“Christian America” & Theocracy: Deuteronomy 1 and 10 Principles of Government, Liberty and Rights
June 19, 2008 – 8:22 PMCreating a Christian America, One Piece at a Time
When the Rev. Thomas Hooker preached his famous sermon on Deuteronomy 1:13-17 (1636), that message so moved the people who heard it, they proceeded to write the colonial government of Connecticut, embedding those principles from Scripture.
Historians note the fact that their constitution, the Fundamental Order of Connecticut, became one of the major documents influencing the text of both the Declaration of Independence and the later Constitution of the United States.
Toward a “Christian America”: 10 Christian Principles of Government
Thus, he set in motion at least 10 major principles of good governance.
1) Christian America and Elected Magistrates: In that passage he cited the fact that the individuals chosen as civil magistrates (rulers in positions of civil authority) were to be elected by the free citizens of the nation: “Take for yourselves wise men…”, meaning, “Elect for yourselves wise men…” and Moses would go on to install them in the new offices, setting in motion their new governing bodies.
2) Christian America – A Call to Upright Character: He called for individuals who were upright in character. They must be lovers of justice (equitable, impartial and discerning applications of the laws of the realm). Such character implies a seasoned individual whose maturity in virtue enables him to apply the rule of law well throughout the jurisdiction.
3) Christian America – Statesmen Needed: But, to be upright and just God established the fact that the individuals chosen should be those “known” and “wise” – tried and tested in their discernments over time. Two important keys to good governance built into this system are these:
| a) Virtue is a skill of the soul. It matures through trial and the discernments necessary for life. Wisdom is needed to rightfully apply those skills we call virtue. The men chosen for office must be individuals who compel respect of character, needed so the office which he occupies also commands the honor needed to rule a people “righteously” (justice) -verse 16.
b)Virtue, biblically, is NOT first and foremost designed “to make a better you.” It will certainly do that. But, it is designed to serve others (the true essence of “Love thy neighbor”)- the Lord and your neighbor. |
Witness the “Patience” of Job, designed for us to learn to wait upon the Lord through trial. Witness the Love of our Lord, designed for His ministry toward His people. Witness the sufferings of Paul and the “grace sufficient for thee” so that he could better serve Christ’s Church. “Grace teaches the heart to love. Love asks “How then shall I serve?” Only then will the Lord hand such an individual God’s statutes and laws to apply to others.
Note: These individuals of character must be able to THEN “decide” between competing claims of citizens (vs. 16). The virtues exercised are skills of application/discernment utilized for others. An early Christian America depended upon virtue as skills of discernment and equity, not religious sentiment and emotive pulpits.
4) Christian America and a Vertical Division of Powers: There would be a “vertical division of power”. It is specified as officers of “thousands”, “hundreds”, “fifties” and “tens.” Such a vertical division of power corresponds to our federal, state, and local governments but with this provision: Like our original Constitutional framework, the federal, state and local governments each had their own jurisdictions. The federal had specifically delegated authority and was not to override the state.
Such a vertical division of authority institutes the principle of “Interposition of the Lesser Magistrate”, an historic “doctrine” (called by many names) which was used by our forebears.
When King George III and Parliament usurped their authority, the colonies looked to “the lesser magistrates” their colonial representation and local rule to “interpose” between the tyrant and the comparatively helpless individual, business or home. Ultimately, those “lesser governments” united as one in Philadelphia and penned the Declaration of Independence.
This is the intent of Deuteronomy 1 as well. There was to be no usurpation allowed. Each level of governance operated within its area of concern. If usurpation of authority took place at any level, the other levels of government were poised to intercept such malevolence and could interpose for relief.
5) Christian America and Appellate Jurisdiction: . IF a matter was too difficult it could move up through the court system (vs.17), just ours does, thus allowing for citizen protection through appellate review of decisions. Thus legislative, judicial and executive tyranny could be checked.
6) Christian America and Decentralization: T This system was created as a solution to the fact that Moses could not bear the burden of oversight by himself. Hence, the system was put in place to decentralize authority. Indeed, as the later Monarchy of Israel grew in size, the lesser courts begin to lose their power. Isaiah comments to the fact that, when God chastises His people, one of the blessings “taken away” was the “officer of fifty” – the local governing jurisdiction (Isa. 3:3). In other words, the functions of localized authority were lost (presumably to upper tiers of ever-centralizing authorities}. With this loss, comes a loss of freedom.
