[CS-FSLUG] A view on US founding

[Ed Hurst]

The Secular Birth of the US


While we place History at the head of the Social Sciences, it is clearly
more art than science, and a very murky art, at that. The very nature of
this art, by definition, is to seek knowledge of past events, which can
only come from records. Where there was no attempt to record events, we
call it "pre-history." The records we do find we acknowledge are likely
to be highly biased. "History is the story written by the winning side."
There is no pretense of knowing for certain what events transpired, but
rather the interpretation of those events. If the records are numerous
and varied, we are more comfortable asserting events. If the recorders
seemed to take pains to report without bias, we give them higher
credibility. Aside from that, historians maintain a certain amount of
skepticism, and even cynicism, regarding those records.

When a historian tells you this or that happened, and it was because of
certain motives, it is assumed you are aware of these reasonable doubts.
Events of the past are determined by the same rules of evidence as in a
court of law. "Insofar as we are able to determine, this is what
happened..." say the judges and juries. We expect those passing judgment
would have looked into the mirror and realized they themselves could not
be certain at all times what motivates their actions. We infer motive
from action. That it is something taken too far of late, with the likes
of "hate crime" legislation -- the current failure to consider other
possible motives, or to allow for the simple results of chance -- these
do not discredit a carefully reasoned look at probable motives in history.


The American Revolution

When preparing for my teaching certificate, I emphasized American
Colonial and Civil War History. Already middle aged at that time, I had
the mental discipline to read a good bit beyond the assigned text,
digging into some of the source documents. After finishing my studies, I
continued to read while teaching. On top of this, I had already engaged
Theology and Bible History academically for two decades. I never had the
money to attend seminary, but managed to pester a few ThDs and PhDs in
the field for suggested reading. This does not put me on some high level
above the common lay believer and non-historian, but helps to explain
that the articles I reference here are not my sole sources.

    It has been increasingly recognized by historians of American
    culture and thought that behind the political philosophy of the
    American Revolution, as it found its expression in Locke and the
    Declaration, there lay a view of God and of human nature which was
    not Christian but Deist, which was not orthodox and conservative but
    radical. It thus follows that the American Revolution in its basic
    philosophy was not Christian, and the democratic way of life which
    arose from it was not, and is not, Christian, but was, and is, a
    Deistic and secularized caricature of the evangelical point of view.
    ["The Roots of American Democracy,"
<http://www.christiancounterculture.com/articles/american_democracy.html>
    C. Greg Singer, ChristianCounterculture.com.]

We American Evangelicals have been so deeply versed in the righteousness
of our national birth that only secularists, liberals, and other cranks
dare to question it. The article linked above turns the tables on that
assumption. It is quite long and heavy reading, yet I can assure you
that the arguments were immediately recognizable to me. It's one thing
to absorb a lot of historical data; it's quite another to interpret that
data, especially in light of Scripture. The author has a wealth of data
behind his assertions, and his analysis of that data is reasonable. I
had not previously seen it in this light, but I can't simply shoot it
down. When I apply the analytical tools of the historian's and the
theologian's crafts, I find his contention is far too solid.

While discussing Deism as a major influence, Singer does not flatly
claim that the majority of our national architects consciously held such
a religious identity, but that those men were moved by beliefs derived
from the sort of Deist philosophy that arose from the Enlightenment. He
traces the rather new concept of individual human rights to a clear
departure from the Puritan theology of the day. To invest the power of
consent to rule in the citizens was a revolutionary concept, quite
literally, which figures dominantly in the Declaration of Independence
and other organic documents. This contradicts the biblical concept that
the ruler is primarily responsible to God first. God's Word does not
absolve the ruler from being responsible for having a regard to the
genuine needs of those he rules, but it also does not automatically vest
those ruled with a right to revolt if he fails. Indeed, under the
secularist/Deist philosophy ascendent during the Colonial Period, with
the assumption that man is good and just from birth, it becomes his duty
to revolt on the slightest provocation. There is no reference to seeking
God's direction first, as is the consistent standard in the Bible.

