Throughout history Christian leaders have held widely varying views on
government. Some have denied that government could ever be truly
Christian, while others have regarded monarchy, democracy, or even
oligarchy as the "Christian" form of government. However, our present
generation is held in such a grip of satanic delusion that the very
mention of the term "Christian government" gives rise to thoughts of
religious dictatorship. Nevertheless, because our God is a God of
freedom, truth, and justice, that is the opposite of the way things
ought to be (John 8:31,32, Psalm 89:14). In fact, a government that is
being administered according to the will of God, will not tyrannize the
people, but serve them. And it will not serve by giving to some what it
has taken from others (Luke 22:25), but by protecting the lives and
property of all citizens, while allowing them the freedom to live quiet
and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty (1Timothy 2:2, 1Peter
2:14, Romans 13:3,4).
It is safe to say that as long as this world exists
no government will ever be Christian in the sense that all of the
people, or even all of the rulers, are saved. We might also conclude
that since government existed before the Bible was written, it does not
derive its authority from the Bible, but from the law God has written
on the heart (Romans 2:15). However, while the law written on the heart
should be understood in a way that is reasonable and just, it can
easily be denied, distorted, and twisted to serve the ends of evil and
selfish men. For that reason, rulers usually wind up interpreting it in
the light of the religious precepts held by the people they govern.
And, for a Christian people those precepts would be summarized in the
Ten Commandments.
The rejection of Biblical morality by many in
government is one of the major problems in our society, and it is being
driven by the delusion that morality should be separated from
government. Those who are of that persuasion assume that freedom can
only be preserved by a government that is morally neutral. But what are
tyranny and slavery other than moral evils? And, what are governments
that tyrannize and enslave other than immoral governments? True
freedom, the kind of freedom that comes from God, is not freedom from
morality but freedom founded upon morality. In fact, since it is
impossible for a nation that allows rulers to take bribes, live above
the law, punish the innocent, falsely accuse, rape, kill, or rob to be
free, freedom cannot exist without honesty and integrity on the part of
public officials. For that reason, a truly free government will be a
government that accepts God's moral law. Therefore, let me define a
Christian government, as a government which, because of Christian
influence, officially acknowledges the divinity and lordship of Jesus
Christ, conforms its legal code to Christian standards of morality, and
requires those who hold public office to obey the law. [Philippians
2:10, Romans 13:1, Daniel 4:25, 2 Chronicles 19:7]
"Luther wanted neither autocracy
nor mobocracy, but 'lawocracy' book law, a constitution. He admired the
ancient republics and Switzerland. If the Emperor broke the law, he was
to be fought as a common robber." (Lutheran Cyclopedia, page 598)
AT THE NAME OF JESUS EVERY KNEE SHOULD
BOW
Since the Bible plainly tells us "that at the name
of Jesus every knee should bow," everyone; angels, rulers, and even
devils should and indeed will bow before Jesus Christ acknowledging Him
to be their Lord and their God (Philippians 2:10). There are no
exceptions! All must bow! All men, and that includes all rulers, are to
be subject to God's authority, and are to acknowledge that any
authority which they have is a trust from God that is to be
administered according to the will of God. (Romans 13:1, John 19:11,
Daniel 4:25)
Although every ruler should acknowledge the lordship
of Jesus Christ and keep the Ten Commandments, the influence of the
political laws of Israel upon other nations is voluntary. However,
because our natural knowledge of right and wrong has been corrupted by
sin, it is right and proper that rulers should look to the political
laws of Israel as a guide to good government. Moreover, since every law
reflects some standard of morality, we need to realize that it is
impossible for any government to be morally neutral. Just as laws that
forbid mothers to murder their unborn children reflect one standard of
morality, laws that allow them to murder their unborn children reflect
another "standard." And, the standard of morality that God wants rulers
to follow is set forth in the Ten Commandments. In fact, the Bible
tells us that when it says that every soul (rulers included) should "be
subject unto the higher powers," for there is no authority apart from
the will of God (Romans 13:1).
Church and state should be separate in the sense
that the church is not to use the power of the state, nor is the state
to control and use the church. They are to be separate institutions.
However, rulers are perfectly free to read the Bible, learn from the
Bible, and borrow ideas from the political law set forth in the Bible,
and that has been done throughout history. Referring to this Biblical
influence upon our law, lawyer and columnist David Limbaugh once said:
"Joe Farah made the excellent point
that 'the Ten Commandments form the very basis of Western law.' We
should be aware that other Biblical laws were also foundational to our
system of jurisprudence. In the Book of Exodus following the Ten
Commandments are further laws, sometimes collectively referred to as
the Book of the Covenant. As a lawyer I was fascinated to
discover just how much of our law - torts, contracts, property and
criminal law - is obviously traceable to this section of scripture."
