CAN ANY MODEL OF GOVERNMENT SURVIVE IMPERFECT, FALLEN MEN?
By Pastor Dan Gayman
Millions of disillusioned Americans anguish as they watch the decline of their country, the open disregard for the U.S. Constitution, and the flagrant rise of a totalitarian police state in the country their ancestors bled and died to give them. Often students of history and politics turn this rage upon what they perceive are inherent weaknesses of the Constitution itself. If only the Founding Fathers had created a model of government built from Sola Scriptura, the Bible alone, we would enjoy tremendous freedom and prosperity, secure in a land defended by free men under Jesus Christ and His Law. But the question we must address is this: do the problems that face America reside with a faulty Constitution, or must we look deeper into our hearts and souls and measure our spiritual standing with God?
Pastor Dan Gayman
Every area of life is touched by the failures of government, which were accompanied, if not preceded, by the spiritual and moral freefall of “we, the people.” The falling economic fortunes and plunging standard of living once so prevalent in America now impacts all but those who live at the top of the economic ladder. There is not a single woe that befalls America that does not have a root cause that can be traced to the spiritual and moral disconnect from God and the absolute truth of His Word. Amid this growing national crisis, our political leadership has become a circus, and our educational systems reek with the gods of human reason and the exclusion of biblical Christianity.
Few voices have the courage to champion the cause of truth. Secular humanism is moving like a tsunami over the land, and biblical Christians everywhere are struggling to remain anchored as they watch so many people including many of their loved ones swallowed up in the flood waters of paganism. Good is now pronounced as evil, and evil masquerades as good. The celebration of sin has become the favorite past time for growing millions of Americans.
In the midst of this moral carnage and the elevation of human reason as the god of this world, millions of Americans are beyond frustration as they watch the country they love slowly dying before their eyes. It is only natural that many Americans, particularly those who are still anchored to a belief in the triune transcendent God of Scripture and His eternal and unchanging Word try and point the finger to the culprit responsible for our national slide into oblivion.
Who must bear the blame for the decline and ultimate fall of America? Who must bear the responsibility for the plunder and theft of the Christian values that once characterized our nation? Whom do we blame for the egregious sins that are now openly displayed in this country? Who must bear the blame for the falling political, economic, military, and foreign policy fortunes of America? Will the guilty please come forward?
Among the many moving targets that have been blamed for America’s free fall into spiritual and moral oblivion stands the U.S. Constitution drafted in 1787 and ratified in 1789 and made the law of the land. Fifty-five White, mostly Protestant men gathered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to draft the constitution. Some forty stayed on to see the process finalized and offered to the Colonial population of America. The Constitution and the men who wrote it have come into the gun-sights of those looking for a place to lay the blame for America’s growing plunge into the abyss.
There seems to be an unleashing of attempts to defame the U.S. Constitution and its framers. Included in this article are two of the many quotes that I have seen in recent months that confirm the increasing opposition and frustration so many feel about the Constitution. My intention is not to give the author’s name or quote the source document, because I do not question the sincerity or motives of these people. These are good men with sincere hearts and deep love and concern for America. Give careful thought to the following quotes:
“I’m an unapologetic and fanatical opponent of the Constitution, because I’m Protestant Christian and believe in sola scriptura [sic], not the Bible and the Constitution. I just think if we’re going to use or even discuss the Constitution we should be completely candid about just what it is. We should not try to blend Christianity with the leaven of secular proceduralism, because we are unwilling to separate ourselves, as God commands, from this corrupting leaven. Let’s let Christianity be what it is and the Constitution be what it is, and not try to confuse the two. Legalized fagrimony (referring to homosexuality) is not the result of some malfunction. It’s the result of the Constitution working successfully. So too is abortion, replacing prayer in school with evolution and sex education, banning the Ten Commandments in the courthouses, and decriminalizing prostitution, dope, and gambling—all are the result of the Constitution functioning successfully. You see, the problem isn’t the Constitution not working properly; the problem is that the Constitution is working properly. The reason Christian values have persisted up to about a century ago despite the encroachment of secularism is because these values restrained the Constitution from working successfully. The problem is the Constitution itself, which is why we need a Christian revolution and not ‘original intent’.”
To my reading, it is clear that the above quote blames our plunging moral standards squarely on the Constitution, especially with this statement: “The problem is in the Constitution itself, which is why we need a Christian revolution and not ‘original intent’.” The ultimate solution to the problem, according to this writer, is a Christian revolution.
Consider still another quote that blames our problem on the Constitution:
“What we need is to burn the U. S. Constitution and replace it with the Holy Bible (KJV). Then, and only then, will we see justice and peace and true happiness throughout the U. S. Then, and only then, will we see pedophiles and those who practice bestiality executed. Then, and only then, will we see segregation return to America. Then, and only then, will we see mosques and synagogues destroyed and false religions eradicated. Then, and only then, will we see the Lord Jesus Christ exalted as He should be in our national life.”
This quote echoes the heart-felt feeling of many who yearn to see the Theocratic Kingdom of God, with Jesus Christ, the Greater David, ruling upon the throne of world government and His law supreme over all. If this noble ideal could have been achieved among mortal men, surely it should have been possible when God granted Moses, in direct communion, the authority to establish a theocratic kingdom ruled by Sola Scriptura. Could mortal men achieve this aim then? No. Why? Because we are just that: mortal, sinful men. That is what we have always been.
