"America and Christianity" (Part 2) The Christian State

In our last visit, we came to understand that America over the years has been considered by most as a Christian Nation. This was confirmed by statements from the Founders and by affirmations from American courts. We learned this Christianity was an organic Christianity that produce its own culture. However, it was not a Christian State as one understands from previous nations that ruled under the Christian banner. This was reflected in the mysterious Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796. With this organic Christianity prevailing in the country while believing Christianity was essential to the success of the nation, why would they avoid establishing it as a Christian State?

In their wisdom, I think they understood from their own experience that the history of the Christian State did not present itself very favorably. It had actually proved itself to be damaging both to the Church and to the State. We do find that Scripture teaches that governments are ordained by God and derive their powers to govern from Him. However, the biblical view presented in Scripture establishes a definitive separation between the Church and the State. President Jefferson wisely coined the phrase "Separation of Church and State" when writing to the Danbury Baptist. Though this phrase is not found in the Constitution, the concept is embodied in the 1st Amendment. This separation does not suggest that government should be indifferent to religion or that religion should not be supportive of the government. They were simply to remain within their realm of service, one not meddling in the role of the other. They were to be co-workers together in the maintenance of society and ensuring peace and tranquility to the people at large. This is reflected in various governmental statements and opinions expressed throughout our history.  

"The great, vital, and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ." -  Journal of the House of the Representatives of the United States of America (Washington, DC: Cornelius Wendell, 1855), 34th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 354, January 23, 1856

"Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement." - John Hancock. Independent Chronicle (Boston), November 2, 1780

"Has [government] any solid foundation? Any chief cornerstone?… I think it has an everlasting foundation in the unchangeable will of God… The sum of my argument is that civil government is of God." - James Otis, The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved (London: J. Williams and J. Almon, 1766), pp. 11, 98. 

"[T]he Christian religion… is the basis, or rather the source, of all genuine freedom in government… I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of Christianity have not a controlling influence." -  K. Alan Snyder, Defining Noah Webster: Mind and Morals in the Early Republic (New York: University Press of America, 1990), p. 253, to James Madison on October 16, 1829.

"Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both." - James Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson (Philadelphia: Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), Vol. I, p. 106.)

I think James Wilson correctly understood a government is most effective in achieving its purpose when its religion and its law are conducive to each other. That was the genius and unique experience of the American System. They did not want a government ruled by the hand of the Church, yet they did not want one so distant as to be indifferent to it. Previous attempts by the Church to be the ruling force of the State had proved to be a disaster to both the nation and the Church. Nations ruled by religions have proved to be cruel to non-conformists and absolutely a terror to freedom. However, the history of governments without religion has proved little better. With its many shortcomings and failures, the American system while embracing both achieved a level of freedom never before experienced in human history. 

The philosophy taking form within the concept of time concerning government was rooted in the fact the people did not want the State telling them how to worship. The Church was to guard and protect orthodoxy among its congregants. The Puritans sought the freedom to worship in a way they believed aligned with Scripture. Still, they weren’t looking to create a world that tolerated deviances from their understanding of religious practice. That tolerance would eventually take form in the Constitution of the United States as it is embodied in the 1st Amendment. This freedom opened the door for all kinds and forms of worship. Slowly but surely the face of Christianity began to change. 

With a new world of freedom in play, forms of worship began to develop in the church over time. We began to embrace less of our Puritan beginnings which held a high view of God and a low view of man and began gravitating towards a much higher view of man. Puritan theology sought to involve their faith in every area of life. Everything they did revolved around how it reflected upon the Church and the glory of God. Time would see Christians become more focused on themselves and how they felt about God. Emotional stirring became more important than orthodox doctrines. If some form of worship stirred them emotionally and made them feel like they had experienced some measure of God, it mattered not that it wasn't established church doctrine, it became a form of their worship as long as they could be emotionally stirred. Perhaps you can see the effect this has had on the Church, with the event of American freedom came this religious freedom. This was a good thing in that it brought peace from persecution and oppression, however, the adverse effect is also present. For nearly 1,500 years there was one faith in the visible church, which is not to say there was no division, but one visible church. 

