abstract: constitutional ignorance by Christians has caused them to go astray in their views

Skip Navigation

by Louis Sette

William Tyndale translated the Bible into English to put Scripture in the hands of his countrymen in their own language. In doing so, he fulfilled his ambition to allow even the humble plowboy to read the Word of God himself.1 This liberated the faithful from scriptural darkness and was a turning point in the Reformation. Now, in a different realm, American Christians need to liberate themselves from constitutional darkness and reform their politics accordingly by reading the Constitution of the United States. American Christians need to become constitutional plowboys. Within reason, and as time allows, constitutional basics should be studied corporately. The study should also be given some place in seminary curricula in America. Christian education in general should include it.

Many pastors and churchmen will consider this outlandish. They will think the Constitution objectively unknowable or, if knowable at all, something reserved for lawyers and only specialists at that. They will think the study to be unnecessary from a biblical point of view, incapable of producing practical results and a fancy waste of time. These reactions only underscore the need for the study. The Constitution is a surprisingly short document, being about the length of a handful of psalms, and quite plain in meaning. If Christians are expected to study even the harder parts of Scripture, they can be expected to profit by spending a few hours reading the Constitution.2

Why American Christians Need to Become Constitutional Plowboys

Why is there this need to read the Constitution? There are three urgent reasons, scriptural, evangelical, and political, and they are all tied together. Scripturally speaking, constitutionally illiterate Christians, and there appear to be many, cannot properly apply Romans 13 to the major public issues of the day. If constitutionally incompetent Christians were to attempt to do so, they would likely err. Sensing and fearing this, many pastors apparently choose the seemingly safe option of addressing public issues in only the most general and passing way, if at all. This is a scriptural failing, for in reality it is an inability to apply the whole counsel of God to the civic issues of our times. There can be no kingdom building in the civic domain without applying kingdom principles to the matter.3 Evangelically speaking, constitutionally illiterate Christians, in unwittingly supporting untenable, and sometimes contradictory, constitutional positions, appear misinformed and even hypocritical to the worldly. This reflects poorly on the faith. Lastly and politically speaking, constitutionally ignorant Christians will not know the constitutional remedy they may employ to rein in federal judges who exceed their authority. This wastes a political blessing God ordained for His people here. In short, constitutional incompetence among Christians redounds to the detriment of God's Kingdom in very practical ways. What follows are two recent examples of this.

Two Recent Public Events Demonstrated Constitutional Incompetence among Christians

The first event was President Bush's claim to have the authority to commit the United States to war against Iraq and, acting on that claim, send troops into battle based on his decision. The second was a federal appeals court ruling that the Ten Commandments must be removed from an Alabama courthouse. In the former case, many Christians supported the president's decision, thereby condoning, even encouraging, lawlessness. In the latter case, Christians suddenly professed to be principled, indignantly criticizing the court for its lawless ruling. In all this, the Body of Christ appeared merely partisan and no different than the worldly. On the one hand, despite his lawlessness, they supported a president who professed to be one of their own and who took violent action against Iraq, a nation of Islam, a faith antagonistic to Christian interests and the state of Israel, which is staunchly supported by many Christians for theological reasons. On the other hand, the lawlessness of the court, in ordering the Ten Commandments removed from a public building, prompted a sharp cry of foul from the Christian community. Christians applauded lawlessness by the president, but condemned it by the judges. As they say, "Go figure."

Observing unbelievers surely did figure and here is what they likely concluded: These public demonstrations by Christians were nothing more than exercises in rank, constitutional opportunism. To unbelievers, Christians came off as just another interest group, unprincipled, expedient, engaged in a sort of tribalism, justifying what they liked, castigating what they did not. Their positions appeared to be based merely on what suited them. The worldly saw Christians posturing as champions of the Constitution, when it was convenient to support their complaint against the judges, but when it came to the president's pretentious war making against an Islamic nation, they appeared to pretend there were no constitutional restraints on his power in this area. The worldly surely saw in this performance by Christians a trait they must know exists in themselves: a grasping, unbridled desire to obtain the political outcomes they favor and a willingness to employ duplicity in order to obtain them. In appearing just like the world, Christians caused their faith to appear false. Had not Christians always claimed their faith was life changing, that it made them new men? In these events, the Christian witness was this: we are phonies and our faith is false because we operate on the same basis as anyone else. But duplicity was not the Christians' game. By and large, the contradictory Christian positions were a product of ignorance, not dishonesty. Ignorance not only of what the Constitution says, but also of the biblical requirement to honor it. Nevertheless, this ignorance caused Christians to appear to be as unprincipled as the lost. This was a serious failing, for it damaged the reputation of the Body of Christ. This damage need not have occurred, if only the faithful had known some constitutional basics. This knowledge would have allowed Christians to apply Scripture to the presi-dent's and the judges' actions and thereupon rest their positions.4

Romans 13

Romans 13:1-2 says, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God." For the president, the Constitution is the higher power. It defines and limits his power. When he acted to exceed the limitations put on his office by that power, he violated Romans 13, in addition to the Constitution. Christians, in trying to apply Romans 13 without reference to the Constitution, would not have realized that federal office holders, the president included, are "subject unto the higher powers," meaning the powers given to them in the Constitution. "Every soul" means every soul, including federal office holders.

