Social Compact vs. Covenant with God

Given its apparent fidelity to biblical doctrine embodied in such governmental doctrines as the separation of powers, Republicanism and federalism, what possible fault can we find with the United States Constitution? Was it not birthed at a period in our history when Christian influence was much stronger than it is today? Has it not presided over one of the longest and most prosperous eras of human freedom in the history of the world?

In spite of its many admirable qualities, the Constitution represents a sharp break from the Puritan concept that government must rule by Divine authority. It introduced the radical notion of religious neutrality to civil government. With the exception of one oblique reference to Deity ("Year of Our Lord, 1787") the Constitution leaves God out of the picture entirely.

Thus, the U.S. Constitution represents an attempt by autonomous man to enjoy the blessings of God, apart from God himself. There is no higher court of appeal beyond the Constitution itself, or its official interpreters in the Supreme Court. This in spite of the fact that many of the founders were to one degree or another "Christian" in outlook, if not in fact.

Earlier documents such as the Mayflower Compact and a number of the colonial Constitutions were forthright covenants with the Triune God. For example, the Mayflower Compact, signed by the Pilgrims in the Mayflower off Cape Cod, begins with the words:

God is clearly acknowledged as party to the covenant and His glory is upheld as the primary interest to be protected. Noted Constitutional historian, E.S. Corwin comments on the Mayflower Compact that "Whereas with Locke the ultimate basis of authority is supplied by natural law, here it is supplied by God." Likewise, the Preamble to the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut contains these words:

Notice that the authority is the Word of God and maintenance of the purity and peace of the gospel is the main concern. In like manner, the Magna Carta, the great charter of English liberty, opens with these words:

God is here acknowledged as the supreme Partner in the civil covenant. The Magna Carta was also a good example of the biblical doctrine of Interposition. In 1215 the English Barons led a bloodless revolt against the tyrannical and licentious King John. In the meadow of Runnymeade they forced him to sign the Great Charter, defining and limiting the power of civil government.

All of these documents recognized the futility of attempting to erect a civil edifice apart from God. As Benjamin Franklin observed in his famous speech at the Constitutional Convention, "Except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it" (Ps 127:1). Unfortunately, his co-laborers failed to hearken to his summons for a local clergyman to bless the daily proceedings of the convention. In the Franklin manuscript the following note is added: "The Convention, except three or four persons, thought Prayers unnecessary."

CONSTITUTION ABANDONS COVENANT

In contrast to its predecessors, the U.S. Constitution is a secular document with no substantive reference to the God of scripture. The opening words identify the sovereign covenanting authority: "We the people of the United States....do ordain and establish this Constitution" [emphases added].

There is no reference to God, His glory, or the authority of His revealed Word. The people are made the focal point, the locus of authority, and the sovereign grantors of power. Intentional or not, this is undiluted humanism, albeit conservative humanism. Man is the measure.

In effect, this was an attempt to establish a religiously neutral civil government. This attempt was perhaps not self-conscious, but the outcome has nonetheless been the same: political and cultural disaster.

The American Constitution is to civil government what a common law/Justice of the Peace marriage is to a family. A couple married by a Justice of the Peace have no higher authority than the state to sanction and bless their union. By contrast, a couple married in a "church wedding" invoke God as the Lord of their union and appeal to his blessing upon it. Under the Constitution, the American people have no higher authority than the state to sanction and bless their union.

The rationalizations offered for this obvious neglect are myriad, but trivial. The usual excuses are to the effect that the various Protestant denominations were jealous of each other and there was the possibility that one or the other would be established as the official state religion. Therefore the convention left religious matters to be handled by the states.

For example, John Eidsmoe explains, "There was general agreement that the federal government would not establish any one of those state churches as the new federal church thereby creating resentment among the others, or interfere with any of the state establishments. A religious reference could have created divisions."

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.

On the face of it, the Constitution is a pure expression of the social compact. Following in the footsteps of John Locke, John Witherspoon described the social compact as "an association or compact of any number of persons, to deliver up or abridge some part of their natural rights, in order to have the strength of the united body, protect the remaining, and to bestow others." In his Lectures on Moral Philosophy editor Jack Scott notes that "The central tenet of Witherspoon's political philosophy in common with those of other American revolutionists was the theory of the social contract."

