King of All Liberty -NRA

abstract: The Christian faith is the faith that produces liberty; the faith of those who would divorce the state from God is the faith that destroys liberty.

by John Fielding

This article is the text of John Fielding's inaugural address given on November 16, 2002 at the National Reform Association's annual conference. The address was prepared as a response to the Americans United for Separation of Church and State's press release on the NRA conference.

Before I begin, I must point out that while I have been president of the National Reform Association for almost one entire day now, the views that follow are entirely my own. The official position of the National Reform Association, as adopted by its board, is found our Statement of Purpose and "Principles of Christian Civil Government." The NRA, while taking no official position on punishment for sodomy or homosexual practices, believes that all debate on this, or any other subject, must take place within the parameters of the supreme authority of the Law-Word of Jesus Christ.

These stanzas are from standard songs in the patriotic repertoire, recognizable to nearly everyone in the United States. They were sung by most of us in the public school system. They appear in many hymn books of the American church.

Therefore, it is strange that an organization like Americans United for Separation of Church and State exists, much less exists to brand an organization "extremist" that has existed in the mainstream of American life since 1864 as the National Reform Association has.

In their November 13 press release, Americans United for Separation of Church and State called the National Reform Association "extreme," "bizarre," and "dangerous." Indeed, I wonder that Mr. Lynn is so unambitious. He could have called us "prejudiced," "narrow-minded," and "fanatic." He really did not begin to plumb the depths of his Roget. Mr. Lynn believes that because we believe in God's law as the standard for the outer limits of freedom in this country, we do not believe in freedom at all. We believe in freedom within limits, as do all reasonable people. Mr. Lynn apparently believes in freedom without limits. The Christian faith is the faith that produces liberty; Mr. Lynn's faith is the faith that destroys liberty.

To whatever extent the Founding Fathers understood this, and they were a decidedly mixed lot, they incorporated a basic understanding of the corruption of human nature and the necessity of the cultivation of Christian virtue into the founding documents of the republic. Mistrust of human nature is the basis of the idea of the limits on political power.

Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers committed the opposite of the naturalistic fallacy: instead of confusing "what is" for "what ought to be," they confused "what ought to be" for "what is." That is to say, they assumed that the virtue that they saw around them was a natural endowment of the creation that all men could equally observe and practice. In this, their reach exceeded their grasp, as I have written elsewhere. They failed to reckon with the depths of the depravity of man as laid out for us in the first three chapters of Paul's letter to the Romans.

On the other hand, Mr. Lynn apparently has an unbounded faith in the human ability to choose the right and the good. Indeed, choice, apparently guided by nothing at all, is sufficient for Mr. Lynn. With this view, he is right to place himself with the opponents of the National Reform Association, for, in 1864, at the time that the NRA was founded, the national issue on everyone's mind was the issue of chattel slavery and, in fact, was a reason for the founding of NRA.

At that time, the Democrats (or "the democracy," as they were called at the time) either agreed with chattel slavery or believed, with Stephen Douglas, in the right of people to be "pro-choice" on the issue. After all, as Douglas would say, how could anyone be against a position that maximized the liberty of people to choose? How little times have changed.

Lincoln, on the other hand, believed that there were some issues upon which one did not get a choice. He believed in liberty within law. He believed that one did not get to choose to deprive an entire people of their property in their own labor. The gospel injunction to treat others as you would have them treat you has application only to humans. Thus, it assumes that we can recognize those that are human and distinguish them from non-humans. It assumes that we can, from the Scriptures, understand that the protections of God's law apply to all those that have been made in God's image. Douglass (and Lynn) believed that the standard for choosing was human whim, based on an individual standard. In this way, standards are reduced to whatever each individual person chooses for himself and others.

Let us take one issue that seems to be near and dear to Mr. Lynn's heart, that of homosexual activity. In his press release, he seems to say that Americans may discuss the subject. I suppose we should be grateful whenever a liberal such as Mr. Lynn gives us permission to discuss a matter, but then he seems to believe that there are matters that should not be discussed; that is to say, certain options "go beyond the bounds of reasonable discourse." So, if I understand this correctly, we can discuss the issue, but if we come to a conclusion, after discussion, that homosexual practice is a pernicious evil that destroys the very fabric of society, we are not allowed to discuss what to do about it. Apparently, Mr. Lynn doesn't believe in all that much liberty.

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the "wall of separation" phrase from which Mr. Lynn's organization takes its name, would agree with Mr. Lynn that discussions about punishments for homosexual practices are not necessary.1 Mr. Jefferson was foursquare in favor of punishing sodomy. In his "Bill for Prohibiting Crimes and Punishments" of 1779, three years after the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson proscribed what he termed "buggery" and divided it into two classifications: with mankind and with beasts. Jefferson even observed that of the two, bestiality was less offensive because it can't make progress in society and therefore was not injurious to society to any great degree, as was sodomy by implication. Therefore, Jefferson made sodomy a felony, punishable to the same extent as rape.2

Furthermore, we know that sodomy was punished by God in the Bible long before the law was explicitly given to Moses on Mt. Sinai, a sign that whatever else is true, its prohibition is not on the level of, say, the Jewish dietary laws. Why would this be the case?

