by Dr. K. Alan Snyder
Chapter 1: God the Source (excerpt)
A principle is the source or origin of
anything; it is a general truth, that is, a truth that is so broad and
sweeping that many other truths can be considered offshoots of it. The idea
of general truths that apply to all of society formerly had wide endorsement
in America. The Declaration of Independence speaks of self-evident truths
and goes on to list the basic rights God has given man.
One can legitimately question whether
American society today still adheres to an unalterable body of truth. The
onset of evolutionary philosophy and the pragmatism to which it has given
birth has led us to think more in terms of expediency than principle. People
sacrifice principles to that which is less troublesome. Standing on
principle can be wearying when no one else seems to care or understand what
you are doing. Yet God calls Christians to make His principles the
foundation of all they say and do.
Christians get in trouble when they
conform to the world's thinking and allow principles to slide. They are
tempted not to cause waves, forgetting that the world already is a turbulent
place and that men are seeking—whether they realize it or not—for the
stability of fixed principles. These principles can come only from the
Christians, from those who base all decisions upon Biblical truth.
Chapter 2: Individuality: The Cornerstone
(excerpt)
A recognition of the uniqueness and
purpose of each individual should be a requisite for civil government.
Throughout history, though, recognition of this principle has been spotty at
best; the opposite has been the norm.
People who understand Biblical
individuality should acknowledge both the importance of the individual and the
need for civil government to safeguard this special creation of God.
Government should exist for the individual, not the individual for government.
Unfortunately, the latter has been true most of the time.
Once men forgot the true knowledge of
God and degenerated into polytheistic superstition, the civil government
became a substitute god. In all the early Mesopotamian civilizations and in
Egypt, the individual was considered the servant of the state. The situation
did not improve in ancient Greece and Rome. In the political theories of Plato
and Aristotle and in the actual practice of the Greek city-states, the
individual had importance only if he made a significant contribution to his
city. Rome developed a system of civil law that appeared to safeguard certain
"rights," but it considered the government, not a creator, to be the
grantor. If the government gives rights, it can take them away.
Both Greece and Rome displayed
callousness toward the individual in another way—in their practice of
abortion and infanticide. Abortion was commonplace and infanticide excused as
long as the newborn did not have a name. The baby, without a name, was not
considered a real person.
Christianity stood against this
practice. A mid-second century document called the Didache, or The Teaching of
the Twelve Apostles, plainly declared, "You shall not procure an abortion
or kill the newborn child." Although the Christian message suffered
corruption during the Middle Ages, basic respect for the individual remained
intact. The Reformation continued the early abortion beliefs, and a Christian
framework of thinking dominated until the onset of the evolutionary
philosophy.
The United States, in its founding
document, the Declaration of Independence, declared God to be the Creator of
man and the giver of man's rights to life (the value of the individual made in
the image of God), liberty (self-government—see the next chapter), and the
pursuit of happiness (happiness defined in that day as the will of God for
each individual, not as "do your own thing"). The type of government
set up by the Constitution respected the individual and acknowledged certain
guarantees for his protection. After the abolition of slavery in the
mid-nineteenth century, it appeared that the principle of individuality was
secure. But things changed.
Chapter 3: Self-Government: Maturity & Liberty
(excerpt)
As more American colonies were
established, self-government expanded. Royal charters gave permission to set
up local assemblies to pass laws. Self-government became the norm for each
colony. In fact, self-government became so prominent that the political
establishment in England grew alarmed at the possibilities—resulting in
what historians usually call the American Revolution. I use the term
"American Revolution" simply because it is recognizable to most
people. A more accurate title, however, would be "The American War for
Independence," or perhaps, "The American War for Continued
Self-Government," for self-government was the primary issue.
The British government, by the 1760s,
was concerned over the population explosion in the American colonies and the
potential for complete independence, thus depriving them of a rich source of
natural resources and creating a new commercial competitor in the world. These
colonies had to be kept under control so they could be managed effectively
from across the Atlantic.
The decision to tax and regulate the
colonies was entirely inconsistent with the situation. Some of these colonies
had been self-governing for more than a century; they were mature politically
and did not need oversight. They followed the policies of the British Empire
as a whole but had almost total control of their own spheres, electing their
own representatives and making their own laws. On occasion, the king might
veto a legislature's law, but this was the exception. They were a people
experienced in self-government.
When the British Parliament, for the
first time in the history of its relationship with the colonies, began passing
laws to tax them, an uproar resulted. The colonies lacked a voice in
Parliament, thereby making these laws an arbitrary confiscation of personal
property. Colonial leaders protested through every legal means offered to them
by British precedent.