Madison and many other of the founding generation were disciples of Witherspoon, President of the College of New Jersey (Princeton). Witherspoon looked to "sturdy common sense," rather than biblical law as his source of authority in the civil sphere. His rationalistic approach to Scripture as it speaks to the civil magistrate is abundantly evident from his Lectures on Moral Philosophy, which were prepared for the senior class at Princeton and considered the culminating course of the college curriculum. They are based far more heavily on human reason and speculation than on biblical exegesis. Madison drank deeply at this well.

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.

However, it is entirely possible to enter into or renew a civil covenant with God without establishing a state church. Under the biblical doctrine of separation of church and state both institutions are independent of each other, but equally responsible to God and His Word. A correct understanding of this doctrine would preclude the establishment and financial support of a particular denomination by the government. It was just as improper for the colonies to adopt this practice as it would have been for the federal government.

However well meaning or ignorant of this principle the founders may have been, it has proven to be a fatal error. God will not be ignored. A nation rejects or neglects God and His Word at its own peril. The founding generation may have assumed the presence of God in the national charter, but subsequent generations obviously have not.

The Federalist Papers are generally regarded to be the most authoritative commentary on the Constitution and the intent of the founders. They reveal that Madison and Hamilton were extremely concerned about the leavening influence of "faction." Madison in particular was concerned with the tendency of factions to be "actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens...." (Federalist #10). This is a legitimate concern.

But Madison saw faction emanating from a variety of sources, not the least of which was religion: "The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man...a zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points...." [emphases added]. Rather than providing the glue which binds a Christian society together, Madison regarded religion as a divisive and impotent force for social cohesion. "...we well know," he said, "that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control [for faction]." [emphasis added]

We also find this in sources other than the Federalist. For example, in Madison's Detached Memoranda in the 1946 "William & Mary Quarterly" (3rd Quarter) Elizabeth Fleet notes Madison's concerns about "the danger of silent accumulations & encroachments by Ecclesiastical Bodies" and "the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government." He also lamented that, "The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles."

The First Amendment as well as his earlier Memorial & Remonstrance in Virginia make it clear that Madison believed government should keep its hands off the church. But he also believed that religion should reciprocate and have little if any influence on civil government. He was committed to the ideal of a secular republic and a strict separation of church and state.

In the place of religion Madison exalted the republican model as the remedy which "promises the cure for which we are seeking" (Federalist #10). This is a form of idolatry: exalting the design however excellent above the Designer, the creature above the Creator (Rom. 1:25). This would be similar to the Jews rejecting God, while clinging to and relying on the beautifully designed temple and external form of temple worship (Jer. 7:4,5).

When men reject self-government under God they become slaves. It was not necessarily wrong for the Israelites to ask for a king, for a constitutional monarchy or kingship subject to the Law of God (Deut. 17:18-20) was typologically interwoven with the destiny of Israel. The kings of Israel, David in particular, were used as illustrations of the great King the Messiah who would one day deliver the people from their transgressions.

However, their attitude was one of rejecting God as God and establishing civil government in His place as ultimate source of authority, power, security and provision. They wanted a king to govern them like all the nations, not a king to govern according to God's Law (I Sam. 8:5). Samuel warned them that this action would lead to their enslavement. They were being conformed to the world, rather than providing a model to which the world would be attracted:

This passage demonstrates the power of God's Law as an evangelistic tool when properly administered by godly civil government. The nations around Israel would be attracted by the justness of God's Laws and yield their allegiance to Him.

Just as it was not wrong for the Israelites to ask for a king, it was not wrong for the founders to ask for a republic. However, it was just as devastating for the founders to reject the civil authority of God as it was for the Children of Israel.

In summary, we note that among other things, two key elements of any covenant, are: 1) specification of the parties to the covenant; and, 2) the details of administration. As we have seen, if a national organic document is in fact a covenant with God, then it must state this clearly in the Preamble. A covenant, as opposed to a contract, includes God as Party to the agreement.

