Topics: Bibles & Religion

John Locke: Deist or Theologian?

Many law and history professors and uninformed historical writers commonly assert that John Locke was a secular political writer or a deist. Often, these claims are made without the logical effort of studying Locke or his writings directly. (Rather, the views of other writers who wrote about Locke are studied!) If you have such a professor, or hear such assertions, here are a few helpful questions that you can use:

Questions About John Locke that Demand An Answer

  1. In 1669, John Locke assisted in the drafting of the Carolina constitution under which no man could be a citizen unless he acknowledged God, was a member of a church, and used no “reproachful, reviling, or abusive language” against any religion.1 How can the constitutional requirement that no one can become a citizen (1) unless he acknowledges God; (2) be a member of a church; and (3) not attack religion, be considered a secular political philosophy?
  2. Many of Locke’s political ideas were specifically drawn from British theologian Richard Hooker (1554-1600), whom Locke quotes heavily in approbation throughout his own political writings.2 If Locke draws so heavily from (and frequently cites) a theologian throughout his own political works, how can it be true that his political philosophies were totally secular?
  3. In his most famous political work, his Two Treatises of Government, Locke set forth the belief that successful governments could be built only upon the transcendent, unchanging principles of natural law that were a subset of God’s law. For example, he declared:

    [T]he Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions must . . . be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God.3

    [L]aws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.4

    How can Locke’s declaration that the laws of legislators must be conformable “to the will of God” and that human laws cannot contradict “any positive law of Scripture” be considered part of a secular political philosophy?

  4. Locke’s Two Treatises of Government were heavily relied upon by the American Founding Fathers. In fact, signer of the Declaration Richard Henry Lee declared that the Declaration itself was “copied from Locke’s Treatise on Government.”5 Yet so heavily did Locke draw from the Bible in developing his political theories that in his first treatise on government, he invoked the Bible in one thousand three hundred and forty nine references; in his second treatise, he cited it one hundred and fifty seven times. How can so many references to the Bible in Locke’s most famous political work be reconciled with the charge that his political philosophies were totally secular?
  5. While many today classify John Locke as a deist, secular thinker, or a forerunner of deism,6 previous generations classified John Locke as a theologian. 7 How can the charge that Locke’s political philosophies were totally secular be squared with the fact that he was long considered a theologian?
  6. John Locke’s many writings included a verse-by-verse commentary on Paul’s Epistles. He also compiled a topical Bible, which he called a Common Place-Book to the Holy Bible, that listed the verses in the Bible, subject by subject. Then when anti-religious enlightenment thinkers attacked Christianity, Locke defended it in his book, The Reasonableness of Christianity as Delivered in the Scriptures. And then when he was attacked for defending Christianity in that first work, he responded with the work, A Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity. Still being attacked two years later, Locke wrote, A Second Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity.8 No wonder he was considered a theologian by his peers and by subsequent generations! How can a theologian who wrote so many books on the writings and doctrines of the Bible and Christianity (and who frequently cited the Scriptures in his political writings) also be a writer whose political philosophies were totally secular?
  7. Significantly, when during the Founding Era it was charged that Locke was a secular writer, it drew a sharp response from law professor James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and an original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court. Wilson declared:

    I am equally far from believing that Mr. Locke was a friend to infidelity [a disbelief in the Bible and in Christianity 9]. . . . The high reputation which he deservedly acquired for his enlightened attachment to the mild and tolerating doctrines of Christianity secured to him the esteem and confidence of those who were its friends. The same high and deserved reputation inspired others of very different views and characters . . . to diffuse a fascinating kind of lustre over their own tenets of a dark and sable hue. The consequence has been that the writings of Mr. Locke, one of the most able, most sincere, and most amiable assertors of Christianity and true philosophy, have been perverted to purposes which he would have deprecated and prevented [disapproved and opposed] had he discovered or foreseen them. 10

    How can the charge that political philosophies were totally secular be explained with the claim by such a prominent legal authorities that Locke was “one of the most able, most sincere, and most amiable assertors of Christianity”?

Endnotes

1 John Locke, A Collection of Several Pieces of Mr. John Locke Never Before Printed or Not Extant in His Works (London: J. Bettenham for R. Francklin, 1720), 3, 41, 45-46.
2 John Locke, Two Treatises on Government (London: J. Whiston, etc., 1772), passim.
3 Locke, Two Treatises (1772), II:285, Ch. XI, §135.
4 Locke, Two Treatises (1772), II:285, Ch. XI, §135, n., quoting Hooker’s Eccl. Pol. 1. iii, sect. 9.
5 Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, August 30, 1823, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), XV:462.
6 See, for example, Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, ed. John Bowker (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 151; Franklin L. Baumer, Religion and the Use of Skepticism (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & Company), 57-59; James A. Herrick, The Radical Rhetoric of the English Deists: The Discourse of Skepticism, 1680 – 1750 (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1997), 15; Kerry S. Walters Rational Infidels: The American Deists (Durango, CO: Longwood Academic, 1992), 24, 210; Kerry S. Walters, The American Deists: Voices of Reason and Dissent in the Early Republic (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1992), 6-7; John W. Yolton, John Locke and the Way of Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956), 25, 115.
7 See Richard Watson, Theological Institutes: Or a View of the Evidences, Doctrines, Morals, and Institutions of Christianity (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1857), I:5, where Watson includes John Locke as a theologian.
8 Encyclopedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, 1911, s.v. “John Locke.”
9Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828), s.v. “infidel.”
10 James Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor (Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, 1804), I:67-68, “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation.”

God: Missing in Action from American History

(First published in the June 2005 issue of The NRB Magazine magazine)

American history today has become a dreary academic subject. Yet, most who are bored by American history view Bible history quite differently: they love the stories of David and Goliath, Daniel and the lion’s den, and Peter walking on the water. So it’s not that people don’t enjoy history, it’s just that they don’t respond favorably to the way American history is currently being taught.

One reason Bible history is interesting and American history is not is that the Bible (as well as American education during its first three centuries) utilizes biographical history – that is, it presents history through the eyes and life experiences of those involved (i.e., the biographies) rather than through the recitation of a string of dates and places. It is the difference between reading the stories in Guideposts and the numbers in a phone book.

Looking at history the way God presents it is exciting and informative; and in numerous verses, God even commends its study: “Remember the former things of old: for I am God” (Isaiah 46:9); and “Call to remembrance the former days” (Hebrews 10:32); etc. But why would God want us to know history? The Apostle Paul answers that question in 1 Corinthians 10:1: “All these things happened unto them for example; and they are written for our admonition” (see also Romans 15:4: “Those things written aforetime were written for our learning”). In short, we learn from history; and what we learn affects our behavior.

American leaders long understood this Biblical truth. For example, Thomas Jefferson noted: “History, by apprizing them [students] of the past, will enable them to judge of the future.” And what can be learned by being “apprized of the past”? According to Benjamin Franklin: History will afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion from its usefulness to the public; the advantage of a religious character among private persons; the mischiefs of superstition; and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.

Franklin understood that history, when accurately presented, would demonstrate the need for Christianity because of both the societal and the individual benefits it produces. In fact, the presenting of an uncensored and unrevised history actually causes a recognition of the hand of God – for, in the words of the great statesman Daniel Webster: “History is God’s providence in human affairs.”

Today, however, history is presented in such an edited, revised, and politically-correct manner that God’s hand is rarely visible – and even the historic role of famous Godly leaders in education, business, politics, and the military is now virtually unacknowledged.

An obvious example of the secularization of history occurs each year around the Fourth of July. Americans are taught that “taxation without representation” was the reason America separated from Great Britain; yet “taxation without representation” was only reason number seventeen out of the twenty-seven reasons given in the Declaration of Independence – it was not even in the top half, yet it’s all that most ever hear. Never mentioned today are the numerous grievances condemning judicial activism – or those addressing moral or religious or other issues.

What religious issues? In 1762, the king vetoed the charter for America’s first missionary society; he also suppressed other religious freedoms and even prevented Americans from printing an English language Bible.

How did Americans respond? They took action; and almost unknown today is the fact that Declaration signers such as Samuel Adams and Charles Carroll cited religious freedom as the reason they became involved in the American Revolution. And significantly, even though Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin (two of the least religious signers) are typically the only signers studied today, almost half of the signers of the Declaration (24 of 56) held what today would be considered seminary or Bible school degrees. Clearly, for many Founders, religious issues were an important motivation behind their separation from Great Britain; but that motivation is largely ignored today.

Moral issues are accorded the same silence. The greatest moral issue of that day was slavery; and after several of the American colonies moved toward abolishing slavery in 1773, the King, in 1774, vetoed those anti-slavery laws and continued slavery in America. Soon-to-be signers of the Declaration Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush promptly founded America’s first abolition society as a direct response against the king’s order. The desire to end slavery in America was a significant motivation not only for Franklin and Rush but also for a number of others; but the end of slavery in America could be achieved only if they separated from Great Britain – which they were willing to do (and six of the thirteen colonies began abolishing slavery following the separation).

There were many other significant issues that led to our original Fourth of July; so why aren’t Americans familiar with the rest? Because in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s, a group of secular-minded writers (including Charles and Mary Beard, W. E. Woodward, Fairfax Downey, and others) began penning works on American history that introduced a new paradigm. For this group, economics was the only issue of importance, so they began to write texts accordingly (their approach is now described as “the economic view of American history” and since the 1960s has been widely embraced throughout the education community). Consequently, since “taxation without representation” was the economic grievance in the Declaration, it became the sole clause that Americans studied.

As a result, God is no longer visible in American history; and His absence is now construed as a mandate for secularism. Texts now forcefully assert that the American founding produced the first intentionally secular government in history – even though the Declaration officially acknowledges God in four separate clauses. (But who still teaches the Declaration – or even reads it?) Similarly, leaders such as John Hancock and John Adams receive credit as being the source of our independence, even though John Adams himself declared that the Rev. Dr. Jonathan Mayhew and the Rev. Dr. Samuel Cooper were two of the individuals “most conspicuous, the most ardent, and influential” in the “awakening and revival of American principles and feelings” that led to American independence. Regrettably, God (and His servants) have largely disappeared from the presentation of American history in general and America’s founding in particular.

As a further example, consider the legendary Minutemen: even though they are still honored in many texts, their leader, the Rev. Jonas Clark, is no longer mentioned – nor the fact that many of the Minutemen were deacons in his church. And the Rev. James Caldwell is no longer acknowledged as a key leader of military forces in New Jersey – nor the Rev. John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg (who led 300 men from his church against the British) as one of Washington’s most trusted generals.

Regrettably, we no longer know much about the indispensable role of pastors and Christian leaders in the founding of our civil government. Americans have been subjected to “revisionism” defined by the dictionary as “the revision of an accepted, usually long-standing view; especially a revision of historical events and movements.” Revisionism attempts to alter the way a people sees its history in order to cause a change in public policy.

Consider how successful this has been. Under the economic view of American history, Americans now believe that the early colonists came to America seeking land and gold rather than for the reason most cited by the colonists: evangelization. And most now accept that the colonies were founded for trade, fishing, and other economic enterprises, even though more than half were founded by Gospel ministers for religious purposes (e.g., Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Georgia, etc.). And if religion is discussed in a text, it will be to present the 21 deaths during the Salem Witch Trials rather than the Great Awakenings, the Civil War revivals, or the turn-of-the-century revivals that led to widespread urban renewal and the end of child labor.

Having now come to believe that economics is what created and made America great, it is not surprising that few Americans commented on the fact that, during the 2004 presidential debates, “jobs” and “economy” were mentioned hundreds of times but “marriage” less than a dozen. Nor is it surprising that over the past decade, 45 percent of evangelical Christians say that economic issues are more important than moral issues when it comes to voting.

There is so much of our wholesome, God-centered American history that we no longer know today. This is especially true when it comes to the average American’s knowledge of African American history.

Consider, for example, African American achievements during the American Revolution. Few today know that almost 5,000 of the patriots in the fledgling Continental Army were African Americans – that, for example, a hero of the Battle of Bunker Hill was African American Peter Salem. His heroic actions saved the lives of scores of Americans, and he was honored before General Washington for his courage.

And Pastor Lemuel Haynes was involved in several major Revolutionary battles and became an ardent admirer of George Washington, regularly preaching sermons on Washington’s birthday. This patriot preacher was the first African American to be ordained by a mainstream Christian denomination (the Congregationalists, in 1785), to pastor a white congregation (a congregation in Connecticut), and to be awarded an honorary Master’s Degree (by Middlebury College, in 1804). Yet who today has heard of Lemuel Haynes?

Or who has heard of James Armistead, the courageous spy at Yorktown whose remarkable service considerably shortened the War? Or Oliver Cromwell and Prince Whipple (depicted in several famous Revolutionary War paintings) who served directly under General Washington and the general staff? Or Jordan Freeman, the gallant soldier to whom a monument was erected for his heroic service at the Battle of Groton Heights?

Then there is also African American church history – including the amazing story of the Rev. John Marrant, the first African American to evangelize successfully among American Indians; the Rev. Richard Allen, who gained his freedom from slavery, served in the American Revolution, became a preacher in a church of 2000 whites, and founded America’s first black denomination; and the Rev. Harry Hoosier, who delivered the first recorded Methodist sermon by an African American and drew crowds larger than the great Methodist Bishop Francis Asbury.

And consider African American political history. Who today knows the story of the Rev. Hiram Rhodes Revels, the African American missionary who became the first black U. S. Senator? Or the Rev. Henry Highland Garnet, the first African American to deliver a sermon in Congress? Or Joseph Hayne Rainey, who overcame slavery to become the first African American elected to the U. S. Congress, even presiding over the U. S. House? (In the picture of the first seven African Americans elected to the federal Congress – all as Republicans – the Rev. Revels is the first from the left, and Rainey is second from the right.) Or who today has learned that nearly every southern Republican Party was started by African Americans – or that the first 190 African Americans elected to office in South Carolina (and the first 112 in Mississippi, the first 42 in Texas, the first 127 in Louisiana, etc.) were all Republicans, and many were ministers?

I have spent years collecting thousands of original and priceless documents from American history in general and black history in particular; God’s fingerprints are evident throughout. I have been asked why I, as an Anglo, would spend so much time in the study of African American political history. The answer is simple: I am an American; and since the story of African American history is part of American history, it therefore is part of my own history. Furthermore, I am inspired by all stories of sacrifice, courage, and Godly character – regardless of skin color. The stories of African American heroes such as Phillis Wheatley, Francis Grimke, and John Roy Lynch are as thrilling to me as are the stories of Lewis & Clark, Helen Keller, and Alvin York.

The reintroduction of a truthful and complete telling of American history is long overdue. Daniel Webster was right: “History is God’s providence in human affairs,” and it is time for Americans once again to become aware of the remarkable hand of God throughout our history.

* This article concerns a historical issue and may not have updated information.

Taking On The Critics

As an example of the kind of misportrayals and mischaracterizations that David Barton is subjected to by critics, we have provided the following excerpt from an article written by Barry Hankins, an associate director of Baylor University’s JM Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies. Hankins’ article was entitled Separation Of Church And State Is Not Just For Liberals, and is typical of works by secularism advocates in that while it purports to discuss the “history” of church-state separation, it fails to use historical sources but instead overwhelmingly relies on works from current sources rather than primary or original sources. (David Barton’s response is provided below the article excerpt.)

