Christians Are Theocrats [Home] || [Previous] || [Next] || [Contents]

The State must be Openly, Publicly, and Officially Christian

Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
1 Corinthians 10:31

Modern "liberals" dislike the Puritan view of Christian statesmanship because of its hostility toward the Messianic State. A Biblical "reconstruction" of the State strips away its power, its bureaucracies, and its prestige, and in its place creates decentralized personal responsibility and a distrust of political power.

Modern "evangelicals" also dislike Puritan statesmanship because it looks to all of the Bible - including the Old Testament - for binding authority on the "reconstruction" of politics. Both "liberals" and "evangelicals" are alarmed at the "intolerance" of the Puritans.

There is no escaping this fact: the Biblical doctrine of oaths and the Puritan implementation of these laws resulted in oaths which could not be taken honestly by those who were not Christian. This meant that non-Christians could not hold political office. The word most often used to describe this situation is "theocracy." I believe a mature Christian statesman, consistent with Biblical teachings, will advocate Christian Theocracy and oppose "pluralism."

Theocracy or Pluralism: Which is Evil?

One morning you walk out front to get your newspaper and you see that your pagan next-door neighbor has built an altar on his front lawn and is preparing to rip the heart out of his young daughter's chest as a gift to his gods. Will you rescue the child -- and thereby "impose" your religious values on your "devout" neighbor -- or are you a "pluralist?" Will your religion govern all of your life, or will you keep it in a spiritual compartment reserved for a church building on Sunday mornings?

As we will see on this page, the Puritans believed that all of life should be governed by their Christianity. Even civil government was to be governed by their religion. For the Puritans, Christian statesmanship was Theocratic statesmanship.

Many people today join the Supreme Court in opposing the fusion of religion and government.[1] Many people today view "pluralism" as "enlightened" and "democratic," and "Theocracy" as an unmitigated evil.[2] People fear that "Theocracy" will mean the denial of civil rights and the breeding of a spirit of "intolerance." Secularists bemoan the

turmoil, civil strife, and persecutions, generated in large part by established sects determined to maintain their absolute political and religious supremacy. With the power of the government supporting them, at various times and places, Catholics had persecuted Protestants, Protestants had persecuted Catholics, Protestant sects had persecuted other Protestant sects, Catholics of one shade of belief had persecuted Catholics of another shade of belief, and all of these had from time to time persecuted Jews. In efforts to force loyalty to whatever religious group happened to be on top and in league with the government of a particular time and place, men and women had been fined, cast in jail, cruelly tortured, and killed.[3]

But the Crusades and the Inquisition and the KKK and the Religious Right combined are but a drop in the bucket compared to the denial of civil rights occasioned by the Secular State. Secularism, not Christianity, has made the 20th century the most violent century in recorded history.[4] Everyone can see that the Inquisition and the Crusades were evil; only a few have come to see secular government as an even greater evil.[5]

Philosophers sometimes speak of "epistemological self-consciousness." It means being consistent with what you profess to believe. When Christians are consistent, they grow out of Inquisitions and Crusades. But when Atheists are consistent - and the 20th century has become more and more consistently atheistic - well . . . God says "all they that hate Me love death." (Proverbs 8:36) Secularism brings death. Secularism means Genocide.

Beyond Pluralism

"The Divine Right of Kings" was universally held several centuries ago. But the inner logic of monarchy led to a struggle for human rights. Now we have moved away from kings and royalty toward government "of, by, and for the people." And we think "pluralist democracy" is so much better than the "divine right of kings."

But the inner logic of Pluralism has led to violent crime, widespread ignorance, rising rates of sexually transmitted diseases among 14-year olds, graphic violence and perverted sex as "entertainment," ubiquitous divorce and illegitimacy, and the inability of our government or leaders to make a moral judgment and say that all of this wrong. After all, we mustn't "impose our values" on others. Indeed, when Christians attempt to "impose their values" on child-killers by praying in front of their homes or protesting in front of their clinics, they are met with armed force in the form of the State's police and military. In an effort to avoid "Theocracy," the Christians are arrested for violating the "civil rights" of the abortionists.

