abstract: |

Skip Navigation

by Kevin Clauson

It has been well over 300 years since thousands of Puritans fled England and created various colonies in America. Most of these refugees, including the tens of thousands of "Covenanters" who fled Northern Ireland and Scotland in the 1700s, left relatively stable, comfortable lives for the relatively primitive setting of America. Why? Partly for liberty from tyranny and partly freedom to create a true Christian Commonwealth.

Although I am not a doomsayer (after all, I am postmillennial), I challenge the reader to think hard about whether or not it may be time to consider "fleeing" America to establish some kind of semi-autonomous Reformed settlement governed by the Bible. In considering this possibility, as described in more detail below, ask yourself whether America is not at least on the very brink of being a tyranny. The rapidity of the moral decay of political leaders and people alike in my lifetime seems astounding.

Despite the fact that there may be many logistical and practical problems associated with such a venture in the modern world, I propose three sound reasons why this might be a godly undertaking:

1. It would be a refuge from tyrannical laws and practices to which those of like faith could flee for protection and safety.
2. It would be a model for future Christian economic and political entities.
3. It could be a source of much biblical influence on the world as some settlers would come and go (just as many early Reformers, fleeing to Geneva, imbibed Reformed ideas and later carried them back to other lands).

Thus, there is much nobility to the idea. This does not mean that all Reformed "Reconstructionists" (or even most) should think themselves obligated to participate in such an undertaking. That is not the case at all. (And by the way, the idea in this article is not premised on any potential "Y2K" issues; whatever the outcome of this problem, the reasons for a settlement are much deeper and the implementation much more long-range.)

As I continue this article I would like to deal with several broad issues:

1. Some significant practical problems, especially the dearth of unclaimed territory.
2. The nature of such a settlement (e.g., autonomous "colony" within an existing state?).
3. The constitutional features of the settlement (i.e., internal structures, laws, etc.).
4. The biblical and historical data to prove that such a venture is not an "escapist" enterprise, but rather one form of godly dominion.

It might be objected that there is no place to go as there was for the Pilgrims and Puritans who came to New England. It is surely true that the modern world is not only much more populated, but also much more established with political authority and specific boundaries. However, this objection seems to assume that a modern-day settlement would of necessity have to be unclaimed territory or that claimed territory would have to be taken by force. This is not the case, nor even in line with the historical precedents.

Remember that the New England settlements ("plantations") were established on territory claimed by England under a charter from the King. The settlers never doubted this fact. What they had was a charter which essentially allowed them to create an autonomous entity (though from time to time from the early 1600s to the mid 1700s England made attempts to reduce this autonomy--never really succeeding). What they found--and I believe this would still be important today--was a sparsely populated area.

Are there sparsely populated regions of the world which are habitable today? Yes. Would any existing nation-state with such territory allow a settlement within its boundaries under a special charter providing extensive autonomy (including political and legal autonomy)? I am unable to answer that question definitively. I can only speculate as to what states might be amenable to such a peaceful settlement. One of the major criteria would be low native population (perhaps zero). Perhaps relative geographical isolation would also be important (an island or a land area surrounded by deserts and/or seas). Perhaps proximity to the United States would be important if most settlers came from America.

The nature of the nation-state within which the colony would be located is an extremely important criteria, especially with regard to the possibility of successful negotiations for autonomy and the "trustworthiness" of the "host-state" to live up to the agreement. Else there would be little use in even proceeding; once the settlement was in place, unilateral abrogation of the agreement by the host would be disastrous. Thus, it would be important to find a Westernized host-state which has a tradition of due process of law. There are not many such nation-states today, even fewer that have sparsely-inhabited but habitable territories. This is a practical dilemma, but not insurmountable. (I can think of a couple or so possibilities, notwithstanding the issue of whether the state would allow settlement.)

Now we come to the question of the "constitution" of the hypothetical colony. Before we examine some of the specifics, let one thing be clear: the laws and constitution, as well as the charter-agreement of the settlement must be drawn up in advance of any actual settlement for the benefit of both colony and host-state. It is only fair and just that all parties know (and agree) in advance what kind of internal self-government is being proposed and negotiated. The vehicle for drawing up a constitution and a code, and for negotiating a charter is the same vehicle which would be the most likely institution for initiating the idea and undertaking the implementation of the colony--a private development company (much like those which played a valuable role in early American settlement). In addition, however, the "members" of the company could (and probably should) create a "representative assembly" and other apparatus (a kind of "shadow government") to create the legal and political system.

The general characteristics of the settlement system can be summarized briefly:

1. Calvinistic Protestantism (with specific "religious oaths" and limited citizenship).
2. Law code based on biblical "judicial laws" of the Old Covenant.
3. Written constitution, limiting civil functions and acknowledging kingship of Christ.
4. Federal and republican-representative institutional structures.
5. Institutional separation of church and state (no established ecclesiology).
6. Close relationship between church and state ("established" theology proper).
7. Limited voting rights (based on "faith" and "property").

In short, the settlement would be, a "theonomic republic." Whether this would condemn the venture from the start remains to be seen; the modern world is certainly no "friend" of the Sovereign Lord. Issues of "foreign policy" (perhaps loosely-speaking since it would be under another ultimate political authority, that of the host-state) might also arise. To what extent could the colony control immigration or keep "worldly influences" out? What kind of a "defense force" could it have? To what extent could it officially (or unofficially) "relate" to other states? These and other related issues should be settled in the prior charter-agreement.