If some people think that a Christian government
will be tyrannical, part of the reason lies in the fact that in the
past there have been misguided churchmen who have attempted to control
the state and use its power to impose their authority upon everyone
else. However, what many fail to understand is that the abuse of
political power is clearly contrary to the Word of God. God has given
rulers authority so that they can punish criminals not regulate the law
abiding (Romans 13:3,4, 1Peter 2:14, 2Corinthians 10:4, 1Timothy 1:9,
1Samuel 8:10:22). In short, morality should never be used by rulers as
an excuse to be immoral (oppressive), instead it should keep them from
committing the very crimes that God intended for them to punish.
Moreover, God records the criminal behavior of rulers, from David's
murder of Uriah to Herod's murder of the infants, and we should learn
from that record the importance of requiring rulers to obey the law.
THE LESSONS OF HISTORY
God instituted government because He loves and cares
for people, not because He wants rulers to tyrannize and oppress them
(Proverbs 3:31, Romans 13:3, Psalm 72:4). If we did not have a
government we would live in constant fear of being assaulted, robbed,
or killed. And, if some in our country live in such fear today it is
only because our government has drifted so far away from the moral
foundations upon which it was founded. Therefore, the very first
principle of freedom and of good government is that all rulers, and
government itself, must be in subject to the law of God as summarized
in the Ten Commandments and reflected in the laws of the land. For that
reason, the highest authority in any land must always be the law, not
the whims of a ruler. And, that law must be founded upon moral precept,
for freedom can only flourish where God, not man, decides what behavior
is criminal and what is not.
The English and American system of free government
began when King John was required to submit to the law as set down in
the "Magna Carta" or Great Charter. By making the law as set down in
the "Magna Carta" an authority higher than the king, an authority to
which the king was required to submit, the "Magna Carta" shifted the
authority of English government from the king to the law, and thus to
God whose authority is manifest in the law.
Once the "Magna Carta" had been signed, the only
thing that prevented the king from ignoring it was the power of the
nobility. When King John died, the barons assumed control of the
government and made John's son (Henry III) confirm the "Magna Carta."
Therefore, while the power struggle between the king and the barons
continued for some time, it was this division of power (between king
and barons) that made it possible to enforce the provisions set down in
the "Magna Carta." In time, the power of English government came to be
divided between the king, the nobility (House of Lords), and the people
(House of Commons).
Over the centuries, the laws restraining rulers from
the abuse of power were expanded, and two important safeguards against
tyranny were added to the body of English law. The "Petition of Right"
in 1628, and the English "Bill of Rights" in 1689. These additions to
English law helped to define the rights of the people, and like the
"Magna Carta", were made enforceable only by the division of power in
English government. Moreover, because the power is divided in
English government, we err to think of it as a monarchy. Although the
king is a monarch, the House of Lords is essentially an oligarchy (rule
by few), while the House of Commons is a democracy. And, since a
republic is essentially a mixed form of government in which law is
supreme, the government of England would be called a republic if it did
not have a hereditary head of state.
[NOTE: Since the word "republic" originated with the mixed form of
government that existed in ancient Rome prior to the rise of the
Caesars, the difference between a republic and a democracy, is the
difference between the government of Athens, and the government of
Rome.]
Because the men who founded our American Republic
understood the importance of both limiting and dividing the powers of
government, they separated the executive (law enforcing), legislative
(law making), and judicial (law interpreting) branches of government
(see Isaiah 33:22). Since the President [who, like some kings, was
originally to be chosen by electors] was to control the army, his
position corresponded to that of the king in English government.
Nevertheless, congress had authority over the militia. At the same
time, the Senate (whose members were originally to be appointed by the
state governments) corresponded to the House of Lords in English
government, while the House of Representatives corresponded to the
House of Commons.
Over the years there has been a trend to change our
American government from a mixed form of government to a pure
democracy. For all intents and purposes, our President and senators are
now chosen by popular vote. However, because pure democracies have
historically been unstable and oppressive governments we ought to view
this trend as a threat to our freedom. Ask yourself. What safe guard to
freedom can a democracy provide if the law does not place any
limitations or restraints upon the men whom the people elect? Without
such limitations a democracy would quickly turn into a dictatorship. In
fact, Hitler, who was elected by a democracy, is a prime example of
this. I might also point out that it was majority rule that sentenced
Jesus to death on the cross. In fact, South America is full of unstable
democratic dictatorships.
Furthermore, what if a democratic government did
have laws limiting the power of those who were elected? What good would
such laws be if there was no division of power? Who would enforce them?
In England it took centuries to bring the power of government under
control and curb its abuses. Now, under the name of democracy, the
English have higher taxes and more invasive regulations than any
monarch ever dared impose. A few years ago their government greatly
restricted the right of individual citizens to own firearms — a right
formerly protected by the English Bill of Rights. As a result,
criminals do not fear law-abiding citizens, for those who use a gun to
protect themselves are punished more harshly than the criminals (Luke
22:36). As a result, the rate of crime has shot up far higher than it
was in the past.
