Articles home page

A speech against "Christian" American Patriotism

(Originally posted July 4, 1999, "men not created equal" removed 8/29/2016, "hell" ref. future tense 9/3/2016)

I am saddened that so many professing Christians have such an ungodly infatuation with political democracy, the American Revolution, the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. system of government. I am also saddened that these people choose to give undue praise, adoration, and exaltation to that group of people that they refer to as "The Founding Fathers".

I can understand how one can be lured into giving the credit for the freedoms that we enjoy in America to men and human governments. But many need to sober up to the fact that it is faith in God, and not faith in men and governments, that pleases God, and that we owe our temporal freedoms to God, who in reality institutes government leaders and leadership, as testified in Romans 13.

In fact, let's review what God's word says about governmental authority:

1PE 2:13 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, [14] or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. [15] For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. [16] Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. [17] Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.
And,
RO 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. [2] Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. [3] For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. [4] For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. [5] Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

RO 13:6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. [7] Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

With these scriptures in mind, let's consider carefully four historical settings:
1. Judah in the time of the reign of king Josiah.
2. The first century church under Roman rule.
3. The British colonies at the time of the American Revolution.
4. The United States of America today.
In setting #1 we have a king who is not afraid not only to proclaim God's word as true, but to legislate it and outlaw opposing faiths, even ordering the desecration and destruction of their places of worship. What we see is the antithesis of American "religious liberty". God praises king Josiah for his faithfulness, but describes as "not fully devoted to the Lord" other kings who had a personal faith in God, but did not move to destroy the free worship of other religious faiths in the land when it was within their power to do so.

In setting #2 (the first century church under Roman rule), we see Jesus, his apostles, and the early church leaders preaching submission to Roman rule, despite the harsh oppression by it, which we should carefully note included heavy taxation (without representation) and the presence of Roman militia. Far from being either Christian or Jewish, the Roman government was pagan at best, and at worst demanded the worship of its leader. Yet try to picture Jesus, his apostles, or anyone in the early church proclaiming "Give me liberty, or give me death!", writing a declaration of independence, taking up arms, and rebelling against the Roman government! The proposal is, of course, ludicrous. But more significantly, we see the dawning of the age of the "New Covenant" that scripture speaks of, which is a covenant of the heart and spirit, rather than of law and government, where godly submission and humility is praised and faith in a coming heavenly government is commended.

In setting #3 (the British colonies at the time of the American Revolution), we see a people already enjoying religious "liberty" and prosperity in a temporal sense, compared to setting #2 above. In this case the British government was levying taxes on the colonies, using the proceeds to pay for its war with France, as we all know. A history teacher once told me that these taxes amounted to the equivalent about 2.5% of an average man's wage. And the presence of British militia was considered an imposition. But we should bear in mind that this governmental oppression was surely nothing compared to that in setting #2 above. Furthermore we should consider the plight of the Brethren, a Christian denomination that chose to remain loyal to the British government because they were thankful for the religious freedom that the British government granted, and because they were pacifists (according to their particular beliefs). These Christians ended up being persecuted by the patriots, sometimes having their property confiscated or being tarred and feathered by the patriots, because they were loyalists.

Finally, in setting #4 (America today), we see a people still proud and arrogant about their political "rights" and "freedoms" on account of what happened in setting #3 above. But now their own government is taxing them at a rate an order of magnitude greater than the British did in setting #3 above, and using a good portion of that money to fund such ungodly atrocities as would never have been imagined by the people of setting #3 above. Furthermore, the ungodliness and corruption of many of its leaders would make the King of England look like a godly man, and the grievances against him listed in the American Declaration of Independence petty and frivolous in comparison. Yet they (the setting #4 people) would think it an ungodly thing to take up arms and rebel against the present government (quickly quoting the scriptures written during the time of setting #2 above about being in submission to the governing authorities) while selectively overlooking the fact that rebelling against the governing authorities is exactly what the people that they call "godly men" and "Founding Fathers" did in setting #3 above!

As an additional point of irony, it should be pointed out that the "sons of liberty" through the decades that followed the founding of this nation took away the liberty of the native American population that they displaced, counting them as mere "savages" unworthy of being considered "created equal, being endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Especially ironic is that men like Thomas Jefferson, the "Father of American Liberty" owned slaves, and would not give them up, even when implored to do so by those who tried to reason with him and show him his hypocrisy. Dark skinned Americans of African descent were not considered "created equal, being endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

If that weren't enough irony, consider that if America had lost the war and remained under control of the British government, slavery would have been abolished in America a full three decades earlier. While Americans continued to buy and sell slaves, the British outlawed the slave trade in the Slave Trade Act of 1807, and abolished slavery in the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. Which country, then, was the better model of "liberty" and "freedom"? Why do Christian "patriots" sing the praises of slave owner and hell-bound infidel Thomas Jefferson, but never mention British MP and evangelical Christian, William Wilberforce, who tirelessly pushed for the cause of "freedom" from 1787 until his death in 1833.

