 496
Bi shop of London, 525-26
bl ack regi ment, 527
Bl ackstone, Wi l l i am, 321-23, 377-78,
429, 469, 525, 682-83
bl ank check, 224
bl asphemy, 269, 272
bl uepri nts
Consti tuti on, 452
covenantal , 104, 641
cul ture &, 640-41
deni al of, 47-48, 54, 234, 289, 291,
297, 615, 640, 667, 673
fi nal , 667, 673
hi stori cal gui de, 232, 297
Marsden vs., 297, 667, 673
pol i ti cs &, 291
Puri tans, 234
reconstructi on wi th, 651
responsi bi l i ty &, 612
revi val &, 611-12
took of domi ni on, 615
utopi an?, 54
worl dwi de adopti on of, 612
Body of Li berti es, 237, 242, 287, 314,
643
Bork, Robert, 562
bondage, 63, 75-76
Boston tea party, 434-35
boundari es
borders, 71
covenant, 71
ethi cal , 40
I ndex
731
fami l y, 71
judi ci al , 71
Romes, 80
Schaeffer on, 183
Bradford, M. E., 416, 420, 427
Bradford, Wi l l i am, 447, 565
brai nwashi ng by humani sts, xx
Breen, T. H., 255
Bri nton, Crane, 432, 437
Brown, Harol d O. J., 405-6, 654,
655
Brown, Judy, 204
Bruno, Gi ordano, 349
Brutus~ 481, 508-9, 518-19
Bryan, Wi l l i am Jenni ngs, 239
Buel , Ri chard, 419
bureaucracy, 366, 585, 587, 658
Burger, Warren
Bi centenni al Commi ssi on, 570-71
code of si l ence, 417
judi ci al revi ew, 503, 513
Phi l adel phi a, 311
We the peopl e, 375, 489
Burgess, John W., 520
Burke, Edmund, 678-79, 696
burned feet, xi x
Burr, Aaron, 275, 318n, 320
Bush, George, 634, 687
buzz saw, 135
Cal houn, John C., 101
Cal i gul a, 79
Cal vi n, John, 50, 285-86, 599, 693n
Cal vi n Col l ege, 5n, 190, 191, 238
Cal vi ni sm
affi rmed sancti ons, 642
Ameri can Revol uti on, 361
capi tal puni shment, 642-43
col oni al , xv-xvi
compromi se, 4-5
Dutch, 19, 42, 59, 136, 153-55, 616
ei ghteenth century, 515
errors, 108
fundamental i st mental i ty, 616
Framers rejecti on of, 406
ghetto mental i ty, 616
Great Awakeni ng, 360
gui l t, 515
hal fway covenant, 107-9
hol y commonweal th i deal , 108
moralism, 515
opponents, 626
pi eti sti c, 19
post-1660, 19
rejecti on of, 633n-634n (see al so
Armi ni ani sm)
Schaeffer, 218
Uni tari ani sm repl aces, 515
U. S., 161
see al so Puri tans
Campbel l , Roderi ck, 618
campus ri ots, 211-12
Canaan, 75n, 115
Canada, 661
Cantwell vs. Connecticut, 392
capi tal i sm, 177-78
Carol i nas, 271-72
Carter, James, 423, 429-30, 466
Carter, Ji mmy (Presi dent), 210
case l aws
anti -Chri sti an, 657
bl uepri nts, 667
chi ef offense: sancti ons, 673
Chri sti an ci vi l i zati on, 179
conservati ve voti ng, 282
Harvard Law School , 563
i gnored, 21
ki ngdom &, 639-40
natural l aw vs., 179
Puri tans adopt, 255, 657
radi cal , 228
rejecti on of, 229, 581, 667, 673
resti tuti on, 647
revol uti on &, 578
see ako bi bl i cal l aw
casui stry
decl i ne of, 5-7, 109
revi val of, 575-76
Supreme Courts, 503, 510
catch-22, 244
Catoi Letters, 325, 500
cause & effect
Bi bl e & ci vi l i zati on, 230
chance, 45
Chri sti an Reconstructi on, 32
covenantal , 52
deni ed, 31-32
ethi cs, 141-47, 159
gaps i n, 45
posi ti ve feedback, 32-35
Van Ti l , 137-46
CBN Uni versi ty, 176n
cease-fi re (pl ural i sm)
breakdown, xi x
humani sms, 2
permanent?, xv
pl ural i sm, 250
surrender, 630-31
temporary, 4, 87n, 91,
227-28, 265, 294
central pl anni ng, 99
Chalcedon Report, 361n
chai n of bei ng, 337
chance, 37-38, 45
chaos, 45, 80-81
chaos theory, x, 45, 337, 353
chapl ai ns, 527
Charl es I , 313, 377
Charl es I I , 312-14, 445, 460-61,
476, 647
check-ki ti ng, 224, 294-95
chemi stry, 338-39
Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia, 510
Chi l ton, Davi d, 194-96
Chi na, xi v, 10
Chri sti an nati on, 241, 564-66, 672
(see ah. Marsden)
Chri sti an pol i ti cal pl ural i sm
anti -bl uepri nts, 234
anti -Constanti ne, 536
Cal vi ni st spokesmen, 110-11,
121-25, 250
cogni ti ve dysfuncti on , 297
defensel ess i ntel l ectual l y, 22,
122-25, 250
Egypti an~ 537
hypnoti zed by apostates, 658
Myers defense, 121-22
natural l aw (athei sm of), 247
Novak on, 100, 102-3
Neuhaus on, 100-1
pantheon, 536-37
rhetori c of, 121-25, 254-55, 658
Schrotenboer on, 123
Ski l l en on, 124-25
Spykman on, 16n, 17,
task of defenders, 106-7
taskmasters theol ogy, 537
Troost on, 123-24
Chri sti an Reconstmcti on
al ternati ves to, 214
Arrni ni ans &, 659
Athanasi an pl ural i sm, 594-97
bottom-up, 39, 157, 224, 529, 585,
590, 612, 647, 649-50
Cal vi ni sti c, 612
causal i ty, 32
creeds &, 57-58
cri ti cs of, 597-98
decentral i zati on, 59o
defi ned, 659
H ol y S p i r i t , 5 8 9
i nsufferabl e, 32
majori ty rul e, 585-86, 649
new foundati ons, 610-611
postmi l l enni al , 155-57 (see al so
Hol y Spi ri t, revi val )
repl acement strategy, 610
revi val (see Hol y Spi ri t, revi val )
strategy, 20-21
sal vati on descri bed, 611
sancti ons i n hi story, 147, 149
soci al theory, 32
wa t e r s h e d p e r i od (1980s ), 214
Chri sti ani ty
al l i ance wi th humani sm, 245-46,
400, 464, 527-28, 591
Ameri cas fai l ure, xi v
bondage, 63, 75-76
capi tal i sm &, 177-78
Chri stendom, 528-31, 579-80
ci ti zenshi p, 81
compromi se (see common ground)
Consti tuti on &, 324, 675-76, 683
(see al so test oath)
cul ture &, xi , 160, 243-44, 579,
588-89, 668
I ndex
733
cul tural i mpotence, 160, 579
Darwi ni sm &, 6 (see al so Darwi n,
Dsuwi ni sm)
defeat of, 160, 579 (we al so
pessi mi l l enni al i sm)
Dei sm &, 351-54
denomi nati onal , 530
dual i sm, 535
Framers vs., 691
Great Bri tai n, 525-26
i mperi al i sti c?, 240
i nferi ori ty compl ex, 158
instrumental, 515, 549-50
i nternati onal , 529, 531
l i beral i sm &, 16
l ocal i sm, 529
Madi son vs., 448
mi ssi ons, 530
Newtoni ani sm &, 349-55
occul ti sm accompani es, 574
opportuni ty, 574, 615
passi ve, 211-212
pl ural i sm (we Chri sti an pol i ti cal
pl ural i sm)
pol i ti cs, 583
revi val (see revi val )
Rome vs., 77, 81
sal vati on, 20
sancti ons, 160, 421
seal ed tomb, 295
sel l -out, 15
separati on, 443
soci al phi l osophy, 680
soci al theory, i x, xv, 28
subordi nate, 515
subversi on of, 465, 471-72
temporary defeat of, xi v-xv
theocrati c, 577
tri umphant, 57n
true?, 243-44
truncated, 208
uni que?, 99
Church
bi bl i cal l aw ignored, 538
boundari es, 71, 308
cl osed communi on, 661
compromi se, 521
conti nui ty, 308
COUrtS, 469
covenant structure, 308
covenant strategy, 567
creeds, 408 ($ee aho cr eeds)
defeat?, 606-610
eccl esi ocracy vs., 584
establ i shed, 447-48, 463, 526
eternal sancti ons, 72
excommuni cati on, 567-68, 577, 661
French Revol uti on, 399
i mpotent?, 160
i ndependency vs., 361n
i nternati onal , 469, 529-31
I srael , 68, 152, 164
judgment, 598
mai nl i ne, 408
Masons &, 431, 471-72, 567-68
membershi p, 69, 360, 596
model for state, 529
monopol y, 464
natural l aw, 640
pl ural i sm, 399
remnant, 566
sacraments, 308, 408, 703 (see al so
bapti sm, communi on)
sancti ons, 421, 598-600
State-establ i shed, 643
ti the, 93-95
Tower of Babel vs., 83
trans-hi stori cal , 469
tri vi al i zi ng, 531
Washi ngtons membershi p, 420-21
Whi g, 409, 548-50
Church & State
Ameri can Revol uti on, 525-28
Bapti sts, 539
eccl esi ocracy, 584
establ i shment, 447-48, 464
Jefferson, 410
Madi son, 372, 446-50, 543
pattern for, 550
Presbyteri ans, 546-47
rel ati onshi ps, 93
Rhode I sl and, 313-15
Schaeffer on, 180-81
subordi nati on of Church, 515, 526,
550
tyranny, 592-93
%al l of separati on , 410
Wi l l i ams, 539 (we ako Wi l l i ams)
Ci cero, 375, 453, 536, 579
Ci nci nnati , Soci ety of, 434
ci rcumci si on, 70, 74
ci ti zen, 28, 386
ci ti zenshi p
bi rth, 74, 393
checks & bal ances, 179
Chri sti ani ty & cl assi cal , 81, 179
ci vi l subordi nati on onl y, 393
confessi on, 595
Consti tuti on (1789), 676
dual , 620-21
Enl i ghtenment, 676
Fourteenth Amendment, 392-94
geography, 393
I srael , 74
Massachusetts Bay Col ony, 393
nati onal , 451
oath, 72, 309, 393-94
Schaeffer on, 181
sl aves, 393, 512
theocracy, 74
ci ty on a hi l l , 90, 244, 361, 514
ci vi l government (we State)
ci vi l rel i gi on, 329, 360, 513-15, 655,
701-2, 704
ci vi l ri ghts, 72
Ci vi l War
central i zed authori ty, 395n
ci ti zenshi p, 393, 512
conceal ed, 116
Consti tuti on, 366
Dwd ~COft, 512
fami l y of man, 83-84
i ndi vi si bl e government, 388
i rrepressi bl e confl i ct, 264-65
Madi sons si l ence, 497
resi stance to new covenant, 386
Rhode I sl and, 117
Rousseau &, 391
state consti tuti ons, 682
ci vi l i zati on, 646-54 (see al so ki ngdom
of God)
Cl app, Rodney, 34, 580
Cl arke, Samuel , 346, 349-50
cl ans, 76
Cl auson, Kevi n, 656
cl ock anal ogy, 354, 364
coer ci on
ci vi l l aw &, 191
democracy &, 265
Hol y Spi ri t, 589
Madi son on, 380
Neuhaus on, 23
persuasi on, 101-102
Coke, Edward, 377-78
Col l ege of New Jersey, 526, 547-48
(we al so Pri nceton)
col l ege professors, 585
col l eges, 15-17
col oni es, 269-76, 383-85
Col umbus, 10
Commager, H. S., 316, 485, 489
commerce, 453
Commi ttees of Correspondence, 435
common enemy, 522-23, 527
common good, 697
common grace
covenant model (uni versal ), 491
external bl essi ngs, 637
fadi ng of, 697
Japan, 637
l ogi c, 225-26
nati onal ri val ry, 531
natural l aw, 187
restrai nt, 301
Van Ti l , 143
Wi l l i ams, 539
common ground
ethi cal , 521-22
hi story of, xv, 521, 535
justi ce, xxi , 538
mark of soverei gnty, 392
Newtoni ani sm, 333, 351
soci al theory, 538
common l aw marri age, 17
common sense, 319
Commonweal thmen, 321-23, 351,
471, 500, 515
I ndex
735
communi on, 22, 71, 359, 599-600,
661
Communi sm, xv, xvi i i , 159
Communi st cel l , 405n
compact theory
apostasy, 494
autonomy, 82
broken covenant, 492-93, 539-43
evol uti onary, 542
i mi tati on covenantal i sm, 493-95
judi ci al apostasy, 494
Locke & Wi therspoon, 319, 493n
Mayfl ower Compact vs., 516
Roger Wi l l i ams, 248
confessi on
Babel , 83
ci ti zenshi p &, 595
movement, 57, 559
state governments, 522
wi thout content, 234-35
see al so oath
confi dence, 458, 612-13, 619
confl i ct
Ci vi l War, 264-65
consi stency &, 226-27
covenantal , 86, 89, 625
escal ati ng, xvi i i -xi x, 4, 228,
232, 250
i nescapabl e, 232
i rreconci l abl e, 266
ki ngdom, 636
Confuci ani sm, 637
Congress
boxed i n by pl ebi sci te, 520
bypassi ng, 416, 418-19
Fi rst Conti nental , 635
defers to Court, 513
Framers vs., 491-92
Jefferson &, 524-25
nati onal status, 492
no abdi cati on, 429
overthrown, 444
rabbi s prayer, 686-87
Supreme Court vs., 511-13
weak l eadershi p, 458
consci ence, 126, 253, 292,
449, 462-63
consent (pol i ti cal ), 249, 378
consi stency, 226
conspi racy
ci ti zenshi p, 74
Consti tuti on &, 311, 416
Convention, 416, 428-29
Gods sancti ons, 437
hi stori ans deny, 436-37
humani sts, 650
Jacob on, 432
new Consti tuti on, 569-71
new oaths, 74
personal i sm, 437
repossessi on, 87
revol uti on &, 436-37
si l ence, 66, 74
successful , 66, 551-52, 657
theocrati c consensus, 650
Constanti ne, 80-81, 536-37, 629-30
Consti tuti on
amendi ng, 101, 224, 293, 364, 411,
560, 568-69, 651
amendments to (Chri sti an), 617,
653
anti -Chri sti an, 681, 692
apostate covenant, 492, 528-29,
561, 681, 703
athei sti c, 390-91, 393, 403-10, 493,
676
bal ance?, 366, 380, 452
better than Chri sti ani ty: 281-82
bl uepri nt, 452
boundari es, 444
Chri sti an?, 370-71
Chri sti an vi ew, 324
ci ti zenshi p, 388-89, 393
conventi on (see Conventi on)
content of, 535