Representatives met together to discuss
the measures and drew up petitions requesting that the British government
refrain from invading the realm of local self-government promised by their
charters. When the government did not listen on that ground, they switched
their argument to a higher plane. Self-government, or liberty, they
proclaimed, was a right granted by God, not government. That argument also was
ignored.
Chapter 4: Property: Stewardship and Accountability
(excerpt)
A country such as the United States is
made up of diverse peoples, most of whom are not Christians. Neither can they
be forced to accept the Christian way because that would violate liberty of
conscience. All historical attempts to "create" Christians by force
have only bred hypocrisy. Christians and non-Christians live under the same
government. They all have the same rights, and liberty of conscience must be
respected.
Yet consciences can be educated and
influenced. Christians, whose liberty of conscience is just as sacred as that
of non-Christians, should be free to influence others toward the Christian
worldview. All societies have a standard. Christians can raise their standard
and use all legitimate educational and political means to promote that
standard for their country. Non-Christians are free to do the same.
Pluralism is a different concept
altogether. The basis for modern pluralism is moral relativism. Those who
advocate pluralism usually don't believe in absolute truth. They say that all
views receive equal treatment, but there is a concerted effort to censor any
view that promotes absolutes. In the guise of pluralism, Christian influence
is denounced as "trying to legislate morality." The assumption is
that morality cannot be legislated. Is that true?
What is a law? Every law is a statement
by the political community declaring certain actions to be wrong and others to
be right. Lawbreakers receive penalties. Obviously, these laws are not simply
suggestions. Whenever one is dealing with right and wrong, morality is the
issue. All laws are moral. Even the stop sign on the corner is a moral
statement: "Refuse to stop here and you will be penalized. It is wrong to
drive past here without stopping because the community has deemed it unsafe to
the lives and property of other individuals." Therefore, it is wrong not
to stop.
The idea that morality cannot be
legislated is a smokescreen for a hidden agenda: the replacement of Christian
principles of government and society with humanistic principles. The Christian
response cannot be to force the Christian viewpoint, but it can be a
wholehearted attempt to reeducate society in Christian principles.
Chapter 5: Unity & Union: Voluntariness & Diversity
(excerpt)
The initial step in the formation of
unity in the colonies came from God. It was called the Great Awakening. The
Awakening was a revival of the Christian faith that began sporadically in the
1720s and extended into the 1740s. It began in local self-governing
communities, as the Spirit of God reawakened people to their individual
accountability for salvation.
The climax came in 1740 with the
arrival of evangelist George Whitefield, who came ashore in Georgia and
traversed the entire eastern seaboard, preaching the Word of God with powerful
effect. Through Whitefield, the Awakening became a multi-colony experience.
Whole cities came to a standstill to hear him. Even Benjamin Franklin, who
never became a Christian convert, was impressed with the results of
Whitefield's time in Philadelphia. Franklin commented, "From being
thoughtless or indifferent about religion, it seemed as if all the world were
growing religious, so that one could not walk through the town in an evening
without hearing psalms sung in different families of every street."
Historians have disagreed over the
actual results of this Awakening. Some point to denominational splits and
conclude that it did not create unity. Yet I believe the general effect was
positive. Many new colleges started, colleges dedicated to Christian
scholarship and to applying the Christian faith to all walks of life.
Princeton, Brown, Rutgers, and Dartmouth all trace their beginnings to the
Awakening.
Although some critiqued the Awakening's
external methods (British colonials were not used to emotional religion), many
were shaken from their lethargy concerning the need for individual salvation.
The message of personal response to God was preached in every colony and the
Awakening became the first truly "American" event, shared by every
colony. It created a sense of American unity of spirit that prepared the way
for eventual political unity and union.
Chapter 6: Christian Character: The Catalyst
(excerpt)
Individuality that does not recognize
God's purposes becomes an excuse for eccentricity. Selfish self-government is
rebellion. The right to hold property, lacking the stewardship concept,
becomes an avenue to greed and materialism. The unity upon which a union is
founded may have a selfish orientation, as in the illustration of the Tower of
Babel. A catalyst is needed.
The break with Britain was as much about
character as self-government and property. The Declaration of Independence
speaks of the prudence and patience of the colonies contrasted with the
"long train of abuses and usurpations" perpetrated by the king.
George III sought "to reduce them under absolute despotism" and
establish "an absolute Tyranny over these States." A list of
specific abuses concludes: "A Prince, whose character is thus marked by
every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free
People." Character is paramount in the concluding sentence: "And for
the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of
Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes
and our sacred Honor."
The men who signed this document became
marked. Their lives, families, and property became targets for the British,
who wished to teach these traitors a lesson. They suffered tremendous loss
during the prosecution of the war, but they had pledged to continue—it was
a matter of faithfulness, a matter of character.
Chapter 7: Christian Form of Government: God Wants Kings?