In cheering the president in his lawless war making, Christians also ran afoul of Matthew 28, which requires them "to teach all nations...to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Yet, Christians taught their own nation that Romans 13 does not apply to presidents.5 This, in essence, subordinates Scripture to men in high office. Christians taught their nation that such men may be applauded when they ignore Romans 13, provided their cause is popular, as going to war with Iraq was to many Christians.

Similarly, the judges who ordered the Commandments out of the courthouse violated the constitutional power under which they were to decide cases. Many Christians promptly excoriated the judges for this. In doing so, after applauding the president's equally lawless actions, Christians inadvertently subverted Romans 13 yet again. They implied it may be applied selectively, which is to convert it from a command to a trifling thing. Of course, Christians did not realize what they were doing. How could they? Without knowing the constitutional basics, they could not connect them to Scripture. Nevertheless, Christians cannot convincingly stand for righteousness in public matters when conducting themselves so inconsistently, whether knowingly or unknowingly. And would not God hold them, and perhaps their pastors too, responsible in any event? Let us look more closely at the two cases, the president's war making and the court's Commandment taking.

President Bush's Fraudulent Claim of Authority to Commit America to War

Why was the president constitutionally incorrect in what he did? Under Art. 1, Sec. 8., congress, not the president, has the exclusive authority to declare war.6 Knowing this, and having taken an oath to support the Constitution,7 the president nevertheless sought and won from congress the purported authority, in the form of a resolution,8 to decide whether the United States would engage in war.

This, of course, was a transparent sham to all but the constitutionally blind, as many Christians appeared to be. The Constitution does not authorize congress to transfer to the president a power vested in it by that document. If this were possible, in time congress could transfer vast segments of its power to the president, effectively rendering itself a twig instead of a branch of government.

Why does all this matter? First, a sham transfer of authority is lawlessness. This, alone, is sufficient to make the president's action reprehensible, for where, then, does lawlessness end?9 Second, God ordained that we live under a governmental executive who could not commit the nation to war. By the Constitution, this power was denied to him. Though the president might ask congress for a Declaration of War, he was not to participate in the decision. Upon congress declaring war, if it chose to do so, the president's duty would then be to prosecute the war as "commander in chief."10

Blessed with the Constitutional Office of President American Christians Seem to Yearn for a King

By this arrangement, God had delivered His covenant people here from the kind of kingly war making abuse to which ancient Israel had been subjected. In I Samuel 8:11, 12 speaking of the lofty office of king, which would be beyond the people's control, Samuel warned the people, "He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots...(A)nd to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots."11 God was later pleased to grant American Christians a great blessing in the Constitution by relieving them from the potential harm inherent in one man, in a most lofty and remote office, holding the war making power. Under the Constitution, only congress has this power. Not only are there 435 members of that institution, 335 are members of the House of Representatives. Each is elected from the relatively small area of a congressional district, compared to the president, who is elected countrywide. This creates an electoral intimacy between the house members and the people that does not exist between the people and the president. Moreover, the people elect their congressmen directly, but the president only indirectly, through electors. And, they elect their congressmen twice as often, voting for or against them every second instead of every fourth year, as in the case of the president. The people therefore have more control over their respective congressmen than they do over the president. Though the relationship between the people and senators is not as close as that between the people and house members, it is still much closer than the relationship between the people and the president. Each senator is elected by voters within one state12 as compared with the president, who is elected by voters among fifty. In ordaining this constitutional arrangement, God relieved America from the kind of war making curse that unfaithful Israel had brought upon itself. If a majority of either the house or senate will not vote to declare war, then there can be no war, at least not lawfully. As war is such a terrible thing, the Constitution specifically vests the power to declare it only in those officials over whom the people have most control. This is a blessing, indeed! To applaud the president for pretending he holds the war making power is to scorn God's blessing for America. It is to be covenantally cavalier.