conti nui ty wi th past, 408
COUP, 485, 564
covenant, 310, 510-11
covenant model , 491, 505
cri ses, 562
Darwi n, 562
Decl arati on, 311
Dei sti c, 353
di rect l egal contact, 388-89
736
di sconti nui ty wi th Chri sti ani ty, 683 Rhode I sl and, 380,386, 535
di sconti nui ty wi th past, 516
dual i sm, 692-93
evol uti onary, 501
Father of, 428
fi ve poi nts, 374
fundamental l aw, 506, 510-11
Gods name absent, 495
gol den cal f, 566
Great Archi tect, 367
hi jacki ng, 570-71
hi stori ography, 312
humani st, 410
i dol worshi p, 701
i mmanenti zed, 402
i mpl i ci t oath, 44o
Joseph Smi th on, 534-35
judi ci al revi ew, 394-97, 512-13
keys (3), 386
l ag, 397
l egi ti macy, 386, 400-401, 506
l egi ti macy (l oss of), 506-7
Masoni c worl dvi ew &, 431, 704
myth of, 311
nati onal ci ti zen, 388-89
nati onal i sm, 496
natural ri ghts, 528-29, 562
neutral ?, 681
new document pl anned, 569-71
new covenant, 383, 407, 491,
654-55, 701
new god, 383, 407, 528-29, 531,
654-55, 701
new theory, 497-98
Newtoni ani sm &, 368
not exportabl e, 324
oath, 385-92, 402, 507, 692, 687
(see al so test oath)
offi cer s, 386-91
open-ended, 568-69
Peopl e (we Peopl e)
pol ythei sm, 701
Preambl e, 374-75, 386, 489-90,
501, 517
procedural manual , 675
protecti on?, 396, 561-62, 660
rati fi cati on (we rati fi cati on)
ri ghts, 529
roots of, 535
Rousseau &, 388, 402, 451
Rushdoony on, Appendi x B
safeguards, 499
sancti ons, 402, 687-88
Schaff on, 551
Scott on, 675-76
secul ar, 382, 464, 686
separati on of powers, 381-82
sl ogani zed hi story, 675
soverei gn, 402
structure, 535
test oath, 311, 379, 383, 410, 692,
694 ($ee ako test oath)
text prohi bi ts Chri sti ani ty, 692
theol ogi cal character, 431
ti mel ess?, 363-64
tol erati on, 465
treaty of ki ng (Peopl e), 700
tyranny, 67.5
uni que, 676
Uni tari an, 630
unpopul ar (1787), 412
wal l of separati on, 41O
worshi p of, 655
conti ngency (~ee chance)
contr act theor y
Angl o-Saxon, 293n
covenant &, 493-95
Enl i ghtenments two vi ews, 398-99,
539-40
evol uti onary, 542
Gods name, 493
hi stori cal content (Locke), 398-99
mythi cal , 540-41
no ethi cs, 542
r ev ol u ti on a r y , 542
~ee al so compact theory
contractuafi sm, 341, 540, 542 ($ee ako
compact theory)
Conventi on
attendees, 412, 415
authori ty, 412, 492, 499, 520
authori zati on, 413-14, 492
broken covenant, 492
I ndex
737
bypassi ng Congress, 416, 418-19
code of si l ence, 417
cl osed doors, 390
conspi racy, 416, 428-29
decl arati on of i ndependence,
491-93 ~
Engl i sh, 429, 444-45
Father of; 428
fi rst stage of coup, 439
future, 502, 569-71
Hal l on, 532
l eap of fai th (Archi tect), 454
Madi son, 428, 442, 444, 502
negati ve sancti ons, 418
Newtoni an, 352-53
oath of secrecy, 417-18
Peopl e, 379, 495
prayer request (deni ed), 426
revocati on of by-l aws (Arti cl es),
407
revol uti on, 407, 485
secrecy, 412-15, 417-18, 444, 458,
461
Scott on, 675
subversi on, 465
tol erati on, 465
wri ts, 429
corruption, 635
Corwi n, Edwi n S., 368, 385
cosmi c personal i sm, 347, 350
counsel i ng, 4
coup (Chapter 9)
bypassi ng Congress, 416, 418-19
fi rst stage, 439
hi stori ography of, 455-56
oath, 461
rel i gi on &, 461
revol uti on &, 485, 578
sancti oned, 445
Court, sel f-reversal s, 506
covenant
Ahabs, 567
Ameri can heri tage, 277
amnesi a, 294
apostate, 492, 528-29, 621, 530
bi ndi ng, 524
boundari es, 71
broken, 298-99, 444, 522, 527,
539-43
Canaan, 115
causal i ty, 52
choi ce, 625
comprehensi ve, 558
confessi on, 572
confl i ct, 86, 89, 635
confi rmed, 33
conti nui ty, 564-66
contract &, 493-95
creed &, 440
decepti ve, 115-16
Decl arati on of I ndependence (we
Decl arati on of I ndependence)
forbi dden, 115-16
forgetful ness, 294
fundamental l aw, 506
hal fway (see hal fway covenant)
hi erarchy, 374, 387
i nequal i ty &, 523-24
i nescapabl e concept, 309-10,
491-95, 515, 541
i nsti tuti ons, 41
i nternati onal , 47, 530
judi ci al vs. organi c, 524n
l awsui t, 530, 542, 559
l i mi ted power, 576
Madi sons tacti cs, 444
Mi l l er on, 300
model (we covenant model )
neutral i ty?, 298
New Engl and, 243
new god, 630 ($ee al so Peopl e)
no escape, 564-66
oath, 41, 69, 373-74, 387, 482-83,
493
offi cer s, 386-91
organi c, 524n
package deal , 58, 633
peace &, i , 3
Peopl es, 541
pol i ti cal acti vi sm, 659
pol i ti cs, 659
pri nci pl e of, 387
rati fi cati on, 386 (see al so oath)
reconciliation?, 87
rejecti on of (New Engl and), 634
renewal , Chapter 7, 3, 558-59
rel ati onshi p between, 93
representati on, 46 (we al so
hi erarchy)
sancti ons, 159, 298 (we al so
sancti ons)
state (see oath, test oath)
Schaeffer on, 217
sel f-defense, 523
soci al theory, 33-34
strateW, 559, 567, 610
theol ogy, 30, 32, 108-9, 142, 144,
300, 302-3, 599
Uni tari an, 368
VOWS, 576
war over, 625
weal th, 619
whol e, 159
see al so nati onal covenant
covenant model
Anti nomi ani sm, 27-28
Bahnsen vs., 56
Consti tuti on, 374, 491, 505
covenant theol ogy, 159, 615-16
defi ni ti ons, 35-51
hi stoty &, 159
fi ve-front war, 159
i nescapabl e, 309-310
Masonry, 472-82
pol i ti cal anal ysi s, 404
Preambl e, 490
rejected, 302
Satan adopted it, 60
Van Ti l vs., 130-31
warfare, 159
creati on, 37, 342, 629, 642
creati on ethi c, 16
creati oni sm, 16, 37, 44, 284n
creeds
apostate churches, 408
authori ty, 231
Chri sti an pl ural i sm, xv
covenants &, 440
di vi si ve, 360
Masoni c, 468-69
Masonry vs., 452
pol i ti cs &, 81
revi si on of, 57n, 408
sancti ons &, 361n
see al so Athanasi an pl ural i sm
cri me, 38
cri si s
Hami l ton on, 363
no evi dence for, 415, 455, 458
not percei ved by voters, 415
one ti me onl y, 498
paradi gm shi ft &, 457-58
wi ndow of opportuni ty, 415
cri ti ci sm of soci ety, 20
Cromwel l , Ol i ver, 331, 371, 558 (see
al so premature acti on)
Crossway Books, 253, 640n
Crowl ey, Al ei ster, 47
cruci fi xi on, 38
cul tural mandate, 616 (see al so
domi ni on)
cul ture, 243-44, 667
Currey, Ceci l , 426-27
cycl i cal hi story, 497
Dar wi n
Consti tuti on, 562
Di vi ne Cl ockmaker, 354
domi ni on, 345
hi gher l aw, 504
hypothesi s of god, 34o
natural l aw, xxi i , 246
Preambl e, 501
Rousseau &, 401-2
Rushdoony on, 579
unrestrai ned evol uti on, 403
Whi gs &, 494
Darwi ni sm, 33-34, 391n
Davi d, 46
Davi es, Samuel , 318n, 360
DeMar, Gary, 214
Dea Roma cul t, 77, 375
death, 89, 137
death warrant, 691
debt, 553
Decl arati on of I ndependence
anoi nti ng (Wi therspoon), 409
I ndex 739
conti nui ty wi th Consti tuti on (seal ),
408
covenant, 524
created equal , 523-24
Dei st, 406
forei gn pol i cy, 409
god of, 492(see al so natures god)
hal fway covenant, 408,492, 523,
528
i ncorporati ng document, 407,
525
Masonry downpl ays, 704
new nati on, 523, 525
organi c l aw, 524n
pol i ti cal , 311
Pr eambl es, 491-93
seal , 405, 407-8.
Si nger on, 404
states-establ i shed, 495
Uni tari an, 406, 531
unknown (1776-1795), 409
Wi therspoon, 409-10
Decl aratory Act, 525n
decr ee of God, 45
defi ni ti ons, 52-53
defi ni ti ons (covenantal ), 92-96
Dei sm
Chri sti ani ty &, 351-54
Decl arati on of I ndependence, 406
god of, 38, 344-45
Jefferson, 406
l i ngui sti c subversi on, 680-81
Masoni c al l i ance, 464
Newtoni ani sm, 347
Pl atos, 346-47
test oaths, 390
textbook, 38
tri umph, 400
Del aware, 384, 463, 682
democracy, 73-74, 101-2, 647-50, 657
demons, 75-77
Desagui l i ers, John T., 369, 467
Descartes, Ren4, 333-34, 356
despai r, 613-14
ddente, 91-92
di cti onari es, 53
di kes, 8, 132-33, 260
di sconti nui ty
covenantal , 516
hi stori cal , 144
judi ci al , 506
Puri tan revol uti on, 19
rati fi cati on of Consti tuti on, 419
Van Ti l on, 144
di scri mi nati on, 72
di spensati onsdi sm, 212-13 (see al so
pessi mi l l enni al i sm)
dksenters, 464 (we al so
Commonweal thmen)
di vi ne ri ght, 248, 375-77, 499-502,
541, 699
domi ni on
bi bl i cal l aw &, 576-77
confi dence &, 612-13
Darwi ni an, 345
doubt VS. , 613-14
ethi cs &, 144
Presbyteri ans vs., 616-17
ri ghteousness &, 40
sancti ons &, 50
servi ce &, 636
tool s of, 76, 158-59 (see al so bi bl i cal
l aw)
Doner, Col onel , 22n
Dool ey, 397
doubt vs. domi ni on, 613-14
down payment (earnest), 41
Dred Scott, 512
drugs, 97, 578
dual i sm
casui stry, 6
common ground, 535
Consti tuti on, 692-93
ethi cal , 535, 542-43
gnosti c, 592-93
God, 629
Mani chaean, 593
Marci on, 581, 591
pessi mi l l eni al i sm, 662
procedure vs. ethi cs, 542-43
Rushdoony, 692-95
ti me & hi story, 365
two gods, 591
Dukaki s, Mi chael , 634
Dunne, Fi nl ey, P., 397
earnest, 41
Eck, John, 10
economi cs, 177-78, 469
educati on, xi x-xx, 85, 91, 116,
327-28, 627, 643-46
Edwards, Jonathan, 355-56, 367-68,
359
Edwards, Thomas, 332
Eerdmans Books, 253
Ei del berg, Paul , 510-11
Ei dsmoe, John, 424
Ei nstei n, Al bert, 52, 354
el ecti on (sal vati on), 37 (see also
sal vati on)
el ecti on sermons, 370
El i jah, 46, 64-65, 107, 626-27, 634
el i te
authori zati on of, 650
eschatol ogy &, 156-57
i nevi tabl e, 650
permanent, 265-66
pseudo-democracy, 650
sancti ons, 650
see also hi erarchy, representati on
Emperors cl othes, 8, 102, 161
emperors, 77, 80
empi re, 78
Engl and, 522-26
Enl i ghtenment
Ameri can, xvi , 326-27, 330, 350,
677-81
Burke, 678-79
central banki ng, 21
Darwi ni sm destroys, 540 (we al so
Darwi ni sm)
few adherents, 472
French, 320
good soci ety (myth of), 540
new rel i gi on, 340
pagani sm, 469-70
procedural i sm (see procedural i sm)
Rushdoony on, 677-78, 696
Scotti sh, xvi , 266, 319-20, 391,
402, 453-54, 494
wi ngs of, 7, 320-21, 398, 540,
676-80, 696-97
entangl i ng al l i ances, 529
equal ti me theory, 125, 192-93
equal i ty, 523
Erasmus, 10-15, 85
Erasti ani sm, 525-27, 530
Eusebi us, 628
Esau, 629
escape rel i gi on, 593
escapi sm, 131
eschatol ogy
by-products, 606
el i te &, 157
ethi cs &, 141-53, 159
forgotten, 58
ghetto, 153-55
hi stori ography &, 227
marks of vi ctory, xi i i
pol i ti cs &, 657
rel evance of, 586-90
sancti ons &, 156
treadi ng water, 662
whi ch si de wi ns?, xi i i
see al so ami l l enni al i sm,
di spensati onal i sm,
pessi mi l l enni al i sm,
postmi l l enni al i sm,
premi l l enni al i sm
ether, 345-46
ethi cs
autonomy, 352
boundari es, 40
cause & effect, 159
domi ni on &, 144
eschatol ogy &, 141-53, 159
futuri sm, 154, 159
perversi ty, 142-43, 159-60
Van Ti l , 131, 141-46
eugeni cs, 189-90
evangel i sm
bi bl i cal l aw, 31, 631-34
i mmi grati on, 189
judi ci al , xi i i -xi v, 631-34
l east common denomi nator, 357,
360
sancti ons &, 146
I ndex
741
testi mony, 155
Eve, 44-50
evol uti on
l eap, 337
Scotti sh Enl i ghtenment, 402,
453-54
thei sti c, 15
Wi therspoon, 402-403
see al so process
Ex Parte McCardle, 511-12
excommuni cati on, 421, 567-78, 577,
599-600
execti ti on, 647
experi ence, 107-9, 164, 356-58, 360,
364-65, 368
facti on
Madi son on, 446-53
rati fyi ng conventi ons, 499-500
rel i gi ous, 446-47, 450
Rushdoony on, 630
factual i ty, 312
facul ty l ounge, 85-86
fai l ure, 617
Fal wel l , Jer r y, 176n, 216
fami l y
adul tery, 71
bl oodl i ne, 83
boundary, 71
cl ans, 76
covenant, 69n
gods, 75-76
oath, 69-70
Rushdoony, 646n
sacramental i zi ng, 646n
fast days, 360, 372, 527
Fay, Bernard, 432, 435-37
fear of God, 40, 42
Federal i st Party, 409
Feder al i sts
cri si s needed, 363
free trade, 460
Moderns, 363-64
