The Real Problem with the Federal Constitution
The following is a small sample of an article by Rev. Andrew Sandlin (CRE) at the National Reform Association website. Read the whole thing! Now!
"The main problem with the framers of the Constitution was not, in fact,
that they pulled off a Deistic or secularist coup d'e tat, but that they lacked the foresight to realize the possibility of the emergence of an anti-Christian ethos capable of employing a chiefly procedural political document to undermine the Christian Faith. The Federal Constitution, in fact, is largely such a procedural, rather than substantive, document. While all procedures imply a substantive presupposition (which for the Constitution is Christian), it is evident the framers were only interested in marking out the bare guidelines of a federal system of government, and while presuming the covenantal or contractual character of civil government, did not position themselves to create a formal covenant with God similar to the Scottish Solemn League and Covenant. Recall too that at this time the various states were almost little countries, and the union essentially a confederation of these states. Significantly, most of the the states' constitutions required a religious (Christian) profession for office, and thus the framers' intent in writing the Constitution was not to explicate their religious views but to fashion the guidelines of a federal system of government. The point is not that a state or constitution can be religiously neutral (the great secularist illusion of our times), but that the framers did not feel obliged (rightly or wrongly) to explicate their religious convictions in what they saw as a procedural document. If I draw a map for another theonomic Christian, giving directions to a church at which I am preaching or lecturing, I do not place at the top, "And recall we must always follow the law-word of God in all our travels, wherever they may be." Theonomic Christians already know this."
"The main problem with the framers of the Constitution was not, in fact,
that they pulled off a Deistic or secularist coup d'e tat, but that they lacked the foresight to realize the possibility of the emergence of an anti-Christian ethos capable of employing a chiefly procedural political document to undermine the Christian Faith. The Federal Constitution, in fact, is largely such a procedural, rather than substantive, document. While all procedures imply a substantive presupposition (which for the Constitution is Christian), it is evident the framers were only interested in marking out the bare guidelines of a federal system of government, and while presuming the covenantal or contractual character of civil government, did not position themselves to create a formal covenant with God similar to the Scottish Solemn League and Covenant. Recall too that at this time the various states were almost little countries, and the union essentially a confederation of these states. Significantly, most of the the states' constitutions required a religious (Christian) profession for office, and thus the framers' intent in writing the Constitution was not to explicate their religious views but to fashion the guidelines of a federal system of government. The point is not that a state or constitution can be religiously neutral (the great secularist illusion of our times), but that the framers did not feel obliged (rightly or wrongly) to explicate their religious convictions in what they saw as a procedural document. If I draw a map for another theonomic Christian, giving directions to a church at which I am preaching or lecturing, I do not place at the top, "And recall we must always follow the law-word of God in all our travels, wherever they may be." Theonomic Christians already know this."
2 Comments:
Great point made by Rev. Sandlin. The U.S. Constitution did indeed leave out some safeguards that could have protected Christians from this misuse of the procedural document to undermine Christianity. For example, restrictions on federal court jurisdiction would have been one such fix, just as the 1st Amendment restricts Congress.
At the time the Constitution did not need them. The document was written for a country that was Christian. What the country was NOT, and this is significant, the country was not a forced union (unlike now). This is clear by the withholding of approval from New York and Virginia who would not ratify until their right to withdraw from the union was assured. They were assured and thus ratified the Constitution. (Southern Rant Warning: We see from 1861 how that worked out in practice and why we can't really trust anything the federal government tells us.)
Anyway, not being a forced union meant if a single state drifted into being a non-Christian, or non-white entity, or just didn't like the company anymore then it could leave based on the will of it's citizens alone. Granted, our forefathers reckoned that issues other than a shift in the ethno-religious makeup of a population would be the trigger for this, it still left the possibility of withdrawl. Secession is a safety valve.
The Constitution was never designed to hold together a wildly disparate population (ethnically, religiously, or morally) forced into union as we are today. The Constitution presupposes and was designed specifically for a Euro-Christian culture. Even Jefferson and Franklin, no Christians they, commented that Christian morals were essential to the future existence of this nation.
Classic Sandlin, before he began worshiping at the neo-con and post-modern altars.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home