Procedural Morality vs. Substantive Morality by: Dennis
I'm not sure how to respond to Martin beyond what has been said many times elsewhere on the site. The difference between "procedural morality" and "substantive morality" in paragraph 5 is eluding me.
Martin apparently is defining "procedural morality" as the "enforcement mechanism" of paragraph 7, which he states is "nowhere declared in Scripture." I think he (echoing Rushdoony) means that because the Constitution is all procedural morality/enforcement mechanism, it is therefore not subject to the specific commands of the Bible since the enforcement mechanism is "nowhere declared in Scripture."
The implication seems to be that since God has reserved these matters to Himself and is silent about them, we have to more or less figure it out on our own to avoid being "holier than God." That's what the founding fathers proceeded to do, which was OK because it's all just procedure anyway.
Hopefully, I'm not setting up a straw man there, but I'm not sure how else to take it. He refers to II Sam. 23: 3-4, "He who rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God" and concludes that "Also indisputable as fact is that the enforcement mechanism for this verse is nowhere declared in Scripture."
I would respectfully dispute that assertion. I think there are many, many enforcement mechanisms declared in Scripture, including all of the various penalties for civil crimes.
However, the fundamental enforcement mechanism, which is declared repeatedly in the Old Testament is the religious test oath. The civil magistrate was required on behalf of the nation to swear allegiance to the law of God as foundation for the legal system. This was even written down in Nehemiah 9 & 10. If questions of authority/enforcement should arise, the oath would prevail.
This is what the Constitution attacks, indeed outlaws in Article VI: "no religious test shall ever be required for any office." In context it is referring to the individual's oath of office, not to denominational issues. It is a religious test, not a denominational test.
This was made clear by Madison in the Federalist Papers (#10) and by Jefferson and Madison in the Virginia Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in 1786, one year before the Constitution was signed. They made it crystal clear what they meant: that what a man believes about religion should have no bearing on his qualification for holding public office. Jefferson said it made no more difference than what he believed about physics or geometry. Whether you call that procedural or substantive, I believe it is just plain immorality.
For this, and many other reasons, the U.S. Constitution must be viewed as a covenant-breaking document, which American Christians must repudiate. It stands in stark contrast to earlier colonial documents such as the Massachusetts Body of Liberties, which were forthright in their commitment to God and His law, with actual cross references to the Pentateuch.
Oct 26, 2009 Rating
Response by Dennis? by: RC Davis
Being somewhat familiar with Chalcedon's works, I appreciate Martin's comments. I await Dennis' response.
In particular I appreciate the spirit of Martin's response and hope that everyone who is interested in these issues will take Martin's caution to be careful in our discourse to heart.
There is much in common purpose and goal between the Christian Federalists like Rushdoony and the Christian Anti-Federalists like Woods. Our interaction and work should reflect the unity we have in Christ above our disagreements and always be charitable and open to change.