Civil rights are only violated when one group of people claim the moral right to a monopoly of violence over others. Is the answer to human rights violations to strip our government and culture of the moral absolutes Christianity provides? I don't think so.

Christians Must Defend Theocracy

America was founded as a Christian Theocracy, not a secular nation.[6] The ACLU and the U.S. Supreme Court are not telling us the truth, "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Those who left Europe did so in obedience to God, in order to further His Kingdom. The establishment of civil government was seen as a tool in the process of establishing the Christian religion in the New World.

Most Christians do not understand this point. Most Christians are ignorant of history, and they believe that in the here-and-now Christianity should be an essentially "private" matter, and should not have too much influence in politics or "public" life. They believe this even if they deny the doctrine of the ACLU known as the "separation of church and state." Even politically active pro-life people will deny that the Bible is an infallible standard for all of culture, not just "religion" or "moral" issues.

There is no neutrality. If the State is not actively promoting the Christian faith, then it is actively destroying it. We must come to grips with this fact.

The Puritans who settled this continent were far more aware of what the Bible requires than are most Christians today. The Puritans recognized that Christianity requires government to be Trinitarian, characterized by a public and official Theocracy.[7]

Biblical Theocracy is not the Roman Law-type rule by the clergy, seen in the Crusades and Inquisitions; Biblical Theocracy -- the decentralized Rule of God's Law -- is best exemplified by Abraham. He took hundreds of people into his household and attempted to transfer to them the discipline and godly habits which he had learned.[8] This educational ministry is the foundation of social order, and it is always familistic.[9] Such activities take place through voluntary associations, not coercion and regulation. There are neither priests nor kings, for every believer is a priest and king under Christ.[10] Future-oriented self-sacrifice is blessed by the Providence of God with prosperity and security, obviating the purported necessity for a centralized, welfare/warfare state.[11]

Theocracy: The Christian Starting Point

The next few pages of history will make up for what we were never told in the government's schools.[12]

The Government must propagate the Christian religion.

VIRGINIA CHARTER, 1606: [Issued by King James I] "To make Habitation . . . and to deduce a colony of sundry of our People into that part of America commonly called Virginia . . . in propagating of Christian religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness . . . [to] bring . . . a settled and quiet Government."[13]

The only thing more offensive to the ACLU than saying non-Christians "live in Darkness" is for the government to say it. But we all need to say this, to encourage one another to move from lies to the Truth. If we assume a public office, that should not stop us from making Christian exhortations; it should be the more reason to do so.

The Government must foster true Christian worship

VIRGINIA CHARTER, 1609: "Because the principal Effect which we can desire or expect of the Action, is the Conversion . . . of the people in those Parts unto the true Worship of God and Christian Religion."[14]

Governments in the New World were created by evangelists - as instruments for the evangelization of the world.

The Government must act in the Name of God.

MAYFLOWER COMPACT, 1620: "In the name of God, Amen, We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign lord King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, king, defender of the faith, etc., having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith and the honor of our king and country, a Voyage to plant the first colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; do by the presents, solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politick, for our better ordering and preservation and Furtherance of other Ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof do enact, constitute and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most [suitable] and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience."[15]

You will not find these words or this history in any public school textbook. "Recently public schools were barred from showing a film about the settlement of Jamestown, because the film depicted the erection of a cross at the settlement [despite the fact that] according to historical facts, a cross was erected at the Jamestown settlement."[16]

The Government must covenant with Christ.

JOHN WINTHROP, c. 1628: "Wee are a Company professing our selues fellow members of Christ . . . knitt together by this bond of loue . . . Wee are entered into Covenant with him for this worke."

"For wee must consider that wee shall be as a Citty vpon a Hill, the eies of all people are vppon vs; soe that if wee shall deale falsely with our god in this worke [colonization] wee haue vndertaken and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from vs, wee shall be made a story and a by-word through the world."[17]

The Biblical references are Matthew 5:13-16 ("City on a Hill") and Deuteronomy 28:37 ("made a by-word"). The Government has demolished the City of God and is building the city of man. Tragically, America is now "the great Satan," a "by-word through the world."

