Patriots or Christians? [Home] || [Contents]

An Open Letter to Christian Patriots

Dear Friends in Christ,

I have benefited greatly from your legal research and your dedication. Thank you.

We share a common faith in the Christ revealed in the Scriptures, and a common opposition to the Bush-Clinton regime of modern Secular Humanist legality.

However there is one presupposition that we apparently do not as yet share. This presupposition concerns the basic organizational paradigm of human society. I'm speaking about the State and our legal system.

This letter is an introduction to my web page describing a case I am litigating in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I bring it to your attention in the hopes of creating a "paradigm shift." I'm not as interested in telling you about my case as I am in turning you into a true radical. I think we've come to a crossroads, and the time has come to comlpetely re-think our political and legal world-view.

About the Author

I'll tell you a bit more about myself in a moment, but for now, you might want to know that the author of this "Internet Monograph" challenging you to rethink everything you know about law and politics is a serious student of law, history, and the Scriptures. I passed the California Bar Examination, said to be the most difficult such exam in the world. I was a Chalcedon Scholar and a regular contributor to The Chalcedon Report and to publications of the Institute for Christian Economics. I believe I've done my homework, and I'm always ready to be corrected. I am not just "shooting from the hip" in questioning 6,000 years of socialism and attempting to overthrow your entire political worldview.

Even if you do not eventually accept this new paradigm of mine, I think this Web Site/Monograph will prove enlightening and challenging.

Three Paradigms

There are three paradigms vying for our allegiance; three ways of organizing human society. Two of them have dominated history, and they have been miserable failures. The third way has seldom been tried, and the only way I can convince you to give it a try is to convince you that God in the Bible endorses it, and says it is the only way which will ultimately succeed. We sure haven't succeeded with the other two. (And in the Bible God prohibits us from even trying them!)

Consider The First Paradigm: In the ancient world, human society was organized ecclesiocentrically. Ancient societies were organized around religion and priestcraft. Emperors and pharaohs were part of a divine-human "chain of being" and their societies were governed by a priesthood geared to serving the divine Imperium. (Modern historians and anthropologists underplay the religious nature of ancient empires, but all students of Scripture are aware of the conflict between the religion revealed to Israel and the imitations which governed the nations around Israel.)

The Second Paradigm: In the modern world, a political paradigm holds sway. Just as ancient empires claimed to be the embodiment of true religion, modern empires claim to be the embodiment of true science, true neutrality, true secularism. The East embodies "scientific socialism;" the West might be said to be grounded in "scientific capitalism."

The ancient empires denied true religion with false religion. The empires of the modern world deny true religion with "non-religion": the religion of Secular Humanism.

The Third Paradigm lies quietly underground, like a seed ready to burst forth in organic growth; a small acorn called to be a mighty oak; a tiny mustard seed with the faith to become a tree so great that from East and West birds seek shelter in its branches from political and ecclesiastical tyranny.

This third paradigm expressly repudiates the false religions of the ancient world. This does not generate a favorable impression of the paradigm among many, even Christians, who are still defenders of an elite priesthood. Judaism, Catholicism, and the new converts to "Reconstructionist" ecclesiocentrism - all descendants of the ancient faiths -- denounce this third paradigm.

This third paradigm also repudiates the political paradigm of the modern world. This may be why Christian "patriots" are reluctant to embrace it. Consider:

Most Christians are political "co-dependents." They sense the destructive character of modern legal systems, but they do not confront them root and branch. They tinker with the system. Most Christians will not demand complete abstinence from socialism[1]; they tolerate dictatorship "in moderation." They defend statecraft in both the East and the West, "first world" and "third world." They hide their eyes from the absurdities and destructive failures of a political (polis-centered) approach to life, and cringe at the thought of being thought "eccentric" or "fringe" by the accrediting authorities of media and government. They are socialists at heart. Yes, all Christian "patriots" believe in some measure of totalitarianism. The problem is not that the Constitution has been "suspended." The problem is the Constitution's permitting the camel of socialism to get its nose in the tent.

I am appalled at the lawlessness and chaos I see around me. I am fed up with the liberal warfare/welfare State. But even though I'm fed up, and believe we're facing a crisis, I shake my head in disbelief at those who send innocent people to a fiery death -- in Waco and in Oklahoma City.

