In the previous series, “Straining at Gnats…,” I addressed what is regrettably an all too common malady among people who call themselves Constitutional Christians—that is, the propensity to try to read the Bible into the Constitution or, at least, into the minds of its framers. The extent that some people go in their attempt to make the Constitution Biblical is alarming, to say the least. But what’s even more horrific than their “straining at gnats” is their “swallowing camels”—that is, completely overlooking the numerous instances in which the Constitution is antithetical, if not seditious, to Yahweh’s1 sovereignty and morality. In this series, I will address some of the more serious “camels” Christians should be choking on instead of swallowing:
The Constitution’s Surrogate God
Theocracy is inherent in the First Commandment (“thou shalt have no other gods before me”). Unless one believes the First Commandment is no longer relevant under the New Covenant, theocracy is not only mandated but unavoidable. The principal means by which we keep the First Commandment is by observing Yahweh’s other moral laws, as codified in the other Nine Commandments and their respective statutes:
Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that YHWH he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else. Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which YHWH thy God giveth thee, for ever. (Deuteronomy 4:39-40)
It’s no different with other gods. Idolatry is not so much about statues as statutes. There is no such thing as statutory neutrality. When this truth is accepted, it becomes apparent all governments are theocratic in practice. They serve either the true God or some false god, as demonstrated by what laws they promote and consider the supreme law of the land:
“1. Law is in every culture religious in origin.
“2. The source of law is the god of that society….” [Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) pp. 4-5.]
There is no escaping theocracy. A government’s laws reflect its morality, and the source of that morality (or, more often than not, immorality) is its god. It is never a question of theocracy or no theocracy, but whose theocracy. The American people, by way of their elected officials, are the source of the Constitutional Republic’s laws. Therefore, the Constitutional Republic’s god is WE THE PEOPLE.2
All nonexistent false gods (1 Corinthians 8:4-6) always have and always will represent WE THE PEOPLE in one form or another. All theocracies that are not Yahweh’s are, in practice, autocracies in defiance of Him. This defiance is seldom verbalized. In fact, most people are oblivious to their rebellion. Their defiance of Yahweh is externalized in the laws they observe and promote:
People recoil at the idea of a theocracy’s morality being forced upon them, but because all governments are theocracies, someone’s morality is always being enforced. This is an inevitability of government. The only question is which god, theocracy, laws, and morality will we choose to live under?
“The rejection of one god leads inescapably to the choice of another god. If a person, group, court, etc. establishes himself as the final arbiter of right and wrong, then he/they have assumed the attributes of a god. Thus, he/they are theocratic…. Democracy can become theocratic if absolute power is given to the people. …vox populi, vox dei, “the voice of the people is the voice of God.” Those who promote a particular worldview and want to see it implemented socially, educationally, politically, and judicially have elevated the majority to the status of gods….
“One assumes the mantle of deity when he sets himself up as the ultimate authority. It’s the attributes of deity that makes someone god-like. In the eighteenth century, the French revolutionaries declared “reason” to be the goddess of their new state religion. Nineteenth century France was spoken of as “goddess France” by patriotic figures like Victor Hugo and Charles Maurras. Hegel, the philosophical patron saint of communism, wrote that ‘the State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth…. We must therefore worship the State as the manifestation of the Divine on earth…. The State is the march of God through the world.'” (Gary DeMar, “Defining Terms: Theocracy,” 26 February 2007.)
Because “…there is none other God but one” (1 Corinthians 8:4), there can be only one true theocracy. All other governments represent some form of humanism. The United States Constitutional Republic is one of many governments in which the people have dethroned Yahweh as the god of their society. All governments are theocentric—that is, god-centered. This is true of a government of, by, and for Yahweh, and it is true of a government of, by, and for the people. Herein we find the battle so often described in the Bible—the war between Yahweh’s will and man’s will.
“It is better to trust in YHWH than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in YHWH than to put confidence in princes.” (Psalm 118:8-9)
The first three words of the Preamble [as contrasted with the first four words of the Bible] are an expression of this eternal conflict.2
Humanity’s eminent question is never that of god or no god, but which god: Yahweh or Baal (1 Kings 18:21), God or Caesar (Matthew 22:21), or God or mammon (Matthew 6:24)? “How long halt ye between two opinions? If Yahweh be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him.” (1 Kings 18:21) This was Elijah’s challenge to the double-minded Israelites on Mt. Carmel.
