Q1). Shouldn't we be focusing on prayer & evangelism, rather than getting sidetracked by politics?

The gospel is foundational to all our efforts, but the church has failed to grasp the powerful implications of the gospel. By limiting the gospel message to the individual soul, we have abandoned the world to the Devil over the past 100 years or so. Like the Apostle Paul, we should "not shrink from preaching the whole counsel of God."

Our personal relationship with God, followed by our relationships within our families is foundational, but we must move on from there. If not, we are guilty of pietism, as distinguished from true piety. At the heart of Jesus' teaching is the gospel, the good news of redemption through his death and resurrection.

The gospel message is summarized in the famous "Roman Road":

1) "All have sinned" (Rom 3:23),
2) "The wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23",
3) "Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8), and
4) "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Rom 10:13).

Moreover, the Bible tells us that Jesus rose in triumph over death to secure our redemption: "For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living" (Rom 14:9). But the Lordship of Christ is comprehensive. Jesus death and resurrection served not only to redeem the individual, but all of creation unto Himself. All creation fell with man and all creation is redeemed with man.

Turning again to Romans (8:21), we learn that "…the creature [creation] itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." In accordance with Jesus last Great Commission, it is the task and privilege of the redeemed to call on their fellow men to believe the gospel. Beyond this they are to teach all nations "to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you…." (Mt 28:20). Every sphere of earthly activity - church, business, art, law, education, politics, media, and everything else - is to be brought under control of the teaching of Christ.

The church has not yet awakened to the full implications of the Great Commission, but Christ will not come again until this task is accomplished. Nevertheless, the gospel of Christ has already demonstrated its power to form and transform the culture of the West. From the parables of the mustard seed and the leaven we learn that the kingdom of heaven starts out imperceptibly small, but expands to encompass everything. Jesus established his kingdom at his first coming, to fulfill the Old Testament prophets and that kingdom will expand to fill the whole earth prior to His Second Coming (Mt 13:31-33). Each man and woman is judged by God based on their response to Christ.

The only unpardonable sin is the rejection of God's free offer of mercy and forgiveness in Him. We must receive Him not only as our personal savior (Jn 1:12), but work together for that day in which He is enthroned as Lord over every realm of creation (I Cor 15:27). If we assume that society is going to be transformed automatically by some process of osmosis we are mistaken. If all scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness, do you think we have any right to ignore God's commands regarding civil government? If we turn away our ear from hearing His law, even our prayer will be an abomination. Thus, it is not an either or situation. It is true that we must start with the internal, but the internal must work itself out to influence the entire fabric of our culture, including the political life of our nation.

Q2). Didn't Article VI of the U.S. Constitution simply mean that none of the state churches established in the colonies was to take precedence over any of the others at the national level?

This is the view popularized by Christian authors such as as John Eidsmoe, Peter Marshall, David Barton (WallBuilders) and D. J. Kennedy. It's also the common excuse and the rationale that a number of the convention delegates used to justify this action in their own eyes, but the problem is that there is no neutrality with God; and if we are not for Him we are against Him . In context of the Constitution, it is clearly referring to the oath of office taken by an individual officeholder. (Quote) The anti-Federalists certainly took it to mean that, so it's not just the modern skeptic who has given it that twist. For example, Isaac Kramnick, writing in the New York Times makes this observation:

So what we find is that the Federalists used their specious interpretation of Article VI as an excuse to justify their rebellion against God. However, this rationale was challenged by many of the anti-Federalists and Christians during the debates in the state ratifying conventions.

To help you grasp the enormity of what they did, suppose Moses had come down off Mt. Sinai and said, "I know that each of the 12 tribes has different opinions about religion and you each have your own established church and I certainly don't want to create any divisions among the tribes. Furthermore, I don't want any one tribe to take precedence over the others at the Sinai level. So I've decided to delegate all religious matters to you tribes and I'm going to remain officially neutral. I'm going to allow Jehovah to compete in the free-market place of ideas, but I'm not going to give Him any special preference. If He's as great as He says He is, the truth will out, but I'm not going to give preferential treatment to any one sect.

What do you think God's response would have been to Moses at this point?

By delegating this critical issue to the states and refusing to deal with it, the founders were in effect breaking the national covenant with God. According to the principle of separation of church and state the two institutions are separate institutionally, but united in cooperation and commitment to God and His Word for the governance of their respective affairs. It is entirely possible to have a civil government that is committed to governing according to the Bible and not have a state church.