Roman pseudonyms, 327
Whi gs, 366
fel ons, 569
Ferguson, Adam, 453-54, 679
fi ne pri nt, 542, 608
Fi ske, John, 533
fi ri ng squads, xx-xxi
fl ag, 180, 182-83
Fl emi ng, Thomas, 427
Fl i nn, Ri chard, 195-97
Forbes, Esther, 434
Foundi ng Fathers
covenantal questi on, 307-9
Puri tans, 565
rati fi cati on, 419
see al so Framers; Wi l l i ams, Roger;
and Wi nthrop, John
Fourteenth Amendment
central i zati on, 392
ci ti zenshi p, 392-94
judi ci ary, 394-97
tol erati on i n states, 391-92
Frame, John, 27, 127
Framers
2 +2 =4 , 3 5 3
ACLU, 572
age of, 456-57
anti -l egi sl ature, 456
attendees, 412, 415
Bl ackstone, 429, 469
Chri sti ans?, 420
casui stry of, 514
commerce, 453
conti nui ty, 409
cour t Whi gs (post-1788), 498
covenant to contract?, 493-95
cri si s, 498 (see al so cri si s)
death warrant i n pocket, 691
Decl arati on, 408
evol uti onary, 501
experi ence, 364
Great Archi tect, 453
judi ci asy, 396, 456, 502-5, 511, 517
juri sdi cti on, 383
l aw-gi vers, 514
l awyers, 316
l i near hi story, 498
messi ani c, 366
mi sunderstood soverei gnty, 381
mob, 456
model (republ i can Rome), 536
Moderns, 362-67
moral i sm, 514
natural l aw, 681
oaths, 461, 691 (we al so test oath)
organi zati on, 456-60
ori gi nal i ntent, 501, 561
outs: 455-56
paradi gm shi ft, 456-60
Phi l i sti ne, 459
procedural krn of, 543
pseudo-cl assi ci sm, 514
publ i c passi ons, 496, 511
rel i gi on of, 329, 420-28, 459, 461
restrai nts on, 562-64
rhetori c, 696
Rushdoony on, 681
secrecy, 461
secul ar state, 686
sei ze the moment, 415, 458
soverei gnty (earthl y), 699-700
ti mel essness, 363
Uni tari ans, 461
uti l i tari an rel i gi on, 407, 454
vi rtue, 328-29, 514
Whi gs, 461
young men, 456
see al so cri si s
Frankl i n, Benjami n
Andersons Constitutions, 466
Grand Master, 426
Hel l Fi re Cl ub, 466
hypocri sy?, 426
Masoni c newspapers, 436
prayer request at Conventi on, 426
proto-Mormon, 465-66
Rushdoony on, 425-26
Spy?, 426-27
test oath, 463
uni on, 465
franchi se, Chapter 2, 249, 595, 597,
621, 701-2 ($ee al so democracy,
voti ng)
fraterni ty, 362
free trade, 459-60
free wi l l
anti nomi an, 45
autonomy, 36
Cal vi ni sm vs., 588-89
chance, 45
creati on vs., 37
cruci fi xi on vs., 38
Luther vs. Erasmus, 11
Pharaohs l ack, 36
potter & cl ay, 37
see also Armi ni ani sm
Freemasonry
agenda, 530
bureaucrati c, 438
Ameri can South, 566-67
Anci ents, 466-67, 474-75
Andersons Constitutions, 466-69
Bri nton on, 437
Bri ti sh, 438
Church &, 431, 471-72, 481
ci vi l rel i gi on, 704
cl ubbery, 432, 475, 481
Col l ege of New Jersey, 548
concentri c i ni ti ati on, 475
consensus (quest for), 470
Consti tuti onal debate, 430-31
conti nui ty, 481
covenant model , 472-481
creeds &, 452
cul t of Newtoni ani sm, 476
esoteri c, 477
excommuni cati on, 567-68
general s, 423, 433-34
geometry, 344, 473, 478
gnosti c, 475-76
god of, 468, 473, 704
Grand Lodge, 467
Grand Ori ent, 398, 437-38
Great Archi tect ($ee Gr eat
Archi tect)
Great Awakeni ng &, 362
Great Seal , 405
Hermes Tri smegi stus, 477
hi erarchy, 473-75
hi stori ans di smi ssal , 432-35
humani sm, 471
i gnored, 432-34
I l l umi nate &, 438
index
743
i nter-col oni al , 472
Jacob on, 432-33
ki ngdom, 483-84
Marshal l , 707
membershi p stati sti cs, 439
metaphysi cs, 477
mi l i tary l odges, 471
mi ssi ng l i nk, 432
model , 563-64
moral l aw, 470, 478
Mormoni sm &, 535
nati onal l eaders, 527
newspapers, 436
Noahi des, 478
numbers, 439
oath, 438, 471, 480-83
panthei sm, 473
perjury, 484-85
pol i ti cs, 436, 480n, 481
pri estl y, 476
pseudo-rel i gi on, 470
provi denti al i sm, 426
rati onal creed, 468
Renai ssance, 477
ri tual s, 477, 480
ri val church, 471-72, 481
Robi son on, 437-38
Royal Soci ety &, 467, 476-77
secrecy, 475
si gns, 480
soci al theory, 468-71
St. Andrews Lodge, 474
subversi on, 438-39
Tal mudi c l i nks, 479-80
top-down control , 438
Uni tari an, 452
uni verszdi sm, 468-73, 478
Washi ngton, D. C., 422-23
Washi ngton, George, 422-24
Wei shaupt &, 438
Whi g and Tory, 468-69
French Revol uti on, 339, 398,
437-38, 445
fri l l s of Gods ki ngdom, 628
Fuggers, 11
fundamental l aw, 510-11
fundamental i sm, 87, 210-12, 289
Fustel de Coul anges, 62
Gaffney, E. M., 537, 615
gaps i n causati on, 45
gambl ers wad, 22
G. A. O.T.U. ($ee Great Archi tect)
Garrett, Garet, 312
Gasper, Jo Ann, 200, 206
General Wi l l , 450-51 (see also
Rousseau)
geni us, 77, 375
geography, 544-45
geometry, 333-34, 343-44, 473,
477-78
Georgi a, 273
Gerry, El bri dge, 412
ghetto, 153-55
Gl ori ous Revol uti on, 376-77, 493
gnosti cs, 475-76, 592-93
God
agents of, 620
appeal to, 401
cl ear revel ati on, 631
counsel of, 38
covenants, 134-36, 373-74, 524
creati on, 342
Creator, 44, 500, 507, 629
decree of, 45
di spensed wi th, 335
embarrassed by, 459
epi stemol ogy &, 134-36
fear of, 40, 42
good ol d boy, 628
Hol y Spi ri t (we Hol y Spi ri t)
hypotheti cal , 629
i mage of, 129
i mmanence, 128n, 344, 345, 357
(we al so panthei sm)
i rrel evant?, 335
Jeffersons (we natures god)
Jesus Chri st (we Jesus Chri st)
Judge, 31, 68, 344-45, 501, 629
judgments i gnored, 629
judgments of, 653 (see also
sancti ons)
ki ngdom (see ki ngdom of God)
l aw of (~ee bi bl i cal l aw)
Legi ti macy (source), 507
Lockes vi ew, 401
Lord of nati on, 63(weakonati onal
covenant)
l oyal ty to, 76
Masonrys, 704 (see al so Great
Archi tect)
mercy, 641
mi ni sters of, 620
moral l aw, 48
name, 493
nature i s, 449
pantheon, 536
Peopl e (see Peopl e)
pl owi ng up the worl d, 578
pol i ti cal pl ural i sm, 652
precepts of, 575
predesti nati on, 37-38
presence, 128, 345 (fee also
panthei sm)
provi dence, 44
provi dence, 341
rel i abl e, 619
representati ves, 500, 649
rescue mi ssi on, 629
rul es of, 631
seni l e Uncl e , 459
si l ence of, 102-3, 628-29
Sl avemaster, 580
source of l aw, 507, 630
Spokesman, 542
stand-patter, 629
strategy, 620
subcul tural rol e, 335
swears, 41
torture by, 641-42
treason agai nst, 71, 524
wi l l of, 236, 668
Word of, 45
gods, 67-68, 70-71, 75-76, 80, 158
gol d, 337, 416, 553
Gol den Age, 241
Gol dwater, Barry, 175n
good soci ety, 540
gospel (see sal vati on)
grace, 47, 626
Graebner, Theodore, 482
gravi ty, 345
Gray, Ri chard, 176n
Great Archi tect, 431, 452-54, 468,
472, 473, 477, 487, 523
Great Awakeni ng
anti cl eri cal i sm, 358, 514
anti -covenantal , 356, 515
anti -creedal , 361
anti nomi ani sm, 514
Chalcedon Report, 361n
ci vi l rel i gi on, 360, 515
common ground, 361
Consti tuti on-bui l di ng, 367
cool i ng, 362
Edwards, 355-56
experi ence, 356-57, 360
fraterni ty, 362
Freemasonry, 362
hal fway covenant, 356
hol y commonweal th vs., 361
i l l egi ti macy &, 362n
i ncl usi vi sm, 358-59
i ndi vi dual i sm, 361
Newtoni ani sm of, 356
oaths, 361
rebel l i on, 361
shattered covenants, 515
Uni tari ani sm &, 359
uni ty, 360
Great Bri tai n, 522-26
Great Commi ssi on, 618, 620
Great Seal , 380, 404-05, 407-8
Gr eece
democracy, 647
demons, 76-77
pol ythei sm, 647
strangers, 72
Greek Orthodox Church, 609
Green Dragon Tavern, 430n, 434-35
(see al so St. Andrews Lodge)
Greenway, John, 258
Grove Ci ty Col l ege, xx, 95-96
gui l l oti ne, 339
gui l t, 614-15
hal fway covenant
Arti cl es of Confederati on, 379,
458, 460-61, 531
I n&x
745
breakdown (1776-1787), 457, 527 fear of judi ci ary, 507-8
Congress, 458 hi stori ans vi ew, 416
Consti tuti on vs., 391, 543
Madi son &, 452
Decl arati on of I ndependence, 405, pati ence, 561
408, 492, 528
Great Awakeni ng vs., 356
Gr eat Seal , 405
hermeneuti cs, 121
l ack of confi dence (1787), 458
New Engl and, 107-9, 260
Newtoni ani sm, 347, 527
paradi gm shi ft, 457
Preambl e vs., 492
Presbyteri ans, 599
Puri tan, 647
return to, 405
Schaefer, 217-19
temporary, 703 (see al so cease-fi re)
Wi therspoon, 527
Hal l , Verna, 532-34
Hami l ton, Al exander
anti -market, 454
judi ci ary, 381, 507-8
pl anni ng, 363
Rousseau &, 388-89, 530
Rushdoony on, 700n
sci ence of pol i ti cs, 366-67
Hancock, John, 416
Hardi ng, Warren G., 671
Harvard Col l ege, 634
Barri ngton, H. B., 55-57, 332, 656
Barri ngton, James, 326
Harri son, Jane, 77
Hatch, Nathan O., 282-83
Hayek, F. A., 679
Hazard, Paul , 98, 247
heal i ng of i nsti tuti ons, 558
heaven, 620-21
Hei senberg, Werner, 454
hel l , xxi , 633, 646-47
Hel l Fi re Cl ub, 466
Hel l eni sm, xxi
Henry, Carl , 448, 633n
Henry, Patri ck
al l i ances, 499
by whose authori ty?, 498-99
Chri sti an, 415, 425
Peopl e, 488, 498-99, 698-99
rat i n Phi l adel phi a, 415
Rushdoony on, 699
strategi c error, 486
We the Peopl e, 488
Heracl i tus, 696
heresy, 81, 633n
hermeneuti cs, 121
Hermes, Tri smegi stus, 477
hermeti ci sm, 343-44 (me al so
magi c, Renai ssance)
Herod, 492-93
Hesi od, 497
hi erarchy
appeal s court, 39, 99-100, 381, 529
Consti tuti on, 381
corporate responsi bi l i ty, 39-40
el i tes, 265-66
Eve, 45-46
fi nal authori ty, 504
i nevi tabl e, 650
i nterpreter of the l aw, 381
Locke, 401
Masoni c, 473-75
mi l i tary, 46
Van Ti l , 129
voi ce of authori ty, 381
Wi l l i ams vs., 245, 251
see ako el i te, representati on, rul ers
hi gher cri ti ci sm, 323
hi gher l aw, 99, 503
hi story
amillennial, 638
conti ngent?, 45
escal ati ng confl i ct, xvi i i -xi x
Gods pl an, 42
hypotheti cal , 82
fl ux, 540-541
meani ng, 640
mytho (Rushdoony), 685-87,
697-98, 700
norms, 296
746
perverse?, 143, 148
postmi l l enni al , 159
progress, 159, 575
random ethi cal l y, 142
sancti ons, 41-42, 144, 159, 640
Van Ti l on, 141-46
Hobbes, Thomas, 323, 516
Hedge, Charl es, 357-58
Hoedemaker, P. J., 710
Hol l i nger, Davi d, 192
Hol mes, Ol i ver W., Jr., 396-97,
402, 501
Hol mes, Ol i ver W., Sr., 402-3, 505
hol y commonweal th
Chri sti an, 657
Commonweal thmen &, 515
ended (1787), 550
I srael , 70
l ost i deal , 361
Machi avel l i vs., 81-82
oath, 81
Puri tan, 108, 249, 361
secul ari zed, 362
subversi on of, 70-71
worl dwi de, 156, 361
Hol y Spi ri t
bi bl i cal l aw, 151
coerci on, 589
cul ture, 151-52, 589
i mposes Hi s wi l l , 588
postmi l l enni al i sm, 149, 586, 589-90
soci al change, 22
wi thhel d, xi v
Homer, 71
Hong Kong, 661
Hooke, Robert, 345
Hooker, Ri chard, 376
Hooker, Thomas, 634
Hughes, Archi bal d, 606-7
humani sm
al l i ance wi th Chri sti ans, 245-46
anchors , 633
authori ty, 666
cease-fi re, 2
cl osed uni verse, 501
col l apsi ng, xxi , 614
decepti on by, 3
doubt, 613
escal ati ng confrontati on (we
confl i ct)
fal se peace, 1
i nevi tabl e fai l ure, 652
i nternati onal i sm, 530
Machi avel l i , 82
Masonry, 471
monopol y, xi i i -xi v
peace, 2
pol i ti cal sal vati on, 84
pre-Darwi n, 392
quantum physi cs, 45
rel ati vi sm, 158
repl acement of, 610
representati on, 620
stati sm, 158, 501, 590
theocracy, 111, 208
worms, 493
humani sts conspi racy, 66, 74, 650
Hume, Davi d, 355, 400, 579
Humpty Dumpty, xxi i
Hunt, Dave, 586n
Huxl ey, Thomas, 6, 98
Huygens, Chri sti an, 476
i ce anal ogy, 365
i deol ogi cal synthesi s, xvi , xx-xxi i
i dol s, 75 (see al so gods)
I k, 636n
I l l umi nate, 428, 438, 481
i mage of God, 129
i mmi grati on, Chapter 2
barri ers, 73-74
ci ti zenshi p, 558
pre-War, 73
rel i gi on &, 660-61
Schaeffer on, 186-87
Wel l s on, 187-90
i ncorporati on, 496-97
I ndi ans, 238, 257-59, 461, 527
i ndi vi dual i sm, 154, 358, 361, 530
i nequal i ty, 523-24
