abstract: |

Skip Navigation

by William Einwechter

Among Christians there are various perspectives on the Declaration of Independence. Some believe that the principles of the Declaration are rooted in the Bible and a Christian worldview,¹ while others consider it to be the product of Enlightenment thought as expressed in Deism.² Still others would argue that the Declaration is neither an explicitly Christian document nor a Deistic one, but contains elements of both.³ The practical issue at the basis of the debate over the Declaration is whether or not it is an essential (or useful) instrument for Christians to use in their efforts to arrest America's slide into moral chaos and tyranny, and to turn the country back to its Christian foundations.

The Nature of the Declaration

The Declaration is important in American history, but it should not be made into something that it was not. Some would make the Declaration into the fundamental statement of the principles upon which America was founded. Others contend that it is a legal document having the force of law. In line with this, there is a popular view today that states that the Declaration is related to the U.S. Constitution in the same way that an organization's articles of incorporation are related to its by-laws. Thus, they would accord the Declaration a legal tie to the Constitution and an authoritative standing in the interpretation of the Constitution.

But the Declaration of Independence was not specifically any of these. It was a political instrument designed to achieve some very distinct purposes: 1) to sever the political bonds between the colonies and England, and to justify such action to the nations of Europe (so as to secure their aid in the coming struggle with England); and 2) to unite the colonies through a carefully worded affirmation of political principles. As Gary North states: "The Declaration had two primary goals: to serve as a unifying statement of principle for the diversified thirteen colonies, and to serve as a propaganda tract for foreign policy."⁴

The language used to state the principles of government in the Declaration needs to be understood in its historical context. North gives an excellent analysis of the wording used:

...Jefferson chose language that could be interpreted in both traditional and liberal ways, satisfying conservative Americans and foreign monarchs, as well as the liberal European literati, whose influence was growing in European political affairs. The terms were universally acceptable and recognized by all intelligent readers: nature, reason, natural law, human rights, injustice, and equality. These were slogans to catch the support of Christians at home and Deists abroad. These slogans were the universal language of the eighteenth century.⁵

In other words, the language of the Declaration was chosen to appeal to a wide variety of political and religious persuasions. General terms were used so that each could supply his own interpretation as to what the terms signified. (Incidentally, this is why the wording of the Declaration in regard to political philosophy remains so popular today; liberals and conservatives supply their own presuppositions and claim the language in support of their particular political beliefs. In American history, radical abolitionists, Marxists, the ACLU, and Christian conservatives have appealed to the principles of the Declaration to justify their own political agenda.)

Therefore, to make the Declaration of Independence into a fundamental statement of the political philosophy upon which the United States was founded is both misguided and futile. It was written with the practical purpose of uniting men of differing religious and political presuppositions for the cause of independence, and language suitable to that end was chosen.

Furthermore, the Declaration, as a political document designed to secure independence and unity, is not the "true preamble to the Constitution," nor is it a part of statutory or constitutional law. As North observes:

A third myth is that the Declaration has, or once had, some sort of legal standing in American law. It never had the force of law. It was a very superior piece of wartime propaganda, but it was no more legally binding than one of Thomas Paine's pamphlets.⁶

And that the "broad language of the Constitution is illuminated by the principles set forth in the Declaration" never seemed to occur to James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. In their defense and explanation of the Constitution, The Federalist Papers, they only made two brief references to the Declaration (in paper No. 40).⁷ U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845), who served on the Court from 1811 to 1845, barely mentions the Declaration (except as the instrument that secured our independence) in his A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States. In his discussion of the Preamble to the Constitution, Story does not make any reference to the Declaration.⁸

The Use of the Declaration

Many conservatives, and particularly Christian conservatives, believe that the Declaration of Independence with its statements regarding a Creator and the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God provides a powerful and effective tool for turning the nation back to its Christian roots and the rule of law.⁹ However noble and sincere their beliefs and efforts are in using the Declaration, they have chosen a weak reed to lean on. Why? Its language is too vague--deliberately vague so as to appeal to a variety of political persuasions--to delineate an explicit and convincing argument for a particular political philosophy. When your ideological and political opponents can appeal to the same document in support of their own views, its time to choose a sharper sword. North states:

...it is today impossible to determine a person's political persuasion simply by his willingness to appeal to the terms of the Declaration of Independence. It was written to act as a unifying document of the Revolution, signed by men whose theologies and politics were as varied as Benjamin Franklin and the Rev. John Witherspoon's. It was a fusionist document, and its success is indicated by the fact that for a century and a half (1860-1976 [and to 2000--W.E.] all good citizens, left or right, have found aspects of the Declaration that impress them and repel them.¹⁰

That sharper sword is available to Christians in the Word of God (Eph. 6:17). The Bible provides an explicit political philosophy based in the absolute sovereignty of God and the lordship of Christ. The Bible also gives written standards for law, justice, and civil government. The Bible is not a "fusionist document" inviting men to supply their own interpretive presuppositions, but a divinely inspired and authoritative document calling on men to abandon their own autonomy and submit to its precepts as the rule of thought and life. The Declaration has no inherent power to change the hearts and minds of men, but Scripture does!