Q3). Doesn't the religious test oath violate freedom of conscious?

That's a straw man. This has nothing to do with the government trying to dictate to the conscience of all of it's citizens. It has everything to do with civil magistrates swearing allegiance to God and promising to govern according to His Word. That is the only formula for liberty, liberty under God's law. If the magistrate doesn't rule according to the law of God he will rule according to the law of man -- the 20th century alone has revealed what kind of tyranny that produces.

On the contrary, it is God dictating to a would-be ruler that if he aspires to rule under God, He is going to have to swear allegiance to God and to govern according to His law. There are numerous examples of this in scripture such as Joshua 24, Jonah 3, II Kings 23. Was that a violation of freedom of conscience? Rather than jeopardizing liberty, the religious test oath guarantees it.

Q4). But aren't we a pluralistic nation whose highest ideal is absolute religious freedom? Wouldn't a Biblical republic lead inevitably to tyranny and oppression as Christians were granted free reign to impose their religion on everybody else?

Consider this formula: Pluralism=Polytheism. Or Pluralism=Political Polytheism. In the United States of America, we've set up a Pantheon of God's -- Christianity being one -- all of which get to compete in the free market place of ideas, with the assumption that "the truth will out." The question we must ask is, "Is God pleased with political polytheism?" Certainly we have freedom of choice, but if we don't use that freedom to repent and commit ourselves to following the God of the Bible in our family, church and state, God is going to judge us. So we have a choice -- we can choose pluralism and judgment OR we can choose to commit our nation to rule under God exclusively and have blessing. As long as we insist on pluralistic idolatry in our national life we will be cursed.

Pluralism is nothing more than a sophisticated version of Roman polytheism, meaning many gods. The reason the early Christians were persecuted by Rome was they insisted that Christ was supreme among the Pantheon – that He was in fact the King of kings, a Lawgiver to whom the emperor must submit. By contrast, unwilling to rock the boat, modern Christians embrace polytheistic pluralism as the very essence of freedom. Under pluralism Christianity is just one of the Pantheon of God's competing for our allegiance every 2 years.

We've got to make up our minds: are we going to be a Christian nation or are we going to be a pluralistic nation. We can't have both because the two are utterly incompatible and at war with each other. Remember that underlying every legal system is a religion. A law is nothing more than somebody's religious principle codified into a statute. Two or more incompatible legal systems cannot coexist in a single nation long term; one or the other will prevail and suppress the other. It is literally a life and death battle -- and we've got about 30 million infant casualties and the suppression of Christianity in public life as graphic evidence of this.

Roger Williams laid the foundation of modern pluralism in colonial Rhode Island with unlimited religious toleration. The Rhode Island charter contained these words: "all men may walk as their consciences may persuade them, every one in the name of his god." That's political polytheism & it sounds hauntingly reminiscent of the famous line from the Book of Judges: "every man did that which was right in his own eyes because there was no king in Israel." On August 8, 1989 the logical outworking of political pluralism became clear to all: the Rhode Island Division of Taxation granted tax exemption to the religion of witchcraft. All covens must now be treated as legitimate churches when it comes to the issue of taxation. Rhode Island has justly earned the disparaging appellative, "Rogue Island."(cf. Gary North, Political Polythesism, p. 315)

Pluralism is not religious freedom, it is religious chaos and leads directly to the judgment of God, because God does not tolerate polytheistic rivals. So are we going to be a Christian nation or a pluralistic nation.? Will it be God or witchcraft? Will it be God or Satan?

Christ doesn't just want a place at the table, He wants and deserves to be at the head of the table. The early Christians went to the lions because they insisted that Christ alone was King -- it was that political statement that was so offensive to Rome because they refused to be pluralists; we need to follow their example and stop babbling about pluralism. When you're out witnessing to somebody don't you insist that Christ is the only way? If Christ is really King of kings, why should it be any different when it comes to civil government?

For more information about pluralism, enroll in a low-cost course, American Government & Law 1

Q5. Won't the imposition of the Law of God on society lead only to tyranny, witch hunts, etc., just like in colonial New England?

The myth persists that somehow the rule of God's law is harsh and tyrannical. On the contrary, liberty is impossible apart from God's law. It is never a question of law versus no law. It is always a question of whose law will prevail and whose law will be imposed. Will it be the law of man, which has led in this century alone to untold misery, slaughter, and tyranny, or will it be the law of God -- the perfect law of liberty.

