America Is Not, and Never Will Be, a Theocracy.

Photo: Zach Rudisin

When faith enters a political discussion, the wringing of the hands begins, and lamentations are offered for those who do not believe, but are forced to live in a Christian society. This pattern has emerged in the 2016 Republican Presidential Primaries, as faith leaders endorse various candidates, some opting for candidates who are outspoken about their faith, and others endorsing candidates whose lives run counter to Biblical teaching.

The great debate ensues. Should a candidate's faith be important in your decision to vote for him? Or should you disregard faith, as America is not electing a "Pastor in chief?" At some point, the separation of church and state will be pointed out, and someone will note that we need to keep faith and politics separate to protect the rights of non-Christians and non-believers. Such a notion is born out of an unfounded fear that America could one day drift toward theocracy, where religion becomes law and the people are subject to the spiritual whims of whoever is in power.

This fear is unfounded because it is not grounded in reality. If one were to observe the Spiritual and religious habits of Americans over the past 40 years, one would notice a drift away from religion and faith, not toward. However, truth is not revealed in polling data and the daily habits of the people. The fact is that theocracy will never come to America, because America is structured to protect the rights of the individual. America was founded to escape the theocracy of Britain, thus a system of separation of church and state was implemented to prevent religion from being integrated into American government. Still, the founding fathers understood the role of faith among the nation's leadership, and our nation's early philosophers understood the need of faith in making the American democracy work.

In exploring the threat (or lack thereof) of theocracy to America, we must understand that the American system was designed to keep theocratic rule out of government. This was done, as America escaped theocracy during the American revolution. When the church of England split from the Catholic church, the King Henry VIII declared himself as the head of the church of England. (This was done to allow King Henry to have another divorce.) Since then, every monarch of England has served as the head of the church of England. During that time, all other religion in England, Catholic or Protestant, or independent, was outlawed, and severe persecution ensued. Conversion was required, and worship was nearly compulsory.

That same system was in existence when the American colonies were established, and when the colonies rebelled. At that time the same king who oppressed the colonies economically and civilly, also oppressed the colonies Spiritually. The severity rose to the point that the colonists, under divine leadership and under the leadership of intellectual giants, drafted the Declaration of Independence, which declared that God gave man his unalienable rights, and no king could take those rights away. In addition to casting off the king's authority over legal matters in the colonies, the Declaration of Independence cast off his religious authority as well. Each man has the right to connect with God without having to go through a mere mortal, let alone a king.

The American Revolution ensued, and the United States ultimately won their independence. Following the war, the Constitution was drafted to structure the new government, and to protect the rights spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. Upon ratification, 10 amendments were offered to guarantee the freedoms listed in the Declaration of Independence. The first of which guaranteed the right to free speech, free press, the right to assemble, and the free exercise of religion. By the wording of the First Amendment, government (particularly Congress) was prevented from making laws regarding the establishment of religion, meaning Congress could neither create, adopt, nor regulate religion. (This is one reason why churches are automatically tax-exempt. To subject churches to tax policy would be to regulate them, which would be a direct violation of the First Amendment.)

While the First Amendment implied a separation of church and state, subsequent Supreme Court decisions (which exists to interpret and define law) affirmed it. The separation of church and state was also supported by early religious leaders, particularly the Baptists, who, under the leadership of Rev. John Leland, lobbied Thomas Jefferson for religious freedom during the founding days of the country.

Today, hostility continues to be directed toward the merger of church and state. References to God and the 10 Commandments are being removed from the public square, prayer is being removed from local government proceedings and school sporting events. There's even hostility toward high school cheerleaders putting Bible verses (taken out of context to support an athletic theme) on run-through banners.

This continued hostility, coupled with the general drift away from the Christian religion in America, demonstrates that the Constitutional concept of separation of church and state is alive and well, and that there is no effort to legislate religion. No one is proposing mandatory conversion, mandatory worship, mandatory church membership, mandatory tithing, mandatory praise, mandatory prayer or mandatory Bible reading.

The battle over America's heart and soul today does not center around which religion America will adopt, if any. The battle over America's heart and soul centers around the definition of morality. While one's definition of morality is often drawn from one's faith or religious beliefs, one's viewpoints should no less be discounted. In reality, everyone's moral compass is formed from a belief in something other than one's self, whether it be God, the universe, or natural law. We believe things are right because they are, and we believe things are wrong because they are. And this is why we quarrel. We argue over whether something meets or breaks this invisible law of morality. For more on that, read the first three chapters of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity.