What is today’s Mount Carmel? As individuals, we may each have several personal Mount Carmels to be scaled and conquered. However, as a nation, America’s Mount Carmel is unequivocally Yahweh versus We the People (a modern form of Baal).
I can understand humanists’ choosing We the People. We the People is just a collective form of a majority doing what is right in their own eyes (Judges 21:25). What I cannot understand is that Christians would choose to serve Yahweh as God on one hand and We the People on the other. What’s even more paradoxical is that “conservative” Christians are the greatest advocates of We the People and its humanistic government built upon the traditions of men….3
Christian Constitutionalists (an oxymoron if ever there was one) are as double minded as were the Israelites on Mount Carmel. The question remains, “How long halt ye between two opinions? If Yahweh be God, follow him: but if WE THE PEOPLE, then follow them.” Choose carefully!
Stay tuned for Part 2.
Related posts:
The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH
1. YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. In obedience to the Third Commandment and in honor of His memorial name (Exodus 3:15), and the multitudes of Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, I have chosen to use His name throughout this blog. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”
2. Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
Excellent article. I’ve posted it on my site.
http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/dusty-on-the-outside-stringy-on-the-inside/
Thank you!
Hey Ted, I’ve been following your series on straining at gnats and now swallowing camels and would like to point out that while I agree with the Scotch Irish Presbyterians who passionately spoke against the lack of naming Christ in the Constitution, I also agree with Martin Luther that one must use the resources God has given us, and in America that is a Constitution written by imperfect men with mostly a Christian ethos.
Angela, welcome and thank you for your response. If you’ll permit me, I would like to respond to your application of Luther’s advice. In Matthew 10:16, Christ advises us to be as wise as serpents and harmless as doves. On two different occasions, Paul, being as wise as his adversaries, used his Roman citizenship to his advantage. I think this is what you would call using the resources at his disposal.
I agree with doing the same, to a point. In “The Second Amendment: A Knife in a Gunfight,” I preached at the Springfield, Missouri, Firearms and Freedom Symposium in March, I concluded my remarks with the following: “ULTIMATELY, this battle will NEVER be won from either a constitutional or Second Amendment paradigm. In the meantime, SHOULD we attempt to hold the government accountable to the Second Amendment? Sure! Just like the Apostle Paul used his Romans citizenship to his advantage with the government of his day. But, ultimately for the sake of yours and my posterity, we’ve got to realize our only hope of WINNING this battle is with God as our authority and the defense of ourselves, our families, and our neighbors as–not an optional right–but a God-expected responsibility!”
That said, when and where we can and should, we’ve been provided something much superior to the Constitution as a means of overcoming the adversary: Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-11, etc.). Therefore, except in some rare situations, why would we want to use the imperfection of finite men–especially when its seditious to Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality–in place of His weapons that are “mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds [for] casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5)
Not to mention that the Constitution has been all but inept at stemming the tide of America’s fall into degradation–how could it do otherwise being it’s responsible for where America finds herself today. As early as the mid-1800’s, Libertarian attorney Lysander Spooner (1808-1887) wrote that the
Constitution “has either authorized such a government as we have had, or
has been powerless to prevent it.”
Even if we employ the Constitution in some immediate situations, ultimately it has to be exposed for the seditious document it is and for the reason America is teetering on the precipice. For the sake of yours and my posterity, I hope you’ll join those of us who have already begun the process.
Ted, just what do you mean when you say the Constitution is a “seditious document”? Thanks, Angela
According to Webster’s 2000 College Dictionary, sedition is defined as “1. incitement to discontent or rebellion against a government. 2. any action promoting such discontent or rebellion.”
Rebellion to Yahweh and His kingdom/government involves promotion of any law of man over His. As you know, Article 6 declares the Constitution the supreme law of the land, with no indication that this was meant to be understood as only so long as such laws comport with Yahweh’s law.
Moreover, there is hardly an article or amendment that, in some fashion, is not antithetical, if not hostile, to Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality in some fashion, as I demonstrate in “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html.
There is only one standard by which everything (including the Constitution) must be ethically evaluated–that is, by Yahweh’s immutable morality as codified in His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-11), and by that standard, the Constitution falls flat on its face.
Is the Christian Liberty Party still active and are you still associated with it?
