[CS-FSLUG] A view on US founding

[Clawman]

>
>
>    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)
>
>