The goal of Government must be the Christian faith.

MASSACHUSETTS CHARTER, 1629: "Our said People. . . may be soe religiously, peaceablie, and civilly governed, as their good Life and orderlie Conversacon maie wynn and incite the Natives of [that] Country, to the Knowledge and Obedience of the onlie true god and Sauior of Mankinde, and the Christian fayth, which in our Royall Intencon . . . is the principall Ende of this Plantacon."[18]

The purpose of the government was to increase Christian obedience. Today government encourages disobedience. There is no neutrality.

The Government must extend the Christian religion.

MARYLAND CHARTER, 1632: [Issued by King Charles to Lord Baltimore] "Our well beloved and right trusty subject Coecilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore . . . being animated with a laudable, and pious Zeal for extending the Christian Religion . . . hath humbly besought Leave of Us that he may transport . . . a numerous Colony of the English Nation, to a certain Region . . . having no Knowledge of the Divine Being."[19]

Governments were established to spread the Faith.

NEW ENGLAND CONFEDERATION, 1643: [Composed of Mass., Conn., New Plymouth, and New Haven] "We all came into these parts of America, with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ."[20]

The Government must advance the Gospel.

WILLIAM BRADFORD, 1647: [Referring to original Pilgrim intents] "[A] great hope & inward zeall they had of laying some good foundation, or at least to make some way therunto, for ye propagating & advancing ye gospell of ye kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of ye world."[21]

There is no job, vocation, or calling in which it is inappropriate to advance the Gospel. Our faith on Sunday should not be separated from our life on Monday-Friday.

Soon after settling, the Puritans began building great universities to educate young men who would propagate the Gospel; universities such as Harvard. University students were required to do the following:

Universities must propagate the Christian religion.

HARVARD STUDENT PAMPHLET,[22] c. 1635: "2. Let every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well the maine end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life, Joh.17.3, and therefore to lay Christ in the bottome, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and Learning.
And seeing the Lord only giveth wisedome, Let every one seriously set himselfe by prayer in secret to seeke it of him. Prov 2,3.
3. Every one shall so exercise himselfe in reading the Scriptures twice a day, that he shall be ready to give such an account of his proficiency therein."[23]

The Purpose of Government and
the "Separation of Church and State"

The Founders of this nation did not believe in the ACLU doctrine of "Separation of Church and State." Both Church and State were under the obligation to propagate the Christian Faith, using different methods. The Constitution of 1787 was ratified on the assurance that the Federal Government would have no power to destroy the long-established Christian traditions of the various states. It was universally understood that the governments would be subservient to God, and would implement God's Law.

I make this bold declaration: If there is some reason why the State cannot advance the Christian Faith, then it should be abolished entirely. The Founders of this country believed that it could and should.

NEW HAMPSHIRE GOVERNMENT, 1639: "Considering with ourselves the holy Will of God and our own Necessity that we should not live without wholesome Lawes and Civil Government among us of which we are altogether destitute; do in the name of Christ and in the Sight of God combine ourselves together to erect and set up among us such Government as shall be to our best discerning agreeable to the Will of God."[24]

The Bible (including the Old Testament) Must be the Standard for Civil Government

The example of New England is striking. The Statute Books of the Government were annotated with Biblical references to show that the laws of the State conformed to the Laws of God:[25]

NEW HAVEN COLONY LAW, 1644: "The judicial laws of God as they were delivered by Moses . . . [are to] be a rule to all the courts in this jurisdiction."[26]

Those who established governments in the New World were

NORTH CAROLINA CHARTER, 1662 (QUAKER): "Excited with a laudable and pious zeal for the propagation of the Christian faith . . . in the parts of America not yet cultivated or planted, and only inhabited by . . . people, who have no knowledge of Almighty God."[27]

RHODE ISLAND CHARTER, 1663: [Granted by King Charles II] "That they pursuing with peace and loyal mindes, their sober, serious and religious intentions . . . in the holy Christian faith . . . a most flourishing civil state may stand, and best be maintained grounded upon gospel principles."[28]