Man, was from the beginning, created as not just an individual rational being, but as a social one as well. The relationship between Adam and Eve was first and foremost, a relationship of friendship between equals within a species of beings. After all, everything was created "after its kind." Man cannot live without the mutual support and protection of others. God has given us laws to protect these relationships. One of the prime relationships in the Bible and in society is that of the family. Thus, in a very real sense, there is a good reason why God created Adam and Eve, and not Adam and Steve. The friendship and companionship that extends to all of society is found initially in the different, but complementary, attributes found in man and woman. That companionship is the root of mankind as a whole through the generations of humankind. The moral law is that which governs these relationships.

Being therefore the physical root of society, anything that strikes at the family strikes at the very basis of society. Even in the purely natural realm, it is the ability of two members of a species to generate a third that demonstrates that they are members of the same species. Thus, the ability to reproduce, and the differences in men and women that promotes that ability, is one of the bases of the authority and dignity of the family.

Now, of course, Mr. Lynn would disagree with that analysis, taking as his first (and, apparently, only) principle that of consent or choice between adult human beings. But who has informed him of the preeminence of this principle and why would he only allow consent between adult humans? By what standard does he say that consent must be the first and greatest principle underlying decisions of morality? It certainly isn't natural. When was the last time a larger animal asked the consent of a smaller animal before it ate it? It is consent without regard to what is being consented to. I defend people every day who have consented with another to commit crimes. We call it "criminal conspiracy." What makes one consent to a conspiracy to commit crime and another consent not? Mr. Lynn does not tell us, neither can he. Consent as a principle provides no basis for decision. The moral determination that something is a "crime" must come from elsewhere. Like Blanche DuBois, Mr. Lynn's position must rely on the kindness of strangers. It is a species of the same argument presented by the pro-abortion forces when they argue that "choice" is the only consideration. If all of my activities are reduced to choice, I (and every other member of society) may do anything that we choose to do that we have the power to accomplish. Talk about life being "nasty, poor, solitary, brutish, and short"!

Similarly, consent to do wrong in the case of homosexual practice is no different than choice to do wrong. God placed strictures against adultery because He has placed in each of us the capacity to love and the concomitant capacity to be jealous. After all, God's relationship with Israel is a leading illustration of marriage, with the Bible describing God as "jealous." We are to be jealous for those with whom we exist in covenantal bond. But that covenantal bond finds its outworking in the physical relationship between man and woman, which is in turn based upon created physical differences. Conversely, where sexual competition exists, there can be no cohesiveness to society, whether consensual or not. Where no loyalty exists, no permanent relationships exist. Wives do not expect to compete with other women for their husbands, and certainly not with other men. God confined sexual activity to that between a man and a woman in covenantal union because it was good for the society in which we must all live with one another. It is a type of competition of which God does not approve because it is destructive of the generative abilities and cohesive qualities of the family without which society cannot survive.

Having then seen that homosexual practices are injurious to the family and society and, therefore, constitute a crime against the family and society, what is the proper solution? One of the Founding Fathers was asked what kind of government they had given the people. He responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

Thus, even the Founding Fathers did not give us a democracy, as Mr. Lynn would have it. But the National Reform Association recognizes, as the Founding Fathers apparently did not, that morality and virtue are not clearly observed from the creation or nature. Humans, being even more fallen than the Founding Fathers even dreamed, need explicit instruction on right and wrong from the main source of the common law, not just the common law. Because America is a republic, the NRA is an educational group that seeks to persuade men, first, of their need to be personally governed and disciplined by the law of Jesus Christ, the Ruler of all men. Because America is a republic, the NRA, second, seeks to persuade citizens of their need to be explicitly governed by the law of Jesus Christ, the Ruler of all nations. And, finally, because America is a republic, the NRA seeks to persuade the governmental authorities that this nation needs to be explicitly governed by the law of Jesus Christ by the incorporation of that authority into the United States Constitution. Part of that authority is a determination of what God would have us do regarding a practice that is destructive of society, as homosexual practice surely is.

Mr. Lynn will not have this. He would rather destroy the nation through his phony freedom,3 than acknowledge the King of all freedom and liberty. He would rather attack the Faith with a sword that cuts his own fingers and with a fire that consumes his own household. No action is too extreme if it means the destruction of the Faith. They will beat it with anything they can lay their hands on even if it means beating it with sticks taken from the rubble of their own house. We have attacked pietists in our writings that wreck this world for the sake of the other, but what are we to say of Mr. Lynn who wrecks this world through hatred of the other? Nevertheless, as G. K. Chesterton wrote: "And yet the thing hangs in the heavens unhurt. Its opponents only succeed in destroying all that they themselves justly hold dear.... Not only is the faith the mother of all worldly energies, but its foes are the fathers of all worldly confusion. The secularists have not wrecked divine things; but the secularists have wrecked secular things, if that is any comfort to them. The Titans did not scale heaven; but they laid waste the world."

John Fielding is the new president of the National Reform Association. He is active in politics and practices law in Berks County, Pennsylvania. He can be reached at fielding@talon.net.

Endnotes

2. Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments (Thomas Jefferson: Writings in The Library of America ; New York: Literary Classics of the United States, 1984), pp. 355-356.

3. I am indebted for the following argument to G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (Collected Works, Vol. 1; San Francisco: Ignatius, 1986), pp. 344-345.

National Reform Association,

Publishers of The Christian Statesman.
Declaring the Lordship of Christ since 1864
editor Bill Einwechter

A six month subscription to The Christian Statesman is FREE on request. Renewals are FREE on request.
POBox 8741-WP
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15221

Use this form to comment on this site. Use this form to request a FREE introductory six month subscription to The Christian Statesman or to renew your existing subscription.

For a FREE introductory three issue subscription,
send email to Bill Gould with
your name and mailing address.