Separation Of Church And State Is Not Just For Liberals excerpt:

Close observers of this phenomenon will know that arguably the most prolific and effective proponent of the antiseparationist view is David Barton, the former math teacher and high school principal who founded Wall Builders, headquartered in Aledo, Texas. Barton barnstorms the country with high tech slide-show presentations purporting to prove that the founders intended to establish a nation that gave preference to Christianity. He has written the aptly titled The Myth of Separation. In all his books, tapes, and public addresses, Barton relies heavily on selected quotations from America’s founders.

Recently Robert Alley, professor emeritus at Richmond University and an expert on James Madison, questioned a Barton quote attributed to Madison. When Alley’s research revealed that Madison had probably never uttered the remark in question, Barton retracted it. In an astounding move, Barton also issued a published retraction of 11 other quotes, listing 10 as questionable and two, including the Madison quote, as false.[7] However, the flap does not seem to have slowed Barton’s juggernaut.

David Barton’s response:

August 30, 2003
Barry Hankins
J. M. Dawson Institute
Baylor University
Waco, TX 76798

Mr. Hankins:

I recently was given an article you had authored, “Separation of Church and State is not Just for Liberals.” The copy I received was undated; perhaps it is an older article; nevertheless, since I was a subject of your pen (and since you never took the time to consult me either to confirm or deny what you alleged about me), I thought I would present you with a few facts concerning the misrepresentations you made about me on page 1 of that article:

1. To my knowledge, the only time I have acknowledged or read anything that Robert Alley has written was his attack on me for speaking at Gov. George Allen’s Inauguration in January 1994. It may come as a complete surprise to you to learn that I neither read nor follow anything Robert Alley may or may not say about me, nor have I read any article by him about Madison or his writings.

2. Since I do not read Alley’s materials nor do I concern myself with his writings, he clearly had no influence on our publication of the “Questionable Quotes” list. Consider: we listed over a dozen questionable quotes but Alley apparently mentioned only the Madison quote; and you assert that was the reason we issued our much more extensive list? Ridiculous! In fact, to our knowledge, my article about the uncertainty of the Madison quote predated his; we did not change our position in response to anything he wrote; rather, I publicly announced that I would no longer use the Madison quote (and others) not because it was inaccurate but rather because I had determined to raise the scholarship of the debate from an academic level to the higher level of legal documentation known as “best evidence” – a level of documentation that most of those in your camp have yet to embrace.

(For example, In Search of Christian America, written by three PhDs from your viewpoint, purports to search the Founding Era (1760-1805) for evidences of official acknowledgments of Christianity and concludes that there is a lack of such evidence. However, of the hundreds of sources cited to reach that conclusion, some 80 percent were taken from sources published after 1950 – more than a century-and-a-half after the period they purport to investigate! Such disparate and dissimilar sources would be unacceptable in a court of law.)

3. Alley can neither claim that Madison “never” uttered the “quote in question” about the Ten Commandments nor that it was “false.” As you yourself know, Madison’s “Detached Memoranda” (surely one of your favorite documents) was not “discovered” until 1946. More Madison letters previously unknown are found regularly, often in the estates of recently deceased individuals who held private collections or inherited family heirlooms received directly from Madison’s hand. Furthermore, much of what is known about Madison and his diverse and often changing viewpoints frequently comes from Madison’s contemporaries rather than from his own writings.

For example, more of Madison’s succinct statements against slavery are available through his personal interviews with Harriet Martineau (published in the early 1800s) than from his own writings. Alley can no more claim that the Madison quote does not exist than I can claim that it does. However, I can show that the Madison “quote in question” has been in circulation for generations, and I can document it (as I did) to non-modern works and works by credentialed historians. Quite simply, neither I nor Alley can say whether or not the Madison quote is false; however, I simply decided that I would no longer quote academics, historians, or doctorates of history to establish what the Founders said (as you regularly do) but instead I would cite only primary source documentation that meets a legal standard of evidence. (I continue to challenge your side to meet the same standard.)

4. Your claim that “The flap does not seem to have slowed Barton’s juggernaut” is baseless and irrelevant simply because there was no flap other than what you attempted to concoct. Furthermore, the specific work you so recklessly demean (The Myth of Separation) provided over 750 footnoted citations. Therefore, for us to drop a dozen quotes from that work represented a trivially small percentage and no historical conclusion was changed.

For example, rather than continuing to use the uncertain James Madison quote on the Ten Commandments, I replaced it with irrefutably-documented statements by other Founders on the same subject – such as the Ten Commandments quote by John Adams (by the way, Adams – unlike Madison – actually signed the Bill of Rights and is an equally competent legal authority on the subject). As a result of my decision to elevate the level of documentation, we replaced The Myth of Separation with Original Intent – a work with over 1,400 footnotes (rather than the 750 in Myth), and a work that not only meets legal standards of scrutiny but that also arrives at the identical historical conclusions reached in The Myth of Separation.

5. On the other hand, I notice that in books from those of your perspective, few footnotes are presented. For example, in The Godless Constitution – an allegedly “scholarly” university text written by two prominent PhDs – no footnotes are provided. As they openly concede, “we have dispensed with the usual scholarly apparatus of footnotes.” While a work such as this with no footnotes is probably acceptable to you simply because of its conclusions, it would not pass legal muster for best evidence; yet my work which does pass the standards of legal scrutiny is completely unacceptable to you. Ironically you frequently embrace and laud the types of works that fail to meet the legal standard of “best evidence” while attacking and demeaning the ones that do.

I recognize that there can be honest differences of opinions between well-intentioned individuals; and I whole-heartedly support your right to free speech — including your right to make uninformed statements, present incomplete and inaccurate information, and offer complete mischaracterizations and misportrayals — as you have done in the part of your article addressing me. Regrettably, the section of your article about me neither meets the standards of basic journalism (where an individual attacked in an article is called and asked to respond to charges) nor of academic scholarship (where footnotes and documentation are provided).

In your defense, I did note that you provided one footnote to document my “false” quotes; however, the source of that documentation was actually an attack piece written against me by one of your closest allies — not quite an unbiased objective source! However, objective truth was probably never the goal of your article.

An old lawyers’ adage admonishes: “When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.” You seem to have chosen the latter course of action.

David Barton

[For more information on this issue please see “Unconfirmed Quotations”]

Ten Commandments Displays

Introduction

While there have been dozens of rulings striking down Ten Commandments displays (another indication that federal judges need to be appointed to the courts who are well-versed in original constitutional understandings); no ruling has been more publicized than that against Judge Roy Moore in Alabama. In that case, the 11th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a 5,280 pound granite monument of the Ten Commandments could not be displayed in the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building.

The ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Southern Poverty Law Center filed suit against the Ten Commandments display on behalf of three attorneys. And why did those attorneys want the monument removed? They alleged that they had been “personally offended” by the monument and “as a result, suffered direct injury.” A three-judge panel of the 11th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with them and prohibited the display.

Court Decision

In order to reach their decision, the panel of federal judges transformed themselves into an ecclesiastical council of theologians. They ruled that the version of the Commandments posted by Judge Moore was a “Protestant” version and that “Jewish, Catholic, Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox faiths use different parts of their holy texts as the authoritative Ten Commandments.”

Strange! I thought that “Do not kill” and “Do not steal” meant the same regardless of the version! In fact, I am not aware of any person in America who, after seeing the granite monument, would cry out, “I have just seen the 9th command forbidding perjury, but it is a Protestant version of the Ten Commandments that I just saw, so I cannot obey it for I am a Lutheran (or a Catholic, or a Jew, or whatever).”

The 11th Circuit had ignored an elementary principle of law—and thus a fundamental responsibility of the courts: establish the spirit and intent of a law before making any ruling about it. Signer of the Constitution John Dickinson had explained the importance of this legal principle:

[N]othing is more certain than that the forms of liberty may be retained when the substance is gone. In government, as well as in religion, “the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” 2 Cor. 3:6

The Ten Commandments

Actually, the Ten Commandments themselves were the result of God’s demonstration of this principle. When God delivered the Commandments, He told Moses “According to the tenor of those words I have made a covenant with you” (Exodus 34:27). That is, God Himself declared that the Ten Commandments were merely the general theme (the tenor) of what He wanted. “Don’t steal,” “Don’t kill,” “Don’t commit perjury,” etc. were simply the summation of over 600 laws given at or about the same time.

That these laws simply represent the spirit of all civil and criminal laws was made clear by an elderly Texas woman, Esther Armstrong. Despite her advanced years, Esther maintained a ministry in local prisons and jails, frequently visiting the inmates, all of who considered her as their own grandmother. One day, one of the “jail-house attorney” inmates (a prisoner who has become obsessed with the study of the law) told Esther in amazement: “Mama Esther? Did you realize that there are over one-hundred thousand laws that will put you in jail?” To which she promptly replied, “Do you realize that there are Ten that will keep you out?”

11th Circuit Court

Nevertheless, the federal judges refused to consider the general purpose of the Commandments. Instead, they focused on theological minutia about which version of the Ten Commandments was on display (which they apparently felt completely competent to address) much in the same way that theologians of former generations vigorously debated such useless and inane topics as how many angels would fit on the head of a pin.

Perhaps only a liberal activist judge, an ACLU attorney, or a member of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (i.e., groups and individuals who have demonstrated their distaste for religion in general) would make this “theological” distinction as they did in this case. I am quite sure that Judge Moore, just like 99.9 percent of Americans, was not aware (nor would he have cared) that there were allegedly different theological versions of the Commandments. As a judge, he was concerned with general behavior, not theology.

Furthermore, I firmly believe that no matter which version of the Ten Commandments Judge Moore would have displayed (whether Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, or one of each), the same arguments still would have been used against him.

The three theologians (Oops! My bad!!! I meant the three judges) in the 11th Circuit who delivered the decision even personally impugned Moore, comparing him to “those Southern governors who attempted to defy federal court orders during an earlier era.” Amazing! Apparently in the minds of those judges, Judge Moore’s displaying the Ten Commandments must be a sin akin to racism! The three also forcefully pronounced to Moore a warning that when the time came, he would obey their order to remove the Commandments.

Protests

Following the 11th Circuit’s decision, federal district judge Myron Thompson (who originally ruled against Moore before the case rose to the 11th Circuit) promptly issued his own order that the monument be removed. Now! Even before Judge Moore’s appeal to the Supreme Court had been filed. Judge Moore refused to comply with that order, and hundreds rallied outside the court building in an effort to prevent the removal of the monument.

Dozens who exercised their First Amendment right “peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” were handcuffed and arrested, including an elderly woman in a wheel chair. She was one among hundreds willing to resort to peaceful civil disobedience in order to preserve respected symbols of our nation’s heritage and the constitutional right to free exercise of religion. Amazing! Americans are being arrested for trying to preserve the nation’s moral law rather than break it!

This same type of peaceful civil disobedience eventually turned the tide in the civil rights’ protests of the early 1960s. When Americans saw blacks arrested and beaten by police simply for sitting in the wrong seat on a bus, or going to the wrong table in a cafe, public sentiment propelled legislators to action to provide a political solution. Such may well be the effect of the current arrests—if they continue for an extended period. Perhaps the current publicity will cause Christians to stand up not only for this display but also for those in their own local communities.

Judge Moore

Interestingly, voices of condemnation against Judge Moore have been raised around the nation, alleging that he refuses to follow “the rule of law.” Such claims constitute some of the more civically-illiterate statements made in recent years.

Consider: in every student civics or government book in America is a page on “How a Bill Becomes a Law.” Anyone who examines those pages will notice that the judiciary has no role in making law; laws come from bills passed by the legislature and signed by the president or governor. Since no such law has been passed in this case, what “rule of law” is Judge Moore not upholding? Can it actually be that these critics talking about “the rule of law” believe that an order by a single unelected federal judge is actually the equivalent of a law? Apparently so.

Don’t misunderstand: this is not to suggest that judicial rulings should be ignored based on the personal predilections of an individual in a case; however, this ruling goes against every deeply embedded legal standard in America’s common law, and Judge Moore’s refusal is not based solely on his selfish or personal inclinations. (To learn how deeply the Ten Commandments have been implanted into American law and traditions, read our legal brief on this issue.)

Actions Against Him

Following Judge Myron Thompson’s edict, the other eight justices on the Alabama Supreme Court announced their unanimous opposition to Judge Moore’s position and agreed to cooperate in the removal of the monument. Judge Moore was subsequently suspended from his judgeship by the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission for his refusal to comply with the federal judge’s order.

Importantly, Judge Moore is elected (as are the other eight State Supreme Court  judges) and therefore ultimately accounts directly to the people of Alabama, who can have the final say on this issue. When that time comes, the decision of the voters likely will not agree with the State’s other Supreme Court judges or the State’s Judicial Inquiry Commission. Moore was already well-known for his stand for the Ten Commandments before he was elected to the Supreme Court (he had already won three legal decisions on the Ten Commandments at the time of his election) and recent polls show that 77 percent of the State supports the display.

Conclusion

The U. S. Congress is well aware of the situation in Alabama, and the House has already taken direct action.

Rep. John Hostettler introduced, and the House overwhelmingly passed (260-161), an amendment that prohibits federal funds from being used to enforce the judicial order against the display. Similarly, Rep. Robert Aderholt has introduced (and the House has twice passed) the Ten Commandments Defense Act, allowing State and local communities rather than federal judges to have the final say in displays of the Ten Commandments. The Senate Democrats have killed the bill each time.

Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) has introduced a bill (S 1558) that applies powers from Art. III, Sec. 2 of the U. S. Constitution to restrict the federal judiciary’s right to rule on this issue, but the bill is not likely to move unless Democratic Senators feel substantial pressure to do so.

The monument was eventually removed from the Rotunda and relocated in a remote non-public room in the building. This is simply a reconfirmation of the overall judicial message of recent years: if you must have a religious expression, it must be done in private (like pornography), not out in public where others can see it.

The Bible, Slavery, and America’s Founders

America’s Founding Fathers are seen by some people today as unjust and hypocrites, for while they talked of liberty and equality, they at the same time were enslaving hundreds of thousands of Africans. Some allege that the Founders bear most of the blame for the evils of slavery. Consequently, many today have little respect for the Founders and turn their ear from listening to anything they may have to say. And, in their view, to speak of America as founded as a Christian nation is unthinkable (for how could a Christian nation tolerate slavery?).

It is certainly true that during most of America’s history most blacks have not had the same opportunities and protections as whites. From the time of colonization until the Civil War most Africans in America (especially those living in the South) were enslaved, and the 100 years following emancipation were marked with segregation and racism. Only in the last 30 years has there been closer to equal opportunities, though we still need continued advancement in equality among the races and race relations. But is the charge against the Founders justified? Are they to bear most of the blame for the evils of slavery? Can we speak of America as founded as a Christian nation, while at it’s founding it allowed slavery?

Understanding the answer to these questions is important for the future of liberty in America and advancement of racial equality. The secular view of history taught in government schools today does not provide an adequate answer. We must view these important concerns from a Biblical and providential perspective.