The Court's Judicial Fraud

We turn now to the renegade judges. They fraudulently claimed the First Amendment required the removal of the Ten Commandments from a state courthouse in Alabama, concluding that maintaining them there would have been tantamount to establishing religion. This ruling was contrary to the plain language of the Amendment which makes clear that it applies only to congress, not the states. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," it says. The Ten Commandments, in fact, were put in the Alabama courthouse by a state judge. Even if one assumes, for the sake of argument, that the presence of the Commandments established a religion,13 congress was not the establishing agency. Congress had passed no law that required they be put there. That is the key. Therefore, the First Amendment could not apply. The federal judges got away with this, under a fantastic legal theory they have been using for some decades,14 because the general population is constitutional illiterate, most Christians included. Though the significance of the president's war making masquerade may have required explanation for some Christians, this judicial law breaking regarding the Commandments does not. But for this judicial deceit, the Ten Commandments could be displayed in every state courthouse in America without interference from the federal courts.15

The Remedy for this Judicial Abuse Would Be Revealed by Reading the Constitution

What did Christians do in response to the judges' usurpatious decision? Some protested at the Alabama courthouse, in this case a noble but futile effort, akin to public breast beating. Protests move politicians and judges only when they are massive and sustained. These protests were neither. Some wrote letters to the editor or called in to their favorite radio talk show. All this washed away with the tide of changing news.

Christians should have directed their letters and calls to their congressmen, demanding they clip the judges' wings or else see their votes clipped in the next election. The federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, are under the congressional thumb. Not knowing this, because they did not know the Constitution, Christians let their protests dissipate in air instead of landing on their congressman's desk, where they might, in time, produce action.

Louis Sette was a news reporter, later a practicing attorney and manager of his family's commercial real estate business. He served in New Jersey as the Christian Coalition's state chairman, then the Taxpayers Party legal counsel. Now in Forest, Virginia with his wife Rosemary and two sons, he manages the windup of family business in his former state. Louis and Rosemary are members of the Grace Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Lynchburg. He may be reached at l.f.sette@worldnet.att.net.

Endnotes

1. "Tyndale, before he left England for his life's work, said to a learned man, 'If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scripture than thou dost.' He succeeded." David Daniell, Willam Tyndale, A Biography (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1994), p. 1. His life's work was translating Scripture.

2. Meaning the document itself, instead of the daunting array of commentaries and related histories. Reading them without having read the document is to put oneself in the hands of a priesthood of intermediaries. What plowboy would do this?

3. For consideration of a similar theme see Gary North, Tools of Dominion (Tyler, Texas: Institute of Christian Economics, 1997) of some 1216 pages, which this writer has read only in part.

4. Those positions should be stated in both biblical and constitutional terms. This would necessarily refer listeners to the authority of Scripture and, subordinately, the Constitution. This would elevate the positions above mere opinion to conclusions required by authority.

5. To say nothing of oath breaking, which is, in this context, a theft of power, and thus a violation of the Eighth Commandment. Art. II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution stipulates the oath the president shall take upon taking office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

6. "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties (etc.)...To declare war," etc.

7. A man attaining this office must be presumed to know this. Thus, the violation of his oath must be deemed purposeful. If Christians were constitutionally knowledgeable and principled, they would therefore demand President Bush's impeachment even more vociferously than they demanded President Clinton's for his apparent perjury. Clinton's violation of his oath cost one woman her day in court on a sexual harassment claim. Bush's, with congress' complicity, cost America all those losses associated with war. See also footnote 5.

8. The "Joint Resolution to authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces Against Iraq," dated Oct. 10, 2002, rested on a false premise. Sec. 3(a) stated, "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate." Congress is not constitutionally empowered to issue to the president such an authorization. It is empowered to declare war. The purported authorization would merely permit war, shifting the actual decision to the president. A congressional declaration of war requires war, leaving the president no decision at all and instead directing him to take action. For example, the Declaration of War on Japan, dated Dec. 8, 1941, read: "JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same...That the state of war...is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States...to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan...." The Dec. 11, 1941 Congressional Declaration of War on Germany read similarly. (Emphasis added.)

9. In the Christian community, in which there has been open concern by responsible parties about a persecution that might come, this danger should ring as true as the Liberty Bell.

10. "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States...." Art. II, Sec. 2.

11. KJV

12. This was true even as senators were originally elected, by the legislatures of the respective states. Though the people's participation in this was indirect, derived from their election of legislators in their respective states, the degree of their remoteness in electing a president through electors was even greater as it was multiplied by the number of states.

13. The presence of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse did not establish religion, but was merely an expression of faith in the civil domain.

14. Though it is beyond the scope of this article to explain this in full, an exceedingly simplified explanation may be made. The federal courts have twisted a post Civil War amendment (the Fourteenth) designed to require that the legal procedures in each state apply equally to whites and blacks into a requirement that certain amendments, including the First, apply to the states as well as to congress. The judges also subversively equated mere religious expression by a government entity with the establishment of religion. This effectively changed the pertinent language of the First Amendment from "Congress shall make no law" into something like this: "Congress shall make no law, nor shall any state make any law or take any action respecting an establishment of religion or the expression thereof." In any event, judges decide cases as if that is what the Amendment said.

15. The Ten Commandments could also be displayed in every federal and state building, prayer said in public schools, mangers displayed on public grounds at Christmas, etc., etc., except for the courts purposeful misapplication of the First Amendment to the states coupled with its subversive equation of mere religious expression with the establishment of religion.

back to top