The Church of England would distinguish itself from the Roman Catholic Church by reason of reform. Then our Puritan fathers would break with the Church of England and come to America. With no religious boundaries evolving as American Freedom broadened, the temptation of breaking with established forms of worship became too great. The Church began to take on new forms of worship and doctrines that were introduced by charismatic and influential men. New denominations began to form, at first the core beliefs were similar and different bodies could fellowship. As the church drifted farther and farther from orthodoxy, new splinter groups and denominations would institute doctrines and forms of worship that would separate whole Christian communities from joint worship. Today Christianity has emerged consisting of hundreds of denominations and independent groups with forms of worship that are so diverse viewing from one end of the spectrum to the other, it does not even appear to be the same faith. These groups are sending missionaries around the world to preach what they deem to be the Gospel. This Gospel is now so diverse many times these Christian groups find themselves in competition with each other. 

This is not to lay the blame upon American freedom, it is simply a result of man's natural tendencies. We are a sinful people, it is the natural tendency of the fallen human nature to have its own way, to promote its own ideas, to think ourselves better and wiser than others. We have a similar case in the History of Israel with the rule of King Solomon. Israel reached its height in prosperity and peace, and as a result division and diversity arouse and the ancient church drifted in its form of worship.

We find after the death of King Solomon, his son was to take the throne. The Kingdom had been degrading for years with sinful leadership in the State and comfort in the church. Rehoboam, Solomon's son we may suppose, knew of the division growing among the nation, and probably hoped by going to Shechem, and treating there with the ten tribes, to prevent it: yet it proved the most impolitic thing he could do and hastened the rupture.

The people complain not of his father's idolatry and revolt from God; that which was the greatest grievance of all was none to them, so careless and indifferent were they in the matters of religion,  it seems their greatest concern was to be able to live at ease and pay fewer taxes. The nation would become divided and the church so diverse the Kingdom divided and the Church became corrupt in its worship. There is an eerie tone to the sound of that for some strange reason.

Back to American freedom and Christianity. Our current view of both has changed from the early years of our nation. The main aspect of Puritan freedom was freedom of worship, everything else flowed out of that. Freedom today is the freedom to succeed in personal achievement and wealth. To be able to choose one's path and pursue it, to live in comfort and enjoy our wealth, everything else flows out of that. Christianity today for the most part is seen as a means to achieve that personal wealth and success. It is presented as a gospel that promotes what we want and desire, therefore embracing it is conducive to what we call the American dream. It is what some call our best life now. This is not what American Christianity use to be, nor is it the original American dream. 

 

When Noah Webster stated: "[T]he Christian religion… is the basis, or rather the source, of all genuine freedom in government… I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of Christianity have not a controlling influence." he was not suggesting a theocracy where religious law was instituted. He was expressing the idea that civil freedom as we know it in America and civil peace in government as we have experienced, is only possible to maintain when the people and culture are influenced by the very nature of who they are and how they view the world, and that growing out of the principles embraced in the Christian religion. Right government is instituted, not because it is of religious law, but because the right government simply grows out of a right understanding of the world and the people in it. Webster believed the best source of that came from the Christian faith. 

Once that source is changed, the culture and government will change. The purpose and idea of freedom will take on new forms. The laws of society will evolve, and what once was deemed unlawful will begin to appear right and acceptable. Old ways will seem confined and archaic, what was once offensive will become celebrated. What was once shameful will now be an expression of pride. Days and months will be set aside to celebrate the new cultural views emerging. I know this because a simple view of human history, government, and cultural behavior proves it to be the natural course we always take. We build up a society on certain principles, then those principles become tiresome to following generations and we slowly undo what those before us built. 

This generally does not end well, as these changes occur there will be some who cling to the previous principles. They will usually be overrun and squelched by new cultural norms. The holdouts usually make the mistake of trying to return to previous successes by political means and forcing those old principles through governmental changes. This almost never works for any length of time and always fails in the end. For the principles to work, you must have a people who understand and embrace them, to force them by law kills the very freedom and purpose for which they were maintained. 