(excerpt)
God is interested in the government of
the world and is concerned that men follow His laws. He has given guidelines
for the form of government best suited to fulfill His purposes.
A form is a manner or system, a stated
method or practice, or an appropriate arrangement of parts. A Christian form
of government would be a Biblical manner or system of government [control and
direction]; a Biblical method or practice of control and direction; an
appropriate Biblical arrangement of the parts of government to achieve control
and direction. What manner or system, or arrangement of parts, did God ordain?
The first governmental institution
established by God was the family. He gave the husband authority over the
wife, and children were to obey their parents. Information on civil authority
before the Flood is sketchy; it seems that the family, or tribal, structure
predominated. The same pattern can be seen post-Flood in Abraham, although
kings became predominant.
The first time man attempted
centralized government power was the Tower of Babel. We already saw how God
reacted to this attempt. When He scattered the people, He decentralized
authority.
Specific instructions on civil
government began when Moses led the children of Israel toward the Promised
Land. First God gave them the Ten Commandments as a basis for all their laws.
Then He allowed a certain form of government to be set up.
Moses tried to judge all the people by
himself. His father-in-law, Jethro, warned him that he would wear himself out
and that he needed others to share the burden with him. So Moses told the
people, "Choose wise and discerning and experienced men from your tribes,
and I will appoint them as your heads." After the people of each tribe
chose leaders, Moses appointed them "leaders of thousands, and of
hundreds, of fifties and of tens, and officers" for their tribes. They
were to judge cases at their various levels. If a case at the top level was
too difficult to handle, they could bring it to Moses. When they eventually
entered the land, they continued this pattern, with Moses' role being taken
either by a priest or a judge called specifically by God to serve in that
capacity.
Israel in the days of the judges was a
federal republic. This assertion may surprise some people, but whenever power
is diffused throughout different levels of government, where each level has
its own sphere of authority, and where the top level does not involve itself
with local governmental affairs unless asked to do so, the structure is
federalism. It is an effective protection against tyranny. In addition, the
people chose their leaders; representation is the key ingredient for what
political thinkers have always called a republic. The system in early Israel
was therefore a federal republic.
The problem with any federal republic
is that it calls for a high degree of self-government. If the people are
unwilling to abide by the law, the structure breaks down. Those who refuse to
be self-governed need a strong external governor to control them. This was the
case with Israel. The phrase that keeps recurring throughout the book of
Judges is, "In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what
was right in his own eyes."
Reading the book of Judges can be
discouraging. The people begin with their hearts right before God, they fall
into rebellion, God allows a foreign enemy to oppress them, they cry out to
God for deliverance, and He sends a deliverer. For a while they remain true to
His law, but then the cycle repeats: rebellion, oppression, repentance,
deliverance. They never learn. Throughout this sad spectacle, God tries to
teach them to be responsible and accountable, but they keep turning away.
Moreover, they begin looking at the government of other nations and long to
have the same type of government themselves.
Chapter 8: Sowing and Reaping: The Bitter Harvest
(excerpt)
Evolutionary pragmatic philosophy has
affected law and government profoundly. Pragmatism changed the concept of law
from its eternal basis to a transitory, process-oriented, ever-changing basis.
Law no longer starts with the commands of God, but with the needs of men. This
is called sociological law, revealing again the links among the various
strands of thought.
If there are no eternal truths and no
absolutes, it is necessary for government to step in and decide right and
wrong, thus fitting in nicely with Ward's vision of social engineering.
Christopher Langdell, who began his
tenure as Dean of the Harvard Law School in the 1870s, introduced the case law
method of teaching. He based this method on the evolutionary, pragmatic belief
that law was an evolving process, constantly rewritten in the opinions of the
judges. In case law, one looks at previous judicial decisions and uses them as
a precedent for deciding a current case. The use of precedent was not new;
what was new was the divorce from eternal truths and the emphasis on using
more recent precedents. Devotion to the latest decisions, no matter how far
removed from the original understanding of a law or the Constitution, became
the rule.
The impact was to make the Constitution
a "living document," according to sociological law advocates. The
Constitution, they say, should be looked upon as an "evolving
instrument," to be redefined according to the need of the moment. Why be
bound by a previous generation that did not anticipate the needs of the
future? Through the case law method, new generations of judges were taught to
stretch the Constitution whenever necessary, to the point that whatever the
judge says is law, not what the letter of the Constitution may say. It would
be wrong, they complain, to hold to the letter when the spirit calls for a
change.
They seem to overlook the fact that the
Constitution allows for change through amendments. If enough states in this
federal republic want a specific change, an amendment can be passed to make it
legal. Sociological law, on the other hand, is an illegal and unconstitutional
use of the court system.
|
