abstract: |

Skip Navigation

by Mike McHugh

First, I thank brother Need for responding to my article in a biblical manner. I look forward to the sharpening that comes from honest, direct, and godly exchange.

It is hard to know where to begin because much of what Ovid says I agree with. However, there is also much contradiction and confusion in his article. Let it suffice for me to address three broad areas.

1. I believe Ovid's confusion over who is in the position of earthly king and the earthly king's responsibility to restore God's law-word and the Constitution is fundamental to his disagreement with me.
2. I believe he draws the wrong lesson from a limited political experience. It seems foundational to his misunderstanding of the nature of a defensive fight and an offensive one to restore the Constitution.
3. I believe his personal preference for general verbal public promises to protect and defend the constitution over specific written public promises to restore it is not biblically wrong but simply naïve and inconsistent with wise judgment and the testimony of church history.

First, he writes as if elected officials are in the position of earthly king. King Jesus sends civil servants via His sovereign decreed will. The earthly king to whom they are accountable under the law of King Jesus proximately sends them via the vote. In America, the people are in a position like an earthly king. Elected officials are appointed by the earthly king (the people) to administer the rule of God's law and uphold the Constitution. Neither the law of God nor the U.S. Constitution are king. Jesus Christ is King and all earthly kings and their appointed civil servants are responsible to obey His law-word.

Who defines which group or segment of the collective American kingship a politician should make a public promise to? The politician who seeks the service of the earthly king under the rule and law of King Jesus must decide. Anyone who understands that service to an earthly king is ultimately service to King Jesus and must be governed by His law-word knows that. If a written covenant is requested, it should be public, not private, unlike the National Rifle Association's practice of keeping it secret. The politician/civil-servant as well as the earthly king is responsible to enter agreements that are consistent with God's law-word.

Very few lobbies seek the level of measurable and definable action-promises that I am suggesting. Two that do are National Right To Work and Gun Owners of America. National Right To Work's success in fighting socialist labour practices, while most conservative pro-family lobbies have accomplished very little, is instructive. They have done it while being opposed by the "Goliath" opposition of the billion-dollar labor union industry. What I advocate is unique, but far from novel or new.

Ovid asks, "are the elected officials responsible to those with whom they make agreements, or are they responsible to the law, the Constitution?" Ovid creates two false choices. The politician who seeks to serve the earthly king, the people, is free to make performance-oriented, action-agreements to restore the constitution as long as his promises do not violate God's law or the Constitution. He is not commanded to do so. He is free to do so. It is a wisdom choice that he must make. In some cases it might be wise and in others it might be unwise. Of course, to enter into one with Planned Parenthood would be sin.

Second, Ovid's experience getting 1,800 signatures in a zoning fight is an excellent example of how to wage a defensive fight. However, while it is important that we elect men who will resist further erosion of God's law-word and the Constitution, it is critical that we elect men who will promise to restore it. An offensive fight of that nature will require all the resources of the elected official and "the king" who appoints him. It also requires collaboration and much co-operative work between the elected official and "the king."

Third, I agree when Ovid asks, "If men demand that a candidate sign a pledge outside of God's basic good and evil, are not those men defining what is good and evil in their eyes?" Well of course! But it is not wrong to ask for commitments within what God defines as good and evil. Need appeals to Magna Charta, which was a written agreement with men. Using Ovid's logic, a verbal promise should have been sufficient on the plains of Runnymede. The Westminster Confession also came on the heels of experiencing the duplicity of Charles the First. By Ovid's logic, a verbal statement that the "Bible is the infallible word of God" should have been sufficient.

To accept verbal promises to defend the Constitution as sufficient for an offensive fight to restore the Constitution is simply foolish and naïve. It is like examining a man for the position of pastor in a church and accepting a public statement that he promises to protect and defend the Bible or the absurd belief that "no creed but Christ and the Bible" is sufficient to know what a man will do. The reason we have creeds is to spell out in measurable and definable terms what a man believes in and will do.

In addition, those calling a pastor are completely within their biblical liberty to get commitments for certain types of action. For instance, they may ask a pastor whether he will or will not commit to a new mission emphasis, preach exegetically as well as systematically, plant new churches, emphasise training in evangelism and discipleship, or provide leadership for a new building, or revision of the Sunday school program. All those things are legitimate as long as the request does not violate God's Word. In a church that is struggling with doctrinal error, they may even ask for commitments to teach and correct certain doctrinal errors as the pastor's first task in office. Whether verbal or written, the pastor's answer should be a simple yes or no to the requested action.

To quibble over whether the yes or no is verbal or written is to quibble about what is most wise, not a moral right or wrong. Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, whom I consider a friend and mentor, recently said, "We want to support a candidate who is willing to be held accountable to gun owners in measurable and definable terms. We think that the best way to achieve that is to use the same kind of specificity that one would find in a legal contract.... Politicians do not have a good record of considering their 'yes, yes or [their] no, no.' I would add that the record of Christian politicians is no better.

Ovid says that if a man fears God, he does not need a signed covenant with him. Ovid is free to believe that. However, no one can know how much a man's heart truly fears God. Nor, can we know how he interprets the Constitution or what actions he will take to restore it without being very specific. In the offensive fight to restore God's law and the Constitution I choose to ask for measurable and definable promises of recorded votes on biblical/constitutional issues. Ovid is free not to, if he thinks it wiser not to do so. However, he has failed to develop a cogent biblical argument that it is wrong for me to do so. Given his argument that signing agreements is evil, he is obligated himself not to vote for any politician who signs such agreements.

back to top