I say this because I see this happening to us, we have been changing for a long time. Things are now beginning to tilt heavily to opposing ideologies. Some are gathering in groups to resist these new ideologies. But the path to resistance is not politics and government. We must understand no non-Christian wants to be governed by perceived Christian principles. When there are Christian principles that non-Christians embrace, they will defend them to their last breath insisting they are not Christian ideas, but only good human reason. By doing so, they can then embrace all laws and government as human intuition and have the freedom to move society wherever that intuition leads them if they can be persuasive enough.  That is not to say a Christian should not be involved in politics, it is his duty to vote and influence society as much as he can to promote Christian piety, especially in a free society such as ours. He should speak his voice concerning morality and right government as he understands it. It is even a good thing for him to seek political office if that is within one's reach. However, he must understand, he will not turn a nation by turning its politics. The nation will go the way of the people in such free societies as ours, be that in their wisdom or be that in their ignorance. 

The American Christian must realize he is no longer living in a Christian society influenced by the Church, at least a church holding its historic beliefs. His government no longer sees Christianity as essential to its maintenance and cares not if it governs by such principles as are conducive to it. Our purpose as Christians is not to resist the government to overturn it or impose Christian principles upon people that reject them. Our purpose is the same as it has always been, live and preach the Gospel. Our founders understood a Gospel-saturated people will by nature embrace Christian principles and uphold good government. Thus the high importance they place upon the diffusion of Christianity. 

May God bless,

David  

"America and Christianity"

 

Much has changed over the years concerning American thought and Christian Theology. I am writing this treaty well aware I have no degree of expertise to grant credence to the work itself. The opinions expressed in this article and subsequent writings will be based upon over 25 years of pondering around the writings of the Founding Fathers and other related books. To add that, I have lived and experienced life in America since the late 1950s, my particular demographic is the rural Southeastern portion of the United States. 

In the last few years, the term Christian Nationalism has become a catchword one hears sometimes in the media. It seems, as of yet, its meaning really has not been defined. Depending upon who is using the term, it can mean vastly different things. It will not be a term we will use here or try to define in any way. What we are going to examine here is this Nation and the Christian religion and how they relate to each other. We will consider how each has affected the other both in positive and negative ways. Over the years it has become an interest to some whether America is considered a Christian Nation or a Secular for there seems to be evidence for both. That concern has risen in intensity as the Nation has grown over the years. The answer to that question again depends upon who is asking and how the term itself is defined. We will try and define the term Christian Nation in the sense I believe the Founders understood it. Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) was appointed to the Court by President James Madison. Justice Story is the founder of Harvard Law School and authored the three-volume classic Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. He is considered by many the Father of American Jurisprudence. 

Chief Justice Joseph Story understood the relationship between America and Christianity in such terms as he expressed saying:  "One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations. . . . I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society." -  Joseph Story, Life and Letters of Joseph Story, William W. Story, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. II, pp. 8, 92. 

Justice Story acknowledged Christianity's great influence upon American law and its great support of American society. Though he acknowledged it as the foundation of American law, he did not imply it was the law itself. American society is a civil society comprised of many varying civil laws instituted to govern many different aspects of our lives. Justice Story's statement in no way infers this nation is governed by religious laws. He is simply stating the understanding of civil government and how we determine what is right and just within our society is undergirded and influenced greatly by the Christian faith. In fact, he saw it as a necessary support for its continuance.  

In a letter to Thomas Jefferson explaining a previously misunderstood statement in reference to "the general principles" President John Adams clarified to Jefferson what he meant by the phrase.

"The general Principles, on which the Fathers Achieved Independence, were the only Principles in which, that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had United all Parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.

Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God: and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore Safely Say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles." - John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson.

John Adams acknowledged Christianity and its influence as a strong uniting force by which we came together to achieve and were able to maintain our independence. America at the time was comprised of varying opinions of the Christian faith, of which it is difficult for us to even agree today. Whereupon there were several denominations then we have managed to divide into hundreds today. Religious division is a vise of human nature that spreads almost without remedy. In the Christian faith, it produces envy and strife among us, and in the unregenerate member, it can even produce hatred and violence. When taken to this level, it is no different than political divisions which come from the same human vise stirring within our passions. 

The general principles which Adams referenced were the Basics of the Christian faith which all sects (Denominations) held as core tenants of Christianity. Without these to unite such a diverse people, Adams believed our independence and the means to maintain it would not have been possible. It is very important for us to understand the weight of what Adams and Story were saying. It is not difficult for people to come together for a cause and even achieve a high level of success. The longer it takes to achieve success the more difficult the success. However, if achieved, it is extremely difficult to maintain unity in that cause for any length of time. Adams, Story, as well as many of the Founders, understood this, and that is why they were so favorable toward the Christian faith being diffused in American society. 