The second key element is a delineation of how the covenant is to be administered. If a covenant is made with God, then it must spell out the nature of the authority to whom God has delegated administration of the covenant. Who represents the people before God? If these two elements are missing, it is impossible to claim that the document represents a covenant with God. In fact, if these elements are absent or distorted, it is possible to argue that the document represents a national break from covenant with God. This covenant had been established earlier in the Mayflower Compact and the various colonial charters.

We have seen how the Constitution broke with the legacy of earlier civil covenants that were very forthright in their reference to God as the primary Party to the covenant. Next we will examine the issue of delegated authority.

THE BIBLICAL RELIGIOUS TEST 

In the Bible God specifies the qualifications of the men to whom He delegates civil authority. The qualifications for public office delineated by the Old Testament were fear of God, ability as evidenced by success in other spheres of leadership, and demonstrated character able to resist pressures (bribes, etc.) to temporize justice. According to Deut. 1:13, Judges in particular were to possess wisdom and understanding.

Because successful government moves internal to external through the several spheres of government self, family, church, civil we may conclude that the qualifications for success at the inner levels are prerequisites for success in civil leadership. These are detailed as qualifications of elders and deacons in I Tim. 3:1-13. They include, among others, commitment to the marriage covenant, temperance, hospitality, gentleness, and dignity.

The civil magistrate is called the "deacon of God" in Romans 13:4. This is one reason why faith was a prerequisite for holding public office in colonial America. Rus Walton notes that "eleven of the first 13 colonies required faith in Jesus Christ and The Bible as basic qualifications for holding public office. In New Hampshire, until 1877, state senators and representatives were required to be of the 'Protestant religion. Piety and the fear of God is the prime and principal qualification in those who sit chief in places of authority,' insisted Joseph Belcher, in a sermon delivered at Dedham in 1701"

It is impossible, of course, for a government to function in a God-fearing fashion apart from the direction of godly men. Only a people of firm religious character will properly value and tap such men for office. In the Old Testament these are listed as wisdom, understanding, ability, fear of God, honesty, name recognition, and freedom from covetousness (Deut. 1:13 & Ex. 18:21).

No system of government, no matter how carefully crafted, no matter how closely patterned after the Word of God, can endure apart from personal purity in the lives of its citizens and its public officials. Only a people whose lives are being molded by the Word of God will produce the quality of leadership that can avoid abuse of governmental power. Thus, true religion is the essential qualification for public office. Apart from the preservative influence of Christianity, government and culture can only deteriorate.

CONSTITUTION ABANDONS RELIGIOUS TEST

It is this fundamental qualification that the Constitution bluntly rejects in Article VI. It states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." As we have noted, earlier Colonial constitutions had required such a test. For example, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut specified that "the Governor be always a member of some approved congregation...." Likewise, the Massachusetts constitution of 1780 required the following oath: "I________, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth."

We often hear Christians asserting that even though the founders excluded all mention of God from the Constitution, they never intended to separate Christianity and the state. Innumerable Supreme Court briefs, quotes from contemporaries, and legislative pronouncements spanning 100 years or more are cited in support of this assertion. But once again, the only sure source of the founder's intent is the founders themselves, most notably the Father of the Constitution himself, James Madison.

What exactly did the founders mean by "no religious test?" The Federalist Papers do not appear to deal directly with this passage in Article VI. However, there are several references in the Federalist indicating that the founders were confused regarding the role of religion and the doctrine of separation of church and state. In Federalist #57 Madison wrote, that "no qualification of wealth, of birth, of religious faith, or of civil profession is permitted to fetter the judgment or disappoint the inclination of the people."

Madison apparently saw faith as somehow blinding the minds (fettering the judgment) of the electorate to more pertinent qualifications for public office. In Federalist #52 he added that "the door of this part of the federal government [House of Representatives] is open to merit of every description...and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith." Thus, by his own admission, Madison regarded virtually any qualification except religious faith as requisite for public office.

The key founders were clearly influenced by Christianity. Madison, for example, studied under Rev. John Witherspoon at Princeton, as previously noted. But they apparently believed in a kind of practical, civil religion; a common sense ethic that would be inclusive of a fairly broad range of religious faith. Thus, Unitarians Franklin and Jefferson were welcome in the fold.

