jwaltz76

By: Johnny Waltz

America has ostensibly lost connection with its spiritual compass and in turn, moral decay has set in. In Proverbs the Lord instructs us that we must not remove the biblical principles set up for us by saying, “Do not move an ancient boundary stone set up by your forefathers.” (The Holy Bible, 1978) Many who subscribe to a secular dogma vice Biblical truth argue that God plays no part in our country’s affairs and espouse a “separation of church and state” frame of mind. The eight-word separation phrase is clearly indicative of the matter at hand, which is dualism. This mind-set forces us to partition our church life from all “worldly” affairs. With that credence, God no longer plays a vital role in all of our affairs ranging from family life to politics. The issue then, is how do we rediscover our bearings and restore ourselves on a spiritual path of rectitude. First, we must determine the proper heritage of our Free Republic and then scrutinize where we got off track.

For many years prior to the influx of our first settlers in North America, there was an environment of religious persecution and tyranny. They wanted to be free to worship and have freedom to do so without maltreatment. Substantiation of our religious foundation can be seen in the Magna Carta of 1215 in which it said, “In the first place we have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs forever that the English Church shall be free.” (Magna Carta, 1215) In the Declaration of Arbroath, they knew that they were descendents of God when they proclaimed:

Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today. (Arbroath)

In 1689 the English Bill of Rights was  established, which included the complaint that, “Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counselors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom” (English Bill of Rights, 1689)

That same year in 1689, in the English Toleration Act, freedom and “toleration” of religion was granted in paragraph XIX so long as it was, “Provided always, and be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, that if any assembly of persons dissenting from the Church of England shall be had in any place for religious worship with the doors locked, barred, or bolted during any time of such meeting together” (Browning, 1953).

Albeit, you were not given this right if you were a Catholic as evident in paragraph XVII, “Provided always, and be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that neither this act, nor any clause, article or thing herein contained, shall extend, or be construed to extend, to give any ease, benefit, or advantage to any Papist or popish recusant whatsoever, or any person that shall deny, in his preaching or writing, the doctrine of the blessed Trinity, as it is declared in the aforesaid articles of religion” (Browning, 1953).

It is perceptible the Magna Carta is the common law and the connection that makes it possible for one to partake in common law is the Confirmatio Cartarum. The Petition of Right in 1628 strikes an astounding resemblance to the same principles that we fought for in the American Revolution. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence both also bear great resemblance to the English Bill of Rights of 1689. It appears that the sowing of the seeds of freedom happened hundreds of years prior to the establishment of America.

Our first settlers had a craving to free themselves from religious persecution and establish a nation where they could plant and nurture the glory of God. They arrived in America in November 1620 aboard the Mayflower and before they reached the shores, they established the Mayflower Compact, which is in reality the first American constitutional document. In this document, they proclaimed:
We whose names are underwritten… having undertaken for the Glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and the honour of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia… (Bradford, 1952)

With this document, they were not just proclaiming rights and religious freedom but also making a covenant with the Lord. Unfortunately, events did not play out well because of the monarchy's continuation of subjecting tyranny on the colonists even though they were an ocean away.  

This brings us to the point where the colonists declare their rights, which was a yearning to secure their basic god given rights and freedoms. It is a call to their fellow brothers and sisters that they will no longer accept oppression nor will they subject themselves to the rule of a vindictive and tyrannical leader. Some will argue that the Revolutionary War was not biblically justified but if we examine it in the light as a society built on biblical principles, we can see that God does not desire the infliction of tyranny among his children. In Ephesians 6:13-17 it says:

Therefore, put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God (Holy Bible, 1978)

Taking a quote from Founding Father John Jay on the matter of fighting for independence and the biblical justification he says that,
Whether war of every description is prohibited by the gospel, is one of those questions on which the excitement of any of the passions can produce no light. An answer to it can result only from careful investigation and fair reasoning (Coleman, 1982).