The distinction between the biblical and the Deist view arises from
opposite assumptions. The Deists placed Reason over Scripture, but did
not wholly reject the latter. The result was an ethic that bore some
resemblance to Christianity. Scripture permits revolution when there is
strong evidence of God's favor on it; Deism encourages such decisions
based on Natural Law. It is this Natural Law assumption that was behind
Jefferson's comment that he hoped there would be a bloody revolt every
20 years or so. The seductive power of this seemingly biblical principle
was enough to seduce even Jonathan Edwards on some points. Edwards and
Jeffereson could convince themselves they were still believers in the
Gospel of Jesus Christ, yet they depart from Scripture because the areas
of departure seemed so plausibly right and holy.

It was this near lawless zeal that caused the failure of the Articles of
Confederation. One might deduce that a bit of this was cynically spurred
on by Deists to ensure their justification for doing away with them.
Singer notes that the original radical democracy was displaced later by
a more sober nationalist feeling. Singer is somewhat gentler in dealing
with the writing of the Constitution, and fails to note fully that it
reflects but the next stage in the secularist philosophical development
of our Founding Fathers.


The US Constitution

Indeed, the US Constitution itself contains strong anti-Christian
elements, dressed up in high language. Those who promoted it most
strongly were consciously adhering to Deist philosophy, and it was
soundly rejected by true men of the Word
<http://www.ismellarat.com/chapter.htm>. It was itself a revolt against
the Articles of Confederation, which they saw as too much beholden to
the Puritan legacy here in the US. These signers of the Constitution, if
true to their stated beliefs, would not be so alarmed by modern
interpretations as some have claimed. "Original intent" is not so holy
and righteous as some believe. The current dominant anti-Christian
culture and philosophy in the US is pretty much what they hoped to
create, though they could hardly have predicted how uncivilized it would
become. The real revolution in America -- against Christian faith as the
source of political thinking -- had already taken place before 1776.

When we examine the composition of our US Constitution, we naturally
hear the raucous debate as to whether it shall be regarded as a
Christian document, or whether it is at least founded on Christian
motives, or is just so much noise expressing popular sentiments of the
time. So much of this is clouded by a powerful assumption that the US is
somehow a special creation of God, rather like Israel was in the Bible.
Such an assumption is based on a rather shallow analysis. In the
founding of Israel, we have a clear statement that here was a covenant
with God, who becomes the titular ruler of all. There is an equally
clear statement that this covenant is given by God Himself, not produced
on any human initiative. God did not send prophets announcing He had
bound Himself to us. Further, to the degree that God is not also the /de
facto/ ruler, there is a distinct expectation of consequences from His
hand. Our Constitution offers no such assurances. Indeed, it clearly
states in its opening lines that God is excluded. The document is purely
secular, founded on the authority of the people alone.

    The problem is that there is no neutrality with God. Jesus said that
    "he who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather
    with me scatters" (Matt. 12:30). The founders were correct in
    refusing to establish a particular denomination at the federal
    level. However, they were not correct in using this as a pretext to
    evade the covenant responsibilities of the national government to
    God. By transferring this central issue to the states and refusing
    to deal with it, the federal government was in effect revoking the
    national covenant with God. That oath had been sworn before God
    years earlier in the Mayflower and renewed in many of the colonial
    constitutions....

    Because they don't understand God's covenant dealings with mankind,
    most Christian writers speak approvingly of the social contract, or
    gloss over it. Some will state in passing that it is simply a
    secularized version of the covenant as though this was of no
    consequence. However, this theory is in direct contrast to the
    biblical covenantal model, which invokes God as the primary
    Participant and involves a direct appeal to His Law as the Standard
    and Source of authority. The Constitution has none of this. It is
    "We the People", not God ordaining "this Constitution for ourselves
    and our posterity" and there is no reference at all to His Law.

    Some have excused this on the grounds that the civil authority of
    God was assumed by nearly all of the leaders of this country in the
    eighteenth century. That is the crux of the problem. We assume that
    they assumed this based on a profusion of religious language and
    fail to deal with the precise nature of what they actually produced;
    i.e. a Lockean social contract in all its particulars that overtly
    excluded the religious authority of God (not the church) over the
    state. This may not have been self-conscious on the part of the
    founders: they may not have understood the extent to which they were
    departing from the biblical, covenantal model that was embodied in
    many of the colonial constitutions.