In addition to Madison, Witherspoon influenced many of the delegates to the Constitutional convention. He was a Presbyterian minister who gave a big boost to Scottish, common sense rationalism and established it as a credible school of thought within the church. This was a branch of Enlightenment thought that advocated a form of common sense politics, not explicitly Christian. Thus, natural law rules in the public sphere; there is a common ethic that governs all political entities. For example, we seem to find universal laws against murder in all civilized societies.

James Hefley described Madison as one who had attended Princeton and once considered the ministry. However, his commitment to Scripture was problematic:

Madison and the Federalists argued in some of the state ratifying conventions that "no religious test" referred to a prohibition of one sect's taking precedence over another. Edmund Randolph also expressed this opinion at the Convention in Philadelphia. However, if the text is taken literally it is difficult to escape the implication that it refers to an individual's qualification for office, such as the requirement of some states that officeholders belong to a Protestant congregation. At the very least, it was an unfortunate and dangerous choice of words, given the familiar use of test oaths by the states and the ease with which the phrase may be applied to religion in general, not just denominations.

The anti-Federalists certainly believed that it had reference to the undermining of Christian qualification for office. It was fairly obvious from the several colonial constitutions what the phrase was referring to; i.e. a religious qualification for public office. Thus, it is not just modern pagans who have given it that interpretation.

The founders rightly saw the danger of establishing or subsidizing any particular Christian denomination. However, in their zeal to disestablish all denominations at the national level, the founders also imprudently disestablished religion, and thereby God.

Regardless of what the founders may have meant, latter day heretics have taken their words at face value to reinforce the radical view that Christianity should be excluded from the public square. The seemingly innocuous seeds sown so many years ago by the founding fathers are today bearing a bitter harvest indeed.

For example, Isaac Kramnick, writing for the New York Times in an article critical of the "religious right" makes this observation:

He went on to note that "An anti-federalist in North Carolina wrote: 'The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic...Pagans, Deists and Mahometans might obtain office among us.' For another North Carolinian, David Caldwell, the prohibition of religious tests 'constituted an invitation for Jews and Pagans of every kind to come among us.

Of course, such statements constitute political heresy for the modern political pluralist. They are the epitome of "political incorrectness."

Rexford and Carson have interpreted this section to mean that "Every official in the United States...is on oath to uphold the Constitution. Religion, however, can never have anything to do with the question of eligibility of an officeholder in the United States." This is the common interpretation. In other words, government officials are required to swear allegiance to civil authority, but not to the religious authority of God. This is a key facet of the American civil religion as embodied in the secular state. There is therefore no recognized recourse to the Court of Heaven or the Law of God.

It is rarely mentioned that strong Christian men opposed ratification of the Constitution. Even more rarely mentioned are the reasons for their opposition. Given the desperate position into which we have been driven by the Constitution, it would behoove us to consider the arguments in opposition advanced by such stalwarts of the faith as Patrick Henry.

Patrick Henry was among the most forthright Christian statesmen of the founding era. It may be difficult to criticize the moral fiber of many, if not most of the founders, but it is not difficult to raise questions concerning the essence and depth of their faith. Quotes from the founders on religion and Providence are seemingly endless. Christians thrill to these quotes, but it is rare that the exact nature of their Christianity is examined in detail.

Why, for example, did George Washington refuse to take communion for most of his adult life, thereby (in effect) excommunicating himself from the Church of Christ? Why are his public references to the Lord Jesus Christ almost non-existent? Why did Washington aspire and attain to the rank of Grand Master in the Masonic lodge, a lodge in which each promotion requires the applicant to swear to an anti-Christian oath?

When it comes to Washington's religious/philosophical bent there is simply too much of a mythical or legendary nature to rely on anything other than primary source documents. These would include such things as Washington's own public and private correspondence and the writings of those who knew him extremely well, such as his pastor.