A Lesson from the Past
Jehovah granted this experiment with pure organic law free reign with Moses and the Israelites who gathered at the foot of Mt. Sinai in B.C. 1491. If you have read Scripture, you will know that this attempt to establish a theocratic kingdom failed—and failed miserably. The attempt back then only exposed the inveterate sinfulness of the Israelites and became a ministry of condemnation rather than a euphoric experience in the freedom to live exclusively under God’s law. The adult generation that witnessed the receiving of this divine constitution directly from Jehovah all perished for the sin of unbelief at the end of their forty years of wandering in the Sinai Wilderness.
The heart and soul of this debate centers around this question: are the decline and falling fortunes of America because our Founding Fathers chose an imperfect and flawed model for the government of the United States, or does the fault lie in the sinful nature of the successive generations who were left as custodians of the Constitutional Republic given them by the Founding Fathers of the late 1700s? The fault lies not with the covenant/contract called the U.S. Constitution, but the flawed sinfulness of human nature. If you cannot sign on to this idea, please be patient and read on.
The divine constitution to which Israel assented (Exodus 19:5-8; 24:1-3) and which was sealed in sacrificial blood (Exodus 24:6-7) was a covenantal instrument that issued from Jehovah Himself. Israel was given a model for government based exclusively on Sola Scriptura. Subsequent history demonstrated that the children of Israel, first under the strong hand of Moses and later Joshua, were unable to meet the demands of this covenant. Should we be surprised that subsequent generations in America were not able to live within the terms of the human constitution written by the White Anglo-Saxon men in late 18th Century America? If the original intent of the U.S. Constitution had been adhered to, many of the problems that now vex America would not be present.
For example, the tenth amendment limits the power of the Federal Government to that which is explicitly granted with all other rights and powers being reserved to the States and to the people. The Federal Government has morphed into a centralized dictatorship over the States and has become a monster never envisioned by the men who drafted the Constitution. Moreover, the many adverse amendments added to the Constitution in the decades that followed have largely altered the scope and intent of the original Constitution. In the case of ancient Israel, they did not attempt to amend the divine constitution given them; they simply lapsed into disobedience and reckless abandonment of the covenant under which they agreed to live.
Our inveterate, depraved, and sinful nature further demonstrated itself under Joshua and the series of Judges who followed him for more than 300 years. From the death of Moses (about 1451 B.C.) to the end of the reign of Judges about 1095 B.C.), Israel attempted to live under God’s pure and organic law. At the close of Samuel’s life, however, the Israelites demanded a king (I Samuel 8), and the rest is history. The question that must be asked is this: did the problem lie with the divine constitution, or with the depraved hearts of the people? The Bible confirms that there was nothing wrong with the covenant (Hebrews 8:7-8); rather, the fault lay with the people. Is it fair to ask this same question with regards to the U.S. Constitution? Does the fault lie with the Constitution and the men who framed it, or must the plight of our country be laid at the depraved nature of the people who have consistently, for several generations, disconnected from God and His Word?
The prominent John Adams said this about the U.S. Constitution after it was written: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” When the majority of Americans were moral and the culture reflected it, the Constitution worked well. The more “we, the people” departed from demonstrating truly Christian character and morality and strict interpretation of the Constitution as it originally was written, the less effective this instrument of government became. A majority of the amendments reflect the diminishing wisdom and moral character of the people and those elected into public office.
Without moral integrity and a commitment to the principles of Christian character and Bible law, no model of government or constitution can long sustain a people. The benefits and blessings of the divine constitution given ancient Israel at Mt. Sinai in 1451 B. C. were conditional on our forebears’ commitment to love, serve, and obey Jehovah by observing His immutable law. To the degree that we have lost our Christian and Puritan character, we have diminished the blessings and utility of the U.S. Constitution.
Historical Excursion
If the answer to our present national problem lies in a full restoration of a biblical theocracy directed from Scripture alone, perhaps we can revisit another time in our racial history when our people attempted this, at least in some form. On a cold and dreary day in 1649, King Charles I, son of James I, walked before a hushed crowd of Londoners, ascended to the scaffold, gave his last respects to his executioner, knelt, and thrust his head onto the chopping block. The executioner’s axe fell, severing his head. Could this happen in a land renowned for its Christianity? The king’s bitter political opponents could behead a king who heretofore had ruled under the aura of the divine rights of kings? In the years preceding his execution, England had been torn asunder with religious strife. The push for greater religious liberty by the growing influence of the Puritans met headlong with the resolute authority of the English king, Charles I. By 1642, the differences between the two parties became irreconcilable. Both Parliament and the king assembled armies, launching the first English Civil War. By 1646, Parliament had defeated the king’s armies, and King Charles agreed to a compromise settlement wherein he shared power with Parliament, allowing limited liberty of conscience and replacing bishops with a Presbyterian government.
Charles I, not content with relinquishing more religious liberty to the Puritan forces, worked steadily behind the scenes and ultimately enlisted the aid of both Scotland and Ireland to help him in another civil war to suppress the Puritan opposition. With the bloody and costly second Civil War underway, this time the military leadership of Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658) was well established. Under his leadership, this war ended with the complete defeat of the king and his armies. In January of 1649, Parliament tried Charles I for treason, found him guilty, and ordered him executed.