Why cannot professing Christians see the utter hypocrisy of those times, as well as contemporary "Christian" patriotism?

In reality, the Christian faith of the "Founding Fathers" was a compromise on the very points that the Christian "patriots" seek to justify them by. The colonists not only refused to honor the king, as scripture commanded them, but they rebelled against the king of England who, according to the scriptures, was a God-instituted authority. They refused to pay taxes. They persecuted other professing Christian believers. Then they set up a government and a constitution that had no explicit reference to the God of Israel, the Lord Jesus Christ!

Far from being men of great faith, they were cowards who did not have the courage to include the God of the Bible in their political world-view and say "no" to the "enlightened" philosophies of the day.

Although there were many political rebels during that time, if one man could be fingered for instigating and encouraging that ungodly rebellion that is now enshrined as the American Revolution, it would be Thomas Paine. Paine was an infidel and a vicious anti-Christian apologist. He was the author of "The Age of Reason" a book whose sole purpose and design was to argue against the Christian faith and prove it invalid. His other books and periodicals were instrumental as a catalyst for swaying public opinion against the British government and encouraging revolution, as well as providing ongoing encouragement to the revolutionary war effort. I have several of these primary sources in my possession, including "The Age of Reason," "Common Sense," and others.

The Declaration of Independence was written largely by infidel Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson presumed that he was a Christian, but publicly denied the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith. He was the author of what has become known as "The Jefferson Bible", another primary source document that I have in my possession. In this work, Jefferson edited one of the gospels, removing from it all references to all supernatural events, from the virgin birth to the resurrection of our Lord Himself. He viewed Jesus as nothing more than a "good teacher", and in that supposed that he was a "Christian". He believed that this editing work was as "separating diamonds from a dung hill," a sad testimony to his refusal to accept the true miracles upon which the Christian faith is fundamentally based. Here is a man who is often elevated to virtual sainthood by Christian patriots as the "father of American democracy," a man who will surely burn in hell as eternal punishment for refusing to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. His life's focus was on the wrong thing, his view of true "liberty" and "freedom" was of the world, and as a reward for his life's accomplishments (which God considers rubbish) he will remain in hell forever. Let the professing Christian be forewarned regarding who they promote.

Were there many Christians and was there significant Christian influence in late 18th century America? Of course! Just like today, there existed an entire spectrum of beliefs, ranging from the most committed Christian to the most disparaging infidel. And just like today, there were many Christians who compromised one way or another, or who wrote many Christian words but did not practice what they preached. Today, the secularists pick and choose who and what they cite, so as to depict that era in the most secular way possible, and the Christian patriots pick and choose who and what they cite, so as to depict that era in the most Christian way possible. Both are guilty of promoting half-truths.

The heart and soul behind the American revolution and its system of government, contrary to what Christian patriots would have us believe, is not Christianity, but the religion of deism. The deists believed in a supreme being who created the universe, but then stood back and let it run forevermore without further intervention. It is important to keep this philosophy in mind when reading references to "God" in the founding documents. For sure, the Christians who took part in the founding of this nation convinced themselves in their own minds and hearts that these references to "God" referred to the God of Israel. But the non-Christians, whom the Christians were implicitly compromising with, didn't.

To illustrate the deistic component of this nation's founding, let us consider just the opening words of the Declaration of Independence:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 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."
Notice the reference to the "Laws of Nature" and "Nature's God". This is the god of deism, who does not super-Nature-ally reveal, but has supposedly provided (through "Providence", another common buzz-word used elsewhere) all that we could ever know through the intrinsic workings of the natural order.

Or how about "We hold these truths to be self-evident...." To the deist, who believes that God created the universe, then forever stood back to let it run, "truth" would have to be self-evident in the creation itself, and particularly in the innate goodness of the majority of men, so the thinking went. But truth is not "self-evident". That is a logically fallacious, tautological principle that can be taken to mean anything you want it to. No, Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life..." Truth is embodied and defined by God and supernaturally revealed to us, who are otherwise blinded by the god of this world to it. Truth is not "self-evident".

And what of this nonsense about being "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."? Sadly, Jefferson was clueless to the fact that God has all the "unalienable rights" and we as men have no unalienable rights whatsoever.