Let me give you an example. The heart of OT civil law is restitution. We read in Ex 22:4 that "If the stolen beast is found alive in his (the thief's) possession, whether it is an ox or an ass or a sheep, he shall pay double." The thief does not owe a debt to society, but rather to his victim. If that debt is not paid in duplicate, justice simply is not satisfied, no matter how many years are spent in jail. In fact, the Bible nowhere prescribes jail terms as punishment for crime. What could be more just than compensating the victim?

Q6. Wouldn't the rights and freedom of the non-Christian be suppressed in a biblical society?

In Israel, the non-believer was referred to as a resident alien or a stranger. Strangers were not citizens so they could not vote or hold public office. However, strangers were not only given equal protection before the law (Lev 24:22 -- "Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country" ), they were given special protection under the law. They were classified with other groups needing special protection: widows, orphans, & strangers, which were worthy of a portion of the tithe.

So, while the stranger could not participate in the government, he was given greater protection and financial support under the law than the Israelite citizen. The Israelite was told to "love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" (Lev 19:33). As a further check to injustice, oppression of the stranger was dealt with by God in a very severe manner. God pronounced a very specific curse on any who would be so callous as to "afflict them in any wise....I will surely hear their cry, and my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless" (Ex 22:23-24) Violation of this provision may have been one reason God judged the New England Puritans.

Political participation does not equal freedom. The covering of God's law equals freedom & the only place you will find that is in a biblically covenanted nation. Again, we've got to make up our minds -- do we want a Christian nation or do we want a pluralistic nation. If we want a Christian nation, this what it's going to look like eventually.

In the state of Oregon, the Rajneeshees are a test tube example of what happens when citizenship is defined loosely and the franchise is not controlled. During the 1980s a pagan, Hindu religious community established itself outside the small town of Antelope in central Oregon. Thousands of devotees moved in from around the world, contributing fabulous wealth to the cult.

The cult leader was the Bagwahn Shree Rajneesh, who lived a life of opulence and decadence in the midst of the colony. He possessed a fleet of more than 15 Rolls Royces, which his worshipers bestowed upon him. A picture in the Portland Oregonian showed them all lined up in the central Oregon desert. All of Oregon was in turmoil.

After a year or two, enough of the Rajneeshees had established residence in the town of Antelope to elect the mayor and city council. They thereby institutionally evicted the original inhabitants, many of whom had lived there all their lives. Their property became next to worthless and many moved away. Their way of life and unique culture was decimated by the foreign "invaders." The same thing has happened on a much larger scale in modern America.

Unger describes the stranger's entry into citizenship in ancient Israel as a formal covenant with the people of God: "Should he desire to enjoy the full rights of citizenship a stranger submitted to circumcision, thus binding himself to observe the whole law...."

Q7. Sure the founders referred back to Roman law, but doesn't Roman Law bear remarkable similarities to Biblical law?

There are similarities, but we've carried over many of the critical weaknesses, as well. The main thing is, if we don't start with the Bible as our foundation we're going to eventually run into problems. It's like missing a button when you are buttoning your shirt. While there are similarities, the big problem is that we have also imitated the polytheism of Roman law, by adopting an official policy of political pluralism. As noted social commentator Otto Scott put it....

Like the Romans, we've got "the form of godliness while denying the power thereof."

Q8) But in New Testament times aren't we under grace, not law?

Yes, but what does "not under law" really mean? That phrase comes from Romans 6 and in the context of the passage, it means that we are not under the condemnation of the law as regards our salvation, but it does not mean that we are released from obligation to live according to the law as regards our sanctification, both individual and corporate. The Reformers spoke of three uses of the law. One use was as a schoolmaster to reveal our sinfulness and need for a Savior. A second use was as a guide for our personal obedience. And the third use was political. Calvin referred to I Tim 1:8-11 as proof that the Old Testament law was obligatory on governments in the New Testament era.

Here we learn that Old Testament law against such crimes as murder, homosexuality, kidnaping, perjury, etc., is applicable to civil government in New Testament times. Modern governments are not left to improvise when it comes to the codification of law. They are required to look to biblical law, not natural law, as the model. There is no liberty apart from the law of God.

