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.
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," C. Greg Singer; no longer available online]
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.
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. 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
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. 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
17 July 2004
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: People of honor need no copyright laws; they are only too happy to give credit where credit is due. Others will ignore copyright laws whenever they please. If you are of the latter, please note what Moses said about dishonorable behavior -- "be sure your sin will find you out" (Numbers 32:23)