Christians who insert their view of morality into this national discussion are no more forcing their religion onto others than the atheist who inserts his view on morality forces others into his non-belief. The question is, which standard will the public ultimately accept? Given recent trends in our society, I don't believe that I, as a Baptist minister, will like the answer.

Theocracy is not coming to America. We're not drifting toward it, we're not advocating for it, and if it even looked like we were headed that direction, the American people would stand against it.

Which brings us back to the question which started this whole discussion. Should a candidate's faith be considered when electing a President. I contend that it should be.

First, it should be noted that our founding fathers were men of faith. Some discount the role of Christianity in the founding of the country, referring to our founding fathers as "deists," rather than Christians. None-the-less, they had a belief in God, which propelled them to write the Declaration of Independence, fight for independence, and then draft the Constitution in such a way that freedom was defended, and the country didn't just replace one king with another.

It was the faith of the Christians in the early days of our nation that saw the need for the separation of church and state, recognizing that once government involved itself in religion, all religious freedom would be lost.

One cannot read the writings of the founding fathers without seeing references to God, whether it be the Declaration, or the newspaper columns of Benjamin Franklin. Even Franklin, who himself had moral failures, saw the need for faith and morality in the free American republic. Had these men not faith, they would have had no incentive to protect the freedoms of all Americans. They would have seen no need to protect the freedom to worship, and they would have seen no need to establish what has become the greatest nation on Earth.

With that backdrop, let me make the following points. (1) Presidents need to be men (or women) of faith because the job of the President is bigger than any one individual. The President's decisions are heavy, will impact millions around the world, and the results are not guaranteed. Thus, the President needs to lean on the Lord for guidance, and be willing to trust God with the results.

(2) Like the founding fathers, the President needs the moral fortitude to put the country first. The President needs to look past his personal interests, and the interests of his political party, and make decisions that will benefit all Americans for years down the road. If I may be honest, I feel this moral fortitude has been missing from the White House for at least 16 years. While both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have made decisions for the good of the country, many, if not most, of their actions have been for no other purpose than to advance their party's leverage.

(3) The President is an example to the people. John F. and Jackie Kennedy were huge influences on American culture. Their ability to live life as a couple, deeply engaged in the latest fashions and raising young children, helped Americans return to a normal life in the height of the bomb scares of the Cold War. Furthermore, the President is a Counselor in chief to the American people. Who can remember Ronald Reagan's words in the aftermath of the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion, George W. Bush's words following 9/11, Franklin D. Roosevelt's speech to Congress following Pearl Harbor, or Abraham Lincolns words following Gettysburg?

Given the complexities of the office, the need for the defense of freedom, and the need for the American people to have a strong leader, faith is an absolute essential for any competent Presidential candidate. But never fear, theocracy still is not coming to America.

Endowed by Our Creator

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If you ask any person with the slightest idea of the founding principles of our country, they will tell you that the three unalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They will also tell you that these are three rights that no government can ever take away. That said, we often overlook one key detail of this famous phrase of the Declaration of Independence. That detail is that these unalienable rights (of which there are many, but only three specifically mentioned in the document) were given to us (endowed to us) by our Creator. This is an important detail, because it is only by acknowledging the Creator's existence, and the fact that He gave us our most basic human rights, that we come to understand government's role, society's role, and are able to put it all into perspective.

While the primary purpose of this blog is to call America back to our founding principles, the existence of God cannot be overlooked. He existed before any government known to man. He created man. He created all things. As our all-powerful Creator, He has given us everything we have.

Think about the three unalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Life is definitely a right guaranteed to us by our Creator, for it is He that gave it to us. No government gave you life. No worldly institution gave you life. You inhaled your first breath of air because God created you, and gave you life.

Had government given you life, no doubt government would have the right to revoke your right to life, and take it from you. However, government did not give you life. Your life came from God. Therefore, the right to your life, and the right to defend it, transcends the authority of any government institution, or the whims of society. Life can only be taken by God Himself, or by His authority. Any other taking of life is a violation of God's law, and natural law.