If we find this third use difficult or offensive, we need to ask ourselves 2 questions:

The biblical doctrine of law rejects salvation by works of the law, Old Testament ceremonial observances which have been fulfilled in Christ, and manmade traditions added to the Word of God (Mk 7:7-9). However, it upholds the lawful use of God's law as a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ and as a standard of personal and political righteousness.

Q9) In developing our political formulations, shouldn't we try to develop common ground with the unbeliever rather than get caught up in all this bickering about the Bible?

Let me try to put that question in a broader context and relate it back to the founders. In developing our political formulations there is a strong temptation to try to establish common ground with the unbeliever in order to avoid contention about the bible. Unfortunately, this temptation has led to untold grief in the church over two millennia.

With the notable exception of Jefferson most of the founders wanted nothing to do with the left-wing of the Enlightenment -- freethinkers like Rousseau, Voltaire & Hume. However, the founders were avid disciples of the men of the right-wing of the enlightenment often referred to as Scottish common sense rationalism: Locke, Witherspoon, Blackstone, Grotius, Pufendorf, Montesque, Burke, and others.

Most of these men were Christians, or at least gave lip service to the Bible. Witherspoon as we have noted was a Reformed Presbyterian pastor. Locke also quoted Scripture especially in his First Treatise on Government. Blackstone likewise has a wonderful exposition on the superiority of Revealed Law in the introduction to his commentary on the common law, although he elevates natural law to the same level as biblical law. But then he makes only 13 references to Scripture in his entire 4-volume commentary. If this was a systemization of the common law almost all linkage to scripture was ignored or abandoned.

The temptation goes like this: The natural man does not accept the Bible and we certainly don't want to impose our religion on the non-Christian. But in common with the unbeliever we seem to have our ability to reason together, therefore let's agree together on some common principles of government, apart from the Bible. The problem is the Bible gets jettisoned in the process. We invent noble sounding categories to describe truth: Natural law, law of nature, self-evident truth, etc, ignoring the more orthodox classifications of general revelation & specific revelation. General revelation is clear, but limited and intended to drive us to the specific revelation of God's word for propositional truth.

The problem with natural law comes when we try to derive propositional truth from nature. The classic example is Thomas Jefferson when he said, "we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal...." How do you know when you've got a self-evident truth by the tail, or just a run-of-the-mill truth, or a half-truth, or an untruth. Only by the Bible. It would be just as easy for someone else to look at nature and conclude "we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created unequal -- and in fact the strong exist to cull out the weak." Behold evolution! Neitsche picked up evolution and adopted it to the socio-political sphere. The Nazi's picked up Neitsche and behold WWII -- all because of natural law and our refusal to stand forthrightly on the Bible.

This has been a problem in the church for two millennia. In a futile effort to establish common ground with the unbeliever, Christians have abandoned God's Word in favor of natural law, common sense, traditional values, human rights, pluralism and conservatism. You name it -- anything but the Bible. Usually we don't forsake our formal commitment to the Bible and to Christ, but we compromise it with these philosophical idols. Even at the lowest points of her apostasy, Israel never rejected the formal worship of Jehovah. But they introduced idols to compete with Him, which of course, God does not tolerate. As Herbert Schlossberg has written, these are Idols for Destruction."

For more information about pluralism, enroll in a low-cost course, American Government & Law 1

Q10 Weren't the founding fathers of America strong biblical Christians who used the bible as "their great political textbook"?

This is the view popularized by Christian authors such as as John Eidsmoe, Peter Marshall, David Barton (WallBuilders) and D. J. Kennedy. It is difficult to criticize the moral fibre of these men and the fact that they were religious, but it is not difficult to criticize the quality or the essence of their faith. I know I'm treading on holy ground here, but we've got to get beneath the religious rhetoric and examine what they actually believed. This comes out in the documents that they produced as we have seen, but it is also in their own writings and in the writings of those who knew them very well. As to Washington, consider this quote from his own pastor, Dr James Abercrombie, assistant rector of Christ Church in Philadelphia:

The fact that Washington refused to participate in the ceremony of Christian Covenant renewal is clear evidence that his covenant commitments lay elsewhere. One of those commitments was most certainly to the anti-Christian oaths of Freemasonry; the evidence is overwhelming that he was not simply a mason, but a mason of the highest rank. Even the oaths required of the Blue Lodge, the supposedly innocuous first three degrees, are a blasphemous violation of the 3^rd commandment. The name of God is invoked to sanction the crime of murder. Please refer to the documents on "Washington the Freemason".