America’s Founders were predominantly Christians and had a Biblical worldview. If that was so, some say, how could they allow slavery, for isn’t slavery sin? As the Bible reveals to man what is sin, we need to examine what it has to say about slavery.

The Bible and Slavery The Bible teaches that slavery, in one form or another (including spiritual, mental, and physical), is always the fruit of disobedience to God and His law/word. (This is not to say that the enslavement of any one person, or group of people, is due to their sin, for many have been enslaved unjustly, like Joseph and numerous Christians throughout history.) Personal and civil liberty is the result of applying the truth of the Scriptures. As a person or nation more fully applies the principles of Christianity, there will be increasing freedom in every realm of life. Sanctification for a person, or nation, is a gradual process. The fruit of changed thinking and action, which comes from rooting sin out of our lives, may take time to see. This certainly applies historically in removing slavery from the Christian world.

Slavery is a product of the fall of man and has existed in the world since that time. Slavery was not a part of God’s original created order, and as God’s created order has gradually been re-established since the time of Christ, slavery has gradually been eliminated. Christian nations (those based upon Biblical principles) have led the way in the abolition of slavery. America was at the forefront of this fight. After independence, great steps were taken down the path of ending slavery – probably more than had been done by any other nation up until that time in history (though certainly more could have been done). Many who had settled in America had already been moving toward these ends. Unfortunately, the generations following the Founders did not continue to move forward in a united fashion. A great conflict was the outcome of this failure.

When God gave the law to Moses, slavery was a part of the world, and so the law of God recognized slavery. But this does not mean that slavery was God’s original intention. The law of Moses was given to fallen man. Some of the ordinances deal with things not intended for the original creation order, such as slavery and divorce. These will be eliminated completely only when sin is eliminated from the earth. God’s laws concerning slavery provided parameters for treatment of slaves, which were for the benefit of all involved. God desires all men and nations to be liberated. This begins internally and will be manifested externally to the extent internal change occurs. The Biblical slave laws reflect God’s redemptive desire, for men and nations.

Types of Slavery Permitted by the Bible

The Mosaic law permitted some types of slavery. These include:

  1. Voluntary servitude by the sons of Israel (indentured servants) Those who needed assistance, could not pay their debts, or needed protection from another were allowed under Biblical law to become indentured servants (see Ex. 21:2-6; Deut. 15:12-18). They were dependent on their master instead of the state. This was a way to aid the poor and give them an opportunity to get back on their feet. It was not to be a permanent subsidy. Many early settlers to America came as indentured servants. These servants were well treated and when released, given generous pay.
  2. Voluntary permanent slaves If indentured servants so chose, they could remain a slave (Ex. 21:2-6; Deut.. 15:16-17). Their ear was pierced to indicate this permanent subjection. The law recognized that some people want the security of enslavement. Today, there are some people who would rather be dependent upon government to provide their needs (and with that provision accepting their commands) than do what is necessary to live free from its provision and direction. Some even act in a manner that puts them in jail, desiring the care and provision they get more than personal freedom.
  3. Thief or criminal making restitution A thief who could not, or did not, make restitution was sold as a slave: “If a man steals . . . he shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft” (Ex. 22:1,3). The servitude ceased when enough work was done to pay for the amount due in restitution.
  4. Pagans could be permanent slaves Leviticus 25:44-46 states: As for your male and female slaves whom you may have – you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen [brother], the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another. In the Sabbath year all Hebrew debtors/slaves were released from their debts.. This was not so for foreigners (Deut. 15:3). Theologian R.J. Rushdoony writes, “since unbelievers are by nature slaves, they could be held as life-long slaves” 1 without piercing the ear to indicate their voluntary servitude (Lev. 25:44-46). This passage in Leviticus says that pagans could be permanent slaves and could be bequeathed to the children of the Hebrews. However, there are Biblical laws concerning slaves that are given for their protection and eventual redemption. Slaves could become part of the covenant and part of the family, even receiving an inheritance. Under the new covenant, a way was made to set slaves free internally, which should then be following by external preparation enabling those who were slaves to live at liberty, being self-governed under God.

Involuntary Servitude is Not Biblical

Exodus 21:16 says: “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” Deuteronomy 24:7 states: “If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently, or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you.”

Kidnapping and enforced slavery are forbidden and punishable by death. This was true for any man (Ex. 21:16), as well as for the Israelites (Deut. 24:7). This was stealing a man’s freedom. While aspects of slavery are Biblical (for punishment and restitution for theft, or for those who prefer the security of becoming a permanent bondservant), the Bible strictly forbids involuntary servitude.

Any slave that ran away from his master (thus expressing his desire for freedom) was to be welcomed by the Israelites, not mistreated, and not returned. Deuteronomy 23:15-16 states:

You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him. This implied slaves must be treated justly, plus they had a degree of liberty. Other slave laws confirm this. In addition, such action was a fulfillment of the law of love in both the Old and New Testaments. The law of God declares: “. . . you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:17-18). Leviticus 19:33-34 clearly reveals that this applies to strangers and aliens as well: “The stranger, . . . you shall not do him wrong.. . . . you shall love him as yourself.”

It was forbidden to take the life or liberty of any other man. Rushdoony writes:

Thus, the only kind of slavery permitted is voluntary slavery, as Deuteronomy 23:15,16 makes very clear. Biblical law permits voluntary slavery because it recognizes that some people are not able to maintain a position of independence. To attach themselves voluntarily to a capable man and to serve him, protected by law, is thus a legitimate way of life, although a lesser one. The master then assumes the role of the benefactor, the bestower of welfare, rather that the state, and the slave is protected by the law of the state. A runaway slave thus cannot be restored to his master: he is free to go. The exception is the thief or criminal who is working out his restitution. The Code of Hammurabi decreed death for men who harbored a runaway slave; the Biblical law provided for the freedom of the slave. 2 Rushdoony also says that the selling of slaves was forbidden. Since Israelites were voluntary slaves, and since not even a foreign slave could be compelled to return to his master (Deut. 23:15, 16), slavery was on a different basis under the law than in non-Biblical cultures. The slave was a member of the household, with rights therein. A slave-market could not exist in Israel. The slave who was working out a restitution for theft had no incentive to escape, for to do so would make him an incorrigible criminal and liable to death. 3

When slaves (indentured servants) were acquired under the law, it was their labor that was purchased, not their person, and the price took into account the year of freedom (Lev. 25:44-55; Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12-13).

Laws related to slaves There are a number of laws in the Bible related to slavery. They include:

  1. Hebrew slaves (indentured servants) were freed after 6 years. If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment (Ex. 21:2). If your kinsman, a Hebrew man or woman, is sold to you, then he shall serve you six years, but in the seventh year you shall set him free. And when you set him free, you shall not send him away empty-handed (Deut. 15:12-13). Hebrew slaves were to be set free after six years. If the man was married when he came, his wife was to go with him (Ex. 21:3). This law did not apply to non-Hebrew slaves (see point 4 under “Types of slavery permitted by the Bible” above), though, as mentioned, any slave showing a desire for freedom was to be safely harbored if they ran away. In violation of this law, many Christian slaves in America were not given the option of freedom after six years (and many escaped slaves were forcefully returned). To comply with the spirit and law of the Old and New Testament, non-Christian slaves should have been introduced by their master to Christianity, equipped to live in liberty, and then given the opportunity to choose to live free. Christianity would have prepared them to live in freedom.
  2. Freed slaves were released with liberal pay. When these slaves were set free they were not to be sent away empty handed. They were to be furnished liberally from the flocks, threshing floor, and wine vat (Deut. 15:12-15).
  3. Slaves were to be responsible. We have mentioned that some people prefer the security of enslavement to the uncertainty of living free. People who live free have certain responsibilities they must maintain. They cannot have the fruit of freedom without the responsibilities of freedom. It is within this context that the following law can be understood: “If he [a Hebrew slave] comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone.” (Ex. 21:3-4)
  4. Rushdoony comments: “The bondservant, however, could not have the best of both worlds, the world of freedom and the world of servitude. A wife meant responsibility: to marry, a man had to have a dowry as evidence of his ability to head a household. A man could not gain the benefit of freedom, a wife, and at the same time gain the benefit of security under a master.” 4 Marrying as a slave required no responsibility of provision or need of a dowry. He gained the benefits of marriage without the responsibilities associated with it. Rushdoony continues: “If he married while a bondservant, or a slave, he knew that in so doing he was abandoning either freedom or his family. He either remained permanently a slave with his family and had his ear pierced as a sign of subordination (like a woman), or he left his family. If he walked out and left his family, he could, if he earned enough, redeem his family from bondage. The law here is humane and also unsentimental. It recognizes that some people are by nature slaves and will always be so. It both requires that they be dealt with in a godly manner and also that the slave recognize his position and accept it with grace. Socialism, on the contrary, tries to give the slave all the advantages of his security together with the benefits of freedom, and, in the process, destroys both the free and the enslaved.” 5
  5. Runaway slaves were to go free. As mentioned earlier, Deuteronomy 23:15-16 says that a runaway slave was to go free. He was to be welcomed to live in any of the towns of Israel he chose. The Israelites were not to mistreat him. Rushdoony says that, “Since the slave was, except where debt and theft were concerned, a slave by nature and by choice, a fugitive slave went free, and the return of such fugitives was forbidden (Deut. 23:15,16).” This aspect of Biblical law was violated by American slavery and the United States Constitution (see Art. IV, Sec. 2, Par. 3). “Christians cannot become slaves voluntarily; they are not to become the slaves of men (1 Cor. 7:23), nor ‘entangled again with the yoke of bondage’ (Gal. 5:1).”6 Those who became Christians while slaves were to become free if they could (1 Cor. 7:21). If they could not, they were to exemplify the character of Christ (Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 4:1; 1 Tim. 6:1-2). Eventually, Christianity would overthrow slavery, not so much by denouncing it, but by promoting the equality of man under God, and teaching the principles of liberty and the brotherhood of mankind under Christ. It would be the responsibility of Christians, especially those who found themselves in a place of owning slaves (for example, many Christian Americans in the past inherited slaves) to teach such ideas, and then act accordingly. Many Christians in early America did just this. Phyllis Wheatley was introduced to Christianity by her masters, educated, and given her freedom. Many American Christians, in both North and South, at the time of the Civil War did much to educate slaves Biblically. Stonewall Jackson, who never owned slaves himself and was against slavery, conducted many classes in his church to educate slaves.
  6. Excessive punishment of slaves was forbidden. A slave could be punished by striking with a rod (Ex. 21:20-21), but if the punishment was excessive, the slave was to be given his freedom (Ex. 21:26-27; Lev. 24:17). This included knocking out the tooth or damaging the eye. This applied to indentured servants as well as other slaves. Since the owner would lose his investment in such a situation, there was a financial incentive for just treatment. Just treatment of slaves was required of the masters. Paul writes: “Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven.” (Col. 4:1)
  7. Slaves could be brought into the covenant. Slaves could be circumcised (brought into the covenant) and then eat of the Passover meal (Ex. 12:43-44; Gen. 17:12-13). Slaves could also eat of holy things (Lev. 22:10-11).
  8. Slaves had some rights and position in the home and could share in the inheritance. (See Gen. 24:2 and Prov. 17:2.)
  9. Slaves were to rest on the Sabbath like everyone else. The Fourth Commandment applied to all (Ex. 20:8-11).

Female slave laws were for their protection. Exodus 21:4-11 gives some laws about female slaves, which served for their protection. These Hebrew female slaves were without family to assist them in their need or to help to provide security for them. These slaves laws were a way to protect them from abuse not faced by males and to keep them from being turned out into the street, where much harm could come to them.

Examination of the Biblical view of slavery enables us to more effectively address the assertion that slavery was America’s original sin. In light of the Scriptures we cannot say that slavery, in a broad and general sense, is sin. But this brief look at the Biblical slave laws does reveal how fallen man’s example of slavery has violated God’s laws, and America’s form of slavery in particular violated various aspects of the law, as well as the general spirit of liberty instituted by Christ.

The Christian foundation and environment of America caused most people to seek to view life from a Biblical perspective. Concerning slavery, they would ask “Is it Biblical?” While most of the Founders saw it was God’s desire to eliminate the institution, others attempted to justify it. At the time of the Civil War some people justified Southern slavery by appealing to the Bible. However, through this brief review of the Old Testament slave laws we have seen that American slavery violated some of these laws, not to mention the spirit of liberty instituted by the coming of Christ.

Slavery and the New Testament When Paul wrote how slaves and masters were to act (Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 4:1; 1 Tim. 6:1-2; Col. 3:22-25; Titus 2:9-10), he was not endorsing involuntary slavery or the Roman slave system. He was addressing the attitudes, actions, and matters of the heart of those Christians who found themselves in slavery or as slave owners. This encompassed many people, for half the population of Rome and a large proportion of the Roman Empire were slaves. Many people were converted to Christianity while slaves or slave owners, and many Christians were enslaved.

It is in this context that we can better understand the example of Paul, Onesimus, and Philemon. Onesimus, a slave of Philemon who apparently stole some money from his master and ran away, encountered Paul in Rome and became a Christian. Paul sent him back to his master carrying the letter to Philemon. Author of the famous Bible Handbook, Henry Halley writes:

The Bible gives no hint as to how the master received his returning slave. But there is a tradition that says his master did receive him, and took Paul’s veiled hint and gave the slave his liberty. That is the way the Gospel works. Christ in the heart of the slave made the slave recognize the social usages of his day, and go back to his master determined to be a good slave and live out his natural life as a slave. Christ in the heart of the master made the master recognize the slave as a Christian brother and give him his liberty. There is a tradition that Onesimus afterward became a bishop of Berea. 7

The Mosaic slave laws and the writings of Paul benefited and protected the slaves as best as possible in their situation. God’s desire for any who are enslaved is freedom (Luke 4:18; Gal. 5:1). Those who are set free in Christ then need to be prepared to walk in liberty. Pagan nations had a much different outlook toward slaves, believing slaves had no rights or privileges. Because of the restrictions and humane aspect of the Mosaic laws on slavery, it never existed on a large scale in Israel, and did not exhibit the cruelties seen in Egypt, Greece, Rome, Assyria and other nations.

Sinful man will always live in some form of bondage and slavery, as a slave to the state, to a lord or noble, or to other men. As a step in man’s freedom, God’s laws of slavery provided the best situation for those who find themselves in bondage. God’s ultimate desire is that all walk in the liberty of the gospel both internally and externally.

As the gospel principles of liberty have spread throughout history in all the nations, man has put aside the institution of overt slavery. However, since sinful man tends to live in bondage, different forms of slavery have replaced the more obvious system of past centuries. The state has assumed the role of master for many, providing aid and assistance, and with it more and more control, to those unable to provide for themselves. The only solution to slavery is the liberty of the gospel.

Brief History of Slavery Slavery has existed throughout the world since after the fall of man. Egypt and other ancient empires enslaved multitudes. Greece and Rome had many slaves, taken from nations they conquered. Slavery was a part of almost every culture. While some Christian nations had taken steps to end slavery, it was still an established part of most of the world when America began to be settled.