Even as late as the 1960s the shadow of such understanding is still seen. The United States Supreme Court in 1963, concerning the Case of the School district of Abington Township v. Schempp, stated: "It is true that religion has been closely identified with our history and government. As we said in Engle v. Vitale, "The history of man is inseparable from the history of religion."

"Secularism is unconstitutional . . . . preferring those who do not believe over those who do believe  . . . It is the duty of the government to deter no-belief religions." Some might take issue with the court's reference to 'no-belief religions' however, Wikipedia defines secular religion as "The theory of political religion concerns governmental ideologies whose cultural and political backing is so strong that they are said to attain power equivalent to those of a state religion, with which they often exhibit significant similarities in both theory and practice. In addition to basic forms of politics, like parliament and elections, it also holds an aspect of "sacralization" related to the institutions contained within the regime and also provides the inner measures traditionally considered to be religious territories, such as ethics, values, symbols, myths, rituals, archetypes and for example a national liturgical calendar." 

The Court continued: "It might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion of the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization . . . Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment." 

By this late date in American History, the ideal of Christianity being a unifying factor among us has faded from our memory. But the shadow of its influence is still residually resting upon our minds. The Court nonetheless acknowledges the valuable contribution Christianity lends to our society. It is an awareness however that is quickly fading. 

In taking a panoramic view of American history, the Supreme Court of the United Stated surmised in 1892:  "If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." - Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)

More than 120 years have since passed the rendering of this opinion. It is quite obvious it would not be the opinion of the current Court. Neither is this opinion to be limited to the American Courts of today, it is also the quickly growing non-opinion of the general population. A few years ago President Obama wisely stated:  "Given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers." - President Barack Obama, June 28, 2006. 

President Obama was highly criticized by many for the statement, however, the statement could not have been more true. As the leader of a very large and diverse nation, it was a wise observation on his part. What he was seeing in the American populous was quite different from the view being seen by leaders in decades past. It is difficult for us to comprehend the danger of sectarianism being greater today than during the Civil War, but certainly since. It seems President Obama understood what the Supreme Court of the United States was articulating in 1892 through the Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States. This Nation truly was a Christian Nation in the sense of its customs and manners. This is seen and demonstrated through its history in all the organic utterances found in every sphere of our society. 

However, there is also a sense in which the United States is not a Christian Nation and never has been. It has always been a nation of immigrants, to be a citizen of this country it has never been required for anyone to profess the Christian religion. Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, and Atheist, (all) were welcomed and accepted into American Society. One was simply expected to embrace our culture, obey our laws, and be a positive influence on society. This did not always work its way out perfectly as prejudices are simply lodged as one of the permanent vices of the human heart. American law, however, limited its adverse effects by lending protection and freedom to its society. Certainly, any non-Christian arriving in the United States was confronted with this organic Christian culture that has pervaded so much of our History. The immigrant's introduction to this culture to the extent true Christianity prevailed, could be nothing but positive. 

There is a phrase quoted that is lifted from the Treaty of Tripoli and sometimes attributed to John Adams since he was President during the signing. It is often presented stating, "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." It makes it appear Adams is talking out of both sides of his mouth, but context is important. First, Adams is not making a statement concerning his view on American Christianity, he is giving his affirmation to a treaty being drawn up and agreed upon in an effort to bring closure to the growing hostility between America and Muslim states concerning pirating and the selling of hostages of American citizens. The full text of the statement reads, Article 11 "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." 

That particular article of the treaty may have been written by Joel Barlow (one of the American negotiators) and is strangely missing from its Arabic counterpart, which seems to defeat its actual purpose. The phrase was not repeated in other treaties with other powers in the region, and the treaty itself was superseded by another treaty in 1805. So the particular statement itself is quite a mystery.  However, it is used by groups and individuals that are hostile to religion as a means to undergird and belittle Christian influence in America. The statement itself in the treaty in no sense was intended to belittle Christianity or distance it from American culture. It was simply stating to Muslim powers the fact the American government was not or ever had been a Christian State such as the Muslim mind would understand or perceive it. They would have been familiar with the Christian State governments of Europe and the Christian Crusades of history. The American government was uniquely something very different, though as Adams believed and Story articulated, Christianity was essential to its existence and organically expressed in its culture, it was not legally and Constitutionally a Christian State.    