The Biblical vision for society is not understood in our day because people in our day are utterly unfamiliar with this passionate desire to establish all human action - including civil governments - on "gospel principles." Today there is a notion - as pervasive as it is heretical - that the "gospel" has nothing to do with Godly, law-abiding behavior.[29]

NEW JERSEY SEAL, 1665: "Righteousness exalteth a nation." - Prov. 14:34

PENNSYLVANIA GOVERNMENT, 1682: " . . . Make and establish such laws as shall best preserve true Christian and civil liberty, in all opposition to all unchristian . . . practices."[30]

PENNSYLVANIA'S FIRST LEGISLATIVE ACT, 1682: "Whereas the glory of Almighty God and the good of Mankind, is the reason and end of government, and therefore, government in itself is a venerable Ordinance of God, therefore, it is the purpose of civil government to establish such laws as shall best preserve true Christian and Civil Liberty, in opposition to all Unchristian, Licentious, and unjust practices, (Whereby God may have his due, and Caesar his due, and the people their due), from tyranny and oppression . . . ."[31]

The power of the civil government is awesome. That power will either be used to cultivate the Christian religion, or it will be used to destroy it and harvest the fruits of violence, theft, and misery. Then, the former; today, the latter.

WILLIAM PENN, 1682: [Civil government] "'seems to me to be a part of religion itself . . . a thing sacred in its institutions and ends.'"[32]

The Founders publicly declared that they were concerned with establishing the Christian religion, because only thereby could a republic be established. Even those who are said to be "deists" or "atheists" were non-Christian only in private. Their public acts (which legally define the character of their legislation) were Christian.

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: [while emissary to France] "Bad examples to youth are more rare in America, which must be a comfortable consideration to parents. To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practised. Atheism is unknown there; infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel."[33]

The Founders of this nation attempted to carve out a Gospel Garden out of a pagan wilderness. Two hundred years of flourishing charity, education, agriculture, science, and Calvinistic gospel preaching would rise up and totally denounce the view that Civil Government is supposed to be neutral or secular.

CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, 1776: [May 16, anticipating full-scale war with Britain] "The Congress . . . Desirous . . . to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty, devoutly to rely . . . on his aid and direction . . . Do earnestly recommend . . . a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life . . . and, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness."[34]

CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, 1777: [Calling for a day of thanksgiving and prayer for the victory at Saratoga] "Forasmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to him for benefits received . . . [to offer] humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot [our sins] out of remembrance . . . and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth 'in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.'"[35]

CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, 1780: [Concerning the discovery of Benedict Arnold as a traitor] "It is therefore recommended to the several states . . . a day of public thanksgiving and prayer . . . to offer our fervent supplications to the God of grace . . . to cause the knowledge of Christianity to spread over all the earth."[36]

JOHN HANCOCK, 1783: [Massachusetts governor, proclaiming a day of thanksgiving for the war's end] "I do by and with the Advice of the Council appoint [11 Dec. 1783] to be religiously observed as a Day of Thanksgiving and Prayer, that all the People may then assemble to celebrate . . . that he hath been pleased to continue to us the Light of the blessed Gospel; . . . That we also offer up fervent Supplications . . . to cause pure Religion and Virtue to flourish . . . and to fill the World with his glory."[37]

GEORGE WASHINGTON, 1783: [End of the war, to all state governors] "I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection . . . that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation."[38]

U.S. SUPREME COURT, 1892: "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian."[39]

U.S. SUPREME COURT, 1890: "The term 'religion' has reference to one's view of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose for reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will. It is often confused with the cultus or form of worship of a particular sect, but it is distinguishable from the latter . . . . It was never intended or supposed that the [first] amendment could be invoked as a protection against the legislation for the punishment of acts inimicable to the peace, good order and morals of society . . . . However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislation . . . . Probably never in the history of this country has it been seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the government for acts, recognized by the general consent of the Christian world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation, must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect encouraging crime may be carried out without hindrance."[40]

But if we don't have the "Separation of Church and State," won't we lose our liberties?