Many of the early settlers came to America as indentured servants, indebted to others for a brief period of time to pay for their passage. England at this time recognized the forced labor of the apprentice, the hired servant, convicts, and indentured servants. Some of these laborers were subject to whippings and other forms of punishment. These forms of servitude were limited in duration and “transmitted no claim to the servant’s children.” 8

According to Hugh Thomas in The Slave Trade, about 11,328,000 Africans were transported to the new world between 1440 and 1870. Of these about 4 million went to Brazil, 2.5 million to Spanish colonies, 2 million to the British West Indies, 1.6 million to the French West Indies, and 500,000 went to what became the United States of America. 9

A Dutch ship, seeking to unload its human cargo, brought the first slaves to Virginia in 1619. Over the next century a small number of slaves were brought to America. In 1700 there were not more than 20 to 30 thousand black slaves in all the colonies. There were some people who spoke against slavery (e.g. the Quakers and Mennonites) 10 and some political efforts to check slavery (as in laws of Massachusetts and Rhode Island), but these had little large scale effect. The colonies’ laws recognized and protected slave property. Efforts were made to restrict the slave trade in several colonies, but the British government overruled such efforts and the trade went on down to the Revolution.

When independence was declared from England, the legal status of slavery was firmly established in the colonies, though there were plenty of voices speaking out against it, and with independence those voices would increase.

America’s Founders and Slavery

Some people suggest today that all early Americans must have been despicable to allow such an evil as slavery. They say early America should be judged as evil and sinful, and anything they have to say should be discounted. But if we were to judge modern America by this same standard, it would be far more wicked – we are not merely enslaving people, but we are murdering tens of millions of innocent unborn children through abortion. These people claim that they would not have allowed slavery if they were alive then. They would speak out and take any measures necessary. But where is their outcry and action to end slavery in the Sudan today? (And slavery there is much worse than that in early America.)

Some say we should not listen to the Founders of America because they owned slaves, or at least allowed slavery to exist in the society. However, if we were to cut ourselves off from the history of nations that had slavery in the past we would have to have nothing to do with any people because almost every society has had slavery, including African Americans, for many African societies sold slaves to the Europeans; and up to ten percent of blacks in America owned slaves.

The Founders Believed Slavery Was Fundamentally Wrong

The overwhelming majority of early Americans and most of America’s leaders did not own slaves. Some did own slaves, which were often inherited (like George Washington at age eleven), but many of these people set them free after independence. Most Founders believed that slavery was wrong and that it should be abolished. William Livingston, signer of the Constitution and Governor of New Jersey, wrote to an anti-slavery society in New York (John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and President of the Continental Congress, was President of this society):

I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the anti-slavery society] and . . . I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity. . . . May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke. 11

John Quincy Adams, who worked tirelessly for years to end slavery, spoke of the anti-slavery views of the southern Founders, including Jefferson who owned slaves:

The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. “Nothing is more certainly written,” said he, “in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free.” 12

The Founding Fathers believed that blacks had the same God-given inalienable rights as any other peoples. James Otis of Massachusetts said in 1764 that “The colonists are by the law of nature freeborn, as indeed all men are, white or black.” 13

There had always been free blacks in America who owned property, voted, and had the same rights as other citizens. 14 Most of the men who gave us the Declaration and the Constitution wanted to see slavery abolished. For example, George Washington wrote in a letter to Robert Morris:

I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery]. 15

Charles Carroll, Signer of Declaration from Maryland, wrote:

Why keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil. 16

Benjamin Rush, Signer from Pennsylvania, stated:

Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. . . . It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men. 17

Father of American education, and contributor to the ideas in the Constitution, Noah Webster wrote:

Justice and humanity require it [the end of slavery] – Christianity commands it. Let every benevolent . . . pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right. 18

Quotes from John Adams reveal his strong anti-slavery views:

Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. . . . I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in . . . abhorrence. 19 My opinion against it [slavery] has always been known. . . . [N]ever in my life did I own a slave. 20

When Benjamin Franklin served as President of the Pennsylvania Society of Promoting the Abolition of Slavery he declared:

“Slavery is . . . an atrocious debasement of human nature.” 21

Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration included a strong denunciation of slavery, declaring the king’s perpetuation of the slave trade and his vetoing of colonial anti-slavery measures as one reason the colonists were declaring their independence:

He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere. . . . Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. 22

Prior to independence, anti-slavery measures by the colonists were thwarted by the British government. Franklin wrote in 1773:

A disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed. 23

The Founders took action against slavery

The founders did not just believe slavery was an evil that needed to be abolished, and they did not just speak against it, but they acted on their beliefs. During the Revolutionary War black slaves who fought won their freedom in every state except South Carolina and Georgia. 24

Many of the founders started and served in anti-slavery societies. Franklin and Rush founded the first such society in America in 1774. John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. Other Founding Fathers serving in anti-slavery societies included: William Livingston (Constitution signer), James Madison, Richard Bassett, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more. 25

As the Founders worked to free themselves from enslavement to Britain, based upon laws of God and nature, they also spoke against slavery and took steps to stop it. Abolition grew as principled resistance to the tyranny of England grew, since both were based upon the same ideas. This worked itself out on a personal as well as policy level, as seen in the following incident in the life of William Whipple, signer of the Declaration of Independence from New Hampshire. Dwight writes:

When General Whipple set out to join the army, he took with him for his waiting servant, a colored man named Prince, one whom he had imported from Africa many years before. He was a slave whom his master highly valued. As he advanced on his journey, he said to Prince, “If we should be called into an engagement with the enemy, I expect you will behave like a man of courage, and fight like a brave soldier for your country.” Prince feelingly replied, “Sir, I have no inducement to fight, I have no country while I am a slave. If I had my freedom, I would endeavor to defend it to the last drop of my blood.” This reply of Prince produced the effect on his master’s heart which Prince desired. The general declared him free on the spot. 26

The Founders opposed slavery based upon the principle of the equality of all men. Throughout history many slaves have revolted but it was believed (even by those enslaved) that some people had the right to enslave others. The American slave protests were the first in history based on principles of God-endowed liberty for all. It was not the secularists who spoke out against slavery but the ministers and Christian statesmen.

Before independence, some states had tried to restrict slavery in different ways (e.g. Virginia had voted to end the slave trade in 1773), but the English government had not allowed it. Following independence and victory in the war, the rule of the mother country was removed, leaving freedom for each state to deal with the slavery problem. Within about 20 years of the 1783 Treaty of Peace with Britain, the northern states abolished slavery: Pennsylvania and Massachusetts in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804.

The Northwest Ordinance (1787, 1789), which governed the admission of new states into the union from the then northwest territories, forbid slavery. Thus, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery. This first federal act dealing with slavery was authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington.

Although no Southern state abolished slavery, there was much anti-slavery sentiment. Many anti-slavery societies were started, especially in the upper South. Many Southern states considered proposals abolishing slavery, for example, the Virginia legislature in 1778 and 1796. When none passed, many, like Washington, set their slaves free, making provision for their well being. Following independence, “Virginia changed her laws to make it easier for individuals to emancipate slaves,” 27 though over time the laws became more restrictive in Virginia.

While most states were moving toward freedom for slaves, the deep South (Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina) was largely pro-slavery. Yet, even so, the Southern courts before around 1840 generally took the position that slavery violated the natural rights of blacks. For example, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled in 1818:

Slavery is condemned by reason and the laws of nature. It exists and can only exist, through municipal regulations, and in matters of doubt,…courts must lean in favorem vitae et libertatis [in favor of life and liberty]. 28

The same court ruled in 1820 that the slave “is still a human being, and possesses all those rights, of which he is not deprived by the positive provisions of the law.” 29

Free blacks were citizens and voted in most Northern states and Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. In Baltimore prior to 1800, more blacks voted than whites; but in 1801 and 1809, Maryland began to restrict black voting and in 1835 North Carolina prohibited it. Other states made similar restrictions, but a number of Northern states allowed blacks to vote and hold office. In Massachusetts this right was given nearly a decade before the American Revolution and was never taken away, either before or after the Civil War.

Slavery and the Constitution

The issue of slavery was considered at the Constitutional Convention. Though most delegates were opposed to slavery, they compromised on the issue when the representatives from Georgia and South Carolina threatened to walk out. The delegates realized slavery would continue in these states with or without the union. They saw a strong union of all the colonies was the best means of securing their liberty (which was by no means guaranteed to survive). They did not agree to abolish slavery as some wanted to do, but they did take the forward step of giving the Congress the power to end the slave trade after 20 years. 30No nation in Europe or elsewhere had agreed to such political action.

Even so, many warned of the dangers of allowing this evil to continue. George Mason of Virginia told the delegates:

Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgement of heaven upon a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities. 31

Jefferson had written some time before this:

The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. . . . And with what execration should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other. . . . And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever. 32

Constitutional Convention Delegate, Luther Martin, stated:

[I]t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave-trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master. 33

Some today misinterpret the Constitutional provision of counting the slaves as three-fifths for purposes of representation as pro-slavery or black dehumanization. But it was a political compromise between the north and the south.. The three-fifths provision applied only to slaves and not free blacks, who voted and had the same rights as whites (and in some southern states this meant being able to own slaves). While the Southern states wanted to count the slaves in their population to determine the number of congressmen from their states, slavery opponents pushed to keep the Southern states from having more representatives, and hence more power in congress.

The Constitution did provide that runaway slaves would be returned to their owners (We saw previously that returning runaway slaves is contrary to Biblical slave laws, unless these slaves were making restitution for a crime.) but the words slave and slavery were carefully avoided. “Many of the framers did not want to blemish the Constitution with that shameful term.” The initial language of this clause was “legally held to service or labor,” but this was deleted when it was objected that legally seemed to favor “the idea that slavery was legal in a moral view.” 34

While the Constitution did provide some protection for slavery, this document is not pro-slavery. It embraced the situation of all 13 states at that time, the Founders leaving most of the power to deal with this social evil in the hands of each state. Most saw that the principles of liberty contained in the Declaration could not support slavery and would eventually overthrow it.

As delegate to the Constitutional Convention, Luther Martin put it:

Slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism, and has a tendency to destroy those principles on which it is supported, as it lessens the sense of the equal rights of mankind, and habituates us to tyranny and oppression.35

We have seen that after independence the American Founders actually took steps to end slavery. Some could have done more, but as a whole they probably did more than any group of national leaders up until that time in history to deal with the evil of slavery. They took steps toward liberty for the enslaved and believed that the gradual march of liberty would continue, ultimately resulting in the complete death of slavery. The ideas they infused in the foundational civil documents upon which America was founded – such as Creator endowed rights and the equality of all men before the law – eventually prevailed and slavery was abolished. But not without great difficulty because the generations that followed failed to carry out the gradual abolition of slavery in America.

The View of Slavery Changes

Most of America’s Founders thought slavery would gradually be abolished. Roger Sherman said that “the abolition of slavery seemed to be going on in the U.S. and that the good sense of the several states would probably by degrees complete it.” 36 But it was not. Why?

  1. Succeeding generations did not have the character and worldview necessary to complete the task started by the Founders. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Each generation must take up the cause of liberty, which is the cause of God, and fight the battle. While the majority view of the Founders was that American slavery was a social evil that needed to be abolished, many in later generations attempted to justify slavery, often appealing to the Scriptures (though, I believe, in error at many points, as mentioned earlier).
  2. American slavery was not in alignment with Biblical slave laws and God’s desire for liberty for all mankind. This inconsistency produced an institution that proved too difficult to gradually and peacefully abolish. Some Founders (like Henry and Jefferson) could not see how a peaceful resolution was possible and gave the “necessary evil” argument. Henry said: “As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition.” 37 Jefferson was opposed to slavery yet he thought that once the slaves gained freedom, a peaceful coexistence of whites and blacks would be very difficult to maintain. Jefferson predicted that if the slaves were freed and lived in America, “Deep-rooted prejudices entertained by the whites’ ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.” 38 This is why many worked (especially many from Virginia, like James Monroe and James Madison) to set up a country in Africa (Liberia) where the freed slaves could live. Some at this time did not see integration as possible, and apart from the power of God, history has shown it is not possible, as there have been and are many ethnic wars. The church must lead the way in race relations, showing all believers are brothers in Christ, and all men have a common Creator.
  3. The invention of the cotton gin, which revived the economic benefit of slavery, also contributed to a shift in the thinking of many Americans. At the time of independence and the constitutional period most people viewed slavery as an evil that should and would be abolished. But by the 1830s, many people, including some Southern ministers, began to justify it. Some, like Calhoun, even said it was a positive thing. Others justified it by promoting the inequality of the races. Stephen Douglas argued that the Declaration only applied to whites, but Lincoln rejected that argument and sought to bring the nation back to the principles of the Declaration. In the end these principles prevailed.

The Civil War

It is not the intent of this article to examine the War between the States. 39 The causes behind the war were many. Certainly slavery was a part of the cause (and for a small number of wealthy and influential Southern slave owners, it was probably primary), but slavery was not the central issue for all people in the South. Most Southerners did not own slaves and most of those who did had only a small number. 40

States rights and perceived unconstitutional taxes were also motivations for secession. There were many abolitionists in the North, both Christian and non-Christian, who pushed for the war, seeing it as a means to end slavery. Though slavery was not initially the reason Lincoln sent troops into the South, he did come to believe that God wanted him to emancipate the slaves.

In all the complexities and tragedy of the war, God was at work fulfilling His providential purposes. Due to the sin of man, to his inability to deal with slavery in a Christian manner, and to other factors, a war erupted. Both good and bad in the root causes, produced good and bad fruit in the outcome of the war. 41

Though America’s Founders failed to accomplish all of their desires and wishes in dealing with the issue of slavery, the principles of equality and God-given rights they established in the American constitutional republic set into motion events leading to the end of slavery in the United States and throughout the world. That America was founded upon such Biblical principles is what made her a Christian nation, not that there was no sin in the Founders. It is because of the Christian foundations that America has become the most free, just, and prosperous nation in history. The Godly principles infused in her laws, institutions, and families have had immense impact in overthrowing tyranny, oppression, and slavery throughout the world.

Stephen McDowell, Author

Stephen McDowell is president of the Providence Foundation, a Christian educational organization whose mission is to spread liberty, justice, and prosperity among the nations by instructing individuals in a Biblical worldview.