i nheri tance
ami l l enni al , 42
hi stori cal , 42, 50, 541
progressi ve, 541
I ndex
747
sancti ons &, 50, 540-41
Satan?, 49-50
i ni ti ati on, 338
i nsurance premi ums (common
grace), 148
i ntel l ectual schi zophreni a, xv-xvi i i
i nterests, 126, 266, 446-47, 451
i nterpretati on (we hermeneuti cs,
judi ci ary, Supreme Court)
I nterVarsi ty Press, 641n
I nvi si bl e Col l ege, 370, 476
i rrel evance (Erasmus), 12
I sl am, xv, 342-43
I srael
apostasy, 76
broken covenants, 115
Church, 68
Church &, 152
ci vi l ri ghts, 72
ci vi l war, 71
evangel i sm, xi i i -xi v
fai l ure of, 529
i magery i n sermons, 243-45, 513,
718
i nternati onal ki ngdom, 529
mi dl i fe cri si s, 213n
open door pol i cy, 68
pl ural i sm deni ed, 296
pol i ti cal di scri mi nati on (0.T.), 72
represented God, 39
sanctuary, 66-70
Jackson, Andrew, 510
Jacob (Esau &), 629
Jacob, Margaret
anti -conspi racy, 432
church members (cover), 420
Engl i sh radi cal s, 471-72
Fay, 432
hi stori ans on Masonry, 432-433
i nternati onal i sm, 471
Kni ghts of Jubi l ati on, 420
mechani sm, 350-51
new rel i gi on, 340
Newtoni ani sms dual i sm, 339-40
rel i gi ous decepti on, 420
James I , 376-77
James I I , 377,429
Japan, 636-37
Jay, John, 428-29
Jefferson Commi ttee, 516
Jefferson, Thomas
Bapti sts &, 410, 539
bl ood of patri ots, 497
broken covenant, 492n
Congress agent, 492n, 524-25
god of, 294, 492n
Kentucky Resol ves, 498
l i ngui sti c subversi on, 681
Locke &, 397-98
Madi son &, 449
Masonry downpl ays, 704
natures god, 492n, 521, 524, 528,
531
New Testament, 326-27
pl ebi sci tes, 496
prophet?, 261-63
pursui t of happi ness, 398-99
Unitarian, 406-7
wall of separati on,
=
410
Jensen, Merri l l , 455
Jeroboam, 565-66, 634-35
Jerusal em, 58
Jesui ts, 438
Jesus Chri st
ascensi on, 149-50, 620
betrayaI of, 38
bureaucracy?, 587
bowi ng to, 225
Consti tuti on &, 228, 617
covenantal obl i gati ons, 625
crown rights, 185, 379, 616, 660
fami l y of man, 83
Japan &, 637
l i fe preservers, 662, 663
Lord, 625
Lords prayer, 590, 638-39
l oser?, 153
l oyal ty to, 182
Messi ah, 99
Ni ebuhr on, 668
owner, 160
rei gns, 605-6
return of, 586-88, 662-63
sword, 83, 181-82
throne, 605-6
ti the to worl d, 160
Johnson, Andrew, 512
Johnson, Lyndon, 175n
Jol i coer, Pamel a, 704
Jones, D. Gareth, 253n
Jordan, James B., 653
Judai sm, 97-98, 342-43, 478-79
Judas, 38
Judeo-Chri sti an tradi ti on, xvi , 186
judgment
God or man?, 84
renderi ng, 68
Rushdoony on, 604
sal vati on, 604
two covenati ts, 70-72
see also sancti ons
judi ci al bl i ndness, 116, 192-93, 399
judi ci ary
arm of pol i ti cs, 397
Berger on,, 394-95
Federalist, 450
fi nal i nterpreter, 381, 395, 502-7,
509-10, 517
Fourteenth Amendment, 394-97
fundamental l aw, 510-11
Hami l ton on, 381
Henry on, 507-8
Hol mes on, 396-97
i mperi al , 506
l i beral i sm, 395-97
oath &, 395
pol i ti cal , 396-97
pri vate property, 395-96
soverei gnty of, 489, 502-13, 517
tri umph of, 394-96, 517
unrestri cted si nce Darwi n, 402
voi ce of authori ty, 381
see also Supreme Court
Jul i an the Apostate, 81
justi ce, 541, 598, 690
Kal sbeek, L. 710
kami kaze, 160-61
Kant, I mmanuel , 233-34, 256,
353-54
Kantzer, Kenneth, 633n
Kasun, Jacquel i n, 202-3
Kendal l , Wi l more, 505n
kenoti c theol ogy, 610
Kennedy, John F., 210
Kettl er, Davi d, 268
Keynes, John Maynard, 335-36
ki dnappi ng, 581
Ki ng of Engl and, 376-77, 492n, 525n
Ki ngs X, 66, 298, 577
Ki ng Man, 298-99
ki ngdom of God
Ameri ca, 164
anti nomi an, 627-28
bottom-up, 39, 157, 224, 529, 585,
590, 612, 647, 649-50
case l aws &, 639-40
ci vi l i zati on, 646-54
confl i ct, 89, 90-91, 636, 640
di spensati onal i sm, 587
educati on, 643-46
escape rel i gi on, 593
fri l l s; 629
Hunt on, 587n
i nternal , 607-8
i nternati onal , 182, 529-31, 619
i nvi si bl e, 628-29
K-Mart, 627-28
l eaven, 635
mi ssi ons, 530
new nati on, 529
pl ural i sm, 192
pol i ti cal ?, 254-55
power rel i gi on, 592
progressi ve, 295
Puri tan vi ew, 529
resurrecti on, 295
sancti ons, 640-43, 646
uni versal , 529
vi si bl e, 619
vi si on of vi ctory, 620
Vos on, 608n, 611
see al so theocracy
Ki rk, Kenneth, 109
Ki rk, Russel l , 351-52, 400
Kl eppner, Paul , 189
I ndex
749
Kl i ne, Meredi th G., 49, 147-50, 291
Kni ghts of Jubi l ati on, 420
know thysel f, 301-2
Knowl es, Loui s, 704
Koop, C. Ever ett
aborti on, 199, 201
AI DS, 200-01
Chi cken, 198, 205-6
junk food, 206
medi a &, 198-99, 205
neutral i ty, 201
Paraguayan Navy, 200n
pl agues on hi s watch, 204
rudderl ess, 207
sex educati on, 201-3
smoki ng, 203-4
T@el l on, 205-6
Kui per, R. B., 154n
Kuyper, Abraham, 142, 680n, 710
LaFayette, 433
l ake of fi re, 41, 633n, 641-42
Lal onde, Peter , 580, 613
Lati n, 478
l ati tudi nari ans, 332, 351
l aw
admi ni strati ve, 375n
bi bl i cal (we bi bl i cal l aw)
hi gher, 99
l etter vs. spi ri t, 542-43
natur al (see natur al l aw)
soci ety, 98-99
theocrati c, 101-2
warfare, 91
l awyer s
Ameri can Revol uti on, 316, 530,
542
i ndependent judi ci ary, 503, 517
gri evances, 527
Massachusetts (1691), 313
paradi se, 517, 675
pastors defer to, 527
procedural i sm, 541, 688
revol uti on, 485
tri umph, 542
Leah, 677
l eaks, 418
l eaky shi p, 17-21, 114
l eap of bei ng, 337, 338
l eaven, 87, 635
Lee, F. N., 50
Lee, Ri chard Henry, 412, 416
l egal i sm, 209, 367
l egi ti macy, 386, 399, 401, 419,
495-96, 506-7, 510, 571, 654
Leni n, 23, 542
Lewi s, C. S., xvi i i -xi x, 226-27, 663
l i beral i sm, 16, 395-96, 541
l i berati on theol ogy, 131, 214
l i berty, 66-67
Li enesch, Mi chael , 363-65, 453n
l i es (nobl e), 540
Li ndsey, Hal , 212, 213n
l i ons, xxi i
l i p, 83 (see al so confessi on)
Li vi ngston, Wi l l i am, 549
l ocal i sm, 459, 529, 530
Locke, John
anti -covenantal , 256, 398
appeal to God, 401
athei sm, 394
cauti ous Chri sti an, 325
ci ti zenshi p, 393-94
compact theory, 256, 319, 398, 401
covenantal hi erarchy, 401
Enl i ghtenments ri ght wi ng, 398
formul a, 397-98
hi erarchy, 401
hi story, 398
Hume vs., 400
Marsden on, 239, 256
natural ri ghts, 398, 400
oath, 394
procedure, 539-40
property, 398
revol uti on, 401
Rousseau &, 256, 398
sancti ons, 401
Shaftesbury &, 352
shattered foundati ons, 516
tol erati on, 394
Wi l l i ams &, 248
Wi therspoon &, 319
l ocusts, 95
l ogi c, 56, 116, 127, 136, 171-72, 250
Lords Prayer, 590, 638-39
l osers, 144
Loui s XVI , 445
10@ty, 76, 109, 181-82
Loyol a, I gnati us, 11
LSD, 339
Luther
cartoons, 14
doctri ne, xxvi
eti quette, 13-14
opponents of, 10-11
vi ctory, 14
Lutherani sm, 12, 42, 59
Lynd, Staughton, 332-33
Machen, J. Gresham, 166, 210
Machi avel l i , 81-82, 365n
Madi son, James
amendi ng process, 444, 560
angry young man, 443
anti -pl ebi sci tes, 496
anti -Presbyteri an, 451-52
Church & State, 446-50
ci ty on a hi l l , 514
ci vi l war (si l ence), 497
Conventi on, 442, 444
Conventi ons notes, 417
covenant-breaki ng geni us, 696
dead paradi gm, 454
facti ons, 446-49, 450-55
Fi rst Amendment, 372
free trade, 460
i nterests, 446-47, 451
i nternati onal i sm, 450, 453, 460
Jefferson &, 449, 496
justi fyi ng the coup, 414
Kendal l on, 505n
Mann &, 644
Marbury vs., 512
Masoni c worl dvi ew, 452
messi ani c, 451
mi ni -conventi ons, 500
Mount Vernon meeti ng, 427, 443
natural l aw, 452
Nature i s God, 449
neutral i ty, 446, 448, 695-96
Newtoni an, 452
oath, 443, 449-50
one worl d, 450
pantheon, 452
Pennsyl vani a, 447
publ i c opi ni on, 496-97
publ i c school s &, 646
Puri tans, 531
rel i gi on, 443
Rtmorutrance, 448
Rousseau &, 450-52, 530
sancti ons, 380
sanctuary, 448
sects, 446-47
secul ar humani st, 447
secul ar republ i c, 372
separati on, 443
soverei gnty, 446
tacti cs, 444
test oaths, 389-90, 428, 646
tri vi al i zi ng the church, 531
utopi an, 452-53
Vi rgi ni a oath, 449
Whi g, 447
Wi therspoon &, 320, 427, 548
magi c, 337-38, 343, 350
Mai moni des, Moses, 478-79
Mai ne, Henry, 647-48
majori ty rul e, 496, 511, 586
mammon, 46
man (we autonomous man,
Ki ng Man)
mani festo, 658
Mann, Horace, 643-44
Marbu?y vs. Madison, 572
Marci on, 580-81, 591
Maxcus Aurel i us, xxi
Marsden, George
academi c Egypt, 290
accuracy of, 268-76
age of the Spi ri t, 291
ambi gui ty thesi s, 232, 240-42, 243,
261
Ameri cas compromi ses, 264
I ndex 751
amnesi a of, 276, 294
anti -bi bl i cal l aw, 290
anti -covenant, 256, 261, 290, 292
anti -creati oni sm, 288
assumpti ons of, 241
Cal vi ni sm, 164
Canaan, 290
case l aws i n New Engl and, 237-38,
243
catch-22, 244
check-ki ti ng, 294-95
Chri sti an i mperi al i sm, 240
common grace, 225-26
conservati sm, 288-89
contract theory, 256
creati oni sm trial, 193n
de-Chri sti ani zi ng Ameri ca, 286
di si nformati on, 290
eschatol ogy, 657
fal se di chotomy, 255
Framers, 262-63
Gods wi l l , 236
hi dden agenda, 256, 289-96
hi stori cal facts, 241
hi stori ans ji g, 236
humi l i ty thesi s, 230
I ndi ans, 257-59
Kant, 256
Kl i ne &, 291
Locke, 239, 256
Mi l l er, 285-88, 297
mi srepresentati on, 261
Morton, 274-75
moti vati on, 288-89
nati onal covenant, 256-61, 565-66
natural l aw, 239
Ni ebuhr &, 235, 261, 668
Ol d Testament, 229, 236-37
Pai ne, 239
pl ural i sm, 223, 241, 244, 262-63,
267
pol i ti cal acti on, 223, 262-63
pol i ti cal rel ati vi sm, 254
poverty (wi th tenure), 291
presupposi ti ons, 290-91
Progressi ves, 275
Puri tans, 235-38
Puri tans pri de, 244
quotati on marks, 225, 235
rel ati vi sm, 254, 261
sancti ons, 291-92, 298
Scotti sh Enl i ghtenment, 391n
shoddy schol arshi p, 263, 289
syllogism, 291
theocracy, 237-8
Van Ti l &, 225
weasel words, 236
Westmi nster Confessi on, 231
wi l l of God, 236, 668
Wi l l i ams, 238-40
Wi nthrop, 237, 243
we al so No]]
Marsdeni sm, 236
Marshal l , John, 97, 440, 504, 509,
512
Marti n, Luther, 413, 486-87
Marty, Marti n, 563-64
Martyr, Justi n, xxi
Marx, Karl , 595
Maryl and, 463
Mason, George, 414
Masonry (w-e Freemasonry)
Massachusetts
Body of Li berti es (~ee Body of
Li berti es)
charter revoked, 313
Consti tuti on (1780), 382, 462,
718-21
General Court, 510
hi story of, 634
mathemati cs
chemi stry and al chemy, 339
nature &, 348, 355
stonemasonry, 477
uni versal l anguage, 478
Mather, Cotton, 349
May, Henry, 677
Mayfl ower Compact, 516
maypol e, 274
McCosh, James, 318, 679
McDonal d, Forrest
Angl o-Saxon government, 293n
attendees, 415
Currey revi ew, 427
di strust of judi ci ary, 503
judi ci al revi ew, 502n
Newton, 369
publ i c i ndi fference, 415
si l ence on Masonry, 433
soverei gnty, 569n
Washi n@ons stare, 459n
wrong questi ons, 370
McI nti re, Carl , 166-67
Mead, Si dney, 165, 310, 400, 464,
644
mechani sm, 350
medi a, 626
Mel anchthon, Phi l i p, 12
Mencken, H. L., 671
merchants, 527, 530
Messi ah, 99
Mi ddl eman, Udo, 207
Mi l l er, Perry
covenant, 275, 718
covenant theol ogy, 300
i nfl uence, 325
Marsden on, 285-88, 297
nati onal covenant, 550-51
Barri ngton &, 249
Wi l l i ams, 250
Mi l l s, C. Wri ght, 265-66
Mi l ton, John, 22
Mi ses, Ludwi g, 460n
mi ssi ons, 530, 585
Moderns, 362-67
Mol nar, Thomas, 337
money, 552-53 (we al so gol d)
Monkey tri al (we Scopes tri al )
Monsanto, 339
Montesqui eu, 446
Moody, D. L., 632
Moore, T. M., 296
moral cri si s, 268
moral l aw, 48
moral s, 266
Moray, Robert, 476
More, Thomas, 104
Morecraft, Joseph, (guess)
Morgan, Edmund S.