The delegation of legislative authority to
regulatory agencies, that are neither authorized by the constitution
nor accountable to the people, constitutes another trend toward
dictatorship. Our media never seems to mention the fact that Mussolini
invented regulatory agencies and they are essentially Fascist in
origin. Furthermore, the infatuation of our society with democracy is
totally irrational because it stems from the naive and foolish belief
that all men are inherently good. Frankly, even those who profess to
believe such nonsense, usually have enough sense to lock their doors at
night. Just as good sense tells us that thieves must be kept from
entering our homes, it also tells us that rulers must be kept from
committing crimes. If they are not, tyranny and oppression will come as
surely as night follows day. And, in my opinion, that is one reason why
the United Nations is doomed to fail. [Psalm 127:1, Jeremiah 17:9]
[NOTE: In a purely democratic government the Ten Commandments can
easily come to be seen as nothing more than the opinion of the
majority. When that happens, those who do not want to be bound by the
Ten Commandments will work to change that opinion, thus undermining the
very foundation of freedom.]
The English system of common law originated with
King Alfred, whose legal code included the Ten Commandments along with
other excerpts of Mosaic Law (871-899 A.D.). The Jewish laws of
commerce, as codified by Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon, later became the basis
for much of English commercial law. The laws of England in turn,
(especially as explained in Blackstone's "Commentaries On The Laws Of
England") then became the basis for the American system of law.
Moreover, the men who founded our American government were intent on
preserving, not overthrowing that Biblical system of law. For that
reason, the American War of Independence was not a revolution by any
stretch of the imagination. Instead of being carried out by
revolutionaries intent on overthrowing the rule of law; it was carried
out by the duly constituted colonial governments in order to maintain
the rule of law, along with its guarantee of such individual rights as
no taxation without representation. [Note: King Alfred saw divine law
as a source of first principles, and human law as a reflection of
divine law. (“From Alfred to Henry III”, by Christopher Brooke, page
45)]
CONCLUSION
In this essay I have emphasized these important truths.
1- All rulers should acknowledge the divinity and lordship of Jesus
Christ (Philippians 2:10).
2- The Ten Commandments are a higher law that all rulers should obey,
and to which all earthly law should conform (Romans 13:1).
3- In order for freedom to prevail, rulers should be subject to the
same laws as everyone else, and rulers who violate those laws should be
tried and punished for their crimes.
I have also sought to make it perfectly clear that a
Christian government will be a free government, not a religious
tyranny, and need not be radically different from what we have now. To
that end, I have summarized the influence of Biblical law upon the
English and American systems of government, while pointing out key
events of history by which the power of English government was brought
under control, and rulers made accountable for their crimes. I have
also pointed out that honesty and integrity on the part of public
officials is vital to good government, and to the preservation of
freedom. At the same time, I do not want to cover up or ignore the
wickedness and shortcomings of specific rulers. Since human nature has
not changed from the days of Herod, there have been wicked rulers in
both England and America and there will be wicked rulers in the future.
That is not something that legislation can change. However, when the
law is supreme, rulers required to obey it, and the power of government
divided it is possible to hold rulers accountable for their actions.
Therefore, since freedom is a gift of God, if we are
to preserve freedom we must not separate God from government, but
instead must return our government to God (1 Timothy 2:2). To that end
I close with the words of a song that until 1930, was regarded as our
national anthem.
Our fathers' God to Thee,
Author of liberty,
To Thee we sing:
Long may our land be bright
With freedom's holy light;
Protect us by Thy might,
Great God, our King!
The following resources may be helpful to those who would like to learn
more about Biblical foundations of our government.
"The Story Of Liberty" — by Charles Carleton Coffin
"Sweet Land of Liberty" — by Charles Carleton Coffin
"Christianity And The Constitution" — by John Eidsmore
"Faith And Freedom" — by Benjamin Hart
"America's Godly Heritage" (video) — by David Barton
"America's British Culture" — by Russell Kirk
"A Better Guide Than Reason" — by M.E. Bradford
"Founding Fathers" — by M.E. Bradford
"Original Intentions" — by M.E. Bradford
"Basic American Government" — by Clarence B. Carson
"Basic Economics" — by Clarence Carson
"The Roots of American Order" — by Russell Kirk
"The Law" — by Frederic Bastiat
"What Is Seen And Not Seen" — by Frederic Bastiat
"Economics In One Lesson" — by Henry Hazlitt
"The Revolution Myth" — by Gene Fisher and Glen Chambers
"The United States: A Christian Nation" — by David J. Brewer,
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
"The State vs. The People, The Rise of the American Police
State" — by Claire Wolfe and Aaron Zelman