Endnotes

1 R.J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, vol.1, p. 137.
2 Rushdoony, p. 286.
3 Rushdoony, pp. 485-486.
4 Rushdoony, p. 251.
5 Rushdoony, p. 251.
6 Rushdoony, p. 137.
7 Henry H. Halley, Halley’s Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965), p. 645.
8 Albert Bushnell Hart, The American Nation: A History (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1906), vol. 16, Slavery and Abolition, 1831-1841, p. 50.
9 “History of slavery is wide-ranging saga”, book review by Gregory Kane of The Slave Trade by Hugh Thomas (Simon and Schuster), in The Daily Progress, Charlottesville, Va., December 7, 1997.
10 The earliest known official protest against slavery in America was the Resolutions of Germantown, Pennsylvania Mennonites, February 18, 1688. See Documents of American History, Henry Steele Commager, editor (New York: F.S. Crofts & Co., 1944), 37-38.
11 William Livingston, The Papers of William Livingston, Carl E. Prince, editor (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1988), Vol. V, p. 255, to the New York Manumission Society on June 26, 1786. In “The Founding Fathers and Slavery” by David Barton, unpublished paper, p. 5.
12 John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at Their Request, on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 50.
13 Rights of the Colonies, in Bernard Bailyn, ed., Pamphlets of the American Revolution (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965), p. 439. In “Was the American Founding Unjust? The Case of Slavery,” by Thomas G. West, Principles, a quarterly review of The Claremont Institute, Spring/Summer 1992, p. 1.
14 Hart, p. 53.
15 Letter to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786, in George Washington: A Collection, ed. W.B. Allen (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1988), p. 319.
16 Kate Mason Rowland, Life and Correspondence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York & London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1898), Vol. II, p. 321, to Robert Goodloe Harper, April 23, 1820. In Barton, p. 3.
17 Benjamin Rush, Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates from the Abolition Societies Established in Different Parts of the United States Assembled at Philadelphia (Philadelphia: Zachariah Poulson, 1794), p. 24.. In Barton, p. 4.
18 Noah Webster, Effect of Slavery on Morals and Industry (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1793), p. 48. In Barton, p. 4.
19 Adams to Robert J. Evans, June 8, 1819, in Adrienne Koch and William Peden, eds., Selected Writings of John and John Quincy Adams (New York: Knopf, 1946), p. 209. In West, p. 2.
20 John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1854), Vol. IX, pp. 92-93, to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley on January 24, 1801. In Barton, p. 3.
21 “An Address to the Public from the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery” (1789), in Franklin, Writings (New York: Library of America, 1987), p. 1154. In West, p. 2.
22 The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Adrienne Koch and William Peden, eds. (New York: Random House, 1944), p. 25.
23 Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, ed. (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore, and Mason, 1839), Vol. VIII, p. 42, to the Rev. Dean Woodward on April 10, 1773.
24 Benjamin Quarles, The Negro and the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1961), chaps. 4-6. In West, p. 2.
25 Barton, p. 5.
26 N. Dwight, The Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence (New York: A.S. Barnes & Burr, 1860), p. 11.
27 West, p. 4.
28 Harry v. Decker & Hopkins (1818), in West, p. 4.
29 Mississippi v. Jones (1820), in West, p. 4.
30 Congress banned the exportation of slaves from any state in 1794, and in 1808 banned the importation of slaves. The individual states had passed similar legislation prior to 1808 as well. However, several Southern states continued to actively import and export slaves after their state ban went into effect.
31 Mark Beliles and Stephen McDowell, America’s Providential History (Charlottesville, Va.: Providence Foundation, 1991), p. 227.
32 Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Trenton: Wilson & Blackwell, 1803), Query XVIII, pp. 221-222.
33 Luther Martin, The Genuine Information Delivered to the Legislature of the State of Maryland Relative to the Proceedings of the General Convention Lately Held at Philadelphia (Philadelphia: Eleazor Oswald, 1788), p. 57. In Barton, p. 4.
34 West, p. 5. See Max Farrand, ed. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1937), vol. 2, p. 417 (remarks on August 25), and pp. 601 (report of Committee of Style), 628 (Sept. 15). See also Madison’s Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, August 25.
35 Luther Martin, Genuine Information (1788), in Herbert J. Storing, ed., The Complete Anti-Federalist (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), vol. 2, p. 62. In West, p. 6..
36 Remarks at the Constitutional Convention, August 22, Farrand, vol. 2, pp.. 369-72. In West, pp. 7-8.
37 Henry to Robert Pleasants, Jan. 18, 1773, in Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, eds. The Founders’ Constitution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), vol. 1, p. 517; Elliot, Debates, vol. 3, p. 590. In West, p. 6. Henry also pointed out that convenience contributed to the continuation of slavery. He said: “Is it not surprising that at a time when the rights of humanity are defined with precision in a country above all others fond of liberty ‹ that, in such an age, and in such a country, we find men, professing a religion the most humane and gentle, adopting a principle as repugnant to humanity as it is inconsistent with the Bible and destructive to liberty? Believe me, I honor the Quakers for their noble efforts to abolish slavery. Every thinking, honest man regrets it in speculation, yet how few in practice from conscientious motives. Would any man believe that I am master of slaves of my own purchase? I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living without them. I will not, I cannot justify it. For however culpable my conduct, I will so far pay my devoir to virtue as to won the excellence and rectitude of her precepts, and to lament my own non-conformity to them.” In John Hancock, Essays on the Elective Franchise; or, Who Has the Right to Vote (Philadelphia: Merrihew & Son, 1865), pp. 31-32.
38 Jefferson’s Notes, Query XIV, p. 188.
39 See America’s Providential History, chapter 16 for more on a providential view of the war.
40 See Hart, pp. 67 ff. Hart records that in 1860 only about 5% of the white population made a substantial profit of slave-keeping (a direct profit; many others benefited from the commerce associated with slavery). About 2% of this number (0.1% of the total white population) were large plantation owners who exerted much political influence. Some people have pointed out that only 3% of Southerners owned slaves. While this is technically true in some measure, it is misleading. The 3% reflects ownership by the head of the household and does not include all its inhabitants. Taking this into account, at the time of the Civil War about 19% of the population lived in households with slaves; and this was 19% of total population which included a large number of slaves. When you consider that in 6 Southern states (Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina), there were almost as many or more slaves than whites, this 19% figure actually represents 35%-45% of the white population (in those states) having a direct relation to a home that had slaves.
41 See America’s Providential History, chapter 16 for some positive and negative effects of the war.

James Madison and Religion in Public

In recent days, Michael Newdow – infamous for his successful initiation of the ruling striking down “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance – has broadened his efforts and has filed suit against the use of chaplains in the U. S. House and Senate. In his public appearances defending this newest pursuit, Newdow cites James Madison’s quotes from his “Detached Memoranda” as his authority in opposing chaplains. Did Madison actually oppose chaplains in Congress? Yes, and no.

Madison’s religious views and activities are numerous, as are his writings on religion. They are at times self-contradictory, and his statements about religion are such that opposing positions can each invoke Madison as its authority. An understanding of Madison’s religious views is complicated by the fact that his early actions were at direct variance with his later opinions. Consider six examples of his early actions.

First, Madison was publicly outspoken about his personal Christian beliefs and convictions. For example, he encouraged his friend, William Bradford (who served as Attorney General under President Washington), to make sure of his own spiritual salvation:

[A] watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven.1

Madison even desired that all public officials – including Bradford – would declare openly and publicly their Christian beliefs and testimony:

I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.2

Second, Madison was a member of the committee that authored the 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights and approved of its clause declaring that:

It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other3

Third, Madison’s proposed wording for the First Amendment demonstrates that he opposed only the establishment of a federal denomination, not public religious activities. His proposal declared:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established. 4

(Madison reemphasized that position throughout the debates. 5 Fourth, in 1789, Madison served on the Congressional committee which authorized, approved, and selected paid Congressional chaplains. 6

Fifth, in 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided a Bible Society in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible. 7

Sixth, throughout his Presidency (1809-1816), Madison endorsed public and official religious expressions by issuing several proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving.8

These were the early actions of Madison. In later life Madison retreated from many of these positions, even declaring in his “Detached Memoranda” his belief that having paid chaplains and issuing presidential prayer proclamations were unconstitutional. Recent Courts have made a point of citing Madison’s “Detached Memoranda” in arguing against public religious expressions. 9

Significantly, the “Detached Memoranda” was “discovered” in 1946 in the papers of Madison biographer William Cabell Rives and was first published more than a century after Madison’s death by Elizabeth Fleet in the October 1946 William & Mary Quarterly. In that work, Madison expressed his opposition to many of his own earlier beliefs and practices and set forth a new set of beliefs formerly unknown even to his closest friends. Since Madison never made public or shared with his peers his sentiments found in the “Detached Memoranda,” and since his own public actions were at direct variance with this later writing, it is difficult to argue that it reflects the Founders’ intent toward religion.

There were fifty-five individuals directly involved in framing the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention, and an additional ninety in the first federal Congress that framed the First Amendment and Bill of Rights. Allowing for the overlap of nineteen individuals who were both at the Constitutional Convention and a part of the first Congress, 10 there were one hundred and twenty-six individual participants in the framing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The records of the Constitutional Convention demonstrate that James Madison was often out of step with these Founders. The other delegates rejected Madison’s Virginia plan in preference for Roger Sherman’s Connecticut plan and voted down 40 of Madison’s 71 proposals (60 percent). 11 Nevertheless, today Madison is cited as if he is the only authority among the Founding Fathers and the only expert on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights.

Was Madison responsible for the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights? Definitely not. In fact, during the Constitutional Convention, it was Virginian George Mason that advocated that a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution, 12 but the other Virginians at the Convention – including James Madison – opposed any Bill of Rights and their position prevailed. 13Consequently, George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph, and others at the Convention refused to sign the new Constitution because of their fear of insufficiently bridled federal power. 14

Mason and the others returned to their home States to lobby against the ratification of the Constitution until a Bill of Rights was added. As a result of their voices (and numerous others who agreed with them), the ratification of the Constitution almost failed in Virginia, 15 Massachusetts, 16 New Hampshire, 17 and New York. 18 Rhode Island flatly refused to ratify it, 19 and North Carolina refused to do so until limitations were placed upon the federal government. 20 Although the Constitution was eventually ratified, a clear message had been delivered: there was strong sentiment demanding the inclusion of a Bill of Rights.

When the Constitution was considered for ratification, the reports from June 2 through June 25, 1788, make clear that in Virginia, Patrick Henry, George Mason, and Edmund Randolph led the fight for the Bill of Rights, again over James Madison’s opposition. 21 Henry’s passionate speeches of June 5 and June 7 resulted in Virginia’s motion that a Bill of Rights be added to the federal Constitution; and on June 25, the Virginia Convention selected George Mason to chair a committee to prepare a proposed Bill of Rights, 22 with Patrick Henry and John Randolph as members. 23 Mason incorporated Henry’s arguments as the basis of Virginia’s proposal on religious liberty. 24

Although Madison had opposed a Bill of Rights, he understood the grim political reality that without one, it was unlikely the new Constitution would receive widespread public acceptance. 25 Consequently, he withdrew his opposition, and in the federal House of Representatives he introduced his own versions of the amendments offered by his State.

Very little of Madison’s proposed religious wording made it into the final version of the First Amendment; and even a cursory examination of the Annals of Congress surrounding the formation of that Amendment quickly reveals the influence of Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Samuel Livermore of New Hampshire, John Vining of Delaware, Daniel Carroll and Charles Carroll of Maryland, Benjamin Huntington, Roger Sherman, and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, William Paterson of New Jersey, and others on that Amendment. 26

The failure to rely on Founders other than Madison seems to imply that no other Founders were qualified to address First Amendment issues or that there exists no pertinent recorded statements from the other Founders. Both implications are wrong: numerous Founders played pivotal roles; and thousands of their writings do exist.

However, if critics of public religious expression believe that only a Virginian may speak for the nation on the issue of religion (they usually cite either Madison or Jefferson), then why not George Mason, the “Father of the Bill of Rights”? Or Richard Henry Lee who not only framed Virginia’s proposals but who also was a Member of the first federal Congress where he helped frame the Bill of Rights? Or why not George Washington? Perhaps the reason that these other Virginians are ignored (as are most of the other Framers) is because both their words and actions unequivocally contradict the image portrayed by the one-sided picture of Madison given by those who cite only his “Detached Memoranda.”

George Washington provides a succinct illustration. During his inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution but added several religious components to that official ceremony. Before taking his oath of office, he summoned a Bible on which to take the oath, added the words “So help me God!” to the end of the oath, then leaned over and kissed the Bible. 27 His “Inaugural Address” was filled with numerous religious references, 28 and following that address, he and the Congress “proceeded to St. Paul’s Chapel, where Divine service was performed.” 29

Only weeks later, Washington signed his first major federal bill 30 – the Northwest Ordinance, drafted concurrently with the creation of the First Amendment. 31 That act stipulated that for a territory to become a State, the “schools and the means of education” in that territory must encourage the “religion, morality, and knowledge” that was “necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind.” 32 Conforming to this requirement, numerous subsequent State constitutions included that clause, 33 and it still appears in State constitutions today. 34 Furthermore, that law is listed in the current federal code, along with the Constitution, the Declaration, and the Articles of Confederation, as one of America’s four “organic” or foundational laws. 35

Finally, in his “Farewell Address,” Washington reminded the nation:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness. . . . The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. 36

Washington – indisputably a constitutional expert – declared that religion and morality were inseparable from government, and that no true patriot, whether politician or clergyman, would attempt to weaken the relationship between government and the influence of religion and morality.

Or why not cite the actions of the entire body of Founding Fathers? For example, in 1800, when Washington, D. C., became the national capital and the President moved into the White House and Congress into the Capitol, Congress approved the use of the Capitol building as a church building for Christian worship services. 37 In fact, Christian worship services on Sunday were also started at the Treasury Building and at the War Office. 38

John Quincy Adams, a U. S. Senator, made frequent references to these services. Typical of his almost weekly entries are these:

[R]eligious service is usually performed on Sundays at the Treasury office and at the Capitol. I went both forenoon and afternoon to the Treasury. October 23, 1803. 39

Attended public service at the Capitol, where Mr. Ratoon, an Episcopalian clergyman from Baltimore, preached a sermon. October 30, 1803. 40
The Rev. Mannasseh Cutler, a U. S. Congressman (as well as a chaplain in the Revolution and a physician and scientist) similarly recorded in 1804:

December 23, Sunday. Attended worship at the Treasury. Mr. [James] Laurie [pastor of the Presbyterian Church] alone [preached]. Sacrament [communion]. Full assembly. Three tables; service very solemn; nearly four hours. Cold day. 41

By 1867, the church in the Capitol had become the largest church in Washington, and the largest Protestant church in America. 42

There are numerous other public religious activities by the Founding Fathers that might be cited, and Madison participated and facilitated many of them. Yet Madison later privately renounced his own practices, thus distancing himself from his own beliefs and practices as well as those of the other Founders. Therefore, to use Madison’s “Detached Memoranda” as authoritative is a flagrant abuse of historical records, choosing a long unknown ex post facto document in preference to those concurrent with the framing and implementation of the First Amendment.

Newdow’s use of James Madison is typical of most revisionists: it gives only the part of the story with which he agrees and omits the part with which he disagrees. If Newdow wants to take the position that the “Founding Fathers” (plural) opposed the use of chaplains, then he must provide evidence from more than one Founder; he must show that the majority of the Founders opposed chaplains – something that he cannot do.

Endnotes

1 Letter of Madison to William Bradford (November 9, 1772), in 1 James Madison, The Letters and Other Writings of James Madison 5-6 (New York: R. Worthington 1884).

2 Letter of Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773), in 1 James Madison, The Papers of James Madison 66 (William T. Hutchinson ed., Illinois: University of Chicago Press 1962).

3 The Proceedings of the Convention of Delegates, Held at the Capitol in the City of Williamsburg, in the Colony of Virginia, on Monday the 6th of May, 1776, 103 (Williamsburg: Alexander Purdie 1776) (Madison on the Committee on May 16, 1776; the “Declaration of Rights” passed June 12, 1776).