Those organic utterances of the past are but mere whispers today if they are even heard at all. Those general principles that in the beginning united us have loosened their grip and we have freed ourselves from them. The increasing dangers of sectarianism that President Obama warned us about are daily taking root and growing in our society. We cannot lay the blame for this social degrading upon the government, in a free system such as ours, government is simply a reflection of what we are as a people. If indeed our Founders were right and our success as a society rested upon and has been maintained by the principles of Christianity, must we not conclude something happened to that Christianity? In our next visit, we will continue to examine where we have been, what we are, and how we got here.

May God bless,

David      

"The Bible, Christianity, and our Constitutional rights"

 

A little while back a friend of mine presented me with some observations of his concerning the Bible, Christianity, and our Constitutional rights. For this post, we will refer to him as Sarg, as I have noticed that has been affectionally given as a nickname. He began with this statement: "David: Conservatives often say we get our rights from God. I can't find our constitutional rights in the Bible."

Let me begin our discourse by looking to those much more qualified than me. "All [laws], however, may be arranged in two different classes. (1) Divine. (2) Human. . . . But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. . . . Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine." - James Wilson (1742-1798), signer of the Declaration and the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court Justice (1789-1798, appointed by Washington); professor of law at Philadelphia College (1790 ff), published with Thomas McKean “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1792):

Alexander Hamilton, quoting Blackstone speaks with the same understanding saying: “[T]he law of nature, ‘which, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.” - Alexander Hamilton. The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Harold Syrett, editor (NY: Columbia University Press, 1961), Vol. I, p. 87, from “The Farmer Refuted,” February 23, 1775. 

Dreisbach, Quoting Chief Justice John Marshall: "The American population is entirely Christian, & with us, Christianity & Religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, & did not often refer to it, & exhibit relations with it." - Daniel L. Dreisbach, Religion and Politics in the Early Republic, Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 1996, p. 113.

As you can see, what has become difficult to understand today was (a given) at the foundation of our nation. Our problem arises from a huge paradigm shift in the American culture and its religious views. I think Dreisbach is correct while quoting Marshall, it would indeed be a strange thing for a vastly populated religious people not to reflect the precepts of that religion into their laws. However, to render due credit to Sarg, there is no list of constitutional rights found in the Bible. The Bible is a book for the soul, its purpose is to present to us the Gospel, not to build nations and form governments. From beginning to end it details the fall of man's nature and the various courses the human race has taken over redemptive history. It is from those volumes, however, certain principles of human government have been drawn. It is the Gospel's understanding of these volumes which has influenced and developed the American system. Christians are instructed through the Scriptures in the manner he or she is to live their lives and conduct themselves in society. These instructions are binding upon the Christian regardless of that society's law structure. That being said, referring back to the Quote by Dreisbach, it would be a natural tendency for a vastly Christian culture like that of the founding of the United States, to reflect in its laws certain principles that uphold those Christian values.

For example, the ideas in the U.S. Constitution reflect such Christian principles. The Preamble to the Constitution gives five basic Biblical functions of government. These five purposes of civil government are:

1. “Establish justice.” The Bible says in 1 Peter 2:14 that civil rulers exist “for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.” In Genesis 9:6, God told Noah that “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed.” This is a principle of justice. Paul states that one purpose of civil leaders (Romans 13:4), is for government to administer justice.

2. “Insure domestic tranquility.” In 1 Timothy 2:1-2, Paul urges Christians to pray for civil rulers “in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.” As a result, any Constitution of government formed by a majority of Christians would reflect laws supporting what that would look like through the Christian mind.

3. “Provide for the common defense.” Protecting innocent human life is a primary purpose of government (Romans 13:1-5 and 1 Peter 2:13-14). To fulfill this purpose, governments establish police forces to protect citizens from domestic threats and organize armies for international threats. In Romans 13:4, it is affirmed that civil government “does not bear the sword in vain.” The “sword” in Scripture is equivalent to any military weapon used today. 

4. “Promote the general welfare.” Romans 13:4 says civil rulers are servants “to you for good.” The common good of all classes of citizens must be promoted by the government's passage of laws guaranteeing equal opportunity. A Biblical free-enterprise system will promote compassionate use of wealth while socialism or communism is contrary to Biblical definitions of civil government.