The Washington enigma is perhaps best explained in a book by Paul F. Boller called "George Washington & Religion." Boller was an evangelical trying to make sense of the huge volume of conflicting material about Washington -- not a skeptic or a liberal. He concluded that when Washington died, he held such a commanding stature in America that there was a strong tendency for writers to portray Washington, religiously, in their own image and busily accumulated pious fables about Washington's religious habits, most of which cannot be substantiated.

Other examples abound. For example, Christian historian, Gary DeMar pointed out a few years back that a quote commonly attributed to James Madison was actually uttered by his cousin, Pastor James Madison, not "the Father of the constitution." That quote says in part that, "We have staked the future of all of our political institutions...upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves...according to the Ten Commandments of God."

Benjamin Franklin was without question a Deist and a moral pragmatist. He was a close friend of George Whitfield, but never accepted his Calvinist Christianity, as recorded by both men. Jefferson, although not at the Convention, was a rationalist who believed in the supremacy of human reason to judge all things, not the Bible. This is evident in the Jefferson Bible, in which he excised all the miracles of Jesus? Hamilton became a Christian late in life after he had done a lot of damage relative to the Central Bank, etc. John Adams was a unitarian, who denied the deity of Christ.

Thus, there is considerable evidence to suggest that many of the key founders were not as evangelical in their faith as we may have been led to believe. Is it possible that John Eidsmoe, David Barton (WallBuilders), Peter Marshall, and D. J. Kennedy may have misinterpreted the evidence? Regardless of what we may think of their Christian faith, it is clear that their faith was diluted by enlightenment rationalism, as we have seen.

Unitarian, rather than Deistic, is probably the best way to characterize them, because they almost never referred to Jesus Christ in their public utterances and certainly did not perceive Him as Lord of the political realm. Their's was a civic religion whose purpose was to aid the government, not be an integral part of it. Religion was seen as the handmaiden to the state. This would explain why they produced a document after the pattern of II Timothy 3:5, "having the form of godliness, but denying the power thereof."

Their personal convictions & beliefs aside, the point of debate is that the document they gave us is not a thoroughgoing Christian document. We can't assume consistency of doctrine just because someone tells us that they are a Christian and frequently employs religious terminology.

Q11) But wasn't Israel's Theocracy unique and not meant to be applied to the Gentile nations?

As a matter of fact, the national covenant with God was not limited to Israel in the Old Testament. Deut 4:6,7 says, "Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people..And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law...." Israel was to be a witness to the nations round about her, who would be attracted and converted to the law of God. The King of Ninevah in the book of Jonah (3:7) is a prime example of this. (Also Amos chapters one and two provides a negative example)

Q12) But doesn't the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantee freedom of religion?

Well, sort of. Men like John Eidsmoe, David Barton (WallBuilders), Peter Marshall, and D. J. Kennedy usually point to the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Any way you look at it, that's not any kind of positive commitment on the part of the Federal government to conduct its affairs in compliance with the Bible. As Jesus said, "He who is not for me is ultimately against me." What the Constitution really guarantees is religious neutrality and that is not acceptable from a Biblical point of view. Neutrality leads ultimately to slavery. What we are really saying to God is....OK God we're going to allow you compete in the free market place of ideas here, but we can't give you any special preference.

Q13) Wasn't the Constitutional Convention Illegal?

Yes it was, but Christian historians such as John Eidsmoe, David Barton (WallBuilders), Peter Marshall and D.J. Kennedy usually sweep this evidence under the rug. 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 alternation be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state"

Article VII of the Constitution ignored Congress and the state legislatures, declaring that approval of 9 state conventions would abolish the Articles:"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine states shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution.

Q14) Are you one of those scumbag dominionists?

The concept of dominion has gotten a lot of bad press recently, but it actually has quite a noble tradition. It would appear from scripture that even God is a dominionist. For example, Psalm 72 says that "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. May his foes bow down before him, and his enemies lick the dust! Yea all kings shall fall down before him; all nations shall serve Him."

Charles Spurgeon -- known as the Prince of Preachers -- commented on this Psalm in The Treasury of David that "David was not a believer in the theory that the world will grow worse and worse, and that the dispensation will wind up with general darkness, and idolatry. "Not so do we expect, but we look for a day when the dwellers of all lands shall learn righteousness, shall trust in the Saviour, shall worship thee alone, O God...." For centuries this was the blessed hope of the church; the phrase "Church Triumphant" was used to describe the anticipated cultural victory.