conventi on, 444-45
hal fway covenant, 107n, 260
i deol ogi cal pol i ti cs, 267n
Madi sons sol uti on, 442
Wi nthrop, 538
Mormoni sm, 97, 534-35
Morton, Thomas, 274-75
Moses
conspi racy vs., 650
i nsufferabl e, 32
Renai ssance &, 477
representati ve, 374
Rhode I sl and?, 22
Mount Vernon, 414-15, 427, 443, 544
Murray, John, 30, 134, 582
musi c, 344
mytho-hi story (Rushdoony), 685-87,
697-98, 700
Myers, Ken, 54, 121-22
Napol eon, 680
nati onal Chri sti an covenant
amendment, 411, 557, 617, 653
anti nomi an, 35
cri ti cs of, 650-51
deni al of, 2-3, 31-32, 34-35, 47,
565
god of, 522
l i mi ti ng concept, 34-35
Marsden deni es, 241
myth i n 1800, 550-51
neutral , 298
no escape from, 564-65
posi ti ve feedback, 32-33
postmi l l enni al i sm, 558-59
re-conquest, 564
rejecti on of, 256-61
sancti ons, 640
Schaeffer vs., 180-85
transi ti onal , 566
Van Ti l , 130
nati onal i sm, 496, 497, 529-31, 680
natural l aw
2+2=4,353
abandoned, 302, 563
al l i ance (1787), 333
al ternati ves to, 302
athei sti c, 247
Bl ackstone, 321-23
Church defends, 579, 640
common grace, 187
Darwi n, xxi i , 6, 98, 99, 246
dead mul e, 579-80
dead by 1900, 126, 660
debate over Consti tuti on, 534
deni al of, 110
Framers, 681
hi gher l aw, 503
humani sm, 98
i mpersonal competi ti on, 99
i nterests, 126
l eaky di ke, 132
l i ngui sti c subversi on, 681
Madi son, 452
Marsden, 239
mi stake, x
Newton, 335
Orton on, 126
pol i ti cal pl ural i sm &, 16n, 17
Pound on, 126
Rushdoony on, 680
Schaeffer, 185, 198
shared fai th, 333
spi ri t of thi s worl d, 301
taskmasters, 246
test oaths &, 392, 410
undermi ni ng orthodoxy,
Van Ti l , 129, 132-34
Wi l l i ams, 239, 250, 260
Natural ri ghts
dead, 17, 562, 579
Cl assi cal thought, 328
Consti tuti on vs., 528-29,
681
562-63
magi strates, 539
medi eval , 81
ori gi n, xxi
pol i ti cal (none), 75
Stoi c, xxi , 98
Vi rgi ni a, 449
Wi l l i ams, 539
natural i zati on, 70, 116
natures god, 294, 473, 521, 524,
528, 531, 558, 704
I ndex
negati ve sancti ons
AI DS, 203
Conventi on, 418
external sancti ons &, 69-70
Gods, 653
grace &, 47
hi stori cal , 41
no threat i n 1800, 551
pol i ti cs, 652
State, 526
threat, 1-3
see aho hel l , l ake of fi re
neo-evangel i cal i sm, x, 17, 187-193,
240, 285, 633n
Netherl ands, 337
Neuhaus, Ri chard John, 23, 100-1,
265
neutral i ty
aborti on, xi x
Ameri can pol i ti cs, 651
Arti cl es of Confederati on, 380
autonomy, 640
ci vi l l aw, 70, 98
Consti tuti on, 681
conti ngency &, 37
Covenants, 110
creati oni sm vs., 37
doubl e-mi nded, 621
economi cs, 469
educati on, xi x-xx, 85, 116, 643,
645
forei gn gods, 75
hi stori ography, 533
hi story, 142
judi ci al , 700
Kl i ne, 148-50
Koop, 201
l anguage, 35, 53
l awful churches, 96-97
l eaven of, 380
Madi son, 446, 448
my th of, 224-26
oath vs., 484
peace &, 3
pi eti sm, 246
pol i ce for ce, xx
753
754
procedure, 688
Rhode I &l and, 380
Rome, 80
Rushdoony on, 695
Rushdoonys, 693-94
Schaefer, 171-74, 185
State, 96-97, 539
subsi di es, 96-97
tattered fl ag, 107
test oath, 367
vampi re bat, 654
Van Ti l , 53,129, 638
Whi gs, 361n
Wi l l i ams, 114
New Hampshi re, 462-63
New Heavens & New Earth, 606-7
New I srael , 243-45, 513, 718
New Jersey, 272-73
New Li ghts, 359
New School , 359
New Si de, 359
New Testament (see Bi bl e)
New York, 273
newspapers, 436
Newton, I saac
al chemy, 335-36
Babyl oni an, 336
cover-up, 350
Ei nstei n &, 52
ether, 345-46
god of, 341-42, 346, 354-55, 523,
524, 558, 579
gravi ty, 345
Hume, 579
key fi gure, x
l ati tudi nari ans, 351
l egacy of, 323-24
McDonal d on, 369
natural l aw, 335
Opticks, 345-46
P7inc+ia, 340-41
provi dence, 340-41
Templ e, 342
thei sm, 105
worl dvi ew, 334
Newton, Joseph Fort, 468
Newtoni ani sm
al l i ance, 333, 351
autonomy, 362
Chri sti ani ty &, 349-55, 461
ci vi l l i berti es, 449
cl assi cs &, 328
cl ock anal ogy, 354, 364
Consti tuti on &, 368, 453, 459
compromi se wi th, 461
Dei sti c, 341, 347
dual i sm, 339-40
dynami c, 355
ecumeni cal , 468
experi ence, 364
hal fway covenant system, 347
i mpersonal , 347
i mpersonal si n, 254
l i beral Protestanti sm, 351
monothei sti c, 468
panthei sm, 337, 348
power, 355
repl aced, 454
soci al theory, 461
threat, 279
Uni tari an, 345, 523
uni versal i sm, 459, 468
Ni ebuhr, H. Ri chard
anti nomi an, 668-69
apostate, 668, 671
Barthi an, 668, 672
bl uepri nts, 667
di l emma, 232-35
fal se Chri st, 668
fi nal judgment, 669, 671-72
i ncoherent, 670-71
Kanti an, 233
Marsden &, 261
mumbl i ng, 669
noumenal , 671-72
rel ati vi sm of fai th, 668-70
theol ogi cal swamp, 669
Van Ti I on, 672
Ni ebuhr, Rei nhol d, 233-34
Ni sbet, Robert
progress, 614
propheci es, 614
I ndex
755
publ i c opi ni on, 648-49
revi val , 574, 614
Rousseau, 388
Noah, 478, 480, 616
Noahi des, 478-79
nobl e l i es, 540
No]], Mark
Chri sti an l egacy, 277
common bel i efs, 280
hi stori ography, 222, 628
mi l l enni al i sm, 278-79
pl ural i sti c Protestanti sm, 280
Scotti sh phi l osophy, 266
short memory, 280
Whi gs, 278-79
see al so Marsden
North Carol i na, 390
Northern Ki ngdom, 635, 701
Novak, Mi chael , 100, 102-103
nucl ear war, 299
oath
al most, 687
Arti cl es, 459
Athanasi an, 594
athei sti c, 393
authori ty to admi ni ster, 395
bi bl i cal vi ew, 481
bl oody, 485
Chri sti ans i gnorance (1788), 440
ci ti zenshi p, 69, 72, 309, 393-94
conspi racy, 74
Consti tuti on, 687 ($ee test oath)
Consti tuti on as soverei gn, 402
COUP, 461
covenant i nsti tuti ons, 41, 69
covenant renewal , 3
defi ned, 41
di ssenters vs., 333
fami l y, 69-70, 482
federal exampl e, 464-65
gentl emens, 417
Gods, 40-41
hol y commonweal th, 81
i mpl i ci t, 440
l aw &, 557
l egi ti macy &, 507
Locke, 394
Madi son, 443
Mann vs., 644
Masoni c, 428, 471, 480-83
Massachusetts Consti tuti on of
1780, 719-21
monopol y, 481
nati onal , 58, 557
new god, 391
offi cers of the covenant, 386-87,
390-91, 686
Pennsyl vani a, 270
pre-Consti tuti on, 655-56
Presi denti al , 394
publ i c educati on, 645-46
revol uti on, 445
ri val , 390
Rushdoony on, 373, 683-85
sancti ons, 373, 395, 557, 687-88
Schaff, 551-52
secret soci ety, 482
sel f-val edi ctory, 70, 373, 482-85,
493, 646, 687
Senate, 387
soci al order, 464
soverei gnty &, 440
state, 383-85, 463-64, 522, 655-56,
696
verbal , 687
vow, 70
Wi l l i ams, 251-52
Wi therspoon, 319
see al so test oaths
occul ti sm, 574
Ockham, Wi l l i am of, 341
Ol d Li ghts, 359
Ol d School , 359
Ol d Si de, 359
Ol d Testament (Puri tans), 236-37
Ol ympus (gods of), 76-77
omel ettes, 542
oppressi on, 75-83
order, xxi i
organi c l aw, 524n
Orthodox Presbyteri an Church, 166-67
756
orthodoxy, 633n, 642-43
Orton, Wi l l i am, 126
Packer, J. I ., xxvi , 633n
Padover, Saul , 385
pagani sm, 469-70
Pai ne, Thomas, 239, 351,
Pal mer, R. R., 445
pamphl ets, 534, 536
Pangl e, Thomas
cl assi cal rhetori c, 328
commerce, 453n
Machi avel l i an, 365n
State covenants, 516
580
panthei sm, 247, 334, 337-38, 341,
345-46, 348
pantheon, 78, 515, 522, 530, 536-37
paradi gm shi ft, 7, 52-53
Parl i ament
corrupti on of, 525
Ki ng &, 492n
soverei gnty of, 377-78
Barri ngton, Vernon L., 246-49,
275-76
passport, 73
pastors (Whi gs), 526-27, 718
patri ots, 718
Patterson, Wi l l i am, 419
Parmeni des, 696
Paul , 37
peace
covenant renewal , 3
ddente, 91-92
fal se promi se, 1-3, 85-87
goal , 89
Jesus, 181-82
Jesus &, 83
neutral i ty, 3
promi sed, 1-2
Satan, 1
shared goal s, 115
Pel agi us, 12
Pendl eton, Edmund, 486
Penn, Wi l l i am, 270
Pennsyl vani a, 447
Penthouse, 65
Peopl e
Adams (John), 383
agent, 391, 490, 491, 653
authori ty, 442, 461
bl essed be, 569
breaki ng covenant wi th, 702
conspi racy &, 650
Consti tuti on, 442, 444-45, 700-1
Conventi on &, 379, 495
covenant, 541
creator, 490
Del aware Decl arati on of Ri ghts,
682
demoti on of, 557
di vi ne, 490, 492, 500
di vi ne ri ght, 499-502, 699
Federal i sts &, 379, 500
fi ve judi ci al representati ves, 505-6
geni us of, 375, 515
god, 407, 490, 492, 500, 552, 700
Henry on, 488, 498-99, 698-99
Herod, 492-93
l egal status, 490
l egi ti macy, 495-96
l i bel , 500
Madi sons strategy, 442, 444,
496-98
Mai ne on, 648
metaphysi cal , 458
nati onal i sm, 529
new god, 391, 490, 492, 517, 549,
655, 701
new theol ogy, 499
no appeal beyond, 701
oath to, 391
pl ebi sci te, 445, 511
poi nt 2 to poi nt 1, 490, 492
post-1788, 49
Protestant vi ew, 376
rati fyi ng conventi ons, 444
representati ves of, 458, 648-49
revol uti on, 541
Rousseau, 391
si l ent, 495-96, 647
soverei gnty, 293-94, 386, 391, 496,
682, 700
state consti tuti ons, 492, 682
I ndex
757
suzerai n, Chapter 10, 375
under God, 656
vacati on, 495-96
vassal s, Chapter 10, 656, 702
very far away, 496
Vindiciae contra l jvanni s, 376
voi ce of, 504, 541-42
voters &, 458, 499-500
see al so pl ebi sci te
Pepys, Samuel , 476
perfecti on, 54
perjury, 390, 484-85
persuasi on, 101
pessi mi l l enni al i sm
anti -l eadershi p, 210
Chri sti an Reconstructi on, 155
dual i sm, 662
eschatol ogy &, 158-60
Lee defi nes, 50
no future harvest, 155
pluralism &, 207-10
progressi ve sancti fi cati on vs., 208
sui ci de of, 210
theocrati c, 156-57
Pharaoh, 536-37
pi eti sm
aborti on, 246
al l i ance wi th humani sm, 245
anti -Constanti ne, 629
anti -creedal , 629
deni es judgment i n hi story, 629
neutral i ty, 246
pl ural i sm, 246
pol i ti cs, 86
sal vati on of soul s onl y, 629
Van Ti l vs., 141-42
pi ety (cl assi cal pol i ti cs), 81
pi per and tunes 96
pl ague, 46
Pl ato, 343, 345-46, 365
Playboy, 125
pl ebi sci te
Burgess on, 520
covenanta~, 511
judi ci al revi ew, 506
Madi sons pl an, 445
mul ti pl e, 496
Peopl e &, 499, 510-11
pl ural governments (bi bl i cal ), 576-77
Pocock, J. G. A., 365n
fi ol i s, 77, 79, 81, 647
pol i ti cal phi l osophy, 78, 81
pol i ti cal pl ural i sm