5. “Secure the blessings of liberty.” The most basic of these Creator-endowed blessings were defined in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution which mentions, “life, liberty” and “private property.” Such principles are found in “You shall not murder.” (Exodus 20:13)–right to life, and “He who kidnaps a man…shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16)–right to liberty, as well as “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15)–right to property. Scripture defines God as the source of life in Genesis 1:27, “And God created man in His own image.” He is the Author of liberty as well–2 Corinthians 3:17 says, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;” Scripture also defines God as the source of private property and “the pursuit of happiness” as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Ecclesiastes 5:19 states, “For every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, He has also empowered him to eat from them…and rejoice in his labor; this is the gift of God.” 

I think the basic concept of the American system and its freedoms can be embodied in the following statement: "All societies of men must be governed in some way or other. The less they may have of stringent State Government, the more they must have of individual self-government. The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more they must rely on private moral restraint. Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or the bayonet." - Robert C. Winthrop, “Address to Massachusetts Bible Society Meeting, May 28, 1849,” Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions, Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1852, p. 172. 

Within that statement rest the two forms of government, one is an outward force exerted upon a people by the governments of men, the other an inward power of the conscience being driven by the Christian faith. Early Americans were free because their laws reflected the desire of their consciences as it was acted upon by the Gospel. That religious influence has since faded and those concepts of law are no longer accepted. Human freedom must now exceed the bounds of the then-accepted governmental rule of society. The American conscience is no longer quickened by the Gospel, it is much freer to indulge in its fallen nature. An example of that is found in the fact Sodomy was once deemed a crime and punishable by law because it was an offense upon the conscience. That offense is no longer binding upon the consciences of a large portion of the American population. Therefore, the law once consider right for a free nation is now considered wrong and an infringement upon that freedom.

I have given a general view of why some cite the Bible as the Basis of our American system and why many today reject that once-accepted view. However, Sarg presented several direct examples he posed as questions. I would like to address those statements specifically. 

1. Where does it say we have the right to bear arms in the Bible?

I briefly mentioned previously in addressing the Constitutional provision for the common defense and the use of military and other forms of law enforcement supported by Romans 13:1-5 and 1 Peter 2:13-14. Our personal right to bear arms is found in various principles applied to the Christian life. It would be the natural response for Christian people to implement such thought into their society. 1 Timothy 5:8 states ESV  "But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." The provision here is considered anything concerning their well-being including their protection. The instruction to provide for one's household automatically assumes the means of doing it. Peter himself responded in such a manner in John 18:10-11 ESV (10)  Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.) (11)  So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” Notice, Peter was using it for the defense of Jesus as well as himself. Jesus does not rebuke him for the principle but simply tells him to put it in its sheath. The Christian can and many times does forgo this right of self-preservation. Missionary Nate Saint as well as others in his party, when approaching a hostile tribe, while owning a gun, refused to use it when being speared. He had previously stated his reasoning, I am prepared for heaven, they are not. 

We must understand, the affirmation that our Constitutional laws rest upon a Biblical foundation does not come from a list of laws, but from the principles of a Christian life that are embodied in them. Although our Constitution would be revered by many none Christians and even other religions as just and right, the document itself contains all that is naturally expected from a Christian society. It is simply as Hamilton stated when quoting Blackstone, nothing contrary to Scripture could find its way into the Constitution without serious debate.

2. Where in the Bible does it give us the right to free speech? Doesn't the Bible restrict speech by women in the church?   

Freedom of speech is a principle drawn from Scripture that one must be free to speak the truth concerning what he has seen and heard. In Acts 4:17-20 we see an example of this demonstrated by the Apostles, ESV (17)  But in order that it may spread no further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name. (18)  So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. (19)  But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, (20)  for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard." It would be the natural response for a Christian society to implement Constitutions of law that would support and protect that concept. The second part of the question concerning women is outside the scope of civil law and deals with the order of Christian worship, not civil restriction. The instructions given in the Bible are found in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 ESV(11)  Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. (12)  I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. Also, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 ESV (34)  the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. (35)  If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. These instructions are not relevant here concerning our discussion of Constitutional rights as applied in our civil society. They are not restrictive upon women in general within civil rights of equality and law. They only apply to roles assigned in Christian worship which falls under another discussion altogether.