I don't think we need armed "Minutemen" to resist the State. I think we need Sons of Abraham to lay the foundations of lasting civilization. And I think taking an explicitly Christian "test oath" might be a place where many people can start to take a stand and make a difference.

I invite you to examine the Biblical basis for the Third Paradigm.

The Nature of This Litigation

Although I passed the California Bar Exam and am otherwise qualified for admission to practice law, I have not yet been admitted to practice. I discovered some cases, including U.S. Supreme Court cases, which indicated that I could not be licensed because of my religious beliefs. I try to be a scrupulously honest person (especially when there's a possibility of exposing the faults of the State!). As I researched the issue, I determined that I could either tell a "little white lie," or I could seek to reverse these discriminatory decisions and try to change things; maybe even shake things up a bit. I like the idea of changing things, and so I petitioned the California State Bar for a modification of the standards of admission so that I could get my license. They refused, and I am still climbing the ladder of appeals.

I deny the legitimacy of "pluralism." I am a Christian Theocrat. Courts have held that even if I were willing, I could not take the oath to "support the Constitution" in "good faith." I cannot be admitted to practice without taking that oath, so I'm out. For now.

Let me first give you an introduction to the oath of office which is required of attorneys.

[Next]  [Table of Contents]  [Home Page of Vine & Fig Tree]


1. The perspective of the author of this Internet Monograph is that of "Free Market" Economics. The idea here is that voluntary cooperation among human beings is the best way to accomplish necessary social goals.

For example, the "Free Market" system holds that the best way to produce automobiles -- quality cars for the greatest number of people at the lowest price -- is to allow men to form systems of production and distribution freely, voluntarily. The Socialist believes that the State should organize the work, decide which cars will be produced and at what price they will be sold.

A consistent "Free Market" advocate does not believe that there is any area of human life and society which is more effectively taken care of by the State than by voluntary cooperation among people. Even the most basic necessities of life, such as milk for children, are taken out of the hands of the State and placed in the hands of voluntary associations of farmers, truckers, and grocers. Or people are allowed to raise their own cows or goats, and to produce and consume their own milk. The Socialist cries, "But the children may starve if the production and distribution of milk is left to greedy capitalists!" The Free Market adherent knows from history that no greater threat to children can be imagined than to trust their well-being to the State.

I have never met a Christian "patriot" who was a consistent Free Market adherent. They all believe in some degree of socialism. They all believe that there are some areas of human life and society which are more effectively taken care of by the State than by the Free Market.

Take "National Defense" as an example. The technology exists today for every American to have a small unit the size of an air conditioner on their roof, which would contain a laser beam device and be connected to a private radar network. Should the radar network detect a hostile incoming ballistic missile, any one of the home laser units could quickly dispose of the nuclear threat. In short, the Free Market could successfully defend itself from Socialists.

In fact, as Antony Sutton, research fellow at the prestigious Hoover Institute at Stanford University, has demonstrated, the militaries of socialist nations could not exist if they were not propped up by "Free Market" economies. The Soviet military benefited from indispensable military, technological, and financial aid from the U.S., Great Britain, France, and other so-called capitalist nations. (Of course, they are really socialist nations, helping out a friend.)

If you can think of any area of human life which must never, ever, be left to voluntary associations, and should only and always be entrusted to bureaucrats, please write me at and tell me what it is. I will cordially discuss your plea for socialism on this page.

[Return to text]


July 6, 1998

I am about to lose my chance to practice law in the State of California. I am preparing to petition the U.S. Supreme Court. I solicit your prayers for the Court, for my preparation, and for organizations which might file a brief Amicus Curiae to help convince the Court to review my case.

I asked the State Bar of California to modify the oath required for admission to practice law. I wanted to use the words from the 1776 Delaware Constitution. This web site attempts to answer three questions:

My answer to the second question is: because my petitions went to the heart of the mythology of "church-state separation." My petitions argued that this nation is ethically obligated to be a Christian nation.

Even if you disagree, I believe you'll find this web site challenging, and I hope that you'll keep me in your prayers.

[Back to top]