The site for the Christian Liberty Party is https://sites.google.com/site/christianlibertyparty/
Hi Ted, Sorry for not replying sooner. Yes the CLP is still active and I support their efforts. I’m also looking at the Reformation Party as an alternative for reformed, confessional Christians and plan to write an article on their efforts in the near future.
Angela, thanks for getting back to me.
If you know of anyone involved in either CLP or RP that might be interested in a copy of the “Primer” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective,” I would be pleased to send them a complimentary copy.
In order to protect their privacy, you have my permission to pass on my name, email and postal addresses and have them contact me: tweiland@vistabeam.com and PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, NE 69363.
They can also get a free copy by taking our Constitution Survey at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ConstitutionSurvey.html.
Is the Primer posted online? – Thanks, Angela
No, but complete 565-page “BL vs. USC” is. You can find it at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html.
If I’m not mistaken, you already have a copy of the “Primer” yourself. If not, I’ll be pleased to send you one.
Thanks Ted… Yes, I received a copy of the Primer some time back and to be quite honest, I am uneasy in promoting it. I’m going to take an in depth look at your BL vs. USC that is posted online and quite possibly write a review. I have basic knowledge of the beliefs of the Scottish Covenanters, and the Solemn League and Covenant; this is the viewpoint I try to bring to government and political matters. Plus, I think my involvement with the Constitution Party some years back gives me a bit of knowledge in that area, too.
Is there something specific in the “Primer” or the entire idea of examining the Constitution by the Bible that concerns you?
I’ll let you know once I take a closer look at your BL vs. USC. Thanks for your help.
Well, Ted, you might want to delete this comment; but after examining materials you have posted online, I wonder about your theology. In particular, the book “God’s Covenant People” greatly disturbs me. I think you have left mainstream Christianity and are on an unBiblical tangent. I also wonder if you have agreement with the Reformed theology of those you quote in your book BL vs. USC, such as Matthew Henry, Gary North and RJ Rushdoony. Also, I don’t see how you can understand a national covenant with Almighty God if you aren’t reformed and understand what His Sovereignty means. Now if I am mistaken and you are reformed and not arminian, please correct me. Thanks.
Angela, I am not arminian. That said, your means for determining whether something is Scripturally correct, should be by the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone, not whether they agree with a particular denomination’s or theology’s parameters. The latter is cultic.
The only parameters I’m concerned with are the Bible’s, and I will go where ever they lead me, regardless what or who may have to be sacrificed in the process.
Although there are many things that we share in common, I do not use the label “Reformed” (any more than any other label) to define, I mean, confine my beliefs. Although, there are certainly areas of disagreement, I also have great respect and a great relationship with many–leaders and non-leaders alike–in the Reformed movement. One of the areas that many Reformed believers (and more all of the time) do agree with me is what I’ve written in “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.”
As it concerns today’s identity of physical Israel, many Reformed leaders agree with me that today’s Israelites are not to be found in today’s Jewish people. (With such Scriptures as Jeremiah 31:31-37 and Hebrews 8:8-10 in mind, somebody else then must be today’s physical Israelites since it was physical Israelites with whom Yahweh made the New Covenant.) Not near as many agree with me that today’s physical Israelites are to be found in today’s Celtic, Scandinavian, Germanic, Anglo-Saxon and kindred people. However, many who have read my book “The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Now?” have come to see that I’m correct in this conclusion.
If you would be willing to take up the challenge to read this book, I’ll pleased to send you a complimentary copy.
Well, Ted, I think our discussion will end here. But please let me set the record straight and say that my beliefs are Biblical and I subscribe to the historic Reformed Confessions of Faith, including the Second Helvetic and Westminster, as well as the Westminster and Heidelberg Catechisms. I am not part of a cult.
Angela, I did not say you were a part of a cult. I was just cautioning you on how one should determine whether another person’s beliefs are Scriptural or not. If ever you want to pick it up where we left off, you know where to find me. Until then, I pray Yahweh’s blessings to be upon you.
Angela- If I may. As a priest in holy orders, in a jurisdiction that long has noted the validity of Reformation theology, without bowing the knee to Geneva OR Augsburg (LOL) I think you need to grasp that the ENTIRETY of the West is skewed in its philosophical presuppositions, before you seek to attempt, in applying the insights Mr. W (and others like him) have garnered, vis a vis ‘God’s Covenant People,’ whether something is ‘cultic’ or not.