3. Where in the Bible does it give us the right to freedom of religion? I'm pretty sure the Bible doesn't approve of other religions.

Freedom of religion is certainly a Christian concept, as we find in John 6:66-68 ESV After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. The Gospel has always been to those that believe, nowhere in Scripture is anyone compelled to believe by law or compulsion. To be a Christian you must believe and desire to walk in the way. There have been times when the church has become mixed with political power and abused the Gospel greatly. It was such events prior to the formation of the American government that prompted the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Christian population wanted to be protected from Government coercion in their forms of Worship. It did not mean the government of the United States could not possess religious sentiment, it simply could not dictate forms of worship. 

4. How about our constitutional right to a speedy trial or protection from cruel and unusual punishment. It seems to me a man was put to death because he collected sticks on a Sunday. That's probably cruel and unusual punishment not questioned by Christians. 

A speedy trial and protection from cruel and unusual punishment is certainly a Biblical concept.  Ecclesiastes 8:11 ESV (11)  Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil. Also in Ecclesiastes 4:1 ESV we find,  (1)  Again I saw all the oppressions that are done under the sun. And behold, the tears of the oppressed, and they had no one to comfort them! On the side of their oppressors there was power, and there was no one to comfort them. 

Considering the history of martyrdom within the Christian Church, and the suffering recorded in the book of Acts from its beginning, it is no surprise a Christian people would institute constitutions of government to protect themselves from such abuse of power and a speedy desire for justice. The Apostle Paul himself wrote most of the New Testament while sitting in jail awaiting trial.  Acts 24:27 ESV (27)  When two years had elapsed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus. And desiring to do the Jews a favor, Felix left Paul in prison. 

As concerning the sticks, the Scripture reference is Numbers 15:32-36 ESV (32)  While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. (33)  And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. (34)  They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. (35)  And the LORD said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” (36)  And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses.

This is a marvelous passage of Scripture when understood correctly. Certainly, no Christian would advocate stoning someone to death for picking up sticks. The Scripture must be read in its correct context to understand its purpose and application today. It is important to realize this was done under the civil laws instituted through the religious economy of the Nation of Isreal's Theocracy. They were civil laws that applied to that society a few thousand years ago and that people only. Concerning such events as the one related above we read in 1 Corinthians 10:6 ESV (6)  Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. and 1 Corinthians 10:11 ESV (11)  Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come. 

It is such passages that so impassioned Paul the Apostle concerning the Gospel message. His status in the Jewish religion as a Pharisee would have made him very familiar with passages such as this. He understood the demands of the law that governed the Jewish community and the strictness of that economy. The freedom he found in the Gospel he finds almost inexpressible as he writes such letters as the Book of Romans. The judgment of death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath under the Jewish economy serves as an example of the blinding perfection required by an infinitely Holy Being. The Sabbath day rightly bore a divine honor owed to it. Even we place honor upon certain days that are marked with human events. Countries honor certain days for national achievements. Here is a day whereby has been placed honor by an infinite Being, for a finite creature to cast that honor aside as nothing and pick up sticks would be of the highest treason. This event is written down so that we might know the slightest breach of right conduct or righteousness toward an infinite Being carried unimaginable consequences. 

We make judgments of right and wrong based on our human nature; God is not like us, for all His attributes are infinitely immutable. His justice is unwavering, and the demands of justice are exact and perfect. Our minds simply cannot comprehend the chasm between a finite and an infinite Being. The Gospel as Paul proclaimed it, freed man from the demands of the law and opened for him a way to meet the demands of God's justice. In Paul's letter to the Romans, we find we all have made much greater offenses against God than picking up sticks, thus the demonstration of infinite love meeting the demands of infinite justice on our behalf! The wonder of the Gospel! 

5. How about our constitutional rights against discrimination based on race, sex, age, or political affiliation. The Bible clearly states the Man is the head of the household and the woman must submit to her husband. 

Laws of protection against discrimination based on race, sex, age, or politics most certainly are a Biblical concept. Galatians 3:28 ESV

(28)  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The Scripture Sarg is probably referring to concerning marriage is found in Ephesians 5:22-33 ESV

(22)  Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

(23)  For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

(24)  Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

(25)  Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

(26)  that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,

(27)  so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

(28)  In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

(29)  For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church,

(30)  because we are members of his body.