4 The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States 451, 1st Cong., 1st Sess. (Washington, D. C.: Gales & Seaton 1834) (June 8, 1789).

5Debates and Proceedings 758-759 (1834 ed.) (August 15, 1789).

6 Debates and Proceedings 109 (1834 ed.) (April 9, 1789).

7 Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States 1325, 12th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington: Gales & Seaton 1853) (“An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia. Be it enacted, &c., That the duties arising and due to the United States upon certain stereotype plates, imported during the last year into the port of Philadelphia, on board the ship Brilliant, by the Bible Society of Philadelphia, for the purpose of printing editions of the Holy Bible, be and the same are hereby remitted, on behalf of the United States, to the said society: and any bond or security given for the securing of the payment of the said duties shall be cancelled. Approved February 2, 1813.”)

8 James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, 513 (Published by Authority of Congress 1899) (July 9, 1812), 532-533 (July 23, 1813), 558 (November 16, 1814), and 560-561 (March 4, 1815).

9 See, for example, Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 617 (1992); Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 791 (1983); ACLU v. Capitol Square Review, 243 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2001); Sherman v. Cmty. Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992); American Jewish Congress v. City of Chicago, 827 F.2d 120 (7th Cir. 1787), and others.

10 Ten members of the Constitutional Convention also served in the first federal Senate (William Few, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, William Paterson, Robert Morris, Oliver Ellsworth, William Samuel Johnson, Caleb Strong, and John Langdon) and nine members of the Convention served in the first federal House (Abraham Baldwin, James Madison, Hugh Williamson, Daniel Carroll, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimons, Roger Sherman, Elbridge Gerry, and Nicholas Gilman).

11 Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution 208-209 (Lawrence, Kansas, 1985), compiled from The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (Max Farrand, ed., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. I, 216, 373, and Vol. II, 45, 306, 324-325, 345, 440, 500, and 617.

12 James Madison,The Papers of James Madison 1566 (Henry D. Gilpin, ed., Washington: Langress and O’Sullivan, 1840) (Wednesday, September 12, 1787); see also 2 Bancroft’s History of the Formation of the Constitution 209-210 (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1882), and 2 Farrand’s Records of The Federal Convention 588 (September 12, 1787) and 637 (September 15, 1787).

13 Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 306 (Jonathan Elliot, ed., Washington, 1836) (September 12, 1787).

14 Dictionary of American Biography, s.v., “George Mason,” “Edmund Randolph,” “Elbridge Gerry.”

15 Elliot’s Debates, Vol. III, 652-655, Virginia Ratification Debates, June 25, 1788.

16 Elliot’s Debates, Vol. II, 176-181, Massachusetts Ratification Debates, February 6, 1788.

17 A History of the New Hampshire Convention (Boston: Cupples & Hurd, 1888), 41-43, June 21, 1788.

18 Elliot’s Debates, Vol. II, 413, New York Ratification Debates, July 26, 1788.

19 Collections of the Rhode Island Historical Society (Providence: Knowles and Vose, 1843), Vol. V, 320-321, March 24, 1788.

20 Elliot’s Debates, Vol. IV, 242-251, North Carolina Ratification Debates, August 1-2, 1788.

21 Elliot’s Debates, Vol. III, 616-622, James Madison, Virginia Ratification Debates, June 24, 1788.

22 Life of George Mason, Vol. I, 244.

23 Elliot’s Debates, Vol. III, 655-656, Virginia Ratification Debates, June 25, 1788.

24 Patrick Henry, Life, Correspondence and Speeches, William Wirt Henry (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891), Vol. I, 430-431; see also Rowland, Life
of GeorgeMason, Vol. I, 244; see also Elliot’s Debates, Vol. III, 659, Virginia Ratification Debates, June 27, 1788.

25 Debates and Proceedings 448-450 (1st Cong., 1st Sess) (June 8, 1789); see also Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, 93-99 (1985) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).

26 Debates and Proceedings 440-948 (1st Cong., 1st Sess.) (June 8- September 24, 1789, for the records chronicling the debates surrounding the framing of the First Amendment).

27 Life of George Washington 475 (New York: G. P. Putnam & Co., 1857); Mrs. C. M Kirkland Memoirs of Washington 438 (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1870); Charles Carleton Coffin, Building the Nation 26 (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1882); etc.

28 Richardson, Messages and Papers 51-54 (April 30, 1789).

29 Annals of Congress 29 (April 30, 1789).

30 Acts Passed at a Congress of the United States of America Begun and Held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, in the Year 1789, 104 (Hartford: Hudson & Goodwin, 1791) (August 7, 1789).

31 Debates and Proceedings 685 (1st Cong., 1st Sess.) (July 21, 1789, passage by the House), and 1 Debates and Proceedings 57 (August 4, 1789, passage by the Senate).

32 Constitutions (1813) 364 (“An Ordinance of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River Ohio,” Article III).

33 For example, State constitutions across the decades reflecting this requirement include the 1803 Ohio Constitution Constitutions (1813), 334, Ohio, 1802, Article 8, Section 3); the 1817 Mississippi Constitution The Constitutions of All the United States According to the Latest Amendments (Lexington, KY: Thomas T. Skillman, 1817), 389, Mississippi, 1817, Article 9, Section 16); the 1858 Kansas Constitution (House of Representatives, Mis. Doc. No. 44, 35th Cong., 2nd Sess., February 2, 1859, 3-4, Article 1, Section 7, of the Kansas Constitution); the 1875 Nebraska Constitution (M. B. C. True, A Manual of the History and Civil Government of the State of Nebraska (Omaha: Gibson, Miller, & Richardson, 1885), 34, Nebraska, 1875, Article 1, Section 4); etc.

34 The Constitution of North Carolina 42 (Raleigh: Rufus L. Edmisten, Secretary of State, 1989) (Article 9, Section 1); Constitution of the State of Nebraska 1-2 (Lincoln: Allen J. Beermann, Secretary of State, 1992) (Article 1, Section 4); Page’s Ohio Revised Code Annotated 24 (Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co., 1994) (Article 1, Section 7).

35 United States Code Annotated 1 (St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1987) (“The Organic Laws of the United States of America”).

36 George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination 22-23 (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge, 1796).

37 Debates and Proceedings 797 (6th Cong., 2nd Sess.) (December 4, 1800).

38 John Quincy Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams 265 (Charles Francis Adams ed., Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1874) (October 23, 1803).

39 John Quincy Adams, Memoirs 265(October 23, 1803).

40 John Quincy Adams, Memoirs 268 (October 30, 1803).

41 William Parker Cutler & Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journals, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler, LL.D. 174 (Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Co. 1888).

42 James Hutson, Chief of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic 91 (Washington, D. C.: Library of Congress 1998).

Solving the Pledge of Allegiance Controversy

The recent court ruling that saying “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance threatens our American form of government came as a shock to millions of Americans. Even the cynical “nothing-can-surprise-us” national media raised its collective eyebrow at the decision.

Given the popularity of the Pledge, the reaction to that ruling was not surprising. For example, Members from both the House (mostly the Republicans) and Senate walked outside their chambers, faced the Supreme Court, and recited the Pledge – with a particularly loud emphasis on the “offensive” phrase. And for days following the decision, I was inundated with radio interviewers seeking the background of the case and its repercussions for the future. Even judges called, offering suggestions of how to deal with their renegade brethren. Congressmen also called, seeking help in drafting legislation to strip power from the courts as well as to begin impeachment proceedings against the offending judges.

This decision was described by White House and congressional leaders with adjectives such as “outrageous,” “ridiculous,” “stupid,” “asinine,” “twisted,” etc. However, it was not, as many might believe, far and away the single worst decision rendered by courts in recent years; it was just the one we all heard about. This decision, for example, was no less egregious than when the federal judge in Texas warned students that if they used the word “Jesus” in a prayer, a federal marshal would arrest them and give them six months in jail. Nor was this decision less despicable than when a federal judge in Alabama ordered undercover monitors into the classrooms to report to him if students engaged in illegal and forbidden religious conduct – such as praying over their lunches at school. No, these unpublicized decisions were just as unsavory as the recent one by the 9th Circuit.

Nonetheless, millions of Americans, now made aware of this absurd decision, are properly asking whether it will be overturned. Yet the more important question is how this decision came to be made in the first place.

The nation received its first public glimpse into what lay behind this decision during the second presidential debate in St. Louis in 2000. Al Gore promised that if he were elected President, he would continue the practice of his predecessor and place judges on the courts who believed that the Constitution was a living document. George Bush, on the other hand, pledged that his judicial nominees would be strict constructionists.

  • A strict constructionist interprets the Constitution as it is written, not as he or she wished it had been written. Thus, the Constitution’s guarantee of the “free exercise of religion” would protect the right to use “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
  • A judge who believes in a “living constitution” believes that what the Supreme Court says about an issue is more important than what the Constitution says about the same issue. These judges agree with the philosophy set forth by former Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes that, “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”

The decision of the three judges in the Pledge case revealed that only one of the three was a strict constructionist – and unfortunately he was outvoted by the two “living constitution” judges. Significantly, those two did not use the Constitution to strike down the Pledge but instead cited three recent tests erected by the Supreme Court to replace the express language of the Constitution.

The first test was established in 1971 when the Court decided that the language of the religion clauses in the Constitution would be replaced with what it called its “Lemon Test.” Under this test, unless a public religious activity had a primarily secular purpose, that religious activity would be unconstitutional. In 1984, the Court established its second test, the “Endorsement Test,” declaring that if it appeared that the government was permitting a public religious activity, then the activity would be unconstitutional because someone might think that the government was “endorsing” religion. Then, in 1992, the Court added its third test, the “Psychological Coercion Test.” Under this test, if a single individual (such as the atheist in California who objected to the Pledge) is uncomfortable in the presence of a public religious public activity, then the Court will make that activity stop.

The two judges who ruled against the Pledge cited each of these three Tests rather than the Constitution. They struck down the Pledge because it failed the “Lemon Test,” the “Endorsement Test,” and the “Psychological-Coercion Test.”

While most Americans are completely unaware of these two judicial philosophies, those in Washington are not. In fact, it is the Senate’s clear understanding of these two philosophies that has caused one of the biggest unreported battles this session.

President Bush, true to his promise, has nominated 103 “strict constructionists” to fill federal judgeships. The Senate leadership, however, has refused to confirm his judges slated for the Court of Appeals. The Senate understands that if “strict constructionists” were placed on the courts, then the judicially-enacted national policies against school and graduation prayers, against the protection of innocent life, against traditional morality, etc. would be threatened. In fact, many of President Bush’s judicial nominees have gone more than a year without Senate action while it took President Clinton an average of only 77 days for the Senate to get his “living constitution” judicial nominees confirmed. Therefore, even though the Senate voted a 99-0 condemnation of the Pledge decision, for many Senators this vote was largely disingenuous since more that half the Senate (nearly all the Democrats) is actively engaged in keeping judges off the courts who would uphold the Pledge.

Yet, despite the Senate’s direct complicity in the Pledge decision, the Senate is not to blame for this travesty; Christians are. Why? Because of their widespread refusal to vote. There are 60 million evangelicals in America, and in the last election only 15 million voted (and 24 million of those 60 million evangelicals are not even registered to vote)! In that same election, five Senators lost who, if still in office, would have provided a majority of Senators that would confirm President Bush’s judicial nominees. However, those five Senators lost by a collective total of 100,000 votes in those five States – and 45 million evangelicals did not even vote in that election!

If Christians had voted for God-fearing Senators last election, not only would we have a different type of judge moving into the federal judiciary but fifty-three measures now languishing in the Senate would now be law. Those measures include a ban on human cloning, a ban on partial-birth abortions, a ban on “aborting” children after they are born (called the “Infants Born-Alive Protection Act”), a reversal of the discrimination against marriage, protection for faith-based programs, and many other measures. The President wants to sign these bills; the House has already passed them; but the Senate leadership refuses even to hold hearings on them.

President James A. Garfield (an ordained minister of the Gospel) foresaw a century ago where we are today:

Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If that body be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. If the next centennial does not find us a great nation, it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.

Understanding the importance of Christian involvement in elections, and its impact on the entire nation, Rev. Charles Finney (a leader in the 19th century’s Second and Third Great Awakenings) warned:

The Church must take right ground in regard to politics. . . . The time has come that Christians must vote for honest men and take consistent ground in politics. . . . God cannot sustain this free and blessed country which we love and pray for unless the Church will take right ground. Politics are a part of a religion in such a country as this, and Christians must do their duty to the country as a part of their duty to God. . . . God will bless or curse this nation according to the course Christians take in politics.

If we want to see less Pledge of Allegiance type rulings, then its time that Christians get out and vote. Thirty-three States have Senate elections this November, and in many of those States there are solid, evangelical, God-fearing Christians running for the Senate. In fact, many of those now running for the U. S. Senate have been in the U. S. House passing the good bills, but now want to move to the Senate where they can help break the logjam.

As the November elections draw near, heed the words of the Rev. Matthias Burnet, who in 1803 properly warned:

Ye whose high prerogative it is to . . . invest with office and authority or to withhold them and in whose power it is to save or destroy your country, consider well the important trust . . . which God . . . has put into your hands. To God and posterity you are accountable for them. . . . Let not your children have reason to curse you for giving up those rights and prostrating those institutions which your fathers delivered to you.

united states flag

Ten Steps To Change America

Change Is Needed

What can be done to halt the havoc loosed on the United States since the early 60s? There must be two reversals, the first and most obvious one must occur in our national public stance toward God: the Supreme Court’s current ban on the acknowledgment of God and the use of His principles in public is a direct challenge to Him and has thus triggered the law of national accountability, subjecting the nation to severe consequences. Therefore, our current national public stand against God must be set aside.

The second reversal must center on the restoration of the personal benefits derived from living by Godly principles. For example, when the Courts ruled that students might not use the Ten Commandments, nor study the Scriptures, nor learn about sexual abstinence, etc., the separation of these teachings caused personal, individual harm to those students, as forewarned in Deuteronomy 6:24 and 10:13:

The Lord commanded us to obey all these decrees so that we might always prosper.

Observe the Lord’s decrees for your own good.

Observing His principles serves to our benefit. When His commands are rejected, it is to our own harm. Millions have been harmed by the mandated separation of His principles from specific arenas of their lives. The efforts at restoration and reversal must occur on both the national and on the individual levels.

Court Rulings & Christian Responses

In the decades immediately preceding the Court rulings (the 1920s, 30s, 40s, etc.), Christians en masse had voluntarily removed themselves from the political, social, and legal arenas. Whenever the Godly depart from any arena, their own Godly values depart with them. A person in office always legislates according to his own personal beliefs and convictions, and herein is the wisdom of Proverbs 29:2 made evident: “When the righteous rule, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.”

It was the plan and intent of the Founders that the Godly, and thereby Godly principles, remain intimately involved in the political, judicial, and educational realms. The Founders believed that only the Godly would understand the unalienable freedoms provided by God and thus protect them in our form of government; and they never intended that Christian principles be divorced from public affairs.