Let me ask you this. Twelve spies went into the promised land. Ten returned with an evil pessimistic report & two said, "sure the giants are big and the walls are high, but we are well able to overcome it." If you were there, would you have stood with the ten spies or with Joshua & Caleb? If you said Joshua & Caleb, I guess that makes you a dominionist then, doesn't it? More and more we need the attitude of Joshua and Caleb, who said, "We are well able to overcome it". Likewise, we are well able to make disciples of the nations just as Jesus told us to do.

Q15) Isn't this really Christian Reconstruction?

With that question, we're really getting into hermeneutics or biblical interpretation, and that's the difficult task for the entire church. What applies today and what doesn't? It seems to me that before we talk about that, the fundamental issue is that we've all got to agree the Word of God is our standard in the political realm -- not conservatism, not traditional values, not human rights, not natural law, not common sense and not pluralism. We've got to make up our minds: Is the starting point in the political realm going to be the Word of God or do we continue to let everyone "do what is right in their own eyes."

That should be something we can all agree on and you'll notice that the civil covenants we see in the Bible are usually stated in general terms in which the leader simply promises to govern in accordance with the Bible. Once we've crossed that hurdle, we can all work together to hammer out the details. The fundamental issue is are we willing to swear allegiance to God's word or not. The Reconstructionists have done some work in the area of social ethics as have other groups, Chuck Colson for example -- none has the final answer. The whole issue of biblical ethics has surfaced again in the past 20 years. We've been out of practice for a long time, so we're all learning together to apply the word of God to the broader culture. I'm committed to helping make the Word of God the standard in the political realm. Wouldn't you agree that that's what we've got to do? If that makes us Reconstructionists, so be it. Let's get out there and reconstruct together.

Q16) It's true that the Constitution doesn't refer to God, but isn't it linked to the Declaration of Independence, which is the real founding charter and clearly appeals to God?

There is abundant evidence, both internal and external to the document, proving that Jefferson modeled the Declaration of Independence after the social contract. Most obvious are its appeal to autonomous human reason rather than the Bible, and the fact that the source of governing authority lies in the "consent of the governed" rather than God. Apart from the document itself, it is common knowledge that Jefferson was a devotee of John Locke, the father of social contract theory.

In addition, it’s worth noting that all three of the key writers of the Declaration - Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin - were Unitarian in theology, according to Dr. John Eidsmoe in "Christianity and the Constitution." All three denied the foundational truth of Christianity, that Jesus Christ is God and therefore King of kings and Lord of lords today. If a man denies the Trinity he denies the deity of Christ and by necessary corollary the Lordship of Christ. How is it possible for three heretics to sit down and come up with a covenant that is pleasing to God? "A good tree brings forth good fruit, and an evil tree brings forth evil fruit." See the "Declaration of Dependence on God" (under "Renew the Covenant" link) for a rewrite of the Declaration in biblical terms.

A right understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity is an absolute necessity for Biblical government, as Rushdoony has ably demonstrated in "Foundations of Social Order." This doctrine provides the only adequate solution to the philosophical problem of the one and the many: how to integrate the freedom of the individual with the necessity of the state.

The efforts of some Christian leaders like John Eidsmoe, David Barton (WallBuilders), Peter Marshall, and D. J. Kennedy to confer "sainthood" on Thomas Jefferson are at the same time amusing and distressing. Jefferson more than any man is responsible for the exile of Christianity from public life in America. He held that each individual sect was free to teach its peculiar doctrines, e.g. the trinity, within the confines of its own sphere. However, in the public arena men must agree to a generalized public morality based on their ability to reason together, not on the Bible.

Jefferson was extremely successful in converting the churches to this rationalistic/dualistic view of religion in the public square, Jonathan Witherspoon being the prime example. In Jefferson and Witherspoon we have the paradox of two men at opposite extremes on the theological scale, who nonetheless found common cause in the social contract and natural law. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out which one gave up the most philosophical ground.