No nation has the liberty to repudiate God's Law. Can we be free if Christianity is separated from public life, and criminals, perverts, and dictators, free from Christian absolutes, keep us locked in our tiny homes? Those who don't like life in a Christian nation are invited to try Islamic Iraq or Atheistic Communist countries.

ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE, FRENCH HISTORIAN: "The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other . . . In the United States, if a political character attacks a sect [denomination], this may not prevent even the partisans of that very sect, from supporting him; but if he attacks all the sects together [Christianity], every one abandons him and he remains alone."[41]

NOAH WEBSTER, 1828: "In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed . . . No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people."[42]

JOHN ADAMS, August 28, 1811: "Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society."[43]

JOHN WITHERSPOON: " . . . he is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not [would not hesitate] to call him an enemy to his country."[44]

MARYLAND SUPREME COURT, 1799: "Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.[45]

JAMES MADISON: "We have staked the whole future of the American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future . . . upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God."[46]

The Puritans who founded this land defended Christian Theocracy and established Theocratic (God-honoring) systems of civil government. The idea that civil governments should allow God to rule (Theo-cracy) human society was ubiquitous. If Gary North is right and a Secular Humanist conspiracy attempted to overthrow this Christian consensus through Article VI of the Constitution, the First Amendment of the Constitution attempted to keep that from happening.

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE JOSEPH STORY on the First Amendment: "We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity (which none could hold in more reverence, than the framers of the Constitution) . . . Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the first amendment to it . . . . the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation . . . The real object of the amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity [secularism], by prostrating Christianity; but exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government."[47]

All of these voices are summed up in the Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Holy Trinity Church v. U.S. (1892) There is no other legitimate purpose for any human action than the advancement of the Kingdom of God. Patriotism (advancing the interests of a political coalition) is wrong; Humanism (advancing your own personal interests) is wrong; Satanism (advancing demonic interests) is wrong. Since all action runs to some purpose, if the purpose is not the building of God's Kingdom, then it is to build a rival Kingdom. There is no neutrality. The State cannot be impartial and non-religious.

I would now like to begin to show how America apostatized, and how we got to the point where it is now "unconstitutional" for Christians to become attorneys, or even to become American citizens.

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


1. The joining of religion and civil government is inescapable. All civil law is the coercive imposition of a morality. Every society has an ultimate source of morality - a religion - from which springs all law.

Most of the Founding Fathers were suspicious of a union between the State and the Church, that is, between the State and a specific institutional, ecclesiastical Christian denomination. But not one - I dare say not a single one - believed it was either wise or possible to separate the State from the principles of True Religion (granted, Jefferson's concept of "True Religion" differed from Witherspoon's). Similarly, there is no one in the Religious Right - not one - who denies the "separation of church and state" where "church" is a specific institutional, ecclesiastical denomination or Christian sect (See Appendix C of the California Petition, "Religion in the Constitution and in Torcaso v. Watkins.")  [Return to text]

2. Everyone defends a theocracy; theocracy is an inescapable concept. "Theocracy" comes from two Greek words, Theos, meaning "God," and kratos, "power," krateo, "to hold." It means literally "the rule of God [or god]." Since all law is religious (previous note), we cannot escape the rule of a god. The most vocal opponents of "theocracy" really only oppose the rule of the God of the Bible as God, but not the rule of Man as god. We now live in a secular theocracy, in which Man is god. See above, note 131. Plaintiff can only support a Christian Theocracy (capital "T").  [Return to text]

3. Everson, above, note 129, 330 U.S. at 8-9, 67 S.Ct. at 508. It's as if none of these things are ever carried out by secular sects against Trotskyites, proto-capitalist Ukrainian farmers, opponents of the "Cultural Revolution" or other "counter-revolutionaries." Was the problem with the Khmer Rouge that they had too much religion?
Anyone - whether Christian or atheist - who claims a political or moral right to violence is a threat to others. The answer is not "separation of church and state," with the secular State left free to its Imperialist whims. The answer is the Theocracy taught by Christ in the Scriptures. See below, under "Anarchism."  [Return to text]