John Witherspoon’s view of the justification for independence among the colonists was also because of the infliction of tyranny on them. All of their desires and consequent actions were for the rationale of the simplest desires of liberty. In the Declaration of Independence, we find this plea when they declared, “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Declaration of Independence, 1776)

By all rights, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it; and to institute new Government.” This all resulted because the monarchy had a torrid history of mistreating their own people. “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” (Declaration of Independence, 1776)

The consequences of these intolerable actions demanded justice and as Witherspoon said, “‘there is no other name under heaven given amongst men by which we must be saved.’ Unless you are united to him by a lively faith, not the resentment of a haughty monarch, the sword of divine justice hangs over you, and the fullness of divine vengeance shall speedily overtake you.” (Witherspoon, 1776).

The patriots who were calling for Independence was purely in defense of life and liberty and for that purpose, the scriptures teach us that, “In righteousness you will be established: Tyranny will be far from you; you will have nothing to fear. Terror will be far removed; it will not come near you.” Isaiah 54:14 (Holy Bible, 1978)

In contrast though, according to McGoldrick, the basis for independence based on, “The lack of popular representation in a government than does not thereby render that government illegitimate, for Jesus told the people of his day to pay taxes to an imperial regime in which they had no representation.” (McGoldrick, 1977)

Thus, in his belief, “Christian support of the American Revolution was not justified.”
The founding documents show that they were resisting a government, which abuses the biblical principles for a civil government designed by God. Another point is that they believed they were not the initiators of the conflict thus they were not the aggressors. Let us honestly look at history and see that for eleven years of trying to negotiate a peaceful compromise but was greeted only with armed aggression by Great Britain.

The Framers were citing full biblical justification in defending their homes, families, and possessions.
There is nothing in the bible that supports war but it does say that we must stand up to tyranny. I do not follow the contention that we should blindly follow our government even when they are mistreating their people. One translation of Romans 13 would want us to believe we must obey government because they are ultimately chosen by God, which is the logic behind the “Divine Rights of Kings,” and if you are to rebel against your King you are rebelling against God as well.

Philippe du Plessis Mornay established another interpretation of this in his 1579 work titled: “A Defense of Liberty against Tyrants.” The position of his work was that the ordination of a government was by God and was in reference to the general establishment rather than each individual government. In the words of our founding father, James Otis he argued that, “The power of God Almighty is the only power that can properly and strictly be called supreme and absolute. In the order of nature immediately under Him comes the power of a simple democracy, or the power of the whole over the whole…" (Otis, 1764)

Drawing from this information, the colonists had every right to declare and fight for their independence. They had a right to be free from persecution and secondly had a right to fight for their natural rights, which according to Samuel Adams is, “First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.” (Adams, 1772)
To this day, anyone would hardly remember the Revolutionary War had a motto much like in World War II, which was, “Remember Pearl Harbor.”

For the Revolutionary War this motto was “No King but King Jesus,” which came from a 1774 report to King George from the Governor of Boston who stated, “If you ask an American, who is his master? He will tell you he has none, nor any governor but Jesus Christ.”

Samuel Adams wrote a very poignant statement about our Christian based society in The Rights of Colonists in 1772 stating, “The rights of the colonists as Christians… may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institution of the Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.” (Adams, 1772)

The most resounding argument against religion in American society comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, which was an attempt to assure them that the freedom to exercise religion would never be hindered by the federal government. In this, Jefferson stated:

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State (Jefferson, 1802)

A seemingly very important fact left out in the “separation of church and state” argument is where Jefferson states, “I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.” (Jefferson, 1802) By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and Gospel do contain.” (Hooker, 1888)

Hence, “natural rights” were an assimilation of what God himself assured to man in the scriptures and thereby Jefferson was affirming that by utilizing their “natural rights” they are not violating any social duty, and confirming that free practice of religion was an inalienable God-given right and in turn sheltered from federal ruling and intrusion. It is reasonably understandable that Jefferson recognized the foundation of America’s inalienable rights and had concerns that America could not endure without them saying,
“And can the liberties’ of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?”

When you fully investigate all of the facts, the realization has to come to mind that his intention was to infer that the government will not interfere in the church’s business and not the other way around as it is misinterpreted widely today. Earlier courts understood Jefferson’s intent in comparison with those today, which erroneously only include the eight-word separation phrase. In the earlier courts, they included the whole letter in their arguments and concluded:

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions, which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (Reynolds v. U.S.)