What we have in the Declaration is a brilliant piece of wartime propaganda, couched in vague but emotionally exhilarating language that both the American Calvinists and the French Atheists could get excited about. The French Revolutionists loved that kind of language. Both sides could read their own meanings into the phraseology and rally to the cause and this has continued to the present day. The Declaration pays lip service to "nature's god" (whoever that may be), but the source of authority to which it appeals and on which it rests is emphatically not the God of the Bible. Its source of authority is the autonomous mind of man (self-evident truths) and the social contract (deriving its just power from the consent of the governed).

There is, in fact, only a handful of references to the Declaration in the convetion notes. At one point, James Madison in his preface to debates in Convention said, "the Congress finding moreover that the popular voice began to call for an entire and perpetual dissolution of the political ties which had connected them with Great Britain, proceeded on the memorable 4^th of July, 1776, to declare the 13 colonies, independent states. During the discussions of this solemn act, a Committee consisting of a Member from each colony had been appointed to prepare and digest a form of Confederation, for the future management of the common interests, which had hitherto been left to the discretion of Congress…It appears that as early as the 21^st of July, 1775, a plan entitled "Articles of Confederation & Perpetual Union of the colonies" had been sketched by Dr. Franklin.

In other words, Madison viewed the Declaration as a bridge to the Articles of Confederation, which were to establish the government. Madison clearly believed that whatever governing authority did exist resided in the Articles of Confederation which were no to be replaced by the Constitution under consideration. The Declaration was not a Charter of Incorporation, but rather exactly what it declared itself to be, a Declaration of Independence. It dissolved one set of political bands, but did not establish another.

If the Constitution were really linked to the Declaration, we would expect to see words of anticipation on September 17, like, "This is the moment -- we've totally ignored God for the last 4 months, but now let's sign and date this thing so we can make the historic link back to our Christian roots in the Declaration." But the discussion of the signing on the final day in the Records contains no special reference to the Declaration as the foundational document.

If this link did exist, the Founders did not seem to give it any special attention. Most of the discussion focused on the willingness of delegates to lay aside their personal dissatisfaction with parts of the document and endorse it as the best that could be done for the good of the whole. Franklin expressed his conviction that the sun on the back of the President's chair was a rising sun, not a setting sun. If the Founders did link to the Declaration it seems to be accidental, not self-conscious.

For more information about pluralism, enroll in a low-cost course, American Government & Law 1

Q17) But according to Hal Lindsey and Dave Hunt, doesn't the world have to get worse before the second coming of Christ?

Of course, this is way off to the side; whether Christ comes back in 2 years or in 2000 years, it's still our job to apply the Word of God to every area of life. However, prophetic expectations have a powerful impact on the actions of men and institutions. The cultural impotence manifested by most of the church during the 20^th Century was due in large measure to her defeatist eschatology.

This requires that we give consideration to the nature of the kingdom that Jesus inaugurated during his earthly pilgrimage. For example, John the Baptist announced that the Kingdom of God was at hand and that Jesus said that if He "by the power of God do cast out demons, you know that the kingdom of God has come upon you". Moreover, He said that the kingdom would grow like a tiny mustard seed to fill the whole world. The Kingdom of God is not awaiting the Second Coming of Christ for its fulfillment. If the Devil can thwart God's command for His followers to disciple the nations what does that say about the power of God relative to Satan? Do you think Jesus would give us this great command, if He didn't expect it to be fulfilled?

It is impossible to arrive at an informed judgment on the issue of eschatology without spending time with some of the great Post-Millennial authors. Two excellent books of recent vintage are Paradise Restored by David Chilton and An Eschatology of Victory by Marcellus Kik. These books expose the many inconsistencies and unexplained passages of the pre-millenial position. They demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that the apocalyptic language of Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation is describing the Destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the end of the Jewish dispensation, not some Great Tribulation in the future.

The two positions are best summarized by the attitude of the 12 spies. It's either "we are grasshoppers in their sight" (pre-millenialism) or "we are well able to overcome it" (post-millenialism). Do we want to continue to be losers for Jesus in history and wander in the wilderness of cultural impotence for 40 years, or do we want to be winners for Jesus and believe he meant what He said when He told us to disciple the nations?

Q18) If covenantal government is so great, why did the Puritans deny women the right to vote?

This really gets to the heart of the differences in a Democracy & a Republic & explains why America's founders limited the franchise to male heads of households. When God deals governmentally with the three institutions in society -- church, state, and family he always deals with representatives freely selected by the people. This includes elders in the church, magistrates in the state, and husbands in the family. When eve sinned, God went to Adam as the responsible party. A universal franchise flies in the face of this principle and puts men and women in a potentially confrontive rather than cooperative relationship. It's a statement that there are two governmental heads in a given family.