Washington's own pastor during the 8 years of his Presidency -- Dr. James Abercrombie, Assistant Rector of Christ Church in Philadelphia -- had grave doubts about the state of Washington's soul. While his wife went forward to kneel with the communicants on communion Sunday, Washington always walked out the back door. Rebuked indirectly from the pulpit, he acknowledged his offense and promised never to attend church on communion Sunday, a promise that he kept. Dr. Abercrombie left us these words: "That Washington was a professing Christian, is evident from his regular attendance in our church; but, Sir, I cannot consider any man as a real Christian who uniformly disregards an ordinance so solemnly enjoined by the divine Author of our holy religion, and considered as a channel of divine grace."

There is no doubt that Washington thought and spoke highly of Christianity as a socially cohesive force in society. He was convinced of the sovereignty of God in the affairs of men. Further, he strongly encouraged chaplains in the Continental Army and served in a leadership capacity in his local church, attending about once a month. However, we must not confuse "Churchianity" with Christianity. Church attendance was with Washington a social obligation and a means of expressing his humanitarianism.

On the question of Washington's Masonic connections, the only safe ground, once again, are the writings of Washington himself. There is an oft-repeated statement of Washington's used to demonstrate his indifference to Masonry: "to correct an error that you have run into, of my presiding over English Lodges in this country. The fact is I preside over none, nor have I been in one more than once or twice within the last thirty years." John Eidsmoe quotes this passage selectively to make it look like Washington was disavowing all Masonic connections: far from "Presiding over the English lodges in this country" as Snyder supposed, he had not been in a Masonic lodge "more than once or twice within the last thirty years."

However, J. Hugo Tatsch interpreted that to mean simply that Washington never presided over nor frequented any English lodges in this country, but that this did not exclude the American lodges of which he was an active member. There is too much of a laudatory and sympathetic nature in Washington's private letters to various lodges to deny that he was a lifelong, practicing Mason.

Masonic memorabilia and monuments related to Washington at various sites all over the country are a secondary line of evidence. These might be classified as "archeological" evidence. The Washington monument is, of course, laden with Masonic symbolism.

Some have argued that much of this is from Masonic sources and is therefore unreliable. However, much of what we know about ancient Egypt is from ancient Egyptian archeological evidence. The Egyptians, of course, worshiped the sun, moon, and various other aspects of the natural world just like the Masons. Do we therefore reject all archeological evidence from the Egyptians?

There are also objective, or at least independent, newspaper accounts testifying to the fact that many of these events in which Washington functioned in his official capacity as a Mason actually occured. For example, we have a painting of Washington laying the cornerstone of the United States Capital in Masonic garb, as chronicled by the Columbian Mirror and Alexandria Gazette of September 25, 1793. This painting was reissued by the White House Historical Association on their By the People calendar in 1993, 200 years after the event.

"Unitarian" not "Deistic" is perhaps the best way to characterize many of the key founders. While some were members of Trinitarian churches, men like John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and most likely Washington, were Unitarian in outlook. Unitarianism, or Socianism, is characterized by a denial of the Divinity or active Lordship of Jesus Christ in the affairs of men.

Patrick Henry, however, was cut from a different cloth. He was one of the most forthright Christian statesmen of the founding era. Not only did Patrick Henry oppose ratification of the Constitution, he refused the invitation to attend. Why?

Constitutional historian Forrest McDonald makes this observation: "Neither Sam Adams nor John Hancock of Massachusetts nor Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry of Virginia chose to come (Henry did not because, he said, "I smelt a rat"; the others offered no excuses)."

Henry complained of the illegality of the Convention in ignoring the explicit instructions of Congress not to scrap the Articles of Confederation. "The Federal Convention ought to have amended the old system," he protested, "for this purpose they were solely delegated: the object of their mission extended to no other consideration."

Delegate William Paterson of New Jersey had advanced the same objection during the first three weeks of the Convention. "If the confederacy was radically wrong," he argued, "let us return to our states, and obtain larger powers, not assume them of ourselves....If the subsisting confederation is so radically defective as not to admit of amendment, let us say so and report its insufficiency, and wait for enlarged powers." Paterson's plan to correct the weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation was rejected by the Convention after about three weeks.

Further, by calling for independent ratifying conventions in each state the Constitutional Convention was making an end run around local governmental bodies. In so doing they sidestepped the strong resistance they knew existed in many of the duly constituted state legislatures. The ratification procedure was explicitly illegal because the Articles of Confederation clearly specified that any changes must be approved by Congress and every state legislature (Article XIII).