This does not mean that Christians cannot make use of the Declaration of Independence in today's "culture wars." It is a respected document and it can provide us with a convenient starting point in our witness to an explicitly Christian political philosophy. As Paul used the altar in Athens to the "unknown god" as a means to declare the one true God revealed in Christ, so we can use the language of the Declaration in regard to the "Creator" as a means to declare the sovereignty of God, and its language in reference to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" as a means to set forth the unique characteristics and authority of biblical law. There are also other concepts and terms in the Declaration that we can use as a starting point to witness to the teachings of Scripture (e.g., rights, liberty, resistance to tyranny, etc.).

But it is naive for Christians to think that a mere appeal to the "principles of the Declaration" will advance their own worldview and lead their fellow Americans to seek true liberty and justice. It is not only naive, but futile. The Declaration of Independence is not a sufficient foundation for a Christian renewal. The Declaration and its principles cannot save the United States from its plunge into moral relativity, injustice, and tyranny in the civil sphere. There is only One who can save us and provide a sufficient foundation for national renewal in all aspects of our national life.

Christ, the Only Foundation

In 1 Corinthians 3:11, the Apostle Paul states that there is only one true foundation that a missionary can lay in building a church; and that foundation is the revealed truth of God concerning the person and work of Jesus Christ. Christ is the Son of God who died on the cross for our sins and rose again from the dead on the third day (1 Cor. 15:3-4). It is only as this message is proclaimed and the lordship of Christ over the life and faith of the church is affirmed that a true church can be established.

But, by way of application, the same can be said of civil government. The only sure and lasting foundation for nations and rulers to build upon is the truth of God concerning the current mediatorial reign of Christ¹¹ (which truth the Declaration ignores). At His ascension, Jesus Christ was exalted to the right hand of the Father and given authority over all men and nations (Ps. 2:6-9; 110:1-2; Acts 3:33-36) Thus, He is the "prince of the kings of the earth" (Rev. 1:5; 19:16), and all rulers are therefore commanded to "kiss the Son," i.e., take a public, covenantal oath of submission and obedience to Christ as Lord (Ps. 2:12; cf. Dan. 7:13-14; Phil. 2:9-11). Blessing is promised to those rulers and nations that serve Christ, but trouble and woe to those that will not (Ps. 2:12).

The doctrine of the lordship of Christ over all spheres of life is the only sure foundation for men and nations (cf. Matt. 7:24-27). So on this let us build, and preach the Lord Jesus Christ, the Rock, to the nation and not the sandy soil of the Declaration of Independence. Only He can save us!

Endnotes

1. See Gary T. Amos, Defending the Declaration (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, 1989).

2. See C. Gregg Singer, A Theological Interpretation of American History (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964).

3. This writer believes the Declaration is based primarily on a natural law foundation rather than an explicitly biblical conception of law and government. Since the history of natural law in the West is the history of the attempted synthesis of Greek natural law philosophy with a Christian conception of revelation of God's law in nature and man's conscience, natural law theory contains both Christian and pagan concepts of law. For a discussion of natural law see The Christian Statesman, Vol. 142, no. 1 (January - February 1999), and especially the article in that issue by John A. Fielding, The Founding Fathers' View of Natural Law, pp. 33-48.

4. Gary North, The Declaration of Independence as a Conservative Document, The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, vol. 3, no. 1 (Summer, 1976), p. 104.

5. Ibid. 6. Ibid., p. 98.

7. Ibid., p. 114.

8. Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (Lake Bluff, IL: Regnery Gateway, [1840] 1986), pp. 44, 57-66.

9. A recent attempt to use the Declaration in this fashion is that by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek in Legislating Morality (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1998), pp. 17-25, 100-102, 115-116, 190, 205. See also Kevin Clauson's article, The Declaration of Independence as Moral and Constitutional Law: Whatever Happened to the Bible? in this issue of The Christian Statesman for a discussion of the "Declaration Movement" that has the support of some leading Christians. Alan Keyes is an example of a prominent Roman Catholic politician who is seeking both political and moral renewal in the nation through the principles of the Declaration.

10. North, op. cit., p. 115.

11. See William Symington, Messiah the Prince (Pittsburgh: The Christian Statesman Press, [1884] 1999).

back to top