And what are these "rights" that are supposed to be so precious? "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"? Rather, God pronounced the judgment of death, not life, as a consequence of the fall, and if we who believe are granted life, it is not because we innately deserve it, such that it be an "unalienable right." "Liberty" was referring to freedom from bondage to any authority that was deemed oppressive, in the eyes of men of course, and is contradicted by Romans 13. True freedom is found in Christ, regardless of what bondage we happen to be under at the hands of men, even if we are human slaves or locked up in a prison. The "pursuit of Happiness" is contradicted by many teachings of scripture that urge us to pursue holiness, godliness, and self-sacrifice, with "happiness" being a thing not to pursue or even take for granted.

So instead of theocracy (i.e. "God rules"), we are served a government that is dubbed a democracy (i.e. Greek "demos" = people, Greek "kratos" = rule). The people rule. It is a government by the people and for the people. It is a system of circular authority, wherein the people elect the governors who govern the people who elect them. And the branches of government all have systems of checks and balances to prevent any from prevailing over the other. The buck of authority stops nowhere. Christians today now grasp at straws to argue about what "The Founding Fathers" intended. But the fact of the matter is that it is not what various individual contributors meant, but what the documents currently state, that is used as the basis for governmental decision making. These documents of law, including the U.S. Constitution, are also subject to amendment, based upon the democratic process. Making an argument today about what was originally intended over 200 years ago is an academic pursuit that can easily be brushed off in favor of what the people who are democratically ruling today, want today. The absolute point of reference must not be the U.S. Constitution and the men who wrote it. The absolute point of reference must be God's Word as spoken by His prophets and His apostles.

No, the Declaration of Independence was a deistic treatise, and compromising Christians settled for fancying their own "Christian" re-interpretation of it then, as they do today. And they had to if they were to succeed in their revolutionary agenda. For a sectarian battle over religious beliefs would not have allowed them to revolt against the British government as one man.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. The professing Christians had to set aside their explicit Christian testimony and go with a document that was palatable to the infidels. Because of the compromise of the revolutionists, as a whole, who considered their common enemy (the King of England) more important than their various religious faiths, we now have a constitution and government that is likewise powerless in of itself to take a stand for Christ and God's righteous standards. It must as a consequence protect satanists, pseudo-Christian cultists, atheists, secular humanists, fascists, and communists, even theoretically protecting those who call for the downfall of America and its system of government! How's that for a self-contradictory theme? And I have a feeling that we haven't seen anything yet. I submit to you the events of the last few decades, and the struggle of god-fearing men throughout the years of American history to maintain a godly nation, despite the growing decadence and infiltration of ungodly religious beliefs, which the Constitution is neutral to, and protects without distinction.

The system does in practice work well for "a wholly religious people". That is, it works if the majority of the people are "wholly religious" and the "religion" is Christianity. But the religion is not specified by the founding documents, or agreed upon by all the "Founding Fathers," regardless of how many of them professed to be Christians or otherwise practiced Christianity or wrote about the Christian faith in non-binding documents. Instead, the majority of the people are left to decide through the years. And we see the sad result today. In God's eyes, this nation is surely today far more steeped in sin and abomination now than the king of England or his subjects ever were at the time of the rebellion against him, over two hundred years ago. For example, we now have government sanctioned homosexual perversion, and government sanctioned infanticide. The latter has resulted in the deaths of something like 45 million Americans since 1973, and continues to allow between 1 out of 4 and 1 out of 5 citizens to have their "rights" and "liberty" taken away on account of their parents and doctors murdering them. These are worse statistics than by many of the popular icons of evil, such Hitler, Stalin, or King Herod!

Democracy and the U.S. system of government has therefore failed to prevail over even human monarchy to promote or even facilitate godliness and righteousness.

We must return to the Bible for guidance. Examples abound in the scriptures to support godly submission to all kinds of authority (without representation), even treacherous authority, whereas there is not a single example to support the position of today's "Christian" American patriots.

Let's consider the actions of David under the rule of King Saul. King Saul was a king who disobeyed God, took sacred duties into his own hands, threatened to kill his own son, executed priests, was demon possessed, consulted a witch after decreeing that spiritists and mediums be expelled from the land, and was obsessed with killing David, who was anointed by God as the next king of Israel.

Now what did you say King George III did that was so awful?

David, on the other hand, humbly submitted to the authority of this madman, refusing to lay a hand on him, even while knowing that he himself was already anointed as the next king of Israel, and even while knowing that he was an order of magnitude more popular with the people than King Saul. David prefers to flee from Saul and hide in caves and take refuge in the land of the Philistines than confront Saul. David was conscience-stricken for having even cut off a corner of Saul's robe while he was sleeping, saying to his men "The Lord forbid that I should do such a thing to my master, the Lord's anointed." And even after Saul's death, David orders a man executed on the spot for claiming that he helped to kill King Saul.