4. G. Elliot, Twentieth Century Book of the Dead (1972); R. Rummel, Death by Government (1994) (estimating nearly 200 million intentional State-sponsored killings in this century.)  [Return to text]

5. Whenever the courts have criticized "test oaths," they point to persecution by Christians, while ignoring persecution by secularists. See above, text at note 3. There is an understandable and even appropriate double standard here. The world is more outraged by persecution from Christians because Jesus, the Prince of Peace, told His followers to be "anarchists" (Mark 10:42-44) and to repudiate the politics of persecution (1 Peter 2:18-23.  [Return to text]

6. A "theocracy" is not necessarily a society ruled by the clergy. The word comes from two Greek words meaning "the rule of God." Every society is therefore a "theocracy," because every society has a god, a Source of Ultimate Authority. Obviously, not every society is a true Christian Theocracy. And any society which claims to not be a theocracy merely wishes to keep the real source of authority and power a secret.  [Return to text]

7. A Biblical Theocracy has nothing to do with the civil government being run by priests. It simply means that whoever holds offices in the State must recognize that they are required to govern according to the Word of God. Only those laws which God requires in His Word are to be passed.
We will continue to expand on this definition of "Theocracy."  [Return to text]

8. See "Volume Four" in Joint Exhibit 3.  [Return to text]

9. G. Gilder, Wealth and Poverty, chs. 6, 13 (1981), R. Moore, et. al., "The California Report: Early Schooling for All?" 53 Phi Delta Kappan 615 (1972)(Family produces superior character, scholarship, vis-a-vis institutional settings).  [Return to text]

10. 1 Peter 2:5-10; Revelation 1:6; 5:10.  [Return to text]

11. Leviticus 25:18-19; 26:5; Deuteronomy 12:10; 33:12; 33:28; Psalm 78:53; Proverbs 1:33; 3:23; Isaiah 32:17-18; Jeremiah 23:6; Ezekiel 28:26; 34:25-28; Hosea 2:18. For discussion, see "Patriarchy and National Security."  [Return to text]

12. To facilitate the easy production of this booklet, I downloaded numerous quotes from the Internet. Not all of these quotes were included in my court pleadings, so I haven't checked them all for accuracy. But I am quite sure they are reliable. Most come from the book The Myth of Separation by David Barton (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilders, 1992). [Apparently re-issued as Original Intent. A prayerful reading of this extremely well-researched book will astonish you and show how monstrously evil the concept of a secular state is. The Founders did not envision what the ACLU has given us. They would be appalled to see it.  [Return to text]

13. Historical Collections: Consisting of State Papers and other Authentic Documents: Intended as Materials for an History of the United States of America, Ebenezer Hazard, ed. Philadelphia: T.Dobson, 1792, Vol. 1, p. 50-51; cited in Barton, p. 84.  [Return to text]

14. Historical Collections: Consisting of State Papers and other Authentic Documents: Intended as Materials for an History of the United States of America, Ebenezer Hazard, ed. Philadelphia: T.Dobson, 1792, Vol. 1, pp. 50-51; cited in Barton, p. 85.  [Return to text]

15. God and Government, Gary Demar, Vol. 1; see also Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457, 466 (1892); cited in Barton, p. 85.  [Return to text]

16. John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution, p. 406.  [Return to text]

17. Democracy, Liberty, and Property: Readings in the American Political Tradition p. 20 (F. Coker, ed., 1942)(cited in Barton, Myth of Separation, pp. 85-86).  [Return to text]

18. Cited by the U.S. Supreme Court, in Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457, 466 (1892), see also Norman L. Geisler, Is Man the Measure: An Evaluation of Contemporary Humanism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983) p. 119; cited in Barton, p. 85.  [Return to text]

19. Henry S. Commager, ed., Documents of American History, (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1948), p. 21; cited in Barton, p. 86.  [Return to text]