    [Quoting Otto Scott] Far from being the ideal document hailed and
    heralded in a sea of campaign oratory, the Constitution was a
    lawyer's contract that claimed no higher law than its managers, who
    represented themselves as reflecting the will of the people. Since
    such a will was undefined and undefinable, lawyers made up the rules
    and procedures of government as they went along, within limits that
    were often ignored, slyly subverted, or poorly guarded. In effect,
    the Founders had recklessly placed the government in the position of
    what ancient Greeks called a "tyrant" which, in its original sense,
    meant a rule without divine authority.

    Constitutional Defects <http://www.ismellarat.com/chapter.htm>

While the US may at one time have been dominated by true believers, that
condition quickly passed. The elite political class formed immediately
wherever there were enough people to justify any government at all.
Aside from that brief period of enlightened government under the various
state and local covenants, where the ultimate authority was expressly
placed with God, the rich and powerful were largely Deist and Unitarian.
They attended church because it was fashionable. Their work shows they
claimed a loyalty to the will of the people, not God, and even there it
was a smoke screen. While individual states may have been Christian in
character, the US was never a Christian nation. Once it became a
singular republic, it had no higher authority than the will of fallen
men. The written words of the Constitution don't even give the pretense
of putting God first.

Now, what does this require of us today as servants of Christ? First,
let's acknowledge that we cannot find redemption in political activity.
Such activity is not inherently sinful, but it cannot possibly be
inherently righteous, either. Neither party has a valid claim on
furthering the cause of Christ. Stating or implying otherwise is
blasphemy. A particular legislative issue may overlap in places known
principles of biblical righteousness, but a given law cannot make any
claim to assert the will of God. This nation turned her back on God from
the start, just like every other secular national government in the
world today. There is no unique covenant claim on His favor. Our only
hope is to delay His hand of judgment by our individual faithfulness to Him.

Second, while we may seek to hold others accountable for sin, there is
nothing in the mechanism of government that stands for God. We are
admonished to obey in a broad sense, but holiness cannot be found in
anything approaching slavish subservience to the civil law. It is not
sacred; civil religion is pagan idolatry. God is not the state, and the
state is not God. One can be quite godly and orderly in refusing to
submit to evil requirements <resistancetheology.html>. That generally
sensible laws can become evil in certain applications is a clear
indication that one cannot craft human laws to cover all possibilities.
When the demands of civil law point to transgressing the Law of Love
from Jesus Christ, we are bound to obey Him and disregard such civil
law. We do so knowing it may well cost us something.

Third, by the Lord's guidance and power, we are to build up the Kingdom,
with no regard to borders of men. Our true citizenship is in the Kingdom
of Christ. Patriotism for one's nation is no sin, but it certainly can
be carried to sinful excess. Patriotism for the Kingdom cannot be a sin,
regardless of our depth of devotion to it. My closest brothers in the
Spirit may well be at work against the interests of my worldly nation,
and we cannot call that sin. We may well fight their actions, but we do
not fight the brothers. Just as Jeremiah warned Israel not to resist the
conquering Babylonians (Jeremiah 21), because of their rejection of
God's authority over them, so we too will face the day when
righteousness will mean capitulation. Lacking Israel's covenant
protections, who are we to expect God will not likewise one day turn our
nation over to her enemies? It is approaching blasphemy to level the
charge of sin against a brother in Christ who does not support every
aggression our government takes against other lands. True believers can
be found in every uniform, and every military action is likely to send a
Christian home to Heaven. To prevent doing so by our hands may not be in
our power. Combat survival calls for zealous and quick action. Success
calls for celebration. It does not call for dancing on the graves of the
fallen.

To live in peace does not mean "go along to get along." It means having
the peace of God that comes from careful reflection on what He requires
of us, and a deep desire to stand before Him with clean hands. It will
almost certainly bring us into conflict with our world.

    For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against
    Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls. You
    have not yet resisted to bloodshed, striving against sin. Hebrews
    12:3-4 (NKJV)


-- 
Ed Hurst
-----------
Software Freedom Day - 28 August 2004
Got freedom?
http://www.softwarefreedomday.org/
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]