aborti ons screeni ng process, 190
adul terys sancti ons &, 298
agreement, 126
ambi gui ty, 240-41
amendment process, 224, 292-93,
658
anti -Chri sti an, 660
anti nomi ani sm &, 158
assumpti ons, 106
autonomy, 292
Baal i sm, 421
bankrupt, 106-7
beyond the Pal e, 86
Bi bl e &, 93
broken wal l , 91
bureaucracy, 658
buri al , 663
cease-fi re, 111, 227, 250, 265
chattel sl avery, 264-65
Chri sti an (we Chri sti an pol i ti cal
pl ural i sm)
ci vi l war, 91, 116-17, 264-65
col l apsi ng, xi x
Communi sm &, xvi i
contr act (see compact theor y,
contr act theor y)
covenant forgetful ness, 294
crossfi re, 227
decepti on, 267
demoni c quest, 37I
di al ogui ng wi th enemi es, 658
dyi ng, 660
Enl i ghtenment myth, 540
formal i sm, 292
fl ux of hi story, 540
God VS., 652
good soci ety, 540
hal fway house, 111
hi gher powe~ 293-94
humani sm, 191
758
i deol ogi cal synthesi s, xxi i i , xvi ,
xx-xxi
i deol ogy vs., 263
i mmi grati on, 186
judi ci al deferral , 267
l egi ti mate?, 105
Masoni c creed, 469
moral confusi on, 266-67
moral cri si s, 268
myth, 92
nati onal i sm, 529
natural l aw &, 16n, 17, 660
Neuhaus, 100-01
neutral i ty, 179, 292, 651
Ni ebuhr, 234
nobl e l i es, 540
Novak, 100
paci fi sm, 265
pay as you go phi l osophy, 29
pe~manent?, 224
pessi mi l l enni al i sm &, 158-60
phi l osophy of l i fe, 158
pol ythei sti c, 158 (see al so
pol i ti cal pl ural i sm)
probl ems, 84-85
procedural , 292
Protestant, 280
publ i c school s, 660 (~ee al so Mann)
publ i c rel ati ons, 92
Puri tans vs., 244
rei gni ng myth, 85
Rhode I sl and, 315
sancti ons, 121
sanctuary, 189
schi zophreni a, 91
screeni ng, 85, 190
sel l -out, 15
Schaeffer on, 170, 174, 185-86
si l ent god, 102-3
sti ng, 658
Smi th on, xvi i
status quo, 124-25
stupi di ty &, 297
sui ci de of, 224, 293, 293, 568-69,
651, 657-58
Supreme Court vs., 651
taskmasters pol i ti cs, 246
temporary, 227
Tower of Babel , 85
vampi re bat, 654
vague, xvi i
vi rtue, 540
zombi es, xxi i i
pol i ti cal pol ythei sm
2 +2 =4 , 3 5 3
autonomy, 82
Bahnsen on, xi i
Chri sti an, 22
ci vi l war, 91, 116-17
Consti tuti on, 701
defi ned, 75-76
i dol s, 82
pl ural i sm, 158
pri nci pl ed di zzi ness, 253
probl ems of (5), 84-85
Rushdoony on, 82-83
stati sm, 537
status quo?, 100
taskmasters pol i ti cal theory, 537
theol ogy of, 158
pol i ti cal phi l osophy, 78, 80-83
pol i ti caI ri ghts, 75 (we al so
ci vi l ri ghts)
pol i ti cal sci ence, 366-67
pol i ti cs
Arti cl es era, 455-56
Chri sti an, 583
consent, 249
covenantal i deal , 659
di rty busi ness, 87
fourth, 559
god of, 528
i deol ogi cal , 267
i nheri tance, 481
i nternati onal , 650
i rrati onal , 268
ki ngdom &, 254-55
moral struggl e, 266
new theory needed, xxi i
organi zati on, 461
parti ci pati on, 87
rel ati ve, 254
rel ati vi sm, 454
rel i gi on &, 447
I ndex
759
renewal , 559
rescue mi ssi on, 87
Rome, 79-80
Scotti sh Enl i ghtenment, 454
si ngl e-i ssue, 454
sti ck or be stuck, xi x
theocrati c, 86-87
theocracy &, 597-602
Uni tari an, 450-55
wi thdrawal from, 86-89, 227
pol ygamy, 97, 582-83
pol ythei sm, 76-81, 100, 158 (we also
gods)
Pope, Al exander, 335
posi ti ve feedback, 32-35, 152, 160,
209
posi ti ve sancti ons
Chri sti ani ty, 160, 636
Japan, 636-37
prosperi ty, 31
reconstructi on &, 617
see also negati ve sancti ons,
sancti ons
posteri ty, 374
postmi l l enni al i sm
Ameri can Revol uti on, 277-79, 282
anti -el i ti sm, 157
confi dence, 612-13
correct vi ew, 159, 606
covenant-breakers, 139, 296
cul tural vi ctory, 50-51
democrati c, 647
HoI y Spi ri t, 149, 589
i nescapabl e concept, 139
i nternati onal , 89-90
Marsden vs., 659
theonomi c, 155-57
utopi ani sm vs., 54-55
potter, 37
Pound, Roscoe, xxi i , 126
poverty, 34
Powel l , Enoch, 661n
power, 80, 293n
power rel i gi on, 592
prayer, xi x
Preambl e (see Consti tuti on: preambl e)
predesti nati on
acti vi sm &, 355
ami l l enni al i sm &, 616
anti nomi ani sm &, 44-45
Cal vi ni sm, 57
conti ngency vs., 37
creati oni sm &, 38
cruci fi xi on &, 38
decr ee of God, 37
neutral i ty vs., 37
responsi bi l i ty &, 38
see a[so Ar mi ni ani sm, fr ee wi l I
predi ctabi l i ty, 542
premature acti on, 19-22, 133, 558
premi l l enni al i sm, 587-88 (see al so
ami l l enni al i sm, pessi mi l l enni al i sm)
Presbyterian Church in America,
167, 545
Presbyteri an Church of Ameri ca,
166n
Presbyteri ans
central i zati on, 544-45
consti tuti onal reform, 543-47
educati on, 526
eschatol ogy, 616
fast days, 361
i mmi grati on, 544
obedi ent ci ti zens, 550
Synod of 1787, 543
presupposi ti onal i sm, 134, 171-72, 178
presupposi ti ons, 116, 178, 674
Pri ce, Ri chard, 332
pri de, 244
pri ests (autonomous man), 2
Pri estl ey, Joseph, 332
Pri nceton, 317-20, 679 (we al so
Col l ege of New Jersey)
Pri nceton Semi nary, 166
Pri7u+ia, 340-41
procedure, 293, 396, 539-40, 541-43,
637, 688, 692, 694
process, 402
progress, xvi i i , 3, 230, 575, 614
progressi ve sancti fi cati on, 137-38,
208-9
Prohi bi ti on, 87, 616
prophets, 41
proof-texti ng, 28
pro-nomi ani sm, 35-43
prosperi ty, 31, 58, 140
provi dence, 44-45, 340-41
Provi dence (Rhode I sl and), 313, 538
provi dences (Newtoni an), 351
psychol ogy, 4
publ i c evi l , 294
publ i c opi ni on, 419, 503, 648
publ i c school s, 627
Publ i us, 327
Puri tan Revol uti on, 19
Puri tans
ambi guous?, 243
capi tal sancti ons, 643
ci ty on shi l l , 244
Chri sti an soci ety, 261
cosmi c personal i sm, 347
covenant theol ogy, 249, 300
di scarded l egacy, 516-17
educati on, 327-28
Engl i sh, 647
experi ence, 368
hol y commonweal th, 249, 657
i nternati onal i sm, 244-45, 529
I ndi ans, 238
l i mi tati on on government, 399
l oser s, 312-13
Madi son vs. 531
Marsden on, 235-38
Mi l l er on, 285-87
new I srael , 243-45
Ni ebuhr vs., 668
Ol d Testament, 236-37
Ol d Testament l aw, 287
paradoxi cal ?, 239
pol i ti cal theory, 255-56, 645
pri de, 244
publ i c educati on, 645
sancti ons, 244, 255
strategi c error, 647
theocrats, 242-45, 249
top-down, 647
transcendence-i mmanence, 347
voti ng, 249
pyrami d, 343
Pythagoras, 336
Pythagoreans, 476
quantum physi cs, x, xxi i , 45, 348
Rakove, Jack, 418
Ramm, Bernard, 284n
Ramsey, Davi d, 312, 325
Randol ph, Edmund, 387-88, 414, 431
randomness, 44, 142, 144, 148 (we al so
chance, chaos)
Rapture, 139
rat i n Phi l adel phi a (Henry), 415
rati fi cati on (Consti tuti on)
50-50 spl i t, 456
assumpti ons by voters, 399
broken covenant, 386, 492
bypassi ng Congress, 419
Chri sti ans, 408-09, 439
confusi on, 399
Congress vs., 388
conventi ons, 492, 499
di sconti nui ty, 419
enthusi asti c Chri sti ans, 561
facti on, 499-500
Henry as pri mary opponent, 416
l egi ti macy, 386, 419, 507
new covenant, 386
new god, 492
Peopl e, 492, 495
pl ebi sci te, 419, 486
publ i c ppi ni on, 419
renewal , 419, 494
revol uti on, 485-86
Washi ngtons rol e, 421
why unani mous?, 500
Reagan, Ronal d, 175, 199, 288-89
Reconstructi on, 385n, 512 (we al so
Chri sti an Reconstructi on)
Red Ri di ng Hood, 124
Red Sea, xxi v
Reformed Presbyteri an Church,
Evangel i cal Synod, 167
Reformed Presbyteri an Church of
North Ameri ca, 711-16
I ndex
761
Reformati on, 295
regi ci de, 299
rel ati vi sm
fai th, 669-70
humani sm, 158
Marsden, 261
Ni ebuhr, 233
pol ythei sm, 158
stati sm, 158
Schaeffer, 185-87
remnant church, 566
Renai ssance, 81, 337, 477
repl acement strategy, 86
representati on
el i tes, 265-66
humani sms cl ai m, 620
I srael , 39
man, 44
Mi I l s on, 265-66
Moses, 374
pl ural i sms theory, 266-67
pol i ti cal theory, 647
Puri tans, 249
Rome, 79
supernatural , 46
what basi s?, 84
fee al so el i te, hi erarchy
rescue mi ssi on, 58, 87, 208, 629
resi dent al i ens, 62, 68, 72, 75
responsi bi l i ty
anti nomi ani sm &, 52
bl uepri nts &, 612
Chri sti an, 32
corporate, 39
fl i ght from, 32, 615, 632, 662
pessi mi l l enni al i sm, 612
pi eti sm vs. 612-13
posi ti ve sancti ons &, 31-32
predesti nati on, 37-38
sancti ons &, 291, 603
theol ogi cal , 57
worl dwi de, 612
restitution, 647
resurrecti on, 636
restrai nts, 562-64
revel ati on, 155-56, 232, 301, 341 (see
al so Bi bl e, Word of God)
Revere, Paul , 424n, 434-35
revi si oni sm, 371
revi val , xxi i -xxi i i , 558, 571, 574, 575,
578, 585-86, 610-12, 614
revol uti on
bl oodl ess (Madi son), 445
case l aws &, 578
conspi racy &, 436-37
great man theory, 436
i deas, 433, 436
i nsti tuti onal requi rements, 436
l egal , 485, 578
Masonry &, 435-39
new oath, 445
Peopl e, 541
rel i gi on of, 583
Revol uti onary War (see Ameri can
Revol uti on)
rhetori c, 241-42, 255, 275, 328, 696
Rhode I sl and
academi a, 259-60, 299
compass, 254
Consti tuti on, 380
covenant wi th, 523
di zzy, 254
fi at money, 463
hi stori ography, 259-60, 299
Moses &, 22
new concept, 313
obstructi oni st, 380
outcast, 463-64
secul ar col ony, 313-15
veto power, 458
ri ghteousness, 40
ri ghts, 328, 529 (see al so di vi ne ri ght,
natural ri ghts)
ri ots, 211-12
ri tual , 477-78
R o b e r t s o n , P a t , 1 7 6 n
Robespi erre, Maxi mi l i an, 329, 445
Robi son, James, 217
Robi son, John, 437-38
Rome
anarchy, 80
archi tecture, 536
col l apse of, 81
di vi ne State, 77
Empi re, 78
model , 536
pantheon, 78, 452, 469, 530,
536-37
pol i ti czd power, 80
strangers, 62, 72
Roman l aw, 327
roof anal ogy, 171
Roosevel t, Frankl i n, 210
Rossi ter, Cl i nton, 333, 397, 414, 458
Rousseau, Jean Jacques
Ameri ca, 391n
anti -Cathol i c, 451-52
ci ti zens, 450
Consti tuti on, 451
Darwi n &, 401-2
Enl i ghtenments l eft wi ng, 398
Hami l ton &, 388-89
l egi ti macy (i mmanent), 401-2
Locke &, 398
Madi son &, 450-52
nati onal i sm, 530
soverei gnty, 256
total i tari ani sm, 398, 402
unhol y commonweal th, 391
Royal Soci ety, 467, 476
rul ers, 23, 75 (see al so el i te,
representati on)