(31)  “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

(32)  This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

(33)  However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

Marriage is an institution established by God for the union between a man and a woman. There is no infringement or discrimination between the two as a result of the institution. It is an agreement between the man and woman concerning mutual desires and particular roles of responsibility that each commits to fulfill to and for the other. In the Biblical description of marriage above you find a wonderful relationship where mutual love and care are expressed and enjoyed. The idea of discrimination is nowhere to be found. To put a play upon the word "submit" to imply something other than the role it is to play in the marriage agreement is to completely misrepresent the institution.

6. The Bible does not condemn slavery. In fact, the Bible gives guidance on how to treat slaves.

Here Sarg is both right and wrong, the Bible most certainly does condemn slavery. In 1 Timothy 1 verse 10 ESV slavery is condemned among a list of other vises (10)  the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, [ἀνδραποδιστής, an enslaver]  liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

(11)  in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

However, the Bible also addresses how one is to treat their slaves. This is necessary because of the sinfulness of man. It is similar to the discussion of divorce in the Bible. Matthew 19:7-8 ESV

(7)  They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”

(8)  He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Slavery has been a human failure from antiquity and continues until this day. There are various forms of slavery and servanthood spoken of in the Bible. It is helpful to understand the differences and cultural norms when trying to define what the Bible is speaking of when it is giving such instructions concerning such human behavior. But it is clear the Bible condemns the enslavement of one man to another in the sense we think of it today. 

7. The Bible doesn't give women the right to vote. 

To make such a statement as the one above and suggest somehow because women have a Constitutional right to vote today the Bible could not possibly have had any influence upon the Constitutional right to do so is grasping for the wind. I would refer you back to the answer given to question 5 and Galatians 3:28. The right to vote depends not upon the Bible but on the form of government you might be living in at any given time. Christians throughout history have lived under all types of oppressive governments and kingdoms. We read in 1st Corinthians 7:20-21 ESV

(20)  Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.

(21)  Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) As already stated, the Bible is a book for the soul, however, principles of government have been wisely drawn from its precepts. One such precept would be, if you become a Christian and do not have the right to vote, don't let that deter you from your Christian walk, but if you can gain that right, avail yourself of that opportunity.

8. The Bible doesn't provide the rights for states in relationship to federalism.  

Federalism is most certainly a Biblical principle, in 1775 Samuel Langdon commented, "The Jewish government … was a perfect republic. … Let us therefore look over [the Israelites’s] constitution and laws. … They had both a civil and military establishment under divine direction, and a complete body of judicial laws drawn up and delivered to them by Moses in God’s name. … Instead of the twelve tribes of Israel, we may substitute the thirteen states of the American union…" - Samuel Langdon. (GOVERNMENT CORRUPTED BY VICE)

The principle of republican forms of government can be found in Exodus 18:25-26 ESV

(25)  Moses chose able men out of all Israel and made them heads over the people, chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.

(26)  And they judged the people at all times. Any hard case they brought to Moses, but any small matter they decided themselves. It is understood this is the beginning of Isreal's Theocracy, however, the principle has been adapted to other republican forms of government. Would one be surprised if a Christian people such as the beginnings of the United States did so?

9.  The Bible doesn't protect us from illegal search and seizure.  

In what context are we to understand Sarg's meaning by this statement? Does he mean to say because the Bible does not protect us from illegal search and seizure, it could not, therefore, be considered an influence upon any civil law that might do so? If you cannot draw support from Exodus 20:15 ESV

(15)  “You shall not steal" and Exodus 21:16 ESV

(16)  “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death." I really don't know how in the world a Christian people could possibly come up with the idea that protection from illegal search and seizure is not a Biblical principle. (Sorry, sarcasm) All of these assertions we have addressed demonstrate the foolishness of the argument. There is no honest debate concerning the Christian influence that existed during the forming of the United States. Our Constitutional form of Government was drawn from the minds of religious men to govern a religious people. The natural outcome of that would be governmental documents conducive to the expected behavioral and cultural norms of that people. It is not derived from a coup or regime takeover and the institution of some kind of Biblical law. It is derived from a way of life lived by a religious people.

May God bless each of you,

David