The court followed by concisely recapitulating the true intention of Jefferson’s eight-word separation phrase by stating:
[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is]… is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. (Reynolds vs. U.S.)

Besides the true intention of the Jefferson letter, it would be wise to scrutinize the underlying and most important issue at hand. The usage of a person’s private words detached from their intended context and in turn used as a national policy is nonsensical and the likelihood of finding another instance of this practice would turn up nothing. We must take his letter and correlate it with the numerous founding documents namely the first amendment in order to gain the proper insight from it.

The misinterpretation of the eight-word separation phrase provides the clearest indication of the secular invasion our country has endured and is living through now. Secularism has created dualism in our society, which in turn creates a distortion of our view of because, “dualism blurs the valid duality between obedience and disobedience because dualism identifies obedience, redemption and the kingdom of God with only one area of life. It sees the rest of life as either unrelated to redemption or worse-under the power of disobedience, sin and the kingdom of darkness.” (Walsh & Middleton, 1984)

The other major issue at hand with our government and society turning to a secular theology is that we no longer view that we are a creation from God’s image. According to Walsh & Middleton, “This would admit both our inherently derivative, dependent nature and the normal character of the cultural enterprise. Consequently, the idea of stewardship is conspicuously absent from the modern world view.”
We have gravitated towards the belief that we as humanity are God and that we no longer need God or any icons. Either way we look at it this is nothing short of being idolatrous.

Putting this into a biblical context, we have now “sown the seeds of destruction by breaking the creation covenant.” If we persist on this course of our “God given rule of creation” acting as though we are proprietors and not stewards and continue to subvert God’s judicious and adoring commandments, the finale of man will invariably be catastrophic.

In closing, we can only hope to recapture the path of uprightness. In order to endow us with the best instruction and rewards for following the Lord is through reading our scriptures, which says, “Be dressed ready for service, and keep your lamps burning, like men waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks they can immediately open the door for him. It will be good for those servants whose master finds them watching when he comes. I tell you the truth, he will dress himself to serve, will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them. It will be good for those servants whose master finds them ready, even if he comes in the second or third watch of the night. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.” Peter asked, “Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everyone?” The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.” Luke 12:35-44 (The Holy Bible, 1978)
 
References
Adams, S. (1772, November 20). The Rights of the Colonists. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://history.hanover.edu
Arbroath (1320). The Declaration of Arbroath. Retrieved December 1, 2007, from http://www.constitution.org/scot/arbroath.htm
Bradford, W., & Morison, S. E. (1952). Of Plymouth Plantation (1st ed.) (pp. 75-76). New York, New York: Random House.
Browning, A. (1992). English historical Documents (2nd ed.). London, England: Taylor & Francis, Inc.
Brutus, J. (1683, July 21). Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos/A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.constitution.org/vct/vindiciae.htm
Coleman, F. X. (1982, Jan.-Mar. 1982). John Jay on war. Journal of the History of Ideas, 43(1), 145-151.
Declaration of Independence (1776, July 4). Retrieved November 29, 2007, from http://www.founding.com/the_declaration_of_i/id.2483/default.asp
English Bill of Rights (1689). Retrieved December 1, 2007, from http:///www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.htm
Hooker, R. (1888). . In R. W. Church, & F. Paget (Eds.), The Works of that Learned and Judicious Divine Mr. Richard Hooker with an Account of His Life and Death (Vol. 1 7th ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Jefferson, T. (1904). . In A. E. Bergh (Ed.) The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (pp. 281-282). Washington D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association.
Jefferson, T. (1984). The notes on the state of Virginia. M. D. Peterson (Ed.), Writings. New York, New York: Library of America.
Magna Carta (1215). The Magna Carta. Retrieved December 1, 2007, from http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm
The Holy Bible (1978). (New International Version, NIV). New York International Bible Society.
Walsh, B. J., & Middleton, J. R. (1984). The Transforming Vision. Downers Grove, IL. InterVarsity Press.
Witherspoon, J. (1776, May). The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=597
Wolters, A. M. (2005). Creation Regained (Second  ed.). Grand Rapids MI/Cambridge U.K.: B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145, 164, 165 (1878)