Christians, through bad doctrine, political inactivity, and apathy had handed the reins of the nation over to leaders who awarded potential lifelong appointments to Justices not only willing but also eager to uproot the Christian practices that had been the heart of this nation for centuries. Quite frankly, the Court’s 1962 (and subsequent) religion-hostile decisions were merely an outgrowth of what the Christian community-at-large had permitted and encouraged in the decades preceding those rulings.

A Biblical description of this process is given by Jesus in Matthew 13:24-26.  In that parable, good people had a good field growing good seed. However, an enemy came in and planted bad among the good, thus contaminating the entire field. What afforded the enemy such an opportunity? The stark answer is found in verse 24: “While the good men slept, the enemy came in.” Jesus never faulted the enemy for doing what he did, for it was his task and purpose to destroy; Jesus placed the fault on the good men who went to sleep, thus allowing the enemy to do what he did. Very bluntly what has occurred in America happened first because the church went to sleep, and then because the enemy came in and caused the damage.

The problems we have created for ourselves, although colossal, can be solved. Reversing the current trends involves making changes in the two areas mentioned earlier: (1) the official unfriendly stand taken against God must be corrected, and (2) religious principles and moral teachings must be restored and made available to individuals in public arenas. There are at least ten specific activities suggested in this chapter which can help realize these goals.

I. The first thing is to do first things first:

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men, for [leaders] and for all that are in authority. 1 TIMOTHY 2:1

This is not an arbitrary, haphazard plan given by God; God wants every individual to pray for civic leaders first, because civic leaders and their policies affect every individual. Simply for our own benefit we should be praying regularly for our leaders at local, state, and federal levels in each branch of government. Prayer will be the first key to effecting significant and lasting change, for situations do not change on earth until they have been changed in the heavenlies. Additionally, we need to pray faithfully that God will root the wicked from office and will raise up righteous individuals to replace them. “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” and having the right individuals in office will prevent the enactment of many damaging policies. As explained by William Penn:

[G]overnments rather depend upon men than men upon governments. . . . Let men be good and the government cannot be bad. . . . [T]hough good laws do well, good men do better; for good laws may want [lack] good men . . . but good men will never want [lack] good laws nor suffer [allow bad] ill ones. [1]

Pray individually not only for our leaders on every level, but enlarge your sphere of influence and organize small groups to pray for our leaders.

2. Voluntary prayer currently is greatly restricted in many schools, but that does not mean children should not be trained daily to pray.

If you have children of school age, pray with them each day before they leave for school. Show them from the Scriptures the importance of prayer and petition, and help them begin each day by seeking God. Encourage them to pray specifically for students, families, schools, and the nation. God wants us to train our children in the importance of prayer.

The prayer of the upright is His delight. PROVERBS 15:8

Pray without ceasing. 1 THESSALONIANS 5:17

Continue in prayer. COLOSSIANS 4:2

3. Children currently receive little accurate information from their schools or public institutions either about the historical role of Christians in the nation or about the importance of involving Godly principles in our public affairs.

Nevertheless, you can help them obtain correct information. If you have children, teach them the Christian history, heritage, and traditions of our nation. If you do not have children, then educate those around you (i.e., Sunday School class, civic club, etc.) to an accurate history of our nation.

4. The political realm, formerly dominated by Christians, is still available to them.

It was the use of politics that resulted in the elimination of religious activities and the public acknowledgment of God from public affairs; it can therefore restore those principles. While it might seem easier to empty the ocean with a thimble than to change politics, it is actually not as difficult as many people think. We’ve probably heard, or perhaps even made, statements such as: “I’m only an individual-one vote. What can I do?” “My vote won’t make a difference anyway.” “It does us no good to vote. As Christians, we’re already in the minority.” Sound familiar? The fact is, such statements are not true.

A Gallup Poll shows that 84 percent of this nation firmly believe in Jesus Christ, [2] and a separate poll indicates that 94 percent believe in God.[3] Polls have shown that:

  1. Over 80 percent approve of voluntary prayer in school. [4]
  2. 81 percent of the nation opposes homosexual behavior. [5]>
  3. 89 percent opposes the use of abortion as a means of convenience birth control. [6]

Additional findings could be cited, but the conclusion is inescapable: although we have been led to believe that we, the 94 percent who believe in God, are the minority, we most definitely are not!

Imagine a hypothetical vote in the U. S. Senate where the final tally was 94 to 6. It would be untenable for the 6 to be declared the winner and to have their policy enacted over the votes of the 94; yet this is exactly what happened when the public acknowledgment of God was prohibited. Can such an act truly be appropriate either in a republic (to which we pledge our allegiance) or in a democracy (which we most often claim to be)? Certainly not! Yet, unfortunately, this travesty continues to occur on a regular basis today. We have relinquished our right to be a democratic-republic and instead have become an oligarchy-a nation ruled by a small group or a council of “elite” individuals.

While polls show that the overwhelming majority of our citizens seem ready to return Godly precepts to public affairs, it is clear that a vast number of our elected officials are not. Whose fault is that? Notice President James Garfield’s answer to this question:

Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. . . . If the next centennial does not find us a great nation . . . it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces. [7]

Proof that it is up to us, the citizens, not them, the leaders, came in one election cycle, in 5 Senate races. The five candidates who stood for returning Godly principles to public affairs were defeated by a collective total of only 57,000 votes-less than 12,000 votes per state. Yet in those five states, there were over 5 million Christians who did not even vote! If only 1 of every 100 nonvoting Christians-one percent-had voted for the candidate supporting Godly principles, those five would have been elected and would have created a ten-vote swing in the Senate; five unGodly men would have been retired and five Godly men would have taken their places.

This is not the disheartening report it seems; actually, it is very encouraging, for it shows that Godly candidates are most often defeated not by activists and radicals, but by inactive Christians! This means that we do have the power to make a difference. When Christians begin to believe that we can make a difference and begin to act like the majority we are, we will make a difference. The ability to change the current situation is in our hands. As Edmund Burke explained:

All that is necessary forevil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. [8]

There is much that “good men” can do to stop the triumph of evil. One of the most important is to vote, and to vote Biblically. John Jay, America’s first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, once received a letter inquiring from him whether it was permissible for a Christian to vote for an unGodly candidate. Jay responded:

Whether our religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachment to Ahab [“Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?” 2 Chronicles 19:2] affords a salutary lesson. [9]

On another occasion, Jay advised:

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. It is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. [10]

Daniel Webster delivered a similarly strong warning to teach our youth that:

[T]he exercise of the elective franchise is a social duty of as solemn a nature as man can be called to perform; that a man may not innocently trifle with his vote; that every free elector is a trustee as well for others as himself; and that every man and every measure he supports has an important bearing on the interests of others as well as on his own. [11]

Founding Father Noah Webster delivered a similar admonition:

Let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God [Exodus 18:21]. . . . [I]f the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted . . . If [our] government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws. [12]

These admonitions to vote, and to vote Biblically, came not only from our political leaders, but from our spiritual leaders as well. Charles Finney, a prominent minister in the early 1800s, succinctly declared:

The time has come that Christians must vote for honest men and take consistent ground in politics or the Lord will curse them. . . . God cannot sustain this free and blessed country which we love and pray for unless the Church will take right ground. [13]

It is time to believe and to behave differently. We are not a minority; we are the majority! It is time to declare at the ballot box that we will no longer allow officials who embrace the values of the 6 percent who do not believe in God to abrogate the rights of the 94 percent who do. We must remove officials who do not comply with traditional, historical, and Biblical principles and replace them with those who do. We can make a difference! Our vote does count!

5. Too often, an allegedly “good” candidate is elected and we later end up regretting his public stands and votes. Much of this could be eliminated if the right questions were asked before election.

We need to know more about a candidate than just the professional qualifications; we also need to know the personal traits that qualify him to represent us. As pointed out in a famous textbook first published in 1800:

A public character is often an artificial one. It is not, then, in the glare of public, but in the shade of private life that we are to look for the man. Private life is always real life. Behind the curtain, where the eyes of the million are not upon him . . . there he will always be sure to act himself: consequently, if he act greatly, he must be great indeed. Hence it has been justly said, that, “our private deeds, if noble, are noblest of our lives.”. . . [I]t is the private virtues that lay the foundation of all human excellence. [14]

It is not only proper, it is vital to investigate a candidate’s private life and beliefs before placing him into office. The reason is made clear in Matthew 7:16-20 and in Luke 6:43-44; in these passages, Jesus reminds us that bad roots will produce bad fruit. Consequently, a candidate’s moral and religious “roots” must be investigated before placing him into office. A candidate who produced bad fruit in private life will produce bad fruit in public life. Understanding this truth, Founding Father Elias Boudinot, President of the Continental Congress, reminded us to . . .

. . . be religiously careful in our choice of all public officers . . . and judge of the tree by its fruits. [15]

John Adams similarly charged us:

We electors have an important constitutional power placed in our hands; we have a check upon two branches of the legislature. . . . It becomes necessary to every [citizen] then, to be in some degree a statesman: and to examine and judge for himself. [16]

While there are many ways to ascertain a candidate’s private beliefs and behavior, two are readily available to any individual or group. The first is outside monitoring, and the second is direct questioning.

Outside monitoring. Many groups publish a voter’s guide showing the voting records of incumbents and the position of challengers on moral and religious issues of concern to the God-fearing community. A listing of several of these groups may be found on our Helpful Links  page. Contact the group’s national headquarters to get information on obtaining a voter’s guide for your state. The national group will usually refer you to one of their state groups/chapters in your local area. While each of the national groups may not have a representative, there is usually at least one of the groups which will have a contact in your area. You may have to call several of the national groups before you finally make the local connection you need, but don’t give up; the information you finally receive will be well worth the effort.

Direct Questioning. Another way to obtain information on a candidate’s stands on specific issues is simply to phone his or her office and ask. In addition to any questions which you might have concerning state or local issues, three additional questions you can pose will almost universally reveal the moral philosophy which guides that candidate. Specifically question each candidate on:

  • His view on the relationship between God and government.
  • His view on abortion.
  • His view on homosexual behavior.

The answers to these questions will reveal whether the candidate perceives the importance of God’s principles to government, whether he understands the value of life and of protecting the innocent, and finally whether he believes that there are behavioral absolutes based on fundamental rights and wrongs. How a candidate answers these three questions will identify the moral foundation from which all other political decisions will be made.

No matter which position a candidate is seeking, scrutinize his stands. Some candidates will argue that since they are seeking only the position of justice-of-the-peace, city treasurer, dogcatcher, etc., that their stands on issues like abortion will have no bearing on their office. While that statement may seem innocuous, it is misleading.

In Exodus 18:21, God holds forth the same standards for all elected officials regardless of whether they are “leaders of tens” (local), “leaders of fifties” (county), “leaders of hundreds” (state), or “leaders of thousands” (federal). The logic behind this is simple: nearly every current “leader of thousands” was once a “leader of tens”; that is, many low-level local offices have been starting points for prominent national careers. Therefore, screen candidates thoroughly at the lowest levels of government, for this is where their election or defeat is the easiest. Once a candidate is in office and becomes an incumbent, statistics show that his defeat and removal from office is much more difficult.

When you examine a candidate, realize that it is not vital that you agree on every specific doctrinal point. The determining factor is, do we agree on what the Founding Fathers called “the moral law”?; that is, do we agree on the moral essentials? Alexis de Tocqueville, in his famous book Democracy in America (still available in bookstores today), explained:

The sects [Christian denominations] which exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due from man to his Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner; but all the sects preach the same moral law in the name of God . . . [A]lmost all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same. [17]

This nation will not be put back on track by Baptists alone, or by Catholics alone, or by Methodists alone, or by Pentecostals alone, or by any other single group; there is not enough strength in any one denomination to return America to its Biblical roots. However, it will be put back on track by Christians of all denominations committed to the same moral law of God. Be prepared to accommodate an appropriate degree of tolerance for those of other religious communities without compromising basic Biblical principles of morality.

Once you have determined each candidate’s stand on moral and religious issues, do all you can to publicize those positions to your friends, acquaintances, and associates. (Note: It does not violate any tax-exempt provision of the IRS for a church to distribute voter’s guides or candidate positions; a voter’s guide is an educational publication and does not jeopardize a church’s tax-exempt status. A church may educate its members on the beliefs of candidates concerning issues of concern to Christians. It is only as an official corporate body that the church may not endorse a specific candidate or party. However, a pastor may endorse a candidate or a party-even from the pulpit-as long as he makes it clear that he is simply delivering his own opinion and that he is not speaking on behalf of the church board or church corporation. A pastor does not forfeit his right to freedom of speech just because he is a pastor.

6. After you have identified a Godly candidate, there is much you can do to help him or her.

Frequently such a candidate may not receive good media coverage; however, this is neither an unusual nor an insurmountable problem. Candidates with strong grass-roots efforts regularly overcome the media influence and win.

Once you identify a candidate who can make a positive difference, get involved with him. Offer as much financial support as you can (whether little or much), and then call the office and volunteer some time to the campaign, even if it is only an hour or two. By volunteering to help a Godly candidate, you will, in fact, be helping yourself and your posterity; it is important to remember posterity and to leave them something better than we have. The Rev. Matthias Burnet, in a sermon delivered before the Connecticut legislature in 1803, addressed this very concern when he stated:

Finally, ye . . . whose high prerogative it is to . . . invest with office and authority or to withhold them, [by voting] and in whose power it is to save or destroy your country, consider well the important trust . . which God . . . [has] put into your hands. To God and posterity you are accountable for them. . . . Let not your children have reason to curse you for giving up those rights and prostrating those institutions which your fathers delivered to you. [18]

We need to help the good candidates, for our own sake and for the sake of our children. However, when helping a candidate, learn to look beyond party. You might have been born a Democrat; you might have been born a Republican; you might have been born an Independent; that doesn’t matter. The fact is, you were reborn a Christian; reflect that in your political involvement. As Founding Father Benjamin Rush once declared:

I have been alternately called an aristocrat and a democrat. I am neither. I am a Christocrat. I believe all power . . . will always fail of producing order and happiness in the hands of man. He alone who created and redeemed man is qualified to govern him. [19]

Be a Christocrat; get involved with solid Godly candidates no matter what their party.

7. Another mechanism for effective change is direct contact with your Congressman.

A sincere, personal letter expressing your views and your concerns to your Congressman is effective, but for too long, most Americans have underestimated the effect they can have and thus have remained silent on many issues.

I had an opportunity once to participate directly in the introduction of a significant federal legislative bill. The bill received support from a wide variety of Congressmen (in fact, in the preceding month, the House of Representatives had voted two-to-one in favor of the material in the proposed bill). The bill was referred to the appropriate committee and subcommittee; however, those two chairmen refused to allow any hearings or discussion on the bill; they were both determined to let it die in committee.

Because of the widespread support already evident, and because it seemed inappropriate for only two individuals to block the progress of that bill, we asked several Congressmen how to get that bill released from the committee. The Congressmen instructed us to locate individuals in those two men’s home districts who would be willing to write letters to the two requesting that the bill be released and that hearings be scheduled on it.

To determine how many letters would be needed, we queried several: “Congressman, how do you know when you have a ‘hot’ issue?” Their answer was startling: “If we get as many as fifty letters on a bill, it’s a very hot issue.” They further indicated that, in their opinion, twenty letters would be sufficient pressure to cause the two Congressmen to reverse their position on the bottled-up bill. Amazed, we asked: “How many letters do you usually receive on a bill?” They responded, “Five to ten is normal.”

