abstract: constitutional protection of rights must be grounded in God and His law; it is time for a little vigilance to protect our freedoms; know the fundamental law of the land in order to judge the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the actions of civil magistrates; the New Testament also speaks about political polytheism

Skip Navigation

by William Einwechter

In this issue of The Christian Statesman, NRA president John Fielding presents a powerful case for the continuing mission of the NRA to see our national Constitution amended to confess this nation's submission to Jesus Christ and His revealed Word. John demonstrates this by considering two recent federal court decisions, Lawrence v. Texas and Glassroth v. Moore, and by a superb analysis of the deficiency of any constitutional safeguarding of man's rights that does not ground the protection of these rights in God and His law.

This is followed by Larry Pratt's wake-up call to the sleeping citizens of our nation, Christians included, who do not see the relentless attack being waged upon our constitutional liberties by men like Judge Myron Thompson. His quotation of Martin Niemoller at the beginning of the article is a chilling reminder of what happens when citizens sit back in disregard of the tyranny of government officials because it "does not affect them."

Louis Sette challenges Christians to know the fundamental law of the land--the United States Constitution-- so that they will be equipped to judge the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the actions of their civil magistrates. Mr. Sette looks at two current constitutional issues, the war in Iraq and Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument, to show how constitutional ignorance by Christians has caused them to go astray in their views on these two issues. Ultimately, Sette's article is an impassioned plea for constitutional literacy among Christians.

The final article is part 2 of Brian Schwertley's essay on "Political Polytheism." The theme of his essay is that God condemns and hates political polytheism, and charges the civil magistrate to uphold, in relation to his sphere of jurisdiction, both Tables of the Ten Commandments. In the first installment (September - October 2003), Brian surveyed the OT evidence that he believes will demonstrate the responsibility of the civil magistrate to uphold both Tables of the Ten Commandments in the civil sphere. In this final segment, Brian surveys the NT evidence against political polytheism and answers objections to his thesis.

The position expressed by Rev. Schwertley in his essay reflects the influence of the Scottish Covenanters and of theonomists such as Greg Bahnsen and R. J. Rushdoony.

The subject which Schwertley addresses--the responsibility of the civil magistrate to uphold the First Table of the Law (all Christians agree that the magistrate is responsible to uphold the Second Table)--has presented a unique challenge to the NT church since her beginning. From the days of ante-Nicean fathers, to Constantine, to the medieval Roman Catholic church, to the Protestant Reformation, to our own day of democracy and pluralism, Christians have struggled to define the precise relationship between church and state, and the duty of the magistrate as it relates to the First Table of the Law. It is our hope that Brian's provocative and hard-hitting essay will contribute to the debate and spur further reflection.

The printing of "Political Polytheism" should not be construed as an endorsement by the NRA of all that this essay says or concludes (even as our disclaimer on each title page of The Christian Statesman indicates concerning every article published therein). The National Reform Association's position as expressed in our Statement of Purpose and our Principles of Christian Civil Government indicates that we believe that the state, as a moral person, is responsible to reject political polytheism and confess Christ as king and His Word as law.

William Symington, in his classic treatment of the mediatorial reign of Christ, gives the following proposition: "That it is the duty of a nation, as such, enjoying the light of divine revelation, in virtue of its moral subjection to the Messiah, legally to recognize, favor, and support the true religion" (Messiah the Prince, p. 174). This is what the National Reform Association advocates. However, how that proposition is carried out in all its particulars is yet a matter of study, discussion, and debate in the NRA, and also with our Christian brethren who would agree with the proposition.

In his discussion of the Sabbath commandment and the duty of the magistrate to uphold this commandment of the First Table, Symington gives this judicious statement:

The imposition of civil authority may be of service, in the way of restraining many things injurious to religion. This is confessedly a point of great delicacy; and to define the full extent to which the magistrate is entitled or bound to go, in this department, must be acknowledged to be a matter of no ordinary difficulty. On the general point, however, there is no difficulty at all. Because it is not easy, in every case, to describe exactly the limits of magistratical interference in the way of restraint, to conclude that the magistrate should not interfere in this way at all, is no better reasoning than it would be, to maintain that a father should have no manner of discipline in his family, because he may feel at a loss in certain cases, to determine to what extent he should carry the restraints of parental authority. That restraint of some kind belongs to the civil ruler must be admitted (Messiah the Prince, p. 196).

The NRA exhorts the church to search the Scriptures "to define the full extent to which the magistrate is entitled or bound to go" in upholding both Tables of the Law. It is a task we cannot ignore.

back to top