20. Documentary Source Book of American History, 1606-1889, Wm McDonald, ed. NY: Macmillian, 1909, p. 32; cited in Barton, p. 88.  [Return to text]

21. Wm Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation, Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1856, p. 24; cited in Barton, p. 86.  [Return to text]

22. Rules for the Students, established by the University Administration.  [Return to text]

23. Peter Mode, Sourcebook and Bibliographical Guide for American Church History, Menasha, WI: George Banta Pub. Co., 1921, p. 74-75; cited in Barton, p. 91. In 1796, according to David Barton, any Harvard student who doubted the inspiration of Scripture was to be expelled.  [Return to text]

24. Cited in David Barton, The Myth of Separation, p. 88.  [Return to text]

25. John Cotton, "An Abstract of the Laws of New England, as they are Now Established, Printed in London in 1641, Collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society (1798); reprint of 1835 in 2 The" Journal of Christian Reconstruction 117 (No. 2; Winter, 1975-76, "Symposium on Biblical Law").  [Return to text]

26. Russ Walton, Biblical Principles of Importance to Godly Christians, NH: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1984, p. 356; Barton, p. 88.  [Return to text]

27. North Carolina History, Hugh Talmage Lefler, ed., Chapel Hill: Univ. of NC Press, 1934, 1956, p. 16; cited in Barton, p. 86.  [Return to text]

28. David Barton, The Myth of Separation, p. 87.  [Return to text]

29. The best antidote to this poisonous notion is Greg Bahnsen's Theonomy in Christian Ethics, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 2nd ed., 1984. This book is must-reading for Christians who want to stem the tide of government-sponsored paganism and immorality.  [Return to text]

30. Peter Mode, Sourcebook and Bibliographical Guide for American Church History, Menasha, WI: George Banta Pub. Co., 1921, p. 163; cited in Barton, p. 89.  [Return to text]

31. Charter to William Penn, and Duke of Yorke's Book of Laws (Harrisburg, PA: 1879). The Preamble and Chapter I of the Great Law can be found in, Remember William Penn: 1644-1944; (Harrisburg, PA: The William Penn Tercentenary Committee, 1944), pp. 85-86; cited in America's Christian History: The Untold Story, by Gary DeMar (Atlanta, GA. American Vision 1995), p. 77.  [Return to text]

32. (B.F. Morris, The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Philadelphia, PA: George W. Childs, 1864), p. 83; cited from America's Christian History: The Untold Story, by Gary DeMar (Atlanta, GA: American Vision 1995), p. 77.  [Return to text]

33. Benjamin Franklin, Works of the Late Doctor Benjamin Franklin Consisting of His Life, Written by Himself, Together with Essays, Humorous, Moral & Literary, Chiefly in the Manner of the Spectator, Richard Price, Ed., Dublin: P. Wogan, P. Byrne, J. Moore, and W. Jones, 1793, p. 289; cited in Barton, p. 100. The evidence seems to indicate that Franklin was an adulterous hypocrite. But a hypocrite is better than an open atheist. In his pride, Franklin felt that he was intelligent enough to doubt the truth of Christianity in private while pragmatic enough to follow its morality in public in order to safeguard the stability of the Republic. Lesser minds would be corrupted by atheism, he believed. See generally Cecil B. Currey, "The Franklin Legend," Journal of Christian Reconstruction - Symposium on Christianity and the American Revolution, III:1:120-151 (Summer, 1976). Compare the remarks of J. Stevens, below, note 85.  [Return to text]

34. Journals of the Continental Congress at Vol 2, 1775, p. 192; cited in Barton, p. 103.  [Return to text]

35. Journals of the Continental Congress at Vol 18, p. 950; cited in Barton, p. 105.  [Return to text]

36. Journals of the Continental Congress at Vol.18, pp. 950-951; cited in Barton, p. 106.  [Return to text]

37. Proclamation of John Hancock from Boston, November 8, 1783, from an original in the Evans collection, #18025, by the American Antiquarian Soc., cited in Barton, p. 107.  [Return to text]