There are cultic ELEMENTS in the CI paradigm- but then, the same can be said of Reformed, Baptist, Catholic, and other protestant groups! (Yes, I include the Roman Church as a ‘protestant group) But what Mr. W. has done, is seek to find the kernel of truth within Holy Writ that conclusively shows that there is, and ALWAYS HAS BEEN:
1) Only ONE people with whom YHWH God has dealt with, ‘… from the beginning.’
2) that Covenantalism is fully compatible, indeed, informs the CI paradigm so strongly, that it is almost bizarre that more ‘Reformed’ haven’t ‘jumped ship’ from the fallacious ‘universalist paradigm’ of Rome’s philosophical baggage, as they have done to almost all the other elements of Rome’s hegemony over the West!
3) The ‘ONE’ People, whom God chose from ‘… before the foundation of the world,’ [Eph. 1:4] are an INCARNATED PEOPLE- in other words, of ONE RACE. And, unless one is willing to make of Jesus Christ a ‘wax nose’ Messiah of ‘all hominidity,’ Christ’s hypostatic union of Deity with Adamic Humanity, means that Christ is ONE OF US, in BODY, as well as [Holy] Spirit! (Which is, of course, exactly what the Patristic Fathers teach)
Where the problem comes, is that the rupture of the Church of Rome with the Orthodox East in 1054, led Rome to fully embrace the heretical ‘filioque’- and from it, derive both its:’a) universal salvation – which is the heresy of incipient universalism (all hominids shall be saved) – with which the Bible, and CI would disagree- as does historic Reformed Theology (ever hear of TULIP?); Rome’s second point of error from adopting the filioque, was, as well the fallacy of universal jurisdiction – that only Rome was the ‘One True Church’ and that all men must bow to her. The Orthodox never believed that, and the Reformation only partially pulled herself out from under THAT corpse, in 1517! But the West still uses the PHILOSOPHICAL TERMS of the Roman cult- and therein lies a problem most in the Western Church haven’t even realized, yet!
Hope this helps!
Angela, I wonder how one who is “Reformed” could possibly understand the true nature of a national covenant with Yahweh. To reform is to alter, in some way, the natural state of that which is being reformed. That which has been FORMED by Yahweh, can never be REFORMED by man. Yahweh has entered into various covenants with His people on a national level. The reuniting of Israel and Judah under the New Covenant is perfect and eternal. Man has strayed from that covenant, and we have suffered greatly as a result. The solution is NOT to reform that covenant according to our limited understanding, but to RESTORE that which was perfect from the start. There is a difference. It is absolutely necessary to allow Scripture to always frame our parameters, and let our terminology be defined by God’s Holy Writ, and not our own flawed perception. This is why I subscribe to NO man-made decree, corporate Confession, or denominational doctrine. Although the Reformed movement, as a whole, seems to have a better understanding of Covenant Theology than most, there is still a widespread misunderstanding of the true Heirs of the New Covenant, and their identity as a people today.
You made the statement concerning Ted’s theology: “I think you have left mainstream Christianity and are on an unBiblical tangent.” I’m curious to find out exactly what you consider an unBiblical tangent. If that would be alerting Yahweh’s sheep to their true identity, and warning of the ravenous wolves continually nipping at their heels, ready to devour the flock, then I’m thankful that tangent includes the Good News of the Great Shepherd, who knows His sheep. And as for leaving mainstream Christianity, the problem IS mainstream Christianity. Today’s effeminate, weak-kneed, lily-livered, mainstream churches, INCLUDING those adhering to the Reformed faith, have abandoned the covenant mandate to take dominion, helping to turn a once culturally dominant Christendom, into what is now a mere social, “mainstream” Christianity. Those mainstream Christians who continue to chase after idols, by constantly looking for a “more perfect” political party, will never truly understand covenantal dominion, until they repent of their pursuit of idols, and return to the Author of our Faith. Only a return to Yahweh’s perfect, immutable law, can lead to the RESTORATION, not reformation, of the Kingdom here on earth, as it is in Heaven, and all of the national blessings of His New Covenant. Here is a great place to start: “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/law-kingdomFrame.html
One major difference between the Israelites at Mt. Carmel and the Constitutional Christians of today is this. When Elijah challenged his people, the Scripture says “they answered him not a word.” Contrast this with the vociferous anger which American Christians express when something is said against the Constitution.
Good point!