Let no one think however that this would be a "utopia." While it would be theonomic, it would still have problems due to the total depravity of human nature. There is no avoiding this, although there would hopefully be some mitigation of "typical" difficulties due to the nature of the settlers (Reformed "Reconstructionist" Christians), the nature of the civil government, and the nature of the churches (Reformed, pastoral, with no fear of exercising church discipline when necessary). Economically, it would be a most free settlement. Again this extensive economic liberty should be established by the prior agreement, so as to avoid any egregious economic regulations of the host-state. Might such economic liberty combined with a solid "Protestant work ethic" attract business and industry? Quite possibly. Of course there would also be the necessary job-producing ventures of any settlement. I do not envision another "Hong Kong." However, I do see an economically stable and relatively prosperous entity--if the institutions of freedom under biblical law are clearly and carefully established, outside the host-state's machinery.

We have remaining the question of whether such a venture as advocated has any real merit. Is it an exercise in pure escapism? Does it have any Scriptural foundation? Does it have any historical foundation in Christendom?

Let us begin to answer this question by pointing to the manner in which God dealt with His people in the Book of the Exodus. It is true that the analogy here goes only so far--no ethnic or political group today is God's special, chosen people as the Hebrews were; the Church is the "New Israel." On the other hand, this pivotal partial model shows us that God brought the Hebrews out of Egypt and to a new land (a land with political claims on it by other groups). Why did He not simply destroy the Egyptian regime and hand over Egypt to the Hebrews? We do not know all of the reasons. What we do know is that He caused the Hebrews to flee the tyranny of Egypt to eventually establish "The Hebrew Republic."¹ This was the Lord's chosen method, and there is no hint that it was or is a faulty method.

There is a lesson here for us. In Lex, Rex Samuel Rutherford makes the following comment: "Flying from the tyranny of abused authority, is a plain resisting of rulers in their unlawful oppression and perverting of judgment..."² In this famous work justifying resistance to tyrants, Rutherford goes on to talk about "flight" as one among several legitimate means of resisting unrighteous government. He commends this method, though not equally in all situations. Clearly Rutherford has in mind the "Great Migration" of Puritans between 1630 and 1640 (just prior to the English Civil War), which saw some 25,000 Puritans flee to America to escape the persecutions of King Charles I and his Archbishop Laud. (John Winthrop, later Massachusetts Bay Governor also struggled with the question of whether flight was right, finally deciding it was.³) Fleeing from tyranny was not their only purpose, however. They were also fleeing to a place where they could establish a "Holy Commonwealth."

Now, it is up to the individual Christian and his family to determine whether current conditions in America (or in other nations from whence settlers might come; for example, faithful, Reformed Afrikaners from South Africa) rise to the level of tyranny or persecution. Certainly there are ways to tolerate a bad situation and remain under the Lord's protection. (And perhaps America can be changed sooner rather than much later, though I have my doubts, humanly speaking.)

On the other hand, the manner and extent to which so many biblical Christians are being "hemmed in" by unjust laws and regulations can be seen as a kind of persecution and tyranny which might warrant flight. And if we are to consider "persecution" in a very broad sense, let us not forget the egregious effects of the modern worldly culture (currently characterized by both "rationalism" and "irrationalism"). Like the Pilgrims in the Netherlands before they came to America, the sheer ubiquitousness of modern evils threatens our ability to "pass on," as it were, our covenant faith to our covenant children. True it is, the Lord can work despite prevailing worldliness. But how effective can we be (humanly speaking), even if we try to "insulate" (or "isolate," which has its own problems) our families and our churches from the world. I do not wish to minimize our responsibility to bring the comprehensive gospel to our world. At the same time I would argue that we have a primary responsibility to protect the "integrity" of ourselves, our families, and our churches, a responsibility which may militate in favor of flight to a more amenable location for some (even as many remain to continue the battle). There is such a thing as "strategic retreat," in this sense from "cultural persecution."

The more overt legal and political persecution certainly warrants resistance by the "lesser magistrates." But where are courageous and godly "lesser magistrates" for these times? Does it not then make sense to consider the possibility of flight in order to establish an explicitly biblical self-rule? If we should ever take that course, we should remember the exhortation of Massachusetts Bay Governor John Winthrop:

We must consider that we shall be a city upon a hill; the eyes of all people are upon us, so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by­word throughout the world.⁴

Thus we come to the end of this proposal; though I hope it will be the beginning of a serious dialogue regarding this sober alternative.

Kevin Clauson (J.D., M.A.) is president of Christ College and The Patrick Henry Institute, and chairman of the Government Department at Liberty University. He is a member of the National Reform Association board of directors and resides in Lynchburg, Virginia.

Endnotes:

1. For a thorough discussion of the Hebrew republic, see E. C. Wines, The Roots of the American Republic (Marlborough, MA: The Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1997), originally published in an unabridged edition in 1853 as Commentaries on the Laws of the Ancient Hebrews.

2. Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex, or, The Law and the Prince (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, l982 [1644]), p. 159. Rutherford devotes much more attention to flight as a means of resistance than this brief quotation.

3. Gary DeMar, To Pledge Allegiance: Reformation to Colonization (Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1997), p. 301. This is Volume II of a History Text Series for secondary school level students. Given our present ignorance about history, it is more akin to a college-level (or even graduate school) text--a must read for almost any Christian.

4. John Winthrop, " A Model of Christian Charity," Winthrop Papers (MA Historical Society), pp. 292-295, reprinted in part in William Federer, America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations (Coppell, TX: Fame Publishing Co, 1994), p. 700. Federer claims that Oliver Cromwell pleaded with Winthrop to remain in England and join in the leadership of the revolution; this he declined, preferring to lead the first large group of Puritans to America (p. 699).

back to top