7) Equal Access to Law in a Christian America: There will be equal access to the courts, which can only happen IF there is a Constitutionally guaranteed body of written law and the rights encoded within them. It is stated thus: “You shall not respect persons in judgment, but you shall hear the small (matters/claims) as well as the great. You shall not be afraid of the face of man…”
8) Immigration and Christian America as Refuge: The immigrant will find the laws impartially applied, with the same principles of refuge and justice as any citizen (vs. 16). This has the benefit of attracting people, such as our grandparents or great grandparents who came to our shores. They needed to know that any substance they earned from their labors was protected from graft, seizure or other corruptions of state. They needed the hope of a land in which there was the hope for the fruitful union of freedom, truth and justice. Therefore, they traveled here and for three centuries we have enjoyed a heritage with the reputation for attracting the genius, hard work, investment, and influx of wealth which they brought with them.
Christian America: Habeas Corpus and Deuteronomy 1
9) Christian America and Habeas Corpus That said, the passage has, as its intent, the protection of the rights and substance of “the small and the great”. No helpless classes of people to be coerced. No poor to misuse. No “wealthy” to be plundered. No rights trampled. All people enjoy a free society, where “legal plunder” is NOT a government initiative or the basis for improper civil suits.
Note also, the command to rulers and judges to “Hear…” (an imperative to immediately “get to the issue” and “try the case” justly) the causes of the small and great.” The legal framing of Habeas Corpus has this principle at its very foundation. This was, in fact, one of the principles adduced to resurrect Habeas Corpus by the Puritans of the English Reformation.
The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 stated, “An act for the better securing the liberty of the subject, and for prevention of imprisonments beyond the seas.
“WHEREAS great delays have been used by sheriffs, gaolers and other officers, to whose custody, any of the King’s subjects have been committed for criminal or supposed criminal matters, in making returns of writs of habeas corpus to them directed, by standing out an alias and pluries habeas corpus, and sometimes more, and by other shifts to avoid their yielding obedience to such writs, contrary to their duty and the known laws of the land, whereby many of the King’s subjects have been and hereafter may be long detained in prison, in such cases where by law they are bailable, to their great charges and vexation.
“…For the prevention whereof, and the more speedy relief of all persons imprisoned for any such criminal or supposed criminal matters…”
10) Christian America – “In God We Trust “: “You shall not be afraid of the face of man… for the judgment is Gods.” That is the essence of the rule of the Lord. The God of Scripture calls for “principled governance”, involving justice, equality of access to the courts, appeal, protection and redress of grievance. Such governance “Represents” God properly.
Christian America: Principled Expectation
There is a consistent call – and expectation – for upright character to govern virtuously in these passages, which is the reason Hooker preached upon the subject. That, of course, in place of a rapacious lust for power or wealth, which characterizes most governments throughout history.
Sounds a lot like the America we once enjoyed as a nation and the principles taught to our young and espoused throughout our history by President, Legislator, and Supreme Court Justice alike, until the mid-20th century.
Legislator, and Supreme Court Justice alike, until the mid-20th century.
“Theocracy?” [See below] Call it what you will. It still provides witness to “our American heritage” and frame of law… though we’ve not always been worthy stewards of same.
