This is a subject I’ve thought long and hard about. I’m considering running for the Washington State legislature at some point, so this is an issue which has a direct impact on me. Here are my thoughts:
I believe this nation is a Christian nation, yet only to the degree that Christians take part in representative government.
To understand the significance of the United States in history, I like to go back to Samuel Rutherford. Rutherford was Presbyterian minister from Scotland who lived during the 1600’s. He wrote a book that is considered seminal in the development of constitutional rule and limited government. The book was called Lex, Rex (or, “The Law is King”). The basic premise of the book is that everyone, even the King, is subject to the Law of God (Deuteronomy 17:14-19). Therefore, instead of Rex Lex (the King is Law) which had been the way governments had functioned for literally millennia, Rutherford was proposing that there was a higher law, the Law of God, and everyone, even the King, is subject to it.
Skip forward a hundred years to the American Revolution. The founding fathers of our nation were faced with a Parliament and King who had grown tyrannical in their desire to exploit the colonies for monetary gain.
The idea that everyone is subject to the law (even the government itself) is clear in the Declaration of Independence:
“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them…”
And -
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness…”
Now as near as I can tell, the purpose of government according to the founders was to maximize happiness and individual freedom while safeguarding against tyranny and maladministration. George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was a prototype to the Declaration of Independence, spells this out:
“…of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration…”
Now, pure democracy (rule of the majority) is, apart from constitutional protection for the rights of minorities, Rex Lex (the King is Law); only instead of tyranny of the despot it is tyranny of the majority. The best example of this is the French Revolution. It was mob rule – democracy in it’s purest form. On a side note, theocracies are no better because law becomes subject to what the leading teachers and clerics say it should be, and thus it becomes an oligarchy – tyranny of a select group of people.
Abraham Lincoln – who penned those famous words, “government of the people, for the people, and by the people,” in his Gettysburg Address – recognized the danger of pure democracy and of oligarchies. He spoke about this in his first inaugural address:
“Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.”
On another side note, I have read the Constitution of the Confederate States of America from the time during the civil war. When I read it I was absolutely struck by how identical it is to the real U.S. Constitution. It’s basically the same document, with the Bill of Rights, reorganized a little bit and with a few small changes in some sections. A couple of the changes were enumeration of sections which implied slavery in the original, but the others were things most conservatives would like to change in the Constitution today; namely elimination of the general welfare clause from Article 1, Section 8, and the inclusion of a Presidential line item veto.
Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes… (etc.)”
That clause, “collect Taxes…for the…general Welfare,” is one of the most hotly contested portions of the Constitution. In those two words, “general Welfare,” resides the true power of self government for the people of the United States of America. We can appoint legislators to represent us and they have the power to legislate for the common good of the people. Many conservatives argue that the clause should be interpreted as meaning “what the founders intended to be the general Welfare,” or, “the general Welfare meaning those things listed below (i.e., to borrow money, regulate commerce, etc.)” I used to hold to that interpretation myself but after reading extensively of documents from the founding period and reading the Constitution carefully I can find no such restriction. I’ve come to the conclusion that the clause was intended by the founding fathers to give broad, discretionary power to congress in the interest of self government.
Getting back to the words from Lincoln’s inauguration, “A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people,” what struck me so much when I read the Constitution of the Confederacy is that it’s really no different from the Constitution of the government they’d just ceded from. They didn’t really have a problem with constitutional self government, they just wanted it to be themselves who were in the majority.
That’s painful, because I believe that’s where much of the Christian conservative movement is today. We were the majority about 30 years ago. And now that the tide has begun to turn many of us want to rule as a minority through constitutional amendments, targeted legislation and narrow interpretations of the Constitution.
In reality, there is no substitute in American government for the influence and participation of common citizens. All of the problems of government relate back to failure on the part of common citizens to know their legislators, follow what’s happening in the capitals, and voice their opinions to their leaders often and eloquently. If a person is not doing this, they have no reason to complain about the lack of representation of their viewpoint in government. And the schools. And the colleges. And the media. And the arts.
In fact I believe that because God has blessed us Christians in the U.S. with the opportunity of living under a representative government, part of our ministry can and ought to be having influence in each of those areas, working with specific issues we care about, working with specific leaders (whoever happens to be in office); not working with a single party or following the interests of a narrow group, but each making up their mind, being fully convinced of what they stand for and where they can have the greatest influence for good.
So, is the U.S. a Christian nation? That depends on what each of us in the U.S. who are Christians do with the rest of our day today. And on what we do with our tomorrows. Get involved. Write your representatives about the specific bills on the table right now at the state and federal level. If you live close enough, drive to your state capital and meet your legislators. Join a school board. Get a job as a broadcaster. Adopt a child. Those are the things you can do to impact this nation for Christ right now.
_________________________________________
After thought: When as conservatives we make it our goal to de facto limit government without regard to whether it is good or justified (yes, some government is good and justifiable!) then what we really seek to limit is the people, because this is government of the people, by the people and for the people. It amounts to a tacit admission that instead of representative republic, we’d rather see theocracy (tyranny of the religious leader’s interpretation) or oligarchy (tyranny of the minority) be the law of the land.