Rush, Benjami n, 528
Rushdoony, Rousas John
about-face (Madi son), 695-96
al chemy & revol uti on, 338
Ameri can Enl i ghtenment, 330
Anabapti sm, 702-3
anti -tol erati on, 465
authori ty, 700
Bl ackstone, 682-83
Cal vi n, 693
changes; 691-92
Chri sti an Consti tuti on, 683, 686
ci vi l l aws functi on, 689
cl osed uni verse, 501
coerci on agai nst evi l -doers, 688
col l ected works?, 211n
Consti tuti on as procedure, 675,
692, 694
Consti tuti ons si l ence on God, 657
Darwi n on l aw, 504
Darwi ni sm, 579n
decepti on, 683-86
doctri ne of authori ty, 91
dual i sm, 692-95
earl y work, 211
educati on as covenantal , 646n
el ecti on sermons, 362
Enl i ghtenment, 677-78, 688
fami l y, 646n
form vs. content (Consti tuti on),
694
Framers, 681
Frankl i n, 425-26
Freemasons, 685-86
God and l aw, 630, 689
Hami l ton, 700n
Henry, 699
humani st l anguage, 688
i dol atry, 691-92
i mperi al i sti c l aw, 158
judi ci al neutral i ty, 700
judi ci al schi zophreni a, 91
judi ci al soverei gnty, 682-83
justi ce, 690
l aw as justi ce, 690
l aw as moral code, 690
l aw as warfare, 91
Leah, 677
l egi sl ati ng moral i ty, 688-89
Madi son, 695-97
mytho-hi story, 683-87, 697-98, 700
natural l aw, 693-94
neutral i ty (l egi ti mate), 688, 692
n e u t r a l i t y my t h , 630, 688
oath (ci vi l ), 373, 683-84, 685, 697
pol i ti cal sal vati on, 689
pol i ti cal pol ythei sm, 82-93
Presi dents oath, 697
presupposi ti onal i sm, 674
I ndex
763
procedural moral i ty, 688, 694
publ i c educati on, 644
publ i shi ng hi story, 211
regenerati on before reconstructi on,
20
Rome vs. Chri sti ani ty, 77
sacramental i sm, 646n
sal vati on &judgment, 604
sal vati on by l aw, 689-90
sancti ons, 690
Schaeffer &, 175, 196-97
si l ence on Masonry, 439
si l ence on voti ng (theocracy), 703
social phi l osophy, 680
sover ei gnty, 682-83, 697-98
subversi on, 465
theocracy, 465
tol erati on, 690, 694-95
treason, 77, 690-91
Van Ti l &, 133,680,694
Wi therspoon, 317,320
works doctri ne, 689
Russi an Orthodox Church, 610
Rutherford I nsti tute, 197, 199, 206
Rutherford, Samuel, 195-97
Rutl and, Robert, 372, 427
sabbath, 639
sacraments
Chri sti an ci vi l i zati on&, 703
confusi on, 632-33
conti nui ty, 408
hi story&, 553
judi ci al , 595
Rushdoony on, 646n
Washi ngton refuses, 420-21
sai nt, 68, 69, 157
sal t and l i ght, 86-87
sal vati on
Armi ni ani sm, 155
fri l l s, 628-29
from what?, 632
judgment, 604
narrow?, 627-28
pol i ti cal , 84, 89
precedes reconstructi on, 20
progressi ve, 191
Rushdoony on, 604
souk onl y?, 627, 629
spi ri tual , 611
worl dwi de, xi v, 662
sancti fi cati on
covenantal , 51
cul tural , 20
i nsti tuti onal , 150, 159
progressi ve (we progressi ve
sancti fi cati on)
State, 208
three-fol d, 159
Van Ti l , 137-38
sancti ons
appl i ed, 640
Armi ni an churches, 626
Church, 421, 637-38
ci vi l , 69, 89, 601-2, 641
conspi raci es &, 437
Constanti ne, 629
conti nui ty, 144-47, 154, 564-66
consti tuti ons &, 648
covenantal , 48-49
covenants presence, 298, 565-66
cr eeds &, 361n
defeat of Chri sti ani ty, 160
del ayed, 635
deni al of, 59, 160, 209, 249, 257,
290, 292, 637-38, 641
di sconti nui ty, 121, 144, 154
di vi ni ty needed, 380
domi ni on &, 636
enforced, 632
escal ati ng, 567, 577-78, 626
eschatol ogy &, 141-44, 156
eternal , 69, 642
evangel i sm &, 146
fai l ure of churches, 421, 637-38
fami l y, 600-1
hatred of, 597
hi stori cal , 41, 51, 640
i nfracti ons &, 639
i nvi si bl e onl y?, 628
i nheri tance &, 50
ki ngdom, 640-43, 646
Locke, 401
764
Machi avel l i on, 82
Madi son on, 380
mi l d, 641
New Covenant, 122, 125
oath, 373, 386-87, 395, 687-88
offi cer of the covenant, 386-87
pet theori es vs., 263
progressi ve sancti fi cati on, 208-9
Puri tans, 244, 255, 287, 642
random, 142-46, 148
Reformati on &, 632-33
rejecti on of, 633, 637-38, 640
remnant church &, 566
representati ve, 41
ri val , 640
rul ers under, 75
scandal s, 626
soci al transformati on, 577-78
soverei gnty, 159, 640
States, 69, 89, 642, 647
stumbl i ng bl ock, 595
theocracy &, 640
Uni ted States, 59
Van Ti l , 161, 638
voti ng, 249
Wi therspoon, 409
see al so negati ve sancti ons, posi ti ve
sancti ons
sanctuary
judgment pl ace, 68
Madi son on Ameri ca, 448
none l eft, 660
pl ural i sm &, 189
strangers, 66-74
theocracy, 74
Sanger, Margaret, 190
sarcasm, 230
Satan
anti -l ocal i sm, 530
anti nomi an, 43-50
Eve &, 43-50
i ndi vi dual i sm, 530
ki ngdom, 529
peace promi sed by, 1
representati ves on earth, 52
squatters ri ghts, 143, 160
vi ctor i n hi story?, 152-53
worl d government
Saul , 526, 629
scandal s, 626
Schaeffer, Franci s
aborti on, 176
apol ogeti cs, 172-73, 183-84
al cohol , 167
Armi ni an fol l owem, 168-69, 174, 175
bapti sm (i nfant), 174, 218
book sal es, 174
boundari es, 183
Cal vi ni sm, 168, 218
Chi l ton &, 194-96
cl oset Cal vi ni st, 162
col l apsi ng center, 220
Complete Wodx, 167, 218
compromi ses, 173
covenant, 172
decepti on, 174-76, 184-85
earl y i mpact, 212
escape hatch, 184
faul ts, 193
fl ag, 180, 182-83
Fl i nn, 195-97
fog, 168
Gasper on, 206-7
Gol dwater, 175n
hal fway house, 170, 183-84, 218
Hol l i nger, 192
humani sms revenge, 170, 187-93
i mmi grati on, 187-90
i nfant bapti sm, 174, 196, 218
l i mi tati ons of, 169-70, 193
manna, 166
mi ni stry, 215-16, 220
movement, 206-7, 213-14
nati onal covenant, 180-85
natural l aw, 171, 185, 198
neo-evangel i cal s vs., 170, 187-93,
219
neutral i ty, 171-74, 185
no sol uti ons, 219-20
Pi ed Pi per, 187
pl agi ari sm, 194-96, 218
pl ural i sm, 170, 185-86, 190, 219,
274
premi l l enni al , 166
presupposi ti onal i sm, 171-72, 175,
218
rel ati vi sm, 170, 185-87, 191
roof anal ogy, 171
Rushdoony &, 175, 196-97
Rutherford, 195-97
schi zophreni a, 175, 218-19
si l ence, 181
sound theory, 212
spi ri t of worl d, 301
successors, 173-74
tensi on, 183-85
theocracy, 173-74, 180
transi ti onal fi gure, 175
truth, 171-72, 186
Wel l s vs., 187-91
Westmi nster Confessi on, 168,
170, 172
wilderness, 165
Van Ti l s cri ti que, 170-71
Schaeffer, Edi th, 169
Schaeffer, Franky, 176-79, 253n
Schaff, Phi l i p, 546, 551-52
schi zophreni a
i ntel l ectual , xv, 216-19, 250, 263,
293-94
judi ci al , 91
provi denti al , 353
theol ogi cal , 196
Schr otenboer , Paul, 123
sci enti fi c revol uti on, 104-5
Scopes tri al , 193n, 211, 216
Scott, otto, 675-76
screeni ng, 190, 193, 379, 387, 524
seal (we Great Seal )
seal ed tomb, 295
secrecy
Conventi on, 412-15, 417-18
I odges, 564
Masoni c, 475
sects, 446-47
secul ari zati on, 367, 372
sel f-government, 6, 67, 532, 534,
535, 585, 590, 649
I ndex
Senate
athei sts, 517
l egi sl atures el ected, 387
pagan?, 390-91
Rome, 79
separati on of powers, 381-82
separati sts, 245
sex education, 201-3
Shaftesbury, Earl of, 352
Shays, Dani el , 431, 455
Shi mei , 275, 299
Si der, Ron, 213
si l ence of the transcendent , 102-3
Si l ver, Morri s, 416, 553
Si mmel , Georg, 475n
Si nger, C. Gregg, 405, 677
si nki ng shi p, 580
Ski l l en, James, 124-25
s l a v e r y , 264, 319n, 6 0 2
Sl osser, Bob, 211n
Smi th, Adam, 453-54, 459-60
Smi th, Gary Scott, xv-xvi i i , xxi
Smi th, Joseph, 534-35
Smi th, Page, 434
snake (Athens), 77
smoki ng, 203-4
smorgasbord rel i gi on, 638
soci al acti on, 164, 176
soci al change, 577
Soci al Darwi ni sm, 99
soci al fabri c, 563
Soci al Gospel , 289
soci al order, 100, 109, 149, 464, 479
soci al theory
abandonment of, 5
anti -covenantal , 34
Chri sti an Reconstructi on, i x, 32,
130
Chri sti ani tys compromi ses, xv,
253, 461
Masoni c, 468-69
no contract, 28
pay as you go, 29
Van Ti l vs., 130, 133
Soci ni ani sm, 345
sol di ers, 46
Sol omon, 26
765
South (Ameri can), 602
soverei gnty
Consti tuti on, 386
Decl arati on of I ndependence, 524
democracy, 647
dual , 650
fi nal , 500, 502
Framers vi ew, 381, 699
i mmanent, 402
i ni ti ati ng, 500, 502
judi ci al , 502-7
l egi ti mate, 507
l egi sl atures, 378
Madi son on, 446
man, 85 (see al so autonomous
man)
money, 552-53
nati onal , 381-83, 497
Parl i ament, 377-78
Peopl e, 386, 496, 517, 647 (see al so
Peopl e)
Peopl e and Court, 440
Rousseau, 256
sancti ons, 640
transfer of, 458, 517
voi ce of, 375, 541-42
voters, 568-69
Sover ei gnty of God
el ecti on, 37
deni al , 44
Hami l ton on money, 552
hi story, 159
sancti ons, 159
surrender of, 4
Sovi et Uni on, 91, 652
Spi noza, Bamch, 576
spokesman, 541-42
Spykman, Gordon, 16n, 296, 399n
squatters ri ghts, 142, 160
St. Andrews Lodge, 474 (see al so
Green Dragon Tavern)
Stamp Act, 525n
standards, 126, 177, 183, 191, 212,
230, 575 (we al so bi bl i cal l aw)
Standi sh, Mi l es, 274
stars, 71n
State
anoi nti ng, 527
autonomous, 641-42
bankrupt, 526
Church (we Church and State)
contract theory, 82
di vi ne ri ght, 541
greatest power, 494, 501
i mmune to gospel ?, 621
i mi tati on fi nal sancti ons, 642
messi ani c, 647
negati ve, 464, 526
negati ve sancti ons, 94-95
neutral ?, 539
new god (1788), 528-29
posi ti ve sancti ons, 645
progressi ve sancti fi cati on, 208
Puri tan vi ew, 645
sancti ons, 69, 89, 642, 647
soverei gn, 494, 496
taxes, 294
unl eashed (contractual i sm), 494
voti ng, 69
zero, 641-42
state consti tuti ons, 379, 384-85, 450
state oaths (we test oath: state)
states ri ghts, 381, 392, 488
Stephens, Al exander, 312
Stoddard, Sol omon, 368
Stoi cs, x, xxi , 81, 240, 352, 681
s ton ema s on r y , 477
stranger i n the gates
. .. .
apostasy of I srael , 76
Athens, 62
Chri sti ans?, 564
educators, 75-76
mi xed popul ati on, xi i i
oppressor, 75-83
pol i ti cal l y excl uded, 28, 70-71
protecti on of, 68, 71-72
sanctua~, 66-74
soci al cohesi on, 98
subversi on by, 70-71
taxati on and cul ts, 97
vi ctory by, 75, 564
subversi on, 70, 465, 471, 680-81
suffrage, Chapter 2, 116, 661
sui ci de, 421
Supreme Court (U. S.)