As another example, let's consider the actions and attitude of Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Asariah under King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. This is the king who ordered that a ninety foot high statue be erected and that his subjects fall down and worship it on command, or else face execution. This is the king who beheld his kingdom and said, "Is not this the great Babylon I have built as the royal residence, by my mighty power and for the glory of my majesty?" This king makes the "tyranny" of George III petty in comparison. This is a king who consulted "magicians, enchanters, sorcerers and astrologers". This is a king who did what he pleased with and to his subjects, considering himself accountable to no man or parliament.

Yet Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Asariah humbled themselves before this king, disobeying him only when ordered to do something in direct disobedience to the explicitly contradicting, higher authority of God. And even then, they did so in humility and with propriety and respect. They did not resist being thrown into the King's fiery furnace.

And what is the result? Does the humble submission of these men allow the King's tyranny to reign unchecked? No, because Nebuchadnezzar was accountable to God. Ultimately, God drove Nebuchadnezzar from his royal palace, insane. He ate "grass like cattle. His body drenched with the dew from heaven until his hair grew like the feathers of an eagle and his nails like the claws of a bird". It took no human revolution or act of disobedience. In fact, when Daniel delivered the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar's downfall to him, he prefaced it by saying, "My lord, if only the dream applied to your enemies and its meaning to your adversaries!"

And here is the result of God's judgment, through no act of rebellion by Nebuchadnezzar's subjects:

DA 4:34 At the end of that time, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and my sanity was restored. Then I praised the Most High; I honored and glorified him who lives forever. His dominion is an eternal dominion; his kingdom endures from generation to generation. [35] All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: "What have you done?" [36] At the same time that my sanity was restored, my honor and splendor were returned to me for the glory of my kingdom. My advisers and nobles sought me out, and I was restored to my throne and became even greater than before. [37] Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is right and all his ways are just. And those who walk in pride he is able to humble.
There is a danger to those believing the doctrines that the Christian American patriots pursue. They risk disappointment, disillusionment, and the complete failure of their efforts if God should choose to take away from them this notion of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that he never guaranteed to them in the first place. And their faith becomes a compromise between allegiance to Jesus and allegiance to "The Founding Fathers" of America, as well as a point of hypocrisy that will be evident to any discerning skeptic of the Christian faith.

Christian patriot, suppose that God had raised you and/or your family up in communist China. Or suppose that God called you to go and take up residence there today. Would you heed the call? The communist regime there makes King George III look like a kind, just, moderate and fair monarch in comparison. And once there, where would you go? To Tiananmen Square in Beijing to protest the evils of communism and lobby for democracy, such as America has? And if you condone the colonists having taken up arms against the king of England, then how much more your agenda at Tiananmen Square?

Of course, you ought to be horrified at the thought of pursuing an agenda like that. What they need is Jesus, not another form of government. Only God, and not military action or documents made by men, can change the hearts of men.

Or, again, consider the situation here at home in the U.S.A. Will our system of government and its "Founding Fathers" promote, or even facilitate righteousness in the long term? Be careful how you answer, for the laws and political leadership of today are what they are as the direct result of exactly what the "Founding Fathers" envisioned, in terms of the will of the people forming a representative government. As far as we all can determine, all the lawmakers and judges were elected to power by the prevailing will of the people of this country through proper elections and appointments. If this were not the case, then the will of the people would choose otherwise. Democracy functions as well today as it did back then, and better, because of of the ability of the people to quickly access information about all issues that face them at the local, state, and national level. Yet ungodliness prevails, not because of this form of government or that, but because the people are ungodly.

So what should we do today? What alternative am I proposing? The answer is to thank God (and not men) for the freedoms that we have today. The answer is for us to work within the present system that we were born (again) under, participating to the extent that God grants us the ability and calling to. We do indeed have a responsibility and we cannot sit idly by and ignore the opportunities that are given us, when it is within our means to vote and affect public policy and legislation. Godliness in government and civil law is a worthy and important cause to pursue. But although we may be citizens of one earthly nation or another, we should profess the faith of those who were commended in the words of scripture:

HEB 11:13 ...they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. [14] People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. [15] If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. [16] Instead, they were longing for a better country--a heavenly one...
The answer is to stand for the gospel of Jesus Christ, and not be distracted by the false gospel of democracy. America, and all of democracy the world over, will fall, to be succeeded by the King of kings and Lord of lords, who will rule with an iron scepter.

Forsake the things of this world, for they will pass away. Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."

1 JN 2:15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. [16] For everything in the world--the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does--comes not from the Father but from the world. [17] The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.

MT 5:14 "You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. [15] Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. [16] In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

No copyrightI grant this work to the public domain.