38. George Washington, The Writings of Washington, Jared Sparks, ed. Boston: American Stationers' Co., 1838, Vol 18, p. 452, cited in Barton, p. 99.  [Return to text]

39. Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457 (1892); cited by Barton, America's Godly Heritage, pp. 10-11.  [Return to text]

40. Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 341-42 (1890); as quoted in John W. Whitehead, The Second American Revolution, David C. Cook Publishing Co., 1982, pg. 221-3.  [Return to text]

41. The Republic of the United States of America and Its Political Institutions, Reviewed and Examined, Henry Reeves, trans., pp. 334-335, Garden City, NY: AS Barnes & Co., 1851, Vol. I, p.335; cited in Barton, p. 32.  [Return to text]

42. American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828.  [Return to text]

43. Charles Francis Adams, ed., The Works of John Adams-Second President of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1854), Vol. IX, p. 636. David Barton, The Myth of Separation (Aledo, TX: WallBuilder Press, 1991), p. 123; America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations by William J. Federer (Coppell, TX: FAME Publishing Co. 1994), p. 12.  [Return to text]

44. John Witherspoon, The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon (Philadelphia: Wm Woodard, 1802) Vol 3, p. 46; cited in Barton, p. 118. Witherspoon was undoubtedly one of the most influential educators of his day. His students at Princeton University included one President, one Vice President, three Supreme Court Justices, 10 Cabinet members, 12 Governors, 60 Congressmen (21 Senators; 39 Representatives) plus scores of state officials and members of the Constitutional Convention. See Barton, pp. 92-93.  [Return to text]

45. Runkel v. Winemiller, 4 Harris and McHenry 276, 288 (Sup. Ct. Md. 1799); cited in Barton, p. 64.  [Return to text]

46. cited in The Myth of Separation, David Barton, p. 155, Wallbuilders: Aledo, TX 76005. (Although widely quoted in the last 100 years, Barton doubts the authenticity of this quotation. Click here for discussion.)  [Return to text]

47. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 2:593-95; cited in The Second American Revolution, pg. 96, John W. Whitehead, 1982, David C. Cook Publishing Co. Also cited in The Myth of Separation, David Barton, p.32, Wallbuilders: Aledo, TX 76005 (references overlap).  [Return to text]

48. Jesus says that Secular Humanists seek to be "archists" in the place of Christ, and that His followers are to repudiate their program and follow Christ to the Cross (Mark 10:42-45). This attitude is the opposite of the program of the multinational corporations, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the arms traders. If Christians are not called "anarchists" by Secular Humanist caesars, then they are doing something wrong. (Thus, the subtitle of this chapter is misleading: it is impossible for a State to be Christian. It must be abolished entirely.)  [Return to text]

49. I don't call the Biblical view "anarchism" because the word means "absence of a ruler" and Christ is called the great "Archist" (Colossians 1:18) or ruler (Romans 15:12). Most people think of violence when they think of anarchy. I oppose all violence. Jesus is the Prince of Peace.  [Return to text]

50. We'll get to this soon enough, but the Biblical system of social order is not "democracy," or any other political system. The Biblical plan for social order is "patriarchy." All other systems are a rebellion against God's plan.
Let me put some more cards on the table. I defend Biblical "Patriarchy" as the normative social order set forth in the Bible. This vision has nothing to do with polygamy and machismo. It has to do with personal Christian responsibility and radical restrictions on secular statism.  [Return to text]

Christianity is facing a crossroads. We can continue down the path we were sent on by deceptive Secular Humanists at the time of the "Enlightenment," or we can take a path which leads toward the Kingdom of God.

Obviously nobody is going say we should follow the Secular Humanist path rather than the Biblical path; everybody says they want to follow the "right" path. But which is which? This website argues that the path which leads to the destruction of Christianity and the enthronement of Secular Humanism is the one many are telling us is the Biblical path, while the path which leads to social order and the spread of the Kingdom of God is being labeled "anarchistic" and "unpatriotic," on the one hand, or "legalistic" and "intolerant" on the other.

[Home] || [Previous] || [Next] || [Contents]