In early colonial days, the basic governmental unit of the family was given a single vote. That vote was cast by the husband after careful deliberation with his wife. Rather than pitting men and women against each other, they found contentment in cooperating within the God-ordained roles assigned to each.

Q19) What was the cause of the War Between the States?

The War for Southern Independence was the first installment in God's pay-as-you-go judgment plan for rejecting His covenant "four score and seven years" earlier. Christian historians such as John Eidsmoe, David Barton (WallBuilders), Peter Marshall, and D. J. Kennedy usually fail to make this connection. It was not just the South, but the entire country that was being judged. With the Civil War, the process of centralization of power in the Federal Government began in earnest.

It's interesting to note the role reversal that we've seen in the two parties since the Civil War. Today we think of the Democrat Party as the Party of Centralization and the Republicans champions of state's rights. But in those days it was quite the opposite. Lincoln's primary motive was preserving the union -- political centralization -- with slavery just a convenient spark plug to ignite the conflagration.

The fact that Republicans claim Lincoln as one of their patron saints is an indication of the tremendous confusion surrounding this era. There is boundless hypocrisy associated with the whole era. For example, Virginia had voted on nearly 20 occasions to outlaw the slave trade, but in each case was prevented by the North, who owned most of the slave ships. That was one of the things that was so galling to the South. They felt that the emotional issue of slavery was being abused and the abuse of slaves vastly over-stated, to accomplish an underlying political agenda to destroy state's rights.

To give a modern-day example, it is possible to collect antedotal evidence to prove that we have an epidemic of child abuse and use that evidence to suppress the rights of the vast majority of families. In the 1930s the federal government compiled over 10,000 pages of interviews with former slaves in its 40-volume Slave Narratives. Eighty-six percent of the former slaves described their masters as "good masters," according to Steve Wilkins in America: The First 350 Years. Ten percent described their masters as "hard masters," and only four percent said they had "cruel masters."

In many, if not most cases, slaves in the old South were purchased for much the same reason that Christians today engage in overseas adoption: to rescue them from a life of hopeless paganism. Their condition was usually happier, healthier and more secure than that of the typical European wage earner, who always had to wonder where the next meal was coming from.

A study of slavery in the Bible reveals that God condemns the slave trade as a capital offense, but it does not condemn slave owning under certain historical considerations -- it certainly regulates it and requires the kind treatment of slaves, but it does not condemn it (Eph 6:5; Col 3:22-4:1). If we condemn slavery, without exception as "morally unacceptable", in the same breath we condemn the Apostle Paul (Philemon 11).

If the South was right, why then did she lose the war, especially after so remarkable a beginning. It was not until Gettysburg that the vastly outmatched Southern army was finally beaten decisively and crippled permanently. A student of the battle can only stand in awe at the sovereignty of God, which frustrated Lee’s best efforts and seemed to employ the foibles of his three generals – rather than northern superiority – to defeat him.

As a matter of fact, the South wasn’t right. Although the practice of slavery in the South was generally mild and of a familial character, the legal structure governing it was not compatible with Biblical laws governing slavery. This left the weak and helpless in society unprotected, thereby permitting abuse in extreme cases and provoking the judgment of God. This did not, however, excuse the slanderous and violent approach to the problem employed by the northern abolitionists.

So we have a choice: Are we going to listen to the Bible or are we going to listen to the 19th Century abolitionists who plunged the nation into a dreadful war to appease their sanctimonious version of morality. They chose to ignore the example of the British, who gradually abolished the slave trade peacefully over a 30-year period. In so doing, they firmly established the federal government as the supreme and unquestioned fountain of political authority in the United States of America.

Ultimately, we are met with the same perplexing question faced by the prophet Habakkuk, who foresaw the approach of the Chaldean barbarians to judge the people of God. Why does God use the wicked to judge His people? Habbakkuk provides the answer: "Therefore the law is slacked, and judgment doth never go forth: for the wicked doth compass about the righteious: therefore wrong judgment proceedeth" (Hab 1:4). Our appeal must be to the mercy of God in judgment following the example of the prophet, "O Lord, revive thy work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make known: in wrath remember mercy." (Hab 3:2).