Next, is the right to Liberty, which can be defined as "freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice." Basically, this is the right to be yourself. This is the right of the individual. Government did not create you, nor did it give you your individual personality, likes, dislikes, and thoughts. Had government been the source of your liberty, no doubt government would have the ability to revoke your liberty, thus forming you into a person that suits its purpose, and controlling every aspect of your being. However, government did not give you liberty, therefore any attempt by government to destroy your individuality and control your person will ultimately fail.

Many oppressive governments have sought to steal liberty from their citizens. They have sought to control dress, appearance, thought, religion, interests, hobbies, speech, and beliefs. Most of these oppressive regimes have fallen, many in a great and spectacular fashion. No matter how hard government works to control thoughts, values, morals, actions and individuality, it cannot, because government did not give the individual liberty in the first place.

Finally, we have the Pursuit of Happiness.

Speaking during a commercial for Mossberg firearms, Duck Commander Phil Robertson addressed the three unalienable rights, then added, "You know what makes me happy? Blowing a mallard drake's head smooth off." While I appreciate the fact that Robertson takes joy in the outdoors, and hunting, happiness should not be confused with joy. (Although, I think Robertson's true happiness comes in being able to take the time to enjoy the great outdoors. His contentment, confidence and security is tied to his ability to camp, hunt and fish.)

Happiness is defined as the state of being confident, content and secure. Everyone wants confidence, contentment and security. Therefore, people tend to desire, and work toward, improving their station in life. The farmer's dream is to raise enough crops that he can live for a few years without having to worry about making ends meet. The sales executive wants to close a few more deals so he can have some money left at the end of the month, to invest, to save, or possibly just to enjoy.

This desire to better one's station in life cannot be taken away by any government for the same reason liberty and life cannot be taken. It is because the right to pursue happiness is a right granted to man by his Creator. Even in the feudal societies of medieval Europe, people tried in their own ways to better their station, whether it was a farm boy who tried to become a page, or whether it was a noble who tried to marry into a more prestigious family. The efforts of self-betterment have always been a part of the human existence.

Throughout the history of the world, there has been one country which not only recognized this right, but set up a government that would foster it. That country is the United States of America. Regardless of political affiliation, few can argue against the fact that America is the place where one can change his station in life in just a few years. Rags to riches stories are numerous. In future posts, I will share some of these stories. The number of success stories is astounding, because the basic nature of mankind is to try to better one's self, and in America, that right is celebrated.

These unalienable rights were given by God, not government, and thus can only be taken away by God. While government may try to restrict, and can make life hard, government cannot deny you your basic human nature, your basic human rights.

While God has been good in granting us these rights, it is important to remember that these rights serve a purpose. If God exists, then God has a plan. If our Creator created us, then our Creator has a purpose for us. Our duty as human beings is to learn what it is that God wants from us. In order to connect with God, have a relationship with Him, and live out his purpose in our lives, we must have the rights described in this post. At the end of the day, it is God who judges us. Therefore, we have the right to do whatever we can (that doesn't infringe upon someone else's unalienable rights) to please Him.

As a Baptist preacher, I will tell you that the first thing God wants is for you to repent of your sins and trust Jesus Christ as your personal savior. Then, follow the Lord in baptism, then live life according to His word.

This concept, the right to connect with God, is the reason religious freedom is so important. This freedom, while defined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is actually granted by God as an unalienable right.

All that said, government does serve a role in this. Freedom and liberty are not anti-government, freedom and liberty require government. What separates the libertarian mind from the collectivist mind is that the libertarian sees government as essential to preserving and protecting liberty, while the collectivist believes government gives liberty.

The concept of government as an agent to secure and protect the basic rights of mankind is Biblical, and is also spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, which states, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The role of government is not to provide for  the people, nor is it to solve their problems. The role of the government is to protect man's most basic rights. Government serves this role at the consent of those governed. When governments fail in this role, and begin the process of eroding man's basic, unalienable rights, then the governed revoke that government's authority, and institute a new government which will recognize and protect their rights. This has been accomplished numerous times in history by revolution. In the U.S. today, we can simply vote our government out of office.

So, your basic unalienable rights come from God, serve a purpose, and cannot be revoked at the whim of a government or society. This is important to recognize, because without that recognition, our rights are merely privileges afforded to us by our masters, which to free men, do not exist.