With the trials we see as a people in such areas as immigration, judicial decree, abortion, inflation, deficit spending, redistribution of incomes through legal plunder, and corrupt individuals sitting in the Constitutionally ordained seats of authority…
|
- article provided by Wayne C. Sedlak, ICHR
(Institute for Christian Heritage Research)
|
Definition of Theocracy cited in an article entitled The “Theocracy” Argument, Part III Theocracy: Definition? The question before us is whether or not the Biblical Christian worldview drives us to pursue a “theocracy”. Obviously, much of the answer lies in how one defines exactly what “theocracy” means, and that is why it is important to get all who are involved in the discussion to come to some agreement on the definition. Otherwise, everyone ends up shooting at different targets. I may think I’m hitting a bulls-eye with my argument while you think I’m way off the mark. Each of us ends up frustrated because no one seems to be getting our point. Dumbfounded, we look at each other and think “What is wrong with you people?!” …From the pure definition, “theocracy” means “ruled by god”. If one is “ruled” by god then that means the “ruler” is god. I would contend that God has not established that kind of authority structure within the sphere of the state. Romans 13 makes it clear that He has delegated ruling authority to a human agent—an agent who is to punish evil and condone what is good. Theocracy: Definition Consistent with Other Spheres of Rule This is consistent with other spheres of authority that God has created. In the sphere of labor, God has delegated “ownership” authority to a human steward who is held accountable for whether or not he prospers those goods. This appointment of human leaders and authority is also found in the church sphere and in the sphere of the family. God did not institute a bunch of “theocracies” within those social systems. So, we are to seek and pray for rulers that are consistent with God’s design—human agents whose actions are guided by the ethical standard of God. This is not a “theocracy”. A husband who loves his wife as the Scripture guides him does not mean that the family is a theocracy. A business owner who treats his workers with righteousness and attempts to run his company according to Biblical guidelines has not implemented a theocracy. So too, the civil magistrate, if he governs with justice and mercy and punishes evil and condones what is good based upon a Biblical standard of ethics, does not establish a “theocracy”. We do not seek someone who “speaks” for God, we seek someone who will act in accordance with His ethical laws. Theocracy: False “god” There have been a number of instances in human history where men began to view their civil leaders as “gods” or as one who spoke for “god”. It would be entirely proper to label these as “theocracies”. If you believe that the king is divine, then your god actually “rules”—and for all practical purposes, that is a “theocracy”, even though he is a false god. However, here is where it can start to get fuzzy. What if we don’t “say” that the king is “god”, but we act as if he is? Or what if the king “acts” as if he is “god” but doesn’t say he is? Does the king have to be declared divine in order for it to be called a “theocracy” even though everything else operates practically as if it is? To some extent, this is what Samuel Rutherford was arguing against in his classic “Lex Rex”. The prevailing thought was that the king was law. Whatever the king declared to be right was right and whatever the king declared to be wrong was wrong. The ethical standard (upon which all law is based) proceeded from the king’s mouth or scepter or pen. Rutherford argued, however, that the king was not law, but the law was king. He argued that there was a transcendent ethical norm to which the king was subject, not the other way around. And because Rutherford was speaking from a biblical perspective, that transcendent standard came from God’s general and special revelation. This was the consistent view of Coke, Lock, and Blackstone, (which I referred to last time) and was the fundamental teaching in law at the time of America’s founding. They were supposed to judge whether or not a proposed law was “good” based upon its conformance to God’s revelation. The human agency that was placed in the position of power was responsible for crafting, adjudicating and executing good laws and policies based upon that transcendent norm. So, to answer our question, biblical Christianity does not pursue a “theocracy”, but a governmental form in which we recognize that God has delegated ruling authority to a human agency—an agency that is to righteously punish evil and condone good—ruling based upon the transcendent ethical standards of God and not his own. Here is how Noah Webster put it in his 1834 “Value of the Bible”: “It is alleged by men of loose principles, or defective views of the subject, that religion and morality are not necessary or important qualifications for political stations. But the Scriptures teach a different doctrine. They direct that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God, able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness…” God has also reinforced the authority of this human agency by charging us, as citizens, to pay them respect, honor and submission, and to pray for them as we read in 2 Timothy 2:1-2:I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. All of this should lead us to ponder, therefore, what we should seek in terms of the qualifications of the civil magistrate. What should we use as our primary basis for electing public officials? Should it be based upon their charisma or the amount of “goodies” they will bestow upon the electorate or their party affiliation? I don’t think so. It appears that the Scripture would call us to seek those who best fulfill these fundamental criteria: which will best “punish evil” and “condone what is good”? Which best understands, biblically, what is “evil” and what is “good”? Which will wield their power in such a way that they honor the purpose of the state and serve to best conform it to God’s design? And that design calls us to seek “godly” rulers, not rulers who are “gods”…or rulers who will act like gods. |
.jpg "Early Christian America")
.jpg "Don't let them FORECLOSE on your home!")