aborti on, 226, 292, 396, 602
Ameri can ri ghts, 529
anti -pl ural i sm, 651
appeal beyond, 505, 509, 509-13,
517
Bork, 562
checks & bal ances (none), 509
Cherokee Nati on v. Georgi a, 510
Ci vi l W= &, 512
Congress control s, 511-13
conti nui ty, 395
decl arati on, 503-4
Dred Scott, 511
el ecti on returns, 397
Exparte McCardle, 511-12
fi nal appeal , 504, 510, 517
i nterpretati on, 381, 381, 502-4,
509, 517
judi ci al revi ew, 450, 503-4, 509-11,
517
juri sdi cti on of, 511-13
l egi sl ati on by, 503-4, 510
l egi ti macy by defaul t, 510
l egi ti mates l egi sl ati on, 502
pl ebi sci tes, 506, 511
pre-Ci vi l War, 506
pri vate property, 395-96
publ i c opi ni on, 503
sacrosanct, 503
sel f-restrai nt, 512
soverei gn, 440, 517
uni tary i nterpreter, 509
voi ce of Peopl e, 504, 517
warni ngs, 508-9
web of subjecti vi ty, 504
Worcester v. Georgi a, 510
surrender, 3-4, 91
suttee, 97
Swaggart, Ji mmy, 209n
sYl l o@m and l aw (Hol mes), 397
syphi l i s, 10
Tabernacl e, 103
I ndex
taskmasters, 295
tax deducti ons, 94-96
taxati on, 294, 584-85,
Tayl or, A. J. P., 13
tea party, 434-35
767
595-97
Templ e, 103-4, 342, 344
Templ e of Vi rtue, 434
Tennent, Gi l bert, 357-59
tenure, 248, 257, 295, 629
Terror, 329, 339, 348
Tertul l i an, 497
test oath
r
theocracy
Arti cl es of Confederati on, 379, 384
Consti tuti on, 379, 386-87, 389-92,
410, 507
central feature, 410, 699
churches &, 421, 643
courts, 383
Dei sm, 30
di sestabl i shment, 643
eschatol ogi cal sancti ons deni ed,
403
fal se, 389-90
federal soverei gnty &, 700
fi nal prohi bi ti on (1961), 387, 392
Fourteenth Amendment, 643
i mpl i ci t, 440
judi ci al athei sm vs., 568
Madi son on, 389-90, 428, 449
Massachusetts, 643, 719
natural l aw &, 393, 410
Pennsyl vani a, 463
precedent, 643
reversal , 385-86
sacrosanct, 410
screeni ng, 387
secul ari zati on, 367, 463,
state consti tuti ons, 379, 383-85,
387, 389, 450, 459, 462-63, 643
Senate, 387
testament, 383
Twca.so v, Watkins (1961), 387n, 392
Vi rgi ni a, 449
wi tness, 383
see also Arti cl e VI , sancti ons
bottom-up, 39, 157, 224, 529, 585,
590, 612, 647, 649-50
Chri sti an al ternati ves, x
consensus, 192-93, 650
cri ti cs of, 649
decentral i zed, 224, 584-85
defi ned, 207,577
democrati c, 157, 224, 649
eccl esi ocracy vs., 584
eschatol ogy (we eschatol ogy)
fear of, 582-84
humani st, 111, 193, 208
i nevi tabl e, 101-2
i nternati onal , 650
l aw-order, 631
majori ty rul e, 586
Marsden on, 238
pessi mi l l enni al , 156-57, 588
pl ural governments, 576-77, 584
pol i ti cs, 86-87, 597-602
Puri tans, 242-45
republ i c, 224, 590
responsi bi l i ty, 603
Rushdoony, 465, 702
sancti ons &, 640
sanctuary, 74
Schaeffers vs., 179-85
state consti tuti ons, 462-63
top-down, 156-57, 647
voti ng, 249, 702-3
Thi rty Years War, 105n
Thomas, Kei th, 350
ti mel essness, 363
ti the, 93-95, 595
tobacco, 209
toi l et bowl strategy, 22
tol erati on, 126, 394, 465, 694-95
tomb (empty), 635
tool s of domi ni on, 158-59 (see al so
bi bl i cal l aw)
Torcaso vs., Watkim, 387n, 392
torture, 641-42
Tower of Babel
churches vs., 83
neutral l anguage i deal , 35, 53
pol i ti cal pl ural i sm, 106, 158
pol i ti cal pol ythei sm, 85
Wi l l i ams, 247
transcendent, 102
treason, 71, 77, 426-27, 524, 690-91
tri bul ati on, 89
tri umphal i sm, 22, 584
Troost, A., 16n, 123-24, 132
truth, 171-72
Tug-wel l , Rexford, 569-70
Tul l ock, Gordon, 509
tWO gods, 591
Tyl er, Texas, 55, 59, 104
tyranny, 301, 593
tyrants, 79, 93
T~rel l , R. E., 205-06
Uni tar i ani sm
bapti zed, 515
captured Ameri ca, 630
col l ege educati on, 328
Consti tuti on, 630
covenant, 368
defi ned, 368n
di ssenters &, 333
establ i shed, 643-44
Great Awakeni ng &, 359
Jefferson, 406-7
Masonry &, 452
myth of neutral i ty, 630
Newton, 345
Newtoni an, 523
repl aced, 454
tri umph, 400, 515, 630
Uni tari ans, 408, 527, 630
Uri ah the Hi tti te, 46
utopi ani sm, 54-55, 558
Uzzi ah, 526
vacuum, 8, 368
Van Ti l , Cornel i us
ami l l enni al i sm, 136-39
anal ogi es of, 8-10, 129
anti -evol uti on, 128
anti nomi an, 27, 127, 130-31, 138
apocal ypti c, 138
authori ty, 666
Barth, 53
Index
769
Bi bl e, 666
bi bI i cal l aw, 131, 135-36, 161
Bahnsen, 134n
buzz saw, 135
cal l to battl e, 160
cause & effect, 137-39, 139-46
ci rcul ar reasoni ng, 241
common grace, 143
contradi cti on (Cl ark), 134-36
covenant model , 130-31
covenant sancti ons, 144
crack of doom, 143
creati oni sm, 128
Creator-creature, 128, 161
day of grace, 143
defeat, 608
di ke, 131-32
di sci pl es of, 9
emperors cl othes, 161
epi stemol ogy, 136
epi stemol ogi cal sel f-consci ousness,
228
escape hatch, 184
eschatol ogi cal neutral i ty, 161
eschatol ogy, 138-39, 145-46
ethi cal futuri sm, 130-31
ethi cal pl ural i sm, 161
ethi cs, 131, 135
frontal assaul t, 133
hal fway covenant system, 160
hi erarchy, 129
i ce & ri ver, 365
Job, 144-45
l aw & fl ux, 365
l etter to Si nger, 133n
Marsden &, 225
natural l aw, 129
neutral i ty, 53, 129, 140, 638
Ni ebuhrs, 672
Parmeni des & Heracl i tus, 696
passi vi sms evi l , 611
pi eti sm, 141-42
Pl ato, 365
Pl atoni sm, 346-47
poi nt of contact, 666
presupposi ti ons, 134
presupposi ti onal i sm, 171
progressi ve sancti fi cati on, 137-38
real -worl d ethi cs, 131
reconstructi on, 130
Rushdoony &, 133
sancti fi cati on, 137-38
sancti ons, 160-61, 637n
Schaeffer critique, ]70-71
Schaeffers professor, 166
Scotti sh phi l osophy, 266
secret pact, 349
si l ence of, 303
Tri ni ty, 162
Vos &, 134
washi ng, 349
weather report, 139
Van Ti l , L. John, xx, 247n
Vermont, 384-85
vi ctory, 4, 58, 151-53, 531, 606-10,
6 1 7 , 6 2 0
Vindwiae Contra ~mnno~, 376
Vi rgi ni a
Chri sti an state, 269
consti tuti on, 463, 497-98
test oath, 449
Vi rgi ni a Pl an, 414
vi rtue, 328-29, 514, 540
Visible Sai nts, 107n, 260
Vi truvi us, 342-43, 382-83
vocabul ary, 53
Vogel , Howard, 613-14
Vol tai re, 348, 426
vol untari sm, 494
voodoo, 337
Vos, Geerhardus, 136, 608n, 611
voti ng
church members, 69
common covenant, 116
compul sory, 74
retarded peopl e, 595
screeni ng, 71-72
theocracy, 621
ti thers, 597
see al so franchi se
vow, 70, 74n (see al so oath)
vox populi, 375, 648-49
770
Wal l ace, Henry, 405
Ward, Lester F., 99n
Warren, Mercy, 567
Warren, Joseph, 474
Washi ngton, George
communi on, 420-21
cornerstone, 422, 550
Farewel l Address, 529
Founder?, 311
general offi cers, 433
godfather, 428
Grand Master, 422
i l l egal act, 428-29
i ni ti ated. 423
l etters to Masoni c l odges, 424
Masoni c Bi bl e, 687
Masonry, 422-24
mi l estones, 422
nati onal i sm, 529
notes, 418
pai nti ng of, 422
prayer book, 425
stare of, 459
Templ e of Vi rtue, 434
Tri ni ty, 421-22
Wi therspoon &, 549-50
Watts ri ots, 212
Weber, Max, 692
Webster, Nesta, 432, 437-39
Wei shaupt, Adam, 428, 438, 481
Wel l s, Ronal d, 187-91, 584
Westmi nster Confessi on, 168, 170,
172, 231, 332, 347, 546-47
Westmi nster Theol ogi cal Semi nary,
285, 288n
Wheaton Col l ege, 5n, 15, 238, 277
Wheaton (pottage), 629
Whi gs
anti cl eri cal , 446, 542
col oni al pastors, 526
Commonweal thmen, 331-33
Consti tuti onal theory, 497-98
court, 498
cycl i cal theory, 497-98
Darwi n &, 494
eccl esi asti cal , 409, 526-27, 548-50
Federal i sts & Anti federal i sts, 366
hereti cal , 332-33
hi stori ogaphy, 516
Madi son vs., 497
Marsden on, 240
Masonry, 468
neutral i ty, 361n
Nel l on, 278-79
pastors, 526-27, 548-50
pol i ti cal theory, 325-26
radi cal , 340
ri di cul ed churches, 542
vi ew of hi story, 312
Whi te, Morton, 369
whi te uni forms, 17-19
Whi tefi el d, George, 357
Whi tehead, John, 176n, 197
Wi gner, Eugene, 348
Wi l l i am I I I , 429, 445
Wi l l i ams, Roger
anti -separati st, 252
authori ty, 245, 251
Bapti sts, 526
Cal vi ni st?, 238
compact theory, 248
di zzy, 253
emi grant, 250-53
Foundi ng Father, 311
Hatch on, 283
hi erarchy, 245, 251
humani sts &, 245
i gnored (pre-1776), 283
juri sdi cti on, 245, 251
Locke &, 248
Marsdens appeal to, 238-40
Methodi sts, 526
modern worl d, 313
natural l aw, 250, 260
neutral State, 114
nutty, 252
oath, 251-52
Barri ngtons vi ew, 246-49
publ i c attacks by, 245
separati st, 251
Tower of Babel , 247
Western states, 526
worl dvi ew, 538-39
Wi l son, Woodrow, 239, 679
I ndex
771
Wi nthrop, John
dream di ed, 525
Deuteronomy 30, 244
Foundi ng Father, 311
justi ce & mercy, 243
paradox?, 237
worl dvi ew, 538
Wi l son, James, 389
Wi therspoon, John
attri bute of man, 402-3
bapti zer, 409
church government i gnored, 548
Church & State, .547
common ground, 319-20
oath, 319, 493n
Rushdoony on, 317, 320
soci al compact, 319
teacher, 317-20
Washi ngton &, 549-50
Wol i n, Shel don, 78
Wool l ey, Paul , 245, 239
Worcester v. Georgia, 510
Word of God, 45, 228-29, 365
Word of God (emeri tus), 229, 582
works, 20
Worl d government, 530
Xenophon, 352
consci ence, 403
evol uti oni sm, 402-3
Yal e Col l ege, 634
Yates, Frances, 226, 349-50, 476-77
Hol mes &, 402
Yates, Robert, 414, 417
Locke &, 319
Madi son &, 320, 427, 548
Zens, Jon, 634n
natural l aw, 403 Zorn, Raymond, 607-9
Newtoni an, 349-50 Zoroaster, 593
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Gary North recei ved hi s Ph.D i n hi story from the Uni versi ty of
Cal i forni a, Ri versi de, i n 1972. Hespeci al i zed i ncol oni al U.S. hi s-
tory. He wrote hi s doctoral di ssertati on on Puri tan New Engl ands
economi c hi story and the hi story of economi c thought. A si mpl i fi ed
versi on of thi s di ssertati on has been publ i shed as Puritan Economic
Experiments (I nsti tute for Chri sti an Economi cs, [1974] 1988),
He i s the author of approxi matel y 30 books i n the fi el ds of eco-
nomi cs, hi story, and theol ogy. Si nce 1973, he has been wri ti ng a
mul ti -vol ume economi c commentary on the Bi bl e, whi ch now covers
Genesi s (one vol ume) and Exodus (three vol umes). He i s the general
edi tor of the mul ti -vol ume set, the Bi bl i cal Bl uepri nts Seri es, pres-
entl y at ten vol umes.
He edi ted the fi rst fi fteen i ssues of The J ournal of Christian Recon-
struction, 1974-81. He edi ted two i ssues of Christiani~ and Ci vi l i zati on i n
1983: The Theology of Christian Resistance and Tmtics of Christian Resistance.
He edi ted a fe.stschrt~ for Cornel i us Van Ti l , Founckti ons of Christian
Scholar~hip (1976).
He i s the edi tor of the fortni ghtl y economi c newsl etter, Remnant
Review, and the publ i sher of three addi ti onal economi c newsl etters.
He wri tes two hi -monthl y Chri sti an newsl etters, Biblical Economi cs
Today and Christian Reconstruction, publ i shed by the I nsti tute for
Chri sti an Economi cs.
He l i ves i n Tyl er, Texas wi th hi s wi fe and four chi l dren. He i s
a member of Good Shepherd Reformed Epi scopal Church, Tyl er,
Texas.
773

Political Polytheism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Political Polytheism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLITICAL

You might also like