The fact that five to ten letters is the norm on a bill is a compelling commentary on the inactivity of most of us. Each Congressman represents at least 500,000 individuals, and as few as 20 letters can cause him to reverse his stand!  This explains why philosophical minorities and anti-Christian groups are often more successful in reaching their goals in Congress: they are simply more active in generating individual contacts with a Congressman.

In communicating with your Congressman, it is important that your contacts be personal. Congressmen openly acknowledge that mass-produced mailings, form letters, or petitions get no response and usually go into the trash. In their view, if a person does not feel strongly enough about a bill or an issue to express himself in a personal, original letter, then he receives little serious consideration.

A personal letter is effective, even a short one; and letter writing is not only easy, but often takes less time than imagined. Usually, the difficulty is simply in getting started; once you begin your letter, the thoughts and feelings flow easily. Here are a few suggestions to assist you in effective letter writing:

  • Be personal in your letter. Use the name of your Congressman-don’t address it to “Dear Congressman”. You typically don’t appreciate mail addressed to “Dear Occupant”; neither does he; call him/her by name. (You can obtain the name of your Congressman through the library, Chamber of Commerce, or other similar public service organizations.)
  • Get to the point-don’t be long-winded or wordy; three or four paragraphs is plenty and is much more likely to receive serious attention than is a lengthy letter. After a short friendly greeting, explain why you are writing and what you would like the Congressman to do.
  • Be specific in your requests. If possible, try to give the name, number, or description of the bill or measure with which you are concerned. Do not ask him to do general things like bring world peace, end the famines in Africa, etc.; he can no more do that than you can.
  • Don’t get preachy. Give practical, well-thought-out, logical reasons for your position and why you want him to take certain steps. Don’t use Christian cliches or phrases.
  • Don’t threaten. Don’t tell him, for example, that if he doesn’t vote the way you want that you will never vote for him again, or that if he doesn’t stop abortion that he will stand before God and answer for his votes. Although these things may be true, Philippians 2:14 instructs us to do everything without threatening. Threats tend to bring out the stubborn side in most individuals.
  • Be complimentary and appreciative, not antagonistic, provoking, obnoxious, rude, or abrasive. The Bible says not to speak evil of a ruler (Acts 23:5) and that a soft word breaks down the hardest resistance (Proverbs 25:15).
  • Close with a statement of appreciation, and sincerely and genuinely thank him (for his service, for his consideration of your request, etc.), and then ask him for a response to your letter.

The address for your federal Representative or Senator is:

Name of your Representative
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC, 20515

Name of your Senator
U. S. Senate
Washington, DC, 20510

Because letter-writing does have an effect, many churches now are setting aside a portion of one service a month for their members to write letters. While it is very effective-and relatively easy-to organize a church or home letter-writing group, there is some preparation which must be done for this type of group activity.

The church leadership may designate one (or several) individuals to research current bills/issues of concern to the Christian community. (There are several groups listed on our “Helpful Links” page which monitor issues and bills of importance to Christians; it is beneficial to get on mailing lists of one or more of these groups in order to be informed about current issues.) The church then provides information on these bills or issues to the congregation in conjunction with a service (perhaps on a blackboard, an overhead, or a handout) and next provides the members with the paper and the time necessary to jot a short note to their Congressmen on one of the bills/issues. This entire process usually requires only 10-15 minutes; and since twenty letters can have substantial impact, virtually any church, Sunday School class, home-meeting group, etc. should easily be able to generate more than enough letters on a single bill/issue to create a “crisis” for a Congressman.

Although letters are more effective than calls, calls are still very effective. If you decide to call instead of write, dial the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. When the operator answers, ask for your Senator or Representative by name. When that office answers, ask to speak to your Congressman. If he is available, often he will speak with you. If he is unavailable, simply express to his staff your concern or how you expect him to vote on a particular issue. The staff will record your feelings and will communicate them to the Congressman. (This process is just as effective with your state and local leaders as it is with your federal officials.)

8. Often, we seem to be overwhelmed with bad news and regular reports concerning the loss or compromise of yet another moral or Biblical principle.

Why is this the case? According to a recent study, the majority of those working in certain areas of the public media consider themselves “liberal” and support immoral stands which most Godly individuals oppose. [20] We therefore receive a steady presentation of what the “liberal” media believes to be important and a suppression of what we believe to be important. Consequently, we often feel that we are a minority and have no power to alter the stand of our government.

Song of Solomon 8:13 tells us otherwise; it declares a simple principle: “Your companions hearken to your voice, so speak!” You can be effective in communicating a different viewpoint to your friends and to others, and one way is through the “Letters to the Editor” section of your local newspaper. Your views can offer an alternative to those frequently presented by the media and can show other silent or discouraged ones that there are many who actually feel as they do. Commit yourself to writing one or two public letters a month.

When composing such a letter, be sure to avoid being purely emotional (and thus often illogical); also, avoid using Christian cliches and phrases-they communicate only to other well-informed Christians and not to the general population.  In an English newspaper, you would not write in Japanese, nor would you write in Portuguese; therefore, don’t write in Christian-ese. Christian-ese is just as foreign a language to many readers as is Chinese or Swahili. Adopt the philosophy of Paul explained in 1 Corinthians 9:19-22:

[T]o win as many as possible. . . I became like one under the law so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law. . . so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak to win the weak.  I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.

Utilize the opportunity to give sound, practical reasons for your opinions and to provide a basis for others to adopt your views. As 1 Peter 3:15 instructs: “Be ready to give an answer to everyone.”

9. As you become more active and involved, don’t underestimate the effect of the experience you are gaining.

Be willing to step into leadership, perhaps by stepping out to inform the community of important issues and consideration, perhaps by recruiting others to run for office, or perhaps even by running for local offices yourself.

Local offices are important-they influence the entire community. Furthermore, it is easier to be elected to local government or to local school boards than to be elected to a statewide or national office. Don’t be afraid to run for a position on the local school board, city council, or other areas where you can begin helping to implement changes. While Charles Finney’s statement from the mid-1800s is appropriate for every level, it is especially true at the local level:

Politics are part of a religion in such a country as this and Christians must do their duty to the country as a part of their duty to God. It seems sometimes as if the foundations of the nation are becoming rotten, and Christians seem to act as if they think God does not see what they do in politics. But I tell you He does see it, and He will bless or curse this nation, according to the course they [Christians] take. [21]

Recognize that involvement in civil government is a legitimate ministry: in Luke 19:17-19, Jesus shows that the reward God gave to those who proved themselves faithful was to place them in civil government, and Romans 13:4 declares that civil leaders are “ministers of God.” God wants His people in all arenas, including that of government, for government won’t be redeemed from without; it must be redeemed from within by people of Godly principles and integrity.

10. Finally, it is vital that we develop an attitude of unswervable duty coupled with an attitude of resolute steadfastness.

For the most part, our culture has developed a short-term, microwave mentality. Television seems to teach us that a family or a national crisis can arise and be resolved completely within a 30- or 60-minute program; consequently, we have embraced impatience as a national characteristic.

That characteristic too often infects our attitude toward involvement in public affairs. For example, we may get involved in an election or two; but when we don’t see a complete turnaround, we have a tendency to throw up our hands, declare that we tried and that it didn’t make any difference, then scurry on to our next inspiration. It took nearly half-a century to arrive at the situation in which we find ourselves today; that situation will not be reversed in one election, or two.

Even if the recovery turns out to be just as lengthy as was the disease, a recovery will come if we faithfully persist. Galatians 6:9 promises that we will reap the benefits if we will simply hang in there long enough. We must learn to be content with small, steady gains. The principle of retaking lost ground slowly, while neither appealing nor gratifying to our natural impatience, is a well-articulated Biblical principle:

I will not drive them out in a single year . . . Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land. EXODUS 23:29-30
The Lord your God will drive [them] out before you . . . little by little. You will not be allowed to eliminate them all at once.DEUTERONOMY 7:22

To retake lost ground quickly is not the strategy prescribed by the Lord Himself; the rewards promised in the Scriptures go to the faithful (Matthew 25:21, 23). Commit yourself to this engagement for the long haul-for the duration; arm yourself with the mentality of a marathon runner, not a sprinter. Very simply, be willing to stay and compete until you win.

Conclusion

We must regain the conviction that Biblical principles are vital to national success, and we must be willing to pursue their reinstatement. In recent decades, we have wrongly allowed the very principles which produced morality and virtue, and thus national stability, to be restricted in public life. We need once again to recognize the truth so well understood by George Washington that:

[T]he propitious [favorable] smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained. [22]

We must become convinced of the principle expressed by Abraham Lincoln and then accept the civic responsibilities implied by his statement that:

The truth announced in the Holy Scripture, and proven by all history [is] that, “Those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.” [23]

Endnotes

[1] Thomas Clarkson, Memoirs of the Private and Public Life of William Penn (London: Longman, Hunt, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1813), I:303.

[2] The Unchurched American . . . 10 Years Later (Princeton: The Princeton Religion Research Center, 1988), 25.

[3] Religion in America: 92-93 (Princeton: The Princeton Religion Research Center), 20, from a survey conducted for the Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc., by The Gallup Organization, Inc., in 1986.

[4] D. Gilbert, Compendium of American Public Opinion (New York: Facts on File Publications, 1988), 313.

[5] Congressional Record, June 29, 1987, H. 3511, citing General Social Survey Annual of the National Opinion Research Center.

[6] U. S. House of Representatives, What America Believes: The Rest of the Story (Republican Staff of the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, U. S. House of Representatives, 1990), 12, citing the Boston Globe, October 31, 1989.

[7] John M. Taylor, Garfield of Ohio: The Available Man (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc.), 180. Quoted from “A Century of Progress,” by James A. Garfield, published in Atlantic, July 1877.

[8] John Bartlett, Familiar Quotations (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1980), 374.

[9] John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 1794-1826, ed. Henry P. Johnston (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1893), IV:365.

[10] Id. at IV:393.

[11] Daniel Webster, The Works of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1853), II:108, on October 5, 1840.

[12] Noah Webster, The History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie and Peck, 1832), 336-337, 49.

[13] Charles G. Finney, Revival Lectures (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming Revell Co., reprinted 1970), Lecture XV:336-337.

[14] M. L. Weems, The Life of Washington (Philadelphia: Joseph Allen, 1800), 6-7.

[15] Elias Boudinot, An Oration, Delivered at Elizabeth-town, New-Jersey . . . on the Fourth of July (Elizabethtown: Kollock, 1793), 14-15.

[16] John Adams, The Works of John Adams (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), III:437, on August 29, 1763.

[17] Alexis De Tocqueville, The Republic of the United States of America (New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1851), 331.

[18] Matthias Burnet, D.D., Pastor of the First Church in Norwalk, An Election Sermon, Preached at Hartford Anniversary Election, May 12, 1803 (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1803), 26-27.

[19] David Ramsay, An Eulogium Upon Benjamin Rush, M.D. (Philadelphia: Bradford and Inskeep, 1813), 103.

[20] S. Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman, The Media Elite (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1986), 28-29.

[21] Charles G. Finney, Revival Lectures (Reprinted Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming Revel Company, 1970), Lecture XV:336-337.

[22] James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Message and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), I:52-53.

[23] Id. at VI:164, March 30, 1863.

A Constitutional Amendment Restoring Religious Freedom

H. J. Res. 46 — a constitutional amendment restoring religious freedom— was introduced in the 108th Congress. That Amendment declares:

To secure the people’s right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience:

The people retain the right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, and traditions on public property, including schools.

The United States and the States shall not establish any official religion nor require any person to join in prayer or religious activity.

If you do not know your U. S. Congressman, go to https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative if you want to see this protection for voluntary school prayer and public religious expressions such as displays of the Ten Commandments, you need to contact your Congressmen — even if he or she already supports this issue.

  1. Type in your zip code to learn the name of your Representative.
  2. Call your Representative at (202) 224-3121. When the Capitol switchboard operator answers, ask for your Senator or Representative by name. When that office answers, ask to speak to your Congressman. If they are available, they will speak with you; if unavailable, simply tell the staff that you want the Congressman (A) to co-sponsor H. J. Res. 46, (B) to bring the bill to the floor for a vote, and (C) to vote for the Religious Freedom Amendment.
  3. If you wish to write your Congressman to communicate the same message, the address is:

Name of your Representative

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC, 20515

 

Name of your Senator

U.S. Senate

Washington, DC, 20510

The “Religious Freedom Amendment” is far too important to die a slow and obscure political death. Therefore, for the sake of this generation — as well as future ones — we should heed the advice of John Hancock:

I [urge] you by all that is dear, by all that is honorable, by all that is sacred, not only that ye pray but that ye act.

(To access information (sponsors, status, etc.) and track the progress of the “Religious Freedom Amendment,” go to https://thomas.loc.gov and type in “HJRes 46.”)

** This is historic information and not applicable to current pieces of legislation. **

The Bible and Taxes

Capital Gains Taxes

The Capital Gains Tax, which is a tax on profits, actually penalizes a person for success. With this, the more profit you make the more you have to pay. (The more profit a person makes the higher tax rate they pay on that profit/windfall from an investment). However, in the Bible, those who earn more profit are rewarded. The parables of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) and of the minas (Luke 19:12-27) conflict with the notion of a tax on capital gains. “For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away.” In other words, the Bible implies that those who invest well with what they have will receive more.

Wages

The parable of the landowner and laborers (Matthew 20:1-16) is applicable to the employer/employee relationship and the issue of wages. The landowner hires workers at different times of the day and yet pays each worker the same amount at the end of the day. When the workers hired first complain, the landowner replies, “Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things?” (“things” is translated as “money” in some versions) There is an implication that the landowner had the right to determine the wages of his workers, as well as an implication that the workers could accept or reject the landowner’s offer of work. James 5:4 balances this by stating that the Lord hears the cries of the laborers who are cheated out of their due wages.

Income Taxes

The current income tax structure in the United States mandates a higher tax rate or percentage the more a person makes. This tax system is contradicted by scripture, especially Exodus 30:11-15, which provided a “half a shekel” tax for everyone numbered. Verse 15 states: “The rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel.” In addition, the Biblical Tithe is not applied progressively, rather it is applied equally to everyone. (“And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord’s. It is holy to the Lord. . . .And concerning the tithe of the herd or the flock, of whatever passes under the rod, the tenth one shall be holy to the Lord.” Leviticus 27:30,32)

Inheritance Taxes

The Bible speaks to the issue of inheritance numerous times. Proverbs 13:22 states “A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children.” (This is not likely with the Estate Tax which can take up to 55% of an estate. Thus leaving 45% to the children. When the children pass it on to the grandchildren, up to 55% of the remaining 45% can be taken. Thus only 27% of the original is passed on to the “children’s children”). Ezekiel 46:18 states that “the prince shall not take any of the people’s inheritance by evicting them from their property; he shall provide an inheritance for his sons from his own property, so that none of My people may be scattered from his property.” Other scriptures that deal with inheritance are Proverbs 19:14, I Chronicles 28:8, and Ezra 9:12.