The delegates had been given writs which authorized their assembly "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations..." Article XIII of the Articles forbade that "any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state" (emphasis added). Article VII of the Constitution ignored Congress, declaring that approval of nine state conventions would abolish the Articles: "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution...."

The states as states were thus completely bypassed in an appeal to "the people"; the state legislatures were excluded from the confirmation process. Were the state legislatures happy about this? Hardly. The procedure specified called for the state legislatures to name the times and places of their corresponding ratifying conventions. Edmund Morgan recounts an instance where 19 anti-Federalists in the Philadelphia legislature deserted the capitol before the vote. This prevented further business for lack of a quorum. Two of them were located by the Sergeant-of-Arms and carried forcibly by a mob back to the state house to complete the quorum.

In effect, the procedure chosen amounted to a bloodless coup against the existing order, as some of the anti-Federalist tracts argued. All of the proceedings were shrouded in secrecy by an oath of silence. The veil of secrecy was not pierced until after the death of the last delegate (Madison) when their notes were finally made public. Looking back from the perspective of 200 years, Edmund Morgan notes,

For 24 days in the Virginia ratifying convention, Patrick Henry led the opposition against ratification of the Constitution. According to Long, "In the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788, Patrick Henry protested with vehemence against the proposed new Constitution's lack of sufficient safeguards against governmental abuses due to human weaknesses among its officials, saying:"

He recognized the danger of establishing power even ostensibly limited power in the hands of men apart from the possibility of recourse to God and Divine Law. This is the essence, indeed the very definition of tyranny: ruling apart from any reference to the Law of God.

Hamilton and others down played the threat that the new government would not respect the limits placed upon it "as was being asserted by those who were extremely fearful of any central government with substantial powers and were arguing in favor of stricter and clear limits on Federal power. Chief among these were Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee and Samuel Adams." The prophetic foresight of these Christian statesmen is all too obvious as we survey the wreckage of the American Republic over two centuries later.

John Eidsmoe calls attention to the fact that "Henry did succeed in persuading the delegates to approve resolutions calling for amendments to the Constitution in the form of a bill of rights. Henry also advised those of his supporters who threatened violence if the Constitution was ratified, to peaceably submit to the new Constitution, and to work for passage of amendments which would safeguard personal liberty."

Unfortunately, even the safeguards of the Bill of Rights, for which Henry so eloquently argued, have been inadequate to overrule the inherent secularism of the body of the Constitution. These bulwarks have failed to withstand the winds of 20th Century skepticism because they are built on a foundation of sand (Matt. 7:24-27). In the teeth of this intrinsic secularism, modern Christians protest in vain that the First Amendment was never intended to separate God and government.

CONCLUSION

The United States Constitution breaks with the tradition of previous civil documents that were forthright covenants with the God of the Bible. The Constitution is a secular document, which ignores God and represents therefore, a breach in earlier national covenants with Him. Reinforcing the secular nature of the Constitution is its denial of a religious test for office. This was a basic feature of most of the earlier documents and a biblical imperative. These fundamental flaws were recognized by strong Christians of the founding era, who strenuously resisted its passage.

It is well known that many of those attending the Constitutional Convention were church members and Christian, at least in the nominal sense. However, because of their failure to reason self-consciously from the Bible, we are forced to conclude that their Christianity was seriously compromised by the natural law humanism of the 18th Century Enlightenment. Noted social commentator Otto Scott put it this way:

We gain little by clinging to an interpretation of history that pretends the founders and the document they produced are something other than what they really were. We need to take what is good from the Constitution, admit the problems, and then move forward to correct them. Until we acknowledge the problems, we will never be able to move on to the desperately needed solutions.

In the current political climate, it would be obviously risky to call for a Convention to introduce sweeping changes in the Constitution. This is especially true given the precedent of the first Convention in exceeding its legal authority. However, as Christians regain the ascendancy in American political affairs, it will be imperative to amend the Constitution to reaffirm the national covenant with God. God and the authority of His Revelation must be ensconced in the Preamble and the religious test oath must be established once again as the essential qualification for public office.

END NOTES